181

NATO Human View Architecture and Human Networks

Dr. Holly A. H. Handley\ Dr. Nancy P. Houston2

1Pacific Science & Engineering Group, HollyHandley@pacific-science.com2NATO Allied Command Transformation, houston@act.nato.int

Abstract. The NATO Human View is a system architectural viewpoint that focuses on the human as partof a system. Its purpose is to capture the human requirements and to inform on how the human impactsthe system design. The viewpoint contains seven static models that include different aspects of thehuman element, such as roles, tasks, constraints, training and metrics. It also includes a HumanDynamics component to perform simulations of the human system under design. One of the staticmodels, termed Human Networks, focuses on the human-to-human communication patterns that occur asa result of ad hoc or deliberate team formation, especially teams distributed across space and time.Parameters of human teams that effect system performance can be captured in this model. Humancentered aspects of networks, such as differences in operational tempo (sense of urgency), priorities(common goal), and team history (knowledge of the other team members), can be incorporated. Theinformation captured in the Human Network static model can then be included in the Human Dynamicscomponent so that the impact of distributed teams is represented in the simulation. As the NATOmilitaries transform to a more networked force, the Human View architecture is an important tool that canbe used to make recommendations on the proper mix of technological innovations and humaninteractions.

1. INTRODUCTION

At the Prague Summit in November 2002, NATOrecognized that transformation of the militarybased upon information age principles wasessential, and pursued a course of transformationtermed NATO Network-Enabled Capabilities(NNEC)1. The objective was to initiate a culture ofinformation sharing to induce better situationalawareness, faster decision making, and improvedcollaboration between nations. The potentialNNEC benefits would also include improvedefficiency, increased interoperability betweennations, secure information sharing, improvedinformation quality, and faster speed ofcommand. While NNEC is often perceived as atechnical transformation, in practice NNECemphasizes people first, then processes, andfinally technology. The challenge of NNEC is toachieve the proper mix of new human behaviorsand competencies, organizational changes, andinnovative technologies.

In order to make the transformation to NNEC,methodologies on how to represent theintegration of technology and human/socialsystems are needed. The objective of this paperis to describe the NATO Human ViewArchitecture, and specifically the Human Networkproduct. Human networks can connect different

'http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-1 F7151 AF­2FE364A1/natolive/topics_54644.htm

individuals performing roles in the same ordifferent locations and the same or differentorganizations. The performance of the processsupported by the human network is affected bythe assignment of roles, responsibilities, and theexistence of needed relationships. Attributes ofhuman networks can also be implemented in adynamic model to simulate the effect on processperformance outcomes. The Human ViewArchitecture can "effectively use informationtechnology to rapidly mesh the individual skills ofstrangers into interdependent work products" [7].

2. THE NATO HUMAN VIEW

The NATO Research and TechnologyOrganization (RTO) Human Factors andMedicine (HFM) Panel 155 convened a HumanView Workshop in July 2007 to discuss andpropose a cross-national Human View; that is anarchitectural viewpoint that focuses on the humanas part of a system. A Human View is required toexplicitly represent the human and to documentthe unique implications humans bring to thesystem. The workshop panel evaluated emerginghuman view concepts, proposed a candidatehuman view construct, and developed an outlineof a NATO-wide Human View. The Human Viewwas designed to be independent of any specificarchitecture framework and adaptable to differentprocesses. The outcomes of the workshopresulted in the definition of a NATO Human Viewcomposed of eight products [5].

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20100012886 2020-05-02T09:36:29+00:00Z

182

The NATO Human View can be used to capturethe human requirements and the way thathumans interact with other elements of a system.It can be a design aid to specify future systems orit can be the basis for a methodology to answerquestions regarding systems that have alre~dy

been created. The main focus of the Human Viewis to capture human data and information aboutthe interactions between humans and betweenhumans and other elements of a system. The setof eight products that compose the NATO HumanView are:• HV-A: Concept - a conceptual, high-level

representation of the human component inthe enterprise architecture.

• HV-B: Contraints - sets of characteristicsthat are used to adjust the expected rolesand tasks based on the capabilities andlimitations of the human in the system.

• HV-C: Tasks - descriptions of the human­specific activities in the system.

• HV-D: Roles - descriptions of the roles thathave been defined for the humans interactingwith other elements of the system.

• HV-E: Human Network - the human to humancommunication patterns that occur as a resultof ad hoc or deliberate team formation,especially teams distributed across spaceand time.

• HV-F: Training - a detailed accounting of howtraining requirements, strategy, andimplementation will impact the human.

• HV-G: Metrics - a repository for human­related values, priorities and performancecriteria, that maps human factors metrics toany other Human View elements.

• HV-H: Human Dynamics - dynamic aspectsof human system components defined inother views.

The objective of the Human Dynamics (HV-H)product is to capture the interaction of the humansystem components defined in the other products(HV-A to HV-G). The design decisions recordedin the static Human View products can beappraised through a dynamic evaluation of thehuman system performance using the HumanDynamics. A tool such as the ImprovedPerformance Research Integration Tool(IMPRINT)2, a human performance modeling tooldeveloped by the US Army Research Laboratory(ARL), can be used to implement the HumanDynamics product and help system developers

2 http://www.arl.army.miIlARL­Directorates/HRED/imb/imprint/lmprint7.htm

predict the impact of operator attributes onsystem performance. Trade off analyses can alsobe conducted to determine the impact of systemparameters on human performance metrics.

3. HUMAN NETWORK (HV-E)

The Human Network (HV-E) product focuses onthe interaction of the human elements of thesystem: what nodes they reside at, how thehuman functions are distributed and whattechnology-based communication networkenables collaboration. The HV-E maps frequentor critical types of information exchanges relatedto human roles as a way of expressingcommunication-based dependencies; this mayinclude information exchange links totechnological systems [1]. Elements of the HV-Emay include:

• Role groupings or teams formed,including the physical proximity of theroles and virtual roles included forspecific team tasks.

• Type of interaction - i.e., collaborate,coordinate, supervise, etc.

• Team cohesiveness indicators - i.e.,trust, sharing, etc.

• Team performance impacts i.e.,synchronization (battle rhythm), level ofengagement (command directed).

• Team dependencies i.e.,frequency/degree of interaction betweenroles.

• CommunicationlTechnology impact to theteam network - i.e., distributed cognition,shared awareness, common operationalpicture, etc.

The HV-E architecture product can bedecomposed into several sub views to represe~t

different types of information. An example of thiSis shown in Figure 1. The HV-E has beensubdivided: HV-E1 Role Groupings (Teams), HV­E2 Team Interactions, and HV-E3 InformationRequirements. This figure also shows theinterconnections between the HV-E and otherarchitectural products, including OperationalViews (OV) and System Views (SV).

183

System InterfaceDescription SV·11

Systems CommunicationDescription SV-2

Operational InformationExchange Matrix

OV-3

Information! Requirements

~ ~;::~: HV-E3 ~ Il ._ .. _. _. . __ .. _. _ .. _ .. _. _. _. _ _ . ._. _ ..

CommlXl'cat,onPaths

r-------'''---------, SystemReqUirements

OperationalNodesOV·2

Human

Organizational RolesRelationships HV-D1

'---_--"-O_V_-4~---.J~. !_~~_._._. _Nodes ! Role Groupings Teams .! (Teams) ..- Team Interactions

. HV-E1 HV-E HV-E2

Figure 1: Human Network Relationships

4. HUMAN NETWORK AND DYNAMICS

The need for a technology-supported humaninformation network is often driven by areachback situation. Reachback is "the processof obtaining products, services, and applications,or forces, or equipment, or material fromorganizations that are not forward deployed3

."

This term is becoming Widely used in the militarycommunity to indicate a virtual team. Virtualteams exist when decision-making activities aredistributed across a team and the team is alsodistributed across physical locations. This hasimplications as to which types of communicationmedia are suitable, how complex data can beshared so they are meaningful, how to organizeteam members across locations to minimizetechnology needs, or where to place the authorityto ensure effective communication of commands[1 ].

An example of a HV-E, shown in Figure 2,depicts the collaboration requirements of adistributed military team. The need to conduct anoperational activity shared between several rolescreates the need for communication independentof where they are located and the need fortechnology supporting collaborative work. Someof the variables that may be inferred from thediagram include: which roles are at whichlocations, which activities are performed by whatrole, what roles need to share information, and

what networks are active between locations.Additionally, the roles (ovals) are shown groupedby their work centers (boxes).

The Human Dynamics captures the interaction ofthe human system components defined in theother products. The impact on performance of theinformation captured in the Human Networksproduct can be assessed through the dynamicmodel. For example, human networks,representing a collaborative team, can connectdifferent individuals fulfilling roles in the same ordifferent locations and the same or differentorganizations. The performance of the processsupported by the human network is affected bythe assignment of roles, the organizations towhich they belong, and the connectivity betweenthem. Personnel fulfilling designated roles musthave the training and experience required tocomplete the task and roles in differentorganizations may have different leadershipstyles and procedures. Collaborative teams alsohave differing degrees of situation awarenessand team history. Remote nodes experience thegreatest impact of system connectivity andinteroperability. Table 1 identifies the threehuman-related entities of role, center(organization) and collaborative team, therelevant attributes of each entity, the baselinerequirement in a co-located situation, and theimpact on specific performance variables asreachback may impact each attribute.

3 Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, US Departmentof Defense, 2005

184

RBKlASHORE FWD/AFLOAT MOC Command Element

Comrrun,callon andInformatton Systems Center

1------------, COA = Course of ActionLEGEND COG = Center of Gravity- Within Center COPS = Current Operations

IPS = Intelligence Preparation of- Across Centers Battlefield_ Reach Back MOC = Maritime Command Center

Figure 2: Human Network (HV-E) Example [4].

Table 1: Reachback Impacts

Entity Attribute Baseline RequirementPerformance Impact(as deviate from Baseline)

RoleTraining &

Fully capable to complete task. AccuracyExperience

Center (Organization)Leadership & Common goal, sense of TimelinessObjectives urgency and commitment.

Center (Organization) Guidance & Same/similar task, techniques, AccuracyProcedures and procedures.

Collaborative TeamShared Remote roles currently CompletenessAwareness engaged in the operation

Prior interaction with the team- leads to understanding of

Collaborative Team Team History what knowledge, expertise, Completenessand resources each memberpossesses and requires.

Connectivity/ Reliable and adequateSystem Reliability/ communication; access to Timeliness

Accessibility necessary information.

185

5. HUMAN DYNAMICS IMPLEMENTATION

The Improved Performance Research IntegrationTool (IMPRINT) is a human performancemodeling tool to help system developers predictthe impact of operator attributes on systemperformance. IMPRINT can be used to predictthe impact of design decisions captured in theHV-E on the performance of the operators of asystem; the system can then be optimized bybuilding models representing alternative humanand technology allocations [6]. Data are enteredthrough user interfaces and task-networkdiagrams; underlying human performancealgorithms are then employed to performsimulations. IMPRINT incorporates task analysis,workload modeling, performance shaping anddegradation functions and stressors, andembedded personnel characteristics data.Performance time and accuracy requirements arecollected and workload profiles are generated sothat role-workload distribution and role-systemtask allocation can be examined.

In order to demonstrate how the variablescaptured in the HV-E product can impact theHuman Dynamics model, a methodology toimplement reachback in an IMPRINT model wasdevised. First the entity types of the HumanNetwork diagram were identified. Secondly, theattributes of the entity that vary under areachback or co-located situations weredescribed, along with their impact onperformance. Finally, based on network theoryresearch, workload demand differences that canbe manipulated in the IMPRINT model wereidentified.

As an example of how reachback can beincorporated in the IMPRINT model and affect theperformance outcomes, the two "collaborativeteam" entity attributes from Table 1 wereexplored further. Research on network theory hascharacterized Command, Control,Communications and Intelligence (C31)architectures by the elements of People,Knowledge and Tasks and has defined the set ofsix relationships linking them, defined as a Meta­Network [3]. The Meta-Network also definesmeasures to assess each of the six definedrelationships. By mapping the entity attributes ofShared Awareness and Team History to theMeta-Network, the resulting measures can beused as surrogate variables in the IMPRINTmodel to represent differing degrees ofreachback. Shared Awareness involves knowingwhat knowledge is needed for a task; this is

represented by the Knowledge-to-Taskrelationship. Team History involves knowing whoknows what; this is represented by the People-to­Knowledge relationships; see Table 2.

Table 2: People, Knowledge & Tasks Network [2J

People Knowledge TasksPeople Who Who knows Who does

knows what: Team whatwho History

Knowledge What Knowledgeinforms what needed:

SharedAwareness

Tasks What taskhasprecedence

Both the People-to-Knowledge and Knowledge­to-Tasks relationships effect workload outcomesand can be assessed using components ofcognitive load. Cognitive load is increased whenthe individual roles are more interdependent(increased cognitive demand) and require moreinteraction between roles (increasedcommunication demand); this is morepronounced in a reachback situation. Therefore,the cognitive and speech/auditory parameterswithin IMPRINT can be used as surrogatevariables to represent the presence of reachbackin a simulation model.

Reachback can be implemented in the model byadjusting these parameters as shown in Table 3.The IMPRINT simulation can then be configuredto use the correct parameter when theinteractions between team members are in eithera co-located or a reachback condition. Theimpact of the difference will be reflected in theoverall role workload, which in turn impacts thetimeliness and accuracy of the work processbeing simulated. For example, as shown inFigure 2, there is a reachback condition betweenthe Intelligence Center and the Future PlansCenter. When these nodes communicateadditional workload is added to thecommunication function in the model. Thisincreases the overall workload of each role, and ifit surpasses a set workload limit, it will cause adetriment in the performance of the role'sfunctions. Several variables will impact theseverity of the performance impact, including theworkload threshold, the timeliness penalty, andthe workload management strategy. This mayinclude dropping tasks, off-loading tasks and/ordelaying tasks.

186

Table 3: Reachback adjustments to IMPRINT Parameters

Entity I AttributeMeta-Network IMPRINT Workload Demand Settings·Relationship *Workload Demand scale is 0 to 7

Without Reachback With Reachback

Collaborative Team:Cognitive - 4.6 Cognitive =6.8

Knowledge-to-Tasks Eval/Judgel Consider Eval/Judge/ConsiderShared Awareness Single Aspect Several Aspects

Speech - 4.0 Complex

Collaborative Team: Speech =2.0 Simple(Sentence)

People-to-Knowledge Auditory =6.0 InterpretTeam History Auditory =3.0 Simple Speech Complex

(Sentences)

6. CONCLUSION

For network-based operations, such as NATONNEC, the collaboration requirements betweendistributed roles and the resulting communicationpatterns are of particular importance. The NATOHuman View product, Human Networks, focuseson capturing the parameters and variables thatcharacterize the human communicationprocesses and can provide the necessary datafor a simulation model for evaluation of network­based systems.

The NATO Human View is currently beingevaluated for integration into the NATOArchitecture Framework (NAF) 3.0 through theHuman Views extension to EnterpriseArchitecture project. Through this process, theNNEC elements for the Human View productshave been defined, the integration of theseproducts into the overall framework has beendesigned, and example Human View productshave been created for the NAF RunningExample. These documents have been posted onthe NATO TIDEPEDIA4 for comment andevaluation.

By providing a mechanism for capturing therequired data to characterize the humaninteractions, the Human Network provides avaluable tool for designing human centeredsystems and evaluating the impact of the humancomponent on the overall system. As the NATOmilitaries transform to a more networked force,the Human View architecture is an important toolthat can be used to make recommendations onthe proper mix of technological innovations andhuman roles, interactions, and behaviors.

4http://tide.act.nato.intlmediawikilindex.php/Human_Views_extension_to_Enterprise_Architecture_project

REFERENCES1. Bruseberg, A. (2008). The Human View

Handbook for MODAF, System Engineering& Assessment Ltd. On behalf of the MoD HFIDTC, First Issue,

2. Carley, K. M. (2002). "Inhibiting Adaptation"In Proceedings of the 2002 Command andControl Research and TechnologySymposium. Conference held in NavalPostgraduate School, Monterey, CA.

3. Carley, K. M. & Ren, Y. (2001). 'Tradeoffsbetween Performance and Adaptability forC31 Architectures." In Proceedings of the2000 International Symposium on Commandand Control Research and Technology,Naval Post Graduate School, Monterey, CA.

4. Handley, H., Sorber, T, & Dunaway, J.(2006). Maritime Headquarters with MaritimeOperations Center, Concept BasedAssessment, Human Systems PerformanceAssessment Capability Final Report. PacificScience & Engineering Group, San Diego,CA.

5. Handley, H. & Smillie, R. (2008)."Architecture Framework Human View: TheNATO Approach". System Engineering 11 (2)2008,156-164

6. Mitchell, D. (2005). Enhancing system designby modeling IMPRINT task workload, HumanSystem Integration Symposium, Arlington,VA, June 2005.

7. Piccoli, G., Powell, A. & Ives, B. (2004)."Virtual teams: Team control structure, workprocess and team effectiveness". InformationTechnology & People 17(4), pp. 359-379.