TT_Vol3 Issue2 - Raytheon

Figure 2. Human Factors in the Design Process
steer other HCI development. For
example, results of THAAD usability
testing have been used to help in HCI
designs for DD(X) watchstander displays
for air defense. Use of simulations
and early human-in-the-loop
testing mitigate poor human interface
designs before they are locked.
By performing these practices, Human
Factors helps verify the usability of software
requirements before the software is actually
developed and tested. As shown in Figure
2, Human Factors is performed concurrently
with Systems and Software design to provide
recommendations and guidance on
developing software requirements that
keep the end user in mind.
Figure 3. Testing Quick Remove/Replace Prototypes in Protective Clothing
Figure 4: Moving to Human-Centered Design
Hardware and Workstation Ergonomics is
performed in a similar manner to HCI development,
with the exception of software
engineering and requirements. In this environment,
Human Factors is concerned with
the ability of system hardware components
to answer the following questions:
• Can the system accommodate physical
extremes of end users, from a 5%
female (5 feet tall, 95 pounds) to a 95%
male (6 feet 4 inches tall, 240 pounds)?
• Can the system accommodate for
extreme temperature or chemical environments
which require heavy clothing
that significantly hamper the end user’s
ability to perform tasks in a timely and
accurate manner (e.g., typing, performing
maintenance, or viewing a screen)?
Human Factors practices in designing hardware/workstations
for usage by humans in a
variety of environments involve the following:
• Incorporating best practices from industry
into hardware designs, such as quick
remove and replace parts (Figure 3) and
fully adjustable work environments
• Mockups / Rapid Prototyping of work
areas and anthropometric assessments
(i.e., human fit), which help ensure the
ability of the human to perform his/her
job before hardware is actually built
(Figure 4).
Human Factors Engineering
at Raytheon is becoming more
of a One Company approach,
leveraging Knowledge
Management and “lessons
learned” of mature projects
into the design of developing
projects. Innovative interfaces,
application of lessons learned
from the Joint Armed Forces,
best practices, modeling,
and usability testing, all are
vital in their
role of providing needed support for
systems engineering to ensure that 21st
century warfighters successfully perform
their mission. �
Engineering
Perspective
Randy Case
Technical Area
Director,Raytheon
Architectures
and Systems
Integration
I was hired in 1977 by E-Systems as a software
developer. As a kid fresh out of school with an
electrical engineering degree and a lot of computer
science (almost a double major), they
thought that I would be a good fit for developing
the real-time controller in a fairly large system
that was mostly near-real-time. When asked
to explain my design, I drew it out on a chalkboard
— and it looked like a series of digital signals
with the command points noted. It ran on a
1975-era HP minicomputer that I had to bootstrap
load with a spool of paper tape before it
would talk to the mainframe and I could download
my code into it. While my somewhat
“spaghetti” code worked well, it proved to me
that my talents should be put to different use
than the development of software. I moved on to
systems and systems architecture.
Today, when I contrast it to 25 years ago, things
are quite a bit different. We are attempting to
build very large systems using robust tools and
processes. The software for DD(X), for example, is
over 10 times the size of the first program I
worked on in Equivalent Lines Of Code (ELOC),
and is coded in higher level languages (instead
of mostly assembly) — over two orders of magnitude
larger. A major difference between my
first program and DD(X) is that the sailors on a
DD(X) ship are trusting their lives to that software
— which adds greatly to the requirements
for performance, quality and robustness of both
the delivered software and the methods used to
develop it. The functional differences are just as
incredible — we now have cognitive computing,
exemplified by the application of DARPA’s
“grand challenge.” We once wondered if a computer
could beat a chess master… now we are
creating independent vehicles that can cross a
rugged desert (even if none finished it). The technology
available to me as a systems architect is
almost beyond belief — look at some of the past
issues of technology today to see what I am
talking about.
But that advance in technology also gives our
customers and us, as Raytheon employees, a
much bigger challenge. The solutions to the
problems that our customers have, that are
partly due to these advances, are very complex.
That says that we must create solutions that
span system and enterprise sizes that were
almost unsolvable a couple of decades ago
(well, NASA did create the space program in the
1960’s, which formed the basis for the processes
and tools that we use today). I believe that the
collection of techniques and capabilities
described in this issue are critical to our ability to
solve problems for our customers. Our customers
can trust Raytheon to deliver solutions.
19