AldersonD. L.DoyleJ. C. (2010). Contrasting views of complexity and their implications for network-centric infrastructures. IEEE SMC—Part A, 40, 839–852.
3.
AllspawJ. (2012). Fault injection in production: Making the case for resilience testing. ACM Queue, 10(8), 30–35. doi: 10.1145/2346916.2353017
4.
CookR. I. (2016). Poised to deploy: The C-suite and adaptive capacity. Velocity DevOps & Web Performance Conference 2016, Santa Clara, CA, O’Reilly Media, June 22, 2016. Presentation video available at http://conferences.oreilly.com/velocity/devops-web-performance-ca
5.
DoyleJ. C.CseteM. E. (2011). Architecture, constraints, and behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 108(Suppl. 3), 15624–15630.
6.
MurphyR. R.ShieldsJ. (2012). The role of autonomy in DoD systems, task force report, Office of the Secretary of Defense, July. Retrieved from http://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/autonomy.pdf
7.
National Research Council. (2014). Autonomy research for civil aviation: Toward a new era of flight. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18815
8.
SarterN.WoodsD. D.BillingsC. (1997). Automation surprises. In SalvendyG. (Ed.), Handbook of human factors/ergonomics (2nd ed., pp. 1926–1943). New York: Wiley.
9.
WoodsD. D. (1996). Decomposing automation: Apparent simplicity, real complexity. In ParasuramanR.MouloulaM. (Eds.), Automation technology and human performance: Theory and applications (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10.
WoodsD. D. (2015). Four concepts for resilience and their implications for systems safety in the face of complexity. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 141, 5–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2015.03.018
11.
WoodsD. D.DekkerS. W. A. (2000). Anticipating the effects of technological change: A new era of dynamics for human factors. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 1(3), 272–282.