In order for cognitive systems engineering (CSE) to deliver the benefits of recent theoretical advances in actual systems being developed, the insights of CSE must be transformed into pragmatic engineering practices. The CSE engineering practices described in this article (using the applied cognitive systems engineering methodology as an exemplar) are typical of just such an engineering adaptation of revolutionary science and represent engineering practices that are dedicated to building effective systems. CSE research insights can have a significant impact on their corresponding systems engineering (SE) practices by expanding SE's concept of a system from just the technology components to a joint cognitive system (Hollnagel & Woods, 2005) and expanding the associated SE practices appropriately. This article uses the Department of Defense system life cycle and the SE V-model (Forsberg & Mooz, 1992) as SE process exemplars to illustrate how CSE engineering practices can be integrated into the SE process. Specifically, we propose four key integration points where CSE can contribute significantly to the SE process: concept refinement, software development, testing, and postsystem development (i.e., operations support, training, and maintenance). Our approach shows that the practice of CSE does not compete with SE but, instead, augments current SE practices to ensure that the technology components are engineered with the users' cognitive needs in mind.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndrewsD. C. (1991). JAD: A crucial dimension for rapid applications development. Journal of Systems Management, 42(3), 23–31.
2.
AshbyE. (1958). Technology and the academics: An essay on universities and the scientific revolution. London: Macmillan.
3.
BeckK. (2000). Extreme programming explained: Embrace change. New York: Addison-Wesley.
4.
BisantzA. M.RothE. M.BrickmanB.LinL.HettingerL.McKinneyJ. (2003). Integrating cognitive analyses in a large scale system design process. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 177–206.
5.
BoehmB.LaneJ. (2007, October). Using the incremental commitment model to integrate system acquisition, systems engineering, and software engineering. CrossTalk—The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, 4–9.
6.
BrackettJ. W. (1990). Software requirements (SEI-CM-19–1.2). Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.
7.
BrooksF. P. (1987). No silver bullet: Essence and accidents of software engineering. Computer, 20(4), 10–19.
8.
CockburnA. (1994). In search of methodology. Object Magazine, 4(4), 52–56.
9.
CooperA. (1999). The inmates are running the asylum: Why high tech products drive us crazy and how to restore the sanity. Indianapolis, IN: SAMS Press.
10.
Defense Acquisition University Press. (2001). Systems engineering fundamentals. Fort Belvoir, VA: Author.
11.
Defense Science Board. (2007). 21st century strategic technology vectors: Accelerating the transition of technologies into U.S. capabilities (2006 Summer Study). Washington, DC: Author.
12.
ElmW. C.GualtieriJ.PotterS.TittleJ.McKennaB. (2008). Pragmatic use of CWA in system design: Extending current thinking by adapting the mapping principle. In BurnsC. M.BisantzA. M. (Eds.), Advances in cognitive work analysis (pp. 247–271). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
13.
ElmW. C.PotterS. S.GualtieriJ. W.RothE. M.EasterJ. R. (2003). Applied cognitive work analysis: A pragmatic methodology for designing revolutionary cognitive affordances. In HollnagelE. (Ed.), Handbook for cognitive task design (pp. 375–382). London: Erlbaum.
14.
EricssonK. A.SimonH. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
ErnstN. A.JamiesonG. A.MylopoulosJ. (2006, April). Integrating requirements engineering and cognitive work analysis: A case study. Presented at the Fourth Conference on Systems Engineering Research, Los Angeles.
16.
FeatherM. S.FickasS.van LamsweerdeA.PonsardC. (1998). Reconciling system requirements and runtime behavior. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Specification and Design (p. 50). Washington, DC: IEEE Press.
17.
ForsbergK.MoozH. (1992). The relationship of systems engineering to the project cycle. Engineering Management Journal, 4(3), 36–43.
18.
GoguenJ.LindeC. (1993). Techniques of requirements elicitation. In First IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE′93) (pp. 152–164). Washington, DC: IEEE Press.
19.
GualtieriJ. W.SzymczakS.ElmW. C. (2005). Cognitive systems engineering-based design: Alchemy or engineering. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting (pp. 254–258). Santa Monica, CA: SAGE Publications.
20.
HeinzeC.PapasimeonM.GossS. (2000). Specifying agent behaviour with use cases. In ZhangC.SooV. W. (Eds.), Design and applications of intelligent agents: Third Pacific Rim International Workshop on Multi-Agents, PRIMA 2000. Proceedings (pp. 128–142). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
21.
HollnagelE.WoodsD. D. (1983). Cognitive systems engineering: New wine in new bottles. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 18, 583–600.
22.
HollnagelE.WoodsD. D. (2005). Joint cognitive systems: Foundations of cognitive systems engineering. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
23.
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. (2000). Recommended practice for architectural description of software-intensive systems (Std-1471–2000). New York: Author.
24.
International Council on Systems Engineering. (2004). Systems engineering handbook (Version 2a). Seattle, WA: Author.
25.
JacobsonI. (1992). Object-oriented software engineering. New York: Addison.
26.
LaytonC.SmithP. J.McCoyE. (1994). Design of a cooperative problem-solving system for en route flight planning: An empirical evaluation. Human Factors, 36, 94–119.
27.
McKennaB.GualtieriJ. G.ElmW. C. (2006, July). Joint cognitive systems: Considering the user and technology as one system. Presented at the 16th Annual International Symposium of INCOSE, Orlando, FL.
28.
McKennaB.GualtieriJ. G.ElmW. C. (2007, June). Expanding functional analysis to develop requirements for the design of the human computer interface. Presented at the 17th Annual International Symposium of INCOSE, San Diego, CA.
29.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (1995). NASA systems engineering handbook (SP-610S). Washington, DC: Author.
30.
PewR.MavorA. (2007). Human-system integration in the system development process: A new look. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
31.
PotterS. S.ElmW. C.TittleJ. (2007, June). Evaluating the resilience of a human-computer decision-making team: A methodology for decision-centered testing. Poster session presented at NDM 8-Eighth International Conference on Naturalistic Decision Making, Pacific Grove, CA.
32.
RasmussenJ. (1986). Information processing and human-machine interaction: An approach to cognitive engineering. New York: North Holland.
33.
RasmussenJ.PejtersenA.GoodsteinL. (1994). Cognitive systems engineering. New York: Wiley.
34.
RechtinE. (2000). Systems architecting of organizations. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
35.
RousseauR.EasterJ.ElmW.PotterS. (2005). Decision centered testing (DCT): Evaluating joint human-computer cognitive work. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting (pp. 322–326). Santa Monica, CA: SAGE Publications.
36.
SandersonP.NaikarN.LinternG.GossS. (1999). Use of cognitive work analysis across the system life cycle: From requirements to decommissioning. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43rd Annual Meeting (pp. 318–322). Santa Monica, CA: SAGE Publications.
