17 November 2008

Trip Report

Department of Defense

Human Factors Engineering Technical Advisory Group

(DOD HFE TAG) Meeting #60 – Washington, DC

3-6 November 2008

 

The 60^th meeting of the DoD HFE TAG was held in Washington, DC, hosted by the Department of Homeland Security. The meeting was chaired by Dr. Brad Collie, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Panama City, FL. (bradley.collie@navy.mil). The theme of the meeting was Making the Nation Safer: The Human Factor. Approximately 110 people attended the meeting, representing OSD, US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, NASA, FAA, US Coast Guard, Dept of Homeland Security, Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Joint Forces Command (JFCOM), National Research Council (NRC), Federal Railroad Administration, academia, several human factors-related technical societies and industry associations. Additional personnel representing industry and academia attended as invited speakers. Selected briefings from TAG-60 will be available on the DoD HFE Tag website: http://www.hfetag.com/

 

Five items are attached:

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

·      TAG-60 Theme, Attachment (2)

·      Program Summary, attachment (3)

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

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

·      DoD HFE TAG Policies, attachment (6)

 

Plenary Session Presentations

 

The DoD HFE TAG Chair for the 60^th meeting, Dr. Brad Collie, welcomed attendees to the meeting and elaborated briefly on the meeting theme. Dr. Collie welcomed the Department of Homeland Security as the most recent TAG sponsor and the host for the 60^th meeting. Dr. Collie then introduced the Honorable Jay M. Cohen as the keynote speaker.

 

Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology. The Honorable Jay M. Cohen, Undersecretary of Homeland Security, Science and Technology (previously Chief of Naval Research) presented a summary of the DHS S&T program. The enabling legislation was described as “quite good,” seeing as how it pulled together all or parts of 22 different agencies. DHS includes 35,000 fire departments and 80,000 first responders in the United States. The DHS is unique in that it is concerned with: the psychology of terrorism, and, hostile intent (mal intent).

DHS is very focused on attributes and behavior; so long as they limit themselves to these areas, the Congress is okay with them. Congress added $35Million to the DHS budget last year and is adding $65Million this (FY09) year. The threats against the US were characterized as including Bombs, Borders, Bugs, Business, Bodies and Buildings – with different probabilities and consequences of occurrence:

 

 

Science and technology goals are to:

• accelerate delivery of enhanced technical capabilities
• establish a lean civil servant managed world class management team, and

            provide leadership, resources and educational opportunities

 

The S&T budget is broken into four area: Revolutionary R&D, Product transitions (DoD 6.2-6.4), Basic Research, and other. The S&T organization is made up of 6 divisions:

• Explosives
• Chemical/Biological
• Command, Control and Interoperability
• Human Factors (Cherla Rausch, Lead) [about 1.5% of the S&T budget)
• Borders/Maritime
• Infrastructure/Geophysical

 

It is organized by technical area, not by projects…because projects come and go. Integrated Product Teams are used to integrate human factors into the research and development projects. The human factors thrust area focuses on human-technology interaction. There are approximately 250 different projects active at any given time. Their web site lists thee R&D program areas being pursued: http://www.dhs.gov/xres/ .

 

Mr. Cohen is the only political appointee in the S&T division. Every #2 person in the DHS undergoes special training to ensure that they can deal adequately with emergencies if the #1s are gone or being replaced.

 

Update on OSD Human Systems Science and Technology. Dr. Robert Foster (Director, BioSystems, Office of the Deputy under Secretary of Defense (Science and Technology), robert.foster@osd.mil) provided a summary update on HSI in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Dr. Foster prefaced his remarks by asking what had been accomplished in response to his January 2005 charge to the TAG to improve HSI guidance to industry. Since January 2005, the TAG helped author a new Data Item Description (DID) on Human Systems Integration Program Plan and has drafted a Military Standard on HSI. Steve Merriman indicated that the HSIPP DID has already been used in several acquisitions. Dr. Foster strongly suggested that the draft military standard on HSI should be submitted to DTIC as a technical report so that it could be cited in contracts if desired.

 

The top-level DUSD(S&T) organization was described as shown in the following figure. BioSystems includes human systems integration, bio-medical technology, chemical/biological defense, civil engineering and regulatory measures. Dr. Foster’s previous assistant director for Human Sciences (Navy CDR Sean Biggerstaff) is now promotable to Captain and is taking a new position at Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD. The new assistant director is CDR Dylan Schmorrow, previously of DARPA and ONR.

 

The 2008 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008/Public Law 110-181 contains a provision requiring the DoD to establish a single office to coordinate the planning, management and execution of human systems integration activities throughout all DoD acquisition programs. A single office will be established in Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L) to develop a comprehensive plan for funding and implementing HSI through all phases of science, research and acquisition.

 

Dr. Foster’s role will be to identify what technologies and methodologies can be brought forward, what gaps currently exist and what science and technology is needed to close the gaps. Dr Foster believes that HSI has application in all aspects of DOTMLPF (Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel and Facilities). Dr. Foster charged the DOD HFE TAG to identify top level gaps, what DoD is researching and developing and what DOD should be funding and working on. [As a result, the TAG chair asked all SubTAG chairs to address Dr. Foster’s request in their meetings at TAG-60.]

Dr. Foster also asked the TAG to consider how we get HSI into the OSD Techopedia. He indicated that it is important that we marry up with what the DoD is recommending to Congress what we go forward with. CDR Dylan Schmorrow is Dr. Foster’s primary point of contact on this.

 

Dr. Foster provided an update on what is happening in the international community. The Technical Coordination Program (TTCP) Human Performance and Resources Group and the NATO RTO FHM (Medical Panel) are both addressing HSI issues. International organizations depend upon volunteerism to do their work and volunteerism is what we are not seeing lately. There are plenty of HSI issues to work on. For example, when the US, UK and Canada tried to put together an air strike package (AWACS surveillance, air superiority and strike) it took eight hours to author the Air Tasking Order (ATO). This exercise demonstrated that there are lots of human factors issues to work.

 

Dr. Foster identified an emerging HSI focus area: The CYBER Domain – Data, information technology, knowledge, decision technology. Fully integrating the humans is very difficult to do. The areas he suggested to focus on are:

• Information Security (C2): Example, Russian denial of service attack on Estonia several years ago. Finance, IT, basically all areas were targeted.
• Human interoperability (in human-enabled systems): Example, Estonia quickly assembled and used a human network to bring selected areas back up without any technology. Another area is how to get people in different places and with different models (e.g... Navy and Air Force) to work effectively together. Dr. Paul Deitz suggested that ‘weapons targeting’ might be a good area to focus on since the services differ on how to do this.
• Web 2.0: Web 2.0 is based on commercial acceptance, not human factors. We need to concentrate on the usability of Web 2.0 technology.

 

Army MANPRINT in Full Spectrum Operations. Dr. Beverly Knapp (Deputy Director, MANPRINT, Army G1, beverly.knapp@us.army.mil) discussed full spectrum operations, including traditional and disruptive operations, such as DHS must execute. The Joint HSI Working Group has released two reports already to the House Armed Services Committee (HASC); a third report will be released by March 2009. The HSI Working Group charter is to drive HSI implementation within the services. Dr. Knapp is the working group chair this year. The HSI Working Group has four subgroups:

• HSI Policy and Resources
• Education, Training and Career Management
• Information Portals and Strategic Communications
• Technology (R&D) Advocacy

 

In the future, the working group will be addressing:

·      Metrics for HSI return on investment (ROI) such as lowered cost, improved performance and lives saved.

·      HSI Domain integration and standardization.

·      Lessons learned: Leverage HSIWG and link up the DOD community of interest for information sharing.

 

Update on US Air Force HSI. Colonel Larry Kim (Director, USAF HSI Office, larry.kim@pentagon.af.mil) provided an update on Air Force HSI. The HSI Office has now been in existence for abut 1 ½ years. The Air Force contributes to DHs in the following areas:

·      Unmanned Air Systems

·      Active Denial System

·      Total System Performance

·      Linking of Human Performance and System Performance

·      AF HSI and Safety oversight

·      Joint USAF and HSI Activities

 

Operation Nobel Eagle, executed following the 9-11 disaster, flew more than 50,000 sorties to defend US borders. The Active Denial System (ADS), a non-lethal weapon system mounted on a vehicle, was developed at Kirtland AFB to close the gap between “shout” and “shoot.” HSI has been involved in human performance tests (HPT) of ADS. In the Unmanned Air Systems area, HSI has focused on capturing selection and training lessons learned, sensor fusion and interoperability in data and communications areas. In the safety and HSI area, new data indicate that 93% of fatal aviation mishaps in 2001-2007 were attributed to human error.

 

NASA Case Study: Human Factors on the Mars Exploratory Rover (MER). Mr. Andrew Mishkin (NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, andrew.h.mishkin@jpl.nasa.gov) provided an overview of MER operations. The MER cannot be directed by joystick. The time delays are excessive; delays vary between six and 40 minutes, depending upon the relative positions of Earth and Mars. The rovers were originally designed (and expected) to accomplish their missions in 90 Martian days. Commands are sent every Mars morning and results are received every Mars afternoon (about 18 hours apart). The rover is shut down for the other seven hours (solar shutdown to the next morning). There is a 20 megabit limit on daily instructions. MER operators shifted to Mars time (a Mars day is 40 minutes longer than an Earth day) so they got up 40 minutes later every day for months at a time.

The human factors program on MER were primarily due to the need to work 18 hour days (4 days on and 3 days off), advancing by 40 minutes every day). This wouldn’t have been too difficult if the rover program had shut down after 90 days, but they have gone 5+ years, or >3400 mars days of operation (18 times the original plan). The primary reason for the extension is that there are occasional dust devils on Mars that blow accumulations of dust off of the rover’s solar panels, thereby extending their operational capability.

 

Human Systems Thesaurus (HST). Ms. Teresa Alley (DTIC-A San Diego, talley@dticaml.dtic.mil) presented an overview of the project to establish a common language base to aid communication between HSI and other disciplines. Mr. Alley and USAF LTC Scott Nemmers (scott.nemmers@pentagon.af.mil) have collaborated on this effort. The Air Force sponsors the effort and the thesaurus is maintained by DTIC. The thesaurus should assist in bridging gaps between the Human Systems, Systems Engineering and Logistics Engineering communities.

 

Mission Centric Human Performance Measurement Interest Group. Dr. Elizabeth Bowman (ARL-SLAD, ebowman@arl.army.mil) introduced the interest group. Dr. Cheryl Bolstad (SA Technologies, Cheryl@satechnologies.com) spoke on Real-time Communication, Situation Awareness and Cognitive Performance Assessment System. SA Technologies is working with Pierson Knowledge Technologies using latent semantic analysis. The system (ACASA) monitors communications (using abut 60 different metrics) to predict SA levels from simulations or exercises. Communications, text chat and other forms of communication are used as input data.

 

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, chaired both meetings. Ms. Barbara Palmer (Booz Allen Hamilton) was proposed and elected as the new TS/I SubTAG chair.

 

Morning session:

 

Larry Skelly, Deputy Director DHS Science and Technology (and Director of Transition) spoke on “Securing Our Nation’s Infrastructure Through S&T.” The Infrastructure and Geophysical Division thrusts are:

·  Infrastructure Protection

o      Modeling and Simulation (interdependencies and cascading consequences)

o      Blast analysis and protection

o      Advanced surveillance (including change detection and alerting)

o      Rapid mitigation and recovery

o      Critical infrastructure (e.g., dams, tunnels, bridges, subways)

o      Community-based critical infrastructure protection institute (supports small first responder organizations)

·  Preparedness and Response

o      Integrated mapping, modeling, simulation and analysis

o      Personnel monitoring

o      3D locator inside buildings (issue is how to display)

o      Incident management enterprise system – operates with GCCS

o      Logistics management and tracking

o      Unified Incident Command and Decision Support System (UICDS)

·  Geophysical

o      Southeast Region Research Institute (SERRI)

o      Hurricane Mitigation (150 GPS-equipped micro-balloons are released into every hurricane to help detailed modeling)

o      Secure Against Fire and Embers (SAFE)

§       Protects houses with foam and deployable fire-retardant fabric

§       Fire-retardant protective fabric covers for first responders

 

Bonnie Novak (Serco, Inc.) spoke on Infrastructure and the Human Component. DHS supports the national infrastructure in several ways (supporting project manager at DHS is Dr. Janae Lockett-Reynolds, janae.lockett-reynolds@dhs.gov):

·    Societal Support (e.g., roads, water supply, power grids)

·     IT/Communications (e.g., internet, phone lines, broadcasting)

·    Social Networks and Critical Infrastructure Sectors (e.g., public health, banking, postal and shopping, national monuments, commercial nuclear reactors)

 

How can we in HSI support the national infrastructure?

·    Support interface design of surveillance and detection, response, recovery and protective technologies

·     Consider the human as a critical component of the infrastructure

·     Support the design of decision support systems

·    Represent the operator in the context of applying architectures underlying security systems

·     Identify requirements and design support to maximize SA for distributed team environments

·     Human reliability analysis to support error identification and mitigation activities.

·     Investigate first responder challenges such as: fatigue, “sirencide” (functioning while “pumped-up”), time pressure, divided attention/multi-tasking, ambiguous information, vehicle design, public environments and culture.

 

Afternoon session:

 

Mr. Michael Jones (Program Director for Human Systems and Technology, Federal Railroad Administration, Michael.e.jones@dot.gov) spoke on Human Factors Issues In Positive Train Control (PTC) Systems. Positive Train Control systems are designed to prevent:

–      Train-to-train collisions

–      Over-speed derailments

–      Incursions into established work zone limits

The North American railroad industry:

•   More than 600 freight Railroads operating in Canada, US and Mexico

•   Operates over 173,000 miles of track

•   $42 billion in annual revenues

•   Accounts for more than 40% all freight transportation

•   Products are mostly coal, industrial chemicals

 

In response to the accident in Chatsworth, California on Sept 12, 2008, the Congress required:

•   Implementation of “interoperable” positive train control systems for Class 1 freight and passenger rail carriers by December 31, 2015

•   Limits placed on total on-duty time and limbo time to 276 hours per month. (Roughly half)

 

In North America, different railroad lines use different signaling control systems so a common PTC is nearly impossible to implement. Currently, four different PTC systems are employed. The Human factors discipline is slowly gaining traction with railroad system designs programs. Human factors goals are to change how work is done (PTCs may introduce new failure modes and introduce new human errors. PTCs may have unintended consequences for human behavior because they increase system complexity and increase the opportunity for human error.

 

The last presenter was Ms. Teresa Alley, who spoke on HFE Infrastructure: Collaboration and Everything. She provided an update on Web 2.0, social networking programs and collaboration programs.

 

Special Session on HSI Language Group. Mr. Curtis Fey (711^th Human Systems Wing, Brooks City-Base, curtis.fey@brooks.af.mil) organized this session to begin identifying effective wording for the various acquisition-related products used to specify needs for HFE and HSI. Mr. Tom Metzler (SAIC) suggested that focus not be limited to the HFE and HSI paragraphs – that attention needs to be paid to inputting requirements for human modeling, mockup evaluation, etc in other paragraphs dealing with systems engineering, vehicle design, etc. Mr. Craig Pfledderer (Lockheed) stressed the importance of requiring end-user support to the development process, wherein end users are asked to assess design concepts, graphical user interfaces, user-system interaction philosophies, etc. Steve Merriman (Boeing) emphasized that there is a trend toward contractor-authored Statement of work and specifications and that government HFE/HSI specialists are still critical to ensuring that the final wording is adequate. Mr. Metzler also stated that it is important to use the operational concept documents to get all disciplines together on “the same sheet of music.”

 

Human Factors Standardization (HFS) SubTAG: Mr. Alan Poston (aposton86@comcast.net) chaired the Human Factors Standardization SubTAG meeting

 

·    MIL-STD-1472: Mr. Daniel Wallace (Navy, Daniel.wallace@navy.mil) reported that a group has been formed (Army, Navy, Air Force, and Industry) with the goals of releasing revision G of the standard by the end of calendar year 2009. This revision will reflect a restructuring of the standard, with future revisions concentrating more on the introduction of new and revised content to improve current requirements and add requirements applicable to newer technologies. Two person-years of funding have been obtained for this year’s efforts.

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

o      Add an IED icon and emergency management symbols

o      Modified friend, suspect, unknown and pending track symbols

o      Add a 5^th color for civilian tracks

o      Expand color guidelines

o      Add BDA for hostile tracks

o      Add operational coordination materials

o      Expand stability operations appendix.

·    NASA Standard 3001: Volume I is approved and Volume II has been drafted. There is still a lot of work to do.

·    ANSI / HFES-200: This standard was approved in August 2008. It addresses accessibility, interaction techniques, interactive voice response and telephony, visual presentation and the use of color. The price for HFES members is $175 plus $5 for shipping and handling.

·    HFES Institute – HSI Interest Group: Operational procedures have been approved, a list-serve has been established and the website is being populated. They are establishing a presence at the 2009 HFES annual meeting.

·    Draft HSI Program Standard: This standard would be an HSI equivalent to the cancelled MIL-H-46855 (GEIA HEB1-A is the non-government standard equivalent). This is still in work by Dick Armstrong.

·    High Speed Craft HFE Design Guide: This effort is being conducted by the ABCD Working Group (America, Australia, Britain, Canadian, and Dutch) and is sponsored by the UK Directorate of Sea Systems.

·    HFE Best Practices Guide: NAVSEA raft completed in June 2008 - currently in review.

·    UK Defence Standard DEF STAN 00 250: This new human factors integration (HFI) standard was approved for use on 23 May 2008. It may be accessed via: http://dstan..mod.uk/new.htm#may08.

·    USAF Approach to HSI Standardization: Adrian Salinas and William Kosnik (AFRL Brooks City-Base) indicated that there is USAF interest in adapting UK DEFSTAN 00 250 as a US standard on HSI. This interest is shared by Bob Smillie (Navy SPAWAR). The UK is willing to cooperate with the US, even possibly resulting in a US-UK standard. This could represent an opportunity for collaboration via TTCP. Step #1 is to create a reference document using DEF STAN as its basis (FY10-$400K). It would be translated to a reference document with pointers to comparable US and DOD references, data and standards. Step #2 would be to distribute the reference document to the services. Step #3 would be to pursue an international standard.

·    Flight Symbology Working Group: Bob Copeland (bob.copeland@us.army.mil) reported that the WG meets every 8 to 12 months and concerns itself with fixed wing, rotary wing, UAVs, HUDs, HMDs, weapon employment symbols and tactical situation displays. MIL-STD-1787C has been out for about 10 years. Revision ‘D’ has been submitted to technical publications and should be released by the end of CY 2008. The point of contact on this is Jim Kinzig (james.kinzig@wpafb.af.mil). Areas of growth and development include air-to-ground tactical symbology, unmanned systems displays and manned/unmanned teaming.

·    DID for Human Systems Integration Report: Mr. Steve Merriman (The Boeing Company, stephen.c.merriman@boeing.com) proposed creation of a Data Item Description (DID) for a Human Systems Integration Report. The purpose of the HSI Report would be to:

o      Communicate Approach, Metrics, Status, Issues/Risks and Plan forward for HSI / MANPRINT Program; e.g.,

§       Analyses and trade studies

§       Modeling, mock-ups and simulation (e.g., IMPRINT)

§       Design Support

§       HSI/MANPRINT Assessments and formal verification activities    

o      Provide the developing agency with information critical to program milestone reviews (e.g., SRR, SFR, PDR, CDR)

o      Provide documentation of HSI / MANPRINT progress for higher-ups.

 

           Suggested content for the HSI Report would include:

–      Program & System Overview (e.g., scope and description)

–      References and Requirements (e.g., Contract SOW, WBS, Specifications, WBS, HSI program Plan), policies and standards)

–      HSI/MANPRINT Activities, Results and Impacts

•       HSI/MANPRINT-level activities (e.g., issues/risks, trades)

•       Manpower, Personnel and Training activities

•       Human Factors Engineering activities

•       Personnel Survivability activities

•       Safety activities

•       Health Hazard activities

–      HSI/MANPRINT progress versus program milestone expectations

–      Status of HSI/MANPRINT requirement compliance verification

–      Conclusions, recommendations

–      Issues, risks and concerns

–      Plan forward

–      Acronyms and Abbreviations

–      Appendices (e.g., requirement compliance matrices, assessment reports)

           Mr. Merriman was requested to prepare a draft DID and present it for consideration at the    next HFS SubTAG meeting.

 

Controls and Displays SubTAG: The first presentation was by Mr. Peter Squire (NSWC Dahlgren) on Enhanced Company Operations with Efficient Devices. The presentation addressed command and control operations using satellite communications. Usability tests were conducted using small, light-weight radios. The issues identified included the need for tools in the field for battery replacement and various usability problems.

 

The second presentation was by Dr. James Pharmer (Naval Air Warfare Center-Orlando, james.pharmer@navy.mil) on Integration Usability Assessment and Testing Intro Acquisition of a 21^st Century Naval Surface Platform. He described the processes and tools that are being used to address user performance with different projected manning levels. Manning for this system is a KPP requirement that must be addressed continuously through test and evaluation. Computer interface testing accounts for a large part of the testing conducted to date. Descriptive findings, quick-look reports and activity data are used to track the issues. Findings are then translated into risks for the program pertaining to operational effectiveness.

 

The next presentation was by Ms. Anna Skinner (AnthroTronix, Inc, askinner@atinc.com) who spoke on Multimodal Communications Technologies for the Dismounted Warfighter. Congress has mandated that 1/3 of all vehicles be unmanned by 2015. These requirements must be addressed to provide enhanced operational effectiveness. Potential product solutions were described. She is currently addressing operational needs of the dismounted Warfighter:

–      Intra-team communications for SA

–      Weapons must be ready at all times

 

The next presentation was by Mfr. Doug Haanpaa (Cybernet Systems Corporation) who spoke on Application of Rapid Prototyping and Machine Vision for Instrument Panel Construction. This presentation addressed approaches for comparing candidate rapid prototype configurations employing various advanced interface technologies.

 

The next presentation was by Cadet Christopher Bowen, Cadet Evan Leitch and Dr. Ericka Rovira (US Military Academy, Ericka.rovira@usma.edu) who spoke on TIGRFile: Integrating Social Network Information into the TIGR System to Aid Leader Decision Making. This presentation focused on examination of command and control full spectrum operations based on field experience in the Middle East. Command Post of the Future was addressed with a focus on Common Operating Picture (COP). Tactical Ground Reporting System (TIGR) data was fed back into the COP through lower-level interconnects to build the battlefield picture that is shared across the network. The work is investigating the platoon leader roles and information needs to be an effective “Battlespace communicator.”

 

Design Tools and Techniques SubTAG: SubTAG co-chairs are Mr. Steve Merriman (The Boeing Company, stephen.c.merriman@boeing.com) and Mr. Jeffrey Thomas (US Army Research Lab., Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, jeffrey.alexander.thomas@us.army.mil.) There were 33 participants in the meeting. The meeting was chaired by Steve Merriman. There were three presentations.

 

The first presentation was made by Mr. Dennis Alejandro (The Boeing Company, dennis.r.alejandro@boeing.com) and Craig Pfledderer (Lockheed-Martin Missiles and Fire Control, craig.pfledderer@lmco.com) on the Soldier Machine Interface Compliance Analysis (SMICA. The Army’s Future Combat Systems (FSC) Program consists of a multitude systems and equipment currently in development and scheduled for fielding over the next decade. The task of ensuring a common look and feel for the Soldier Machine Interface (SMI) being developed by multiple contractors and integrated by the Lead Systems Integrator (LSI) is complex and workload intensive. In these times of streamlined programs and limited fiscal resources, it is imperative to maximize efficiencies on individual programs, at the Lead Systems Integrator level across programs, and ultimately for Governmental oversight of all of these efforts. The MANPRINT methodology tool proposed, the Soldier Machine Interface Compliance Analysis (SMICA), promotes a structured approach for the development and documentation of analysis data across all programs. This consistent approach at the individual program level allows a direct roll-up at the System of Systems (SOS) level, and allows an efficient audit of compliance at the Governmental level. This presentation provides the genesis and need for the SMICA tool, demonstrates the methodology, and defines the benefits to contractors, the LSI and the Government when applied consistently across multiple programs.

 

The second presentation was by Cadets Nathaniel Drake and Cadet Benjamin Schmidt (Advisor: Dr. Ericka Rovira), United States Military Academy, Ericka.rovira@usma.edu.) on Battlespace Reasoning and Awareness (COBRA). The overarching goal of Collaborative Battlespace Reasoning and Awareness (COBRA) is to provide a forum for the collection and distribution of information from Intelligence and Operations communities in order to support United States and Coalition military Operations. COBRA will provide the infrastructure and tools necessary to allow for an efficient flow of information to bridge the gap which separates the Intelligence and Operations communities.

            The study being conducted will utilize a knowledge elicitation technique modeled after the Critical Decision Method. Additionally, Naturalistic observations, as well as structured interviews will be conducted with subject matter experts in both the Intelligence and Operations communities in order to elaborate upon knowledge of the domain. After an appropriate number of cognitive tasks have been identified, members of both communities will be given a scenario and participate in a card sorting experiment intended to elicit which cognitive information is most relevant to each group. The ranking or grouping of this information could be used in statistical analysis to determine how it could best be organized to support the Military Decision Making process. The end state of the experiment is to develop a low-fidelity paper prototype of a decision support tool for collaborative work across the intelligence and operations communities.

 

The final presentation was made by Mr. Tom Metzler (FCS MGV LSI Crew Systems Manager, SAIC, metzlert@saic.com) on FCS Pit Stop Engineering. The Army’s Future Combat Systems (FSC) Program consists of a multitude of systems and equipment currently in development and scheduled for fielding over the next decade. Because of program streamlining and limited fiscal resources, efficiencies must be maximized on individual programs. The MANPRINT methodology employed by the Manned Ground Vehicles (MGV) Integrated Product Team (IPT) by the Lead System Integrator (Boeing & SAIC) was “PIT STOP Engineering”.  Pit Stop Engineering was adapted under an SAIC contract with Dennis Carlson, of Carlson Engineering, Detroit, MI, to implement a process and related tools to dramatically improve operations and maintenance while simplifying designs and reducing costs. Pit Stop engineering facilitates horizontal system engineering and can use other MANPRINT tools such as Jack anthropometric modeling to mature designs, address competing requirements and constraints.  Pit Stop engineering depends upon direct Soldier involvement with designs and task procedures (along with other stake holders); this results in product designs that better suit user needs – an example of which was shown via video provide by BAE Systems. BAE is responsible for the design and development of the MGV Medical Vehicles.  This presentation demonstrated the PIT Stop process as an effective tool to facilitate the horizontal system engineering required for an effective MANPRINT program.

 

DTT SubTAG Business Meeting: No changes were proposed to the DTT SubTAG charter. There were no changes in leadership. The SubTAG addressed a request made by Dr. Foster (DUSDR&E(S&T)) for major gaps in R&D within the scope of the DTT SubTAG. The following gaps were identified:

·      HSI toolset that interfaces to standard Systems Engineering tools

·      HSI tools to assist in making tradeoffs (optimized human/system performance and minimized ownership costs) between domains

·      System of Systems modeling and simulation tools that can estimate team/crew (workload, SA, etc.) in multiple cooperating systems

 

Human Factors Engineering/Human Systems Integration: Management and Applications. Mr. Dick Armstrong (Basic Commerce Industries, dickmar@embarqmail.com) provided a brief update on the draft HSI standard that was patterned after MIL-H-46855. LTC Scott Nemmers provided a brief update on the Human Systems Thesaurus. The thesaurus is capturing the language and definitions used in HSI; Wikipedia style is being used.

 

Dr. Robert Smillie (SPAWARSYSCOM, Robert.smillie@navy.mil) provided a brief update on HSI at the Space and Warfare Systems Command. Following designation of an HSI technical authority, a concept of operations was generated in 2006. In October 2007, SPAWAR began competency alignment (lining up technical experts to do the business). Career progression criteria have been established.

 

Mr. John Winters (BCI, john_winters@teambci.com) made a humorous presentation on Can You Use That In A Sentence: What Part of Speech is HSI Anyway? John used humor to explore whether HSI was a noun, preposition, pronoun, conjunction or interjection.

 

Dr. Carol Paris (Naval Air Warfare Center, Training Systems Division, carol.paris@navy.mil) spoke on NATO Tools to Build More Effective Soldiers. The focus of some programs being conducted under NATO is concerned with the importance of cultural understanding to the success of human teams. Developing more effective Soldiers is thought to be more important than developing more effective systems. Major contributors to command and control are communications, SA/assessment and decision-making. The focus of four NATO teams is on how to select, train, assess and shape future war-fighters to survive and win in future environments:

–      HM-155 Human Systems Integration for NCO: NATO Human view architecture provides the means to design in human functions of systems (Bob Smillie is POC)

–      HFM-156 NATO C2 Metrics Database (Carol Paris is POC)

–      SAS-065 NATO Network-enabled Capability C2 Maturity Model: Provide shared understanding of human performance in C2 systems (David Alberts is POC)

–      HFM-163 Improving Effectiveness of Coalition Effectiveness.

 

The database supports the other three teams. The teams need to consider how different counties “score” on various cultural dimensions (such as: direct-indirect, dependent-independent, risk-restraint, equalitarian-status, task-relationship, short-term – long-term)

 

Dr. Paul Deitz (Acting Director Army Research Laboratory/HRED, paul.h.deitz@us.army.mil) spoke on A Structure for Human Factors Research Investments: Linking Technology to Mission Outcomes.

 

Sustained/Continuous Operations (SUSOPS/CONOPS) SubTAG. The first presentation was by Dr. Carlos Comperatore (US Coast Guard HQ) on Managing the Workplace Stressor Complex: A systems Based Methodology. They are addressing risk management from the perspective of the human – identifying workplace stressors and mitigation strategies for the identification and management of the workplace during operations that may adversely impact system performance.

 

The second presentation was by Dr. Antonio Carvalhais (US Coast Guard HQ) on Controlling Endurance Risk in Command Center Operations: An Assessment Using CEMS and FAST. Data were presented addressing the impacts of work shift and sleep patterns on human performance using CEMS and FAST measurement tools.

 

The third presentation was by Dr. Gary Kay (Washington Neuropsychological Institute) on CogScreen Performance with Amphetamines, Atomoxetine, and Partial Sleep Deprivation. CogScreen was used as a predictor of cognitive performance when impaired by the use of Amphetamines, Atomoxetine, and Partial Sleep Deprivation.

 

The last presentation was by Mr. Darrel Drobnich (Chief Program Officer, National Sleep Foundation) on The Dangers of Drowsy Driving. This was a compelling presentation on the widespread and pervasive nature of the danger of driving while drowsy and the associated high likelihood of accidents with resulting consequences to life and economics. The presentation addressed research studies that have been conducted and their findings.

 

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 Hunn, US Army Research Lab, Ft. Huachuca AZ, bruce.hunn@us.army.mil. Co-chair nominations were solicited and Amanda Elkins (NSWC Panama City) elected. The first presentation was by Mr. Bruce Hunn (Army Research Lab, Ft. Huachuca) who spoke on A Virtual Border Fence Human Engineering Assessment. The human engineering assessment was a cooperative effort with DHS Border Patrol. The virtual fence is a system of electronic sensors, coordinated through a command and control facility, linked to personnel on the ground:

• Overlapping sensors and sensor fields
• Supplemented by conventional border walls and ground personnel
• Use of multiple sensor types such as radar, electro-optical, Infrared cameras an UGS (an unmanned ground systems equipped with acoustic, seismic, IR and magnetic sensors)

 

A virtual fence must consider the environment/terrain that needs to be covered, the targets to be apprehended, and human factors interactions of personnel using the system (e.g., easy to learn, easy to use). In urban areas it is typical to use conventional physical metal lath barriers with overhangs, making it difficult to scale. In open areas, a variety of different approaches are used. “Individuals of interest” seek cover and concealment, exploit any latencies in the system (e.g. introduced by shift changes), have intelligence sources that may reveal to them common limitations of the system. A typical command and control center would be equipped with multi-screen workstations and manned in 9 hour shifts. In vehicles, a Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) is used with keyboard and touch screen and radios.

 

Primary human factors issues are concerned with:

• Display of information (e.g., cross-hairs, azimuth-elevation and camera depression angle indicators), quality and quantity
• Controls (e.g., slew, zoom)
• Ease of use and system suitability
• Training, personnel understanding of the system
• Vigilance and how many screens can be reliably monitored
• Testing (a system is only as good as its weakest link)

 

A two-week course was developed for border patrol operators to learn sensors, IR black/white displays, procedures, communications, etc. It was suggested that TSA experience in injecting simulated targets might improve on border patrol performance.

 

Elizabeth Bowman (ARL-HRED) spoke next on Objective Measurement of Decision Accuracy and Timeliness (sponsored by CECOM). Dr. Bowman reported on results from three week-long exercises performed against scripted opposing forces (OPFOR) under day and night conditions, using FBCB2 systems in forested and MOUT sites. Data collection included observation, field interviews, surveys, etc. A Google Earth Command and Control Operation (GECCO) was used as a planning tool (overlays could be drawn over Google maps). The plan is to instrument everyone in the red force next time, including vehicles.

 

User-Computer Interaction SubTAG: The User-Computer Interaction (UCI) Sub TAG meeting was co-chaired on 6 May 2008 by Nausheen Momen, LT, MSC, USNR, Ph.D. (nmomen@namrl.navy.mil) and Stephen Merriman (stephen.c.merriman@boeing.com). Steve introduced the meeting agenda, consisting of three presentations and a business meeting... Twenty-nine attendees participated in this SubTAG meeting. There were three presentations.

 

The first presentation was made by Cadet Allyson McKay, Cadet Roberta Usher and Dr. Ericka Rovira (United States Military Academy, Ericka.rovira@usma.edu) on Making DCGS-A V3.1 Multi-Function Workstation More User Friendly. DCGS-A V3.1 Multi-Function Workstation is in integrated display system for tasking, processing, correlating, integrating, exploiting, and disseminating information with other systems. The government is fielding this support system to help military analysts. It has many applications or plug-ins: expanded integrated query capability, system assisted cognitive correlation functionality, collaboration capabilities, pattern analysis, and entity history support using Data Browser. Military analysts can use the tool for pattern or link analysis on insurgents by linking the activity with the profile of a person at a geospatial location at a specific time. However, with all the plug-ins open the system lacks consistency in look and feel and appeared cluttered. Therefore, the system is not user friendly since it obstructs cognitive properties such as attention and information processing. To enhance the system, structured interviews were conducted with different class of users in order to gather information on users’ requirements. The requirements were used to create concept sketches and generate conceptual models in which the user will later identify which conceptual model best represent their requirements in a think-aloud protocol. Thus, a more user friendly interface design will be created for the users’ interaction.

The second presentation was by Cadet Don Mateer, Cadet Zachary Savarie, and Dr. Ericka Rovira (United States Military Academy, Ericka.rovira@usma.edu.) on Improving DCGS-A.

Synopsis: The Distributed Common Ground Systems –Army (DCGS-A) is a tool that supports intelligence analysts and information processing. The system is designed to store and analyze data that may have been spread over many different systems and databases. It takes data feeds from all types of sources and consolidates them into a single system. By doing so, it combines the functionality of many other Army systems. It also provides analytical tools to take advantage of the consolidation of information. The consolidation of systems into one improves the functionality of the system and helps to ensure that key data does not fall between the cracks. The system, while powerful, still relies on the user to use the system to extract the meaningful information and because of that, the user computer interaction is key. The system should support the user by compiling the information and not forcing him or her to keep track of what system supplied the information. This work is interim and the researchers will present data from knowledge elicitation and protocol for empirical data collection.

 

The last presentation was made by Mr. Ajoy Muralidhar (Human Systems Integration Group, Naval Surface Warfare Center, ajoy.muralidhar@navy.mil) on Systems Engineering Issues in Human-Robot interaction – the Impact of Trust on Synthetic Partnering. In the past decade, the use of unmanned systems (robots) such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), unmanned surface vehicles (USV), unmanned ground vehicles (UGV) etc. has moved from being a novelty to widespread acceptance as a vital component of modern military tactical and strategic operations.

 

The issue of “trust” between human and robot (synthetic) partners is relatively new, and one of the least understood aspects of the changing dynamic of the modern battlefield. When designing systems that require humans and synthetic entities to work closely and in concert to accomplish a common goal or mission, we need to understand what happens when a synthetic partner is introduced into a team. In particular, we need to understand why trust is a concern in such a collaborative environment, and how it influences performance in synthetic teaming.

 

As part of the systems engineering process, the human systems engineer works closely with the systems engineering team and other designers to develop a functional analysis of the systems requirements. This analysis is a collaborative effort and functions are allocated between human and system with due consideration of human capabilities and limitations, system performance requirements and feasibility of automation in the overall system. This allocation process extends to the whole system; it assumes that the human operators will perform the tasks allocated to them while the synthetic partner performs the tasks allocated to it.

 

This paper explores how human systems integration principles can be employed to improve trust in human-synthetic entity partnering and decrease the effects of lack of trust on system performance.

 

UCI SubTAG Business Meeting:

–      Nomination/election of new Chair or co-chairs: Adrian Salinas (USAF) was nominated for position of SubTAG chair. A vote was taken and Adrian Salinas received unanimous approval of all attendees. He will take over as SubTAG chair at the next meeting. Steve Merriman will assist him with transition and meeting planning.

 

–      Proposed UCI Charter Revision: A draft revision was proposed to the UCI SubTAG charter at the May 2008 meeting. Suggested changes were proposed and discussed. The draft charter was updated to reflect the agreed-upon changes. The final charter was presented and accepted by unanimous vote of the attendees (attached).

 

–      The SubTAG addressed a request made by Dr. Foster (DUSDR&E(S&T)) for major gaps in R&D within the scope of the DTT SubTAG. The following gaps were identified:

• Holographic imaging
• Human-robot interaction
• Dismounted command and control
• Flexible displays (other than on a laptop)
• Haptic screen technology
• Also: We need to take advantage of gaming industry technology and other commercial solutions that are out there.

 

Human Factors in Training SubTAG: No meeting was held.

 

Modeling and Simulation SubTAG: Not attended.

 

Workload and Stress SubTAG. Not attended

 

Personnel Selection and Classification SubTAG: Not attended.

 

System Safety/Health Hazards/Survivability SubTAG. No meeting was held.

 

 

DOD HFE TAG Operating Board Meeting:

 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was thanked for hosting the 60th DoD HFE TAG meeting. SubTAGs and Service caucuses briefed out their attendance, charter changes, leadership changes and significant issues.

 

Finances: The contract vehicle being used to employ SURVIAC may need to be changed.

 

TAG WebSite: TAG leadership is looking for (free) help in updating the new TAG website (http://www.hfetag.com/).

 

TAG Products: It was stressed that the TAG should emphasize products that are built by the TAG, including responses to requests from Dr. Foster, Persistent concerns lists, etc.

 

TAG meeting Host responsibilities: Host duties were discussed. It was suggested that the Host agency should present any thorny problems that the SubTAGs could provide help with.

 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Interest has been expressed for the NRC to become a TAG sponsor.

 

Interest Group on Unmanned Systems: Mr. Ajoy Muralidhar (Human Systems Integration Group, Naval Surface Warfare Center, ajoy.muralidhar@navy.mil) expressed an interest in establishing an interest group on unmanned systems.

 

TAG-# 61: TAG-61 is scheduled for the Seattle area in the spring of 2009. The Army will be hosting the meeting (Ft. Lewis). There is a possibility that a tour of The Boeing Company may be possible. Steve Merriman was requested to investigate the possibility of securing a plenary session speaker on the Boeing 787.

 

 

Submitted by:

Stephen C. Merriman

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

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:

• Controls and Displays/Voice Interactive Systems
• Design: Tools and Techniques
• HFE/Human Systems Integration: Management and Applications
• Human Factors in Extreme Environments
• Human Factors in Training
• Human Factors Standardization
• Human Factors Test and Evaluation
• Human Modeling and Simulation
• Personnel Selection and Classification
• Sustained/Continuous Operations Core Competencies
• System Safety/Health Hazards/Survivability Core Competencies
• Technical Society/Industry
• User-Computer Interaction
• Workload and Stress

 

Affiliated Groups:

·  Mission Centric Human Performance Measurement Interest Group

 

ATTACHMENT (2) Meeting Theme

 

Making the Nation Safer: The Human Factor

 

Making the nation safer is an underlying challenge and an ongoing endeavor for all HFE TAG members. All systems, large and small, that are being developed by HFE TAG sponsoring organizations and their government and industry partners are designed, built, operated or maintained by humans. The human component in the chain is often the weakest link and the human performance risk and potential for human error that exists must be addressed early and iteratively for those systems to be successful in accomplishing their mission. The safety of our nation depends on those systems and safeguards we develop to perform efficiently and effectively. From identifying human performance requirements based on operator and maintainer capabilities and limitations to the implementation of upgrades, we can ensure that human performance is maximized and that the risk associated with the human in the loop is minimized. There is a direct relationship between the execution of Human Factors Engineering (HFE) and Human Systems Integration (HSI) and maintaining the safety of our nation. As part of the systems engineering process, the implementation of these approaches directly impacts (1) the safe operation and maintenance of technologies undergoing design and development, (2) the development of system requirements that include human performance requirements based on human limitations and capabilities, and (3) lifecycle considerations with regard to cost effective training, maintenance, and logistics strategies. The low probability-high severity risk environment we are currently operating in makes HFE and HSI critical to efficient and effective system performance. Successful execution of HFE and HSI allow us to make the nation safer both at home and abroad.

ATTACHMENT (3)

Department of Defense

Human Factors Engineering Technical Advisory Group

Meeting 60: 3-5 November 2008, Washington, DC

 

Monday, 3 November

0830 – 1000 Executive Committee meeting

1000 - 1100 New member orientation

1100 - 1300 Luncheon Break

1300 - 1700 Plenary Session

1700 - 1830 Mission Centric Human Performance Measurement Interest Group

1800 - 2000 Mixer

 

Tuesday, 4 November

0730 - 0830 Technical Society/Industry

0830 - 1100 Human Factors Test and Evaluation

0830 - 1100 Sustained/Continuous Operations

0930 - 1000 Networking, coffee

1100 - 1230 Luncheon Break

1230 - 1430 Human Factors Standardization

1230 - 1430 Controls and Displays

1430 - 1500 Networking, coffee

1500 - 1700 Design: Tools and Techniques

1500 - 1700 Personnel Selection and Classification

1715 - 1830 TS/I and Service Caucuses

Wednesday, 5 November

0830 - 1100 Special Session on HSI in Requirements Documents

0830 - 1700 Human, Social, Cultural, and Behavioral Seminar

0930 - 1000 Networking, coffee

1100 - 1230 Luncheon Break

1230 - 1430 User-Computer Interaction

1430 - 1500 Networking, coffee

1500 - 1700 Human Factors Engineering/Human Systems Integration: Management                             and Applications

1500 - 1700 Workload and Stress

1715 - 1815 Operating Board

1830 - 2200 Social

ATTACHMENT (4) DoD HFE TAG Operating Board

 

Executive Committee

 

Chair (Navy)       Mr. Brad Collie            (850) 234-4744

                                                               bradley.collie@navy.mil

 

Vice Chair           Capt. Keith White        (719) 556-5903

(Air Force)                                              Keith.white@peterson.af.mil

 

Immediate Past   Ms. Katrina Baker        (410) 278-5856 DSN 298

Chair (Army)                                          katrina.anne.baker@arl.army.mil                   

Army                  Dr. John Warner          (703) 695-5820 DSN 225

Representative                                         John.warner1@us.army.mil

 

Navy                   LT Brent Olde              (831) 656-3807

Representative                                         baolde@nps.edu

 

Air Force             Mr. Adrian Salinas       (210) 536-4428

Representative                                         adrian.salinas@brooks.af.mil

 

NASA                  Ms. Faith Chandler      (202) 358-0411

Representative                                         Faith.t.chandler@nasa.gov

 

FAA                    Dr. Thomas McCloy     (202) 267-7167

Representative                                         tom.mccloy@faa.gov

 

DHS                    Dr. Janae Lockett-        (202) 254-2352

Representative     Reynolds                      janae.lockett-reynolds@dhs.gov

 

TAG                    Ms. Sheryl Cosing         (703) 925-9791

Coordinator                                            Cosing_sheryl@bah.com

 

Ex Officio Members - SubTAG Chairs

 

Controls and Displays

Co-Chairs:

Ms. Marianne Paulsen
Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems
Division Code 4.6.5.2 12350 Research Pkwy.
Orlando, FL 32826
(407) 380-4743; FAX (407) 381-8738

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT (5) DoD HFE TAG Attendees

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

< Will be provided when available >

                                                                                      

ATTACHMENT (6) 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.