Advertisement

Trust Strategies and Policies in Complex Socio-technical Safety-Critical Domains: An Analysis of the Air Traffic Management Domain

  • Massimo Felici
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4401)

Abstract

The future development of Air Traffic Management (ATM), set by the ATM 2000+ Strategy, involves a structural revision of ATM processes, a new ATM concept and a system approach for the ATM network. This requires ATM services to go through significant structural, operational and cultural changes that will contribute towards the ATM 2000+ Strategy. Moreover, from a technology viewpoint, future ATM services will employ new systems forming the emergent ATM architecture underlying and supporting the European Commission’s Single European Sky Initiative. Introducing safety relevant systems in ATM contexts requires us to understand the risk involved in order to mitigate the impact of possible failures. This paper is concerned with trust in technology. Technology innovation supports further (e.g., safety or performance) improvements, although there is often a lack of trust in changes. This paper argues that organizations need to identify trust strategies and policies supporting the delivery of technology innovation. Moreover, the identification of trust strategies and policies supports the understanding of subtle interactions between diverse, often competing, system objectives.

Keywords

Risk Perception Modal Logic Trust Strategy Trust Game Trust Policy 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdul-Rahman, A., Halles, S.: A distributed model of trust. In: Proceedings of the New Security Paradigms Workshop, pp. 48–60. ACM Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, R.: Security Engineering: A Guide to Build Dependable Distribute Systems. Wiley, Chichester (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Axelrod, R.: The Evolution of Co-operation. Penguin Books (1990)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bloomfield, R., Littlewood, B.: Multi-legged arguments: the impact of diversity upon confidence in dependability arguments. In: Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, DSN’03, pp. 25–34. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bloomfield, R., Littlewood, B.: On the use of diverse arguments to increase confidence in dependability claims. In: Besnard, D., Gacek, C., Jones, C.B. (eds.) Structure for Dependability: Computer-Based Systems from an Interdisciplinary Perspective, pp. 254–268. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carbone, M., Nielsen, M., Sassone, V.: A formal model of trust in dynamic netwotks. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal methods (SEFM’03), IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chagrov, A., Zakharyaschev, M.: Modal Logic. Oxford Logic Guides, vol. 35. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dassonville, I., Jolly, D., Desodt, A.M.: Trust between man and machine in a teleoperation system. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 53, 319–325 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dixit, A.K., Nalebuff, B.J.: Thinking Strategically: The Competitive Edge in Business, Politics, and Everyday Life. W.W. Norton & Company (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Douglas, M., Wildavsky, A.: Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. University of California Press (1982)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Enders, J.H., Dodd, R.S., Fickeisen, F.: Continuing airworthiness risk evaluation (CARE): An exploratory study. Flight Safety Digest 18(9-10), 1–51 (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    EUROCONTROL. Human Factor Module - Human Factors in the Development of Air Traffic Management Systems, 1.0 edn. (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    EUROCONTROL. EUROCONTROL Air Traffic Management Strategy for the years 2000+ (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    EUROCONTROL. Guidelines for Trust in Future ATM Systems: A Literature Review, 1.0 edn. (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fagin, R., et al.: Reasoning about Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Falcone, R., Castelfranchi, C.: The socio-cognitive dynamics of trust: Does trust create trust? In: Falcone, R., Singh, M., Tan, Y.-H. (eds.) AA-WS 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2246, pp. 55–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Felici, M.: Capturing emerging complex interactions - safety analysis in atm. In: Johnson, C. (ed.) Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Complexity in Design and Engineering, GIST Technical Report G2005-1, pp. 120–129 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Felici, M.: Evolutionary safety analysis: Motivations from the air traffic management domain. In: Winther, R., Gran, B.A., Dahll, G. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3688, pp. 208–221. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Felici, M.: Capturing emerging complex interactions: Safety analysis in air traffic management. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 91(12), 1482–1493 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Felici, M.: Modeling safety case evolution - examples from the air traffic management domain. In: Guelfi, N., Savidis, A. (eds.) RISE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3943, pp. 81–96. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Felici, M.: Structuring evolution: on the evolution of socio-technical systems. In: Besnard, D., Gacek, C., Jones, C.B. (eds.) Structure for Dependability: Computer-based Systems from an Interdisciplinary perspective, pp. 49–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W.: Inexperience and experience with online stores: The importance of tam and trust. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 50(3), 307–321 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gefen, D., Rao, V.S., Tractinsky, N.: The conceptualization of trust, risk and their relationship in electronic commerce: The need for clarifications. In: Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS’03), IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gefen, D., Straub, D.W.: Consumer trust in b2c e-commerce and the importance of social presence: experiments in e-products and e-services. Omega: The International Journal of Management Science 32, 407–424 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gigerenzer, G.: Reckoning with Risk: Learning to Live with Uncertainty. Penguin Books (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P.M., The ABC Research Group: Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hall-May, M., Kelly, T.: Defining and decomposing safety policy for systems of systems. In: Winther, R., Gran, B.A., Dahll, G. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3688, pp. 37–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Halpern, J.Y.: Reasoning about Uncertainty. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hollnagel, E.: Human Reliability Analysis: Context and Control. Academic Press, London (1993)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Johnson, C.W.: Failure in Safety-Critical Systems: A Handbook of Accident and Incident Reporting, October 2003. University of Glasgow Press, Glasgow (2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Josang, A., Keser, C., Dimitrakos, T.: Can we manage trust? In: Herrmann, P., Issarny, V., Shiu, S.C.K. (eds.) iTrust 2005. LNCS, vol. 3477, pp. 93–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kasper-Fuehrer, E.C., Ashkanasy, N.M.: Building trus in cross-cultural collaborations: Toward a contingency perspective. Journal of Management 27, 235–254 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kuhn, S.: Prisoner’s dilemma. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2003), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2003/entries/prisoner-dilemma/
  34. 34.
    Leveson, N.G.: SAFEWARE: System Safety and Computers. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Littlewood, B., Neil, M., Ostrolenk, G.: The role of models in managing the uncertainty of software-intensive systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 46, 95–97 (1995)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Luo, Y.: Building trust in cross-cultural collaborations: Toward a contingency perspective. Journal of Management 28(5), 669–694 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    MacKenzie, D.: Social connectivities in global finalcial markets. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22, 83–101 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Matthews, S.: Future developments and challenges in aviation safety. Flight Safety Digest 21(11), 1–12 (2002)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    McKnight, D.H., Chervany, N.L.: The meanings of trust. Technical Report 96-04, University of Minnesota (1996)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    McKnight, D.H., Chervany, N.L.: Conceptualizing trust: A typology and e-commerce customer relationships model. In: Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1–9. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    McKnight, D.H., Chervany, N.L.: Trust and distrust definitions: One bite at a time. In: Falcone, R., Singh, M., Tan, Y.-H. (eds.) AA-WS 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2246, pp. 27–54. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    McKnight, D.H., Cummings, L.L., Chervany, N.L.: Trust formation in new organizational relationships. Technical Report 96-01, University of Minnesota (1996)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Moray, N., et al.: Trust and human intervention in automated systems. In: Hoc, J.-M., Cacciabue, P.C., Hollnagel, E. (eds.) Expertise and Technology: Cognition & Human-Computer Cooperation, pp. 183–194. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (1995)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nalebuff, B.J., Brandenburger, A.M.: Co-opetition. HarperCollinsBusiness (1996)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nielsen, M., Krukow, K.: Towards a formal notion of trust. In: Proceedings of PPDP’03, ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Norman, D.A.: Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. Basic Books (2004)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Overall, M.: New pressures on aviation safety challenge safety management systems. Flight Safety Digest 14(3), 1–6 (1995)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pasquini, A., Pistolesi, G., Rizzo, A.: Reliability analysis of systems based on software and human resources. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 50(4), 337–345 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pavlou, P.A., Tan, Y.-H., Gefen, D.: The transitional role of institutial trust in online interorganizational relationships. In: Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS’03), IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Perrow, C.: Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1999)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rasmusen, E.: Games and Information: An Introduction to Game Theory, 2nd edn. Blackwell (1989)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Riegelsberger, J., Sasse, M.A., McCarthy, J.D.: The researcher’s dilemma: evaluating trust in computer-mediated communication. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 58, 759–781 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ruohomaa, S., Kutvonen, L.: Trust management survey. In: Herrmann, P., Issarny, V., Shiu, S.C.K. (eds.) iTrust 2005. LNCS, vol. 3477, pp. 77–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sorensen, J.N.: Safety culture: a survey of the state-of-the-art. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 76, 189–204 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Storey, N.: Safety-Critical Computer Systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1996)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Uggirala, A., et al.: Measurement of trust in complex and dynamic systems using a quantitative approach. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 34(3), 175–186 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Uszok, A., et al.: Applying KAoS services to ensure policy compliance for semantic web services workflow composition and enactment. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 425–440. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Uszok, A., et al.: KAoS policy management for semantic web services. In: IEEE Intelligent Systems, July/August 2004, pp. 32–41. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Yu, E., Liu, L.: Modelling trust for system design using the i * strategic actors framework. In: Falcone, R., Singh, M., Tan, Y.-H. (eds.) AA-WS 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2246, pp. 175–194. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Massimo Felici
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JZUK

Personalised recommendations