Difference between revisions of "Talk:Human Systems Integration"

From SEBoK
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(Replaced content with "{{Review Instructions}}")
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Under the subheading of "manpower" there is an example given related to "hostile fire" ***(changed to operator injury)***. This is obviously a military example. Is it possible to think of an example which would be applicable across domains?
+
{{Review Instructions}}
This article is at the lowest level of maturity of any of the articles that I have reviewed so far. The article lists a number of dimensions of interest in relation to the human systems integration issue and describes them reasonably and is simply. However the article does not provide any references at all ***added two additional readings but agree with observation****, meaning that a reader would be able to neither find further information to better understand the nature of the issues nor be able to have any guidance to understand the systems engineering responses to the issues.
 
The tone of the article as far as it goes is appropriate.
 
With the caveat of the long paragraph above, which should result in some significant review comments I would regard this article as at a low level of maturity but appropriate to send into the review. The main reason that I would send it to review is to show to reviewers what is essentially a stub that for the whole article so that reviewers would be aware that this matter is included in SEBOK.
 
I presume that the reason for the status being as it is follows from changes in the part structure of the SEBOK relatively recently.
 

Latest revision as of 21:05, 6 November 2011

Review Instructions

Please note that in order to provide review comments, you must first log in to the wiki. Please go to Login or create an account if you do not have a username (less than 1 minute).


Please provide your feedback on this article by responding to the specific discussion points below. In order to respond, please click “Reply” under the appropriate discussion thread. Feel free to read the comments of other reviewers as well (you may also respond directly to these comments). Please note that each article has a place for “Open Discussion” – please place any comments not related to the specific discussion points into this thread.

As the BKCASE author team develops SEBoK 0.75, they will provide an adjudication comment for each ‘‘thread’’ in the discussion – not each individual comment.

Note: We value community feedback and assume that all reviewers will respond in a professional manner. However, if any reviewer uses any form of profanity or consistently posts inflammatory comments or spam messages, that reviewer’s IP address will be blocked. To report any such problems, please email bkcase@stevens.edu.