29 September 2004

Trip Report

Department of Defense

Human Factors Engineering Technical Advisory Group (DOD HFE TAG) Meeting #52 – 01-04 November, 2004

 

The 52nd meeting of the DoD HFE TAG was held in Alexandria, Virginia. The meeting was chaired by Ms. Dawn Woods, Army Natick Research Development and Engineering Center. The theme of the meeting was “Human Systems Integration (HSI),” to highlight new HSI requirements in DODI 5000.2 (Enclosure 7) and the Services’ responses to the new requirements. Approximately 120 people attended the meeting, representing the US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, US Coast Guard, DARPA, DISA/DTIC, NASA, FAA, several human factors-related technical societies and industry associations. Several personnel representing industry and academia attended as invited speakers.

 

Four items are attached:

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

·      Meeting schedule, attachment (2)

·      DoD HFE TAG Operating Board, attachment (3)

·      TAG attendees, attachment (4)

·      DoD HFE TAG Policies, attachment (5)

 

Executive Committee Meeting

 

·      MIL-STD-1472: There will be a meeting on lifting limits following the Operating Board meeting on Thursday, 04 November.

·      Contractor Attendance: Contractor attendees must have government sponsorship, unless they are attending as TS/I representatives. Contractors must not “sell” their company or products at TAG meetings. In order to get approval for a contractor to participate, government members must send a letter to the TAG coordinator, with a copy to the TAG chair.

·      Next TAG Meeting: TAG-53 will be hosted by the US Navy in Panama City, FL on 24-27 May 2005.

·      Pre-Paying for Meetings: PayPal is still problematical for Government attendees. Sheryl Cosing will continue to work this problem, and will emphasize to everyone that registration for the meeting and payment are separate issues.

·      TAG Website Design: It was emphasized that SubTAG websites must be used by the SubTAG chairs and kept up to date. Faith Chandler suggested integrating certain information and tools on a single web page.

·      Human Factors Hot Issues: The update process is broken. Process improvement was discussed.

·      SubTAG Agendas: Sheryl Cosing indicated that SubTAG Chairs are still running too late with their agenda submittals.

Plenary Session Presentations (links to actual presentations may be found at: http://hfetag.dtic.mil/briefs/TAG-52-briefs.html):

 

The DoD HFE TAG Chair for the 52nd meeting, Ms. Dawn Woods, welcomed attendees summarized results of the morning’s Executive Committee meeting:

 
Transforming National Security: A Future Worth Creating.     
Terry J. Pudas, Deputy Director, Force Transformation, described some of the DoD roles in shaping the defense of the future in order to maintain a “broad and sustained competitive advantage.” The elements of transformation are:

·      Continuing process

·      Creating/anticipating the future

·      Co-evolution of concepts, processes, organizations, and technology

·      New competitive areas/competencies; revalued attributes

·      Fundamental shifts in underlying principles

·      New sources of power

·      Changing attitudes, values, beliefs

 

In terms of global trends, we are moving from the industrial age to the Information Age. In order to exercise control over our enemies, the USA has moved from a containment strategy to a connectedness strategy. The security environment today contains several different types of challenges as shown in Figure 1. The non-traditional threats require DoD to work with many other federal agencies in order to make significant progress.

 

Figure 1. Security Environment: Four Challenges

 

Networked forces outfight non-networked forces. Our ability to change / adapt quickly; allows us to win more quickly with fewer resources. The networking allows information sharing, shared situational awareness and knowledge of commander’s intent. The Warfighting advantages include self-synchronization, speed of command and increased combat power. The bottom line is: New approaches are constantly required to cope with evolving challenges. Metrics that we use to judge our performance also need to change.

 

MANPRINT and the Army Transformation. Dr. Michael Drillings, PhD, Director for MANPRINT, Army G-1 (drillingsm@hqda.army.mil), provided an overview of the Army’s implementation of HSI. Dr. Drillings reminded everyone at the start that the “H” in HSI includes military and civilians. MANPRINT is located in the Army’s office of Personnel because personnel costs represent a huge percentage of the total ownership cost of Army systems. Army Regulation 602-2 is currently being rewritten, in conjunction with the Navy. The MANPRINT Directorate is staffed with four professionals who serve as Army MAJNPRINT proponents and advocates. The Director signs MANPRINT Assessments that go to the Army Acquisition Executive. Dr. Drillings attends most high level meetings (e.g., SAG, ASARC, IPR, IIPT) and is the customer for soldier-oriented research and development. The Directorate is supplemented by 5+ organizations in the field that perform the day-to-day effort, such as attending meetings and drafting MANPRINT domain assessments.

 

The Army is facing many transformation challenges as it builds its future force. Actually, future force capabilities are being rolled into the current force to help protect the soldiers better and increase combat effectiveness, through the Rapid Equipping Force (REF) and the Rapid Fielding Initiative (RFI). The Future Combat Systems (FCS) program is also planning to “spiral-out” FCS advanced technologies to existing platforms over the next few years. Progress has been made, including adding a Deputy Director (Dr. Beverly Knapp) and adding an office at Redstone Arsenal. The following items are still on the MANPRINT “to do” list:

–      Policy (Possible revision of DoD 5000/CJCSI 3170; update to AR602-2)

–      Greater inter-service cooperation

–      Additional DAU course instruction and industry courses

–      More cooperation with ATEC

–      Assessing training vs. assessing training process

–      Development of an Awareness Plan (videos and Outreach program)

–      Issue MANPRINT Handbook

–      Possible SeaWarrior conversion to Army

–      DoD Architecture Framework (DODAF)

–      Get more involved with Rapid Fielding Initiative (RFI) and Rapid Equipping Force (REF) initiatives

–      Get MANPRINT into contracts

 

The bottom line remains the same: We must equip the soldier, not man the equipment.

 

 

Every Airman a Force Multiplier. Brig Gen Thomas W. Travis, Commander of the 311th Human Systems Wing at Brooks AFB in San Antonio, TX, summarized Air Force efforts to increase emphasis on Human Systems Integration (lisa.hamilton@brooks.usaf.mil). BG Travis has experience flying F-4, F-15 and F-16 aircraft. He became the 311th Wing Commander in February 2003. One area he is concentrating on is the high mishap rates for Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAV). BG Travis believes every airman can be a force multiplier; he uses the following equation to describe his view:

 

(Human) x (CONOPS + Technology) = Capability

 

BG Travis noted that in earlier days, the Air Force sent multiple aircraft to destroy a single target. Today, we send one aircraft to destroy multiple targets. He cited an example of a B-2 that recently targeted about 80 different targets on one bomb drop. As technology and CONOPS continue to evolve toward “Battle Space 2000” its characteristics will challenge the HSI community to ensure that the airman can keep up with and be ready to accept and use these new technologies and capabilities, per Figure 2. The airman, and the performance he/she brings to the conflict is critical – indeed, the airman has become a single point failure where he/she hadn’t been before.

Figure 2. Battlespace 2000

 

Specifically, with regard to Air Force developments in HSI, BG Travis summarized the results of a 2004 USAF Scientific Advisory Board summer study that investigated HSI in the USAF and recommended improvements to several USAF leaders. The study will culminate in a “4-star” meeting this coming January.

 

BG Travis ended his presentation with three conclusions:

·      Future Battlespace will require the integration of occupied and unoccupied aerospace vehicles

·      Human performance and protection from threats must be considered in system and CONOPS development

·      Inattention to human-systems issues will have serious consequences for mission effectiveness

 

Update on US Navy HSI. Ms. Nancy Dolan (nancy.dolan@navy.mil) provided an update to attendees on recent advancements in Navy HSI. She stated that in 2002, there was a Congressional requirement to transpose MANPRINT into Navy practice. However, success with HSI initiatives is spotty. Ms. Dolan mentioned that the new JSCIDS CJSI/M 3170 contains no HSI requirements and that the Navy was attempting to address that. SECNAVINST 5000.2C and the DON Guidebook contain additional requirements:

•       HSI in JCIDS

•       Navy Training Systems Plan (NTSP) required document

•       “HSI Plan” in Acquisition Strategy

•       Manpower KPP

•       SEAPRINT

 

The SEAPRINT initiative is built from the HSI architecture framework. It is DoDAF compliant, decomposes HSI process from capability need to beyond delivery and allows for future web services development. HSI is fully integrated into “SHIPMAIN” the program that is modernizing navy ships and aviation. Currently, the Navy has an unprecedented number of ACAT I programs in development and the level of attention to HSI is increasing. Some of the HSI challenges with these new acquisition developments are significant; e.g.:

 

Next Generation Carrier (CVN-21)

•       Manpower KPP – 20-25% reduction of ship’s crew

•       Possible further reductions of habitability

Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)

•       Manpower KPP - > 100 ship’s crew

•       Modular design w/ aviation detachment

•       Rapid Acquisition – first ship in FY07

•       Linking traditional approaches to MPT to Sea Warrior

•       Maximizing Sea Trial experimentation with HSV

New Amphibious Ship (LHA(R))

•       Manpower KPP for total capability

•       Increased aviation capability

•       Constraints on hull design

•       Significant HSI challenges

Future ISR “Suite” – BAMS UAV, MMA and VTUAV

•       Broad Area Maritime Surveillance UAV

•       Strike, signals intelligence and communications relays

•       Independent or collaborative

MMA

•       Intelligence, Reconnaissance and Surveillance (ISR) aircraft

•       Replacement for P-3

VTUAV

•       Fire Scout

•       Operating from LCS

 

The Navy is concentrating on education in the HSI area, with the Master’s degree program now “up and running” at the Navy Post Graduate School in Monterey. The Navy is also defining the “HSI job” and identifying the required KSAs.

 

NASA Human Systems Integration. Ms. Faith Chandler (Faith.T.Chandler@nasa.gov) is the Human Reliability Program Manager in the FAA’s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance. Ms. Chandler updated attendees on today’s space transportation system, provided insight into some HSI activities, summarized the President’s vision for space exploration and described how HSI will support that vision. HSI in past NASA activities has been inconsistent, with more attention being placed on survivability and health, survivability and (to a lesser extend) task completion. Mission control has drawn more support than launch control and HSI has rarely been applied to maintenance activities (although this is beginning to improve). Today’s HSI activities are focused on the space shuttle, international space station, commercial aviation and Safety (across the board). The President’s space vision, articulated on 14 January 2004, includes a broad range of human and robotic missions to the moon, Mars and beyond. The current focus of HSI research is on low to mid-level Technology Readiness Level (TRL) technologies such as high energy systems, advanced space systems and platforms, advanced space operations and lunar & planetary surface operations.

 

Human Systems Integration research to support the President’s vision is focused on 50 critical risks for travel to Mars as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Mars-Related HSI Research

HSI in the FAA’s Acquisition Management System. Mr. Glen Hewitt, Human Factors Research and Engineering Directorate, FAA (glen.hewitt@faa.dot.gov) provided an overview of HSI at the FAA, where the primary focus is on human factors engineering. Key elements at the FAA include HF process, policy and Best Practices, technical tools, conventions and guidelines. Budgets in the group have risen steadily from 1994 ($11m) through 2003 ($42m), with a slight dip in 2004 to $40m. The FAA uses a 10-step process similar to the DoD’s. Most of the human factors staffing at the FAA comes from the DoD. Most of the users are unionized at the FAA. There is considerable opportunity for project collaboration between the FAA and DoD. Check out the FAA’s website at: http://www.hf.faa.gov.

Overview of the Navy’s Human Performance Center. John Rice (john.m.rice@navy.mil) provided an overview of the Navy’s HPC, where the mission is to optimize Navy Warfighting performance by applying performance modeling. At the NPC, they believe that performance will be improved if barriers are identified and removed. There are now NPC detachments at all major Fleet commands.

 

Training the Future HSI Professional. Dr. Nita Miller (nlmiller@nps.navy.mil) has established a Masters level program at NPGS in HSI. She provided a summary of the program, which costs about $13k per year and requires a two year commitment. She is now looking into the possibility of offering a Ph.D. program. This program was begun in response to a Congressional mandate. Dr. Miller is always searching for “cool” projects for the students to undertake.

 

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. Steve Merriman, Electronic Industries Association G-45 Vice Chair (Stephen.c.merriman@boeing.com), indicated that the EIA recently had requested the DoD to update MIL-STD, citing a lack of update for more than five years. The three areas highlighted by the EIA as needing improvement were:

§       Multi-variate anthropometry

§       Portable/Wearable computers

§       Lifting limits, strength, torque etc.

MIL-STD-1474: The Army Research Laboratory (Human Research and Engineering Directorate) is proposing an ear model for use in MIL-STD-1474. Working groups will probably be established to discuss this with a draft release of the standard in October or November 2005.

MIL-STD-1787: Mr. Jim Kinzig (james.kinzig@wpafb.af.mil) is the point of contact for this standard entitled Aircraft Display Symbology that was first established on 10 December 1984. An update including Apache, UAV and rotary wing symbology will be our for industry coordination in the summer of 2005. It is an interface standard so it doesn’t require a waiver.

            Joint Services Specification Guide (JSSG): Mr. Dave Britton is the point of contact for this document (david.britton@wpafb.af.mil).

            NASA MSIS: Janis Connolly, NASA Houston (janis.connoplly-1@nasa.gov) reported that NASA’s MSIS-3000 is currently being updated. The document is completely on line now. You can get to it via the NASA web site: Nhttp://www.jsc.nasa.gov/. There are currently over 3,000 “shall” statements in the document and they are all being reviewed. Hyper-links are being added to the document for each “shall” statement so that the reader can review related research, verification results, etc.

           Data Item Descriptions: The Navy DIDs are currently awaiting review by a NAVAIR manager.

§   DI-HFAC-81399, HE Critical Task Analysis

§   DI-HFAC-80742C, HE Simulation Concepts

§   DI-HFAC-80746C,Human Engineering Design Approach Document-Operator

§   DI-HFAC-80747C, Human Engineering Design Approach Document-Maintainer

§   DI-HFAC-80740A, Human Engineering Program Plan

§   DI-HFAC-80745A, Human Engineering Systems Analysis Report

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES)/ISO/TC159: Mr. Cletis Booher reported that the HFES meeting was well attended (420 attendees) and that papers were of generally high quality. Mr. Booher provided a handout summarizing the annual meeting events, including the new “99-second” session at which presenters were given exactly 99 seconds to present their information. Regarding TC-159, Mr. Al Poston is now accredited on all four subcommittees. A handout was provided on TC-159 recent activities.

         Index of Government Standards: Mr. Poston handed out copies of the new listing of government human factor standards. The index covers 48 government (US, DoD, DoT, NASA, NRC UK) standards in the field of human factors engineering. The new listing is available via the TAG website, under products.

         Defence Standard (DEF STAN) 00-25. This standard was updated with a new format in July 2004. It is available at http://www.dstan.mod.uk.

         Design Weight Lifting Limits: Dawn Woods reported that there would be a meeting on Thursday following the Operating Board meeting to discuss the subject.

         Defense Acquisition Guidebook: Available at http://akss.dau.mili/dag. Section 6 is on Human Systems Integration.

        

Training Interest Group. CDR Sean Biggerstaff (sean.biggerstaff@navy.mil), currently with NAVAIR, announced that he soon would be working for Dr. Robert Foster (DDR&E Director of Bio-Systems). The first speaker was Ms. Amy Bolton (amy.bolton@navy.mil) who spoke about the Training Intervention Matrix for Simulation-Based Training. This matrix is to assist in optimizing training strategies by liking interventions to training objectives. Ms. Bolton presented a matrix of Cognitive Skills (e.g., decision making, problem solving, SA, categorical learning, visual search, teamwork, procedural knowledge) by Training Interventions (e.g., highlighting, on-line feedback, passive learning, scaffolding, off-line feedback, process feedback outcome feedback). Later on, the project may focus on technology and implementation guidance.

 

The second speaker was Elizabeth Wroblewski, NAVAIR, Patuxent River, MD, who spoke on a Process of Achieving Collaborative Knowledge in Asynchronous Collaboration. Ms. Wroblewski is working with Dr. Norm Warner and Dr. Mike Letsky. Their goal is to understand the process of gaining knowledge through asynchronous collaboration. They are examining effects of face-to-face, asynchronous/distributed collaboration. They have developed a model of team collaboration. In phase two, they used the “E-Wall” at M.I.T. for asynchronous learning where teams were either face-to-face or asynchronous/distributed. The task was to figure out how to rescue Red Cross workers in a basement cell on a remote island. The quality of discussions was evaluated. There was no difference in the amount of time to figure out a viable strategy. There was not difference in scores. There was a significant difference in communications – face-to-face personnel had a much higher level of communications. The asynchronous/distributed team spent more time on problem solving than communications. The model of team collaboration includes knowledge construction, collaborative problem solving, team consensus and outcome evaluation and revision. The research team is using the information gained in the development of collaboration tools.

 

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) 994-6419) co-chaired the meeting. The first speaker was Mr. Richard Zigler, US Army Research Laboratory, Survivability and Lethality Analysis Directorate, SLAD, (rzigler@arl.army.mil), who spoke on Personnel Survivability. Mr. Zigler discussed the six major areas that Soldier Survivability addresses and the Army component with primary responsibility for each:

 

·      Reducing Fratricide (SLAD)

·      Reducing Detectability of the Soldier (SLAD)

·      Reducing Probability of Being Attacked SLAD)

·      Minimizing Damage (SLAD)

·      Minimizing Injury (SLAD)

·      Reducing Physical and Mental Fatigue (HRED)

 

The primary methodology used by SLAD is the Parameter Assessment List (PAL). PAL is used to rate the magnitude of impact on the soldier or system and the probability of the deficiency occurring. A wide variety of different considerations go into a soldier survivability analysis. Figure 4 shows the six areas that must be considered in any assessment. Mr. Zigler provided numerous examples of the wide variety of situations in which soldier survivability can be compromised. Soldier survivability is now considered one of the primary domains of MANPRINT which is applied to all major US Army system acquisition programs.

 

Figure 4. Soldier Survivability Considerations.

 

The second speaker was Dr. Denise V. Gobert, Director of Research for the US Army Military Amputee Research Program, Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Dr. Gobert spoke on The US Army Amputee Patient Care Program: Optimizing Recovery After Traumatic Limb Loss. This program has as its goal the optimization of recovery following traumatic loss. In Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), there have been 7,730 personnel wounded and 1,109 personnel lost. On the battlefield, one of the first things learned by the soldiers there is that “Kevlar saves lives.” Also, the medical care in theater is much better than in the past. But, if a soldier is wounded, he or she spends three to five days in Germany following air evacuation. In Germany a large medical team is made available, staffed with 18 different disciplines. Due to the different types of injuries being experienced today, innovative research is required to optimize care. Of the 365 amputees being tracked by the center, 88% are male, 75% are Army (followed by the US Marines). The average is 25 years (+/- 5.5 years) and 35 % of the injuries are to the upper extremity.

 

Extreme physical challenges are faced by amputees. The center’s view is to have a training plan, teach the amputee how to use what remains, manage pain and provide counseling. The ultimate goal is maximum independence through training, prostheses, self-care and leisure pursuit. The best technologies are being used today, including:

·  Microprocessor-controlled knees

·  Dynamic response (high energy return) prosthetic feet

·  Speed sensor prosthetic hands (Otto back sensor hand)

·  Myo-electric limb system

·  Gait analysis and static digital capture

·  Utah-3

·  Vacuum-assisted sockets

 

Rehabilitation challenges fall into several areas:

·  Materials: lighter, waterproof movable wrist (flex/extend). Currently, the control strings break too easily.

·  Fit: Improved socket fit to fit contours and limbs better. Thinner materials. Socket design, trans-radial and wrist disarticulation.

·  Function: Feedback mechanisms need individual digit motion, sensory feedback (temperature, pressure, etc.)

·  Operability: range of motion, more natural function

·  Reliability: Better power systems, increased reliability

·  Control: myo-electric implants. Thought control.

·  Durability: Silicon hands break down and tear too easily.

·  Training: 3-D virtual reality programs for training, reaching, manipulating, feeding and military specific tasks.

 

In rehabilitation therapy, the goal is to get the amputee back to duty as soon as possible. So, there is emphasis placed on regaining the abilities to run, jump, climb, march and operate weapons. Clinical gait evaluation is used to help restore a natural gait. EMG is monitored to support training and learning how to take control of muscles. Heterotopic ossification occurs after injuries where bone grows randomly due to the disruption; this bone must be removed.

 

The amputee center conducts collaborative research with the Veterans Administration, US Army Telemedicine and Advance Technology Research Center, US Army Natick Soldier Center and USA Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine. They are exploring collaboration with DARPA on their exoskeleton system, microprocessor controlled limbs and implantable rice-size stimulators and sensors for pain control and sensing or amplification of muscle activity. They are working with the University of Utah on brain-machine interface. They are monitoring Sarcos Labs work on next-generation control systems for individual digit control.

 

A new $10B building for amputee training and research is planned at Walter Reed, with the opening planned in the fall of 2005.

 

The last speaker was Mr. Craig Pfledderer, Lockheed-Martin Missile and Fire Control, Grand Prairie Texas (craig.pfledderer@lmco.com), who spoke on A Preliminary HSI Assessment of the Army’s new Multi-Purpose Utility/Logistics Equipment (MULE) Vehicle. Rather than put our soldiers in harm’s way, the MULE will be capable of clearing minefields and performing air assault, in addition to it’s “pack mule” capabilities of hauling packs, water, fuel, etc. on the battlefield. The MULE variants are being constructed on a common mobility platform, consisting of basic frame, sensor system, propulsion, wheels, suspension and common electronics and subsystems. The MULE transport can carry several thousand pounds of gear, consumables, etc. The Armed Robotic Vehicle (ARV)-Assault (Light) is equipped with a sensor system, missiles, machine gun and smoke dispensing system. The MULE Countermine is equipped with a deployable sensor array and is a tracked vehicle; it is the only variant without wheels.

 

The HSI assessment considered typical factors associated with vehicles (batteries, leaks, fire, radiation, moving parts, etc.) The assessment considered all operational modes for the MULE, ranging from purely manual to totally autonomous control. Preliminary safety hazards associated with the MULE include those associated with vehicle movement, obstacle avoidance, subsystems/power, handoff, software safety. Preliminary HFE assessments focused on anthropometric accommodation and GUI usability. Soldier survivability issues have to do with chemical/biological scenarios, signature management, combat ID, armor and defense against non-lethal measures (e.g., smoke).

 

Technical Society/Industry Sub-Group. The Technical Society/Industry (TS/I) Sub TAG met twice during the TAG meeting on Tuesday morning and afternoon. Mr. Bill Lytle (William.b.lytle@lmco.com, (303) 971-8972) chaired the meetings. In line with tradition, the meeting was begun with TS/I Attendees introducing themselves. The first speakers were Dan Baerthel (Daniel.v.baerthel@boeing.com) and Barbara Wilper (Barbara.l.wilper@boeing.com), who spoke on HSI from a Contractor’s Viewpoint. An approach to HSI is being established within the Boeing company to support HSI/MANPRINT requirements on future acquisition programs. Initial efforts have uncovered incomplete requirements, confusion between HSI and HFE terms, poor coordination between HSI elements and inconsistent customer support of HSI. The approach being developed is characterized by:

 

·Formalized team processes

·Building of an awareness of HSI as a DoD requirement

·Up-front inclusion of HSI on projects

·Lays a basis for organizational structure complementing customer IPTs

·Reduced time and development costs

·Quality enabler – customer dividend on the field.

 

As part of the HSI development process a survey was conducted to identify what is currently being done, when it is done and by whom, what data and products are developed, etc. Early findings are that more work is needed on the customer side in terms of policy development and including HSI in contractual requirements.

 

The second speaker was Mr. Iain Macleod, HFI Defence Technology Centre (i.macleod@cranfield.ac.uk), who provided an Overview of UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) Defence Technology Centres DTC), and more specifically the Human Factors Integration DTC. DTCs are formal collaborative organizations funded jointly buy industry and the MOD. Participants work together to generate and enhance technologies vital to the delivery of future IK Defence capabilities. In 2003, three DTCs were established: Human Factors Integration, Electromagnetic Remote Sensing and Information Fusion. In 2004, one more is being added: Systems Engineering & Integrated Systems for Defence: Autonomous and Semi-autonomous vehicles.

 

The HFI DTC director is Dr. David Morris. Its budget is approximately $4.5m per year. A management panel determines how and what resources are applied to conduct and deliver proposed research. A technical panel determines research priorities. There are quarterly progress reviews, an annual plenary session and a Scientific and Defence Industry audits. The mission of the HFI DTC is to:

 

·  Develop and validate new theories and methodologies for the “NEC” age

·  Package and apply existing knowledge

·  Generate new knowledge where gaps exist (e.g., unmanned vehicles)

·  Develop capabilities in innovative research and focused “rapid-gain” projects

·  Raise awareness of the HFI DTCs existence and mission, both nationally and internationally

 

Topic areas of interest to the HFI DTC are shown in Figure 5. There are currently four work packages funded:

 

·  HFI for C4I and NEC

·  Training

·  MOD FFI Process

·  Program awareness and product dissemination.

 

The DTC sponsored an HFI symposium at Abbey Wood last 25 May; a possible USA tour is planned for 2005. The HFI DTC has come a long way in a matter of a few months and it has many initiatives planned for the next year. Staffing is currently at 20 people, moving to 30 to 35.

 

Figure 5. HFI DTC Key Topic Areas

 

 

Modeling and Simulation. Dr. Norman Badler, University of Pennsylvania, (badler@seas.upenn.edu) spoke about New Behavioral Paradigms for Virtual Human Models. They are working with the Air Force on the F-22 aircraft. They have taken written maintenance instructions and they have generated animations using the Jack model. Arm reach is a critical instruction for virtual reach models. They are also working with the Lockheed-Martin Corp. on ship design to identify areas of the ship that are better or worse for sea sickness. Using motion estimates, they are locating stations in areas rated lower for motion sickness. Further information is available at: http://hms.upenn.edu.

 

The next speaker was Robert Playtor, Boston Dynamics (playtor@bdi.com) who spoke on Virtual Prototyping of the Soldier System. They are using physics-based biomechanics to drive man models. They are performing equipment evaluations and estimating human joint loads when performing work. They are currently working with USARIEM on validation.

 

The next speaker was Dr. Jennifer Narkevicius, ARINC, Corporation (Jennifer.narkevicius@navy.mil) who spoke on SEAPRINT: Instantiating Human Systems. Congress mandated that the Navy investigate and adapt US Army MANPRINT for Navy purposes. SEAPRINT consolidates 200 DoD/DoN HSI policies and processes. It simplifies them into seven actionable tenets and articulates what Program Managers need to do and when to accomplish the tenets to meet DoD and DoN HSI requirements. The seven tenets are:

 

Modeling and simulation is used as a method for design alternative evaluation; it is used to identify impacts of design alternatives on the crews. In 2003, IMPRINT was used to look at E-2C propeller blade replacement. In 2004, the IMPRINT model will be linked to a process model of operations and will be used to examine a fueling task below decks; the challenge is to go from eight to two people. So far, IMPRINT seems to be a useful tool for examining design alternatives.

 

Controls and Displays. Most of the presentations centered on the use of advanced technology for augmenting traditional visual displays. One study addressed multilayer displays, using either translucent or opaque layers on a combination of math and memory tracking tasks, with either a monitor or a helmet mounted display. In this experiment the users of the helmet-mounted display (HMD) performed less well than the controls in both response time and accuracy.

 

Another study addressed the use of tactile feedback to guide open field navigation by dismounted (afoot) soldiers in progressing from waypoint to waypoint over a GPS mapped course. Results were compared to map-and-compass and use of GPS. Other tasks