11 January 2007

Trip Report

Department of Defense

Human Factors Engineering Technical Advisory Group

(DOD HFE TAG) Meeting #56

 6-9 November 2006

 

The 56th meeting of the DoD HFE TAG was held in Monterey, CA. The meeting was chaired by Mr. Adrian Salinas, 311th Human Systems Wing, Brooks AFB, Tx. The theme of the meeting was Realizing the potential of Human Systems Integration.  Approximately 130 people attended the meeting, representing the US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, DARPA, NASA, FAA, DoD Laboratories, Canadian DRDC, several human factors-related technical societies and industry associations. Several additional personnel representing industry and academia attended as invited speakers.

 

Four items are attached:

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

·      Program Summary, attachment (2) 

·      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 56th meeting, Adrian Salinas, welcomed attendees to the meeting and introduced the first plenary session presenter.

 

Navy Host Welcome and Command Overview.   Mr. Jeff Kline (CAPT, USN (ret) provided an Overview of the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS).  The NPS was founded in 1909 at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD and moved to Monterey in 1951.  A Human Systems Integration (HSI) Masters degree program was established at NPS in 2004. The current breakdown of students is:

NPS is currently an interagency/coalition research and education institution with three institutes: systems engineering, modeling and simulation, and communications and networks. There are 1776 residents with 937 students enrolled in degree and certificate programs.  There are 15 short course programs.  Current faculty numbers approximately 600, with 237 being in tenured positions.  Approximately 44,000 students have graduated from NPS and there have been 50,000 non-degree participants.

 

NPS provides students with a unique learning and research environment. The NPS is resourced 44.1% from the Navy (mission funding for teaching) and 55.9% from research accounts. Research funding supports unmanned air, unmanned ground and undersea vehicles that are used for student research.

 

HSI in the Navy - Mr. John Owen, SEAPRINT Project Manager, NAVAIR 4.6, Orlando, FL. (john.owen@navy.mil) provided an overview of current HSI Projects Being Worked by the US Navy.  A SEAPRINT executive board is being established to provide intra-Navy cross-corporate overview.  Current HSI activities include:

 

The HSI development strategy addresses the seven tenets of SEAPRINT:

 

US Air Force HSI Challenges:  Dr. Rick Drawbaugh (former USAF Colonel, Deputy for ESOH), principal advisor to the vice chief of staff for HSI, summarized the Current HSI challenges Facing the USAF.  The USAF HSI initiative includes all HSI domains:  HFE, Manpower, Personnel, Training, Environment, Safety, Occupational Health, Personnel Survivability, and Habitability.  The SECDEF (AT&L) has not published an HSI philosophy as of yet. The USAF policy directive on HSI is due out by the end of 2006.  The USAF Instruction for HSI is progressing very slowly.

 

MANPRINT and Army Transformation: Watching Out for the Soldier in the Soldier System.  Dr. John Warner, senior program analyst, Army MANPRINT Office (G-1) provided an overview of MANPRINT Mission, Objectives, Process, Assessments and Activities. He went on to describe the MANPRINT Enterprise database initiative. This database will assist the G-1 office maintain oversight of the many Army development programs. He then summarized the challenges facing MANPRINT:

 

The Human-Systems Integration Standard (HSIS): A New NASA Human Factors Standard:  Dr. Dane Russo, Johnson Space Center, Houston, Tx, (dane.m.russo@nasa.gov) discussed the new Human Factors Standard Development underway at NASA Houston.   A new development process (as compared to NASA STD 3000) is being used. The standard will also differ considerably from NASA-STD-3000, which was:

 

The new standard will be global enough to apply to all human spaceflight programs, easily understood and used, flexible (durable) and less likely to be outdated by new technologies, and not contain specific design solutions.  A design handbook will also be developed to guide application of the standard. Volume 1 of the new standard (Crew Medical Standard) has been reviewed and approved by the NASA Medical Policy Board. Volume 2 is in review and scheduled for submittal to HG by the end of 2006 and to the Medical Policy Board in January 2007. The design handbook development was begun in October 2006 and its planned release is in September 2007.

 

HSI in the FAA.  Mr. Glen Hewitt, Federal Aviation Administration HQ, Washington, D.C. (glen.hewitt@faa.gov) provided an overview of HSI in the FAA, which oversees about 55,000 aircraft flights per day.  A chronology of past events includes:

 

FAA commonalities with the DoD include:

 

 

FAA differences from DOD include:

 

Update on the HSI/MANPRINT Program Plan Data Item Description:  Dr. Jennifer Narkevicius, Jeniussolutions (jnarkevicius@jeniussolutions.com)  updated everyone on the DID.  Following the June 06 HSI conference, Dick Armstrong updated the draft DID and provided it to the Navy for implementation.  Publication is pending.

 

Poster Session (6:00 – 8:00 PM): 

§       The Effects of Accent and Medium on Comprehension - MAJ Okan OYMAK and CAPT Kamil AKEL (Turkish Army)

§       Staying Alive: Effects of Cell-Phone Use on Pedestrian Situational Awareness - Maj     Dave Sadlier, Norb Karczewski, Brent Laboo, and Chris Kirschman

§       Delta3D: Open Source Game Engine for Training and Education - McDowell, Perry

§       Augmented Visual Situation Awareness Using Tactile Situation Awareness Suit-          LCDR James Brown

§       The Effect Of Automation On Mission Planning In Armored Vehicles Of The Future - Tim McKnelly

§       TBA- LCDR Leon Higgins and LT Demetrius Mack

 

Sub-Group Meetings Attended at the DOD HFE TAG:

       

Human Factors Standardization (HFS). The chair/chair select for the Human Factors Standardization SubTAG is Mr. Dave Britton david.briton@wpafb.af.mil).  Not attended.  

 

Technical Society/Industry. The Technical Society/Industry (TS/I) Sub TAG met twice during the TAG meeting on Tuesday morning and afternoon.  Dr. Jen Narkevicius (jnarkevicius@jeniussolutions.com) chaired the two meetings. 

 

In the morning session,

§       SAE G-13 Human Modeling Technology Committee develops standards to facilitate Human Factors assessment for equipment design.  The 11th Digital Human Modeling conference will be held this year on the west coast.

§       HFES Standards Activities: Mr. Cletis Booher (creidboo@hotmail.com) provided a brief status report.

§       HSI DID Preparation:  Dr. Narkevicius reported that the DID has been completed and has been submitted to the Navy for publication.

§       ASTM:  ASTM-STD-1166 is often called out in lieu of MIL-STD-1472. The HCI sections are reported to be superior to those of MIL-STD-1472.

§       HFES Organization:  There are four new main elements under the executive council – internal affairs, external affairs, annual meeting, and publications & outreach. A best practices working group has been established under the HFES institute; it is now developing a program, operating plan and budget.   Mr. Al Poston (aposton@comcast.net) is a working group member under “Human Factors Standardization and Best Practices.”

 

In the afternoon session, Drs. Nita Lewis Miller and Larry Shattuck (Naval Postgraduate School) provided information on the NPS Masters Degree Program in Human Systems Integration.  In February 2001, Walt Hollis (DoD executive) visited NPS; in June 2003, Dr. Robin Keesee included a Masters degree program in HSI on his “wish list; a curriculum was sculpted from existing courses and the first students were accepted in January 2004. The HSI program is a two year curriculum. There is a usability lab, with a/v recording, screen capture, keystroke capture, eye tracking, 2D motion capture system and a team performance lab (for command and control tasks).  Dr. Miller is currently exploring methods of stimulating cooperative research with industry and the small business innovation research program (SBIR). She is also investigating internships and methods for industry to contribute financially to the program.

 

The second presentation was by Cadet Edgar and Cadet Tegman, who spoke on Evaluating Use of Graphic Representation in Social Network Analysis (SNA).  Graphic representation in social network analysis has been used to investigate terrorist networks, gain a better understanding of our own networks, analyze communications within a unit, and increase efficiency in fielding gear based on Soldier preferences. Problems with using graphic representations include: graphic density and space limitations, information in the nodes versus on the edges, displaying connection weighting, and how best to show results.  The cadets illustrated the technique and showed variations using weighted lines and different entity sizes.

 

Design Tools and Techniques.  This sub-TAG is co chaired by Dr. Pamela Savage-Knepshield (Army Research Lab) and Mr. Joseph Barretta (Army Aberdeen Test Center). The first presenter was Dr. Glen Osga, Navy Space and Warfare Systems Center (glenn.osga@navy.mil) who spoke on Design Patterns.  Design patterns are used to help implement proven, standardized user interface designs and significantly reduce development time and cost. A YAHOO web site is now available. HCI patterns range from task generic (GUI components) to task specific (work/mission tasks). Patterns mus be useful (fit into design process, reduce cost, save time) and usable (understandable, retrievable, storable, flexible and compatible). A C4ISR pattern portal should be on line by January 2007; the URL will be distributed via the DoD HFE TAG.

 

The second presentation was provided by Barbara Burian, Ph.D., FRAeS, San Jose State University and NASA Ames (bburian@mail.arc.nasa.gov), on the Role of Emergency and Abnormal Checklists.  Dr. Burian provided an interesting presentation on checklists.  Checklists guide (focus, guide, facilitate identification and trapping of errors, guide communications and coordination) crew responses to situations. Checklists must be consistent and complementary. It is extremely important to conduct scenario-based evaluation of checklists to catch errors such as sequence errors, layout problems, etc. Internal aspects of checklists include content, form, nomenclature, abbreviations and acronyms, layout, “look”, organization, arrangement, access, purpose, logical coherence.  An emergency procedures website has been established: http://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/eas

 

The next presentation was by Dr. Pamela Savage-Knepshield (US Army Research Laboratory) on Methods for Collecting Warfighter Performance and Subjective Feedback: A Case Study from JTRS-HMS Program. Dr. Knepshield described in detail the approach taken by human factors engineers to assess the usability of the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS).

 

The next presentation was by Mr. Jeffrey Thomas (US Army Research Laboratory (jthomas@arl.army.mil) who spoke on SALUTE-AP:  Method for Evaluating Situational Awareness in a Field Experiment.  The object of this investigation was the evaluation of C4ISR operations on the move. Two 18-man platoons were equipped with, UGVs and small UAVs, C2 vehicles, unattended ground sensors, FCCB2 Battle Command Systems in vehicles and on Dismount soldiers’ PC tablets. FBCB2 is used for imagery,, IM, Chat, Blue Force tracing, text messages.  SA was rated from 1 (Low) to 3 H (High). 

 

The next presentation was by Mr. Sheldon Hunt (Helmet Fire, Inc.) who spoke on Post-flight Data Collection System. Four squadrons at North Island NAS and one at Oceana NAS were used. N45 (Force Safety) was the CNO sponsor for this work.  After a flight, crews enter reports into a PC, the data are analyzed and reported every two weeks. Returning crews have only eight screens to go through, unless there is a desire to enter detailed information on a specific topic.  Reporting is totally voluntary and anonymous. As data are collected, problems emerge and this information can be used in prioritizing resources for problem solution. Three stations were made available for each squadron and the stations operated continuously (24/7).  Biographical data (crew skills, flight issues, squadron issues) are collected (27 skills and issues). Crews fill in information and can predict future occurrence probabilities. Analysis of data is done by humans. Statistical thresholds are used to flag issues. Persistent or recurring problem areas are flagged. Data is maintained on a six-week running average for each squadron. Overall, this reporting system has been very successful.

 

Human Factors Test and Evaluation.  Not attended.

 

Modeling and Simulation.  Lt. Jeff Grubb (NAVAIR, jeff.grubb@navy.mil) is the Modeling and Simulation SubTAG chair.  Not attended.

 

Controls and Displays.   The Controls and Displays SubTAG is chaired by Ms. Marianne Paulsen (Marianne.paulsen@navy.mil) and Mr. Justin Kingsford (justin.kingsford@navy.mil).  The first presentation was by Mr. Sean Guarino (sguarino@cra.com) who spoke on Modular Adaptive Interface Suites (MAIS). 

 

The second presentation was by Mr. Christopher Voorheis (cvoorhei@arinc.com) who spoke on Unmanned Vehicle Mission Management Display. Experiments were conducted using SAGAT and TLX, reaction time and a system usability scale. The purpose of the experiments was to explore cost-benefit tradeoffs of unmanned systems and how to optimize human performance. Advantages of unmanned vehicles include:

 

Risk and opportunities associated with the use of unmanned systems include:

 

Interoperability is critical.  To assure interoperability, the following are important considerations:

 

Recommendations:

 

User-Computer Interface.  The Sub TAG meeting is co-chaired by Nausheen Momen, LT, MSC, USNR, Ph.D. (nmomen@namrl.navy.mil) and Stephen Merriman (stephen.c.merriman@boeing.com. There were 27 attendees at the User Computer Interaction SubTAG session, on Tuesday, 7 November 2006.  No changes were proposed in SubTAG leadership at this meeting. Proposed revisions to the UCI SubTAG charter were proposed to reflect current TAG practices; the charter revision was approved by UCI members in attendance and later approved by the TAG Operating Board on 09 November. Four presentations were made at this session.

 

Presentation Title: Achieving Human-System Integration in Systems Procurement: Obstacles and Methodological, Cultural, and Educational Solutions, Kelly Neville, CHI Systems, Inc. (invited speaker)

Summary: Do current systems acquisition methods, processes, and practices support the achievement of human-system integration (HSI) in major systems acquisition? This question was investigated by conducting a review of systems engineering, software engineering, and cognitive engineering literature in parallel with an empirical analysis of systems development work. The work analysis involved assessing work descriptions elicited during retrospective interviews conducted with five expert systems and software engineers. The results of these research activities suggest that current methods and practices do not sufficiently address key challenges related to achieving HSI in system development. The identified challenges include: (1) assessing risk, system quality, and the development process in a balanced and more farsighted way; (2) addressing “penny foolish” practices that allow development challenges to be passed on to end-users who absorb the deferred costs in the form of make-work, work-arounds, and kluges; (3) supporting collaboration and negotiation so that numerous sub-teams and stakeholders can pursue their activities and goals in coordinated ways that are in keeping with program constraints and goals; (4) coping with changing constraints and creeping requirements; (5) identifying system requirements that meet stakeholder objectives and user support needs; (6) successfully integrating a new system with the target work environment; and (7) determining ways of calculating the risks and costs of not using cognitive analysis methods and results. Currently we are working on methodological, cultural, and education-based approaches to addressing these challenges. We propose to elaborate on identified challenges, describe potential solutions, and solicit the feedback of colleagues during Meeting 56 of the Department of Defense Human Factors Engineering Technical Advisory Group.

 

Presentation Title: Human Factors Associated with Short-Wave Infrared and Image Intensifier Night Vision Devices, Cadets Edward A. Anderson and Bryan Bhark (advisor LTC John Graham) United States Military Academy

Summary:  There are issues with image intensifier (I2) night vision devices that adversely affect its performance in combat environments.  Many of these factors are environmental in nature; as a result, humans have very little control over these variables.  During urban combat situations, soldiers using night vision devices may experience scene degradation due to a combination of lighting conditions and dust particles in the air (Richards & Dick, 2006).  Haze also affects the visibility of soldiers who use I2 devices.  In addition, varying temperature differences, convection currents, and moonlight illumination levels significantly affect the variability in nighttime visibility when using Night Vision Goggles (NVG) (Sloan, 2006).  The authors of this study will conduct a between-subjects experiment.  One group of participants will use the Short Wave InfraRed (SWIR) sensor and the other group of participants will use the Image Intensifier sensor.  The study will have approximately 24 participants (12 participants per group).  The authors may utilize the contrast sensitivity chart and visual acuity chart that CDT Bhark created this summer in order to conduct a simple vision test with each sensor on each participant prior to conducting the actual experiment.  We hypothesize that if the participant using SWIR night vision technology is able to correctly identify the specific recognizable features of the target through levels of processing and signal detection, then the participant will more accurately and more quickly determine the target’s disposition and behavior compared to Image Intensifier. Based on the advantages of SWIR technology, we predict that it will have a shorter response time in regards to target identification compared to I2.  Additionally, SWIR’s performance will be less degraded as compared to I2.     

 

Presentation Title: Dynamically Reconfiguring Human-Computer Interfaces: Component Architectures for Role-based Systems, Mike Hübler (Government Sponsor:  Holly Boyett, Common Warfighter Machine Interface Office, US Army.

Summary: The Common War figher Machine Interface (CWMI) team is the government voice for all user interface issues in the Integrated Army Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) community. CWMI’s expansive mission is challenged by a perennial human-machine interface problem, how to overcome information overload by presenting just the information a user needs when they need it. A component-focused, role-based architecture helps meet this challenge for complex user interfaces that span integrated C2 and weapons systems.  The component is the primitive element of user interfaces for CWMI, each representing a common task among operators of IAMD systems. Component candidates are identified and associated with IAMD operator roles according to the findings of field observations, interviews, and military research. Role-based log-ins determine the component set and configuration that provides the information and functionality needs by the warfighter, and alternative component prototypes are tested at Fort Bliss.

 

Presentation Title: Stereovision and its Applications (to tele-operated ground systems), Dr. Barry Vaughn, US Army Research Lab, HRED, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD

Summary:  The Army Human Research and Engineering Directorate has been working in stereo vision for a long time, as have other organizations. Stereovision can improve safety and performance in a variety of tasks. Stereovision for unmanned system control is produced using two cameras mounted on a robot with the video signals transmitted as two separate signals, each presented to one eye of the operator. Lately, Army HRED has been exploring applications of stereovision to IED/EOD operations under a Robotic Collaboration Advanced technology Objective (ATO). The goals are to use stereovision to improve operator performance in tele-operation of ground vehicles as well as to provide data to support HRED modeling activities. Both laboratory and field trials are being conducted. Near-term goals are to demonstrate the benefits of retrofitting fielded hardware with COTS stereo systems with the aim. In the long term, the goal is to build up empirical evidence to influence decision makers into developing and fielding tele-operated platforms with integrated 3D.

 

Human Factors Engineering/Human Systems Integration: Management and Applications.  The co-chairs for this SubTAG are Ms. Katrina Baker (katrina.baker@atc.army.mil) and Mr. Brad Collie bradley.collie@navy.mil.  The first speaker was Mr. Josh. Kennedy, ARL, Redstone Arsenal, (josh-kennedy@us.army.mil ) who spoke on Human-Automation Interface Model to Guide Automation Design of System Function.  This work is being done as part of a thesis in conjunction with Mr. Jeff Powers at BAE systems.  In the FCS program, there is no consistent plan in place for an overall human-automation interface scheme. The manned ground vehicles (MGV) fleet lacks an overarching top-down approach to automation.  There is a need to develop a functional architecture and a qualitative model (IMPRINT)   IMPRINT models were built to represent a completely manual system and one in which there was significant automation (see figure immediately below)  In comparing operator workload between the IMPRINT models, the manual system was determined to require significantly more operator workload to operate.

 

The next presenter was John Burns, Ph.D. from NAVAIR Orlando  (john.j.burns@navy.mil) who spoke on The Design Structure Matrix: Application to HSI for Unmanned Air System Airspace Integration.  The issue is – how to operate UAS in the National air space, integrated with manned systems.  In 2004, the USAF Scientific Advisory board determined that there were $700Million and 35 fatalities annually due to UAS mishaps. In 2005, a review determined there were 56 UAS accidents and $ 13M cost.  The challenge was to work with the FAA and military services to develop validated standards to integrate UAS more effectively into the National Air Space.  The design structure matrix is a simple, concise visual system representation tool that facilitates design process modeling.  The goal of this effort was to use the DSM to bring HSI into the acquisition process for the unmanned air system.

 

The next presenter was Major Carolyn Shaw, Defence Research and Development Canada –DRDC (Carolyn.Shaw@drdc-rddc.gc.ca) who spoke on Adding a Human View to the DoD Architectural Framework. This work on Human Views is to identify those architectural products (views) that facilitate linkage and transfer of pertinent information between a capability engineering team of systems engineers and architects that are developing investment options at the capability level, and the strategic analysts resident within the Human Resource (HR) domain who are responsible for assessing and predicting implications of the same to future HR requirements and capacities. This work has good prospects for increasing the level of attention paid to HSI during system development.

 

The next speaker was Mr. James Buxton (US Army Aberdeen Test Center,  james.buxton@atc.army.mil) who made a brief presentation entitled Measuring Human Cognitive Performance, using electro-encephalographic processing techniques.

 

The last presenter was Dr. Lesia Crumpton-Young (University of Central Florida, lcrumpto@mail.ucf.edu) who spoke on Modeling Stress Under Dynamic Conditions.   There is both positive and negative stress.  A stressor is that which creates stress. There are Processive stressors (“fight or flight” that release stress hormones) and Systemic stressors (that disturb body homeostasis and produced autonomic physiological responses – e.g., acid stomach). The focus of research at UCF is on acute stress, and the physiological and cognitive reactions to stress, such as:

            Physiological Reactions                                Cognitive Reactions

Heart rate increase                                           Change in response time

Blood pressure increase                                  Changes in working memory

Increases in sweat rate                                     Changes in spatial manipulation difficulty

Adrenaline & Cortisol levels                           Changes in Situational Awareness (SA)

Mobilization of energy resources                    Difficulty in concentration

Depletion of stress hormones 

Unbalanced homeostasis

Decreased ability to respond to stress over time

Reduced blood flow to extremities

 

Modeling of stress at UCF is proceeding using intelligent systems technology, mathematical modeling, predictive modeling and fuzzy set theory. Future research will investigate the feasibility of designing a “stress meter.” At this time, the Total Body Fatigue Estimation Model is complete; this model includes heart rate, response time (auditory and visual choice RT) tiredness response and Yashitaki symptoms.

 

Personnel Selection and Classification.  Not attended.

 

Sustained/Continuous Operations (SUSOPS/CONOPS).   Not attended.

 

Workload and Stress.   The chair of the Workload and Stress SubTAGis Ms. Debra Patton (Army Research Laboratory,  dpatton@arl.army.mil).  The first presenter was Dr. Lesia Crumpton-Young who presented the Total Body Fatigue Estimator: A State-of-the-Art Software Tool. The goal is to understand when fatigue affects performance. The model is based on different types of tasks.  There are different modules for sedentary tasks and more physically –active tasks. Data can be input directly into the models or read in from data files. Outputs are numerical, graphic and linguistic.
 
The second presenter was Marilyn Dudley- Rowley, Ph.D. (OPS Alaska) who spoke on MIR Workload and Stress-Lessons Learned. The third presenter was Ms. Jessica Mock, NASA Orbital Project Office, who spoke on Stress, Fatigue and Workload – Determining Combined Effects on Human Performance.  The focus is on evaluating human performance with flight controls.  Subjective tools include NASA TLX and Yoshitake Fatigue.  Physiological measures include heart rate and blood pressure. Task measures include completion time, # of problems worked, repeated performance, communications and identification of errors.
 
The next presenter was Mr. Carlos Cardillo, who spoke on Quantitative EEG (QEEG) Changes Under Continual Wakefulness and with Fatigue Countermeasures. Sleep deprivation results in alpha wave attenuation and increases in delta and theta waves, as initial signs of sleepiness. Results of different medical interventions were studied:  caffeine (200 mg), Dextroamphetamine (5 mg), Modafonil (100 mg) and placebo. Modafonil was found to work (result in maintenance of normal performance) for up to 40 hours of sleep deprivation. Correct doses must be used, correcting for individual differences.  Two channels of EEG data were obtained (frontal and occipital lobes); these were determined to be sufficient to track changes. EEG could provide real-time data for commanders to monitor the alertness of aviators (or other operators).

 

The fifth presenter was Mr. Wade Allen (Systems Technology, Inc.) who spoke on Psychomotor Testing of Sleep Deprivation Effects. The goal was to determine a simple, efficient measure of fitness for duty of sleep-deprived personnel.  The following measures were investigated:

·      Critical Tracking Task (CTT)

·      Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT)

·      Driving Simulator (DS)

·      Epworth Sleepiness Scale

·      Stanford Sleepiness Scale

·      Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)

 

It was found that the CTT was the most efficient test in that it takes only one minute to administer. The Driving Simulator was the most sensitive test, but it takes one hour. It was determined that CTT is a good fitness for duty test.  The next step is to apply CTT to hospital workers.

 

The last presentation was by Mr. Al Sciarreta (CNS Technology), who spoke on HFE Considerations for Stabilization and Reconstruction Operators.  The military doesn’t discriminate well between Stabilization (maintaining order) and Reconstruction (Rebuilding infrastructure such as roads). The difference between combat operations and stabilization/reconstruction are:

 

In the Abrams tank, the crew must pop out of the hatch to use the machine gun. In stabilization/reconstruction environments, enemies dropped hand grenades into the tanks, so the crews had to button up, producing a very difficult situation. A Situational Awareness camera was added to the tank plus the capability to shoot the gun from inside the tank. Also, a tank infantry phone was added to the back of the tank.  Radios are desperately needed for dismounted troops. And, batteries must be standardized across devices.

 

Human Factors in Training.  Not attended.

 

System Safety/Health Hazards/Survivability.  The co-chairs for this SubTAG are Mr. George Murnyak (George.murnyak@amedd.army.mil) and Ms. Barbara Palmer (Palmer_barbara@bah.com).  The first presentation was by Mr. Joseph Pellettieve, USAF Research Laboratory/HEPA, who spoke on the Collaborative Biomechanics Safety Database. This web-based database can interface to JACK models.  There are currently over 750 registered users; registration and use are free. The point of contact is Colonel John Crowley, USAARL, Ft. Rucker.  The database structure is easily adaptable for other content areas.

 

The next presentation was by Ms. Marilyn Dudley-Rowley, Ops Alaska, who spoke on “MIR Crew Safety Record.”  In 1985, Rockwell identified safety risks applicable to space operations:  fire, explosion, collision, decompression, contamination, radiation, and other.  In 1986 MIR was designed for a 10 year life span. MIR stays are not exactly like Shuttle flights in that regular rest, work breaks and psychological breaks are needed. The closed atmosphere, with temperature and humidity control issues (ethylene glycol, CO2, etc.) create a lot of anxiety.

 

The last presenter was George Murnyak (USACHPPM, george.murnyak@amedd.army.mil) who spoke on Army Health Hazards Assessment Program.  The Army medical program provides support to MANPRINT. The proponent is the Army Surgeon General. Governing regulations are:  DoD 5000 series, AR 70-1, AR 40-10 and others. Key Health hazard documents are:  the acquisition strategy, PESHE, test reports, safety/HHA report, operations manuals and Operational Mission mode/Summary. The organization is as shown below.

Some of the areas covered by the Health Hazards program are: acoustics, biological substances, chemicals radiation, shock and trauma, hot and cold extremes.  CHPPM has 42 technical programs, including environmental factors, HHA, Hearing conservation, Entomological Sciences, Industrial Hygiene, Ergonomics, Medicine, Health and Safety.

 

Following the presentations, Barbara Palmer and Bob Lindberg (311 HSW) described an initiative of theirs to identify primary points of contact in the Army, Navy, Air Force, FAA and NASA for the System Safety, Health Hazards, and Survivability Domains of HSI/MANPRINT, as well as the POC for HSI/MANPRINT. So far, only Army POCs have been identified.

 

DOD HFE TAG Operating Board Meeting:

 

1.  SubTAG Reports:  SubTAG chairs reported numbers of presentations, charter changes and other items of interest.

2.  Caucus Reports:  Army, Navy, Air Force, FAA and NASA reported results of caucus meetings  

3. Human Robotics Intervention Interest Group: The interest group met as a closed government meeting at TAG-56. Open sessions should be scheduled in the future.

4. Call for Papers: If SubTAG chairs want anything specific placed into the call for papers, they need to get the information to the TAG coordinator two months ahead of the TAG meeting. 

5.     Dr. Foster Initiative:  Dr. Foster (TAG Proponent) may hold small meetings of SES/Executives in conjunction with future TAG meetings.

6.     TAG Endorsement of Papers: A request was received from one of the services for the TAG to endorse a specific paper. The TAG will not endorse papers.

7.     On-site Registration: The possibility of having on-site registration was discussed, and an charging additional fee (~$25) for the privilege.

8.     Publication of Papers on TAG Website: Prior to posting papers on the TAG web-site, permission must first be obtained from the authors.

ATTACHMENT (1)

 

DOD HFE TAG Background

 

The DoD HFE TAG was begun via memorandum of agreement signed by the Service Secretaries in November 1976. Goals of the TAG were established as follows:

 

•  Provide a mechanism for exchange of technical information in the development and application of human    factors engineering.

•  Enhance working level coordination among Government agencies involved in HFE technology research,    development and application.

•  Identify human factors engineering technical issues and technology gaps.

•  Encourage and sponsor in-depth technical interaction, including subgroups as required in selected topical    areas.

•  Assist as required in the preparation and coordination of Tri-Service documents such as Technology    Coordinating Papers and Topical Reviews. 

 

The TAG addresses research and technologies designed to impact man-machine system development and operation throughout the complete system life cycle.  Topics include:

 

•  Procedures for use by HFE specialists, system analysts and design engineers in providing HFE support    during system development and modification

•  Methodologies to identify and solve operator/maintainer problems related to equipment design, operation    and cost/effectiveness

•  Mechanisms for applying HFE technologies, including formal and informal approaches to validation and    implementation, and the determination of time windows for application.

 

The TAG comprises technical representatives from Government agencies with research and development responsibilities in the topical areas mentioned above.  Additional representatives from activities with allied interests affiliate with the TAG as appropriate.  Technical experts in special topic areas may augment attendance at specific meetings.  Also participating in the TAG are official representatives of technical societies (e.g., Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, SAFE Association) and industrial associations (e.g., Electronics Industry Alliance) with a stated interest in HFE.  These representatives may attend subgroup and general plenary sessions and they must be credentialed by the TAG prior to attending any meetings. 

 

To facilitate detailed technical information exchange, the TAG is composed of committees and subgroups, or “Sub TAGs.”  Committees are established to address specific issues or problems and are disestablished upon completion of their tasks.  Sub TAGs address problems of a general or continuing nature within a specific field of HFE technology.  Membership in Sub TAGs and committees may include non-government personnel involved in research, development and application.  Attendance by non-government individuals is possible if the person is either sponsored by a government agency or if accepted by the TAG chair prior to the meeting. Chairing of the various subgroups and committees is typically rotated among the Services and in some cases, NASA, as provided in individual charters.

 

The current sub-groups typically meeting at the HFE TAG meeting were as follows.

 

Sub-TAGs:

 

Affiliated Groups:

·  Mission Centric Human Performance Measurement Interest Group

·  Human Robotic Interaction Interfaces Special Interest Group (New)

 

 
ATTACHMENT (2)

PROGRAM SUMMARY

 

Monday 6 November

 

0830 - 1000 Executive Committee meeting - Executive Committee Members

1000 - 1100 New member orientation

1100 - 1300 Luncheon Break

1300 - 1700 Plenary Session

1800 - 2000 Poster Session

1800 - 2000 TAG Mixer

 

Tuesday 7 November

 

0730 - 0830 Technical Society/Industry

0830 - 1100 Human Factors Standardization

0830 - 1100 User-Computer Interaction

0830 - 1430 Human Factors in Training

0930 - 1000 Networking, coffee

1100 - 1300 Luncheon Break

1230 - 1430 Controls and Displays

1230 - 1430 Human-Robotic Interaction and Interfaces Special Interest Group

1430 - 1500 Networking, coffee

1500 - 1700 Human Modeling and Simulation

1500 - 1700 System Safety/Health Hazards/Survivability

1700 - 1830 Service Caucuses & TS/I Meetings

 

Wednesday 8 November

 

0830 - 1100 Design: Tools and Techniques

0830 - 1100 Human Factors in Extreme Environments

0930 - 1000 Networking, coffee

1100 - 1230 Luncheon Break

1230 - 1430 Personnel Selection and Classification

1230 - 1430 Human Factors Engineering/Human Systems Integration: Management and

Applications

1230 - 1700 Human Factors Test and Evaluation

1430 - 1500 Networking, coffee

1500 - 1700 Workload and Stress

1700 - 1800 Mission Centric Human Performance Measurement Interest Group

1830 - 2130 Social

 

Thursday 9 November

 

0800 - 0930 Operating Board

1015 - 1200 Tour

 

 

ATTACHMENT (3)  

 

 

OPERATING BOARD

 

May 2006

 

line break

 

Executive Committee

 

 

Ex Officio Members - SubTAG Chairs

 

 

Affiliated Goups

 

 

Executive Committee

Proponent
Robert E. Foster, Ph.D.
Director, BioSystems
ODUSD(S&T)/ODDR&E/OUSD(AT&L)
3080 Defense Pentagon, Rm. 3E801
Washington, DC 20301-3080
(703) 588-7437; DSN 425-7437; FAX (703) 588-7560

robert.foster@osd.mil

Top-Executive Committee Listing

Current Chair (Air Force)
Mr. Adrian Salinas
Engineer, HSI CONOPS Division
2485 Gillingham Drive
Brooks City-Base, TX 78235-5115
(210) 536-4428 ; DSN 240-4428; FAX (210) 536-4475

adrian.salinas@brooks.af.mil

Top-Executive Committee Listing

Vice Chair (Army)
Ms. Katrina Baker
Aberdeen Test Center
4000 Colleran Dr.
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005
(410) 278-3472; DSN 298-3472; FAX (410) 278-0295

katrina.baker@atc.army.mil

Top-Executive Committee Listing

Immediate Past Chair (Navy)
Ms. Maureen Bergondy-Wilhelm
NAVAIR Orlando TSD, AIR-4961
12350 Research Pkwy.
Orlando, FL 32826-3275
(407) 380-4777; DSN 960-4777; FAX (407) 380-4110

maureen.bergondy@navy.mil

Top-Executive Committee Listing

Army Representative
Dr. Pamela Savage-Knepshield
Attn: AMSRD-ARL-HR-ML
Myer Center Rm. 2D311
Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703-5630
(732) 427-3854; DSN 987-3854; FAX (732) 427-3184

psavageknepshield@arl.army.mil

Top-Executive Committee Listing

Navy Representative
LCDR Joseph Cohn
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Ave. SE
Washington, DC 20375-5320
(202) 404-8624; FAX (202) 767-1608

cohn@itd.nrl.navy.mil

Top-Executive Committee Listing

Air Force Representative
Mr. Darren Cole
118 East Jones Rd., Bldg. 145
Edwards AFB, CA 93524-8290
(661) 275-0171; FAX (661) 275-0240

darren.cole@edwards.af.mil

Top-Executive Committee Listing

FAA Representative
Dr. Thomas McCloy
FAA; ATO-P R&D, Rm. 907
800 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, DC 20591
(202) 267-7167; FAX (202) 267-5797

tom.mccloy@faa.gov

Top-Executive Committee Listing

NASA Representative
Ms. Faith Chandler
NASA Headquarters
300 E St., SW
Washington, DC 20546
(202) 358-0411; FAX (202) 358-2778

fchandle@hq.nasa.gov

Top-Executive Committee Listing

Program Coordinator
Ms. Sheryl Cosing
10822 Crippen Vale Ct.
Reston, VA 20194
(703) 925-9791; FAX (703) 925-9694

scosing@comcast.net

Top-Executive Committee Listing

 

Ex Officio Members - SubTAG Chairs

Controls and Displays

Co-Chairs:

Ms. Marianne Paulsen
NSWC-PC
110 Vemon Ave., Code E24
Panama City, FL 32407-7001
(850) 235-5527; FAX (850) 235-5511

marianne.paulsen@navy.mil


Mr. Justin Kingsford
NSWC Dahlgren
17320 Dahlgren Road
Dahlgren, VA 22448
(540) 653-2508; FAX (540) 653-0831

justin.kingsford@navy.mil

Top-SubTAG List

Design: Tools and Techniques

Co-Chairs:

Dr. Pamela Savage-Knepshield
Attn: AMSRD-ARL-HR-ML
Myer Center Rm. 2D311
Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703-5630
(732) 427-3854; DSN 987-3854; FAX (732) 427-3184

psavageknepshield@arl.army.mil


Mr. Joseph Barretta
Aberdeen Test Center, CSTE-DTC-AT-WF-S
400 Colleran Rd., Bldg. 321
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005
(850) 235-5527; FAX (850) 235-5511

joseph.barretta@atc.army.mil

Top-SubTAG List

Human Factors Engineering/Human Systems Integration: Management and Applications

Co-Chairs:

Ms. Katrina Baker
Aberdeen Test Center
400 Colleran Dr.
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005
(410) 278-3472; DSN 298-3472; FAX (410) 278-0295

katrina.baker@atc.army.mil


Mr. Brad Collie
US Navy Coastal Systems Station, Code E31
6703 West Highway 98
Panama City, FL 32407-7001
(850) 234-4744; FAX (850) 235-5152

bradley.collie@navy.mil

Top-SubTAG List

Human Factors in Extreme Environments
Mihriban Whitmore
NASA/JSC
2101 NASA Road One
Houston, TX 77058
(281) 244-1004; FAX (281) 483-3789

mihriban.whitmore-1@nasa.gov

Top-SubTAG List

Human Factors in Training

Co-Chairs:

Dr. John Stewart
Army Research Institute
(Attn: TAPC-ARI-IR), Bldg. 5100
Ft. Rucker, AL 36362-5354
(334) 255-9109; DSN 558-9109; FAX (334) 255-9025

john.stewart@rucker.army.mil


Ms. Danielle Merket
NAVAIR Orlando TSD, AIR-4961
12350 Research Pkwy
Orlando, FL 32826-3275
(407) 380-4792; DSN 960-4792; FAX (407) 380-4110

danielle.merket@navy.mil

Top-SubTAG List

Human Factors Standardization
Mr. David Britton
ASC/ENFC, Bldg. 560
2530 Loop Rd. West
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7101
(937) 255-2030; DSN 785-2030; FAX (937) 255-8063

david.britton@wpafb.af.mil

Top-SubTAG List

Human Factors Test and Evaluation

Co-Chairs:

Mr. Darren Cole
118 East Jones Rd., Bldg. 145
Edwards AFB, CA 93524-8290
(661) 275-0171; FAX (661) 275-0240

darren.cole@edwards.af.mil


Ms. Trish Hamburger
NAVSEA HSI Directorate
17320 Dahlgreen Rd.
(540) 653-1119; FAX (540) 653-3607

patricia.hamburger@navy.mil

Top-SubTAG List

Human Modeling and Simulation
LT Jeff Grubb
NAVAIR
48110 Shaw Rd., Ste. 2280-D9
Patuxent River, MD 20670
(301) 342-9284

jeff.grubb@navy.mil

Top-SubTAG List

Personnel Selection and Classification

Co-Chairs:

LT Tatana Olson, Ph.D., MSC, USNR
Naval Operational Medicine Institute
Operational Psychology Department
340 Hulse Rd.
Pensacola, FL 32508-1092
(850) 452-2257 x 1090

tmolson@nomi.med.navy.mil


Dr. Raymond King
3812 Buchingham Dr.
Norman, OK 73072
(405) 408-5216; FAX (405) 954-4852

skyking321@aol.com

Top-SubTAG List

Sustained/Continuous Operations

Co-Chairs:

LCDR Walter Carr
NMETC & NIH/NIDCD
5512 Charles St.
Bethesda, MD 20814
(301) 435-5144

carrw@nidcd.nih.gov


Thomas E. Nesthus, Ph.D.
FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute
Human Factors Research Laboratory (AAM-510)
P.O. Box 25082
Oklahoma City, OK 73125
(405) 954-6297; FAX (405) 954-4852

tom.nesthus@faa.gov

Top-SubTAG List

System Safety/Health Hazards/Survivability

Co-Chairs:

George Murnyak
USACHPPM, Attn: MCHB-TS-OHH
5158 Blackhawk Rd.
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5403
(410) 436-2925; DSN 584-2925: FAX (410) 436-1016

george.murnyak@amedd.army.mil


Barbara Palmer
1900 Founders Dr., Ste. 300
Dayton, OH 45420
(937) 781-2803; FAX: (937) 781-2808

palmer_barbara@bah.com

Top-SubTAG List

Technical Society/Industry
Dr. Jennifer Narkevicius
23415 Three Notch Rd., Ste. 2008-148
California, MD 20619
(972) 900-2014

jennifer.narkevicius@skillsnet.com

Top-SubTAG List

User-Computer Interaction

Co-Chairs:

LT Nausheen Momen
NAMRL
280 Fred Bauer St.
Pensacola, FL 32526
(850) 452-3668; DSN: 922-3668; FAX: (850) 452-9290

nmomen@kent.edu


Mr. Steve Merriman
The Boeing Company
Future Combat Systems
LSI MANPRINT Lead
3001 E. George Bush Hwy., Ste. 225
Richardson, TX 75082-2777
(972) 705-8219; cell (214) 316-7071

stephen.c.merriman@boeing.com
scmerriman@comcast.net

Top-SubTAG List

Workload and Stress
Ms. Debra Patton
ARL HRED, Bldg. 459
ATTN: AMSRL-HR
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425
(410) 278-5890; DSN 298-5890

dpatton@arl.army.mil

Top-SubTAG List

 

Affiliated Groups

 

Mission Centric Human Performance Measurement Interest Group
Mr. John Rice
Navy Human Performance Center
COMOPTEVFOR Detachment
7970 Diven St.
Norfolk, VA 23505
(757) 282-5546 x 3802; FAX (757) 282-5532; Cell (757) 318-0671

ricej@cotf.navy.mil

 

 

 ATTACHMENT (4) DoD HFE TAG Attendees

                                                                                      


ATTACHMENT (5) DoD HFE TAG Policies

 

 

1.   Membership (General membership policies are outlined in the Operating Structure, under "Group Composition.")

 

            1.1 Individuals who are not affiliated with Government agencies (but who are associated with technical societies or industrial associations with a stated interest in human factors engineering) wishing to affiliate with the TAG may contact the current Technical Society/Industry SubTAG Chair to ascertain eligibility under the TAG Operating Structure.  Once eligibility has been ascertained, the individual should submit a letter on the organization's letterhead, confirming his/her status as the organization's representative, to the current Chair of the Technical Society/Industry SubTAG.

 

            1.2 Emeritus Membership may be approved by the Executive Committee on a case-by-case basis for a former TAG member who is retired from government service or defense industry.  Emeritus Membership is automatically deactivated during any period or re-employment with the government or defense industry.

 

2.   Meeting Sites (Sites are recommended by the service caucus whose turn it is to host the TAG with a view toward a balance in geographic location and meeting facilities.)

 

            2.1 TAG members are encouraged to recommend potential meeting sites.

 

            2.2 Organizations who wish to host the TAG should contact their Service Representative or the current TAG Chair.

 

3.   Agenda (The agenda is determined approximately three months before the scheduled meeting.  The Chair Select selects the topics from those recommended by the Service Representatives, hosting agency and the TAG Coordinator.)

 

            3.1 TAG members are encouraged to suggest potential agenda topics or topics suitable for tutorial sessions to their Service Representative, the current TAG Chair, or the TAG Coordinator.

 

4.   Registration (Registration fees and the date of the close of registration are announced in an information letter sent approximately two months before the scheduled meeting.)

 

            4.1 All attendees are expected to pre-register and prepay by the announced close of registration.

 

            4.2 Only individuals receiving late travel approvals may pre-register on-site.  Payments made at the meeting site must be in cash.

 

5.   Minutes  (The Minutes of each meeting serve as the principal mechanism for the reporting of TAG activities.  The Minutes will be published as a draft document on the website.)

 

            5.1 Individuals or agencies desiring to be included on the distribution list for a specific meeting should contact the TAG Coordinator.

     

6.   SubTAGs and Committees (See the Operating Structure, section entitled "TAG SubTAGs," for specific information regarding the purposes and operating procedures of SubTAGs and committees.)

 

            6.1 All SubTAGs and committees are encouraged to meet in conjunction with the TAG at least once each calendar year.

 

            6.2 All SubTAGs and committees meeting in conjunction with the TAG are required to provide a chairperson for the specific meeting.

 

            6.3 All SubTAG and committee chairpersons are to submit a brief report of each meeting to be included in the set of TAG Minutes covering the SubTAG/committee meeting time frame.

 

            6.4 All SubTAGs and committees are required to provide the TAG Coordinator with an up-to-date list of their membership for use in the distribution of TAG announcements.

 

            6.5 All SubTAGs are required to submit to the Executive Committee a Charter including, but not limited to, statements regarding:

 

·    objectives         ·    membership policies          ·    meeting schedule

·    scope                ·    chair selection/tenure

 

     6.6  Committees are required to submit to the Executive Committee a document including, but not limited to, brief statements regarding:

 

·    objectives

            ·    membership policies

            ·    chair selection/tenure

 

      6.7 Rotation of the chair position is determined by SubTAG charter.  If the position cannot be filled by the appropriate service at the election meeting, the SubTAG may progress to the next service willing to chair the SubTAG

 

7.   SubTAG Establishment

 

      7.1 Groups interested in addressing technical areas not covered by existing SubTAGs may request the TAG Chair to provide meeting time.

 

            7.2 Formal SubTAGs and committees may be established by recommendation of the Executive Committee.

 

8.   Chair/Representative Selection   (General selection procedures are outlined in the Operating Structure under "Conduct of Business.")

 

8.1  A Service caucus may be called by the TAG Chair or the current Service Representative.

 

            8.2 Methods of determining the Chair Select and Service Representatives are Service dependent.

 

      8.3 Unexpired terms of office will be filled by appointment by the Executive Committee, until a caucus of the Service can be called at the next regularly scheduled TAG meeting.

 

9.   Funding  The funding required for the organization, conduct, franking, and documentation of all TAG meetings shall be done jointly by the three Services and other selected agencies.  The specific mechanisms to obtain and allocate funding from the Services/agencies shall be arranged by the Current Chair, Chair Select, and Immediate Past Chair.

 

10.  Policy Changes

 

10.1 Additions to or amendments of the above policies may be recommended by submitting the suggested change(s) in writing to the TAG Chair.

 

      10.2 Policies may be amended by a majority vote of those Operating Board members in attendance at the Operating Board meeting at which amendments have been proposed.

 

Amended 14 November 1989 at TG-23, Killeen, Texas.

 

Amended 3 May 1994 at TAG-32, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

 

Amended 8 May 1996 at TAG-36, Houston, Texas.

 

Amended 7 November 2002 at TAG-48, Alexandria, Virginia.