May 2010 - Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
  • No tags were found...

May 2010 - Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

SSYSTEM DEVELOPMENTDSystem DevelopmentTechnical GroupMay 2010T GTECHNICAL GROUPSpecial pointsof interest:•Developing bettersystems through theuse of humanperformancemodeling•Message from theProgram Chair aboutSan Francisco•Seekingcontributions forsessionIn this issue:INCOSE HSIWGUpdateCall forNominationsHuman Factorscartoon269Message from the ChairBy: Ryan Urquhart, SDTG ChairA conversation we all need to have once in a while….Every so often, I’ll grab a few developers and have an intriguing conversation overlunch. I’ve become so accustomed to them (developers) designing systems forthemselves, subject to what is the easiest and most enjoyable to code, althoughthey will never use the product. With that being said, I wanted to find out whatREALLY goes through their mind when they are writing code. For instance, “Isthere anything from the system design perspective that they take intoconsideration? Do they really read those use-cases? What are you thoughts onthe System Design document?” Those are just a few questions that come to mind.In the past, I’ve worked on consumer-base products and I really enjoyed that job,because I felt a personal connection with the user-base. With that being said, Iasked, “Which is more exciting to design and develop: Consumer-base products orEnterprise applications.” Since everyone at the table had an iPhone, I just knewthey were going agree that consumer-base applications are more exciting. To mysurprise, the group agreed that they’d rather work on enterprise applications. Iexplain the connection I have with the consumer-base products, which make themmore appealing. Whereas, enterprise applications, used by the corporations sucha Bank of America and JPMC, aren’t necessary used by someone like me (ormany of you). However, my colleague’s argument is that they’re working onsomething that will help someone do their job better, although they will not use itpersonally. I thought to myself, “I guess everyone has to find value in what they doand that’s why you’re a coder and I’m a designer (smile)”.Seriously, I guess one could see it from both sides because we both had validpoints. For instance, if I designed enterprise applications that were going to beused by the military, it would take on a total different meaning because the workmay aid in saving someone’s life. The most valuable lessonlearned from this discussion is that the task has to be explained ina manner to which the user can relate or understand how it’scontributing to the success of others. Usually, this is started fromthe top of the organization and trickles down to lower-levelmanagers, who communicate it to his or her employees.Continued on page 3

Despite having many of our participating members “snowed out”of the International Workshop (IW10) in Mesa Arizona, theHuman Systems Integration Working Group still had a goodmeeting. Particular thanks to Steve Deal who stepped into thebreach as “special convener” when both Co-Chairs were snowedin. Steve was able to manage the presentations agenda withgreat aplomb! Not only did those present do a great job in themeeting room, but many people called in from around the world,either to present or to attend.Unfortunately, the rest of the IW10 schedule was booked withwork sessions and with so many of the project participants notable to get to the meeting, it was determined the best course ofaction to wave off for this event and flex to the InternationalSymposium (IS10). Co-Chairs Ajoy Muralidhar and JenNarkevicius will soon publish an HSIWG meeting schedule forIS10 in Chicago. We will meet one day during the symposiumfor project activities. If you are not already on a project teamand are interested in contributing to the INCOSE HSI products,please contact Jen Narkevicius. Information on IS10 (dates,hotel, conference information, etc) is available is also election time. An invitation for nomination has beendistributed. Per the Human Systems Integration Working GroupBylaws, the election committee is soliciting nominations for theoffices of Co-Chair, Secretary and Webmaster. Nominations willclose at midnight May 18th, 2010. Send your nomination toSecretary Tamara Valinoto on Oncethe slate of candidates is assembled, the ballot will bedistributed by email to HSIWG membership. Only INCOSEmembers are eligible to stand for office and to vote – so here’syour chance to finally join INCOSE! ♦♦♦System DevelopmentTechnical GroupMay 2010INCOSE HSIWG UpdateBy: Jen Narkevicius, HFES/SDTG Liaison to INCOSE/HSIWGSDTG OfficersChairRyan Urquharturquhart4@nc.rr.comSecretary-TreasurerAiler (Alley) Cordero KochanAiler.C.Kochan@l-3com.comProgram ChairPam Chair-ElectRebecca Grierrebecca.grier@navy.milNewsletter EditorMelissa Weavermelissa_weaver@teambci.comWebmasterTeresa Alleytalley@dticam.dtic.milLiaison to INCOSEJen Narkeviciusjnarkevicius@jeniussolutions.comLiaison to DOD HFE TAGAlan Postonaposton86@comcast.net2

System DevelopmentTechnical GroupMay 2010Message from the Chair, continued from page 1By: Ryan Urquhart, SDTG ChairIf done correctly, the momentum never dies and it promotes the development of great systems -- because aperson’s affection for their job is shown in their work.Lastly, establish a connection to the task and continue to develop creative and usable solutions, which lendmore credence to the System Development Technical Group. ♦♦♦Developing Better Systems Through the Use of Human Performance ModelingBy: Charneta Samms, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Human Research andEngineering DirectorateThe technological advances shown in war movies demonstrate super human feats of strength, mental agility,technical savvy and flawless communication that lead the public to believe our Soldiers have no limits orflaws. While the men and women that serve our Army do a phenomenal job, they have performancelimitations. For this reason, we need to ensure that the systems we build for them,while technically complex and sophisticated, are intuitive to use, safe and, mostimportantly, supportive of the successful completion of their mission. To achieve thischallenge, we need to understand the limitations and capabilities of not only theSoldiers who will operate the system but also the system itself as early in the systemdevelopment process as possible. This is why the Army’s human system integration(HSI) program, MANPRINT (Manpower and Personnel Integration), is so important tothe development of Army systems. To influence the development process successfully, MANPRINTpractitioners must convince decision makers of the impact human factors issues can have on systemperformance. Through the use of human performance modeling tools, we can provide compellingquantitative data demonstrating the effect of Soldier performance on system performance early in thedevelopment cycle. In this way, human performance modeling can lead to better system designs for ourSoldiers.Tools such as the Improved Performance Research Integration Tool (IMPRINT) ( have been used successfully to provide the quantitative data that has been influential in tradeoffdecisions made during system development. As a stochastic discrete event simulation tool, IMPRINT can beused to represent the system mission as a hierarchical task breakdown of functions and tasks that representthe interaction and interdependencies of the human operator and the system. Based on the issue to beexamined, the IMPRINT analyst sets task parameters such as predicted time, accuracy, mental demand andperformance requirements for each task within the model. After the model is run, IMPRINT reports providethe analyst with output data such as how long the given mission will take; how often the mission, functions ortasks will meet their time and accuracy requirements; or what task combinations will likely cause mentaloverload and increase the likelihood that the system operators will make mistakes.Continued on page 43

System DevelopmentTechnical GroupMay 2010Developing Better Systems Through the Use of Human Performance Modeling,continued from page 3By: Charneta Samms, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Human Research andEngineering DirectorateThe Future Combat System (FCS) is the most recent example of influential IMPRINT analysis. U.S. ArmyResearch Laboratory (ARL) analysts completed several analyses of the FCS manned ground vehicles(MGVs) which focused on assessing the mental workload associated with using these new platforms(Mitchell, Samms, & Henthorn, 2003; Mitchell, Samms & Henthorn, 2004;Mitchell, Samms, Kozycki, Kilduff, Swoboda, & Animashaun, 2006; Samms &Animashaun, 2006). Based on design concepts, future doctrine and proposedtechnology; the analysts were able to use IMPRINT to predict when Soldierperformance was likely to be degraded due to mental overload. As a result ofthese analyses, MANPRINT practitioners supporting the FCS program wereable to raise Soldier workload as a critical issue within the program. Thisrequired system designers to take a closer look at how they would address the potential risks to systemperformance due to mental workload. Because the FCS MGV program has been cancelled, the IMPRINTanalysis results are being used to influence the new Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) requirements to ensurethat this program does not incorporate the same design problems that led to the human performance issuespredicted for FCS MGVs.The Command, Control and Communication Techniques for Reliable Assessment of Concept Execution(C3TRACE) ( is a task network modeling tool similar to IMPRINT.However, it focuses on examining issues associated with information flow anddecision making. With C3TRACE, analysts build task network models that showthe flow of information through a given organizational structure. It also reveals howdecision quality is affected by accumulated information decay (information receivedtoo late and therefore not as accurate) or information mismatch (informationreceived that does not match information required to make the decision).C3TRACE is used to help identify system, organizational and operator informationflow bottlenecks that could prevent effective decision making.C3TRACE was also used by ARL analysts to identify potential HSI issues for FCS, specifically with the MGVCommand and Control variant (Mitchell, Samms, Kozycki, Kilduff, Swoboda, & Animashaun, 2006). Througha C3TRACE analysis, the analysts were able to determine that the proposed reduction of the command andcontrol cell from 24 personnel to 16 would create personnel utilization rates of over 94% and result in asignificant number of dropped or missed messages for each operator. Depending on the importance ofmessage content, the high rates of dropped or missed messages could potentially lead to poor decisionquality and contribute to mission failure. These results were used to support the requirement for 24personnel in the command and control cell.IMPRINT and C3TRACE are only two of many human performance modeling tools* that are being used toshape the design of systems throughout industry and the Department of Defense (Lockett & Archer, 2008).To ensure that we build better systems, we need as much quantitative information as possible early in thedesign process to make good tradeoff decisions regarding system design. Human performance modeling isan effective and efficient method of developing that information.Continued on page 54

System DevelopmentTechnical GroupMay 2010Developing Better Systems Through the Use of Human Performance Modeling,continued from page 4By: Charneta Samms, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Human Research andEngineering DirectorateReferencesLockett, J.F. and Archer, S.G. (2008). Impact of digital human modeling on military human-systemsintegration and impact of the military on digital human modeling. In Duffy (Ed.) Handbook of DigitalHuman Modeling. Taylor and Francis: London.Mitchell, D. K., Samms, C. L., & Henthorn, T. (2003). Trade Study: A Two- Versus Three-Soldier Crew forthe Mounted Combat System (MCS) and Other Future Combat System Platforms (ARL-TR-3026). ArmyResearch Laboratory, APG, MD. (public release)Mitchell, D.K., Samms, C.L., & Henthorn, T.J. (2004). Workload Analysis of Two- Versus Three-SoldierCrew for the Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon (NLOS-C) System, (ARL-TR-3406). Army Research Laboratory,APG, MD. (limited release; U.S. Government agencies and their contractors only)Mitchell, D. K., Samms, C., Kozycki, R., Kilduff, P., Swoboda, J., & Animashaun, A. (2006) Soldier MentalWorkload, Space Claims, and Information Flow Analysis of the Combined Arms Battalion HeadquartersCommand and Control (C2) Cells. ARL-TR-3861. Army Research Laboratory, APG, MD. (limited release;U.S. Government agencies and their contractors only)Samms, C.L., and Animashaun, A.F. (2006). Mental Workload Analysis of the Reconnaissance andSurveillance Vehicle, (ARL-TR-3835). Army Research Laboratory, APG, MD. (limited release; U.S.Government agencies and their contractors only)* For more information regarding human performance modeling and tools, visit these websites.Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Human Performance Modeling Technical Group - Modeling & Simulation Resource Repository - of Design Support Methods - ♦♦♦MIL-STD-1472 Update from Daniel WallaceRevision "G" of MIL-STD-1472 is currently under document formatting and review (to be compliant withthe required format for military standards). It will likely be released for formalGovernment/Industry Review in mid-summer 2010. ♦♦♦Correction from last newsletter— Carroll Thronesbery, Debra Schreckenghost, and Arthur Molinwere the 2009 (not 2010) winners of the David Meister Best SDTG Paper Award5

A Message from your Program Chair…System DevelopmentTechnical GroupMay 2010Special thanks to all who submitted proposals to our program this year and many thanks to our memberswho served as reviewers!This year we have an excellent collection of submissions covering a wide range of topics in systemdevelopment. 10 lecture and 4 panel submissions have been organized into 6 sessions. In addition to this,SDTG will have 2 posters, 1 product demonstration, and will be co-sponsoring a panel session with the Test& Evaluation TG:Poster – Expanding System-Wide Trust Theory to Four Diagnostic AidsPoster – Soldier Robot Teams: Six Years of ResearchDemo – Improved Performance Research Integration ToolPanel – Co-sponsored with TETG: “Winning the usability war: A long-term approach to success inrapid-prototyping environments”System Development TG sessions are tentatively organized as follows (Sessions 3 – 6 are panel sessions):SD1 – Human Systems Engineering: Standards, Speed & SimplicitySD2 – Human-Automation InteractionSD3 – Establishing Requirements for Human Factors Engineering and HSI: Why Do We Feel LikeWe’re Banging Our Heads Against a Wall?SD4 – Human Factors Standards for United States Government AgenciesSD5 – Future Challenges for the Effective Utilization of Robotic Assets in Military EnvironmentsSD6 – Human Systems Integration in the Federal GovernmentContinued on page 87

A Message from your Program Chair…continued from page 7SDTG sessions are scheduled as follows:System DevelopmentTechnical GroupMay 2010Tues WedTues Wed Thurs Fri8:30 – 10:00 SD410:30 – 12:00 SD1 SD612:15 – 1:151:30 – 3:00 SD3 SD53:30 – 5:00 SD2Thurs FriWith the 54th Annual Meeting fast approaching, make sure to check the HFES website ( to access the most up-to-date information about resourcesand details for the upcoming meeting. Some future dates to keep in mind include:30 JUN – Proceedings papers due16 AUG – Early registration deadlineWe are in the process of planning our SDTG Business Meeting, but it won’t all bebusiness. We’ll have some food, great conversation, recognize the 3 highest ratedpapers, and present the David Meister Best Paper Award. This is a greatopportunity to meet other TG members as well as learn about and get involved inTG activities. We cordially invite all members and students to this meeting. NoRSVP necessary! Look for more details which will be posted to our email list serveas they become available…It’s not too late! If you are interested in planning/leading an SDTG informal gathering or event … forexample over lunch or at the completion of the day’s sessions, please let me know and I will work with you toarrange and publicize it. Contact me anytime at or after 07 June on(410) 278-5916.Looking forward to seeing you in San Francisco!– Pam ♦♦♦Don’t forget to send your SDTG officer nominations to Alley and Ryan by June 18th!We need willing volunteers to fill the Chair, Secretary-Treasurer,Technical Program Chair-Elect, and Newsletter Editor positions.Feel free to nominate yourself! We need you as part of the SDTG leadership.8

System DevelopmentTechnical GroupMay 2010Seeking Contributors for Session: 3rd Annual Works-in-Progress Forum forHuman Factors/Ergonomics Test and Evaluation IssuesBy: Rebecca GrierThis is a call for contributors to an alternate format session to be conducted at the 54th HFES AnnualMeeting in September 2010. This session provides an opportunity for three contributors to describe a HF/Ework in progress that contains a test and evaluation component and gain valuable feedback that can still beincorporated into their efforts. For audience members, it provides an opportunity to offer feedback in theirarea of expertise -- feedback that has a near-term chance of being utilized since the work under discussionis not yet complete!Potential contributors must submit an abstract (350 words maximum) no later than June 10 th 2010 (5pmEastern); so don’t delay. The work-in-progress may reflect any HF/E topic as long as there is anassessment component. Abstract must explicitly specify: (1) applied or research objective; (2) measurementmethods; and (3) what you wish ask the audience. Please e-mail abstract to the Session Co-Chairs, Drs.Rebecca Grier and G. Susanne Bahr at and Phone questions arewelcome at 202.781.1442 (Rebecca) or 321.674.8104 (Susanne). Please see the 2009 HFES proceedingsfor example work and specific template. ♦♦♦9

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines