DRAFT

25 November 2003

Trip Report

Department of Defense
Human Factors Engineering Technical Advisory Group (DOD HFE TAG) Meeting #50 – 3-6 November, 2003

The 50h meeting of the DoD HFE TAG held in Tempe, Arizona. The meeting was chaired by Dr. James Miller, Air Force Research Laboratory/HEPM. Approximately 70 people attended the meeting, representing the US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, DISA/DTIC, NASA, FAA, Los Alamos National Laboratory, several human factors-related technical societies and industry associations.

Four items are attached:


Plenary Session Presentations:

The DoD HFE TAG Chair for the 50th meeting, Dr. James Miller, welcomed attendees and reviewed the theme for the meeting: Human Factors-Past Present and Future.

Keynote Address:

Dr. Henk Ruck, Director of the USAF Human Effectiveness Directorate, provided an Historical View of the Human Effectiveness Directorate. There are about 1,200 people in the Human Effectiveness Directorate at this time, with 40% being located at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, OH. The Aero Medical Research Laboratory was established in 1942, with Harry G. Armstrong being its first Director. In 1945, Paul M. Fits became the Chief of the Psychology Branch. In 1979, the Air Force Medical Research Laboratory was formed. In 1951, the famous “Fitts List” was published as an aid to human-machine function allocation.

Some historic dates in the life support area are as follows. In 1934, the first pressure suit was demonstrated and in 1937, the first altitude chamber became operational. In the late 1930s, the first pressurized cockpit made it into an aircraft. The first human centrifuge was operational in 1936; it was capable of 80 rpm. The centrifuges at Brooks and WPAFB today are orders of magnitude more capable, including high onset rates and occupant control.

In the training area, Edwin A. Link invented the “Pilot Maker” device, dubbed the Link Trainer. It was originally installed in amusement parks as a ride! The first ejection seat was invented by the Germans in 1945. The first US ejection seat test occurred in 1946 and the first live ejection in August 1946 (at 302 mph).

In anthropometry, the first studies were conducted in the 1940s. In the 1960s the first stereo photographs were used for anthropometric measurement purposes-it took 1 year to digitize the points on 30 subjects then). In 1986, the first three dimensional head scanner became operational.
In 1995, the first whole-body scanning device was developed; 300,000 points could be scanned in 17 seconds. Dr. Kathleen Robinette and Greg Zehner at WPAFB continue to contribute significantly today in this important field.

In cockpit design, the first shape coding of controls was implemented in 1946. The first integrated flight instrument systems were fielded in 1955 to 1958. Current fighter-attack jets (such as the F-22 Raptor) incorporate evolved versions of the Navy’s F/A-18 Hornet “glass cockpit,” developed in the mid-1070s. Future versions will incorporate voice controls, haptic sticks and virtual environments. Helmet-mounted displays began in the late 1960s with the F-4 fighter’s Visual Target Acquisition System, or VTAS. Much improved and capable versions of helmet mounted displays evolved through UASF programs such as VCATS (Visually Coupled Targeting System and JHMCS (Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System).

Advanced developments in the area of voice communications began in the 1970s. Today, three dimensional voice systems are being incorporated into the next generation AWACS aircraft and future Air Operations Centers.

Current thrusts of the Human Effectiveness Directorate are grouped into three areas:
Human Performance and Systems Integration: Multiplying Force Capability. Colonel Lex Brown, Commander of the Center for Operational Performance Enhancement (USAFSAM/FEP), is a medical doctor and a former F-16 pilot. He provided an overview of the Center’s operations. The mission of the Center for Operational Performance Enhancement is to:
  • Enhance human performance through technology and training
  • Advocate for human in the weapon system, occupied or unoccupied
  • Implement HSI
  • Optimize design
  • Improve survivability
  • Reduce personnel and life cycle costs
  • Develop and field next-generation aircrew protective equipment

In 1994, the DoD Inspector General’s Audit Report concluded that HSI was inadequate in USAF systems. I, 1996, a Process Action Team Review led to establishment of an HSI office – now the 311th Human Systems Wing. In 1999, there was a USAF Inspection Agency “Eagle Look” review of HSI. In 2003, an Air Force Scientific Advisory Board (SAB)-sponsored study directed a mini-study of HSI by the Human Systems Wing Advisory Group. The current HSI situation is that the 311th HSW is becoming more involved in future system and Battlespace developments. Today, it is known that there are a lot of preventable problems with regard to cognitive loading, fatigue, spatial disorientation and other human factors areas. Over the past 11 years, over 92% of USAF mishaps have resulted from human factors such as loss of attention, accepted risk, poor judgment, distorted perception, etc. There are still a wide variety of problem areas with USAF systems:
  • F-22 Raptor: Life support systems issues are still “up in the air” – anti-g suit, g training and altitude training issues have not been decided as of today. And, special problems with spatial disorientation have not been addressed.
  • F-35: Undecided issues include Oxygen delivery system, pilot flight equipment. PVI with regard to cockpit display, helmet mounted display and audio-verbal-visual integration have yet to be decided.
  • Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV): Inadequate training is the most frequently cited causal factor in UAV mishaps. Eye tracking studies of Predator work stations showed displays to be “cognitively inefficient.” Improved training may be inadequate to overcome design problems.
  • CV-22: The service ceiling for this aircraft is 25,000 feet. There is no pressurization in the passenger/troop compartment; also, there are no oxygen provisions! An Osprey aero-medical group has been established to study this and other problem areas.
  • Spatial Disorientation: Lost SA countermeasures training is being conducted. HSIAC has conducted a review of mishaps. The Air Force is acquiring a motion-based research simulator to study SD, fatigue, cognition and display issues.
  • Alertness: There is a study underway now looking at the effects of Modafinil for sustaining alertness for 40 hours.

The 311th Human Systems Wing is committed to become an integral part of ASC and AFMC enterprises and make managers smarter about the value of the human in the weapons system. The 311th is attempting to embed human systems integration expertise at key points in the Air Force – increasing the number of pilot physicians and Residents in Aerospace Medicine (RAM). The 311th is attempting to collaborate with key partners throughout the Air Force.

History of Instrument Flight: Mr. Bill Ercoline, General Dynamics, has prior military piloting experience with the T-37, T-38, T-41 and C-130 aircraft. An interesting web site on this topic may be found at http://www.spatiald.wpafb.af.mil. In 1909, the Wright Flyer used a ribbon in front of the pilot to show sideslip, angle of attack, etc. The first military flight squadron had 16 officers, enlisted and aircraft. Bill Ocker got with his friend Sperry and invented the first turn needle. Sperry also helped Jimmy Doolittle later on with the gyro and Kollsman altimeter.

Human Factors Considerations of Early Wright Brother’s Aircraft: Dr. Joe McDaniel (AFRL/HEC, WPAFB) provided an entertaining and informative presentation on early aircraft control concepts and their evolution to current aircraft control systems.

History of Fatigue Research in the U.S. Air Force: Dr. James Miller (AFRL/HEPM) flew C-130 aircraft in the Air Force. In 1959, the Air Force School of Aviation Medicine was relocated to Brooks AFB in San Antonio, TX.

Sub-Group Meetings Attended at the DOD HFE TAG:
Human Factors Standardization (HFS) Mr. Alan Poston, FAA, chaired the meeting (alan.poston@faa.gov). The Sub TAG website is: http://dtica.dtic.mil/hftag/hfs.html
MIL-STD-1472F. An anthropometry update has been sent to Mr. Lee Gray (US Army Standardization Office, MICOM). The mil-std should be updated in a month or so.
MIL-STD-1787: Mr. Jim Kinzig is now the point of contact for this standard.
MIL-STD-882D: No action this period.
Joint Services Specification Guide: This standard was updated at the beginning of the year. No other actions have been taken since then.
NASA MSIS: The HSIAC is doing a small amount of work for NASA on this Standard – they are assessing recent changes to MIL-STD-1472 to determine if the MSIS requires update. ISO 17399, Manned System Integration, was published in October 2003.
Data Item Descriptions: The Navy will send a letter to the Army requesting transfer of six DIDs to Navy custody.
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES)/ISO/TC159: Clair Gordon has been working on standardization for the society the past six years. She works out of the HFES Institute, where she is responsible for technical standards. ANSI is the US body in ISO. The HFES executes ANSI’s TC159 work. There is an ANSI/HFES TAG for each subcommittee. ANSI Standards are voluntary and ISO standards, at least in Europe, are mandatory by law.
ANSI 100 HFE of Computer Workstations
ANSI 200 HFE of Software Interfaces
The US is supporting international standardization less and less every year. There is very little DOD participation – 30 years ago this situation was reversed, with DOD leading US activities.
Participation in an ISAO TAG is by government, academia and industry. In order to join, a letter must be sent to HFES (Lynn Strother) by the organization desiring to participate. The letter must declare an interest in standardization, nominate a specific person and 9nclude the nominee’s resume. On TAG may have more than one person representing a single organization. There are no membership fees, but there are attendance and voting requirements. If a person joins but does not attend or vote, he or she will be dropped from membership. ISO is on the web at: http://www.iso.ch. Clair Gordon can be reached at: Claire.gordon@natick.army.mil.
FAA Design Standard: Mr. Poston handed out a CD containing the latest FAA Design Standard.
Index of Government Standards: Mr. Poston indicated that an index of government human factor standards was being compiled and that it should be available at the next TAG meeting in the spring of 2004.
Gateway Issue on HSI: The HSI issue is available via HSIAC.
Hot Issues and Watch Items: Two hot topics were discussed at the last meeting. These will be put forward for the next update of the Hot Issues publication.

Human Factors Test and Evaluation. Mr. Adrian Salinas chaired the T&E SubTAG meeting. The first presentation was by Mr. John Poirier, SAIC (poirierj@saic.com). Mr. Poirier works with OP-61F. His presentation was entitled Exploration of Cost-Effective Human Performance in a Total Systems Construct. FORCENet is an operational concept, en environment integrating warriors, sensors, networks and command and control across the spectrum of conflict from space to sea to land. It is the mechanism for Navy transformation. HSI in a FORCENet context introduces the human as part of the total system equation through early integration into the acquisition process of HFE, MPT, health hazards, safety and medical factors, personnel survivability and habitability. Cost-effective human performance has been established by the CNO as the primary determinant of overall systems performance. Because of this, an HSI Outreach Initiative has been established with the first emphasis area being decision aids and distributed collaborative decision-making. Evolving areas of emphasis include:
  • improved tools
  • integrating human performance enablers as Key Performance Parameters
  • common understanding of human processes as explicit systems processes
  • manning requirements
  • system components that include intangible elements
  • scalable and valid performance measurement tools

The next presentation was by Ms. Reta Morgan Reynolds of Amtec Corp (rreynolds@atc.army.mil) who spoke on Objective Measures of Human Performance in Military T&E: Challenges and Opportunities. A human-centric test and evaluation approach was advocated where systems are fully stressed in dynamic, realistic environments. In other words, the objective is to “Test the way we fight.” Current short-falls in test and evaluation are as follows. An HSI T&E working group was established in October 2003 (Army, Navy, Air Force) to work toward reforms in these areas.
  • HSI testing is too late
  • Testing is primarily based on subjective feedback
  • Limited availability of objective measures
  • Inadequate measurement of Situational Awareness (SA)

The next presentation was by Ms. Helene Malico-Abraham, of Basic Commerce & Industries, Inc. who spoke on Usability Testing Lessons Learned and Methodology.

The last presentation was by Mr. John M. Rice, NAVSEA CSDA Dam Neck (ricej@cotf.navy.mil) who spoke on Human Performance Measurement Database for Evaluating the Effect of “Systems” on Mission Task Performance. There have been significant changes in the joint acquisition environment. A new regulation was promulgated in October 2003: Joint Capability Integration and Development System (JCIDS) per CJCSI 3710.01C. According to Mr. Rice, the ORD and MENS are things of the past, replaced by newer capability documents.

Human Modeling and Simulation. Not attended.

System Safety/Health Hazards/Survivability. Mr. Ben Gibson, AMEDDC&S (ben.Gibson@amedd.army.mil, (210) 221-1622) and Mr. Stephen Merriman, The Boeing Company, (stephen.c.merriman@boeing.com, (972) 344-7578) co-chaired the meeting.
The first presenter was Mr. Dan Pond from Los Alamos National Laboratories, who spoke on System Safety Tools to Assess and Prevent Security Incidents. Human error accounts for 65% of aircraft maintenance problems, 52% of nuclear power plant accidents and 75% of air transport operations mishaps. Annually, 98,000 hospitalized Americans die and 1 million are injured from preventable medical errors. Injury/death rates are only falling at American VA hospitals where they have embraced risk assessment and mitigation programs. Contributors to “preventable medical errors are:
  • Fatigue
  • Inexperience/insufficient training
  • Inadequate supervision
  • Insufficient time to check work
  • Increased demands
  • Inadequate data = inability to “learn lessons”
  • Unclear instructions
  • Anxiety over calling superiors for guidance
Security errors/violations/breeches can be caused by the same types of factors (not intentional violations). Because the circumstances contributing to system-induced errors and the types of errors are similar:
  • Error-based security incident rates are likely to be similar to error-based accident rates (60%–80+%); and
  • Proven safety tools such as root- and contributing-cause analysis, as well as human-error and human-reliability assessments, can effectively be adopted/adapted for application to security.
Los Alamos National Laboratory implemented a program called ESTHER (Enhanced Security Through Human Error Reduction). Some of the situational factors identified by ESTHER are distractions, time factors, routines changed, inadequate information, poor system feedback, deficient work planning, inappropriate environment and inappropriate culture/ local practices. Some personal factors include preoccupation, stress/anxiety, fatigue/boredom, drug side effects, inadequate knowledge, misperceptions, memory failure and faulty reasoning. Both reactive and proactive procedures have been put into place to reduce the number of inadvertent security breeches. ESTHER has resulted in fewer inadvertent disclosures, before- rather than after-the-fact indicators of security effectiveness, positive motivation in recognizing and rewarding effective performance and improvements.

The second presentation was by Mr. Iain Macleod, representing the Ergonomics Society (iain.macleod@atkinsglobal.com), who spoke on Safety and Human Factors in the UK – Thoughts on the Present and the Future. Military Safety Engineering in the UK is required to consider the safety aspects of training and human factors (HF) through the production of a Safety Case that includes an operability analysis under UK Defence Standard 00-56. The Safety Case is an important prerequisite for the granting of system Acceptance leading to its Certification as fit to release to military service.


The practice of Human Factors should consider Safety and Health & Safety as part of its normal remit. In support, the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) now mandates that their Integrated Product Teams (IPTs), (who manage the introduction into service of military systems for the MoD) consider the current six UK Human Factors Integration (HFI) domains that include Training, Safety, and Health & Safety. Recently good HFI guidance has been given to the IPTs (will cite Sea Technology Group Publications SSP 10 and SSP 11 as examples). As an aside, HFI has strong similarities to the US HSI as both have roots in MANPRINT.

Unfortunately, in the UK the quality of contracting the HFI practices to be performed by Prime Contractors has yet to catch up with the quality of the UK contracting of Safety Engineering requirements. Poorly addressed is the nature of the trade off processes required within the HFI domains and between HFI and the products of other disciplines involved in the engineering of systems. Future expected improvements in both fields will be discussed as will the general move in the UK towards an improved multi disciplinary approach to address the many Safety and HF issues throughout a system’s life cycle. Evidence will be presented in support.


The last presentation was by Mr. Steve Merriman, representing the Boeing Company (Stephen.c.merriman@boeing.com) who spoke on Environmental Safety and Occupational Health (ESOH) on the Future Combat Systems program. Environmental safety and occupational health activities on the Future Combat Systems program were described and applicable DOD requirements documents were cited. Deliverable data products (e.g. PESHE) were identified and their near-term submittal schedule was presented. The FCS safety hazard analysis process was briefly described. An ESOH working group has been implemented to ensure coordination between ESOH groups, evaluate compliance with requirements and assess ESOH issues. The top-level FCS program organizational structure was presented to show where ESOH specialists fit into the System of Systems Engineering Integration IPT and in the various FCS Product IPTs.

Technical Society/Industry Sub-Group. The Technical Society/Industry (TS/I) Sub TAG met twice during TAG #50 on Tuesday morning and afternoon. Mr. Bill Lytle (William.b.lytle@lmco.com, (303) 971-8972) chaired the meetings. TS/I Attendees introduced themselves and updated the TS/I membership rosters.

Web-Based Global Treatment Protocol Course to Emergency Medicine: Mr. Terry Fulbright (NTSA Rep) summarized a Phase I SBIR program that is developing a standardized, web-based protocol for emergency medicine for the Defense Health Program. AFRL (Dr. Barbara Sorenson) and Northrop Grumman are participating in the program. This course is to provide continuation training for EMT first responders. They will be developing web-based training and a handheld job aid. Phase II has been approved.

Electronic Industries Alliance: Mr. Lou Adams (EIA Rep) reviewed the history of acquisition reform beginning with the “Perry Initiative” in 1994 in which non-government standards were advocated over Government standards. However, since EIA has published HEB-1, an industry standard replacing MIL-H-46855, industry has indicated that they prefer the government to continue taking responsibility for MIL-STD-1472. Lou is going to survey industry to identify topic areas where it is believed that MIL-STD-1472 requires updating.
Lifting and Strength Requirements: Dr. Joe McDaniel (AFRL/HECI, WPAFB) summarized his presentation for the Human Factors Standardization SubTAG.
Student Outreach: Bill Lytle indicated that he would try to reach out to local colleges and universities to stimulate interest in the TAG, beginning with TAG-51 in Atlantic City, NJ.
The Ergonomics Society: Mr. Iain Macleod, representing the Ergonomics Society (iain.macleod@atkinsglobal.com), made presentation entitles: Past and Future of the Ergonomics Society and Ergonomics in the UK. A brief history of the UK Ergonomics Society was presented. The presentation covered the meaning of Ergonomics in the UK, the forms of society membership, recent society initiatives, the society role within the international Ergonomics Community, and the society’s aspirations for the future. In addition, some of the UK Ministry of Defence initiatives in Ergonomics /Human Factors were described. If interested in the Ergonomics Society, their web address is: http://www.ergonomics.org.uk/index.htm.

Controls and Displays. Dr. Henry Williams, NAVAIR, Pax River, MD, chaired the SubTAG meeting (henry.williams@navy.mil).

The first presenter was XXX who spoke on Evaluating Speech Interface Concepts for Air Battle Managers-From field observations to laboratory simulations.

The second presenter in the session was Mr. Steve Merriman, from The Boeing Company (stephen.c.merriman@boeing.com) who described the benefits of increased collaboration between human factors (Human Systems) and Software Engineering (Information Systems) specialists. This paper described an approach that emphasized:

  • Collocation of Human Systems, Systems Engineering, Training Systems and Information Systems disciplines in the same IPT
  • Program-wide application of User-System Interface (USI) Standards
  • USI process integration of Human Systems, Information Systems, Systems Engineering, Training Systems, System Safety (SS) & End-Users (or Surrogates)
  • Use of a common USI mission scenario by all USI developers and trainers
  • Embedding of USI-knowledgeable software engineers on SW task teams and “double-hatting” of these SW engineers onto the HSI task team.
  • Employing a standardized Design/Procedure Brief & USI Checklist (to ensure completeness & consistency)
  • Risk-Driven USI Design Scheduling and Prototyping
  • Joint USI Testing by HS, IS and TS (low-level, computer system configuration item (CSCI), sub-system and system testing)
  • Early and repeated operational assessment by end-users
  • Strict USI design and USIS configuration control.
    The main benefits of employing an HSI collaborative approach to user interface development were improved management of cost, schedule and risk; improved compliance with USI standards; more intuitive USI “look and feel,” better USI consistency across subsystems, minimized number of operator actions for high priority operations, enhanced crew safety and minimized operator workload. From a human factors engineering standpoint, the two most important features of this approach were (1) locating human factors in a position co-equal with hardware and software, and (2) assigning responsibility for USI Standard adherence and CM of the USI Design Briefs to human factors engineering – this gave human factors a strong role in design development. Increased HSI collaboration was recommended for future, large-scale, complex system development efforts.

    The third presenter was Ms. Rebecca Grier, Naval Surface Weapons Center Dahlgren, VA (grierra@nswc.navy.mil) who spoke on Shipboard Communications: Quantifying Warfighter Capabilities and Limitations.

    Human Factors Engineering/Human Systems Integration: Management and Applications. Mr. Adrian Salinas (USAF, 311 WSW/XPRA) chaired the SubTAG meeting. The first presentation was by Ms.Desiree Tryloff, Manager of eLearning and KM Initiatives with General Dynamics, on Advanced Information Engineering Services. IN September 2002, the Air Force, Navy and Army held a meeting to define elearning needs for incorporating HSI into the acquisition process. A tutorial on HSI has been produced and posted to the web at: https://afkm.wpafb.af.mil. This course provides a game-like exercise where the student can attempt to balance HSI factors to optimize performance and minimize life cycle costs. Another purpose of the web page is to facilitate the development of a “Community of Practice” in HSI – “a group of people connected to each other by a need to solve business problems and sharpen skills by sharing common practices and experiences.” [If you do not have access to “.mil” sites, please get with your military sponsor to obtain access.]

    The second speaker was Dr. Bruce Hamilton, XXXXXXXX, who spoke on the DD(X) HSI Cross Product Team, a matrixed team that interacts with all of the product design teams on the project. The US Navy is attempting to significantly reduce the manning profile on the DD(X) as compared with predecessor platforms. The flow down of analysis is as follows:
    • Missions were decomposed using Operational Sequence Diagramming (OSD)
    • Crew roes and functions were identified
    • Crew tasks were determined in conjunction with hardware and software functional partitioning.
    • Tasks were defined in terms of prerequisite information, decisions, actions, etc.
    • KSAs for each task were then defined.

      Micro Analysis and Design, Inc. of Boulder, CO is developing a database to track all of the mission requirements down to the task level. This database will be a query-type database that relates requirements to tasks, to billets. It will also allow timelines to be run and workload estimates to be output. The database will be capable of outputting multiple reports.

      There are approximately 65 HSI specialists on the DD(X) team. Dr. Hamilton believes the total will increase by about 30% in the near future. The program will enter the next major acquisition phase in 2006 and it is anticipated that HSI staffing will be increased again at that time.

      Human Factors User Feedback Interest Group. The Human Factors User Feedback Special Interest Group met for the first time on Monday, 3 November during TAG #50. Eight attendees participated in the meeting, representing the US Navy and US Army, and several technical societies. Mr. Fred Oberman welcomed all attendees. He then related personal experiences in obtaining user feedback in systems development and evaluation. He illustrated some of the different roles the user can play in the design and acquisition process.

      • Simulator evaluation (validation of fidelity and motion, etc.)
      • Static mock-up evaluation (arrangement, geometrical layout, etc.)
      • Dynamic mock-up evaluation (task performance / procedure evaluation, etc.)
      • Evaluation of design alternatives
      • Representing the naïve user to assess possible training difficulties
      • Use of “special” users or those at the extreme ends of accommodation populations
      • Use of experienced users in accident and safety investigations

        Possible goals of the group are to develop guidelines to highlight the user as an integral part of the process, educate program managers and design staffs. Following the presentations, it was agreed to work more on bounding the interest group, define its goals more definitively and prepare for the next meeting. One thought was:

        1. Identify all DOD service regulations, instructions, guidelines and standard operating procedures pertaining to user review groups (possibly TAG service Reps and industry members of the Special Interest Group.
        2. Define general guidelines for user review groups, based on review and synthesis of the above materials.
        3. “Publish” the guidelines on the DoD HFE TAG web page and elsewhere as appropriate

        At the conclusion of the meeting, it was decided to change the name of the group to the “Special interest Group on User Utilization.”

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

        Tri-Service Workload Coordinating. Not attended.

        User-Computer Interface. Not attended.

        Human Factors in Telemedicine and Biomedical Technologies. (not attended)

        DOD HFE TAG Operating Board Meeting:

        Executive Committee Out-brief:

        C4ISR Committee: Dr. Foster will be briefed in the near future by CDR Sean Biggerstaff.

        TAG Funding: NASA 2004 funding has not been received. All of the sponsors will be asked to contribute a nominal amount to cover DTIC/MATRIS overruns.

        Hot Issues: Somehow, the TAG has lost the update process for the Hot Issues document as it transitioned form hardcopy to electronic form. It is desired that the publication be updated on a annual basis. Dr. Miller will draft an update process to be followed from here on out.

        Attendance Policy: Dawn Woods (incoming Chair) will address this.

        Registration Fee: This will be increased to $100 in order to cover expenses associated with the mixer and continental breakfast food.

        Up-Coming meetings:
        TAG-51 – 1—13 May 2004, Atlantic City, NJ. Location will be the Trump Taj Mahal. The host for this meeting will be the FAA Technical Center.
        TAG-52 – 1-4 November, 2004, Washington, D.C. (no host)
        TAG-53 – May, 2005, Panama City, FL. The US Navy will host this meeting.




        DOD HFE TAG Background

        The DoD HFE TAG was begun via memorandum of agreement signed by the Service Secretaries in November 1976. Goals of the TAG were established as follows:
        • Provide a mechanism for exchange of technical information in the development and
        application of human factors engineering.
        • Enhance working level coordination among Government agencies involved in HFE
        technology research, development and application.
        • Identify human factors engineering technical issues and technology gaps.
        • Encourage and sponsor in-depth technical interaction, including subgroups as required in
        selected topical areas.
        • Assist as required in the preparation and coordination of Tri-Service documents such as
        Technology Coordinating Papers and Topical Reviews.

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

        • Procedures for use by HFE specialists, system analysts and design engineers in providing
        HFE support during system development and modification
        • Methodologies to identify and solve operator/maintainer problems related to equipment
        design, operation and cost/effectiveness
        • Mechanisms for applying HFE technologies, including formal and informal approaches to
         validation and implementation, and the determination of time windows for application.

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

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

        The current sub-groups typically meeting at the HFE TAG meeting were as follows. A special interest group, “Human Factors in Training,” held a day-long meeting during this TAG on Tuesday. A special interest group on Human Factors User Feedback” met on Wednesday afternoon. Another new special interest group on personnel selection is being considered.
        • Controls and Displays (Controls/Displays)
        • Design: Tools and Techniques (Design)
        • Human Factors Engineering/Human Systems Integration: Management and
        Applications (HSI)
        • Human Factors in Extreme Environments (Extreme Environments)
        • Human Factors in Telemedicine and Biomedical Technologies (Biomed)
        • Human Factors Standardization (HFS)
        • Human Factors Test and Evaluation (T&E)
        • Human Systems Modeling and Simulation (Modeling)
        • Sustained/Continuous Operations (SUSOPS/CONOPS)
        • System Safety/Health Hazards/Survivability (SS/HH/SV)
        • Technical Society/Industry (TS/I)
        • Tri-Service Workload Coordinating (Workload)
        • User-Computer Interaction (UCI)

        DOD HFE TAG MEETING# 50

        Monday, 3 November
        0800 - 1000 Executive Committee meeting
        1000 - 1100 New member orientation
        1100 - 1300 Luncheon Break
        1300 - 1700 Plenary Session
        1700 - 1830 Human Factors in User Feedback Interest Group
        1800 - 2000 Mixer
        Tuesday, 4 November
        0730 - 0830 Technical Society/Industry
        0830 - 1700 Human Factors in Training Interest Group
        0830 - 1100 Human Factors Standardization
        0830 - 1100 User-Computer Interaction
        0930 - 1000 Networking, coffee
        1100 - 1230 Luncheon Break
        1230 - 1430 Controls and Displays
        1230 - 1430 Sustained Continuous Operations
        1430 - 1500 Networking, coffee
        1500 - 1700 System Safety/Health Hazards/Survivability
        1700 - 1800 Service Caucuses and TS/I Meeting
        Wednesday, 5 November
        0830 - 1100 Human Factors in Extreme Environments
        0830 - 1100 Human Factors Test and Evaluation
        0930 - 1000 Networking, coffee
        1100 - 1230 Luncheon Break
        1230 - 1430 Human Factors Engineering/Human Systems Integration: Management
        and Applications
        1430 - 1500 Networking, coffee
        1500 - 1700 Operating Board
        1800 - 2200 Social
        Thursday, 6 November
        0900 - 1200 AFRL Tour
        1130 - 1300 Luncheon Break
        ATTACHMENT (3) Current DOD HFE TAG Operating Board

        <To be added when available>


        ATTACHMENT (4) Registered Attendees – TAG-49







        <To be added when available>


        ATTACHMENT (5) DoD HFE TAG Policies


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

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

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

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

        2.1 TAG members are encouraged to recommend potential meeting sites.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        s objectives s membership policies s meeting schedule
        s scope s chair selection/tenure

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

        s objectives
        s membership policies
        s 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.")

          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.

          1. 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.