Human-System Integration in the System Development Process A New Look (2007) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Part I Human-System Integration in the Context of System Development, 2 The System Development Process
Part I Human-System Integration in the Context of System Development, 2 The System Development Process
Pages 29-54
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 29... ...
PART I Human-System Integration in the Context of System Development
|
From page 31... ...
This chapter summarizes the committee's analysis of candidate models of system design, development, and evolution processes with respect to a set of study-derived principles critical to the success of human-intensive system development. It presents the results of synthesizing the contributions of these models along with key human factors processes into an incremental commitment model (ICM)
|
From page 32... ...
Stakeholder satisficing involves identifying the stakeholders critical to success and their value propositions; negotiating a mutually satisfactory set of system requirements, solutions, and plans; and managing proposed changes to preserve a mutually satisfactory outcome.
|
From page 33... ...
. • Rapid change.
|
From page 34... ...
More recently, the V-Model XT has adopted more risk-driven and incremental approaches that encourage concurrent engineering (Federal Republic of Germany, 2004) , but it takes some skill to build in stakeholder satisficing and to avoid overly heavyweight implementations and difficulties in coping with rapid change.
|
From page 35... ...
, with stakeholder satisficing and anchor point milestones, covers all of the principles, but it is unspecific about how risk considerations guide iteration and incremental growth. Our analysis of these models indicates primary shortfalls in support of human factors integration and unproven ability to scale up to the future process challenges involving emergent,
|
From page 36... ...
It identifies the concurrently engineered life-cycle phases; the stakeholder commitment review points and their use of feasibility rationales to assess the compatibility, feasibility, and risk associated with the concurrently engineering artifacts; and the major focus of each life-cycle phase. There are a number of alternatives at each commitment point: (1)
|
From page 37... ...
and V-models (Federal Republic of Germany, 2004) , the incremental commitment model explicitly emphasizes concurrent engineering of requirements and solutions, establishes explicit feasibility rationales as pass/fail milestone criteria; explicitly enables risk-driven avoidance of unnecessary documents, phases, and reviews; and provides explicit support for a stabilized current-increment development concurrently with a separate change processing and rebaselining activity to prepare for appropriate and stabilized development of the next increment.
|
From page 38... ...
8 HUMAN-SYSTEM INTEGRATION IN SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT BOX 2-1 Value-Based Systems and Software Engineering In order for a system's stakeholders to commit their personal material and financial resources to the next level of system elaboration, they must be con vinced that the current level of system elaboration provides evidence that their value propositions will be satisfied by the system. This success condition is consistent with the theory W (win-win)
|
From page 39... ...
VIEWS OF THE INCREMENTAL COMMITMENT MODEL The following section provides multiple views of the incremental commitment model, including a process model generator view, a concurrent level of activity view, an anchor point milestone view, a spiral process view, and an incremental development view for incorporating rapid change and high assurance using agile and plan-driven teams. It concludes with a comparison of the incremental commitment model with other often-used process models.
|
From page 40... ...
Risk? High, but addressable Acceptable Acceptable Example D
|
From page 41... ...
In particular, they are likely to have mini-risk/opportunity-driven peaks and valleys, rather than the smooth curves shown for simplicity in the figure. The main intent of this view is to emphasize the necessary concurrency of the primary success-critical activity classes, shown as rows in Figure 2-3.
|
From page 42... ...
Understanding –Organizational and –Success-critical stakeholder needs environmental context requirements analysis –Competitive analysis –Field observations and –Market research ethnography –Future needs analysis –Task analysis –Cognitive task analysis –Participatory analysis –Contextual inquiry –Event data analysis –Prototyping –Models and simulations –Usability evaluation methods 4. Goals/ –Usability requirements objectives and methods requirements –Scenarios –Personas 5.
|
From page 43... ...
analysis operations and retirement; adaptation of operations to change monitoring 12. Organizational –Organizational and Organizational goals and strategy capability environmental context definition; resource allocation; improvement analysis capability improvement activities NOTE: HSI methods often span multiple activity classes.
|
From page 44... ...
The elaboration of the concurrent engineering and feasibility evaluation activities makes it clearer just what is being concurrently engineered and evaluated in each phase. For example, at the development commitment review (DCR)
|
From page 45... ...
Shortfalls in this evidence for compatibility and feasibility of the concurrently engineered artifacts should be identified by the system developer as potential project risks and addressed by risk-management plans. Any further shortfalls in the evidence or the risk management plans found by the reviewers should be communicated to
|
From page 46... ...
The stakeholders then decide whether the risks are negligible, acceptable, high but addressable, or too high and unaddressable, and the project proceeds in the direction of the appropriate DCR risk arrow in Figure 2-4. The Other ICM Milestone Reviews The architecture commitment review criteria and procedures are similar but less elaborate than those in the DCR, as the degree of stakeholder resource commitment to support the architecting phase is considerably lower than for supporting the development phase.
|
From page 47... ...
With the incremental commitment model, however, there will be negotiations designed to make win conditions for each success-critical stakeholder. The Spiral View A simplified spiral model view of the incremental commitment model appears in Figure 2-5.
|
From page 48... ...
ment principles. Stakeholder satisficing is necessary to pass the stakeholder commitment review points or anchor point milestones.
|
From page 49... ...
Incremental Development for Accommodating Rapid Change and High Assurance Many future systems and systems of systems will need to simultaneously achieve high assurance and adaptation to both foreseeable and unforeseeable rapid change, while meeting shorter market windows or new defense threats. Figure 2-6 shows an incremental view of the incremental commitment model for addressing such situations.
|
From page 50... ...
In keeping with the use of the incremental commitment model as a riskdriven process model generator, the risks of destabilizing the development process make this portion of the project into a build-to-specification subset of the concurrent activities, in which the only changes accommodated are potential showstoppers or foreseeable changes that have been accommodated in the increment's architecture. The need for high assurance of each increment also makes it cost-effective to invest in a team of appropriately skilled personnel to continuously verify and validate the increment as it is being developed, as shown in the lower box in Figure 2-6.
|
From page 51... ...
. PROJECT EXPERIENCE WITH ICM PRINCIPLES The incremental commitment model uses the critical success factor principles to extend several current spiral-related processes, such as the rational unified process, the win-win spiral process, and the lean development process, in ways that more explicitly integrate human-system integration into the system life-cycle process.
|
From page 52... ...
* Yes Yes Yes NOTE: COTS = commercial off the shelf; HCI = human-computer interaction; IPT = integrated project team; RUP = rational unified process.
|
From page 53... ...
This chapter has described the incremental commitment model, which builds on experience-based critical success factor principles (stakeholder satisficing, incremental definition, iterative evolutionary growth, concurrent engineering, risk management) as well as the strengths of existing V, concurrent engineering, spiral, agile, and lean process models, to provide a framework for concurrently engineering human factors into the systems engineering and systems development processes.
|
From page 54... ...
HUMAN-SYSTEM INTEGRATION IN SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT build-to-specification increments that fit current legacy acquisition instruments, along with concurrent agile change-adaptation and verification and validation functions that need to use alternative contracting methods. Addressing changes of this nature will be important if organizations are to realize the large potential value offered by investments in HSI processes, methods, and tools.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.