The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has developed a Framework for Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS Framework) that supports system engineering analysis, design, development, operation, validation and assurance of CPS. Cyber-physical systems (CPS) comprise interacting digital, analog, physical, and human components engineered for function through integrated physics and logic. For instance, a city implementing an advanced traffic management system including real-time predictive analytics and adaptation/optimization must consider all aspects of such a CPS system of systems’ functioning and integrations with other systems, including interactions with humans. One Aspect (or grouping of stakeholder concerns) of the CPS Framework is the Human Aspect. NIST is engaging HFES in a panel discussion to elaborate Human Aspect concerns, such as constructs, measures, methods, and tools.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BinnsR. (2018). Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philosophy. Journal of Machine Learning Research(81), 1-11.
2.
BrunerJ. (2013). Industrial Internet. O’Reilly Media, Inc.
ChenJ. Y.BarnesM. J. (2014). Human–agent teaming for multirobot control: A review of human factors issues. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 44(1), 13-29.
5.
ChourabiH.NamT.WalkerS.Gil-GarciaJ. R.MellouliS.NahonK.SchollH. J. (2012). Understanding smart cities: an integrative framework. 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (pp. 2289-2297). doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2012.615
6.
DodderR.SussmanJ.McConnellJ. (2004). The concept of the “CLIOS process: integrating the study of physical and policy systems using Mexico City as an example. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Engineering Systems Design. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Engineering Systems Symposium, vol. 31. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c54c/ca9e3b5f1c13f4208d1377e08bab7789d17a.pdf
7.
FischerG.HermannT. (2011). Socio-technical systems: A meta-design perspective. International Journal for Socio-technology and Knowledge Development, 3(1), 1-33.
8.
GrifforE. R.GreerC.WollmanD. A.BurnsM. J. (2017, june26). Framework for Cyber-Physical Systems: Volume 1, Overview. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Smart Grid Program Office. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1500-201)
9.
International Organization for Standards. (2011). ISO 26262-1:2011: Road Vehicles — functional safety — part 1: vocabulary. International Organization for Standards. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/standard/43464.html
10.
JohnB. E.PrevasK.SalvucciD. D.KoedingerK. (2004). Predictive human performance modeling made easy. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, (pp. 455-462).
11.
KevrekidisI.GearC.HummerG. (2004). Equation-free: The computer-aided. AIChE Journal, 50(7), 1346-1355.
12.
LeeE. (2008). Cyber-physical systems: Design challenges. International Symposium on Object/Service-Oriented-Real-Time Distributed Computing (ISORC), (p. 7). Orlando, FL. Retrieved from www.cs.virginia.edu/~son/papers/Lee_CyberPhysical_ISORC08.pdf
13.
LeeJ.BagheriB.KaoH. A. (2015). A cyber-physical systems architecture for industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems. Manufacturing Letters, 3, 18-23. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mfglet.2014.12.001
14.
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2018). Internet-of-things Enabled Smart City Framework: A Consensus Framework for Smart City Architectures. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Smart Grid Program Office. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved from https://pages.nist.gov/smartcitiesarchitecture/
15.
NorthropL.FeilerP.GabrielR.GoodenoughJ.LingerR.LongstaffT.. . .WallnauK. (2006). Ultra-large-scale systems: The software challenge of the future. Software Engineering Institute. Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute. Retrieved from https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_files/Book/2006_014_001_305 42.pdf
16.
ParasuramanR.WilsonG. (2008). Putting the brain to work: Neuroergonomics past, present, and future. Human Factors(50), 468-474.
17.
RasmussenJ. (1983). Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics, 3, 257-266.
18.
RasmussenJ. (1985). A framework for cognitive task analysis in systems design. Intelligent decision support in process environments, 175-196.
19.
RobbinsP.AydedeM. (2009). A short primer on situated cognition. In RobbinsP.AydedeM., The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition (pp. 3-10). Cambridge, GB: Cambridge University Press.
20.
TaylorE.ClarkN. (2017). Human factors; how to be proactive in a reactive world. SPE Offshore Europe Conference & Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:doi:10.2118/186154-MS
21.
VicenteK. (1999). Cognitive work analysis: Toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Mahwah, NJ: CRC Press.
22.
VicenteK.RasmussenJ. (1992). Ecological Interface Design: theoretical foundations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 22(Jul/Aug), 489-506.
23.
Wachter-BoettcherS. (2017). Technically wrong: Sexist apps, biased algorithms, and other threats of toxic technology. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
24.
XiaF.YangL. T.WangL.VinelA. (2012). Internet of things. International Journal of Communication Systems, 25(9), 1101-1102. doi:10.1002/dac.2417
