The next challenge to interoperability? A first look at robotic system wireless interoperability in emergency response

Lee P. Battle, MS; Shahram Sarkani, PhD; Thomas A. Mazzuchi, DSc

doi:10.5055/jem.2013.0148

Authors

Lee P. Battle, MS
Shahram Sarkani, PhD
Thomas A. Mazzuchi, DSc

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.2013.0148

Keywords:

interoperability, wireless, unmanned systems, robotic systems, public safety communications

Abstract

System interoperability enables public safety agencies to communicate and share information. Past failures have demonstrated that systems of different agencies are not inherently interoperable. Therefore, as efforts continue toward the resolutions of these problems, it is incumbent on technology developers to assess the interoperability of new systems. Robotic systems can offer new capabilities to public safety personnel; however, these systems also include new communication technology to share and distribute information. Research has been initiated to examine the interoperability of public safety robotic systems. Definitions for robotic communication interoperability types are introduced.

Author Biographies

Lee P. Battle, MS

(Systems Engineering), Doctoral Student, Systems Engineering, The George Washington University, Great Mills, Maryland

Shahram Sarkani, PhD

(Civil Engineering), Professor, Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, The George Washington University, Washington, DC

Thomas A. Mazzuchi, DSc

(Operations Research), Chair, Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, The George Washington University, Washington, DC.

References

Faulhaber GR: Solving the interoperability problem: Are we on the same channel? An essay on the problems and prospects for public safety radio. Fed Commun Law J. 2007; 59(3): 493-516.

US Department of Homeland Security: The System of Systems Approach for Interoperable Communications. Washington, DC: US Department of Homeland Security, 2012.

Brito J: Sending out an S.O.S.: Public safety communications interoperability as a collective action problem. Fed Commun Law J. 2007; 59(3): 457-492.

Mayer-Schönberger V: The politics of public safety communication interoperability regulation. Telecommun Policy. 2005; 29(11): 831-842.

Peha JM: Protecting public safety with better communications systems. IEEE Commun Mag. 2005; 43(3): 10-11.

Chatterjee R, Matsuno F: Robot description ontology and disaster scene description ontology: Analysis of necessity and scope in rescue infrastructure context. Adv Robot. 2005; 19(8): 839-859.

Remley KA, Koepke G, Messina E, et al.: Standards Development for Wireless Communications for Urban Search and Rescue Robots. Boulder, CO: US Department of Commerce, Nat. Inst. Standards Technology, 2007.

US Department of Homeland Security, Office of Emergency Communications: Communications Interoperability Performance Measurement Guide. Washington, DC: US Department of Homeland Security, Office Emergency Communications, 2011.

Chirhart TL, Hoffman CT, Orsulak RJ, et al.: Alternate Frequencies for Use by Public Safety Systems.Washington, DC: Nat. Telecommun. Inform. Admin., Office Spectrum Manage. 2001; NTIA Special Publication 01-48.

US Department of Homeland Security: Statement of Requirements for Public Safety Wireless Communications & Interoperability. Version 1.1. Washington, DC: US Department of Homeland Security, 2006.

First Responders: Much Work Remains to Improve Communications Interoperability.Washington, DC: US Government Accountability Office, 2007; Rep. GAO-07-301.

Caruson K: Mission impossible? The challenge of implementing an integrated homeland security strategy. J Homeland Sec Emerg Manag. 2004; 1(4): 1-22.

Caruson K, MacManus SA: Designing homeland security policy within a regional structure: A needs assessment of local security concerns. J Homeland Sec Emerg Manag. 2007; 4(2): 1-23.

US Department of Homeland Security: Statement of Requirements for Public Safety Wireless Communications & Interoperability. Version 1.2, Volume I. Washington, DC: US Department of Homeland Security, 2006.

Casper J, Murphy RR: Human—Robot interactions during the robot-assisted urban search and rescue response at the World Trade Center. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B: Cybern. 2003; 33(3): 367-385.

US Government Accountability Office: Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Federal Actions Needed to Ensure Safety and Expand Their Potential Uses within the National Airspace System. Washington, DC: US Government Accountability Office, 2008; Rep. GAO-08-511.

Driewer F, Baier H, Schilling K: Robot-human rescue teams: A user requirements analysis. Adv Robot. 2005; 19(8): 819-838.

Shiroma N, Yu-Huan C, Sato N, et al.: Cooperative task executeon of a search and rescue mission by a multi-robot team. Adv Robot. 2005; 19(3): 311-329.

Burke JL, Murphy RR, Coovert MD, et al.: Moonlight in Miami: A field study of human-robot interaction in the context of an urban search and rescue disaster response training exercise. Hum- Comput Interact. 2004; 19: 85-116.

Tiny aircraft search for survivors in Katrina wreckage. Gov Prod News. 2005; 44(11): 14.

Maier MW: Architecting principles for systems-of-systems. Syst Eng. 1998; 1(4): 267-284.

Murphy RR: Human-robot interaction in rescue robotics. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern C: Appl. Rev. 2004; 34(2): 138-153.