Design of computerized system contributed to the death of ten USN sailors

On 21 August 2017 the US Navy destroyer John S McCain collided with a civilian tanker near Singapore, resulting in the deaths of ten US sailors, and $100M in damage. The US National Transportation Safety Board report found the probable cause of the collision was "... a lack of effective operational oversight of the destroyer by the US Navy ...". However, also contributing to the accident was the computerized steering system: "Also contributing to the accident was the operation of the steering system in backup manual mode, which allowed for an unintentional, unilateral transfer of steering control.". This would be a useful report for students of safety critical systems to study.

John S McCain Bridge Control Station.
Drawing from IBNS technical manual;
color added by NTSB. Figure 4 of
NTSB/MAR-19/01 PB2019-100970.

The destroyer was equipped with bridge control stations with flat-panel touch screens, and a graphical user interface (GUI), in additional to a conventional steering wheel. The stations had an "emergency override to manual" function activated by what the crew referred to as the "big red button". This was intended to provide manual control in the event of a computer malfunction, and the designers no doubt thought it was foolproof: press the red button and steer the ship with the wheel.

However, as the NTSB detailed, the crew unintentionally
transferred control of steering from one station to another, but interpreted this as a failure of steering. This confusion may have been because the crew were uncomfortable with the automated mode of the system, and preferred to use the backup manual mode. However the backup mode was not intended for normal use, and allowed the control to be transferred without the operator noticing.

The  NTSB recommended crew being instructed to only operate the system in manual mode during an emergency. However, the underlying problem appears to be that the crew did not trust the automated system. This would require training the crew so they felt they could rely on the system, or to redesign the system to provide more intuitive feedback. Part of the intuitive feedback, I suggest, could be via manual controls.

The Bridge Control Stations have a ship's wheel, but this is an input only device, and there are no physical engine throttles, just a GUI display. One way aircraft cockpit interfaces display the operation of the autopilot is by physically moving the throttle levers. Similarly, in aircraft with a control yoke  the control moves in response to auto-pilot commands, and also provides tactile and visual feedback of the control responses put in by the co-pilot. The autopilot can be overridden simply by moving the yoke. If implemented on the ships bridge control, this would provide intuitive feedback as to who is in control, and an intuitive way to take control. The operator would be able to see, and feel, inputs through the wheel and throttles. If they wanted to override the automated system, or another operator, they just need to move the controls.

Some modern aircraft lack the visual and tactile feedback in controls, particularly those using side-stick controllers, rather than a yoke. However, in aircraft pilots receive intensive training in the use of these systems, and are sitting close to each other in the cockpit, so are usually able to see and hear what each other are doing. Even so, conflicting inputs have lead to aircraft accidents.  On a ship the operators are much further apart, which makes coordination much more difficult.

Reference

Collision between US Navy Destroyer John S McCain and Tanker Alnic MC Singapore Strait, 5 Miles Northeast of Horsburgh Lighthouse
August 21, 2017, Marine Accident Report, National Transportation
Safety Board, NTSB/MAR-19/01 PB2019-100970, Notation 58325
Adopted June 19, 2019 URL https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6243999/MAR1901.pdf

Problems with IEEE Website Has Me Reconsidering Membership

I have been a member of the IEEE Computer Society for 34 years, but problems with renewing online this year make me wonder if it is an organization I want to be associated with.

When I tried to renew I got:

"Bad Request

Your browser sent a request that this server
could not understand. Size of a request header
field exceeds server limit."

The IEEE support center suggested:

"... delete all the cache and cookies and refresh the browser and then access your IEEE account. Please use latest version of Google Chrome to access your IEEE account and the website works well on Chrome.".

That worked, but shouldn't the website work with other browsers?

On my next attempt in Chrome, I got further, but then some images are not appearing. Instead of images I get:

"White check mark on TEAL background"

From the context, I eventually worked out this must indicate "Yes", but that is what the ALT text should say. As it is the website doesn't conform to accessibility guidelines.

So I went to the IEEE feedback page to report the accessibility problem. I filled in the form, but then got the error message:

"⚠ Unsuccessful submission. Please enter the correct CAPTCHA value."

But there is no CAPTCHA image displayed on the page and no alternative provided.

The Unknown Unknowns of Computer Consulting

Andrea Parsons

Greetings from the Australian National University in Canberra, where computer consultant, Andrea Parsons is speaking to TechLauncher software engineering students on "The Unknown Unknowns of Computer Consulting". Andrea started with US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's famous quote: "... there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know ..." (US DoD Briefing, February 12, 2002).

Andrea undertakes engagements under a fixed price quotation. This starts with a scoping study to find the limits of the unknown unknowns. The quote includes an investigation and discovery step. The example given was of a new payroll system. The problem was, in essence, to get the client to understand how complex a problem this was.

Andrea emphasized the need to engage with stakeholders, avoiding "us" and "them". She pointed out the silliness of people sitting down the hall from each other, but communicating specifications by email.


What I found interesting about this is that many of the issues in software design are similar to those for educational design. In the courses MDDE 605: Planning and Management in Distance Education and MDDE 617 - Program Evaluation in DE, I had to plan a new educational initiative and in the latter prepare a quote for evaluation of an existing course. Presumably many other professions undertake these planning and estimation tasks.

Software Engineering Internship Requires E-Portfolio

The course Software Engineering Internship (COMP3820), offered by the ANU  Research School of Computer Science, requires students to reflect on their experience in an Internship Journal (e-Portfolio). This makes up 20% of their assessment, equal to the report by their Industry Supervisor. The students are intended to be able to demonstrate learning and professional development through mapped to Engineers Australia technical competencies. Accreditation by Engineers Australia, requires the equivalent of 12 weeks full-time work experience for each student. This course (COMP3820) satisfies the requirement and makes up one full time semester of study by the student.

The aim of this course is to use the internship experience to enable students to develop their software engineering skills and practice. Students will be placed in industry, working full-time and assessed for academic credit. The internships will be aligned with the aims of the software engineering program. Students will experience a real-life engineering workplace and understand how their software engineering and professional skills and knowledge can be utilised in industry. They will also be able to demonstrate functioning software engineering knowledge, both new and existing, and identify areas of further development for
From: Software Engineering Internship (COMP3820),Shayne Flint,  ANU  Research School of Computer Science, 2012

National Award for Engineering Excellence

Congratulations to Lynette JOHNS-BOAST and Shayne FLINT at ANU who received a High Commendation in the Australian Council of Engineering Deans National Awards for Engineering Education Excellence 2012 for their student software engineering group projects.

Improving Service Delivery with Research

Greetings from National ICT Australia (NICTA) in Canberra, where James Gibson has organized a asked workshop on “Inventing the Future of Service Driven Enterprises" with the Service Science Society. One point to be clarified is that the "services" being discussed here are those such as: climate services, green services, financial services, health services and water management services. Some of these will be delivered via a computer server, but most will involve personnel and equipment, not just a web based "service".

I did a quick search and could only find 11 formal research papers on "Service Driven Enterprise", out of the 54,000 documents on-line on the topic. In my postgraduate course "ICT Sustainability", I have one weekly module on "Enterprise Architecture".

The services which interest me are education and research supervision. As with many other services, these have been delivered as a craft based on techniques developed by trial and error and could benefit by a systematic analysis of what the customer wants and needs and how this could be effectively delivered.

In his presentation Mr Peter Alexander, brought up the issue of the role of innovation in government. This sparked an interesting discussion of the role of the public and private sectors. Peter mentioned the book "Fast Second: How Smart Companies Bypass Radical Innovation to Enter and Dominate New Markets" by Costas Markides at the LSE. Perhaps these techniques could be applied to the public service. The ACT Government is currently sponsoring "Innovation ACT" to teach university students how to take an idea and make it a product.

Workshop:Inventing the Future of Service Driven Enterprises

Date: Friday, August 31, 9:00am – 5:15pm ...

Canberra

Workshop Description

The Service Science Society invites you to a workshop where we argue that current difficulties in large IT and modernisation projects are not solvable with continuous improvement. A transformative approach is required, driven by a vision to invent the future, created through action, and informed by directed research. We present some fundamental architectural concepts which we believe will contribute to this transformation, and which differentiate it from previous failed attempts. To achieve the transformation we need impact through capability building and directed research to support the transition to Service Driven Enterprises. The approach extends to the design and building of custom cloud execution engines, tools and methods. This requires a different business model and research approach than generally used in Australia. Finally, we argue that this change is coming, and a panel considers how we can act now in order to place Australia at the forefront of enabling Service Driven Enterprises.

Agenda

• 9:00am – 9:15am Introduction - Prof Aditya Ghose, University of Wollongong
• 9:15am – 9:45pm Necessity for major change - Prof Aditya Ghose, University of Wollongong
• 9:45am – 10:15am Challenges in Delivery of Government Products and Services – Mr Peter Alexander, Treasury
• 10:15am – 10:45am What Desirable Characteristics do we look for - Bridging the Creativity to Engineering Gap – Mr Chris Thorne, ATO
• 10:45am – 11:15am Morning Tea (provided)
• 11:15am – 11:45am What Desirable Characteristics do we look for - Enterprise Architecture - where are we now? - Dr Saul Caganoff - Sixtree
• 12:45pm – 12:30pm Inventing the Service Driven Enterprise - Transformative Change Needed - Mr James Gibson*, ANU
• 12:30pm – 1:10pm Lunch (provided)
• 1:10pm – 2:10pm Discussion Session: Understanding the Service Driven Enterprise What is an SDE and what’s needed to build it? - Dr Liam O'Brien*
• 2:10pm – 2:40pm Building Service Driven Enterprise Capability - Building the capability for timely innovation, engineering and capability development to support SDE client transitions - Dr Clive Boughton*, Software Improvements
• 2:40pm – 3:10pm The Business Case for Change - Mr Pascal Rabbath, S-3 Consulting
• 3:10pm – 3:40pm Services Research and Direction at CSIRO - Dr Darrell Williamson, CSIRO
• 3:40pm – 4:00pm Afternoon Tea (provided)
• 4:00pm – 5:10pm Panel - Achieving the Future - What practical actions should we take? What are the next steps? Chair: Dr Mike Sargent, M.A.Sargent & Associates Panellists: TBD (representatives from government, industry and academia)
• 5:10pm – 5:15pm Workshop Wrap-up and Close - Prof Aditya Ghose, University of Wollongong

Registration Required

Service Driven Enterprises

James Gibson asked me to pass on an invitation from the Service Science Society to their workshop “Inventing the Future of Service Driven Enterprises in Canberra 31 August 2012.

Workshop:Inventing the Future of Service Driven Enterprises

Date: Friday, August 31, 9:00am – 5:15pm ...

Canberra

Workshop Description

The Service Science Society invites you to a workshop where we argue that current difficulties in large IT and modernisation projects are not solvable with continuous improvement. A transformative approach is required, driven by a vision to invent the future, created through action, and informed by directed research. We present some fundamental architectural concepts which we believe will contribute to this transformation, and which differentiate it from previous failed attempts. To achieve the transformation we need impact through capability building and directed research to support the transition to Service Driven Enterprises. The approach extends to the design and building of custom cloud execution engines, tools and methods. This requires a different business model and research approach than generally used in Australia. Finally, we argue that this change is coming, and a panel considers how we can act now in order to place Australia at the forefront of enabling Service Driven Enterprises.

Agenda

• 9:00am – 9:15am Introduction - Prof Aditya Ghose, University of Wollongong
• 9:15am – 9:45pm Necessity for major change - Prof Aditya Ghose, University of Wollongong
• 9:45am – 10:15am Challenges in Delivery of Government Products and Services – Mr Peter Alexander, Treasury
• 10:15am – 10:45am What Desirable Characteristics do we look for - Bridging the Creativity to Engineering Gap – Mr Chris Thorne, ATO
• 10:45am – 11:15am Morning Tea (provided)
• 11:15am – 11:45am What Desirable Characteristics do we look for - Enterprise Architecture - where are we now? - Dr Saul Caganoff - Sixtree
• 12:45pm – 12:30pm Inventing the Service Driven Enterprise - Transformative Change Needed - Mr James Gibson*, ANU
• 12:30pm – 1:10pm Lunch (provided)
• 1:10pm – 2:10pm Discussion Session: Understanding the Service Driven Enterprise What is an SDE and what’s needed to build it? - Dr Liam O'Brien*
• 2:10pm – 2:40pm Building Service Driven Enterprise Capability - Building the capability for timely innovation, engineering and capability development to support SDE client transitions - Dr Clive Boughton*, Software Improvements
• 2:40pm – 3:10pm The Business Case for Change - Mr Pascal Rabbath, S-3 Consulting
• 3:10pm – 3:40pm Services Research and Direction at CSIRO - Dr Darrell Williamson, CSIRO
• 3:40pm – 4:00pm Afternoon Tea (provided)
• 4:00pm – 5:10pm Panel - Achieving the Future - What practical actions should we take? What are the next steps? Chair: Dr Mike Sargent, M.A.Sargent & Associates Panellists: TBD (representatives from government, industry and academia)
• 5:10pm – 5:15pm Workshop Wrap-up and Close - Prof Aditya Ghose, University of Wollongong

Registration Required

Big Picture Display Screen for Knowledge Workers

This is to suggest that the "Big Picture" concept for fighter jet cockpit displays be applied to the desks of knowledge workers and students. Instead of a cumbersome arrangement of multiple screens, there would be one large flat panel display the width of the desk and extending up to, or above, the height of the seated operator. In an open plan office cubicle, the display screen would cover the entire panel above the desk. In a learning commons the screens would be wall mounted just above desk height and could be used for a group presentation or by an individual, using different furniture configurations. In an large one person office, or an office shared by a small team, the screens could be used by individuals and for small group presentations.

Big Picture Cockpit

During the 1980s fighter aircraft cockpits evolved from having individual analogue gauges, to a number of multifunction computer displays. Chief Cockpit Designer for McDonnell Douglas, Eugene Adam, then proposed a "Big Picture" display, with just one large display screen taking up the whole panel in front of the pilot (Tactical cockpits-the coming revolution, 1991). This concept is only now being implemented in the latest generation aircraft, with the availability of suitable screens and the need to display more information. I suggest the same approach be applied on the desktop for knowledge workers.

Big Picture for Software Development

Last week I suggested converting the computer labs at the ANU Research School of Computer Science into a Learning Commons on the ground floor of the Computer Science and Information Technology Building (CSIT) at the Australian National University. This would require removing the desktop computers so the fixed benches they are on could be replaced with more flexible furniture. My colleagues pointed out that the students would then have to reply on laptops and tablet computers, which may be good for general education but do not have a screen big enough for serious software development.

The common practice is to provide software developers, and other knowledge workers, with one or more large LCD displays. When I visited Google Sydney in 2009, I noticed the technical staff had 30 inch monitors. This is about as large as a single monitor can be and still comfortable for the average person to use.

The 30 inch display is the largest monitor Barco sell for Air Traffic Control (ATC) systems. ATC previously used larger CRT displays, but the smaller screens have better ergonomics.

A common set-up today is three monitors for a larger wrap-around console, but the width is still limited. See drawing 27, "Classic Consoles for Man and Woman" in "The Measure of Man and Woman: Human Factors in Design" by Alvin R . Tilley of Henry Dreyfuss Associates (Wiley, 2001). These are not technical limits of the display technology, but of the human body. There is no point in making a screen which is so big the user can't see the edges of it, nor can the screen be so large it makes the user feel uncomfortable.

Some very specialized set-ups have more LCD screens above the row at desk height, starting with an extra one in the centre. This might be used for a financial trader's desk, or the operator of an industrial plant or a military system. However this arrangement is cumbersome for an ordinary office.

Virtual Wrap-around for the Big Picture

One option would be to make use of the large LCD panels now being made for digital TV. The current "sweet spot", for low mass production prices, is around 50 inches, with these now available for under $1,000. Current LCD LED TVs are mostly designed for 1080p video mode, with a screen resolution of 1920 × 1080 pixels, but 4320p Ultra High Definition Television (UHDTV) would use 7680 × 4320 pixels.

Normally a large flat screen would not be considered suitable for a user to sit at, as the outer edges of the screen would be hard to see, which is why a wrap-around console with the two outer panels angled in is normally used. However, the outer edges of the image on the large screen could be modified to emulate a wrap around console. In this mode the central portion of the screen would display normally, but anything toward the edges would be enlarged for easier viewing. This would give a slightly immersive effect (which could be enhanced with 3D glasses).

A 50 inch, or larger, screen would be difficult to simply stand on a desk. However, the screen could be mounted on a wall, or partition, just above desk height. A 5o Inch diagonal screen, with a bezel, is about 1m wide, which would provide a suitable separation for operator stations where space is a premium, such as a learning commons, trading room or military operations centre.

A 50 inch or larger screen could also be used for a presentation to a small group, which is not something which can be done as well on a wrap-around, faceted display. In the learning commons, the walls could be equipped with screens just above desk height. These could be used for small group work, with the participants seated at a board-room table, or standing. A smaller table could be used at the same screen for individual work.

No special hardware would be required to drive the screens. The students could use software with their laptops for group activities on the wall screens.

Managing the complexity of Open Source Software

Dr. Pietro Abate, Université Paris Diderot / Irill - INRIA, will speak on "Managing the complexity of component based systems" at the Australian National University in Canberra, 3:30pm, 10 January 2012.

Managing the complexity of component based systems

Dr. Pietro Abate (UniversitA Paris Diderot / Irill - INRIA )

COMPUTER SCIENCE SEMINAR

DATE: 2012-01-10
TIME: 15:30:00 - 16:30:00
LOCATION: RSISE Seminar Room, ground floor, building 115, cnr. North and Daley Roads, ANU ...

ABSTRACT:
Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) distributions are rather peculiar instances of component-based software platforms. They are developed rapidly and without tight central coordination, they are huge (tens to thousands components per platform), and their importance in the Internet computing infrastructure is growing.

Both the construction of a coherent collection of components and the maintenance of installations based on these raise difficult problems for distribution maintainers and system administrators. Distributions evolve rapidly by releasing new component versions and strive for increasingly high Quality Assurance (QA) requirements on their component collections. System upgrades may proceed on different paths depending on the current state of the system and the available components, and system administrators are faced with difficult choices of upgrade paths and with frequent upgrade failures.

The now concluded project MANCOOSI (Managing the Complexity of the Open Source Infrastructure) aims to solve some of these problems. I will describe current and past work done in the context of MANCOOSI and some future directions.
BIO:
I received my Ph.D. in Computer Science from the Australian National University (ANU) in 2006 focusing theoretical computer science. During my Ph.D. I developed the Tableau WorkBench, a generic theorem prover that is both easy to use and flexible accepting specification in different formats. The TWB has been used to experiment with a number of modal logics and in particular with fix-point logics.

In the last 5 years I've been involved with two academic research projects, Cduce and Mancoosi founded by European community. Recently I have joined the center for research and innovation on Free Software (irill). I'm a strong supporter of the Debian project (despite I never officially joined it ).

My current academic interests are software engineering, theorem proving, functional programming, modal logic. My focus at the moment is on open source and in particular in relation to quality assurance aspects of software distribution and component based system.

Software through Iteration

Greetings from the Australian National University where Steven Fraser, Head of Cisco Research is speaking on "Best Practices: Tales of Adoption and Agility through Iteration". He is starting back in the early days of software engineering with the first NATO Software Engineering Conference and Fred Brooks.

The seminar is taking place in the Computer Science and IT Common Room. This is a curious room with two doors: one marked CS Staff Room and the other CSIRO Staff Room, but leading into the same shared room.

Steven discussed ways to encourage the adoption if best practice in software development. Curiously, given that he was talking at a unviersity, he did not mention the role of education. He then went on to discuss CISCO's work with universities on research. CISCO has $5M for "gifts" to researchers, typically for small projects with a couple of students (4% currently goes to Austrlaian projects). CISCO issues RFP-Based Research Proposals. I noticed there is an RFP for "Green" including "Business Sustainability in the Context of Energy Efficiency: organizational and business aspects of energy conservation and sustainability".

Software "Best" Practices: Tales of Adoption and Agility through Iteration

Steven Fraser (Cisco Research Center)

COMPUTER SCIENCE SEMINAR

DATE: 2010-11-30
TIME: 16:00:00 - 17:30:00
LOCATION: CSIT Common Room, Level 2, CSIT Building
CONTACT: Elisa.Baniassad@anu.edu.au

ABSTRACT:
Software "best" practices have been increasingly embraced through a mix of enthusiast passion and practical need. Agile practices no longer have the luxury of "choosing" small non-mission-critical projects with co-located teams as first suggested by early practitioners. This talk will outline a variety of "best" practices and processes to share observations on approaches and adoption.

Steven will also address "Collaboration Opportunities with Cisco"

Note that "afternoon tea" (inc. wine, beer and nibbles) will be provided.

BIO:
Steven Fraser is the Director of the Cisco Research Center (http://www.cisco.com/research) in San Jose California with responsibilities for developing university research collaborations and facilitating technology transfer between researchers and Cisco Business Units. Previously, Steven was a member of Qualcomm's Learning Center in San Diego, California enabling technical learning and development in software engineering best practices. Steven held a variety of technology roles at Bell-Northern Research and Nortel including Process Architect, Senior Manager (Global External Research), and Design Process Advisor. In 1994, he was a Visiting Scientist at the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) collaborating on the development of team-based domain analysis (software reuse) techniques. Fraser was the XP2006 General Chair, the Corporate Support Chair for OOPSLA'07 and OOPSLA'08, Tutorial Chair for both XP2008 and ICSE 2009 and co-Publicity Chair for XP2010. With a doctorate in Electrical Engineering from McGill University in Montreal, Fraser is a member of the ACM, a senior member of the IEEE, and a frequent impresario of conference panels and special events. (For Steven's publications, see http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/%7Eley/db/indices/a-tree/f/Fraser:Steven.html)

Y2K10 Bugs

There appear to have been several software errors become apparent with the handling of dates in the year 2010. These include ATMs, Smart Phones and anti-spam software. Given that it is ten years since the Y2K bug was supposed to hit and there have been several retrospective stores saying how it was a non event, this is somewhat ironic.

SMS messages from smart phones running some versions of Microsoft Windows Mobile operating system are reported to be displaying 2010 dates as 2016 (being called the Y2K10, Y2K16, Y2010, Y2016 or Y2016K bug). The likely cause seems to be a decimal number being interpreted as hexadecimal. SMS dates are recorded as only the last two digits of the year (thus "10" for "2010") but that is not the cause of the problem.

It has been reported that Bank of Queensland’s Eftpos terminals were treating 2010 as 2016. This may be due to the same bug as for the smart phones, as the Microsoft Windows CE Operating System is used on devices such as EFTpos machines. machines and shares some code with Windows Mobile.

The Apache SpamAssassin Project reported a Y2K10 Rule Bug, which would will trigger on most mail dated 2010, or later.

Bug fixes are likely to be quickly available for all these problems. But in the case of embedded code in smart phones and EFTpos machines, this may require manual installation.

SPICE Learning Management System

Greeting from the ANU Software Engineering Showcase. Teams of third and fourth year students are showing off their projects. One of these is the SPICE Learning Management System. This uses Moodle and LAMS to provide a system to assist volunteer teachers in Canberra. The most interesting part of this is that normally the students write software. In this case they decided the original idea of custom software on a bootable flash drive was not a good one and configured an Internet connected web based learning manageemnt system instead. This was a good decision. I have been invvled in sevceral court cases as an expert witness where a system development team did not stop, question what they were doing and choose another path.

One aspect the students do not appear to have realised is that they can still provide paper based materials from the Moodle system.

Software Engineering Showcase

The School of Computer Science, ANU, will hold a
Software Engineering Showcase, 26 October 2009
12.00 - 2.00pm. This will display some solutions to software engineering problems.

Invitation

Software Engineering Showcase
Monday 26 October 2009
12.00 - 2.00pm
The Australian National University
Ian Ross Building 31, North Road Map Ref
Seminar Room (R214)
Includes refreshments from 1.00pm

You and your colleagues are invited to attend the Software Engineering Students Showcase hosted by the School of Computer Science, ANU.

Our students collaborated with several Canberra businesses to find creative solutions to some of the software engineering problems that the public and private sectors encounter.

The event is an excellent opportunity to meet our students and staff, and for you and your colleagues to find out more about our software engineering degree, and how the theory students learn is being put into practice in the real world.

Refreshments will be served.
RSVPs are essential: margaret.donnelly@anu.edu.au
by Friday 23 October 2009.

Enquiries:

------------------
PROGRAM

12.15pm Welcome

12.20-1.00pm Student Presentations

1.00pm Refreshments and tour of projects

1.45pm Close

Whole System Design: An Integrated Approach to Sustainable Engineering

After is seminar on "Advances in Climate Change Mitigation", Michael Smith handed me a copy of his new book "Whole System Design: An Integrated Approach to Sustainable Engineering" (Earthscan, 2009) to review. This is intended as a textbook for a course on how engineers can approach creating more sustainable systems by taking a broader approach. There is accompanying online material. However, this broad approach has its problems when narrow specialities are involved. I only felt qualified to look at one chapter of the book on "Electronics and Computer Systems". This is a good worked example of how to optimise energy savings in a system. However, the rest of the book will not be of much interest to ICT people. Of more use to specialists than the book are the online versions of the material.

The book may be of value to those undertaking cross disciplinary studies, such as in Au course "Unravelling Complexity" UGRD3001.

Australian Robot Software Wins Award

A team of students Australian National University have won the AIIA 2009 iAward in the Tertiary Student Category for their Linux Robotics Framework. This can be used to develop low cost robots for everything from vacuum cleaners to bomb disposal.

The team's demonstration robot is called Buzz , controlled by a NGW100 network gateway low-powered development board with a Atmel AVR32 processor. This could allow for the development of disposable military robots. Currently each military robot used by the US DoD and the Australian Department of Defence costs more than $100,000.

The Linux Robotics Framework ... can be used to develop robotic systems of varying levels of professionalism. It streamlines the development process for hobbyists and commercial developers alike. The LRF allows for the development of robotics applications on small low-cost system architectures with specific focus on support for the Atmel AVR32 microprocessor. It does this by providing a collection of component modules comprising a reusable and extensible robotics framework. The framework includes interface definitions and the implementation of specific drivers and libraries. The framework is extensible, providing a mechanism for adding new hardware and software drivers.

From: Linux Robotics Framework, ANU Linux Robotics Framework Team, 2009

As noted in Bomb Squad Diary (Glenn Zorpette, IEEE Spectrum, October 2008), the threat from Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) is changing rapidly and equipment needs to be constantly modified to adapt to the changes in the tatitics and techniques of the bomb makers. Being able to rapidly modify the software and the hardware of the robots would be an advantage.

Engineers for the Future

The Australian Council of Engineering Deans released a report "Engineers for the Future - Addressing the Supply and Quality of Engineering Graduates for the new Century" in March 2008. The report provides an analysis of problems with engineering education in Australia and recommendations for improvement.

Unfortunately the publishers did such a poor job of engineering the electronic version of the document that almost no one seems to have noticed it existed. Apart from rendering nugatory the fine work by many people preparing the report, this does not indicate that the universities involved understand the e-literacy techniques which will be needed to educate engineers.

The document was put online with a creative commons licence, so it could be freely distributed. But as it is in a poorly formatted PDF document, it is difficult for anyone to find or read. Even after I was alerted to the existence of the document it took me several minutes to find a copy of it. Instead what I found were numerous media releases from Universities about their staff attending the launch of the document. None of these bothered to provide a link to the actual document. It appears that the priority for these universities is to pander to the egos of their senior administrators, rather than to promote engineering.

The Recommendations for Action in the report were grouped as:

1. the public perception of engineering
2. the engineering occupational levels and graduate outcome standards
3. implementing best-practice engineering education
4. resources for engineering education
5. engagement with industry
6. address shortages by increasing diversity in engineering workplaces supported by engineering education programs

Unfortunately due to the poor formatting of the report I was not able to extract an easy to understand of the recommendations. However, here is the executive summary:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Engineers conceive, create and maintain physical and information-based products, processes, systems and assets that satisfy human and economic needs, and have minimal environmental and negative human impacts. Engineering is critical to Australia’s economy, security, health and environment, is increasingly complex and multidisciplinary, and is practised diversely, in business, government and educational
enterprises. Engineering is a key component of the nation’s innovation system.

Australia’s higher education sector provides entry-level education to professional engineers, engineering technologists and engineering officers, as well as advanced level education and engineering research. The engineering education system, involving educators, professional bodies and employers, enjoys good international standing. The system has continuously responded to changes in engineering practice
brought about by new scientific and technological knowledge, and to changing economic and regulatory forces.

This report examines the current state of the higher education component of the Australian engineering education system, with respect to its ability to address future needs, contextualised by assessing the implementation of outcomes of the 1996 Review of Engineering, Changing the Culture. Recommended changes to the engineering program accreditation process are judged to have been successful in driving greater emphasis on generic graduate attributes in first-degree engineering programs. The Review also stimulated improvements in curriculum design and delivery, including project, problem, and workplace-based learning, and increased emphasis on sustainability. The present study has also identified substantial and
emerging strengths of many of Australia’s engineering schools in the areas of research, international education, and in addressing industry-specific skills shortages though both undergraduate and postgraduate programs.

Undertaken at this time of high demand for engineers, this scoping project identifies critical issues such as the continuing reduction in the size of the pool of Australian school students who are studying the requisite high levels of mathematics and science, and the low participation of women in university engineering programs. The study reports concerns about the educational capacity and robustness of the engineering education system with respect to its ability to graduate increased numbers of engineers
with the qualities that are required. The six recommendations aim to ensure that the system can meet society’s future needs for engineers, through actions that will:

• increase the public understanding of engineering and the work of engineers, particularly in schools;
• clarify educational outcomes and standards required for practice at all internationally recognised levels of engineering;
• develop best-practice engineering education to ensure the required outcomes and reduce attrition;
• attract a higher proportion of women and other under-represented groups;
• increase staffing and material resources for delivery of high quality engineering education; and
• promote stronger collaborative links with industry.

Action leaders, stakeholders, and performance measures and indicators are identified to ensure effective implementation of each recommendation.

From: "Engineers for the Future - Addressing the Supply and Quality of Engineering Graduates for the new Century", Australian Council of Engineering Deans, March 2008

Putting Humanity Back into Software Engineering

Dr. Elisa Baniassad, from Chinese University of Hong Kong, gave a seminar today on "The Human Side of Artefacts" at the Department of Computer Science, Australian National University, in Canberra. She discussed research on how software developers actually use Object Orientated tools in practice, and how this differed from expectations. She then discussed new paradigms from outside the western reductionist approach usually used by software developers.

This discussion reminded me of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values" which was written by a some time software document writer. In this book Robert M. Pirsig discusses the different ways disciplines approach problems and the origins of this in Western philosophy.

Dr. Baniassad's approach of looking at the human aspects of software development and not just treating code as something for a machine to consume is a useful one. Looking at what real programmers actually do, rather than what experts clam is very useful.

However, I suggest that the analysis could usefully be expanded beyond the point of view of the particularly narrow point of view of Object Orientated Programming. Other areas of the ICT discipline have looked at other ways to develop systems and other disciplines have before computer science existed.

Some years ago I enrolled in a foundation unit for graphic designers and architects. I found that my computing and scientific training meant that I was unable to communicate with the staff and students in design. While we used many of the same words, we seemed to use them differently.

Software Engineers need to keep in mind that all the world's problems can't be solved by software engineering (or by engineering more generally). As an example, engineers do not architect buildings, architects do. The design of a building is a collaboration between many different disciplines, using different tools and different points of view. The process is not a smooth one, with frequent conflicts. In the same way those designing software should not assume that one techniques from one discipline can be used for doing everything and that they need to collaborate and learn from others.

ps: Dr. Baniassad co-authored "Aspect-Oriented Analysis and Design: The Theme Approach" with Siobhán Clarke.

Simplified Robotics Framework for Bomb Disposal

A team of students at the ANU have developed a Linux Robotics Framework to simplify development of robotics applications. This should be particularly useful for bomb disposal robots, where the requirement change rapidly due to changes in the threat.

As noted in Bomb Squad Diary (Glenn Zorpette, IEEE Spectrum, October 2008), the threat from Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) is changing rapidly and equipment needs to be constantly modified to adapt to the changes in the tatitics and techniques of the bomb makers. Being able to rapidly modify the software and the hardware of the robots would be an advantage.

The team's demonstration robot is called Buzz , controlled by a NGW100 network gateway low-powered development board with a Atmel AVR32 processor. This could allow for the development of disposable military robots. Currently each military robot used by the US DoD and the Australian Department of Defence costs more than $100,000.

Thinking Systems Thinking

Shayne Flint will give a free seminar on "Rethinking Systems Thinking", at the ANU in Canberra, 9 October 2008:

DCS SEMINAR SERIES

Rethinking Systems Thinking
Shayne Flint (DCS, ANU)

DATE: 2008-10-09
TIME: 16:00:00 - 17:00:00
LOCATION: CSIT Seminar Room, N101, Computer Science and Information Technology Building, Australian National University

ABSTRACT:
Systems Thinking refers to a set of approaches that can be used to learn about and make decisions regarding improvements to dynamically complex systems. They are distinguished from other approaches by their focus on the whole and the study of interactions among the parts of a system, rather than the parts themselves. While focusing on interactions helps us understand complex systems and identify appropriate improvements, it is necessary to use detailed knowledge of the parts and other aspects of a system to implement any improvements.

This paper addresses this issue by introducing a novel Systems Thinking approach which uses detailed knowledge of the parts to both understand the whole, and to build the systems required to implement necessary improvements.

BIO:
Shayne Flint is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Computer Science, Australian National University, and is an active member of the department's Software-Intensive Systems Engineering group. Dr. Flint has broad industry experience and is the originator of Aspect-Oriented Thinking, a systematic approach to developing, managing and integrating the multi-disciplinary knowledge and expertise required to understand and improve complex systems.

From: Rethinking Systems Thinking, CECS Seminar List, ANU, 2008 (hypertext links added)

Australian Digital Theses Program

Title: Aspect-Oriented Thinking - An approach to bridging the disciplinary divides

Author: Flint, Shayne
Institution: The Australian National University

Date: 2006

Abstract

Engineering is often described as the application of scientific and technical knowledge to solve problems. In this thesis, I support a more general view that engineering should be treated as a continuous process of learning and action that aims to make well understood improvements within dynamically complex environments of co-evolving social, man-made and natural systems. I argue that this can only be achieved by adopting an approach that systematically develops, manages and integrates the knowledge and expertise of many disciplines to conceive, develop, modify, operate and retire systems. A novel implementation of such an approach, called Aspect-Oriented Thinking, is presented.

Aspect-Oriented Thinking begins with the development and verification of a set of domain Models. Each Domain Model represents knowledge about a separate, autonomous and possibly discipline specific concern or view within a given context. Domain models are developed by engineers, scientists, sociologists, psychologists, lawyers, philosophers, economists and others, using languages and techniques with which they are familiar. Knowledge captured in a set of Domain Models is then woven together, in accordance with a set of separately developed patterns and rules, to construct, modify, operate and retire systems, including models, hardware, software, processes and simulations. This is a continuous process which, in the first instance, involves those systems used to learn about a given context and to make decisions regarding required changes. Later, the process involves those systems used to implement and evaluate the impact of these decisions.

The significance of Aspect-Oriented Thinking lies in its broad applicability to any situation in which the expertise and knowledge of diverse disciplines is required to understand and make improvements within complex multifaceted environments such as those that involve sustainable development and national security.

A proof-of-concept within the context of software engineering is provided to demonstrate the mechanics and viability of Aspect-Oriented Thinking. The results of this demonstration are used to support an argument for future experimentation aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of Aspect-Oriented Thinking in a more general interdisciplinary environment.

01front.pdf 171.0 Kb
02whole.pdf 1686.6 Kb

From: Aspect-Oriented Thinking - An approach to bridging the disciplinary divides, Australian Digital Theses Program, ANU

Free Stanford University Engineering Courses Online

Stanford University has followed the example of MIT, by providing some course materials freely available online under the banner "Stanford Engineering Everywhere". Stanford are using a Creative Commons license, allowing reuse and modification of the material. This material could be of use to those preparing courses elsewhere or wanting to self study. However, like MIT's material, these are not e-learning courses and assessment is not included. The materials are essentially the lecture notes and videos of lectures from the on campus course. Those who have seem properly designed distance education and e-learning materials will be very disappointed in the poor quality of the Stanford material. But it need to be kept in mind that Stanford is not attempting e-learning.

For the first time in its history, Stanford is offering some of its most popular engineering classes free of charge to students and educators around the world. Stanford Engineering Everywhere (SEE) expands the Stanford experience to students and educators online. A computer and an Internet connection is all you need. View lecture videos, access reading lists and other course handouts, take quizzes and tests, and communicate with other SEE students, all at your convenience.

This fall, SEE launches its programming by offering one of Stanford’s most popular sequences: the three-course Introduction to Computer Science taken by the majority of Stanford’s undergraduates and seven more advanced courses in artificial intelligence and electrical engineering.

Stanford Engineering Everywhere offers:

• Anytime and anywhere access to complete lecture videos via streaming or downloaded media.
• Full course materials including syllabi, handouts, homework, and exams.
• Online social networking with fellow SEE students.
• Support for PCs, Macs and mobile computing devices.

From: Stanford Engineering Everywhere, Stanford University, 2008