The Internet belongs to everyone. Let’s keep it that way.

Protect Net Neutrality
Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

V3 Risk-driven design: A review of Pew & Mavor (2007)

Looks at pew and mavor book
by

frank ritter

on 17 June 2011

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of V3 Risk-driven design: A review of Pew & Mavor (2007)

Pew, R. W., & Mavor, A. S. (Eds.). (2007). Human-system integration in the system development process: A new look. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11893. Offers a New look at HCI/HSI - It is risk-driven process
Offers insights into HCI/HSI organising principles
- - A way of knowing
- - How to argue HCI
- - When to shut up

17% of my sabbatical
Useful for teaching PSU (Stark & Kokini, 2010) Goals of this tutorial Provide an organizing framework for HSI/HCI/HF:
-- Ways of knowing
-- Teaching materials now on web for free
Show/Learn how to leverage the results of the report
-- Teach and be taught about system design
-- Provide you with tools to argue for better design
-- by reducing risk
Discuss the application of user models that it represents

In offering it I thought I would not be co-chair!
Play with Prezzi.com Problems with (Future) Systems of Systems Development Lack of commitment by funders, managers to avoid HSI risks
Lack of communication between system engineers and human-system experts
Difficulties providing data about humans into the design process
Thus, the study/literature survey at beginning of book (also see Booher & Minniger, 2003) Pew and Mavor (2007) Charged to: Work with a panel to
Comprehensively review issues
Evaluate state of the art in HSI (and engineering)
Develop a vision
Recommend a research plan Boehm & Hansen (2001) Starts with Boehm's Spiral Model Life cycle phases Exploration
Valuation
Architecting
Development
Operation Essentials of the Spiral Model Concurrent development of key artifacts
Each cycle does Objectives, Constraints, Alternatives, Risks, Review, and Commitment to Proceed
Level of effort driven by risk
Degree of detail driven by risk
Use anchor point milestones
Emphasis on system and life cycle activities and artifacts Small Example1 Small Example 2 Acknowledgements Barry Boehm
Jeremy Lothian
Dick Pew
Anne Mavor
Erika Poole
ACS Lab
guy on plane
ONR N091-086/P10008, N00014-11-1-0275, N00014-06-1-0164
The committee Implications for System Design A way to view system design
Comparable to waterfall (seehttp://www.waterfall2006.com/)
other approaches in book
Risks related to humans (users) are often ignored by system engineers
People naturally work on risks, so theory is not just normative but descriptive
Risks related to hardware are ignored by HF professionals
Can/could/should bring in experts to advise
If no HCI risks, then nothing needed from HCI
See recommendations in book
Other recommendations?
Can be used to classify HCI ways of knowing: What does this mean for HCI and HCIC? All HCI techniques can be seen as a way to reduce risk

For each stage, HCI techniques to reduce risk:

Define opportunities and context of use:scenarios, personas, task analysis

Define requirements and design solutions:TA, models

Evaluate:VPA, behavior loggers (e.g., RUI)

Insert your favorite method

Shared representations are passed between these stages Shared Representations as Part of Design Process - Uses Examined critically
Reduce working memory load
Make explicit what is explicit and implicit
Produce new connections
Collaboratively produce new knowledge
Transfer knowledge Example risks The Risk Management Process: Handling Options Methods for Reducing HSI Risks Three major periods of use
Define context of use
Define requirements and design solutions
Evaluate
All fit back into spiral
All used to reduce risks using previous approaches
We have bags of these methods!
Classification to period is somewhat arbitrary
Not exhaustive, illustrative lists to follow Why you start with KLM to look at built systems: used to be given system then
Can look for missing methods
Many HCI projects are not in a small box, but cut across boxes/phases,
Many are constraints on things in the boxes, or ways to view the boxes, or ways to share results across boxes
Can choose method based on risk if you care about risk, or project if you care about method!
Some work ignores this flow, and ends up being narrow, undefined wrt to process, and further from designers Further Insights * A way to describe the ways of knowing in HCI
-- and where and why
* It provides insights into how to apply HCI, missing aspects of HCI, and insights into ways of knowing
Insight: Impact on next project
--Size of users tasks, complexity of tasks, their interrelation, scope
--May be true for all methods
--So shared to next design, and understanding of designer
Insight: Designers think they are already risk driven
--Good, buy-in to part
--Bad, already know how
--Insight: need to give designers counter examples
Insight: Education and sharable representations are more important than one might think Ritter's Conclusions and Final Insights Baumer, E. P. S., & Silberman, M. S. (2011). When the implication is not to design (technology). In Proceedings of CHI, 2011, 2271-2274. ACM: New York, NY.

Boehm, B., & Hansen, W. (2001). The Spiral Model as a tool for evolutionary acquisition. Crosstalk: The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, 14(5), 4-11.

Booher, H. R., & Minninger, J. (2003). Human systems integration in Army systems acquisition. In H. R. Booher (Ed.), Handbook of human systems integration (pp. 663-698). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Casey, S. M. (1998). Set phasers on stun: And other true tales of design, technology, and human error. Santa Barbara, CA: Aegean.

Pew, R. W., & Mavor, A. S. (Eds.). (2007). Human-system integration in the system development process: A new look. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11893.

Stark, R. F., & Kokini, C. (2010). Reducing risk in system design through human-systems integration. Ergonomics in Design, 18(2), 18-22. References * * * * ** Risk-Driven Design
a review of Pew & Mavor (2007) Evaluate alternatives with risk analysis & prototype
Develop/verify
Plan/architect
Review [with stakeholders]
Cost Phase steps (e.g., see Baumer & Silberman, 2011) Can't manufacture
Can't deliver
Performance does not match other stake holder requirements
Wrong types of developers and HIS professionals

Performance does not satisfy user requirements
Mismatch of system to context (sand in tools)
See Booher and Minniger (2003), Casey (1988), etc. Risk-Driven Design
frank.ritter@psu.edu
HCIC Workshop, 15 June 2011
Full transcript