Solution and quality robust project scheduling: a methodological framework.

The vast majority of the research efforts in project scheduling over the past several years has concentrated on the development of exact and suboptimal procedures for the generation of a baseline schedule assuming complete information and a deterministic environment. During execution, however, projects may be the subject of considerable uncertainty, which may lead to numerous schedule disruptions. Predictive-reactive scheduling refers to the process where a baseline schedule is developed prior to the start of the project and updated if necessary during project execution. It is the objective of this paper to review possible procedures for the generation of proactive (robust) schedules, which are as well as possible protected against schedule disruptions, and for the deployment of reactive scheduling procedures that may be used to revise or re-optimize the baseline schedule when unexpected events occur. We also offer a methodological framework that should allow project management to identify the proper scheduling methodology for different project scheduling environments. Finally, we survey the basics of Critical Chain scheduling and indicate in which environments it is useful.Framework; Information; Management; Processes; Project management; Project scheduling; Project scheduling under uncertainty; Stability; Robust scheduling; Quality; Scheduling; Stability; Uncertainty;

Model-driven engineering approach to design and implementation of robot control system

In this paper we apply a model-driven engineering approach to designing domain-specific solutions for robot control system development. We present a case study of the complete process, including identification of the domain meta-model, graphical notation definition and source code generation for subsumption architecture -- a well-known example of robot control architecture. Our goal is to show that both the definition of the robot-control architecture and its supporting tools fits well into the typical workflow of model-driven engineering development.Comment: Presented at DSLRob 2011 (arXiv:cs/1212.3308

Resist, comply or workaround? An examination of different facets of user engagement with information systems

This paper provides a summary of studies of user resistance to Information Technology (IT) and identifies workaround activity as an understudied and distinct, but related, phenomenon. Previous categorizations of resistance have largely failed to address the relationships between the motivations for divergences from procedure and the associated workaround activity. This paper develops a composite model of resistance/workaround derived from two case study sites. We find four key antecedent conditions derived from both positive and negative resistance rationales and identify associations and links to various resultant workaround behaviours and provide supporting Chains of Evidence from two case studies

Evaluation of Tactical Aircrew Workload using Advanced Cockpit Simulation and its Impact on the Design of the EA-18G Aircraft

The purpose of this paper is to document and study the evaluation performed to minimize the workload of the new EA-18G crew vehicle interface design prior to flight testing the aircraft system. The EA-18G concept was selected, from options presented in an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) commissioned by the United States Navy, to replace the aging EA-6B Prowler. As part of this analysis the Navy expressed concern of aircrew workload increasing due to the reduction of aircrew in the cockpit, from four to two. The Boeing Avionics Integration Team, in St. Louis, Missouri, developed the design interface for the EA-18G through a series of Design Advisory Groups (DAGs) consisting of test and fleet aircrew from the F/A-18 and EA-6B communities. As the design of the crew vehicle interface was developed it was implemented in the Network Centric Operations Center (NCOC) 3 simulator for evaluation by aircrew. Four workload assessments were performed over a one year period, evaluating multiple operator tasks, during simulated missions in various areas of the world. The crew vehicle interface design was altered following each assessment, in order to enable the aircrew to perform the next set of simulated missions with increased system functionality and lower operator workload. The design, as implemented in NCOC 3 for the fourth assessment, was not functional enough to allow the aircrew to truly evaluate the system for a valid workload. A fifth workload assessment was added to the program following an inconclusive evaluation at the fourth workload assessment. The design was finalized and the simulator was programmed to resemble the completed paper design. In addition to the finalized design, the Human Factors Engineering team, working with the Crew Vehicle Interface team, utilized a new method of flight testing to gather metrics, which the workload assessments could then be compared to during the final evaluation. This new method of Use Cases allowed the engineering team to evaluate the design based on aircrew designed metrics for different missions and task subsets. In the opinion of this author, although the design of the EA-18G will reduce the number of aircrew in the cockpit, the design lends itself to a more user friendly and low workload interface. While simulation will never replace the true reactions and workload experienced by aircrew during real combat conditions, the implementation of advanced simulation techniques in this design has given the Navy insight into the crew vehicle interface performance of the EA-18G system earlier in the developmental cycle than ever before