12 June 2008

Trip Report

Department of Defense

Human Factors Engineering Technical Advisory Group

(DOD HFE TAG) Meeting #59 – Destin, FL

5-8 May 2008

 

The 59th meeting of the DoD HFE TAG was held in Destin FL, hosted by the Air Force, Eglin Air Force Base. The meeting was chaired by Ms. Katrina Baker, Army Research Laboratory-Human Research and Engineering Directorate, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD (katrina.anne.baker@arl.army.mil). The theme of the meeting was Weathering Change in Today’s Limited Resource Environment. Approximately 90 people attended the meeting, representing the US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, NASA, FAA, Dept of Homeland Security, Canadian DRDC, academia, several human factors-related technical societies and industry associations. Additional personnel representing industry and academia attended as invited speakers. Selected briefings from TAG-59 are available at the following link: http://hfetag.dtic.mil/briefs/TAG-59-briefs.html

 

Five items are attached:

·      Background of the DoD HFE TAG, attachment (1), page 18

·      TAG-59 Theme, Attachment (2), page 20

·      Program Summary, attachment (3), page 21

·      DoD HFE TAG Operating Board, attachment (4), page 22

·      TAG attendees, attachment (5) <to be provided when available>

·      DoD HFE TAG Policies, attachment (6), page 31

 

Plenary Session Presentations

 

The DoD HFE TAG Chair for the 59th meeting, Ms. Katrina Baker, welcomed attendees to the meeting and elaborated briefly on the meeting theme.

 

Human Research Protection Program. Dr. Andy Jones, Research Protections Manager, Human Research Protection Program, Office of Naval Research (andy.jones@navy.mil) provided a short history of the Navy’s human subject protection program. He cited several incidents to remind attendees of past violations, such as the Nuremberg trials, the PHS Syphilis study, CIA LSD mind control experiments (1950s-1970s), human radiation experiments (1940s-1970s) as well as nerve agent exposure studies (SHAD, Copperhead, Lower Drum, Shady Grove, Autumn Gold). Over the years, programs at prestigious institutions, such as Johns Hopkins, University of Pennsylvania, Duke university and the university of Illinois at Chicago, have been shut down due to subject protection issues where there was a threat to the welfare of subjects. Current policies on human research protection include:

 

In DoD, the single point lead for human subject protection is Ms Patty Decot (DDR&E). The definition of “research” used in this context is: “Systematic investigation, including research, development, test and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizeable knowledge.” There are plenty of things that are NOT human subject research, such as 6-sigma, ISO9000 and lots of others but researchers are warned to investigate before it is assumed that the human subject protection policies do not apply. In the future, changes are expected to be made to the DFARS, especially to strengthen human subject protection:

 

Humans in the Loop – Testing for Human Factors in System Performance (with Power). Mr. Gregory Hutto, Wing Operations Analyst, 46th Test Wing, Eglin AFB (Gregory.hutto@eglin.af.mil) provided an entertaining presentation on human factors testing. He maintains that test design is not an art; it is a science! He believes our decisions are too important to be left to professional opinion alone. Decisions should be based on mathematical fact. Objective tests need to be both “deep and broad.” Mr. Hutto referred to “The Design of Experiments” book from the 1930s by Ronald A. Fisher as a “bible” in this field (http://www.amazon.com/Design-Experiments-Ronald-Fisher/dp/0028446909.) The design of experiments is gaining traction by convincing leaders and demonstrating that DOE alone can get you the most depth and breadth, confidence and power for the same resources. Contact with Mr. Hutto following the TAG meeting resulted in identifying the following helpful link, which is recommended: http://www.stat.uiowa.edu/~rlenth/Power/index.html

 

Doing Business in a Reduced Resource Environment was presented by Dr. Regan Campbell, Human Systems Engineering (NAVSEA 05H), Washington Navy Yard, regan.campbell@navy.mil. The Navy is working through the virtual SYSCOM and “J-Print” to coordinate on tools, standards and policy. Some of the means for coordination are:

·      Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) have been developed between NAVSEA 05D and:

o      Commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force) COMOPTEVFOR, to ensure that HSI is a factor in testing.

o      CSCS & SERVICE Learning Centers (SLC), to leverage existing training expertise.

o      NAVSEA-05D, for collaboration in common tool space, especially for Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) and to emplace HSI tools into 05D design tool sets.

·      Commonality is of very high importance; design guidance and reusable components are used to foster cross-program re-use (e.g., Common Presentation Layer common consoles) and within-program re-use (e.g., common functionality between trainers and actual systems. As an example, the HM-60 helicopters have five different sonar systems that are managed via common consoles.

·      Tools. NAVSEA recently established a tool design site for reviewers. They are also funding tool development. The current focus is on tools to assist in ensuring manpower is considered in early trade studies and that realistic manpower numbers are used. This should reduce design rework. Some tool examples include: Total Crew Model, Watch stander Model and Early Manpower Assessment tool.

·      Models/Simulations/Mock-ups are used to validate design concepts prior to their implementation as well as in testing. Currently NAVSEA-05H participates in CAD design, review of CAD models, use of mockups for design evaluations and use of 3D human models (e.g., JACK).

 

Update on US Air Force HSI was presented by LTC Alvis Headen III, Bio-environmental Engineering Consultant to HSIO, alvis.headen@pentagon.af.mil. In 2004, General John D. W. Corley (then Principal Deputy, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, and Military Director, U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, Headquarters U.S. Air Force) asked how well the DOD Regulations and guidelines were being applied in the HSI area. An Air Force Scientific Advisory board (SAB) summer study was held and documented in report AFSAB-TR-04-04. General John Jumper (then Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force) rolled out an HSI program; this was documented in AFI-10-601 in 2006. In 2007, the USAF Human Systems Integration Office (HSIO) was established, with Dr. Rick Drawbaugh as principal. Others currently in the HSIO include: COL Kimm, LTC Martindale, LTC Alvis Headen, Larry Carr, Fran Greene, Gretchen Lizza and Stephanie Simper.

 

Some of the key areas being investigated by the HSIO include:

·    Visualizing the economics: they need to make the business case for HSI in the USAF.

·    Managing collaborations across specialty areas – each has responsibilities

·    Tools and methods for systems engineers

·    Human-related Standards (e.g., MIL-STD-1472)

 

The first Air Force tools and methods workshop was held in April 2008 to identify gaps and integration challenges. A workshop will be held on HSI Return-on-Investment / economics on 28-30 May 2008 and the last workshop will focus on Education and Training in July 2008.

 

INCOSE and Update on HSI Working Group was presented by Dr. Jennifer Narkevicius, Jenius Solutions, jnarkevicius@jeniussolutions.com, the INCOSE representative to the TS/I SubTAG and chair of the TS/I SubTAG. INCOSE (International Council on Systems Engineering) was founded in 1990 and the HSI Working group was added in 2006, currently comprising about 130 participants. The working group meets twice a year, every January and June. Further information on the HSI working group may be obtained via: http://www.incose.org/practice/techactivities/wg/hsi. The HSI working group charter is “to facilitate embedding Human Systems Integration within Systems Engineering, promoting the benefit of placing the proper focus on the role of people in the development and operation of systems. Our vision is to see Human Systems Integration embedded in Systems Engineering practices, leading to the efficient delivery of effective systems.” INCOSE defines HSI as: “Interdisciplinary technical and management process for integrating human considerations within and across all systems components – an essential enabler to systems engineering practice.”

 

The June 2009 working group meeting will be held in conjunction with the INCOSE annual meeting in Singapore; the theme is “the human in the system.” The HSI working group has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with HFES and may initiate additional MOUs with IEEE, NDIA, GEIA ands SAE. The working group submitted inputs to INCOSE SE Handbook to better address HSI in June 2007.

 

Sub-Group Meetings Attended at the DOD HFE TAG:

       

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

 

In the morning session, education and training were discussed, with John Owen (Navy) speaking first:

·  Navy has several HSI related courses:

o      NAVSEA HSI 101 Introductory HSI course

o      NAVSEA HSI 103 Advanced topics

o      NAVAIR courses

o      Navy Postgraduate School Master’s degree program in HSI

·  Three Certificate programs, with universities:

o      Masters of Systems engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology

o      Certificate program, Univ. of California, San Diego (three courses: HSI Introduction, HSI Methods, HSI Acquisition Process)

o      Virginia Tech – Certification Program in HSI.

 

Virtual SYSCOM Teams identify who needs training, types of training, content, goals, etc. to include government and industry topics. Then they get with the universities to set up the certification programs.

 

Dr. Larry Shattuck (NPS) reviewed courses at the Naval Postgraduate School:

·  32 course curriculum, provided over eight quarters in all MANPRINT/HSI domains.

·  Usability, safety, mishaps, trainability, statistics, acquisition topics are included.

 

Take-aways from the NPS curriculum include:

·      Domain knowledge in all HSI domains

·      Analytical techniques

·      Modeling and Simulation, including application techniques

·      Systems approach

·      Implementing Tradeoffs

·      Joint-service considerations

 

HSI certification program will start at NPS in the Spring of 2009:

·      Four course sequence ($1750 per course):

o      HSI Overview (domains/service policies, research methods…)

o      HSI in Systems engineering acquisition lifecycle

o      HSI TTP (Tools (e.g., IMPRINT), Tradeoffs and Procedures/ Policies)

o      Case studies and applications.

·      Distance learning, asynchronous

·      25 students per course (if sufficient demand, could increase # of students beyond 25)

·      Graduate credit

·      Open to Uniformed service personnel, DoD civilians, US Government contractors and International students.

 

An HSI Certificate Program Advisory Board is being established to provide advice on curriculum. (Steve Merriman volunteered and was accepted to serve on this board.)

 

In the afternoon session, Dr. Steve Harris (Virginia tech, sharris@vbi.vt.edu) made an interesting presentation on Ubiquitous High-performance Cyber-infrastructure for Policy Informatics. The Comprehensive National Incident Management System (CNIMS) is managed by the National Threat Reduction Agency. It is a planning and assessment tool for military preparedness, using high performance computing. The goal is to change how high performance computing is made available to policy-makers. Large scale simulations can be conducted to examine human behavior in reaction to various stimuli. For example, there was a recent simulation of the behavior of 280 million people in 129 different places in the world. These simulations are said to be dealing with “Synthetic Information.”

 

The premise for Synthetic information: With a given context, composing procedural and networked information allows integration of data and consideration of new relationships that are not measured or cannot be observed.

 

Applications of large-scale simulations include the study of the spread of disease or the study of the effects of toxic clouds on a population, including the effects of feedback and feed-forward loop impacts. CNIMS provides unique capabilities for undertaking comprehensive planning and response studies in the event of crises. Policy-makers could commission quick, near-real-time studies to examine the impacts of different policies on human population disruption, injury, death, etc. This capability could actually help determine or refine policy-maker courses of action. Prototype tools are now being transitioned to the National Guard, Army and NorthCom. It is important to “vett” the individual models being used – results from interfaced models must“ make sense.”

 

The afternoon session was closed by Ms. Teresa Alley (talley@dticam.dtic.mil), who spoke on Second Life, The Universe and Everything! Teresa gave everyone a glimpse into the future of social networking tools and some of the possibilities associated with them.

 

Human Factors Standardization (HFS) SubTAG: Mr. Alan Poston (aposton86@comcast.net) chaired the Human Factors Standardization SubTAG meeting. Tom Haduch, Army Standardization Principal, was in attendance. Mr. Haduch recommended authoring a letter from the TAG Army, Navy and Air Force HSI principals to the Joint HSI Sterring Group, requesting an update to MIL-STD-1472 as soon as possible.

 

·    MIL-STD-1474: The update to MIL-STD-1474 has stagnated.

·    MIL-STD-2525C: It is expected that revision C will be published in fall, 2008. Revision D is expected in late 2009; revision D will move most of the technical content to appendices.

·    ANSI / HFES-100: This standard on computer workstations was approved in November 2007. It is 108 pages long and available in CD-ROM format for $50.00.

·    ANSI / HFES-200: The public review of this standard on the HFE of software interfaces was begun on 25 April 2008; the review should take about 60 days. This standard contains only “should” statements.

·    NASA Standard 3000 Evolution: This has been reviewed again, with NASA receiving about 300 comments. The goal is to complete a revision by October 2008. It will be sent out for another review.

·    MIL-STD-1787: No report.

·    USAF Joint Service Specification guide (JSSG): No report.

·    ASTM F1166: Now available.

·    ASTM F1337: In draft form now; should be final by Fall 2008.

·    Human Factors Standardization in High Speed Vessels: Final version released in April 2008 via Dr. Dobbins’ website.

·    HSI Program Standard: This standard would be an HSI equivalent to MIL-H-46855 (cancelled – GEIA HEB1-A is the non-government standard equivalent). This draft standard is currently in review. The services are attempting to get Larry Carr and Taylor Jones to handle comments. Dick Armstrong will probably be tapped to update the document.

 

User-Computer Interaction SubTAG: The User-Computer Interaction (UCI) Sub TAG meeting was co-chaired on Tuesday, 6 May 2008 by Nausheen Momen, LT, MSC, USNR, Ph.D. (nmomen@namrl.navy.mil) and Stephen Merriman (stephen.c.merriman@boeing.com). There were 31 attendees at the session.. No changes were proposed in SubTAG leadership at this meeting; elections will be held at the November 2008 meeting. Revisions were proposed to the UCI SubTAG charter; however, a final submittal will not occur until the November 2008 meeting. Four presentations were made at this UCI session.

 

The first presentation was Supporting Tactical Communications through the User Interface: Challenges and Lessons Learned by Dr. Pamela Savage-Knepshield, Research Psychologist, ARL – HRED, Attn: AMSRD-ARL-HR-ML, Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703-5630,(732) 427-3854; DSN 987-3854; FAX (732) 427-3184, pam.savageknepshield@us.army.mil. Synopsis: The Joint Tactical Radio System – Handheld, Manpack, and Small Form Fit (JTRS-HMS) Program has conducted four major user studies to understand the situational factors that influence day-to-day operations of tactical radios and how best to support them through its user interface. To understand user needs, the first study focused on identifying mission essential radio functions, characterizing the context of use for tactical radios, and determining what is working well and what is not on current radios. Subsequent studies conducted by a multi-disciplinary user study team validated initial test results and systematically investigated how to best support Warfighters’ goals and mission essential tasks. Using a variety of user-centered design and evaluation methods in conjunction with prototype equipment that increased in fidelity over time, the team has explored the usefulness and usability of the radio’s functions and their implementation. This presentation will highlight specific user interface design challenges, issues, and lessons learned by using design artifacts and examples drawn from the system development and demonstration phase of the JTRS-HMS manpack radio.

 

The second presentation was NAVSEA Display Commonality by Ms. Janet Jaensch (NAVSEA-05H, Janet.L.Jaensch@navy.mil, 202-781-3728) and Mr. John Winters (Basic Commerce and Industries (BCI), john_winters@teambci.com, 540-663-3321 x140). Synopsis: The Navy currently has 16 different surface ship combat systems in service or development. Each has unique human-computer interface (HCI) characteristics due to stovepiped development efforts, which results in increased costs to the Navy in both development and training. The 2007-2008 Guidance from the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) directs the Navy to reduce the number of combat systems from 16 to eight in the next ten years. Greater commonality in operator consoles and the hardware aspects of the HCI is being achieved by introduction of a common console across Navy systems, which necessitates changes to the software-based HCI, an upfront cost that should save money throughout the life cycle of Navy systems.

 

Increased display commonality or reuse of user interface components is often cited as a means to reduce the overall cost of display development, and increased commonality will be critical to achieving the CNO’s goal of reducing the number of surface ship combat systems. This brief provides an overview of NAVSEA initiatives to improve display commonality. It covers specific commonality challenges of particular programs, such as commonality across sonar sensors and for integration of new externally-developed warfighting capabilities into existing systems. Successes in commonality for equivalent functions across combat systems and reusable user interface components will also be discussed. Based on these case studies, an approach for achieving commonality from various perspectives is presented.

 

The third presentation was STAGE ACT II: Performing Role-based functions with personalized Clients by Mr. Mike T. Hübler (Human-Computer Interaction Group Manager

Teledyne Brown Engineering, Software Engineering Directorate, Redstone Arsenal, mike.hubler@us.army.com, 256-876-9824). Synopsis: As part of its Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Project Office task, the Software Engineering Directorate is exploring how to standardize displays for a wide array of battery and battalion roles spanning engagement operations, command and control, defense planning and other functions. Consistent with the industry push to reduce resource utilization, IAMD is essentially asking whether the community of systems can manage with variations to a common user interface, rather than entirely reinventing interfaces for each piece of software running in each AMD system. The task presents both a human processing and technical challenge to human-computer interaction design. At least part of the solution to the human problem lies in discovering organizational patterns of AMD tasks and information that allow discrete user interface pieces to be dynamically assembled for a user’s needs. In other words, AMD data and functions must be strategically “chunked” into a flexible information architecture. But such a design still risks overloading users with information. Following hypertext theories of “reader-centered” construction (e.g. J. David Bolter’s “lexicon,” George Landow’s “dynamic lexia,” etc.), I have proposed that the available chunks be selected, laid out, and customized within limits to the needs of users.

 

The technical problem of integrating displays is exacerbated in the AMD community by its reliance on multiple software applications residing on disparate hardware platforms. Experimentation has led to a Standard GUI Evaluator (STAGE) prototype engine that assembles user interface pieces into a Java client. The client is stimulated by XML scripts that could be sent from virtually any application and platform and, being written in Java, can be run on multiple platforms with relatively minimal processing requirements. STAGE has evolved into a usability testing tool that has helped a small team weather a very large user interface design project. Currently, STAGE allows users almost complete control over the selection and lay out of components, post development phase. STAGE can also dynamically map events between components, although its set of defined events needs to be significantly expanded. As a prototype for a client builder, the STAGE suggests the practical possibilities of adapting a common, complex library of UI components to the needs of roles and even individual users within a system.

 

The last presentation was Some thoughts on the challenges of providing common User Interfaces in Systems Development by Mr. Nick Shields (The Boeing Company, Huntsville Alabama, nickolas.l.shields@boeing.com, 256-461-3744). Synopsis: Common user interfaces are more often driven by programmatic goals and features than by the human factors community of practice. User interfaces may be affected depending upon whether the system goals are R&D, production, COTS based, subsystem integration into system-of-systems, or focused on spiral development. The effects on the common user interface can vary from “experimental” in R&D programs, to “best practice” in production, through “as-is” in COTS systems, and simultaneous independent development of interfaces in systems-of-systems.

 

Acknowledgment of the influences of the programmatic environment can assist in establishing workable common user interfaces. In R&D we can share the best experimental user results with the component designers for incorporation into their designs; in production we can demonstrate increased system performance capabilities through lessened training, lowered skill set requirements and increased output through common interface protocols; in COTS the acquisition of systems with similar user interfaces can be a directed purchase requirement; and in systems-of-systems integration the direction to employ a common interface standard across subsystems and platforms can be employed.

 

The degree to which common user interfaces can be dictated or established is a function of the programmatic goals and the forethought that is required in buying and developing the common components for the program. Often failure to implement system-of-systems commonality is intellectually disturbing. The operational problems are often not so bad because operators usually only work on part of the system.

 

At the end of the meeting, attendees were reminded that a charter revision would be submitted at the next meeting and also that elections would be held.

 

Human Factors Engineering/Human Systems Integration: Management and Applications. Dr. Pamela Savage-Knepshield, pam.savageknepshield@us.army.mil, and Daniel Wallace (Daniel.wallace@navy.mil) co-chaired this meeting of the HFE/HSI SubTAG.

 

The first presentation was on Human Systems Integration Gap Analysis – CV-22 Human Factors by Major Keith Higginbotham, USAF 58 Spec. Ops wing, Aerospace Physiologist, Kirtland AFB, keith.higginbothum@kiteland.af.mil. In 2006, Major Higginbotham was assigned to do a Capability Gap Analysis (CGA) in accordance with AFI 48-01 because the CV-22 was to arrive at Kirtland in the near future. It was found that the CV-22 could expose aircrew to physiological threats not seen since the B-17 – that is flying in an Unpressurized cockpit at high altitude over long range (duration). Oxygen and pressurization issues have pretty much been taken for granted lately and have not been emphasized. These issues, combined with temperature and pressure extremes make for a potentially perilous situation for CV-22 aircrews. A total of 21 gaps were identified across HSI domains. (Steve Merriman’s notes identifies these capability gaps, required corrective actions and actins taken; if this information is required, please contact Steve directly.)

 

The second presentation was on A Technique for Conducting Usability Tests with Small Ns – Lessons Learned During an Army Operational Field Experiment by Dr. Pamela Savage-Knepshield. Doing the basic HFE job is often not enough; you also need to ask about things such as:

 

During operational test, problems arise and also there are opportunities to be creative. For example, during Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle (SUGV) testing:

 

This operational test, conducted as part of the “C2 on the Move Testbed” provided an opportunity to investigate areas of potential interest to the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. Soldiers were asked to evaluate the CERDEC C2 Chat System without having prior knowledge of its operation or purpose. A total of thirty-nine soldiers were asked to maintain surveillance of enemy troops and pass information via chat on the FBCB2 system. Four soldiers participated for four days and they were asked to use the chat system for several purposes. The exercise was held at Ft. Dix in NJ. Soldiers received one hour of training and rated the chat system on a 5-point Likert scale. This resulted in identifying several positive features (e.g., unlimited chat message length was rated as good; the standard abbreviation list was rated as good). Small-N research can be supplemented by literature review of by reviewing other study results. Tape recording of interviews always seem to produce rich information.

 

Design Tools and Techniques SubTAG: This SubTAG meeting was co-chaired by Dr. Pamela Savage-Knepshield (US Army Research Lab, Ft. Monmouth, NJ, pam.savageknepshield@us.army.mil) and Mr. Jeffrey Thomas (US Army Research Lab.,
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, jeffrey.alexander.thomas@us.army.mil). During the meeting, Mr. Steve Merriman was accepted as a new co-chair of this SubTAG, replacing Dr. Savage-Knepshield, who will step down from this position following this meeting.

 

The first presentation was on The Effect of Weapon Weight and Balance on Shooting Performance with an Assault Rifle by Bill Harper, Army Research Laboratory. There is very little data available on how weight and balance of rifles affect shooter reflexive firing performance. A study was conducted as part of a NATO working group study (documented in NATO SCI-178/RTG-043). In a Canadian study of weight and balance on live fire, several scenarios were played out, with accuracy, shot-group and time-to-engage as performance measures. Results indicated that weapon balance was more important than weight; and, that performance was slower with higher weight. Heavier weights increased safety concerns. In the DISALT simulator study, various weight (from 0 to +4.5 kg added) and balance (natural +4 cm, - 4cm) conditions were represented. A VICON motion capture system was used to help examine aiming performance and weapon cant angle. USMC trainees served as subjects in 10 different shooting tasks. Increased weight resulted in increased aiming error for reflexive firing and slight over-slew. Subjective response was that performance degraded linearly with increased weight. Although balance was less important, moving weight to the front of the weapon degraded performance the most. The next study may examine the effect of body position and stance on weapon aiming.

 

The next presentation was on Common Presentation Layer by Mr. Daniel Wallace, Naval Surface Weapons Center, Dahlgren, VA, Daniel.f.wallace@navy.mil. The Navy uses a style guide to ensure commonality, improve performance and reduce training budgets. Major emphasis is currently being placed on tactical situation displays (e.g., color, symbology) and system maintenance displays (e.g., pipe runs). NAVSEA Standard 03-01 CPL Guide, September 2006, section s 1 through 11 have been upgraded. Work is currently progressing on sections 12 (hull, mechanical and electrical) and 13 (tactical situation displays). Other documents have been reviewed, including: MIL-STD-1472, ANSI/HFES 100, 200, MIL-STD-2525, MIL HDBK-743, MIL-HDBK-46855, MIL-HDBK-759, DII COE UIS, style guides, ASTM-F1166, NUREG 0700, FAA HFDS, NASA 3000, ISO 9241). The CPL Guide has been used on DDG-100, DDG Modernization UCC, SWFTS (Submarine Warfare Federated Tactical System), Navy Nuclear Propulsion programs and LCS (Littoral Combat Ship). It will be used on future programs such as CG(X). The Navy plans to create a library of widgets to help designers guild GUIs. Mr. Wallace plans to get the CPL guide released to DTIC in the near future.

 

The third presentation was on Human Dimensions in Future Battle Command by Celestine A Ntuen, PhD, North Carolina A&T State University, ntuen@ncat.edu. Battle command is about commanders use and management of resources. Battle command involves planning and strategy development, integration of ways and means.

 

Battle command is human-centric:

 

Battle command is commander-centric with human attributes:

 

Current Issues in Joint Battle Command:

 

HFE/user interface technology goals include:

 

Interpretation of information is always affected by how technology is representing the information. The technology used may also affect the resolution of uncertainty.

 

Training focus area include:

 

Future concerns include:

 

The fourth presentation was on Stereo Vision: A history of Applications and Lessons Learned by Mr. Brad Pettijohn (US Army Research Lab, HRED, Ft. Leonard-Wood, MO). Stereo vision has been shown to provide better accuracy and reduce task completion times. The Army’s Buffalo-Mine Protected Clearance Vehicle (weighs 31,672 Lbs.) has been studied at Ft. Leonard-wood for the past three years.

 

The Terramite Front End Loader can be operated robotically by a Soldier 300 feet away with a clear line of sight. Stereo vision is provided to assist the operator with manipulation of the front end loader; it provides no help for the driving task. In the summer of 2006 a study was done to examine front end loader task performance with and without 3-D using 32 soldiers. Both confidence and performance were enhanced with 3D for certain tasks. During the April 2008 TALON Demo, a small unmanned ground system (robot) was used to do several tasks, such as find objects in a pile of rubble, pick up objects, etc. Some issues emerged, that remain the key

3-D issues today.

 

Modeling and Simulation SubTAG: Not attended.

 

Workload and Stress SubTAG. Combined with T&E SubTAG session.

 

Personnel Selection and Classification SubTAG: Not attended.

 

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

 

Human Factors Test and Evaluation SubTAG: The co chairs for this SubTAG are Ms Christi Adams, NSWC Dahlgren, christi.adams@navy.mil and Mr. Bruce Hamm, US Army Research Lab, Ft. Huachuca AZ, bruce.hunn@us.army.mil. This session was combined with the Workload SubTAG.

 

The first presentation was Human Factors & MANPRINT Evaluation of Tele-operated Full-size Systems by Dr. Laurence Cooper and Mr. David Scribner, US Army Research Laboratory. Full-sized, tele-operated vehicleswere tested as part of the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force (REF) program. This testing is done quickly (fast turnaround, short test cycle). There are three primary areas of testing:

 

GPS data provided total % of time on the track – this is a good measure when comparing manual and automated unmanned system driving performance. The driving display provided 33 degree high resolution “foveal”, field-of-view out to a total of 170 degrees with reduced resolution. The unmanned system was an 18,000 Lb (“up-armored”) HMWVV. The increased vehicle weight increased driving latencies. The test vehicle had its “trim” set incorrectly so that it tended to steer to one side. There was no trim display provided for the driver and there was a weak spring force on the driving control. At speeds of 40 mph, the HMWVV was crashed!

 

Some results:

 

There seems to be lots of literature on how to design UGVs, but the systems under test did not reflect “best of class.” In the next set of tests, the Soldiers will be asked to “do something else” while driving – this should better approximate real world driving situations.

 

The next presentation was Resilience to Deployment Stress: An Exploratory Study by Ms. Krystal Thomas, US Army Research Lab. Feelings associated with pre-deployment stress include: isolation, ambiguity, insecurity, boredom, danger, workload. Rates of suicide are elevated. Previous deployment experience reduces stress. “Hardiness” reduced deployment stress (attitude, change tolerance). Situational factors relating to family and job also affect stress levels. A study was conducted to explore predictors of deployment resilience. The study was conducted during a two-week Patriot exercise in Volkfield, Wisconsin. On hundred Air National Guard personnel were interviewed using questionnaires. It was determined the prospect for deployment produced family worries that elevated hostility levels, increased neuroticism and anger. The Cognitive readiness Prediction Tool (CRPT) was used for this study.

 

The next presentation was on Trait Anxiety and Salivary Cortisol During Fee Living and Military Stress, by Air Force LT Mark Taylor. This work was documented in Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine 79 (2), 129-135. Stress can be viewed as an imbalance. Cortisol affects many organs, generally mobilizing energy for action and suppresses less immediate physiological responses (immune function). Cortisol levels normally peak shortly after awakening, peaks early, drops precipitously in the late morning and stays low for the rest of the day. Sustained high levels of Cortisol result in negative attitude, repressiveness and high stress.

 

Twenty-six subjects provided saliva samples at 0730, 0830, 0900, 1600 and 1930 every day. The Spielberger State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) was used to differentiate subjects. The group was divided into HIGH and LOW anxiety groups. Both groups participated in Survival Evasion Resistance Escape (SERE) training which is know to increase stress variables up to 14X. relationships between trait anxiety and Cortisol levels were determined. Diurnal variations were also noted between groups.

 

The last presentation was on Imagery Analysis Enhancement by Synthetic Sensation Approach to Information Integration by Mr. Bruce Hamm, ARL-HRED, Ft. Huachuca Field Element. This effort explored how people learn and identify objects. Integrated displays have been the preferred choice in fast, tactical jets but many Army ground systems continue to present imagery on individual, separate displays. This requires that operators must divide their attention and perform cognitive synthesis in order to “see the entire picture.” Future Army systems require high resolution imagery, the equivalent of geo-rectification (pattern matching) for multiple bands (e.g., IR, near-IR) into cohesive, realistic, integrated imagery. Auditory input should also be considered as a redundant, complementary variable.

 

System Safety/Health Hazards/Survivability SubTAG. This SubTAG meeting was co-chaired by Ms. Barbara Palmer (Booz|Allen|Hamilton, palmer_barbara@bah.com) and Mr. Nathan Herro (711th Human Performance Wing, Brooks City-Base, nathan.herro@brooks.af.mil). The first presentation was “Injury Prevention Needed as the USAF Down-sizes,” by Dr. Joe Pellettiere (AFRL, WPAFB, OH, joseph.pellettiere@wpafb.af.mil). Dr. Pellettiere and Dr. Tim Wells are currently working to identify issues. Their “vision” is to combine occupational epidemiology and bio-mechanics to prevent injury and disability for all airmen. Currently, there is not an Air Force-specific program to combine disparate occupational health data to identify injury and disability. So, a team was formed in AFRL to create this model program. Over 490,000 airmen receive over $348 million in VA disability annually. Lost time injuries alone account for 17,000 lost duty days annually.

The program will draw from VA disability data, Defense Manpower Data center (DMDC) data, Military Health System data and Air Force Personnel entry data. The following tasks are planned:

· Identify which occupations are at high risk (narrow to specific AFSCs)

· Identify what aspects of occupations create this risks

· Identify the specific risks; e.g., musculo-skeletal

· Explore injury reduction methods

· Use follow-on surveillance to monitor program effectiveness.

 

The next presentation was An Analysis of MRAP Vehicle Seating Systems by Mr. Richard Kozychi, ARL, Human Research and Engineering Directorate, Aberdeen MD (rkozychi@arl.army.mil). The Mine Resistant Armor Protected (MRAP) Vehicle was designated by the SECDEF as the highest priority DoD acquisition program. US Army ARL was assigned the task of assessing the seating system for accommodation of the target user population. The goals were to maximize compliance of seat restraints and accommodate 90% of the male and female Soldier populations. Worst cases were to be identified and the JACK 3-D models were to be validated. For the study, the 2015 soldier mannequin set was used from the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. The major issues were determined to be: fit (physical accommodation), catch (catching clothing, etc on restraints), egress, “not secure” (slip-out, mostly of smaller size persons), and reach problems.

 

Findings:

·  Current physical accommodation standards are currently lacking – they don’t consider armor and other equipment.

·  It was found that the small females could not cinch down their straps.

·  The seat belt was completely “maxed-out” for the larger Soldiers (min and max belt length standards are needed).

·  A 4-point belt design allows the belt to ride up on the torso (very undesirable).

·  Shoulder belts could not be adjusted to a point at the top of the shoulders.

·  The shoulder loops were found to catch on clothing and equipment (for egress).

·  The shoulder belts feed up to a “Y” - when cinched up tight, the “Y: pulls up to the neck, which is very uncomfortable.

·  It is difficult to adjust the belts one-handed.

·  Seat belt ends could retract into the buckle and make it hard to get out (a “stop” was sewn into the belt about 4-5” from the end to correct this).

·  Belt latches were not rugged enough for military use (improvements needed)

·  Belt retractors need to get the belts out of the way.

·  The belts posed tripping hazards.

·  The headrest placement was ineffective; there was no adjustment provided (up-down, angle)

·  The seat back angle was not open enough (82 degrees) and the seat pan was too narrow and short

·  The Soldier was pushed too far forward in the seat to accommodate the hydrator pack.

·  A removable seat insert was developed to accommodate the hydrator pack.

·  For emergency egress, an auxiliary tool (Aircrew Survival and Egress Knife (ASEK) was needed for emergency egress (to slash belts).

 

A list of “best features” (or lessons learned) was developed:

·      5-point harness

·      Seat back with removable insert

·      Adjustable headrest (up-down and angle)

·      Seat belts accommodate full range of sizes

·      Hardware suitable for military use (ruggedized)

·      Shoulder attach central release reactors help control belt stowage.

 

The next presentation was Human Engineering an Ergonomics Risk Analysis Process by Chris Parker, Designers and Planners, Inc., cparker@dandp.com (supporting the US Coast Guard). Ergonomic injuries in the Navy accounted for $90 million in 1999. Ergonomic injuries are estimated to be $111 million by 2009. The DoD needs a better way to identify and mitigate ergonomic risks. The customer for this work was N09FB (CNO Safety Liaison Office). The goal of the effort was to develop a methodology to help identify, analyze and mitigate risks of human injury. The focus was on physical safety hazards associated with equipment design and occupational health hazards due to poor task design, etc. A step-by-step analytical process was developed, along with a human injury risk matrix. The first draft is now complete. The Project Manager is Larry Avery (lavery@dandp.com).

 

Human Factors in Training SubTAG: Not attended.

 

Controls and Displays SubTAG: Not attended.

 

Special Session on DoD HFE TAG Web Site Design. A lunchtime meeting was held on Wednesday 7 May to discuss potential improvements to the DoD HFE TAG web site. The following list attempts to capture the great majority of suggestions.

 

         - Functionality of left side buttons unclear       - Too much text, not enough graphics

         - More TAG advertising desired                       - Improve ease of navigation

         - Improve ease of meeting registration             - Improve usability of PAYPAL

         - Improve esthetics                                            - Improve button layout

         - Improve the use of colors                               - Improve readability of text

         - Improve consistency                                       - Make subTAG pages updateable by chair

         - Provide secure area for contact info                - Provide information for visitors

         - Provide a FAQ section                                   - Link Logos to Service/Agency web pages

         - Address meeting dress code                           - Consider pages for students, new members,

                                                                                    presenters, sponsors, visitors

      

DOD HFE TAG Operating Board Meeting:

 

 

It was recommended that SubTAG chairs consider merging sessions when it appears as though attendance may be low.

 

The next TAG meeting (TAG #60) will be in the Washington, DC area, hosted by the Department of Homeland Security.

 

 

Submitted by:

Stephen C. Merriman

DoD HFE TAG, TS/I Credentialed Representative of EIA, SAFE and AsMA

FCS MANPRINT Sr. Technical Specialist

3001 E. George Bush Highway, Suite 225

Richardson, TX 75082-2777

972-705-8219 (Office)     214-316-7071 (Cellular)

972-705-8098 (FAX)               stephen.c.merriman@boeing.com
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., Government Electronics and Information Technology Association) 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 “SubTAGs.” Committees are established to address specific issues or problems and are disestablished upon completion of their tasks. SubTAGs address problems of a general or continuing nature within a specific field of HFE technology. Membership in SubTAGs 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 rotated among the Services, NASA, FAA, DHS and TS/I members, 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

 


ATTACHMENT (2) Meeting Theme

 

Meeting Theme

Weathering Change in Today’s Limited Resource Environment

With the shape of the economy and occurrence of world, events there have been many changes taking place within the government and private industry. One of the main goals for the changes has been to reduce resource utilization (money, time, people, hardware, etc) so more resources are available for other purposes. However, both government and private industry employers still expect the work force to accomplish the job or mission with little or no affect on the outcome and schedule. In the past, this concept has been referred to as “Do more with less.” In other words, we need to accomplish the same job with fewer resources in less time. It is time we recognize the flaws of that concept and determine what we can do with the resources and time available to us that would allow us to fulfill our job objectives.

 

The mission still holds true for Human Factors Engineers (HFEs) and Human Systems Integration (HSI) practitioners to understand the human aspects and apply the tools necessary to ensure human consideration in light of the limited resources available and constraints present. With our main interest being the human in operations and maintenance arenas, innovative, yet practical means of maintaining the human in the loop integrity is imperative. Our mission from an operation