The design of a remote vehicle operations center should remain flexible while continuing to meet the needs of users and their expected roles. Shared situation awareness should be promoted within such a facility to address existing functional requirements, as well as evolving characteristics of the operational environment. Using the proposed Role-Based Ontology (RBO), presented with successive phases, we demonstrate that an initial design can be implemented and later modified to support the functional transition of additional personnel from field locations to the primary remote location. This approach enables efficient and effective maturation of technology and concepts for an operations center.
AbrasC.Maloney-KrichmarD.PreeceJ. (2004). User-centered design. In BainbridgeW. S. (Ed.), Berkshire Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction (2, pp. 763–767). Berkshire Publishing Group.
2.
AubuchonV. V.HashemiK. E.ShivelyR. J.WishartJ. M. (2022). Multi-vehicle (m:N) operations in the NAS - NASA’s research plans. In AIAA AVIATION Forum. AIAA. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2022-3758
3.
BridgerR. S. (2009). Introduction to ergonomics (3rd ed.). CRC Press.
4.
BrusebergA.McDonagh-PhilpD. (2002). Focus groups to support the industrial/product designer: A review based on current literature and designers’ feedback. Applied Ergonomics, 33(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-6870(01)00053-9
5.
BuckB. K. (2024). Concept, design, & implementation of a remote vehicle operations center for autonomous Missions. NASA/TP-20240001820.
6.
BuckB. K.ChanceyE. T.PolitowiczM. S.UnverrichtJ. R.GeutherS. C. (2023). A remote vehicle operations center’s role in collecting human factors data. In AIAA SciTech Forum. AIAA. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2023-2526
7.
ChanceyE. T.PolitowiczM. S.BallardK. M.UnverrichtJ. R.BuckB. K.GeutherS. C.Human-automation trust development as a function of automation exposure, familiarity, and perceived risk: A high-fidelity remotely operated uncrewed aerial system simulation. Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making. (in press). https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434241296573
8.
ChanceyE. T.PolitowiczM. S.BuckB. K.BallardK. M.HoustonV. E.Le VieL. R.UnverrichtJ. R.ChandaranaM. (2023). Foundational human-autonomy teaming research and development in scalable remotely operated Advanced Air Mobility operations: Research model and initial work. In AIAA SciTech forum. AIAA. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2023-1066
9.
EndsleyM. R.JonesW. M. (2001). A model of inter- and intrateam situation awareness: Implications for design, training and measurement. In McNeeseM.SalasE.EndsleyM. (Eds.), New trends in cooperative activities: Understanding system dynamics in complex environments (pp. 46–67). Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
10.
EstefanJ. A. (2007). Survey of model-based systems engineering (MBSE) methodologies. Incose MBSE Focus Group, 25(8), 1–12.
11.
GoK.CarrollJ. M. (2004). Scenario-based task analysis. In DiaperD.StantonN. A. (Eds.), The handbook of task analysis for human-computer interaction (pp. 117–134). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12.
GreenbergS. (2004). Working through task-centered system design. In DiaperD.StantonN. A. (Eds.), The handbook of task analysis for human-computer interaction (pp. 49–65). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13.
HirshornS. R.VossL. D.BromleyL. K. (2017). NASA systems engineering handbook (NASA SP-2016-6105 rev 2).
14.
MilitelloL. G.HuttonR. J. B. (1998). Applied cognitive task analysis (ACTA): A practitioner’s toolkit for understanding cognitive demands. Ergonomics, 41(11), 1618–1641. https://doi.org/10.1080/001401398186108
15.
PolitowiczM. S.ChanceyE. T.BuckB. K.UnverrichtJ. R. (2023). Measuring Performance for Autonomy Teaming with Humans (MPATH) ground control station: Design approach and initial usability results. In AIAA SciTech forum. AIAA. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2023-2525
16.
StantonN. A.SalmonP. M.RaffertyL. A.WalkerG. H.BaberC.JenkinsD. P. (2013). Human factors methods: A practical guide for engineering and design (2nd ed.). Ashgate Publishing Company.
17.
TruongK. N.HayesG. R.AbowdG. D. (2006). Storyboarding: An empirical determination of best practices and effective guidelines. DIS 06': Proceedings of the 6th conference on designing interactive systems (pp. 12–21). Association for Computing Machinery.
18.
UnverrichtJ. R.ChanceyE. T.PolitowiczM. S.BuckB. K.GeutherS. C. (2022). Eye glance behaviors of ground control station operators in a simulated Urban Air Mobility environment. In AIAA/IEEE 41st Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/DASC55683.2022.9925872
19.
UnverrichtJ. R.ChanceyE. T.PolitowiczM. S.BuckB. K.GeutherS. C.BallardK. M. (2023). Where is the human in the loop? Analysis of extended visual line of sight uncrewed aerial system operations within a remote operations environment. In AIAA SciTech forum. AIAA. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2023-2656
20.
WickensC. D.CarswellC. M. (1995). The proximity compatibility principle: Its psychological foundation and relevance to display design. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37(3), 473–494. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049408
21.
WickensC. D.McCarleyJ. S. (2008). Applied attention theory. CRC Press.
