Integrated Human Factors Views in the Unified Architecture Framework

Abstract

Human beings are integral to today's complex systems of systems. Human behaviour, interactions, abilities, complexity, and limitations will have a dramatic effect on the successful realization of system capabilities. Therefore the human factors considerations need to be evaluated in conjunction with the overall systems engineering. Systems engineers need to address them upfront and throughout the system life cycle resulting in effective Human Systems Integration (HSI). Systems engineers are increasingly using Model Based System Engineering (MBSE) techniques to define systems requirements, behaviour, structure, interactions, etc. Typical architecture notations are the Systems Modeling Language (SysML) for modelling systems and the Unified Modeling Language (UML) Profile for DoDAF and MODAF (UPDM). The metamodels defining these notations contain implicit, but not explicit elements for defining how the human fits into the architecture. The Unified Architecture Framework (UAF) has standardized a set of Human Views (called Personnel Views in UAF) into its system of systems framework, allowing the Human aspects to be considered in conjunctions with the rest of the architecture. The UAF Personnel views will not be standalone, but like SysML will allow users to interface with specialty to analyse human aspects in both quantitative and qualitative ways. It is only by taking this integrated approach that systems can be fit for purpose by including the human impact and contribution to overall system performance. This paper will describe these views and how they fit into the overall architecture as well as how they can interact with a spectrum of human factors and architecture tools.

Urban Air Mobility Situation Awareness From Enterprise Architecture Perspectives

“…The UAF is built on top of SysML and is used to define the overall goals, strategies, capabilities, interactions, standards, operational and systems architectures, systems patterns, and so forth [36]. Previous works have been written using UAF, showing its support of SoS modeling, OJSE-22-0016.R1 including [14]- [16]. UAF Human Factors interactions views [17] and Service views [18] were also explored, demonstrating the framework's versatility.…”

“…Previous works have been written using UAF, showing its support of SoS modeling, OJSE-22-0016.R1 including [14]- [16]. UAF Human Factors interactions views [17] and Service views [18] were also explored, demonstrating the framework's versatility. The holistic approach and capacity to manage complexity place the UAF as a potential and valuable environment to address the situation awareness issue in the UAM context.…”

“…In that sense, the UAM ecosystem should be organized and operated around the way users process information and make decisions. The human factors considerations need to be evaluated in conjunction with the overall systems engineering [14]. Thus, the best way to support human performance in UAM SoS is to better support the development of high levels of situation awareness.…”

Enhancing Human Perspectives in CPS Models: Application to Collaborative Problem-Solving in Translational Medicine

“…The concept of CPHS has been developed in order to address critical roles of humans in the system, human perspectives and performance [2] [3]. HSI and Socio-Technical System also have been addressing issues from the lenses of human factors and large-scale complex system design, operation, management and social impacts [4] [5].…”