The U.S. Army MANPRINT Program

1
The U.S. Army MANPRINT Program

• Dr. Michael Drillings
• Acting Director, MANPRINT Directorate
• Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1
• Voice 703-95-6761 Fax [phone]
• michael.drillings_at_hqda.army.mil

2
MANPRINT UPDATE

• AGENDA
• The state of Army MANPRINT
• Where we are
• Where we are going

3
What is MANPRINT?
MANPRINT
Integrates
The Entire Systems Life Cycle Research,
Development, Acquisition, Training and Operations
Throughout
MANPRINT is the Armys implementation of DoD
Human Systems Integration (HSI) Program
4
MANPRINT Practitioners(ACAT I Programs)

• MANPRINT Directorate
• (HQ DA, DCS G1)

Army Safety Center
System Safety
Manpower
Personnel
Center for Health Promotion Preventive Medicine
Health Hazards
Training
Survivability/ Lethality Analysis Directorate
5
Why MANPRINT?

• MANPRINT results in systems that
• Perform better
• Use less manpower
• Use less expensive personnel
• Consider training issues early
• Are safer for the user
• Have less life-cycle cost

6
MANPRINT Design Influence on Comanche
Dual point folding tail
Tail rotor configuration eliminates personnel
hazards
Cockpit configuration
Accessibility to LRUs
Weapons loading/access
Crew protection
EOTADS promotes easy access to TGS and nose
components
Portable Maintenance Aid
Initial Required Program Buy - Life Cycle Cost
avoidance gt 3.29B
Source MANPRINT/Human Systems Integration
Influence on Comanche Design Development
Program, St. Louis, MO The Analytic Sciences
Corp., January 1995
7
Comanche Tool Kit

• The tool box for the T-53 series helicopter
  turbine engine (Huey Iroquois) had 134
  different tools.
• The tool KIT for the T-800 for the Comanche has
  SIX tools instead of 134
• Tools are inexpensive commercially
• available
• Results
• Fewer tools
• Less burden on the supply system
• Less training and inventory time
• Increased combat readiness

8
Where We Are

• We work for the DCS, G-1
• We are in the MANPRINT Directorate
• We have input, through the G-1, to materiel
  development meetings (ASARCs, AROCs RRCs ASRs
  GOSCs)
• We have input to the Requirements process
• MANPRINT Assessment is an integral part of
  acquisition
• We have a staff of 4

G
G
A
G
G
A
A
9
Where We Are (cont.)

• Through the WIPTs, the domains are involved in
  solving problems
• We rely on several other labs and agencies to
  help us
• PMs do MANPRINT
• Their primary job is to produce a system meeting
  KPPs for a specific price and on a specific
  schedule
• MANPRINT is not a KPP (key performance parameter)

G
A
A
10
Where We Are Going

• Life under a new DoD 5000
• Continued improvement in tools
• Through research
• Better MANPRINT education and training for
  Acquisition Corps
• New acquisition approaches
• Spiral development
• Incremental system improvement
• Capability based acquisition
• Use best available technology
• Waived systems

G
A
A
A
A
11
Where We Are Going (Cont.)

• Robotic and semi-autonomous systems
• Joint interest
• Cognitive engineering
• Example

A
A
G
12
Cognitive Engineering

• Human Factors Engineering principles must be
  considered an integral part of the system
  engineering process. To achieve that, the
  physical, cognitive, and decision-making
  requirements needed by the crew and maintainers
  to perform required tasks must be determined.

13
Cognitive Engineering

• Human Factors Engineering principles must be
  considered an integral part of the system
  engineering process. To achieve that, the
  physical, cognitive, and decision-making
  requirements needed by the crew and maintainers
  to perform required tasks must be determined.
• This information will be the basis for
  determining relevant design characteristics,
  performance standards, performance and decision
  aids, task structure, potential workload, crew
  configuration, and training requirements.

14
Where We Are Going (Cont.)

• Better Business Processes
• VISIONS database
• More efficient transmission of information
• More uniform requirements language
• Better Technical Substance
• Better funding of RD
• Better prediction of human performance
• Integration of MANPRINT domains
• Better communication
• Joint training program
• Community of practice web site
• Beginnings of true joint cooperation to serve the
  common interest

A
A
A
15
MANPRINT in the System Acquisition Process - AR
602-2 (1 June 2001)

• Combat Developers
• Include MANPRINT considerations in documents
  (MNS, AoA, ORD, CAPSTONE rqmts document, critical
  operational issues and criteria (COIC)
• Ensure MANPRINT is represented on all Integrated
  Concept Teams (ICTs)
• Program Executive Officers (PEOs)
• Include responsibility for funding and executing
  MANPRINT program in PM charters
• Rate assigned PM execution of MANPRINT
  responsibilities
• Monitor PM and contractor execution of MANPRINT
  requirements
• Program/Project/Product Managers (PMs)
• Implement proactive MANPRINT program for all
  systems managed
• Include MANPRINT considerations as explicit part
  of source selection
• Incorporate MANPRINT provisions in system
  contracts and specs
• Charter MANPRINT WIPT or include MANPRINT in
  appropriate IPT
• Resolve MANPRINT issues before each milestone
  decision review
• Crosswalk MANPRINT performance parameters from
  ORD to RFP to TEMP
• Provide resources and funding for MANPRINT
  program implementation

16
The Bottom Line

• SOLDIERS will be using the equipment developed to
  perform missions and to defend their lives.
• Equipment designed with the soldier in mind is
• Easier to use, employ, and operate
• Easier to maintain and sustain
• More effective
• Safer
• More efficient
• More cost effective
• Less likely to require redesign

We must equip the soldier, not man the equipment!
17
Summary

• MANPRINT will continue to be required by
  regulation (although less emphatically)
• MANPRINT is smart business
• Improved design
• Reduced life cycle costs
• Reduced risk to soldiers
• www.manprint.army.mil

18
How to have a Successful MANPRINT Program --
Combat Developers

• Include MANPRINT representative(s) on Integrated
  Concept Team (ICT)
• Establish MANPRINT plan of action
• Identify and document MANPRINT issues/concerns
• Include soldier unit (MANPRINT) considerations
  in requirements documentation
• MANPRINT/HSI specifically addressed in para 5e of
  ORD
• Critical MANPRINT considerations meeting
  definition of Key Performance Parameters should
  be addressed in para 4 of ORD
• Transfer documentation of MANPRINT issues to PM
• Track as Common Data Elements (CDEs)
• Ensure seamless MANPRINT consideration in system
  design efforts

19
How to have a Successful MANPRINT Program --
Materiel Developers

• Include MANPRINT considerations in program
  planning execution
• Include MANPRINT considerations in acquisition
  strategy
• Incorporate MANPRINT requirements in
  solicitation(s) and source selection(s)
• In Comanche source selection, 17 of score
  centered on MANPRINT considerations
• Provide resources for MANPRINT program
  implementation
• Make MANPRINT part of your Integrated Product
  Team (IPT)
• Where appropriate, charter a MANPRINT Working IPT
• Establish MANPRINT plan of action and milestones
• Track MANPRINT issues/concerns with domain SMEs
• Require the Contractor to have a MANPRINT Program
• Track and document MANPRINT issues via CDEs,
  SMMP, or similar mechanism
• Include MANPRINT issues in test evaluation
  planning
• Crosswalk MANPRINT performance parameters,
  objectives and thresholds from the ORD to the RFP
  to the TEMP

20
How We Influence the Process

• Combat developer states requirements
• FCS example
• Milestone Decisions
• WIPTs
• IPTs
• MANPRINT Assessments
• Test and Evaluation

21
Cognitive Engineering

• Human Factors Engineering principles must be
  considered an integral part of the system
  engineering process. To achieve that, the
  physical, cognitive, and decision-making
  requirements needed by the crew and maintainers
  to perform required tasks must be determined.
  This information will be the basis for
  determining relevant design characteristics,
  performance standards, performance and decision
  aids, task structure, potential workload, crew
  configuration, and training requirements. The
  system shall

• Conform to sound HFE design processes.
• Minimize physical and cognitive workload and
  task complexity for the target audience.
• Emphasize the use of automation to aid or
  replace the performance of complex tasks.
• Optimize crew/team communication through
  integration of controls and displays.
• Employ appropriate soldier-centered interfaces
  to enable effective supervision/control/teaming
  between manned and unmanned systems

22
Domain Definitions
MANPOWER - number of military and civilian
personnel required and potentially available to
operate, maintain, sustain and provide training
for systems
PERSONAL CAPABILITIES - cognitive and physical
capabilities required to train, operate, maintain
and sustain material and information systems
TRAINING - instruction, education, OJT, or unit
training required to provide personnel and units
with their essential job skills, knowledge,
values and attitudes.
HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING - integration of
characteristics into system definition, design,
development and evaluation to optimize
human-machine performance
SYSTEM SAFETY - design and operating
characteristics of a system that minimize the
human or machine errors or failures that cause
accidents
HEALTH HAZARDS - design and operating
characteristics of a system that create
significant risks of bodily injury or death
threats include loud noise, chemical and
biological substances, extreme temperatures, and
radiation energy.
SOLDIER SURVIVABILITY - characteristics of system
that can reduce fratricide, detectability, and
probability of attack, as well as minimizing
system damage, personal injury, and cognitive and
physical fatigue
23
Additional Examples
Lightweight Towed Howitzer (XM777)
Apache Longbow
Joint PM estimates 6.2M cost avoidance due to
MANPRINT efforts (Potential rework costs)
Cost avoidance 16.8M over life cycle of fleet
Fox NBC Reconnaissance Vehicle

• Initial design reduced crew from 4 to 3 but
  performance was unacceptable
• Simple design change resulted in predicted
  performance improvements(reduced workload,
  reduced soldier risk)
• Re-designed system validated with minimum
  testing
• Performance now acceptable
• 2-4M saved in program costs
• Saved 15M in MPT over 7 years (3 vs. 4 crew)
• MANPRINT investment 60K!

24
Some Lessons Learned
Source Reverse Engineering Human Factors,
Manpower, Personnel, and Training in the Weapon
System Acquisition Process, ARI Tech Report 659,
January 1995
Stinger
Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS)

• Requirements and system assessments were
  addressed in terms of machine, not man-machine
  system performance

• Complex engagement sequence created significant
  training and operational problems
• Ground clearance rqmts to avoid back blast
  debris resulted in serious limits on elevation or
  use by tallest soldiers (98th percentile)
• Lower mental category soldiers could not meet
  required single engagement kill probability rqmts

• Maintenance issues led to
• Creation of new MOS (27M) for direct support
  maintenance relatively late in system development
• Increased manpower demands beyond initial
  planning
• Need for a maintenance training device to be
  delivered two years after IOC

M1 Fault Detection Isolation Subsystem
UH-60A Blackhawk

• Assessments of RAM during testing permitted
  exclusion of soldier-produced failures, resulting
  in unrealistically high estimates of performance

• MOSs selected as organizational mechanics were
  lower in mental aptitude than either M1 tank
  crewmen or general population of soldiers

• Failure to operationally define rqmts for
  missions (e.g., nap-of-the-earth night flying)
  led to incomplete testing
• MOS67T (Blackhawk repairer) manpower was
  underestimated by 21 to 600, necessitating
  recruitment efforts to obtain required personnel
  and a significant training surge at Fort Eustis

• M1 Simplified Test Equipment was so unwieldy,
  difficult to transport, and difficult to connect
  to the tank that it actually discouraged its use
• As early as DT/OT II, maintainers showed limited
  understanding of system functions, inability to
  identify basic faults, and limited facility in
  using technical manuals