Applied Intelligence

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 235–247 | Cite as

Towards Combinatorial Analysis, Adaptation, and Planning of Human-Computer Systems

  • Mark Sh. Levin
Article

Abstract

The paper addresses a modular system approach to the analysis, design, and improvement of human-computer systems (HCSs). The approach is based on ordinal expert information and optimization models. A modular description of HCSs (system components and their interconnection), some corresponding requirements to them, and improvement actions are described. The following stages have been examined: design of a basic system morphology, modification of the morphology, analysis, and planning.

Our combinatorial approach (two-level hierarchical morphological design) consists of two problems: (i) multicriteria analysis of primitives (design alternatives), and (ii) combinatorial synthesis. The hierarchical combinatorial synthesis is based on a “design morphology” which corresponds to an initial hierarchical knowledge structure (design alternatives, their estimates, etc.). Ordinal scales for initial information are used.

Two basic numerical examples illustrate the approach: (i) modular analysis, adaptation, and improvement of HCSs; (ii) series planning the user interfaces for knowledge engineering.

system design design & modeling planning & scheduling system adaptation knowledge-based methodologies knowledge engineering optimization problems human-computer systems 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    D. Braha and O. Maimon, A Mathematical Theory of Design: Foundations, Algorithms and Applications, Kluwer: Dordrecht, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D.M. Buede, The Engineering Design of Systems: Models and Methods, J.Wiley & Sons: New York, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Gero and F. Sudweeks (eds.), Advances in Formal Design Methods, Kluwer: Boston, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Kusiak, Engineering Design: Products, Processes, and Systems, Academic Press: New York, 1999.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C.S. Adjiman, I.P. Androulakis, and C.A. Floudas, “Global optimization of mixed-integer nonlinear problems,” AIChE Journal, vol. 46, no. 9, pp. 1769–1797, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C.A. Floudas, Nonlinear and Mixed-Integer Optimization: Fundamentals and Applications (Topics in Chemical Engineering), Oxford University Press: New York, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    I.E. Grossmann, “Mixed-integer non-linear programming techniques for the synthesis of engineering Systems,” Research in Engineering Design, vol. 1, no. 2/3, pp. 205–228, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    K. Miettinen, Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization, Kluwer: Boston, 1999.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R.B. Statnikov and J. Matusov, Multicriteria Optimization and Engineering, Chapman and Hall: New York, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R.E. Steuer, Multiple Criteria Optimization: Theory, Computation, and Application, J. Wiley & Sons: New York, 1986.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E.L. Ulungu and J. Teghem, “Multi-objective combinatorial optimization problems: A survey,” J. of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 83–104, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C.A. Coello Coello, “A comprehensive survey of evolutionarybased multiobjective optimization techniques,” Knowledge and Information Systems, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 269–308, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C.M. Fonseca and P.J. Fleming, “An overview of evolutionary algorithms for multiobjective optimization,” Evolutionary Computation, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    N.M. Alexandrov and M.Y. Husssaini (eds.), “Multidisciplinary design optimization: State of the art,” in Proceedings in Applied Mathematics Series; no. 80, SIAM: Philadelphia, 1997.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R.B. Statnikov, Multicriteria Design: Optimization and Identi-fication, Kluwer: Dordrecht, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    I.M. Sobol, “An efficient approach to multicriteria optimum design problems,” Surveys on Mathematics in Industry, vol. 1, pp. 259–281, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C.A. Floudas and P. Pardalos (eds.), State of the Art in Global Optimization: Computational Methods and Applications, Kluwer: Boston, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C.A. Floudas, Deterministic Global Optimization, Kluwer: Boston, 1999.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    G. Booch, Object Oriented Development, The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company: Redwood City, California, 1991.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. Harhalakis, C.P. Lin, R. Nagi, and J.M. Proth, “Hierarchical decision making in computer integrated manufacturing systems,” in Proc. of the Third Intl. Conf. on CIM, IEEE CS Press: Los Alamitos, CA, 1992, pp. 15–24.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    P.S. Krasnoshekov, V.V. Morozov, and V.V. Fedorov, “Decomposition in design problems,” Engineering Cybernetics, no. 2, pp. 7–17, 1979 (in Russian).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    D.C. Liebisch and A. Jain, “JESSI COMMON FRAMEWORK design management—the means to configuration and execution of the design process,” in Proc. of European Design Automation Conference EURO-DAC'92, CS Press: Los Alamitos, 1992, pp. 552–557.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    E. Yourdan, Techniques of Program Structure and Design, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1975.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    O. Berman and N. Ashrafi, “Optimization models for reliability of modular software systems,” IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 1119–1123, 1993.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    C.C. Huang and A. Kusiak, “Modularity in design of products and systems,” Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 66–77, 1998.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    M.Sh. Levin, Combinatorial Engineering of Decomposable Systems, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, 1998.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    F. Zwicky, Discovery Invention, Research Through the Morphological Approach, McMillan: New York, 1969.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. Shaw and D. Garlan, Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline, Prentice Hall: New York, 1996.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    A.P. Gupta, W.P. Birmingham, and D.P. Siewiorek, “Automating the design of computer systems,” IEEE Trans. on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 473–487, 1993.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    J. McDermott, “R1: A rule-based configurer of computer systems,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 39–88, 1982.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    E.A. Sykes and C.C. White, III, “Multiobjective intelligent computer-aided design,” IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1498–1511, 1989.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    J. Gero and F. Sudweeks (eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Design'98, Kluwer: Dordrecht, 1998.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    L. Bass and J. Coutaz, Developing Software for the User Interface, Addison Wesley: Reading, MA, 1991.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    D. Hix, “Generations of user-interface management systems,” IEEE Computer, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 77–87, 1990.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    P. Johnson, Psychology, Task Analysis and Software Engineering, Prentice-Hall: London, 1992.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    J.A. Larson, Interactive Software—Tools for Building Interactive User Interfaces, New York, Yourdan Press Computing series, Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, 1992.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    K.A. Mayo and H.R. Hartson, “Synthesis-oriented situational analysis in user interface design,” in Human-Computer Interaction, edited by L.E. Bass, J. Gornostaev, and C. Unger, LNCS, vol. 753, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, pp. 53–67, 1993.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    I. Benbasat and P. Todd, “An Experimental investigation of interface design alternatives: Icons vs. text and direct manipulation vs. menus,” Intl. J. Man-Machine Studies, vol. 38, pp. 369–402, 1993.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    T.L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, MacGraw Hill: New York, 1988.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    J. Nielsen, Usability Engineering, Academic Press: New York, 1993.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    D. Browne, P. Totterdell, and M. Norman, Adaptive User Interface, Academic Press: London, 1990.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    M. Debevc, D. Donlagic, R. Svecko, S. Spasovski, and B.Meyer, “Flexible user support with adaptive bar,” in Proc. of Intl. Conf. on Human Computer Interaction EWHCI' 94, St. Petersburg, vol. 1, 1994, pp. 129–134.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    E. Kantorowitz and O. Sudarsky, “The adaptable user interface,” Comm. of the ACM, vol. 32, pp. 1352–1358, 1989.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    U. Malinowski, T. Kuhme, M. Schneider-Hufschmidt, and H. Dieterich, “Adaptive user interfaces,” in IntelligentWorkstations for Professionals, edited by A.H. Rubenstein and H. Schwartzel, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, pp. 268–278, 1992.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    A.F. Norcio and J. Stanley, “Adaptive human computer interfaces: A literature survey and perspective,” IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 399–408, 1989.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    M. Schneider-Hufschmidt, T.Kuhme, and U. Malinowski, Adaptive User Interfaces: Principles and practice, Elsevier Science Publisher: Amsterdam, 1993.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    P. Brusilovsky, “Adaptive hypermedia: The state of the art,” in Proc. of Intl. Conf. Multimedia, Hypermedia and Virtual Reality, Moscow, 1993, pp. 24–29.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    R.D. Hill and M. Herrmann, “The composite object user interface architecture,” in User Interface Management and Design, edited by D.A. Duce, M.R. Gomes, F.R.A. Hopgood, and J.R. Lee, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 257–271, 1990.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    H.A. Simon, The Science of Artificial, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1969.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    A. Newell and H.A. Simon, Human Problem Solving, Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1972.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    N.J. Nilsson, Problem Solving Methods in Artificial Intelligence, MacGraw-Hill Book Company: New York, 1971.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    L.M. Applegate, B.R. Konsynski, and J.F. Nunamaker, “Model management systems: Designs for decision support,” Decision Support Systems, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 81–91, 1986.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    D.R. Dolk and B.R. Konsynski, “Knowledge representation for model management systems,” IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 619–628, 1984.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    D. Grosh and R. Agarwal, “Model selection and sequencing in decision support systems,”OMEGA, vol. 2, no. 2/3, pp. 157–167, 1991.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    W.A. Muhanna and R.A. Pick, “Meta-modeling concepts and tools for model management:Asystem approach,” Management Science, vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 1093–1123, 1994.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    K. Erol, J. Hendler, and D. Nau, “Complexity results for HTN planning,” Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 18, pp. 69–93, 1996.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    M.Sh. Levin, “Hierarchical components of human-computer systems,” in Human-Computer Interaction, edited by L.E. Bass, J. Gornostaev, and C. Unger, LNCS, vol. 753, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, pp. 37–52, 1993.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    R.L. Keeney and H. Raiffa, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, J. Wiley & Sons: New York, ]1976.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    B. Stilman, “Network languages for complex systems,” Intl. J. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 51–79, 1993.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    T.J. Teorey and J.P. Fry, Design of Database Structures, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1982.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    G.S. Altshuller, Creativity as Exact Science. The Theory of the Solution of Inventive Problems, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers: London, 1984.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    D.A. Norman, “Four stages of user activity,” in Human-Computer Interaction INTERACT' 84, edited by B. Shackel, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. North Holland: New York/ Amsterdam, 1985, pp. 507–511.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    A. Dix, “Information processing, context and privacy,” in Human-Computer Interaction INTERACT' 90, edited by D. Diaper, Elsevier Publishers B.V. North Holland: New York/ Amsterdam, 1990, pp. 15–20.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    W.B. Rouse, “A note on the nature of creativity in engineering: Implications for supporting system design,” Information Processing & Management, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 279–285, 1986.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    C. Hales, “Designer as chameleon,” Design Studies, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 111–114, 1985.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    D.V. Morse and C. Hendrickson, “Acommunication model to aid knowledge-based systems,” AI EDAM, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 99–115, 1990.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    N. Cross, “Styles of learning, designing and computing,” Design Studies, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 157–162, 1985.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    H. Marmolin and Y. Sundblad, “An analysis of design and collaboration in a distributed environment,” in Proc. of the Second European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, edited by L. Bannon, M. Robinson, and K. Schmidt, Kluwer: Amsterdam, 1991.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    W.B. Rouse, J.A. Cannon-Bowers, and E. Salas, “The role of mental models in team performance in complex systems,” IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 1296–1308, 1992.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    J. Piaget, Biology and Knowledge, The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1971.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    H. Gardner, Creating Minds: An Anatomy of Creativity, Basic Books, New York, 1993.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    A. Kobsa and W. Wahlster (eds.), User Models in Dialog Systems, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1989.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    J. Fedorovicz and G.B. Williams, “Representing modeling knowledge in an intelligent decision support system,” Decision Support Systems, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 3–14, 1986.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    T.-P. Liang, “Development of a knowledge-based model management system,” Operations Research, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 849–863, 1988.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    T.A. Gavrilova and E.V. Zudilova, “Conceptual design of interfaces for knowledge acquisition systems,” Engineering Cybernetics, no. 2, pp. 3–11, 1994 (in Russian).Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    F.W. Rook and J.W. Croghan, “The knowledge acquisition activity matrix: A systems engineering conceptual framework,” IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 586–597, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Sh. Levin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringThe Ben-Gurion University of the NegevBeer ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations