Ontology-Based Security Command System for Operator Cognitive Load Reduction

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current command systems for security and risk management are overwhelmed by excessive information, making it difficult for operators to gain a global understanding, especially in crisis situations, and are not well-suited for handling multiple simultaneous instructions or diverse scenarios.

Innovation Solution

A unified command post system that uses ontological modeling to organize static and dynamic attributes of security devices, allowing for automatic and manual action execution based on contextual data, with graphical representations and digital interaction, enabling efficient decision-making and resource allocation.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Loss of information

If traditional command systems display all security device information, then complete information is provided, but operator confusion and difficulty in understanding the global situation increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveinformation completenessVSAvoidoperator understanding
Core Design Contradiction:
Loss of informationVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The system segments information by organizing it according to an ontology that categorizes security devices and their attributes hierarchically. This allows the interface to selectively display only relevant information subsets based on the current situation, device type, and operator needs, rather than overwhelming operators with all possible data simultaneously.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The interface adapts its information display quality based on local context - different device types, locations, and operational states receive customized information presentations. The system prioritizes displaying critical attributes for specific devices while maintaining the ability to access complete information through the ontological structure.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

2Measurement precision

If the system processes all security events manually, then detailed analysis is possible, but response time and operator workload increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveevent analysis accuracyVSAvoidresponse time
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary automated processing of security events by detecting triggering factors and automatically executing predefined actions associated with identified events. This preliminary action handles routine scenarios automatically, freeing operators to focus on complex situations requiring detailed analysis while maintaining rapid response times.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements feedback loops where automated event processing results are monitored and can be adjusted by operators. The ontological model allows the system to learn from operator corrections and refine its automated decision-making, improving both response time and accuracy over time.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

3Adaptability or versatility

If the system supports multiple diverse scenarios, then versatility increases, but system complexity and difficulty of operation increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvescenario coverageVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system employs a universal ontological model that can represent multiple diverse security scenarios and device types within a single unified framework. This ontology serves as a common language that accommodates various security contexts (intrusions, fires, medical emergencies, etc.) without requiring separate systems for each scenario, thereby managing complexity while maintaining versatility.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

4Speed

If automated actions are executed without human review, then response speed increases, but risk of errors and lack of adaptability increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveaction execution speedVSAvoidaction accuracy
Core Design Contradiction:
SpeedVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically adjusts the level of automation based on contextual factors such as event type, severity, confidence level of detection, and current operational state. Some actions are executed automatically with high-speed response, while others require human review or approval. This dynamic approach optimizes both response speed and reliability by matching the automation level to the specific situation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Data Source

PatentUS11295601B2System for supervising security devices
Publication Date: 2022.04.05 INEO HOMELAND
  • US11295601B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A system for supervising security devices associated with static attributes organized according to an ontology and circumferential dynamic attributes. A memory stores digital files for a plurality of events. Each event has a descriptor of each event. A descriptor for a triggering factor and descriptors of actions associated with each event are provided. The action of the plurality of description descriptors is a graphical representation file comprising graphical representations, at least one spatial temporal parameter or corresponding to a geographical scope of effectiveness of the action at the time since an initial element and a digital interaction with an associated one of the security devices. The computer commands automatic execution of actions and commands the display on the screen to display the graphical representation associated with each action based on the spatial temporal parameter and a digital interaction for guiding man-made machine interaction corresponding to the actions for non-automatic execution.