2 CROSS-SECTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

Connected software applications such as those used on the Internet of Things (IoT) differ significantly in their software architecture from traditional reliable software used in industrial applications. The design of connected IoT software is based on traditional protocols originally designed for data communications for PCs accessing the internet. This includes protocols such as transmission control protocol/internet protocol (TCP/IP), the re-use of software from the IT world, including protocol stacks, web servers and the like. This also means the employed software components are not designed with dependability in mind, as there is typically no redundancy and little arrangements for availability. If something does not work, end-users are used to restarting the device. Even if it does not happen very often, this degree of availability is not sufficient for critical functionalities, and redundancy hardware and back-up plans in ICT infrastructure and network outages still continue to occur. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that we design future connected software that is conceived either in a dependable way or can react reliably in the case of infrastructure failures to achieve higher software quality.

The vision is that networked systems will become as dependable and predictable for end-users as traditional industrial applications interconnected via dedicated signal lines. This means that the employed connected software components, architectures and technologies will have to be enriched to deal with dependability for their operation. Future dependable connected software will also be able to detect in advance if network conditions change – e.g. due to foreseeable transmission bottlenecks or planned maintenance measures. If outages do happen, the user or end application should receive clear feedback on how long the problem will last so they can take potential measures. In addition, the consideration of redundancy in the software architecture must be considered for critical applications. The availability of a European ecosystem for reliable software components will also reduce the dependence on current ICT technologies from the US and China.

Dependable connected software architectures

In the past, reliable and dependable software was always directly deployed on specialised, reliable hardware. However, with the increased use of IoT, edge and cloud computing, critical software functions will also be used that are completely decoupled from the location of use (e.g. in use cases where the police want to stop self-driving cars from a distance):

• Software reliability in the face of infrastructure instability.

• Dependable edge and cloud computing, including dependable and reliable AI/ML methods and algorithms.

• Dependable communication methods, protocols and infrastructure.

• Formal verification of protocols and mechanisms, including those using AI/ML.

• Monitoring, detection and mitigation of security issues on communication protocols.

• Quantum key distribution (“quantum cryptography”).

• Increasing software quality by AI-assisted development and testing methods.

• Infrastructure resilience and adaptability to new threats.

• Secure and reliable over-the-air (OTA) updates.

• Using AI for autonomy, network behaviour and self-adaptivity.

• Dependable integration platforms.

• Dependable cooperation of System of Systems (SoS).

This Major Challenge is tightly interlinked with the cross-sectional technology of 2.2 Connectivity Chapter, where the focus is on innovative connectivity technologies. The dependability aspect covered within this challenge is complementary to that chapter since dependability and reliability approaches can also be used for systems without connectivity.

Dependable softwarisation and virtualisation technologies

We have witnessed a massive increase in pervasive and potentially connected digital products in our personal, social and professional spheres, enhanced by new features of 5G networks and beyond. Connectivity provides better flexibility and usability of these products in different sectors, with a tremendous growth of sensitive and valuable data. Moreover, the variety of deployments and configuration options and the growing number of sub-systems changing in dynamicity and variability increase the overall complexity. In this scenario, new security and privacy issues have to be addressed, also considering the continuously evolving threat landscape. New approaches, methodologies and tools for risk and vulnerability analysis, threat modeling for security and privacy, threat information sharing and reasoning are required. Artificial intelligence (e.g. machine learning, deep learning and ontology) not only promotes pervasive intelligence supporting daily life, industrial developments, personalisation of mass products around individual preferences and requirements, efficient and smart interaction among IoT in any type of services, but It also fosters automation, to mitigate such complexity and avoid human mistakes.

Embedded and distributed AI functionality is growing at speed in both (connected) devices and services. AI-capable chips will also enable edge applications allowing decisions to be made locally at device level. Therefore, resilience to cyber-attacks is of utmost importance. AI can have a direct action on the behaviour of a device, possibly impacting its physical life inducing potential safety concerns. AI systems rely on software and hardware that can be embedded in components, but also on the set of data generated and used to make decisions. Cyber-attacks, such as data poisoning or adversarial inputs, could cause physical harm and/or also violate privacy. The development of AI should therefore go hand in hand with frameworks that assess security and safety to guarantee that AI systems developed for the EU market are safe to use, trustworthy, reliable and remain under control (C.f. Chapter 1.3 “Embedded Software and beyond” for quality of AI used in embedded software when being considered as a technology interacting with other software components).

The combination of composed digital products and AI highlights the importance of trustable systems that weave together privacy and cybersecurity with safety and resilience. Automated vehicles, for example, are adopting an ever-expanding combination of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) developed to increase the level of safety, driving comfort exploiting different type of sensors, devices and on-board computers (sensors, Global Positioning System (GPS), radar, lidar, cameras, on-board computers, etc.). To complement ADAS systems, Vehicle to X (V2X) communication technologies are gaining momentum. Cellular based V2X communication provides the ability for vehicles to communicate with other vehicle and infrastructure and environment around them, exchanging both basic safety messages to avoid collisions and, according to the 5g standard evolutions, also high throughput sensor sharing, intent trajectory sharing, coordinated driving and autonomous driving. The connected autonomous vehicle scenarios offer many advantages in terms of safety, fuel consumption and CO₂ emissions reduction, but the increased connectivity, number of devices and automation, expose those systems to several crucial cyber and privacy threats, which must be addressed and mitigated.

Autonomous vehicles represent a truly disruptive innovation for travelling and transportation, and should be able to warrant confidentiality of the driver’s and vehicle’s information. Those vehicles should also avoid obstacles, identify failures (if any) and mitigate them, as well as prevent cyber-attacks while staying safely operational (at reduced functionality) either through human-initiated intervention, by automatic inside action or remotely by law enforcement in the case of any failure, security breach, sudden obstacle, crash, etc.

In the evoked scenario the main cybersecurity and privacy challenges deal with:

• Interoperable security and privacy management in heterogeneous systems including cyber-physical systems, IoT, virtual technologies, clouds, communication networks, autonomous systems.

• Real time monitoring and privacy and security risk assessment to manage the dynamicity and variability of systems.

• Developing novel privacy preserving identity management and secure cryptographic solutions.

• Novel approaches to hardware security vulnerabilities and other systemweaknesses as - for instance – Spectre and Meltdown or side channel attacks (c.f. appendix A).

• Developing new approaches, methodologies and tools empowered by AI in all its declinations (e.g. machine learning, deep learning, ontology).

• Investigating a deep verification approach towards also open-source hardware in synergy and implementing the security by-design paradigm (c.f. appendix A).

• Investigating the interworking among safety, cybersecurity, trustworthiness, privacy and legal compliance of systems.

• Evaluating the impact in term of sustainability and green deal of the adopted solutions.

The cornerstone of our vision rests on the following four pillars. First, a robust root of trust system, with unique identification enabling security without interruption from the hardware level right up to the applications, including AI, involved in the accomplishment of the system’s mission in dynamic unknown environments. This aspect has a tremendous impact on mission critical systems with lots of reliability, quality and safety & security concerns. Second, protection of the EU citizen’s privacy and security while at the same keeping usability levels and operation in a competitive market where also industrial Intellectual Protection should be considered. Third, the proposed technical solutions should contribute to the green deal ambition, for example by reducing their environmental impact. Finally, proof-of-concept demonstrators that are capable of simultaneously guaranteeing (a given level of) security and (a given level of) privacy, as well as potentially evolving in-reference designs that illustrate how practical solutions can be implemented (i.e. thereby providing guidelines to re-use or adapt).

End to end encryption of data, both in transit and at rest is kept to effectively protect privacy and security. The advent of quantum computing technology introduces new risks and threats, since attacks using quantum computing may affect traditional cryptographic mechanisms. New quantum safe cryptography is required, referring both to quantum cryptography and post quantum cryptography with standard crypto primitives.

Also, the roadmap for Open Source HW/SW & RISC-V IP blocks will open the path to domain-focused processors or domain-specific architectures (for instance, but not limited to the “chiplet-based approach”), which may lead to new approaches to cybersecurity and safety functions or implementation as well as new challenges and vulnerabilities that must be analysed (c.f. appendix A).

Putting together seamlessly security and privacy requirements is a difficult challenge that also involves some non-technical aspects. The human factor can often cause security and privacy concerns, despite of technologically advanced tools and solutions. Another aspect relates to security certification versus certification cost. A certification security that does not mitigate the risks and threats, increases costs with minimal benefits. Therefore, all techniques and methodology to reduce such a cost are in the scope of the challenge.

In light of this scenario, this Major Challenge aims at contributing to the European strategic autonomy plan in terms of cybersecurity, digital trustworthiness and the protection of personal data.

Trustworthiness

Digital Trust is mandatory in a global scenario, based on ever-increasing connectivity, data and advanced technologies. Trustworthiness is a high-level concern including not only privacy and security issues, but also safety and resilience and reliability. The goal is a robust, secure, and privacy preserving system that operates in a complex ecosystem without interruption, from the hardware level up to applications, including systems that may be AI-enabled. This challenge calls for a multidisciplinary approach, spanning across technologies, regulations, compliance, legal and economic issues. To this end, the main expected outcomes can be defined as:

• Defining different methods and techniques of trust for a system, and proving compliance to a security standard via certification schemes.

• Defining methods and techniques to ensure trustworthiness of AI algorithms, included explainable (XAI) (cfr. Chapter 2.1 “Edge Computing and Embedded Artificial Intelligence”)

• Developing methodologies and techniques from hardware trustworthy to software layers trustworthy (cfr. Chapter 1.3 “Embedded Software and Beyond” and Chapter 1.4 “System of Systems”).

• Defining methods and tools to support the composition and validation of certified parts addressing multiple standards (cfr. Chapter 1.4 “System of Systems” and Chapter 2.3 “Achitecture and Design: Methods And Tools”).

• Definition and future consolidation of a framework providing guidelines, good practices and standards oriented to trust.

• Enhancing current tools and procedures for safety and security verification and certification for Open-Source Hardware/Software (c.f. Appendix A).

• Architectures that provide mitigation, remediation and restoration against physical and software cyber threats ensuring integrity in Data, Software and Systems.

Security and privacy-by-design

The main expected outcome is a set of solutions to ensuring the protection of personal data in the embedded AI and data-driven digital economy against potential cyber-attacks:

• Ensuring cybersecurity and privacy of systems in the Edge to cloud continuum, via efficient automated verification and audits, as well as recovery mechanism (cfr. Chapter 1.4 “System of Systems” and Chapter 2.3 “Achitecture and Design: Method and Tools”).

• Ensuring performance in AI-driven algorithms (which needs considerable data) while guaranteeing compliance with European privacy standards (e.g. general data protection regulation - GDPR).

• Establishing a cybersecurity and privacy-by-design European data strategy to promote data sovereignty.

• Establishing Quantum-Safe Cryptography Modules.

• Establishing a transparency security approach toward Open-Source Hardware/Software Architecture (c.f. Appendix A)

Ensuring both safety and security properties

The main expected outcome is to ensure compatibility, adequacy and coherence in the joint use of the promoted security solutions, and the safety levels required by the system or its components:

• Maintaining the nominal or degraded system safe level behaviour when the system’s security is breached or there are accidental failures.

• Guaranteeing information properties under cyber-attacks (quality, coherence, integrity, reliability, etc.).

• Ensuring safety, security and privacy of embedded intelligence (c.f. Chapter 1.3 “Embedded Software and beyond”).

• Guaranteeing a system’s coherence among different heterogeneous requirements (i.e. secure protocols, safety levels, computational level needed by the promoted mechanisms) and different applied solutions (i.e. solutions for integrity, confidentiality, security, safety) in different phases (i.e. design, operation, maintenance, repair and recovery).

• For safety-critical applications, the open-source software (for instance: Virtual Prototypes, compilers and linkers, debuggers, programmers, integrated development environments, operating systems, software development kits and board support packages) must be qualified regarding functional safety and security standards in order to offer a possibility to create transparent, auditable processes for ensuring safety and security (c.f. Appendix A).

• Assess complex System-on-Chip implementations and a Chiplet approach assembling functional circuit blocs with different functions (e.g.: processor, accelerator, memories, interfaces, etc.) regarding security functionalities, focusing on scalability, modularity as well as Edge paradigm (c.f. Appendix A).

• Developing rigorous methodology supported by evidence to prove that a system is secure and safe, thus achieving a greater level of transparency without compromising information and trustworthiness.

• Evaluating the environmental impact of the implemented safety and security solutions (the green chapter connection).

Safety has always been a key concept at the core of human civilisation. Throughout history, its definition, as well as techniques to provide it, has evolved significantly. In the medical application domain, for example, we have witnessed a transformation from safe protocols to automatic medication machines, such as insulin pumps and respiratory automation, which have integrated safety provisions. Today, we can build a range of different high-integrity systems, such as nuclear power plants, aircraft and autonomous metro lines. The safety of such systems is essentially based on a combination of key factors, including: (i) determinism (the system’s nominal behaviour is always the same under the same conditions); (ii) expertise and continuous training of involved personnel; (iii) deep understanding of nominal and degraded behaviours of the system; (iv) certification/qualification; and (v) clear liability and responsibility chains in the case of accidents.

Nowadays, the digitalisation of ubiquitous systems, and the embedding of AI components (hardware or software) in them, highlights the limits of traditional safety techniques, which need to be extended and/or embedded in new overall safety-case arguments. These techniques for building safe systems include fault-tree analysis, failure modes and effect analysis, evidence-based development standards (such as ISO26262 and ISO 21448), redundancy, diversification and defence-in-depth (c.f. Chapter 1.3 “Embedded Software and beyond” for Major Challenge 1: Efficient engineering of embedded software to enable transition from embedded software engineering to embedded systems engineering.). As a result of the realities in modern systems and their usage, one promising approach is to move the safety paradigm from safety as traditionally studied in embedded systems, to resilience. Most of the methodical factors mentioned above are currently insufficient to cope with resilience in its full meaning.

At the same time, we have witnessed an increase of the interested in the open-source hardware and software, which drastically lowers the barrier to design innovative Systems-On-Chips (SoCs) (c.f. Appendix A, introduction).

As a result, new innovations are required to increase the resilience of systems by tackling challenges involving cross-cutting considerations such as legal concerns and user abilities, and to ensure safety-related properties under a chiplet-based approach (c.f. Appendix A, introduction).

The vision points to the development of safe and resilient autonomous cyber-physical systems in dynamic environments, with a continuous chain-of-trust from the hardware level up to the applications that is involved in the accomplishment of the system’s mission, including AI. Our vision takes into account physical limitations (battery capacity, quality of sensors used in the system, hardware processing power needed for autonomous navigation features, etc.), interoperability (that could be brought e.g. open source hardware c.f. appendix A), and considers optimizing the energy usage and system resources of safety-related features to support sustainability of future cyber-physical systems. Civilian applications of (semi-) autonomous cyber-physical systems are increasing significantly. For example, drones can be deployed for monitoring social distancing and providing safety to the population (and also to deliver medicine in the UK). However, the use of drones is not accident-free. In 2015, at the Pride Parade in Seattle, a drone crashed and caused an accident that resulted in a woman being knocked out. Civilian applications thus inherently entail safety, and in the case of an accident or damage (for example, in uploading a piece of software in an AI system) liability should be clearly traceable, as well as the certification/qualification of AI systems.

The increasing trend towards the adoption of AI in civilian applications represents a great opportunity for European economic growth. However, unlike traditional high-integrity systems, the hypothesis that only expert operators can manipulate the final product undermines the large-scale adoption of the new generation of autonomous cyber-physical systems.

In addition to the key focus areas below, the challenges cited in Chapter 2.3 on Architecture and Design: Methods and Tools are also highly relevant for this topic, and on Chapter 1.3 on Embedded Software and beyond.

Dynamic adapdation and configuration, self-repair capabilities, (decentralized instrumentation and control for) resilience of complex and heterogeneous systems

The expected outcome is systems that are resilient under physical constraints and are able to dynamically adapt their behaviour in dynamic environments:

• Responding to uncertain information based on digital twin technology, run-time adaption and redeployment based on simulations and sensor fusion.

• Automatic prompt self-adaptability at low latency to dynamic and heterogeneous environments.

• Architectures, including but not limited to the RISC-V ones (cfr. appendix A) that support distribution, modularity and fault containment units to isolate faults, possibly with run-time component verification.

• Use of AI in the design process – e.g. using ML to learn fault injection parameters and test priorities for test execution optimization.

• Develop explainable AI models for human interaction, systems interaction and certification.

• Resource management of all systems’ components to accomplish the mission system in a safe and resilient way. Consider to minimize the energy usage and system resources of safety-related features to support sustainability of future cyber-physical systems.

• Identify and address transparency and safety-related issues introduced by AI applications.

• Support for dependable dynamic configuration and adaptation/maintenance to help cope with components that appear and disappear, as ECS devices to connect/disconnect, and communication links that are established/released depending on the actual availability of network connectivity (including, for example, patching) to adapt to security countermeasures.

• Concepts for SoS integration, including legacy system integration.

Modular certification of trustable systems and liability

The expected outcome is clear traceability of liability during integration and in the case of an accident:

• Having explicit workflows for automated and continuous layered certification/qualification, both when designing the system and for checking certification/qualification during run-time or dynamic safety contracts, to ensure continuing trust in dynamic adaptive systems under uncertain and/or dynamic environments.

• Concepts and principles, such as contract-based co-design methodologies, and consistency management techniques in multi-domain collaborations for trustable integration.

• Certificates of extensive testing, new code coverage metrics (e.g. derived from mutation testing), and formal methods providing guaranteed trustworthiness.

• Ensuring trustworthy electronics, including trustworthy design IPs (e.g. source code, documentation, verification suites) developed according to auditable and certifiable development processes, which give high verification and certification assurance (safety and/or security) for these IPs (cfr. appendix A).

Safety aspects related to the human/system interaction

The expected outcome is to ensure safety for the human and environment during the nominal and degraded operations in the working environment (cf. Major Challenge 5 below):

• Understanding the nominal and degraded behaviour of a system, with/without AI functionality.

• Minimising the risk of human or machine failures during the operating phases.

• Ensuring that the human can safely interface with machine in complex systems and SoS, and also that the machine can prevent unsafe operations.

• New self-learning safety methods to ensure safety system operations in complex systems.

• Ensuring safety in machine-to-machine interaction.

This ECS SRIA roadmap aligns societal needs and challenges to the R & D & I for electronic components. The societal benefits thereby motivate the foundational and cross-sectional technologies as well as the concrete applications in the research agenda. Thereby, many technological innovations occur on a subsystem level that are not directly linked to societal benefits themselves until assembled and arranged into larger systems. Such larger systems then most of the time require human users and beneficiary to utilize them and thereby achieve the intended societal benefits. Thereby, it is common that during the subsystem development human users and beneficiaries stay mostly invisible. Only once subsystems are assembled and put to an operational system, the interactions with a human user become apparent. At this point however, it is often too late to make substantial changes to the technological subsystems and partial or complete failure to reach market acceptance and intended societal benefits can result. To avoid such expensive and resource intensive failures, Human Systems Integration (HSI) efforts attempt to accompany technological maturation that is often measured as Technological Readiness Levels (TRL) with the maturation of Human Readiness Levels (HRL). Failures to achieve high HRL beside high TRLs have been demonstrated in various domains such as military, space travel, and aviation. Therefore, HSI efforts to achieve high HRLs need to be appropriately planned, prepared, and coordinated as part of technological innovation cycles. As this is currently only rarely done in most industrial R&D activities, this Chapter describes the HSI challenges and outlines a vision to address them.

There are three high-level HSI challenges along ECS-based products:

• The first challenge is to design products that are acceptable, trustworthy, and therefore highly likely to be used sustainably to achieve the expected individual, organizational, or societal benefits. Thereby, the overall vision for the practical use of a product by real users within their context is currently often unknown at the time of the technological specification of the product. Instead, the technological capabilities available in many current innovation environments are assembled to demonstrate merely technological capabilities but not operational use. This is often mistakenly called “use case” as it means “use to demonstrate the product” not “realistic use of the product by real users in realistic environments”. Thereby, sufficiently detailed operational knowledge of the environmental, organizational, and user characteristics is often not available and cannot be integrated into technology development. Therefore, the conception of accepted and trusted, and sustainably used technologies is often the result of trial-and-error, rather than strategically planned development efforts.

• The second challenge consists of currently prevalent silos of excellence where experts work within their established domain without much motivation, ability or interest to requirements that seem external to their domain. Instead, success is often seen as promoting the own area of expertise. This forms effective resistance against a holistic design of a system instead of subcomponent optimization and makes it difficult to design products for accepted, trusted, and sustained usage. For example, increasingly complex and smart products require often intricate user interactions and understanding that is beyond simpler “non-smart” products. Thereby, the developing engineers often do not know the concrete usage conditions of the to-be-developed system or constraints of their users and are therefore unable to make appropriate architecture decisions. For example, drivers and workers generally do not like to purely monitor or supervise automated functions, while losing active participation. This is especially critical when humans have to suddenly jump back into action and take control when unexpected conditions require them to do so. Therefore, aligning the automation capabilities with the human tasks that are feasible for users to perform and to match their knowledge and expectable responsibilities, are becoming paramount to bring a product successfully to the market. However, currently established silos of engineering excellence in organizations are difficult to penetrate and therefore resist such as external perceived requirements.

Thirdly, continuous product updates and maintenance are creating dynamically changing products that can be challenging for user acceptance, trust, and sustained usage. Frequent and increasingly automated software updates have become commonplace to achieve sufficiently high security levels and to enable the latest software capability sets as well as allow self-learning algorithms to adapt to user preferences, usage history, and environmental changes. However, such changes can be confusing to users if they come unannounced, or are difficult to understand. Also, the incorrect usage that may result from this may lead to additional security and acceptance risks. Therefore, the product maintenance and update cycles need to be appropriately designed within the whole product lifecycle to ensure maximum user acceptance and include sufficient information on the side of the users. Here HSI extends beyond initial design and fielding of products.

The vision and expected outcome is that these three HSI challenges can be addressed by appropriately orchestrating the assessments of needs, constraints, and abilities of the human users, and use conditions with the design and engineering of products as well as their lifetime support phases. Specifically, this HSI vision can be formulated around three cornerstones:

• Vision cornerstone 1: conceiving systems and their missions, based on a detailed analysis of acceptance and usage criteria during the early assessment of the usage context. This specifically entails the assessment of user needs and constraints within their context of use and the translation of this information into functional and technical requirements to effectively inform system design and development. Such information is currently not readily available to system architects, as such knowledge is currently either hidden or not assessed at the time when it is needed to make an impact during system conception. Instead, such assessments require specific efforts using the expertise of social scientists such as sociologists, psychologists, and human factors researchers who have also familiarity or training in engineering processes. As part of this cornerstone, assessments are conducted that describe the user population and the usage situation including criticality, responsibilities, environment, required tasks and time constraints. Also, the organizational conditions and processes within which the users are expected to use the system play an important role that should impact design decisions, for example to determine appropriate explainability methods. This assembled information is shaping the system architecture decisions and is formulated as use cases, scenarios, and functional and technical requirements.

• Vision cornerstone 2: to translate the foundational requirements from cornerstone 1 into an orchestrated system mission and development plan using a holistic design process. Multifaceted developer communities thereby work together to achieve acceptable, safe, and trustworthy products. Thereby, the product is not designed and developed in isolation but within actively explored contextual infrastructures to bring the development and design communities close to the use environment and conditions of the product. Considering this larger contextual field in the design of products requires advanced R&D approaches and methodologies, to pull together the various fields of expertise and allow mutual fertilization. This requires sufficiently large, multi-disciplinary research environments for active collaboration and enablement of a sufficient intermixture between experts and innovation approaches. This also requires virtual tool sets for collaboration, data sharing, and solution generation.

• Vision cornerstone 3: detailed knowledge about the user and use conditions are also pertinent to appropriately plan and design the continuous adaptations and updates of products during the lifecycle. Converging user knowledge and expectations will allow more standardized update policies. This will be addressed by bringing the end-users, workers, and operators toward achieving the digital literacy with a chance to enable the intended societal benefits. The formation of appropriate national and international training and educational curricula will work toward shaping users with sufficiently converging understanding of new technology principles and expectations as well as knowledge about responsibilities and common failure modes to facilitate sustained and positively perceived interactions.

Within these cornerstones, the vision is to intermingle the multi-disciplinary areas of knowledge, expertise, and capabilities within sufficiently inter-disciplinary research and development environments where experts can interact with stakeholders to jointly design, implement, and test novel products. Sufficiently integrated simulation and modeling that includes human behavioral representations are established to link the various tasks. The intermingling starts with user needs and contextual assessments that are documented and formalized sufficiently to stay available during the development process. Specifically, the skills and competences are formally recorded and made available for requirements generation.

• Systematize methods for user, context, and environment assessments and sharing of information for user-requirement generation. Such methods are necessary to allow user centered methods to achieve an impact on overall product design.

• Develop simulation and modeling methods for the early integration of Humans and Technologies. The virtual methods link early assessments, holistic design activities, and lifelong product updates and bring facilitate convergence among researchers, developers, and stakeholders.

• Establish multi-disciplinary research and development centers and sandboxes. Interdisciplinary research and development centers allow for the intermingling of experts and stakeholders for cross-domain coordinated products and life-long product support.