Human Interoperability Enterprise for High-Assurance Systems

  • Raymond Paul
  • Stefania Brown-VanHoozer
  • Arif Ghafoor


Development of dependable high-assurance systems requires policies and standards essential for improving human interoperability among collaborating individuals and organizations. Such systems facilitate unfettered strategic communication flow to all the stakeholders, while supporting intelligent interfaces in a manner that reinforces the collaboration through cooperative and coordinated cognitive activities of the participants. In essence, these activities elucidate a group sense makingprocess that allows creation/recreation of distributed and similar knowledge among group members through sharing and interpreting of information. This chapter elaborates on key human interoperability enterprise policy challenges and the role of coordinated human behavior and human cognition for developing high-assurance systems. In addition, the chapter provides a roadmap for developing an interoperability policy framework and engineering economically viable high-assurance systems to support missions where people play a key role.


Situation Awareness Trust Management Cognitive Engineer Intelligent Interface Development Lifecycle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    C. Atkinson, D. Brenner, G. Falcone, and M. Juhasz, “Specifying High Assurance Services,” IEEE Computer, August 2008, pp: 64-71Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    G.A. Boy, “Perceived Complexity and Cognitive Stability in Human-Centered Design,” D. Harris (Ed.): Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics, HCII 2007, LNAI 4562, pp. 10–21, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    H.A. Handley and R.J. Smillie, “Architecture Framework Human View: The NATO Approach,’ Systems Engineering, 2008, pp: 156-164, Wiley Periodicals.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    M. Kasunic and W. Anderson, “Measuring Systems Interoperability: Challenges and Opportunities,” Technical Note, CMU/SEI-2004-TN-003, April 2004Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    L. Warne, A. Ali, D. Bopping, D. Hart, and C. Pascoe, “The Network Centric Warrior: The Human Dimension of Network Centric Warfare,” Tech. Report DSTO-CR-0373, Defense System Analysis Division, Edinburgh, Australia, July 2004.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
  7. [7]
    J. Nosek, “Exploring Group Cognition as a Basis for Supporting Group Knowledge Creation and Sharing” Proceedings of AMCIS 1998, Paper 164.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    B.M. Toaszewski and A.M. MacEachren, “A distributed Spatiotemporal Cognition Approach to Visualization in Support of Coordinated Group Activity,” Proceedings of the 3rd International ISCRAM Conference, May 2006, Newark, NJ, pp:1-5.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
  10. [10]
  11. [11]
    A. Pentland and A. Liu, “Modeling and Prediction of Human behavior’” Neural Computation, Vol. 11, 1999, pp: 229-242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    R.E. Wray, and J.E. Laird, “Variability in Human Behavior Modeling for Military Simulations,” Proceedings of the 12thConference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, May 2003.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    E. Salas, C. Prince, D.P. Baker, and L. Shrestha, “Situation Awareness in Team Performance: Implications for Measurement and Training,” Human Factors, 37, pp:123-136.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    W.T. Tasi1, Q. Huang, B. Xiao, Y. Chen, and X. Zhou, “Collaboration Policy Generation in Dynamic Collaborative SOA.” Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Autonomous Decentralized Systems, March 2007, Page(s):33 - 42Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    E. Brunswik, “Perception and the Representative Design of Psychological Experiments,” University of California Press, Berkeley, 1956 CA.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    R.W. Cooksey and P. Freebody, ‘Generalized Multivariate Lens Model Analysis for Complex Human Interface Tasks,” Jour. Of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 35, 1985, pp: 46-72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    M.R. Endsley, “Direct Measurement of Situation Awareness: Validity and Use of SAGAT,” In: Endsley, M.R., Garland, D.J. (Eds.), Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement. 2000, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 147–174.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    E. Hutchins, “The Technology of Team Navigation,” in J. Galegher, R. E. Kraut & C. Egido (Eds.) Intellectual Teamwork - Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work. 1990, pp:22-51, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    B. Fischhoff, “Debiasing,” In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (eds), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    R. Bhatti, E. Bertino, A. Ghafoor, “A Trust-based Context-Aware Access Control Model for Web Services,” International Distributed and Parallel Databases Journal, Special Issue on Web Services, Vol. 18, No. 1, July 2005, pp: 83-105Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    R.M. Kramer, “Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Emerging Perspectives, Enduring Questions’” Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 50, 1999, pp: 569-598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    J.A. Golbeck, “Computing and Applying Trust in Web-based Social Networks,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Computer Science. University of Maryland, 2005.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    R. Guha, R. Kumar, P. Raghavan, and A. Tomkins, “Propagation of Trust and Distrust,” Proceeding of the Thirteen International World Wide Web Conference, 2004, pp: 403-412.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    J. Dong, R.A. Paul, and L-J. Zhang, “High Assurance Service-Oriented Architecture”, IEEE Computer, August 2008, pp: 27-28Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    M.J. Carey, “SOA What,” IEEE Computer, No. 3 March 2008, pp; 92-94Google Scholar
  26. [26]
  27. [27]
  28. [28]
    R. D. Whitaker and G. C. Kuperman, ‘Cognitive Engineering for Information Dominance: A Human Factors Perspective,” AL/CF-TR-1996-0159, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 454337022Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    B. Best, and C. Lebiere, “Spatial Plans, Communication, and Teamwork in Synthetic MOUT Agents,” Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, May 2003Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag US 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raymond Paul
    • 1
  • Stefania Brown-VanHoozer
    • 1
  • Arif Ghafoor
    • 2
  1. 1.US Department of DefenseUSA
  2. 2.Purdue UniversityPurdueIN 47907

Personalised recommendations