Theme 5 US workshop report US V1 30062016 (4 ... · co-working within CPS, human augmentation, and...

Theme 5 US workshop reportReport compiled by Loughborough University

IndexThe aim of this report is to provide an overview of the discussions and outputs of a workshop held at Stevens Institute of Technology, USA on 23rd – 24th May 2016.

The focus of the workshop was Theme 5 [Integration of socio/legal/governance models

within a modeling framework] within the TAMS4CPS project. 4 earlier workshops have

been held in US and Europe on other themes. Reports on these workshops can be found

at:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/70503zelp15peqw/AAArt6CCpXqnuCQJTHoXFvPOa?dl=0.

This set of slides which forms the report contains the following information. Note that

some of the presentation slides are included in the slide pack for interest but the reader

is invited to consult whichever section is of relevance to them. The sections are self

standing and not dependant the one on the other: hyperlinks to individual sections are

provided on the next slide.

• Overview of the Theme 5 workshop: location and attendees

• Presentations on the EU vision for CPS and State of the Art wrt Theme 5

• Summary of workshop outputs: simulation and modelling capability gaps relevant to Theme 5

• Details of potential Dream Projects relevant to Theme 5

Index

1. Overview of Theme 5 workshop

2. Summary of EU vision for M&S for CPS

3. Theme 5: Modelling the Human Factor in CPS –issues and challenges

4. Key Areas identified for M & S for Theme 5

5. Workshop outputs: M & S capability gaps identified

6. Workshop outputs: Expansion of relevant Dream Projects

7. Workshop outputs: Key Discussion Points

8. Conclusions

9. Acknowledgements

1. Overview of Theme 5 US Workshop

TAMS4CPS - Trans-Atlantic Modelling and Simulation for Cyber-Physical Systems

Overall Scope of TAMS4CPS Workshops

Overall aim of US Workshops:

To identify priority research and development needs for modelling and

simulation (M&S) for Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) and provide key enablers

for trans-atlantic collaboration.

Workshop objectives:

• To share EU and US perspectives on the state of the art, strengths and opportunities, and

vision for M&S of CPS

• To identify and prioritize CPS M&S trends and drivers, markets, technologies and

enablers/barriers

• To elicit “test cases” for benchmarking CPS M&S products

• To determine research collaboration priorities and implementation plans for M&S of CPS


Scope of Theme 5 Workshop

Integration of socio/legal/governance models

within modeling frameworks

Models of technical systems must necessarily make

assumptions about the environment in which the

resulting technical systems will operate, and these

systems will be at their most effective and efficient

when their links to society, its laws and people are

seamless.


5 Key Areas identified for Theme 5

• Modelling of human behavior and performance when individuals are interacting with CPS. This involves both lay people who have no interest in the system other than its performance as well as trained operators co-working within CPS, human augmentation, and novel interfaces such as exoskeletons

• Modelling of employment issues for people who are co-workers within CPS. This covers training, education, job design, inclusivity, etc.

• Modelling of decision and control within CPS. This addresses issues of the allocation of authority and responsibility; situation awareness, informed command and informed consent; etc.

• Modelling of external governance of CPS. This covers accountability, regulations both to assure compliance with legal aspects and to create a ‘level playing field’ for CPS within society.

• Modelling of societal aspects within business models. This enables the exploration of Corporate Social Responsibilities, Responsible Research and Innovation, and other aspects such as integrity, trust and acceptability.


Agenda: Day 1Session 1 Mutual introductions: EU and US perspectives on the state of the art, EU and US

strengths & opportunities, EU and US vision

09:00-

09:45

Welcome, introductions and overview of TAMS4CPS LU

09:45-

10:15

EU vision and capability in M&S for CPS LU

10:15-

11:00

EU State of the Art in Theme 5 M&S for CPS LU

11:00-

11:30

Coffee

11:30-

12:30

Round Table discussion, participants mini-presentations on US vision,

state of the art and strengths & opportunities

All

12:30-

13:30

Lunch


Agenda: Day 1Session 2 Exploration and identification of trends & drivers; needs / markets; opportunities;

technologies (either current or needed); research directions; enablers / barriers

13:30-

13:45

Process for the afternoon, reminder of areas for consideration LU

13:45-

14:30

Gap analysis, Requirements, Impact - M&S Human Behaviour: potential

topics and priorities + 15 mins brief presentation to participants

Groups

14:30-

15:15

Gap analysis, Requirements, Impact - M&S Employment Issues: potential


Groups

15:15-

15:30

Coffee

15:30-

16:15

Gap analysis, Requirements, Impact - M&S Decision & Control: potential


Groups

16:15-

16:45

Gap analysis, Requirements, Impact – M&S External Governance of CPS:

potential topics and priorities

Groups

16:45-

17:15

Gap analysis, Requirements, Impact - M&S Societal Aspects within business

models: potential topics and priorities

Groups


Agenda Day 2Session Timing Overview

1 May 16

a.m.

Mutual introductions: EU and US perspectives on the state of the art,

EU and US strengths & opportunities, EU and US vision

2 May 16

p.m.

Exploration and identification of trends & drivers; needs / markets;

opportunities; technologies (either current or needed); research

directions; enablers / barriers

3 May 17

a.m.

Identification of research collaboration priorities and planning the

way forward. Identification of Dream Projects.

4 May 17

p.m.

Elicitation and development of test cases: Test case specifications will

be developed

5 May 17

p.m.

Wrap –up and forward planning


Location and invited Participants

• Stevens Institute of Technology

• Professor Dinesh Verma

• Professor Greg Vesonder

• Dr Babrak Heydari

• Loughborough University

• Professor Carys Siemieniuch

• Dr Murray Sinclair

• Dr Luminita Ciocoiu


Scene setting

It was felt to be beneficial to establish some common terms and understanding. So the following areas were briefly discussed. The same terms were used for the previous 4 workshops.

• Definitions of Cyber-Physical Systems [CPS]

• Classifications of CPS

• Characterisations of modelling & simulation


Cyber-Physical Systems:

EU refer to ICT systems (sensing, actuating, computing, communication, etc.) embedded in physical objects, interconnected (including through the Internet) and providing citizens and businesses with a wide range of innovative applications and services (EC, 2013)

US can be described as smart systems that encompass computational (i.e., hardware and software) and physical components, seamlessly integrated and closely interacting to sense the changing state of the real world. These systems involve a high degree of complexity at numerous spatial and temporal scales

and highly networked communications integrating computational and physical components (Energetics Inc., 2013)

What is a Cyber-Physical System?

EC, 2013. European Commission. Cyber-Physical Systems: Uplifting Europe’s Innovation Capacity. Report from the Workshop on Cyber-Physical Systems: Uplifting

Europe’s Innovation Capacity, 29th – 30th October 2013, Brussels. December, 2013.

Energetics Inc., 2013. Foundations for Innovation in Cyber-Physical Systems, US Dept. Commerce, Washington DC, US: National Institute of Standards and Technology.


CPS can be characterised as follows (CyPhERS D5.2):

• Physical vs Embedded vs IT dominated

• Single Domain vs Cross-Domain

• Open vs Closed

• Level of autonomy

• Level of adaptability

• Distributed vs Centralised control

• Allocation of governance

• Single jurisdiction vs cross-jurisdiction

• Human In/Outside the Loop

• Degree of Integration

Classifying CPS

CyPhERS D5.2. Martin Törngren, Saddek Bensalem, María Victoria Cengarle, John McDermid, Roberto Passerone and Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli. CPS: Significance,

Challenges and Opportunities. Document Number: D5.2. Technical report: http://www.cyphers.eu/sites/default/files/D5.2.pdf, 2014.


Modelling:

• the activity of creating models (Fitzgerald et al., 2014)

A model:

• a partial description of a system, where the description is

limited to those components and properties of the system

that are pertinent to the current goal (COMPASS D11.3)

Modelling

John Fitzgerald, Peter Gorm Larsen, and Marcel Verhoef (Eds.). Collaborative Design for Embedded Systems: Co-modelling and Co-simulation. Springer-Verlag Berlin

Heidelberg, 2014.

COMPASS D11.3. Convergence Report 3; Document Number: D11.3. Technical report, http://www.compass-research.eu, October 2014.


• Level of modelling rigour: formal, semi-formal, informal

• Level of abstraction:

• physical, abstract (descriptive, analytical or hybrid)

• software-specific, platform-specific, platform-independent

• System aspects of interest: ICT, mechanical, human, etc.

• System lifecycle phase: design, implementation, operation, maintenance, disposal, etc.

• Modelling language characteristics:

• deterministic, non-deterministic

• continuous, discrete

• probabilistic, non-probabilistic

Classifying models

Extended and adapted from: Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK), http://sebokwiki.org/wiki/Types_of_Models (accessed April 2015).


A general definition:

• the imitation of the operation of a real-world process

or system over time (CPS-VO)

In the context of modelling:

• a model that behaves like a given system when

provided a set of controlled inputs (ISO/IEC/IEEE

24765:2010)

• symbolic execution of a model (Fitzgerald et al., 2014)

Simulation

CPS-VO. Cyber-Physical Systems Virtual Organisation. Tagcloud. Available online: http://cps-vo.org/tagadelic, accessed April 2015.

International Organisation for Standardisation. ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765:2010: "Systems and software engineering - Vocabulary", 2010.

J. Fitzgerald, P. G, Larsen, and M. Verhoef (Eds.). Collaborative Design for Embedded Systems: Co-modelling and Co-simulation. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2014.


Simulations can be classified according to the models

being executed, but also simulations can be:

• steady-state or dynamic

• local or distributed

• simulated or co-simulated

• live, virtual, or constructive

• software-in-the loop, hardware-in-the-loop,

network-in-the-loop

Classifying simulation

Extended and adapted from: Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK), http://sebokwiki.org/wiki/Types_of_Models (accessed April 2015).

2. Summary of EU vision for M&S for CPSDr Murray Sinclair


An overview of the current EU vision for CPS was presented to the US

participants in order to set the overall context for the workshop form the

EU perspective. This covered the following elements:

• Extracts from the CPS week held in Vienna in April 2016

• Key Technologies relevant to CPS driving the overall shift from product

to services

• Summary of EU initiatives for the Digitisation of Industry and the

challenges associated with this

• Overview of the Artemis Industry Association and its 2016 Strategic

Research Agenda relating to CPS

• Key elements of Horizon 2020 research programme where the focus is

CPS and associated research challenges

EU Vision for CPS

3. Theme 5: Modelling the Human Factor in CPS – issues and challengesDr Murray Sinclair and Professor

Siemieniuch


Basic message

The inevitable human factor in CPS� Humans will be essential within the CPS ecosystem

for the foreseeable future

� Because CPS will reach deep into society, we must engineer socio-technical CPS, not just technical CPS

� Autonomy and entanglement with society entails that CPS are engineered for legal compliance, and to demonstrate governance and ethical behaviour

� Engineers will deliver these systems; nobody else is competent to do so.


Contents

� A few fundamentals about humans and their

capabilities

� Some comments on legal issues

� Roles of humans within CPS

� Comments about human-CPS interfaces

� The bigger picture: sustainability


The ‘NIF’

Data/Object Model Interoperability

Connectivity & Network Interop.

Physical Interoperability

Semantic/Information Interoperability

Knowledge/Awareness of Actions

Aligned Procedures

Aligned Operations

Harmonized Strategy/Doctrines

Political or Business ObjectivesLa

yers

of

Inte

rop

era

bil

ity

Network

Transport

Information

Services

People &

Processes

& Applications

© NCIOC, https://www.ncoic.org/technology/deliverables/nif/


People and machines are different,

and also complementary


People within a CPS

� For functionality; for tasks that are not well-defined, or

happen in changing environments, or surprises are likely

� For system resilience, agility, and adaptability in a world of complexity and change; c.f. Heracleitus, BCE

500: “you cannot step in the same river twice”

� For governance, responsibility, & accountability; legal aspects, where CPS meet society

� For strategy, social responsibility, and ethical behaviour; appropriate, efficient, effective & robust CPS

behaviour within society over their lifecycles


Role of people

� Informed command: UK MoD: “the last person to give

a command is responsible for the consequences.”

� Informed consent: “Yes/No/Wait”, e.g. in response to

automated suggestions

� Situation awareness: “the perception of environmental

elements with respect to time and/or space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the prediction of their status in the future.”


(Re-)defined systems

“A community of people,

pursuing a common purpose,

supported by a network of peripherals.”

S.V. Deal, 2008


Human characteristics� Evolved over 800 million generations from the first

amoeba to what we are today

� Very good at sensing, perceiving and making use of the environment – dangers, patterns, affordances,

‘scaffolding’ (“The way is long if one follows precepts, but short and helpful if one follows patterns” (Seneca AD65))

� Social animals; rule-following, responsible, emotional

intelligence, ethics, team-working and trust

� Variable; no 2 humans alike – both a strength and a

weakness


Human variability“In fact, humans differ enormously from machines, in that they areinherently variable and unreliable in their detailed behaviour,while simultaneously being hyper-adaptable and metastable intheir overall behaviour because they perceive and correct theirown errors.” (T.B. Sheridan, 2002)

� Well-designed jobs to achieve objectives

(meaningful tasks, safe operations, satisfying jobs)

� Education & Training to know processes, to understand

constraints and to minimise bad decisions

� Sufficient time to decide and execute actions correctly,

and to realise and retrieve wrong actions

The variability that remains provides governance, responsiveness, robustness, resilience, and agility (and is a problem for M&S)


On accountability and legal issues


Legal Issues

� Main problem is to determine ‘good’ CPS behaviourin relation to ‘hard’ law and ‘soft’ law (codes of practice, guidelines, standards, etc.)

� ‘Good’ behaviour is situation-dependent

� Example of ‘Assistive living’ (including a robot) to highlight some of the legal aspects, and to illustrate the M&S problems


‘Assisted living’ (UK)

RefugeeRobot

Accommodation

Care network

Health delivery system

Local practice

Social Services

Robot OEM

Maintenance network

Robot network

services

medical

issues

Lease, supportSupply chain

Supply chain

Supply chain

maintenance

Care &

concern

Design

issues,

etc.

medical issues

Management

issues

Management

issues

Management

issues

Management

issues

Rest of family

Care &

concern

Management

issues


Legal issues

� Develop robot capabilities in perception, individuation and prediction

� Develop legal frameworks and business models for open Systems-of-Systems that include robots (& other bots)

� Develop (run-time) verification, validation & certification processes for open SoS

� Develop robot ethics via simulation of scenarios that reflect business models

Necessary steps to ‘uncage’ robots for societal use:


‘Personhood’To be a responsible person in society:

� Sentience – conscious experience, pleasure & pain

� Emotionality – happy, sad, angry, loving, etc.

� Reasoning – solve new problems

� Communication – messages of many types and contents

� Self-awareness – self & place in social group

� Moral agency – regulate actions by moral & ethical principles


Accountability (Asaro)

� For a robot to be held responsible for its acts, it must have ‘moral agency’

� In law, moral agency implies personhood, except emotionality – sociopaths are held responsible for their actions

� Robots are not likely to attain full moral agency; like pets, they will fall under ‘agency’ laws. The robot stakeholders will be responsible

� If robots attain a level of moral agency, we may need the ‘slave laws’ of Rome, or the Confederacy


People as stakeholders in CPS ecosystems


CPS in manufacturing

Virtual Object (milling

machine)

VO(robot arm)

VO(sensor)

VO(turningcentre)

VO(wifi)

VO(roadmap)

VO(forklift)

VO(truck)

Virtual Object(group attributes)

Business applications suite


Market segment(consumers)

Market segment(businesses)

Composite Virtual Object(market opportunity)

Composite Virtual Object(transportation)

Composite Virtual Object(manufacturing cell)

Entrepreneur

INTERNETOF

THINGS


Imperfections…• ”… it is worth noting that the findings from Capers Jones

and others indicate that deployed software systems contain

approximately 0.4 latent faults per function point. To our

knowledge, this indicator of dismal [operational availability]

has improved only about three-fold in the last four

decades." (Ring and Madni 2015)

• “In one case, we observed an outsourced application with

120 COTS products, 46% of which were delivered in a

vendor-unsupported state.” (Yang, Boehm et al. 2005)

• “Due to the large scale and the complexity of systems of

systems, the occurrence of failures is the norm in CPSoS”

(CPSoS report D2.4 (2015)).


IoT

Virtual Object (milling

machine)

VO(robot arm)

VO(sensor)

VO(turningcentre)

VO(wifi)

VO(roadmap)

VO(forklift)

VO(truck)


Business application suite


Market segment(consumers)

Market segment(businesses)

Composite Virtual Object(market opportunity)

Composite Virtual Object(transportation)

Composite Virtual Object(manufacturing cell)

Entrepreneur

INTERNETOF

THINGS

A ‘co-worker’, working with robots, smart systems, etc.


The need for MBSE“CPS generally support … critical processes, making it impossible to turn off the system to make changes … requiring (re-)configuration, (re-)deployment, (de-)commissioning, update, or enhancement during runtime.” (B. Schätz (2014)).

redesign,reconfiguration

models


The CPS Co-Worker

co-worker


models

INTEGRATEDSYSTEMS

• Co-worker• Emergence

discoverer• Resilience

manager• Designer

experience & understanding

appropriateskills

roles & job design

strategiesWORLD &CULTURE

market

education

Kn. deployment


Overview of current ‘Human’ models

� DODAF/ MODAF/NAF – while they may claim ‘human views’, these are

under-specified

� UK: DEF STAN 00-250 (20) – HF for designers of systems; covers many

aspects, but defence-oriented & does not integrate aspects well; omits

cultural/social aspects

� US: MANPRINT – Ditto (?replaced?)

� Other models:

• IPME (MicroSaint model of operations, includes an Operator model;

Dahn/Laughery 1997)

• ORSIM (system dynamics model of operation of Nuclear PP; Chu,

2006 )

• IMPRINT/ACT-R (cognitive perspective of a task network; Lebiere et

at, 2002)

• MIDAS-5 (NASA model of NextGen ATC; Gore et al, 2011)


Modelling human-CPS interfaces


Generic CPS interface

Cyber-Physical SystemInterface entities• Other co-workers

• Mobile devices

• Stationary devices

• Smart applications

• CPS context

• CPS environment

• CPS prognostics

co-worker

Situation

Awareness

Presentation

interface

Action

interface

INTERFACEVisualAuditoryHaptic

Transfers of MEI:

Mass, Energy &

Information

(Big Data issues)

VerbalHapticGestureLocationPostureMovement

Informed Consent,Informed Command


Interface questions

Awareness questions

� What's happening?

� What isn't happening?

� Why are you telling me this?

� What does this mean?

� Is this answer trustworthy?

� What if ...... ?

� Remind me, how do I find ……?

� Where is ...... ?

Action questions

� What did I do?

� How do I undo this?

� How do I change this?

� How do I reach ....?

� What do I do next?

� What can I do next?

� How do I do it?


Inclusive job design:

• Responsibilities

• Authority to act

• Job scope

• Mgmt support

• Goal setting & alignment

• Team working

• Training

• Trust

DEFAULT STATE

Supervise:

• maintain

situation

awareness,

readiness

level

OBSERVE

Detect event:

• Sampling rate

• Command or

alarm or

process event?

ORIENT

Characterise

event:

• Recognise

pattern(s)

DECIDE

Choose

response:

• NDM model

OR

• follow

procedure

ACT

Execute

response:

• Communicate

• Act

• Observe

effect(s)

(on completion of act,

return to default state)

Knowledge

state

• prior

experience

• Training

• process

experience

(capture

experience)

Execution process

Worker satisfaction

HRM aspects:

• Org. culture

• Mgmt style

• Pay

• Terms & conditions

• Governance

• Promotion

• Employability

Task design:

• Wkspace layout

• inclusivity

• Sit. awareness

• Robot roles

• Interfaces, IT

• Quality, Safety

• Procedures

• AR, manuals

• Tools, controls

• Assistance

Measured worker

satisfaction:

• Motivation

• Commitment

• Enthusiasm

• Continuity

• Willingness to learn

• Identity with company

CPS-Coworker interface

• Design of process interfaces

• Process support for situation

awareness for operator(s)

• Simulation facilities

• Use of AR, vision,

voice, sound &haptics

• Validation of commands

against capabilities, status

• Trust envelope for each

operator

• Propensity for error

• Performance

• Resilience


Global sustainability issues


Global issues

� Population demographics, especially growth and aging

� Food security

� Energy security

� Resource utilisation and re-utilisation

� Emissions and global climate

� Community security and safety

� Transportation

� Globalisation of economic and social activity


Interactions of issues

Unwanted

outcomes

Population

demographics

Materials

depletion

Community

security &

safety

Transportation

systems

Economic

globalisation

Energy

security

Food

security

Emissions

‘wicked problems’;

‘normal’ accidents

climate

change

climate

change,

toxins

shortages

Increased

output

Increased

demand

Increased

demand

Increased demand,

extended networks

Increased

demand

Increased

demand

Increased

demand

Increased demand,

increased waste

Increased

demand

Increased

demand


Addressing issues

Unwanted

outcomes

Population

demographics

Materials

depletion

Community

security &

safety

Transportation

systems

Economic

globalisation

Energy

security

Food

security

Emissions

‘wicked problems’;

‘normal’ accidents

climate

change

climate

change,

toxins

shortages

Increased

output

Increased

demand

Increased

demand

Increased demand,

extended networks

Increased

demand

Increased

demand

Increased

demand

Increased demand,

increased waste

Increased

demand Crop

science,

conservatio

n of waste

Systems

engineering,

resilience

renewables

CCS

CCS

Systems

engineering,

resilience

Changes to social

perceptions

‘circular’

manufacturing,

recycling

Increased

demand

Changes to social

perceptions

Non-carbon

technology


Conclusions

� Humans will be essential within CPS ecosystems for the foreseeable future

� Because CPS will reach deep into society, we must engineer socio-technical CPS, not just technical CPS

� Modelling and simulation at many levels will be required, and we need tools for this

� Engineers will deliver these CPS; nobody else is competent to do so. This requires added skills and visions for engineers

� These visions need explaining for the public and for politicians to comprehend what is coming

4. Key Areas identified for M & S for Theme 5Dr Murray Sinclair and Professor

Siemieniuch


Overview of Theme 5

Integration of socio/legal/governance models within modeling frameworks

Models of technical systems must necessarily make assumptions about the environment in which the resulting technical systems will operate, and these systems will be at their most effective and efficient when their links to society, its laws and people are seamless.


1. Modelling of human behavior and performance when individuals are interacting with CPS. This involves both lay people who have no interest in the system other than its performance as well as trained operators co-working within CPS, human augmentation, and novel interfaces such as exoskeletons

2. Modelling of employment issues for people who are co-workers within CPS. This covers training, education, job design, inclusivity, etc.

3. Modelling of decision and control within CPS. This addresses issues of the allocation of authority and responsibility; situation awareness, informed command and informed consent; etc.

4. Modelling of external governance of CPS. This covers accountability, regulations both to assure compliance with legal aspects and to create a ‘level playing field’ for CPS within society.

5. Modeling of societal aspects within business models. This enables the exploration of Corporate Social Responsibilities, Responsible Research and Innovation, and other aspects such as integrity, trust and acceptability.

5 key sub-areas identified


1. Modelling of human behavior and performance when individuals are interacting with

CPS. This involves both lay people who have no interest in the system other than its

performance as well as trained operators co-working within CPS, human augmentation,

and novel interfaces such as exoskeletons

co-worker


models

INTEGRATEDSYSTEMS



manager• Designer


appropriateskills

roles & job design


market

education

Kn. deployment

Area 1: Human Behaviour and Performance


Cyber-Physical SystemInterface entities• Other co-workers

• Mobile devices

• Stationary devices

• Smart applications

• CPS context

• CPS environment

• CPS prognostics

co-worker

Situation

Awareness

Presentation

interface

Action

interface

INTERFACEVisualAuditoryHaptic

Transfers of MEI:

Mass, Energy &

Information

(Big Data issues)

VerbalHapticGestureLocationPostureMovement

Informed Consent,Informed Command

Area 1: Human Behaviour &Performance- the Human /CPS interface





• Job scope

• Mgmt support


• Team working

• Training

• Trust

DEFAULT STATE

Supervise

:

• maintain

situation

awareness

, readiness

level

OBSERVE

Detect event:

• Sampling

rate

• Command or

alarm or

process

event?

ORIENT

Characterise

event:

• Recognise

pattern(s)

DECIDE

Choose

response:

• NDM model

OR

• follow

procedure

ACT

Execute

response:

• Communicate

• Act

• Observe

effect(s)



Knowledge

state

• prior

experience

• Training

• process

experience

(capture

experience)

Execution process

Worker satisfaction

HRM aspects:

• Org. culture

• Mgmt style

• Pay


• Governance

• Promotion

• Employability

Task design:

• Wkspace layout

• inclusivity

• Sit. awareness

• Robot roles

• Interfaces, IT

• Quality, Safety

• Procedures

• AR, manuals

• Tools, controls

• Assistance

Measured worker

satisfaction:

• Motivation

• Commitment

• Enthusiasm

• Continuity













operator


• Performance

• Resilience


Area 2: Employment -humans as co-workers

2. Modelling of employment issues for people who are co-workers within CPS. This covers training, education, job design, inclusivity, etc.

co-worker


models

INTEGRATEDSYSTEMS



manager• Designer


appropriateskills

roles & job design


market

education

Kn. deployment





• Job scope

• Mgmt support


• Team working

• Training

• Trust

DEFAULT STATE

Supervise

:

• maintain

situation

awareness

, readiness

level

OBSERVE

Detect event:

• Sampling

rate

• Command or

alarm or

process

event?

ORIENT

Characterise

event:

• Recognise

pattern(s)

DECIDE

Choose

response:

• NDM model

OR

• follow

procedure

ACT

Execute

response:

• Communicate

• Act

• Observe

effect(s)



Knowledge

state

• prior

experience

• Training

• process

experience

(capture

experience)

Execution process

Worker satisfaction

HRM aspects:

• Org. culture

• Mgmt style

• Pay


• Governance

• Promotion

• Employability

Task design:

• Wkspace layout

• inclusivity

• Sit. awareness

• Robot roles

• Interfaces, IT

• Quality, Safety

• Procedures

• AR, manuals

• Tools, controls

• Assistance

Measured worker

satisfaction:

• Motivation

• Commitment

• Enthusiasm

• Continuity













operator


• Performance

• Resilience


Area 3: Decision Making and Control (1)

3. Modelling of decision and control within CPS. This addresses issues of the allocation of authority and responsibility; situation awareness, informed command and informed consent; etc.

� Includes co-working with autonomous devices, covered by

‘Agency law’.

� Autonomous devices necessarily must learn;

environment/navigation, performance polishing, strategy

improvement. Each of these produce behaviour change, of

increasing scope. Thus, they become ‘distanced’ from their

designer, and also their co-worker(s)

� For critical functions, how to perform V&V on devices that

learn? M&S seems the only viable answer.


� Do we allow autonomous devices to transmit learning

between them? If so, M&S again?

� Do we implement rules to restrict autonomy? e.g.

Sheridan, level 5: “Device offers a suggestion and executes

if human approves”; level 6: “Device allows human a

restricted time to veto, else executes”

� How do we model the dynamic flow and exercise of

authority and accountability within a CPS network? And

the constraints on this flow and exercise caused by

contracts?

Area 3:Decision Making and Control (2)





• Job scope

• Mgmt support


• Team working

• Training

• Trust

DEFAULT STATE

Supervise

:

• maintain

situation

awareness

, readiness

level

OBSERVE

Detect event:

• Sampling

rate

• Command or

alarm or

process

event?

ORIENT

Characterise

event:

• Recognise

pattern(s)

DECIDE

Choose

response:

• NDM model

OR

• follow

procedure

ACT

Execute

response:

• Communicate

• Act

• Observe

effect(s)



Knowledge

state

• prior

experience

• Training

• process

experience

(capture

experience)

Execution process

Worker satisfaction

HRM aspects:

• Org. culture

• Mgmt style

• Pay


• Governance

• Promotion

• Employability

Task design:

• Wkspace layout

• inclusivity

• Sit. awareness

• Robot roles

• Interfaces, IT

• Quality, Safety

• Procedures

• AR, manuals

• Tools, controls

• Assistance

Measured worker

satisfaction:

• Motivation

• Commitment

• Enthusiasm

• Continuity













operator


• Performance

• Resilience


Area 4: External governance of CPS

4. Modelling of external governance of CPS. This covers

accountability, regulations both to assure compliance with legal

aspects and to create a ‘level playing field’ for CPS within society.

� Cybersecurity: protection, privacy, safety & security of data, IP,

strategy, etc.

� Physical safety & security of the CPS’ people, locations, processes and

operations

� Traceability of authority and control in operations

� Proof of real-time adequacy of the sensing-to-action decision sequence

� M&S for evaluating in real time the alternative action paths to deliver

the combination of ‘good ethical practice’ and ‘good management

practice’

� Gamification of ‘trust’ within business operations (Доверяй, но

проверяй: ‘trust, but verify’)


Area 5: Societal Aspects

5. The modeling of societal aspects within business models. This

enables the exploration of Corporate Social Responsibilities,

Responsible Research and Innovation, and other aspects such as

integrity, trust and acceptability.

� M&S for cultural drivers of behaviour: individual, group,

professional, organisational, political, national

� M&S for the sustainability agenda: energy, water, waste,

materials, Big Data for control, etc.

� M&S as an aid to the ‘Responsible Research & Innovation’

(RRI) agenda; e.g. nano-materials, MEMs in health care,

balancing open-ness to future stake-holders while

maintaining security of data and intentions

5. Workshop outputs: M & S capability gaps identified


M & S Capability gaps 1 & 2

M & S Reqt

no

Sub M & S

Reqt NoDescription of Gap in M & S Capability Link to Dream Project Comments

1 Model of CPS Legislative Framework

✔Characterise and Improves Entry

and Use of CPS

✔Autonomous collection of

environmental data via drones

✔Assisted Living

1.1

M & S of legal/ethical aspects of use of

non-human autonomous intelligent

agents

✔Characterise and Improves Entry

and Use of CPS

✔Real-time system modelling

including human behaviour

✔Autonomous collection of

environmental data via drones

✔Assisted Living

2

A ‘gamification’ approach to modelling

to include responses of/consequences

for society and for co-workers within

CPS (i.e. CSR, RRI aspects)

✔Characterise and model dynamic

human interaction with CPS

✔Integration and interoperability

models and approaches



✔Assisted Living

Conserving house energy example

Change of human behaviour

Use of behavioural techniques to reinforce

desired behaviour

Taps into the competitive nature

2.1

Predicitive M & S of impact of

increased automation on employment,

processes, roles, organistaional

structure etc



✔Educating CPS designers, operators,

maintainers, co-workers

No internal feed-back to update model

parameters as model is operated

2.2

Pedicitive M & S of impact of increased

autonomy on employment, processes,

roles, organistaional structure etc






M & S Capability gaps 6/7/8/9

M & S Reqt

no

Sub M & S


6M&S of impact of different

organisational structures





✔Assisted Living

Need to be able to create models at different

levels. The majority of models are at a

semantic level and are static rather than

dynamic

7

Models of different data/

communication links between humans

and non-human intelligent agents





✔Assisted Living

Current data transfer links {pipes} are small.

Response times are differents for various CPS

subsystems

8

M&S of human - machine, machine to

machine interactions, individually and

collectively



✔Assisted Living

No internal feed-back to update model

parameters as model is operated

9

Meta-level tools to (1) decide required

model granularity and (2) to adjust

midels appropriately

✔All

9.1

Evaluation of Optimisation vs.

Normalisation when designing or

implementing M & S capability

✔All

What level of modelling is required– when it

does it became a question of loss of value

rather than gain value (e.g. modelling

individual behaviour vs, group behaviour)


M & S Capability gaps 10/11/12/13

M & S Reqt

no

Sub M & S


10

Models of (1) human trust in CPS

devices/software and (2) software trust

in human co-worker expertise,

experience





✔Assisted Living



11

Models of human decision-making, e.g.

case-based reasoning, natural decision-

making, and engineer-designed

protocols for decision-making –

constraint



✔Hybrid dynamic system verification



✔Assisted Living

No good approaches to address CPS systems

that learn – barrier. No good, run-time V&V

approaches available as a way to address the

learning issues

11.1Models of different human cognitive

styles

✔Hybrid dynamic system verification



What is going to be appropriate?

What attributes are necessary?

What differentiate a co-worker from the

other?

12

M & S to assess impact of different

training media and levels for CPS

operators and controllers







It is about jobs and keeping manufacturing

Citizen science

How you prepare people to live in the CPS

world

12.1

Models of Human/intelligent agents

learning abilities and impacts -

single/double/triple loop learning.





✔Assisted Living

Individual agent learning abilities and impact

on roles and decision making

Same applies to groups of human/technical

agents

13Requirement for a platform to 'carry'

all the above M & S capability✔All

6. Workshop outputs: Expansion of relevant Dream Projects


Area 5: Societal Aspects

During workshops on the previous 4 themes a set of Dream Projects had

emerged.

• Theme 1: Architectures Principles and models for Autonomous Safe

and secure Cyber-Physical Systems

• Theme 2: System Design, modelling and virtual engineering for

Cyber-Physical Systems

• Theme 3: Real time modelling for autonomous, adaptive and

cooperative Cyber-Physical Systems

• Theme 4: MBSE applied to Computing Platforms and energy

management

Each of these Dream Projects was considered in terms of its relevance to

Theme 5. The following set include a) 6 Dream Projects considered

relevant and hence embellished where necessary with issues that arose

during the Theme 5 Workshop [indicated in blue] and b) 2 new Dream

Projects: Assisted Living and Educating CPS designers, operators,

maintainers etc

Aim and

objectives of

Dream Project

Aim (of government): characterise and improve entry and use of CPS -> commons - public use of systems, public ownership

1. Gaining data about CPS in commons

2. Process of entry and use

3. Tools and methods – reasoning, assurance etc.

US contribution • Data, e.g.

• transportation (vehicle, security, incident, maintenance)

• security/defence (CBRNE, CT);

• lessons learned

• statute, policy, regulation, guidance

• successes, futures, opportunities for co-development

• taxonomy/ontology for management of CPS -> commons.

Desired EU

contribution

as US

Collaboration

instruments

• TTCP as template for exchanging security information

• virtual modelling environments

• scenario/context-based <- exemplars (cases, practices)

• design/architecture

• evaluation

• requirements (technical, social, political)

• statute, policy, regulation, guidance

• economic and technical integration, coherence (e.g. air traffic control)

Baseline state of

the art (key

existing

technologies)

Links to key

Theme 1

developments

in M&S

Other comments

Dream Project Characterise and Improve Entry and Use of CPSTeam

members:

• Individual, team standardised models for ‘human co-worker avatar’ do not exist = barrier

• No dynamic model of the ‘geographically-extended co-worker interface’ exists = barrier

• No meta-level tool exists to (1) decide required model granularity and (2) to adjust appropriately both models above = barrier

• No platform to carry all these tools exists = barrier• Need a ‘gamification’ approach to modelling to include

co-workers within CPS (i.e. CSR, RRI aspects) = barrier • Need models of (1) human trust in CP and (2) CPS trust

in co-worker expertise, experience - barrier

• See DARPA ‘New Social Science’ (NS2) Call, 2016• SoA model status is limited to 1-off partial, static models addressing usually 1, occasionally more, classes of performance; • No internal feed-back to update model parameters as model is operated.• No common, accepted ontology for modelling Co-worker behaviour

Aim and

objectives of

Dream Project

Aim: Verification of dynamic ensembles of hybrid systems in dynamic environmentsObjectives:• Modelling, simulation and experimentation frameworks• Formal specifications for desired objectives (security, resiliency, performance, etc)• Novel verification technologies and tools

US contribution • Autonomous systems research• Tool-chain’s for model-based design• Verification tools (model checking)

Desired EU

contribution

• Formal modelling and specification of desired behaviour• Interchange formats for hybrid dynamic systems• Verification tools (theorem provers)

Collaboration

instruments

• Joint workshops for framework exchanges• Development of joint tools (US/EU)

Baseline state of

the art (key

existing

technologies)

• Bounded model checker (dReal)• Theorem prover (Coq)• OpenMETA tool chain for model-based design• Frameworks for autonomous systems (CMU -> Uber, Google, etc)• Algorithms for emergent behaviour detection/avoidance• NSF ExCAPE project (Expeditions in Computing)

Links to key

Theme 2

developments

in M&S

• Scientific approaches to testing and evaluation of adaptive CPS• Hybrid modelling and simulation environments• Tools that capture key safety, security, resilience properties• Applications of new mathematical tools (e.g., networks)• Formal semantics frameworks for sound co-modelling• Complex system modelling for predicting emergent behaviour

Other comments

Dream Project Hybrid Dynamic System VerificationTeam

members:

• No need to include V&V for human co-workers/stakeholders, but if included, models of human performance are necessary.

• Include models of human decision-making• If CPS includes autonomous components (e.g.

humans, AI software), then V&V must address learning

• Must include models of human decision-making, e.g. case-based reasoning, natural decision-making, &engineer-designed protocols for decision-making =constraint

• No good approaches to address CPS systems that learn = barrier

Dream ProjectReal-time system modelling including human

behaviourTeam members: All

Aim, objectives &

application domain

of the project

Improve safety of CPS (including humans interactions) through improved models• Human interaction at several levels: design, interface, • Capturing the human’s intention – take into account interface • Authority sharing (human and AS) and mode confusion• Objective is to improve safety in unforeseen situations• Application domains automated transport, robots (e.g. care), • Focus is on individual interactions• Risk associated with use of bad models • Experimentation to populate models

(Desired) US

contributionBig data information to construct human model

(Desired) EU

contributionAs above

Collaboration

instruments.

Enablers & barriers

to collaboration.

Why should the EU

fund this project

(as opposed to an

alternative funder)?

Baseline state of

the art (key existing

technologies)

Related roadmap

elements

Developments in M&S: Collaboration opportunities:

• Individual and team ‘human co-worker avatar’ standardised models

• Abstract dynamic model of the ‘geographically-extended, co-worker interface’

• Meta-level tool to (1) decide required model granularity and (2) to adjust appropriately both models above

• Internal feed-back to update model parameters as model is operated.• Platform to carry all these tools• A ‘gamification’ approach to modelling to include responses

of/consequences for society and for co-workers within CPS (i.e. CSR, RRI aspects)

• Develop common, accepted ontology for modelling Co-worker behaviour • Models of (1) human trust in CPS devices/software and (2) software trust

in human co-worker expertise, experience - barrier• Blackbox

• See DARPA ‘New Social Science’ (NS2) Call• SoA is limited to 1-off partial, static models addressing usually 1, occasionally more, classes of performance; • No internal feed-back to update model parameters as model is operated.• No common, accepted ontology for modelling Co-worker behaviour • Must include models of human decision-making, e.g. case-based reasoning, natural decision-making, and engineer-designed protocols for

decision-making – constraint• No good approaches to address CPS systems that learn – barrier• Need models of (1) human trust in CPS devices/software and (2) software trust in human co-worker expertise, experience - barrier

Aim and objectives

of Dream Project

• Integrating and validating modelling/simulation tools in different domains (including data mining, human modelling, simulation of dynamical systems etc.)

• Establish a basis for comparison between different case studies (explore the benefits of different transportation system modes)

(Desired) US

contribution

• Data (testbeds, taxi companies, other private industry i.e. Google, etc.)

• Congestion models, simulation models

• Data, transportation network layout

(Desired) EU

contribution

As above

Collaboration

instruments /

enablers / barriers

• IP barriers, social acceptance

• Enablers: society demand, sustainability

• Enablers: technology maturity (vehicle autonomy, mapping / perception technology)

• Workshops, joint projects sponsored by both EU and US funding agencies, shared data respositories

Baseline state of


technologies)

• Autonomous vehicle modelling / control

• System / fleet level control / modelling

• Mapping technologies

• Traffic modelling tools / simulations

Links to key Theme

x developments

in M&S

B: Predictive modelling & real-time decision support: • Real time decision support (M2M connection, HMI,

distributed and heterogeneous data)• Predictive modelling of different prod. cases and how

they effect quality, energy, environment, etc. 1: Architecture for fault identification2: First principles and empirical models: 1) humans 2) environment 3) perception 4) reasoning/decision making

3: Formal models of non-functional properties: safety, security, privacy, performance, cost, …5: Advanced learning algorithms with ability to train rapidly8: Big-data driven modelling9: High fidelity simulations that can be used for safety certification10: Hierarchical models for CPSE: Technology to assume trustworthy behavior by autonomous systems

Links to other

collaboration

opportunities

2: CPS verification & validation grand challenge – for adaptive learning CPS12: Integration of modelling approaches of various domains for autonomous systems with human involvement on a test case4: Collaborative use (or data sharing) of autonomous vehicle testbeds10: Integration of CPS models from different research communities (e.g. robotics + transportation)

Other comments

(inc. application

domain)

Transportation, robotics

Dream ProjectCase studies for autonomous transportation in EU/US

citiesTeam members:

• Mixed-mode transport studies (e.g. Munich)• UK legislation for autonomous vehicles• Consideration for autonomous vehicle users, other users of transport pathways• Recognition of role of transport pathway furniture• Access by users to information infrastructures for transport pathways

Aim and

objectives of

Dream Project

For a test problem that has a large Community of Practice, and many existing models, that has humans, legacy systems, legacy models, and current integration, find a way to move this to a higher level that is adaptive and resilient, and that can be shared. Must be done in a way that meets the desires of the society. The idea would be to use the project to evolve existing models to ones that can work together and continue to evolve into the future.

(Desired) US

contribution

• Collect existing models• Understand legal limitations• Develop and share requirements for the common model• Identify differences between states in the US

• Agree on a common interoperability standard• Apply standard on US systems• Evolve systems to new joint testbed

(Desired) EU

contribution

• Collect existing models• Understand legal limitations• Develop and share requirements for the common model• Identify difference between EU countries

• Agree on a common interoperability standard• Apply standard on EU systems• Evolve systems to new joint testbed

Collaboration

instruments

• Workshops to find the common problem• Workshops to develop standards (technical, interoperability)• Agreements for sharing (IP, technical data)• Funding structure – who contributes from each side• Joint demonstration (funding, logistics, location, preparation, etc.)

• Include standardization bodies from US and EU

Baseline state of

the art (key

existing

technologies)

• Existing legacy models• Existing legacy systems• Current integration approach• Machine intelligence• Protocols

• The approach could feasible for some domains but not for others

Links to key

Theme x

developments

in M&S

Model-based integration framework; a CPS testbed. Scientific approaches to testing and evaluation on adaptive resilient systemsAutomatic updates on virtual models when CPS components are movedHybrid M&S environmentsOnline model calibration

Links to other

collaboration

opportunities

• Dream project: federated EU/US test beds• It could be done in parallel with dream project on test beds

Other comments It will impact both sides on the Atlantic.Could be of interest to NATOProbably have to start with non-defense application to get support from both sides

Dream ProjectIntegration and Interoperability Models and Approaches

Team

members:

Aim and objectives

of Dream Project

• Collaborative analysis of data collected in the US & EU

• In order to study global trends in the Atlantic area

(Desired) US

contribution

• Focus on private transportation• More petrol fuelled cars• Rural area• Policy impact• Impact of heavy data processing – context aware

(Desired) EU

contribution

• Focus on public transportation• More diesel powered cars• Urban area / population density• Policy impact

Collaboration

instruments /

enablers / barriers

÷Funded / funding+ Strong research environments+ Personal / business relationship between US/EU researchers

Baseline state of


technologies)

• Drone development very active• Machine learning / data collection / data

analysis• Environmental data capturing (sensors)• B1: Real time decision support (M2M

connection, HMI, distributed and heterogeneous data)

• B2: Predictive modelling of different prod. cases and how they effect quality, energy, environment, etc.

• A3: Technology to model product and system behavior in the context of changing environment

Links to key Theme

x developments

in M&S

• Autonomy• Real-time (location / time of data collection)• Adaptive - react to events

Links to other

collaboration

opportunities

• Different types of data (e.g. traffic)• 1: Case studies for autonomous

transportation in EU/US cities

• 4: Collaborative use (or data sharing) of autonomous vehicle testbeds

• 13: Collaborative development between geographically dispersed teams (24-hour development)

Other comments

(inc. application

domain)

Dream Project Autonomous collection of env. data via drones Team members:

• Since environmental data most likely will also include human data, privacy issues will be important –privacy, protection, safety, security

Template for Dream Collaborative ProjectsAssisted Living

The aim is to investigate control and safety issues involved in a socio-technical CPS [ie comprising autonomous devices as well as intelligent

human and software components. Within this issues to be investigated include: absolute need for safety and privacy in relation to

vulnerable people; how do healthcare devices and systems adapt to the ‘vanishing mind’; ethics and trust throughout the CPS; engineering

governance; ownership of CPS etc. Identify limitations and develop new M & S capability for the above & particularly the human – system

interface

SoA in use of robots/autonomous systems in Healthcare; modelling of financial provision and legal issues for private healthcare; models for

health care system optimisation, models of autonomous systems’ ability to interpret non verbal communication; control systems

simulations; simulation capability for predictive human performance modelling; models of dynamic functional reallocation and authority

As for US but modelling should focus on publicly financed Systems

• Workshops to find the common problem

• Workshops to develop standards (technical, interoperability)

• Agreements for sharing (IP, technical data)

• Funding structure – who contributes from each side

• Joint demonstration (funding, logistics, location, preparation, etc.)

Because the EU has a rapidly increasing aged population with health and social care needs. Current systems are overloaded and inefficient

and more efficient systems are required. Autonomous systems are the future but there are increasing concerns in the public about trust in

/safety and capability of such systems

Also not only safety but acceptance of these systems, how can a robot or technology be empathic or at least act as such, or at least be

perceived as such through interaction, presence and look (dog shape versus spider shape)

o Autonomous systems are the future but in the Healthcare domain they are used in specialised areas such at hospital theatres. Use in

wider health and social care systems is at a very low TRL level. Testing and simulation of various scenarios is not available at the

moment and situation awareness models are also lacking across such systems

Template for Dream Collaborative ProjectsEducating CPS designers, operators,


The aim is to address the current skill gaps that exist in both the US and EU at all levels in terms of development, operation and maintenance

of CPS systems. There is also a need, having identified the gaps, to design and provide multi-dimensional education provision for CPS

Systems

Statement of requirements at all levels eg higher Education, college, apprenticeships etc; Gap analysis of provision against need; M& S

training simulation capability; accreditation modelling to establish creditability and to encourage movement of trained personnel across the

US and different application domains

As for US but modelling should focus on education provision at Higher Ed, Further Ed, Apprenticeships. NVQs etc and also on movement

across different countries in the EU

• Workshops to find common problems and differences. Also to establish a set of requirements for trained personnel

• Sharing of expertise and relevant content at the different educational levels

• Funding structure – who contributes from each side

• Joint demonstration (funding, logistics, location, preparation, etc.)

Because it is accepted that CPS systems are pervasive and increasing and do not recognise domain or national borders. It is also accepted

that a skills gap exists and a range of appropriate training options and delivery mechanisms need to be developed and applied according to

cost time and quality variables.

Not known exactly at this time as not aware of any in-depth analysis of current provision. However all major organisations eg Artemis and

many EU and US funded projects have identified the provision of trained people and a key factor in the successful deployment of CPS across

all domains

7. Workshop outputs: Key Discussion points arising


US View on CPS

• CPS implementation

o Needs legislative framework to be implemented

• Definitions of CPS:

o The US definition of CPS presented by TAMS4CPS is just

one of the US definitions of CPS: there are many other

points of view in US on what is a CPS.

o The US CPS focus started with the NSF call (Finance

domain), then people started to call everything CPS (e.g.

research in embedded system was relabelled CPS)

o It was much later in US that human elements were

included or considered as being into CPS


Issues and Trends

• Autonomy and automation

o Autonomy it is an important aspect especially in the military domain

o Automation is a sensitive issue particularly related to the impact on jobs

and employment

o Lack of predictive models for the impact of both - approach was mainly

to go ahead and do it and then see what it happens

• The importance of the East (e.g. China) in CPS models because parts of CPS

are and will continue to be produced in China

• CPS and Cloud 2 should be closely related

• Cross-disciplinary integration (US is of the opinion that EU does it better)

• Assisting living is domain of interest for the US

• The data transfer issue between human and machine (the pipe is small)

o The response time is different for human and machine


Issues and Trends

• Robots

o Legal aspects/ethics

o Intelligence (within design)

o Testing and simulation of various scenarios is not available at the moment

o The co-worker situational awareness issue

• The problem of “updates” of various systems within the CPS (the updates don’t

happen necessarily at the same time)

• Gaps in terms of modelling capability:

o Modelling at different levels/layers. Models at ‘organisation’ level are

difficult although methods exist to model the layers underneath

o At the moment the majority of models are at a semantic level

o At the moment the majority of models are static – lack of dynamic models

or continuous predictive simulations

o Optimisation vs. normalisation (link with value); level of modelling – where

it becomes a question of loss of value rather than gain value (e.g. modelling

individual behaviour vs, group behaviour)

8. Conclusions and Next Steps

Conclusions: outline

• There is a dearth of M & S capability dealing with societal aspect of socio-technical CPS

• There is a need for cross-disciplinary teams to work together on the M & S capability gaps identified

• There is a need to develop M&S capability for larger scale dynamic CPS simulations embracing communities

• Similar issues exist in US and EU with some differences of interpretation: the rise of autonomy in CPS is a high common factor

Next steps

• This report will be reviewed by workshop participants and will then be published online on the project website (www.tams4cps.eu).

• Material from this report (and those for the other themes) will be used to develop formal deliverables later this year:

• State of the art: October 2016

• Test cases: October 2016

• Strategic Research Agenda for Collaboration: September 2016 (draft) & December 2016 (final)

Workshop Dates Location

Theme 1 US

workshop

8-10 July, 2015 George Mason University,

Washington D.C.

Theme 2 US

workshop

12-14 October,

2015

Georgia Tech, Atlanta

Theme 1 + 2

EU workshop

9-10 November,

2015

Brussels, Belgium

Theme 3 US

workshop

10-11

December, 2015

Purdue University,

Lafayette

Theme 3 EU

workshop

11-12 February,

2016

Brussels, Belgium

Theme 4 US

workshop

17-18 March,

2016

UTSA, San Antonio

Theme 5 US

workshop

16-17 May,

2016

Stevens Institute,

Hoboken

Theme 4 + 5

EU workshop

(in parallel)

16-17 June,

2016

Kongsberg, Norway

9. Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

• The consortium is grateful for the support of our US host Prof Greg Vesonder and the workshop participants. The workshop would not have been a success without his active involvement.

Theme 5 US workshop report US V1 30062016 (4 ... · co-working within CPS, human augmentation, and...

Documents

Transcript of Theme 5 US workshop report US V1 30062016 (4 ... · co-working within CPS, human augmentation, and...