May 28, 2003

Trip Report

Department of Defense

Human Factors Engineering Technical Advisory Group (DOD HFE TAG) Meeting #49 – May 12-15, 2003

 

The 49th meeting of the DoD HFE TAG held in Augusta, Georgia. The meeting was chaired LCDR Sean Biggerstaff, MSC, PhD, PMA-205, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR). Approximately 85 people attended the meeting, representing the US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, DISA/DTIC, NASA, FAA, several human factors-related technical societies and industry associations.

 

Four items are attached:

·      Background of the DoD HFE TAG, attachment (1)

·      Meeting schedule, attachment (2) 

·      Current DoD HFE TAG Operating Board, attachment (3)

·      TAG attendees, attachment (4)

·      DoD HFE TAG Policies, attachment (5)

 

Plenary Session Presentations:

 

The DoD HFE TAG Chair for the 49th meeting, LCDR Sean Biggerstaff, welcomed attendees to the meeting and reviewed the theme for the meeting: Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance.

 

Welcome Address:   Brigadier General Janet E. A. Hicks, Commanding General of the Signal Center and Fort Gordon, welcomed the TAG attendees to Augusta and Ft. Gordon. The current trend in the Army is trading armor for information superiority.  This is reflected, for example in the new generation of armored vehicles built on the Striker baseline (a fraction of a tank’s weight and very fast).  Ft. Gordon’s job is to get vast amounts of information across the battlefield, allowing first understanding and first action. “Information University” at Ft. Gordon has virtual campuses all around the country.  There are currently 17,000 soldiers at Ft. Gordon. 
 
Directorate of Combat Developments. Col Keith H. Snook, Director of Combat Developments (snookk@gordon.army.mil, (706) 791-6223), provided an overview of the DCD organization, where there are 30 military, 20 civilians and 32 contractor personnel (see Figure 1.) One of the major difficulties is getting the current procurement process to support current, rapidly growing and evolving needs. If something is needed in war, you can now purchase new Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) equipment with the required capabilities. The issue is…does everyone need this “stuff” and do we need the Doctrine and Training to properly employ it?

 

Command Battle Laboratory. Col. Joe Yavorski, Director of the Command Battle Lab (yaworski@gordon.army.mil, (706) 971-2557,) informed TAG attendees of the Purpose of Battle Labs is to jointly develop (with industry) required technologies and matching employment concepts. The Battle Lab Cooperative Simulation Environments can be used to evaluate new technologies and products, acting as an “honest broker.” The triad of Battle Labs (Ft.Leavenworth - Leadership, Ft. Gordon - C4I and Ft. Huachuca - ISR) work together to evaluate emerging technologies and concepts. An example is when the Objective Force program took the Future Combat Systems (FCS) operational concepts for 2015 and overlaid state-of-the-art communications concepts for the same time period. They can simulate interfaces with joint forces and combat in multi-national environments. They can also help to point out “disconnects” between systems being acquired to fight in the same time frames. In this regard, DoD/Industry coordination is critical.  Industry is not very ‘open” due to competitive pressures, so it is often difficult to get an accurate picture of how systems will work with one another in the next decade.

 

WIN-T. Mr. Bill Little spoke for the TRADOC System Manager of the Warfighter Information Network – Tactical (WIN-T).  WIN-T is the Signal Regiment’s #1 priority.  It is a mission-critical system. It is the integrating communications network for the Objective Force.  It is the replacement architecture for several existing systems such as MSE, Tri-Tac and Trojan Spirit. It will be “owned, operated and maintained” by both signal and non-signal units. It will provide SATCOM terminals, voice communications and services, data communications, infrastructure and wireless communications on-the-move. Milestone “B” is July 2003. Initial units are to be equipped in FY-08.

 

SEA-03.  Mr. David Anderson, Naval Sea Systems Command (andersonde@navsea.navy.mil, (202) 781-3608) provided an Update on the NAVSEA HSI Directorate (SEA-03). The driving force behind this development is “Sea Power 21.” Whereas the “old” model of system development included only hardware and software, the “new” model includes people too. SEA-03 is responsible for measuring the degree to which people are considered in system development and is also responsible for certifying that they have been adequately integrated. SEA-03 was established by NAVSEANOTE 5400 of September 2002. It has a current staffing level of 32 personnel. Mr. Bob Bost, the technical director of SEA-03, may be reached at (202) 781-2653 or at bostjr@navsea.navy.mil.

 

SEA-03 has caused the following changes within NAVSEA:

·      Development of Policy and Standards for the Command – NAVSEA 3900.8 was revised and many inputs were made to other requirements documents.

·      Development of human performance metric and criteria – Initiated to define human performance metrics. Ten templates have been developed for different acquisition programs.

·      Development and application of certification criteria - An HSI technical authority was established. HSI inputs are made to FORCENET and HSI is participating in a variety of programs such as LCS, CVN-21, etc.

·      Support the revolution in training and Task Force Excel human performance-based initiatives – Currently educating the Navy workforce on HSI process and established human performance centers.

·      Institutionalize HSI and systems engineering – Incorporating HSI into the system design process. Updating total system engineering instructions to include HSI. HSI is now reviewing project budgets to determine how much funding has been set aside for HSI. This review will be completed this year.

·      Implement and integrate HSI policy, procedures and best practices – Currently educating PEO and NAVSEA work force. This item ensures that HSI stays a part of the process.

 

Joint Urban Operations.  CAPT Michael Lillianthal, Assistant to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Science and Technology) updated the attendees on Urban Operations Initiatives.  CAPT Lillianthal indicated that there are lots of changes in progress – shifting from a requirements-based to a capability-based acquisition system, where the transformation capability attributes are: Knowledge, Agility, Survivability and Lethality.  Operations are becoming more “Joint.” Planning starts with a Joint Vision and progresses to a Joint Concept of Operations, then to a Joint Integrated Architecture and finally to a Joint Capability. CAPT Lillianthal is focusing his attentions on Joint Urban Operations, or the “three block war.” There are three components of urban operations: Environment (e.g., air, space, undersea), Society (e.g., culture) and Infrastructure (e.g., power, water). The HSI challenges are:

 

Human Factors personnel are currently being added to the Joint Staff (J-9). A joint urban operations directive (DODD 5100.88) has been promulgated. Capt Lillianthal is wrestling with how to bring the various dimensions of HSI (M&P, simulation and training, human factors, habitability, survivability, medical, modeling, etc.) to bear on improving Joint Urban Operations. DUSD (S&T) will release a Joint Request for Information in the near future. Any and all serious suggestions would be gratefully received. CAPT Lillianthal can be reached at: michael.lillianthal@osd.mil.

 

Objective Force Warrior. Ms. Cynthia Blackwell, US Army Objective Force Warrior Technical Program Office (cynthia.blackwell@natick.army.mil, (508) 233-5210) spoke on the Objective Force Warrior Technical Demonstration (see Figure 2). There should be a considerable amount of funding available for HSI activities.

 

 

Major emphasis areas of the demonstration will be:

·       Advanced training strategies (e.g., training-on-demand) and systems (e.g., virtual reality).

·       Human performance enhancements

·       Advanced system controls

·       Situational awareness assessment (individual and group)

·      System “Fight-ability”

Future Combat Systems. Mr. Michael Dresel with the FCS project at The Boeing Company   (Michael.dresel@boeing.com, (253) 773-4153), discussed some of the HSI issues being faced by the Future Combat Systems team. The Boeing Company is teamed with General Dynamics and United Defense on this program; more subcontractors are expected to join up in August, 2003. Mr. Dresel’s area of activity centers on the design of manned ground combat vehicles, while other IPTs are concentrating on C4ISR and UAVs.  The manned ground vehicles must be transportable via C-130-like aircraft and be able to “roll-off and fight.”  “Pit-stop” engineering is being done to shave system maintenance time. Taking a system-of-systems (SOS) approach is proving to be critical to FCS success. An SOS user interface style guide already has been developed for use by all IPT technical personnel.  Although contracts have just recently been let, Low Rate Initial Production is scheduled to begin in 2006! 

 

FCS will consist of:   

Eight different ground vehicles:

- Infantry Carrier                                 - Reconnaissance Vehicle

- Mounted Combat System                 - Maintenance & Recovery Vehicle

- Medical Vehicle                                - NLOS Mortar Vehicle

- Command & Control Vehicles

Manned and unmanned air vehicles.  

 

FCS also will provide persistent ISR: connectivity to Joint Stars, Global Hawk, U-2, National Systems, UAVs, SUAVs, mast-mounted sensors, etc. There will be lots of embedded training incorporated into every vehicle.  Training/rehearsal will be possible while personnel are being transported. Sign-in will be by smart card. There will be on-board prognostics/diagnostics and a condition-based maintenance will be implemented. Commonality will be maximized between vehicle systems. It is envisioned that a common Driver-Commander station set will be developed for all vehicles.

 

C4ISR Knowledge Base.  Dr. James Geddie, acting Chief Scientist with the Human Systems Information Analysis Center, HSIAC (geddie.hsiac@usa.com, (254) 698-6405), briefly described an investigative effort to develop a “Lincoln-Boff-like” compendium for C4ISR human systems integration issues. Dr. Geddie has developed a bulletin board to facilitate this activity – http://groups.hahoo.com/group/TAG_C4ISR. The next step is to agree on architecture, prototype a small segment of the knowledge base to illustrate the concept, and present it to Dr. Foster at DDR&E in the near future. 

 

Sub-Group Meetings Attended at the DoD HFE TAG:

 

Human Factors in Extreme Environments.  Mr. Brad Collie of the US Navy Coastal Systems Station (colliebe@ncsc.navy.mil, (850) 234-4744) chaired the meeting.  The first speaker was Dr. Mark Bing, with the Naval Medical Submarine Research Laboratory (bing@nsmrl.navy.mil, (860) 694-2460), who spoke on Psychological Screening of Submariners. At least 40% of Navy recruits fail to complete their first enlistment.  Psychological disorders are the leading cause of hospitalization.  In the submariner force, the big problems are: psychological dysfunction, misconduct, substance abuse and “11th hour” attrition (that causes manpower shortages just as the submarine is ready to deploy).  The current screening program (MANMEDARTICLE 1562(i) “SUBSCREEN”) has been used since 1986 as the standardized psychological test (200 items). This test measures five dimensions:

·  Procedural scales (e.g., faking)

·  Submariner scales (‘e.g., problems submerging)

·  Affective scales (e.g., mood anxiety)

·  Socialization scales (e.g., aggressive-destructive social isolation)

·  Additional scales (e.g., suicide, claustrophobia)

 

SUBSCREEN is administered at the Basic Enlisted Submarine School (BESS).  At BESS alone, there are about 70,000 records available in their database. Following testing, one in 10 sailors is referred to the base psychiatrist where he/she may be administered the Minnesota Multi-phasic Personality Inventory (MMPI).  Of those referred to a psychiatrist, 70% are determined to be qualified for submarine duty, 10% are unqualified for submarine duty and are routed to surface fleet positions, and 20% are unqualified and are discharged from the Navy. In all, about 3% of the personnel are removed from the submarine pipeline based on this test. Even with this screening program, COMSUBLANT reported having to MedEvac 13 psychological cases from submarines in 2002 (11 of whom were suicidal and 3 of whom halted operations). To improve screening, an algorithm was developed to predict the percent probable candidates will be successful or unsuccessful. 

·  Successful candidates - defined as length of service of 4.25-22 years, all reenlisted, Rank of E4-E9.

·  Unsuccessful candidates - defined as length of service up to 14 months, none reenlisted, rank of E2.

 

The algorithm does a reasonably good job of predicting attrition in general, or those going to the brig or those going to mast.  Overall goals for this improved screening are:

·  Reduce 11th hour attrition

·  Maintenance of required manpower levels in submarines