The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Issue No.03 - May-June (2012 vol.27)
pp: 79-85
Marco Carvalho , Institute for Human and Machine Cognition
Jeffrey M. Bradshaw , Institute for Human and Machine Cognition
Larry Bunch , Institute for Human and Machine Cognition
Tom Eskridge , Institute for Human and Machine Cognition
Paul J. Feltovich , Institute for Human and Machine Cognition
Robert R. Hoffman , Institute for Human and Machine Cognition
Daniel Kidwell , Department of Defense
The macrocognitive workplace is constantly changing, and a work system can never match its environment completely; there are always gaps in fitness because the work is itself a moving target. This article looks at a domain where the workplace is a moving target in three ways: cyberdefense. New technology and work methods are continually being introduced, domain constraints are not constant; the work itself is changing in terms of its new goals and requirements, and anything can be surprising. The article presents a possible sensemaking strategy and implications for the design of intelligent systems founded on human-machine interdependence, semantically rich policy governance, and having the goal of achieving resilience in the cognitive work.
macrocognition, laws of cognitive work, cyberdefense, sensemaking, resilience, human-machine interdependence
Marco Carvalho, Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, Larry Bunch, Tom Eskridge, Paul J. Feltovich, Robert R. Hoffman, Daniel Kidwell, "Command and Control Requirements for Moving-Target Defense", IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol.27, no. 3, pp. 79-85, May-June 2012, doi:10.1109/MIS.2012.45
1. S.W.A. Dekker, J.M. Nyce, and R.R. Hoffman, “From Contextual Inquiry to Designable Futures: What Do We Need to Get There?” IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 74–77.
2. R.R. Hoffman and D.D. Woods, “Beyond Simon's Slice: Five Fundamental Tradeoffs That Bound the Performance of Macrocognitive Work Systems,” IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 67–71.
3. S. Jajodia et al., Moving-Target Defense: Creating Asymmetric Uncertainty for Cyber Threats, Springer, 2011.
4. D. Kewley et al., “Dynamic Approaches to Thwart Adversary Intelligence Gathering,” Proc. DARPA Information Survivability Conf, & Exposition II (DISCEX 01), vol. 1, IEEE, 2001, pp. 176–185.
5. M. Atighetchi et al., “Adaptive Use of Network-Centric Mechanisms in Cyber-defense,” Proc. 6th IEEE Int'l Symp. Object-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing (ISORC 03), IEEE, 2003, pp. 179–188.
6. J.D. Touch et al., “DynaBone: Dynamic Defense Using Multi-layer Internet Overlays,” Proc. 3rd DARPA Information Survivability Conf. and Exposition (DISCEX 03), IEEE, 2003, pp. 271–276.
7. D.D. Woods and E. Hollnagel, “Mapping Cognitive Demands in Complex Problem-Solving Worlds,” Int'l J. Man-Machine Studies, vol. 26, 1987, pp. 257–275.
8. D.T. Moore, Sensemaking: A Structure for an Intelligence Revolution, Nat'l. Defense Intelligence College, 2011.
9. D.T. Moore and R.R. Hoffman, “Sensemaking: A Transformative Paradigm,” Am. Intelligence J., vol. 29, 2011, pp . 26–36.
10. J.M. Bradshaw et al., “Sol: An Agent-Based Framework for Cyber Situation Awareness,” to be published in Künstliche Intelligenz, 2012.
11. C.G. Langton ed., Artificial Life: Proceedings of an Interdisciplinary Workshop on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems, Addison-Wesley, 1989.
12. M. Johnson et al., “Beyond Cooperative Robotics: The Central Role of Interdependence in Coactive Design,” IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 26, no. 3, 2011, pp. 81–88.
13. A. Uszok et al., “Toward a Flexible Ontology-Based Policy Approach for Network Operations Using the KAoS Framework,” Proc. 2011 Military Comm. Conf. (MILCOM 11), IEEE, 2011, pp. 1108–1114.
14. J. van Diggelen et al., “Implementing Collective Obligations in Human-Agent Teams Using KAoS Policies,” Coordination, Organizations, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems V, LNCS 6069, Springer, 2010, pp. 36–52.
52 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool