A human viewpoint is an important addition to any system architecture development; it adds the supplementary information required to represent the human component of the system. However, two distinct human viewpoints have emerged: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Human View and the Ministry of Defence Architecture Framework (MoDAF) Human View. Both of these architectural viewpoints are known as the “Human View”, and while they have many similarities, each has a different set of representations and has evolved with a different focus. This paper compares the two viewpoints to order to clearly delineate the contribution of each approach to a system architecture development
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BAE (2008). Modelling Human Factors using the Systems Modelling Language, HFI DTC Consortium, BAE Systems, United Kingdom.
2.
BakerK.PogueC.PagottoJ.GreenleyM. (2006). Human Views: Addressing the human element of capability-based decisions, TTCP HIS Symposium, DSTO, Australia.
3.
BrusebergA.LinternG. (2007). Human factors integration for MoDAF: Needs and solution approaches, Proceedings 17th Annual International Symposium, International Council of Systems Engineering (INCOSE), San Diego, California, USA.
4.
BrusebergA. (2007). HFM 155 Human View Meeting. Unpublished, System Engineering & Assessment Ltd. United Kingdom.
5.
BrusebergA. (2008). Human Views for MoDAF as a Bridge between Human Factors Integration and Systems Engineering. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 2(3) 220-248.
6.
BrusebergA. (2013). Human views considerations for MODEM. Unpublished, Syntell AB. United Kingdom.
7.
ColombiJ. (2015). Model Based System Engineering (MBSE) and Human Systems Integration, Unpublished Presentation, Air Force Institute of Technology.
8.
DoD (2010). The DoD Architecture Framework Version 2.02. Washington, DC: Deputy Chief Information Officer.
9.
DTIC (2014). Human view development for project management office department of defense biometrics. WillisL.W. (Tech. Ed.), U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. Available through the Defense Technical Information Center, ARL-CR-727.
10.
HandleyH. (2012). Incorporating the NATO human view in the DoDAF 2.0 meta model. Systems Engineering, 15(1), 108–117.
11.
HandleyH. (2016). A Design Methodology for Fit-for-Purpose Human Views, Systems Engineering. In press.
12.
HandleyH.SmillieR. (2008). Architecture framework human view: The NATO approach. Systems Engineering, 11(2) 156-164.
13.
HandleyH.SmillieR. (2010). Human view dynamics - The NATO approach. Systems Engineering, 13(1), 72-79.
14.
HandleyHSorberT.DunawayJ. (2006). Maritime headquarters with Maritime Operations Center, Concept Based Assessment Focus Area: Organization, Human Systems Performance Assessment Capability Final Report, Pacific Science & Engineering Group, San Diego, California, USA,
15.
HicksP. (2006). Application of an Architecture Framework to Support the Development of CVF, Presentation given at the Telelogic User Conference.
16.
HildebrandG.AdamsC. (2002). Human Views in the Systems Architecture Framework, Unpublished presentation, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, Virginia, USA.
17.
MoD (2010). The Human View Handbook for the Ministry of Defence (MOD), Second Issue, MOD HFI Defence Technology Center, United Kingdom.
18.
MoD (2012). The Ministry of Defence (MOD) Architecture Framework, MOD HFI Defence Technology Center, United Kingdom.
19.
NATO (2010). Human systems integration for Network Centric Warfare (TR-HFM-155). North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Human Factors & Medicine Panel (HFM) Research Technology Organization (RTO).
