Results for “Decision” — Page 2

NASA NTRS2024

Decision Space Modeling: Trade Space Ontology

As the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) works to develop a crewed Moon to Mars Architecture, it is dealing with a large decision space consisting of the overlay of human exploration architectures for both the Moon and for Mars. Efforts are underway to enable reasoning, analysis, and deliberation on this decision space. A critical first step is to develop a model of the decision space, which will then allow for various methods and techniques to be applied in support of the larger architecture decision-making process. The Trade Space Ontology consists of a set of terminologies and relations (an ontology) and a MagicDraw resource that enables documentation of decisions and alternatives. It also provides a means by which decisions and alternatives can be traced to other Systems Engineering artifacts. For documenting alternatives, the Trade Space Ontology adapts the Morphological Matrix methodology to The Systems Modeling Language (SysML) through a profile; custom diagrams are also implemented to simplify the profile's use. With the profile and custom diagrams, system architects can specify options for architecture attributes, as well as compatibility between them, in a compact visual format. While the approach shares similarities to a trade tree, the emphasis at this stage is less on enumerating specific combinations of options and instead on specifying the options and their compatibility. Enumeration of alternatives is performed by an external analysis that operates on an output file from a model constructed using the Trade Space Ontology. For decisions, the Trade Space Ontology provides a way to model generic precedence relationships as well as documenting inputs and outputs. These may include what alternatives, criteria, and rationale are understood to be relevant for each decision. Importantly, the decision-making side of the Trade Space Ontology is defined at a more general level, such that it can be adapted to the specific terms in use by projects and programs at NASA. However, this adaptability also means that less capability is provided ``out-of-the-box'' from installation. Currently the resource includes plugin functionality to enumerate paths through generic precedence relationships between decisions and to export these paths to a spreadsheet. Custom dependency stereotypes are included in the profile to indicate the cross-cutting relationships between the trade space and the architecture decisions, providing a means to map which parts of the trade space enumerate alternatives for a decision, and to identify how the output of a decision may modify the trade space through pruning or down-selection. While the motivating use case for this resource is in human exploration architectures, the broad applicability of the Morphological Matrix methodology indicates that the Trade Space Ontology should also be useful for other activities and tasks at the agency.

Trade Tree↗

NASA NTRS1996

Decision Making In A High-Tech World: Automation Bias and Countermeasures

Automated decision aids and decision support systems have become essential tools in many high-tech environments. In aviation, for example, flight management systems computers not only fly the aircraft, but also calculate fuel efficient paths, detect and diagnose system malfunctions and abnormalities, and recommend or carry out decisions. Air Traffic Controllers will soon be utilizing decision support tools to help them predict and detect potential conflicts and to generate clearances. Other fields as disparate as nuclear power plants and medical diagnostics are similarly becoming more and more automated. Ideally, the combination of human decision maker and automated decision aid should result in a high-performing team, maximizing the advantages of additional cognitive and observational power in the decision-making process. In reality, however, the presence of these aids often short-circuits the way that even very experienced decision makers have traditionally handled tasks and made decisions, and introduces opportunities for new decision heuristics and biases. Results of recent research investigating the use of automated aids have indicated the presence of automation bias, that is, errors made when decision makers rely on automated cues as a heuristic replacement for vigilant information seeking and processing. Automation commission errors, i.e., errors made when decision makers inappropriately follow an automated directive, or automation omission errors, i.e., errors made when humans fail to take action or notice a problem because an automated aid fails to inform them, can result from this tendency. Evidence of the tendency to make automation-related omission and commission errors has been found in pilot self reports, in studies using pilots in flight simulations, and in non-flight decision making contexts with student samples. Considerable research has found that increasing social accountability can successfully ameliorate a broad array of cognitive biases and resultant errors. To what extent these effects generalize to performance situations is not yet empirically established. The two studies to be presented represent concurrent efforts, with student and professional pilot samples, to determine the effects of accountability pressures on automation bias and on the verification of the accurate functioning of automated aids. Students (Experiment 1) and commercial pilots (Experiment 2) performed simulated flight tasks using automated aids. In both studies, participants who perceived themselves as accountable for their strategies of interaction with the automation were significantly more likely to verify its correctness, and committed significantly fewer automation-related errors than those who did not report this perception.

Mosier, Kathleen L.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Decision-Tree Formulation With Order-1 Lateral Execution

A compact symbolic formulation enables mapping of an arbitrarily complex decision tree of a certain type into a highly computationally efficient multidimensional software object. The type of decision trees to which this formulation applies is that known in the art as the Boolean class of balanced decision trees. Parallel lateral slices of an object created by means of this formulation can be executed in constant time considerably less time than would otherwise be required. Decision trees of various forms are incorporated into almost all large software systems. A decision tree is a way of hierarchically solving a problem, proceeding through a set of true/false responses to a conclusion. By definition, a decision tree has a tree-like structure, wherein each internal node denotes a test on an attribute, each branch from an internal node represents an outcome of a test, and leaf nodes represent classes or class distributions that, in turn represent possible conclusions. The drawback of decision trees is that execution of them can be computationally expensive (and, hence, time-consuming) because each non-leaf node must be examined to determine whether to progress deeper into a tree structure or to examine an alternative. The present formulation was conceived as an efficient means of representing a decision tree and executing it in as little time as possible. The formulation involves the use of a set of symbolic algorithms to transform a decision tree into a multi-dimensional object, the rank of which equals the number of lateral non-leaf nodes. The tree can then be executed in constant time by means of an order-one table lookup. The sequence of operations performed by the algorithms is summarized as follows: 1. Determination of whether the tree under consideration can be encoded by means of this formulation. 2. Extraction of decision variables. 3. Symbolic optimization of the decision tree to minimize its form. 4. Expansion and transformation of all nested conjunctive-disjunctive paths to a flattened conjunctive form composed only of equality checks when possible. If each reduced conjunctive form contains only equality checks and all of these forms use the same variables, then the decision tree can be reduced to an order-one operation through a table lookup. The speedup to order one is accomplished by distributing each decision variable over a surface of a multidimensional object by mapping the equality constant to an index

James, Mark↗

DOE OSTI2025

A Typology of Decision-Making Tasks for Visualization

Despite decision-making being a vital goal of data visualization, little work has been done to differentiate decision-making tasks within the field. While visualization task taxonomies and typologies exist, they often focus on more granular analytical tasks that are too low-level to describe large complex decisions, which can make it difficult to reason about and design decision-support tools. In this paper, we contribute a typology of decision-making tasks that were iteratively refined from a list of design goals distilled from a literature review. Our typology is concise and consists of only three tasks: CHOOSE, ACTIVATE, and CREATE. Although decision types originating in other disciplines exist, we provide definitions for these tasks that are suitable for the visualization community. Our proposed typology offers two benefits. First, the ability to compose and hierarchically organize the tasks enables flexible and clear descriptions of decisions with varying levels of complexities. Second, the typology encourages productive discourse between visualization designers and domain experts by abstracting the intricacies of data, thereby promoting clarity and rigorous analysis of decision-making processes. We demonstrate the benefits of our typology through four case studies, and present an evaluation of the typology from semi-structured interviews with experienced members of the visualization community who have contributed to developing or publishing decision support systems for domain experts. Our interviewees used our typology to delineate the decision-making processes supported by their systems, demonstrating its descriptive capacity and effectiveness. Finally, we present preliminary findings on the usefulness of our typology for visualization design.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

NASA NTRS2010

Conformance Testing: Measurement Decision Rules

The goal of a Quality Management System (QMS) as specified in ISO 9001 and AS9100 is to provide assurance to the customer that end products meet specifications. Measuring devices, often called measuring and test equipment (MTE), are used to provide the evidence of product conformity to specified requirements. Unfortunately, processes that employ MTE can become a weak link to the overall QMS if proper attention is not given to the measurement process design, capability, and implementation. Documented "decision rules" establish the requirements to ensure measurement processes provide the measurement data that supports the needs of the QMS. Measurement data are used to make the decisions that impact all areas of technology. Whether measurements support research, design, production, or maintenance, ensuring the data supports the decision is crucial. Measurement data quality can be critical to the resulting consequences of measurement-based decisions. Historically, most industries required simplistic, one-size-fits-all decision rules for measurements. One-size-fits-all rules in some cases are not rigorous enough to provide adequate measurement results, while in other cases are overly conservative and too costly to implement. Ideally, decision rules should be rigorous enough to match the criticality of the parameter being measured, while being flexible enough to be cost effective. The goal of a decision rule is to ensure that measurement processes provide data with a sufficient level of quality to support the decisions being made - no more, no less. This paper discusses the basic concepts of providing measurement-based evidence that end products meet specifications. Although relevant to all measurement-based conformance tests, the target audience is the MTE end-user, which is anyone using MTE other than calibration service providers. Topics include measurement fundamentals, the associated decision risks, verifying conformance to specifications, and basic measurement decisions rules.

Mimbs, Scott M.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Analysis of Airport Ground Delay Program Decisions Using Data Mining Techniques

Air traffic service providers have to make decisions regarding changes to air traffic flow in the event of major weather disturbances and traffic congestions to maintain safety of the system. The behavior of the air traffic management system will be more predictable if consistent decisions are made under similar traffic and weather conditions. Consistency of deciding on control action depends on the weather and traffic conditions as well as accuracy in predicting these conditions. Weather parameters (defined in terms of forecast and actual weather and traffic conditions) on different days can be used to categorize days into days with little decision consistency, days with moderate decision consistency and days with high decision consistency. Four years of traffic, weather and ground delay program decisions data at major airports in the United States are used in the analysis. This paper examines performance of different data mining methods in the three regions of decision consistency. Not surprisingly, data mining methods have the best performance in the region of most decision consistency and have the poorest performance in the region of little decision consistency. In applications where data mining methods have differing performance in differing regions, it would be more useful to characterize the region specific performance instead of characterizing performance by a single parameter. Finally, the results show no significant variation in the performance of different data mining methods for this particular problem. The fact that different mining methods show no significant variation also provides further confidence in the results of data mining methods. Work in this abstract discusses initial results. This paper describes the results in terms of both forecast and actual environmental conditions and discusses how prediction errors impact decision consistency.

Kulkarni, Deepak↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Objective Structured Clinical Evaluation (OSCE) of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) Tool

BACKGROUND Objective Structured Clinical Evaluations (OSCEs) have long been established as a robust methodology for summative assessment of clinical skills and decision-making during medical education. The recent integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into clinical decision-making processes has prompted the need for novel evaluation frameworks to assess the efficacy and reliability of AI clinical decision support system (CDSS) tools. This abstract outlines the process of quantitatively evaluating a novel CDSS (“Doc in a Box” Google 2024) trained on curated medical spaceflight data in the psychomotor domain as it interfaces with a human volunteer acting as the crew medical officer (CMO). PURPOSE The AI CDSS under review was developed as part of the Lunar Command and Control Interoperability (LuCCI) project, which is intended to address a gap in how Lunar Surface Systems (LSS) would interoperate across multiple programs, commercial partners, and international partners. The project objective is to define, prototype, integrate, and evaluate an interoperable lunar command, control, data, and software reference architecture to enable autonomy and informatics capability through common standards across LSS. A multi-modal AI-based CDSS compatible with Federated LSS will assist clinicians in diagnosing and managing complex medical conditions by providing evidence-based recommendations through predictive analytics. Given the critical role of decision-support as NASA continues to evolve its Earth-independent medical operations (EIMO), it is imperative to ensure that such AI tools perform reliably and align with clinical standards during progressive lunar and Martian exploration class missions. METHODS The OSCE framework, traditionally used for evaluating human clinicians, was adapted to assess the AI tool's decision-making capabilities in simulated clinical scenarios. In this adapted OSCE, the AI CDSS was tested across a series of structured clinical scenarios designed to mimic real-life spaceflight patient cases. These scenarios included a range of conditions and complexities, allowing for comprehensive assessment of the tool's performance. Key evaluation metrics included accuracy of diagnosis, timeliness of decision-making, and appropriate recommendations for therapies. The OSCE was scored by human physician evaluators who assessed the AI's recommendations in comparison with expert clinicians' medical decision making to ensure alignment with best practices and the standard of care. RESULTS Preliminary results indicate that the AI CDSS demonstrated high accuracy in diagnostic recommendations and decision support across various scenarios. However, certain limitations were noted, such as occasional discrepancies in handling complex or nuanced cases that required a more contextual understanding. Additionally, the tool scored higher on the diagnostic portion of the rubric, with lower scores in the therapeutic recommendations. These findings highlight the importance of continuous refinement and validation of AI tools through rigorous evaluation frameworks like the OSCE. The adaptation of OSCEs for AI tools presents several advantages, including a structured and reproducible approach to evaluation, the ability to test AI systems in diverse clinical scenarios, and the opportunity to benchmark AI performance against established clinical standards to permit charting of future progress as aerospace medicine evolves as a discipline. Remaining challenges include ensuring that these evaluations capture the full spectrum of clinical decision-making scenarios that will be confronted by CMOs during missions and adequately reflecting real-world variability of the austere spaceflight environment. CONCLUSION Employing OSCEs to evaluate AI clinical decision support tools offers a promising approach to validating their clinical utility and efficacy. This methodology not only provides insights into the tool's performance but also fosters ongoing improvement and alignment with standard of care practices. Future research should focus on refining these evaluation processes and addressing limitations to enhance the integration of AI tools in clinical spaceflight settings. REFERENCES Scott S, Hearns V, Barker MA. Testing Clinical Skills: A Look at the OSCE and USMLE Clinical Skills Exams. S D Med. 2019 Oct;72(10):451-453. Majumder MAA, Kumar A, Krishnamurthy K, Ojeh N, Adams OP, Sa B. An evaluative study of objective structured clinical examination (OSCE): students and examiners perspectives. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2019 Jun 5;10:387-397. Karam VY, Park YS, Tekian A, Youssef N. Evaluating the validity evidence of an OSCE: results from a new medical school. BMC Med Educ. 2018 Dec 20;18(1):313.

Ariana M Nelson↗

NASA NTRS1971

A control-theory model for human decision-making

A model for human decision making is an adaptation of an optimal control model for pilot/vehicle systems. The models for decision and control both contain concepts of time delay, observation noise, optimal prediction, and optimal estimation. The decision making model was intended for situations in which the human bases his decision on his estimate of the state of a linear plant. Experiments are described for the following task situations: (a) single decision tasks, (b) two-decision tasks, and (c) simultaneous manual control and decision making. Using fixed values for model parameters, single-task and two-task decision performance can be predicted to within an accuracy of 10 percent. Agreement is less good for the simultaneous decision and control situation.

Levison, W. H.↗

NASA NTRS1990

Documenting the decision structure in software development

Current software development paradigms focus on the products of the development process. Much of the decision making process which produces these products is outside the scope of these paradigms. The Decision-Based Software Development (DBSD) paradigm views the design process as a series of interrelated decisions which involve the identification and articulation of problems, alternates, solutions and justifications. Decisions made by programmers and analysts are recorded in a project data base. Unresolved problems are also recorded and resources for their resolution are allocated by management according to the overall development strategy. This decision structure is linked to the products affected by the relevant decision and provides a process oriented view of the resulted system. Software maintenance uses this decision view of the system to understand the rationale behind the decisions affecting the part of the system to be modified. D-HyperCase, a prototype Decision-Based Hypermedia System is described and results of applying the DBSD approach during its development are presented.

Wild, J. Christian↗

NASA NTRS1993

Criteria for assessing problem solving and decision making in complex environments

Training crews to cope with unanticipated problems in high-risk, high-stress environments requires models of effective problem solving and decision making. Existing decision theories use the criteria of logical consistency and mathematical optimality to evaluate decision quality. While these approaches are useful under some circumstances, the assumptions underlying these models frequently are not met in dynamic time-pressured operational environments. Also, applying formal decision models is both labor and time intensive, a luxury often lacking in operational environments. Alternate approaches and criteria are needed. Given that operational problem solving and decision making are embedded in ongoing tasks, evaluation criteria must address the relation between those activities and satisfaction of broader task goals. Effectiveness and efficiency become relevant for judging reasoning performance in operational environments. New questions must be addressed: What is the relation between the quality of decisions and overall performance by crews engaged in critical high risk tasks? Are different strategies most effective for different types of decisions? How can various decision types be characterized? A preliminary model of decision types found in air transport environments will be described along with a preliminary performance model based on an analysis of 30 flight crews. The performance analysis examined behaviors that distinguish more and less effective crews (based on performance errors). Implications for training and system design will be discussed.

Orasanu, Judith↗

NASA NTRS2009

Using Decision Trees to Detect and Isolate Simulated Leaks in the J-2X Rocket Engine

The goal of this work was to use data-driven methods to automatically detect and isolate faults in the J-2X rocket engine. It was decided to use decision trees, since they tend to be easier to interpret than other data-driven methods. The decision tree algorithm automatically "learns" a decision tree by performing a search through the space of possible decision trees to find one that fits the training data. The particular decision tree algorithm used is known as C4.5. Simulated J-2X data from a high-fidelity simulator developed at Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne and known as the Detailed Real-Time Model (DRTM) was used to "train" and test the decision tree. Fifty-six DRTM simulations were performed for this purpose, with different leak sizes, different leak locations, and different times of leak onset. To make the simulations as realistic as possible, they included simulated sensor noise, and included a gradual degradation in both fuel and oxidizer turbine efficiency. A decision tree was trained using 11 of these simulations, and tested using the remaining 45 simulations. In the training phase, the C4.5 algorithm was provided with labeled examples of data from nominal operation and data including leaks in each leak location. From the data, it "learned" a decision tree that can classify unseen data as having no leak or having a leak in one of the five leak locations. In the test phase, the decision tree produced very low false alarm rates and low missed detection rates on the unseen data. It had very good fault isolation rates for three of the five simulated leak locations, but it tended to confuse the remaining two locations, perhaps because a large leak at one of these two locations can look very similar to a small leak at the other location.

Schwabacher, Mark A.↗

NASA NTRS2011

The First Flight Decision for New Human Spacecraft Vehicles - A General Approach

Determining when it is safe to fly a crew on a launch vehicle/spacecraft for the first time, especially when the test flight is a part of the overall system certification process, has long been a challenge for program decision makers. The decision on first flight is ultimately the judgment of the program and agency management in conjunction with the design and operations team. To aid in this decision process, a NASA team undertook the task to develop a generic framework for evaluating whether any given program or commercial provider has sufficiently complete and balanced plans in place to allow crewmembers to safely fly on human spaceflight systems for the first time. It was the team s goal to establish a generic framework that could easily be applied to any new system, although the system design and intended mission would require specific assessment. Historical data shows that there are multiple approaches that have been successful in first flight with crew. These approaches have always been tailored to the specific system design, mission objectives, and launch environment. Because specific approaches may vary significantly between different system designs and situations, prescriptive instructions or thorough checklists cannot be provided ahead of time. There are, however, certain general approaches that should be applied in thinking through the decision for first flight. This paper addresses some of the most important factors to consider when developing a new system or evaluating an existing system for whether or not it is safe to fly humans to/from space. In the simplest terms, it is time to fly crew for the first time when it is safe to do so and the benefit of the crewed flight is greater than the residual risk. This is rarely a straight-forward decision. The paper describes the need for experience, sound judgment, close involvement of the technical and management teams, and established decision processes. In addition, the underlying level of confidence the manager has in making the decision will also be discussed. By applying the outlined thought processes and approaches to a specific design, test program and mission objectives, a project team will be better able to focus the debate and discussion on critical areas for consideration and added scrutiny -- allowing decision makers to adequately address the first crewed flight decision.

Schaible, Dawn M.↗

NASA NTRS2009

Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Decision Making During Spacecraft Operations

Decisions made during the operational phase of a space mission often have significant and immediate consequences. Without the explicit consideration of the risks involved and their representation in a solid model, it is very likely that these risks are not considered systematically in trade studies. Wrong decisions during the operational phase of a space mission can lead to immediate system failure whereas correct decisions can help recover the system even from faulty conditions. A problem of special interest is the determination of the system fault protection strategies upon the occurrence of faults within the system. Decisions regarding the fault protection strategy also heavily rely on a correct understanding of the state of the system and an integrated risk model that represents the various possible scenarios and their respective likelihoods. Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) modeling is applicable to the full lifecycle of a space mission project, from concept development to preliminary design, detailed design, development and operations. The benefits and utilities of the model, however, depend on the phase of the mission for which it is used. This is because of the difference in the key strategic decisions that support each mission phase. The focus of this paper is on describing the particular methods used for PRA modeling during the operational phase of a spacecraft by gleaning insight from recently conducted case studies on two operational Mars orbiters. During operations, the key decisions relate to the commands sent to the spacecraft for any kind of diagnostics, anomaly resolution, trajectory changes, or planning. Often, faults and failures occur in the parts of the spacecraft but are contained or mitigated before they can cause serious damage. The failure behavior of the system during operations provides valuable data for updating and adjusting the related PRA models that are built primarily based on historical failure data. The PRA models, in turn, provide insight into the effect of various faults or failures on the risk and failure drivers of the system and the likelihood of possible end case scenarios, thereby facilitating the decision making process during operations. This paper describes the process of adjusting PRA models based on observed spacecraft data, on one hand, and utilizing the models for insight into the future system behavior on the other hand. While PRA models are typically used as a decision aid during the design phase of a space mission, we advocate adjusting them based on the observed behavior of the spacecraft and utilizing them for decision support during the operations phase.

dynamic fault trees↗

DOE OSTI2025

First-of-a-Kind Risk-Informed Digital Twin for Operational Decision Making

A digital twin (DT) is a digital model or a collection of models of a physical entity. DTs in the nuclear arena can be used from plant design through decommissioning. Decisions are typically a priori or made offline. Risk-informed decision making is identifying what can go wrong, its frequency, and the consequences of its failure. Ideally risk-informed decision making reflects the current state of the plant and provides a decision in real time. Traditionally, probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) evaluate the failures of safety systems, the risk of core damage, and the offsite dose as the consequence. However, this DT evaluates the decisions on the control side rather than the protection side. It uses the same risk methods to probabilistically inform the decision-making process but in a different way. Rather than evaluating the risk of core damage, this DT evaluates the likelihood of avoiding a trip set point while maintaining plant safety. Performance-based assessments are identified via its probabilistic evaluation of operational alternatives based on system status. Because the purpose of the control system is to maintain system variables within prescribed operating ranges, upsets or challenges that can exceed a trip set point resulting in a plant transient and a challenge to plant mitigating systems based on actual plant conditions, are evaluated to safely maintain the plant within the operating ranges. The probabilistic portion of the model is autonomously and automatically adjusted, and the metric of interest (i.e. likelihood of avoiding a trip set point) is recalculated. The digital representation of the physical system (i.e. the DT) performs a deterministic performance–based assessment of the probabilistically identified alternatives identified to validate the probabilistic assessment. A decision-making algorithm selects the appropriate option based on the probabilistic and deterministic assessments and transmits a control signal to a component(s) to initiate a corrective action or informs an operator of its decision.

digital twin↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Clinical Decision Support - Concepts of Operation

We are entering a new era in space exploration to return to the moon and explore Mars. These ambitious goals will require significant changes to in-flight and habitat medical care due to constraints on mass, volume, power, crew time and medical evacuation capabilities. These constraints make it absolutely necessary to develop transformative solutions using new technologies. The Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element of the Human Research Program (HRP) pushes the boundary of space medical systems to advance the care of astronauts on future exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit by identifying and testing next-generation medical care and crew health maintenance technologies. The Clinical Decision Support (CDS) project addresses the gap Medical-701 within the Inflight Medical Conditions risk: Enhance medical capabilities within an exploration medical system. For long-duration, deep space missions, computational and data resources will play an important role in maintaining crew health, wellness and performance where the crew will need to be more self-reliant. The aim of the CDS project is to develop and provide recommended requirements for an in-vehicle CDSS that acts as an assistant for delivering optimal health and performance and medical care during exploration missions. The CDSS is envisioned as a software-based tool that will augment a crewmembers’ knowledge, skills and abilities to assist in decision-making and crew health and performance (CHP) management thus increasing CHP systems capabilities. The human interface will be context aware and lessen the cognitive load to assimilate and use information as well as combine large disparate data sets in such a manner that provides the crew with actionable insight to decisions related to crew medical, health and performance management. Crew autonomy will be provided through a CDS that presents knowledge and data in a context aware manner to augment a crew members’ knowledge, skills and abilities during the process of observation, orientation, decisions and action. The CDS project addresses the need for crew members to operate independently during long duration space exploration missions that require medical Levels of Care (LoC) V, the highest level specified by NASA-STD-3001 and described in more detail by the ExMC interpretation of LoC document (NASA/TM-2017-219290), where significant changes to in-flight and habitat medical care necessitate increasing crew autonomy in decision making and task performance. The CDS project will develop and test a series of iterative and increasingly more complex system prototypes. These annual demonstrations of the data system integration with the crew health and performance domain will inform exploration medical system requirements for an on-board Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) through a series of use cases that guide CDS prototype functionality. CDS concepts are based on ExMC Concept of Operations documents (presented separately) and will highlight architecture extensibility to other more complex analyses and tests using core crew health and performance integrated data management, processing and visualization capabilities. This approach also establishes how externally developed analyses and approaches could be added to expand a clinical decision support system and thus highlight how a comprehensive system can be commercially and/or globally developed. The CDS project will build upon the concept of an integrated data management approach based on the Medical Data Architecture (MDA) project to more fully address challenges associated with in-flight and habitat medical, health and performance care due to constraints on mass, volume, power, crew time and medical evacuation capabilities required for medical LoC V. These requirements will be derived through systems engineering approaches and software prototype developments over the course of the multi-year CDS project to address crew health and performance decision-making and task performance, often autonomously executed by the crew, in a manner that is consistent with the appropriate medical level of care for the mission. This presentation will provide an overview of the vision for the CDS project and highlight the initial accomplishments in project planning, implementation and requirements identification in fiscal year 2020.

clinical decision support↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Clinical Decision Support - Overview and Update

We are entering a new era in space exploration to return to the moon and explore Mars. These ambitious goals will require significant changes to in-flight and habitat medical care due to constraints on mass, volume, power, crew time and medical evacuation capabilities. These constraints make it absolutely necessary to develop transformative solutions using new technologies. The Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element of the Human Research Program (HRP) pushes the boundary of space medical systems to advance the care of astronauts on future exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit by identifying and testing next-generation medical care and crew health maintenance technologies. The Clinical Decision Support (CDS) project addresses the gap Medical-701 within the Inflight Medical Conditions risk: Enhance medical capabilities within an exploration medical system. For long-duration, deep space missions, computational and data resources will play an important role in maintaining crew health, wellness and performance where the crew will need to be more self-reliant. The aim of the CDS project is to develop and provide recommended requirements for an in-vehicle CDSS that acts as an assistant for delivering optimal health and performance and medical care during exploration missions. The CDSS is envisioned as a software-based tool that will augment a crewmembers’ knowledge, skills and abilities to assist in decision-making and crew health and performance (CHP) management thus increasing CHP systems capabilities. The human interface will be context aware and lessen the cognitive load to assimilate and use information as well as combine large disparate data sets in such a manner that provides the crew with actionable insight to decisions related to crew medical, health and performance management. Crew autonomy will be provided through a CDS that presents knowledge and data in a context aware manner to augment a crew members’ knowledge, skills and abilities during the process of observation, orientation, decisions and action. The CDS project addresses the need for crew members to operate independently during long duration space exploration missions that require medical Levels of Care (LoC) V, the highest level specified by NASA-STD-3001 and described in more detail by the ExMC interpretation of LoC document (NASA/TM-2017-219290), where significant changes to in-flight and habitat medical care necessitate increasing crew autonomy in decision making and task performance. The CDS project will develop and test a series of iterative and increasingly more complex system prototypes. These annual demonstrations of the data system integration with the crew health and performance domain will inform exploration medical system requirements for an on-board Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) through a series of use cases that guide CDS prototype functionality. CDS concepts are based on ExMC Concept of Operations documents (presented separately) and will highlight architecture extensibility to other more complex analyses and tests using core crew health and performance integrated data management, processing and visualization capabilities. This approach also establishes how externally developed analyses and approaches could be added to expand a clinical decision support system and thus highlight how a comprehensive system can be commercially and/or globally developed. The CDS project will build upon the concept of an integrated data management approach based on the Medical Data Architecture (MDA) project to more fully address challenges associated with in-flight and habitat medical, health and performance care due to constraints on mass, volume, power, crew time and medical evacuation capabilities required for medical LoC V. These requirements will be derived through systems engineering approaches and software prototype developments over the course of the multi-year CDS project to address crew health and performance decision-making and task performance, often autonomously executed by the crew, in a manner that is consistent with the appropriate medical level of care for the mission. This presentation will provide an overview of the vision for the CDS project and highlight the initial accomplishments in project planning, implementation and requirements identification in fiscal year 2020.

clinical decision support system↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

How to Educate Decision Makers on the Value and Necessity of Modal Testing and Model Correlation: Tips for Young Engineers

Engineers need to effectively communicate the justification and value of their modal testing and model correlation in terminology familiar to decision makers as it relates to the program’s risk tolerance. This communication must relate to the program’s risk tolerance and the metrics used to judge the performance of both the program and individual decision makers. The challenge is the terminologies familiar to engineers and decision makers are quite different and seemingly unrelated. The engineering profession has developed a specific terminology to solve highly technical issues, which are many times themselves unique to very specific engineering problems. It is all too easy for engineers to believe that everyone in their organization, including the decision makers, has an intrinsic understanding of what they do and the value it brings to the program’s success. This is especially true for young engineers who have recently spent the last four plus years in an academic engineering learning environment, which has a highly technical research oriented atmosphere. Effective communication with decision makers is increasingly important as the technical breadth and practical program and project experience level for up and coming decision makers diminishes. It is not unusual for the decision makers to have technical knowledge in a domain different from structural dynamics (e.g., electronics or systems). Competition among satellite manufactures has increased the focus on programmatic cost and ability to deliver on schedule. NASA programs are also seeing more restrictive programmatic cost and schedule constraints, which impact both analysis and testing. It should also be noted that a comprehensive suite of tests are required to verify a satellite’s design capability with some margin. These tests include static strength verification tests, shock, acoustic, and vibration tests (sine and random) of systems, subsystems, and components. Each of these verification tests provide opportunities for model correlation and risk reduction. It is important to recognize dynamic loads/modal test models may not include all of the flight hardware (i.e., harness, coax, waveguides, connectors, etc.) and the previously mentioned tests are still required for qualification/verification of the design. This paper provides tips to young engineers on how to bridge this communications gap, have a better understanding of the environment in which decision makers operate, and assist them to better support successful missions. While this paper primarily focuses on modal testing and model correlation as related to spacecraft missions, the concepts and recommendations presented here are equally applicable to other fields such as aeronautics, automotive, power generation, etc.

Decision Maker↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

How to Educate Decision Makers on the Value and Necessity of Modal Testing and Model Correlation: Tips for Young Engineers

Engineers need to effectively communicate the justification and value of their modal testing and model correlation in terminology familiar to decision makers as it relates to the program’s risk tolerance. This communication must relate to the program’s risk tolerance and the metrics used to judge the performance of both the program and individual decision makers. The challenge is the terminologies familiar to engineers and decision makers are quite different and seemingly unrelated. The engineering profession has developed a specific terminology to solve highly technical issues, which are many times themselves unique to very specific engineering problems. It is all too easy for engineers to believe that everyone in their organization, including the decision makers, has an intrinsic understanding of what they do and the value it brings to the program’s success. This is especially true for young engineers who have recently spent the last four plus years in an academic engineering learning environment, which has a highly technical research oriented atmosphere. Effective communication with decision makers is increasingly important as the technical breadth and practical program and project experience level for up and coming decision makers diminishes. It is not unusual for the decision makers to have technical knowledge in a domain different from structural dynamics (e.g., electronics or systems). Competition among satellite manufactures has increased the focus on programmatic cost and ability to deliver on schedule. NASA programs are also seeing more restrictive programmatic cost and schedule constraints, which impact both analysis and testing. It should also be noted that a comprehensive suite of tests are required to verify a satellite’s design capability with some margin. These tests include static strength verification tests, shock, acoustic, and vibration tests (sine and random) of systems, subsystems, and components. Each of these verification tests provide opportunities for model correlation and risk reduction. It is important to recognize dynamic loads/modal test models may not include all of the flight hardware (i.e., harness, coax, waveguides, connectors, etc.) and the previously mentioned tests are still required for qualification/verification of the design. This paper provides tips to young engineers on how to bridge this communications gap, have a better understanding of the environment in which decision makers operate, and assist them to better support successful missions. While this paper primarily focuses on modal testing and model correlation as related to spacecraft missions, the concepts and recommendations presented here are equally applicable to other fields such as aeronautics, automotive, power generation, etc.

Decision Maker↗