2.3
Significant HSI Issues in Surface Warfare Systems Acquisition
2.3.1 Integration of the Elements of HSI
In section 2.8.3 under system support, DoD 5000.2R requires that the PM shall pursue HSI initiatives to optimize total system performance and minimize total ownership costs (TOC). The elements of HSI which the PM is required to integrate among themselves and with the systems acquisition process include: manpower, personnel, training, safety and occupational health, habitability, human factors engineering, and personnel survivability considerations.
The integration of the elements of HSI among themselves involves four specific initiatives:
1- reliance on a HSI design process which defines the requirements for each element, and requirements for addressing the interdependencies and interrelationships among the elements, within each phase of the system acquisition process, with emphasis on the early phases of acquisition where the front-end process is based on the top down requirements analysis process directed at identifying, analyzing and integrating requirements associated with each HSI element;
2 - development of a HSI database which provides required data in support of each HSI element, including lessons learned data from existing systems, requirements data from MNS, ORD, CRD, and other requirements documents and sources, and standards and guidelines as they apply to each HSI element;
3 - application of human-centered design leading to the design of human-machine interfaces which directly support human performance, health and safety, system habitability and quality of life, and personnel survivability, and which comprise the basis for manpower, personnel and training;
4 - conduct of human-centered test and evaluation.
2.3.2 Human Performance and Automation
The major technique for achieving required levels of manning reduction is through the application of advanced technology, specifically technology that incorporates increased application of automation.
In automating operations on future ships that are currently performed by humans, a major challenge is the extent to which automation fails to solve the problems on existing ships, or where it causes additional problems on the ships of the future. The commercial aviation industry, in its attempt to expand the level of automation on advanced flight decks, has reported that automation does not always meet human performance objectives. In applying automation to a complex system such as a commercial airliner or a Navy ship, application of automation technology should meet three important objectives: (1) the automation should reduce human workload; (2) the automation should reduce the potential for human error; and (3) the automation should enhance situation awareness.
Concerning the impact of automation on human workload, the defined role of automation in the reduction of ship manpower is to reduce human workloads associated with performance of ship functions, thereby reducing the number of crew members required to perform the functions. In ship engineering circles there is an increasingly prevalent attitude that automation leads naturally to workload reduction, and consequently to manning reduction, and that required magnitudes of manpower reduction will be achieved in a straightforward manner by simply increasing the level of automation. However, the conclusion reached by the commercial aviation industry was that cockpit automation as currently implemented generally does not result in reduced crew workload since, while manual tasks may be declining, demands for monitoring and subsequent mental workload have increased. Thus while physical workload may be reduced with increased automation, the automation results in significant increases in cognitive workload .
Human error is a major concern on a ship. The Navy safety Center, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the International maritime Organization have all independently recently reported that the proportion of ship accidents that are directly due to human error is of the order of 80%. A reported anticipated benefit of automation is a reduction in human error. However, operational experience and empirical research have proven otherwise. Instead of reducing the overall amount of errors, automation provides new opportunities for different kinds of errors. A case in point is the confusion of system modes reported in conjunction with the automation of aircraft flight decks. In studies of mode error in "glass cockpit" aircraft it has been reported that 55% of pilots state that they are still experiencing automation surprises, defined as situations where the human is surprised by the behavior of the automation, and asks questions such as, what is it (the automated system) doing now, why is it doing that, and what is it going to do next?
A third expected result of increased automation is enhancement of situation awareness. When the human is required to process large volumes of information, integrating information from multiple sources, and making decisions based on the assessment of the situation, it has been expected that increased automation would facilitate the process, making situation awareness more accurate and timely. To enable the human to correctly assess the tactical situation under tight time constraints, and with limited human resources to allocate to the problem, he or she must be provided with knowledge, as opposed to information and data. Information consists of data which have been validated, and which are judged to be relevant to a particular situation. Knowledge on the other hand consists of information that has been integrated, synthesized, prioritized, and structured to allow the generation of principles, insights, and a clear, complete, unconfused and coherent picture of the situation. It has been expected that automation would have facilitated the maintenance of situation awareness by performing the fusion, integration, synthesis, and structuring of information into knowledge currently performed by the cognitive processes of the human. Again, this has not been the case, due largely to the fact that, with automation, as currently implemented, does not effectively convey knowledge to the human, and that it requires the human to also maintain awareness over what the automation is doing.
The failure of automation to reduce workloads, reduce human errors, and enhance situation awareness not from automation as such, but rather from the manner in which it is currently implemented. Automation will reach its full potential in enhancing human performance, and reducing ship's manning, when the requirements for human performance are addressed in the design of automation. This approach to automation design has been designated human-centered automation (HCA).
HCA is the human factors approach to automation focused on the roles and requirements of humans interacting, cooperating, coordinating, and collaborating with automated processes. HCA is concerned not only with human requirements in automated processes, but also with requirements for automation to support human performance, such as with decision support systems and operator's associates. Application of HCA methods and data will lead to requirements and techniques for: (a) human interaction with automation; (b) human-automation cooperation, collaboration, and transaction; (c) managing automated processes; (d) maintaining situation awareness with automated processes; (e) effective decision making with automated processes; (f) human intervention in automated sequences; (g) using automation to support human performance (decision support systems, on-line real time mission planning, modeling and simulation).
In order to reduce cognitive workloads on Navy system personnel, emphasis must be placed on requirements for generation and processing of knowledge as well as information, wherein: all relevant information is integrated, fused, correlated, prioritized, and synthesized into general principles, constituting knowledge; meaning and context are provided to available information to enable the human to understand the situation and be able to formulate strategies for acting on this knowledge; uncertainty is reduced through maximized usage and correlation of all available information, including past history, trends, threat pre-dispositions, current intelligence, own force deployment and characteristics, etc.
To enable the human to perform required tasks under tight time constraints, and with limited human resources to allocate to the problem, this human must be provided with knowledge, as opposed to information and data. Information consists of data which have been validated, and which are judged to be relevant to a particular situation. Knowledge on the other hand consists of information that has been integrated, synthesized, prioritized, and structured to allow the generation of principles, insights, and a clear, complete, unconfused and coherent picture of the situation. Information on existing ships is fused, integrated, synthesized, and structured by the cognitive processes of the human. In many cases this is the same human who: is overloaded with information, much of which is incomplete and even contradictory; is psychologically if not physically stressed; and is uncertain concerning the situation, what's important, and what must be done next. A ship system which creates knowledge will relieve the human of much of this burden, and will provide the human with the knowledge needed to make accurate decisions, execute effective actions, and verify action effectiveness.
Technologies required to support the application of HSI to knowledge engineering for ship system design include those which will result in: data and information fusion; data mining; knowledge modeling and management; "what-if" simulation to support planning and to play our alternate decisions; automated plan generation; and integrated visualization display of expected outcomes as well as the current tactical situation.
The knowledge required to support the human performing assigned roles for each function includes the following:
For these specific knowledge requirements, determinations will be made of the sources of information underlying the knowledge, how the information will be fused, integrated and synthesized, criteria for establishing priorities of knowledge, and requirements for conveying a coherent operational picture to the human.
The HSI process presents the events, activities, decisions, and guidelines involved in applying HSI methods, tools and data at each phase of the system acquisition process. A subsection of this process is the optimal manning process. Based on the human factors engineering discipline's top down requirements analysis process, the optimal manning process is directed at determining optimal manning, defined as the minimum number of personnel consistent with human performance, workload, and safety requirements, and affordability, risk, and reliability constraints.
The optimal manning process begins with a mission/function analysis, which identifies and decomposes system functions in the context of system missions. Functions are allocated to machine or human performance in order to determine the role of the human in each system function. Alternate design concepts are then developed to reduce human workload by means of: function automation (automating functions previously performed by humans); function consolidation ( amalgamation of functions at a single workstation or worksite); function elimination ( eradication of the function, or removal of the function from the platform); and function simplification (reduction of cognitive or physical demands of function performance by humans).
After alternate approaches to workload reduction have been developed, the concepts are assessed through tradeoffs, and through modeling and simulation. HSI modeling and simulation (M&S) is an experimental or analytical evaluation designed to satisfy unresolved issues or problems with human integration into the system. Its objective is the collection of data on defined aspects of human performance or behavior, under controlled conditions, and using a representation or model of relevant system characteristics. HSI M&S represents an experiment (a controlled assessment of independent variables in terms of dependent measures) or an analysis (examination of human and/or system characteristics at greater levels of detail). Its purpose is to critically evaluate some aspect of the system, and human involvement in that system aspect. It is concerned with acquisition, collection, analysis, and interpretation of experimental or analytical data. Finally, HSI M&S employs a representation or model of relevant system and/or human characteristics, performance, or behavior. It is this representational aspect that distinguishes a simulation from other methods of experimentation and analysis. The representation may be logical (a computer model), physical (a mock-up, physical model, breadboard, or prototype), or virtual. The most effective form of HSI simulation is human-in-the-loop simulation which represents an evaluation of individual or team performance and workload in interacting with hardware and software elements of the system.
The cycle of function allocation, workload reduction concept development, and modeling and simulation is iterated until a few number of feasible concepts remain. These are assessed for affordability, risk, and workload reduction potential, and an optimal approach is selected through a process of tradeoff analyses.
For the selected design concept, human behavior is modeled through a task analysis which identifies human tasks, task sequences and dependencies, and requirements associated with the performance of these tasks.
The result of the application of the top down optimal manning process is a manpower model for the system.
Human-centered design represents the application of human factors engineering to the design of human-machine interfaces. The classes of human-machine interfaces included in human-centered design include:
The goal of the human-centered design approach is to produce a design concept for the system human-system interface which enhances human reliability (reduces the potential for human error and accident) and which ensures that the human in the system performs as required. In developing design concepts, HSI views the human as an integral component of the system to be interfaced with the hardware, software, informational and environmental elements of the system. The body of knowledge of HSI encompasses knowledge of human capabilities and limitations, and principles and data addressing the application of this knowledge.
HSI methods for reducing human errors include a) the imposition of human factors engineering and safety design standards, b) the reliance on test and evaluation procedures, and c) investigation of critical incidents to understand the dynamics and etiology of human error. Data on the effectiveness of HSI application report a reduction in the incidence of human error by from 50% to 75%.
2.3.6 HSI for Training Systems
According to the DoD Acquisition Deskbook, training encompasses the learning process by which personnel (individually or collectively) acquire or enhance predetermined and job relevant skills, knowledge, or attitudes. The "training/instructional system" integrates resources, training concepts and strategies, and all necessary elements of logistic support to satisfy personnel performance levels required to operate and maintain defense systems. It includes the "tools" used to provide learning experiences such as computer based and interactive courseware, simulators, and actual equipment (including embedded training systems on actual equipment).
In development of training systems, emphasis should be given to including advancements in training technology, such as knowledge-based or expert systems, intelligent tutors, virtual environments, and embedding training capabilities within actual defense systems, to enhance the user's capabilities, improve readiness, and reduce individual and collective training costs over the life of the system. For instance, interactive electronic technical manuals provide a training forum that can significantly reduce schoolhouse training and skill level requirements for maintenance personnel while actually improving their capability to maintain an operational system. An on-board "just-in-time mission rehearsal capability" supported by the latest intelligence information or an integrated global training system/network that allows team training and participation in large scale mission rehearsal exercises can be used to improve readiness.
Careful consideration and priority should be given to the use of embedded training (e.g., a training program contained as a tutorial and as a dynamic simulation in an operational radar). Analysis should be conducted to compare the embedded training with other more traditional training media (e.g., simulator based training, traditional classroom instruction, and/or maneuver training). The analysis should compare the costs and the impact of embedded training (e.g., additional unit maintenance workload). It should also compare the learning time and level of effectiveness (e.g., higher "kill" rates and improved maintenance times) achieved by embedded training. When making decisions about whether to rely exclusively on embedded training, analysis must be conducted to determine the timely availability of new equipment to all categories of trainees (e.g., Reserve and Active Component units or individual members). In every case, the paramount goal of the training/instructional system must be to develop and sustain a ready, well trained unit while giving strong consideration to options that reduce life cycle costs.
2.3.7 Advanced Personnel Management
The domain of advanced personnel management continues to incorporate the traditional tasks of individual and community management of the personnel resources. From a community management perspective, advanced personnel management must provide the system with the right quality of human resources at the master, journeyman, and apprentice levels, both in terms of numbers and skills.
Increased automation of tasks will reduce the number of junior paygrade requirements. It will increase the proportion of skilled technicians at the journeymen level, who will be able to solve problems and repair equipment with system (both human and technical) assets. The Navy traditionally relies on a pyramidal structure with many apprentice personnel providing the base for a smaller number of journeymen, and eventually a few master operators/technicians.
The traditional system will not support a human-centered designed crew that is composed of many journeymen and few apprentices. This will require fundamental changes in recruiting, training, retention, promotion and compensation to develop and maintain a personnel system whose critical factor is maintenance of its journeymen base. The training system must also adjust to develop the methods to supply knowledge and experience to these journeymen that was formerly acquired through long pipeline training and apprentice tours. Through a fundamentally improved community management process and in conjunction with improved training techniques; an advanced, integrated personnel management process will necessary to ensure that the right skilled, human resources are available at the right time to operate and maintain future ship acquisitions.
In describing his priority for quality of service, the CNO stated that the goal is to be a Navy that holds the quality of service for our sailors and their families as a top priority in carrying out our mission. This involves fostering innovation and support technologies that will enable our people to do their jobs more efficiently and effectively.
Quality of service includes quality of work and quality of life. Quality of work includes enhancing work satisfaction, job enrichment, and personnel productivity through electronic documentation; decision support systems; on-line help; automated office systems; and on-line human performance assessment.
Quality of life includes provisions for ensuring fitness for duty of naval personnel, and providing a living environment which reduces physical and psychological stress. Fitness for duty involves ensuring that naval personnel are sufficiently qualified, attentive, rested, alert, motivated, and unimpaired.
Techniques for improving quality of life emphasize the quality of support services and facilities afforded the crew with respect to habitability, medical care, administrative and personal support, environment control, personal safety, cultural and educational opportunities, and physical security, to achieve the objective of reduced life cycle cost with improved crew performance, productivity, and safety. Major areas for consideration in improving quality of life include: improved hotel services, including improved privacy, berthing and food service; improved human-machine interfaces and training provisions; improved ship-shore electronic interface; and improved career progression.
2.3.9 HSI in the Manning Estimate Report
According to DoD 5000.2R, the manning estimate shall report the total number of manpower requirements and authorizations needed to operate, maintain, support, and provide training for the system upon full operational deployment. It shall report the number of military (officer, warrant officer, and enlisted), DoD civilian manpower, and contract work-years for each fiscal year of the program, beginning with initial fielding and ending with system retirement/disposal. It shall indicate if there are any resource shortfalls in any fiscal year covered by the report. It shall state whether any increases in military end strengths or civilian FTEs (beyond what is included in the FYDP) or whether waiver(s) to existing manpower constraints is/are required to support full operational deployment of the system. The estimate shall report Active, Reserve, and National Guard numbers separately. For joint programs, each Component shall provide a separate estimate.
The manpower estimate shall compare manpower requirements of the new system against the old or replaced system(s), if applicable. It shall address whether the new system meets or exceeds manpower objectives and thresholds in the ORD, if so established.
The manpower estimate shall address whether there are any personnel issues that would adversely impact full operational deployment of the system. It shall clearly state the risks associated with and the likelihood of achieving manpower numbers reported in the estimate. It shall briefly assess the validity of the manpower numbers, stating whether the Component used validated manpower methodologies and manpower mix criteria, and assessed all risks. The estimate shall address whether planned or recently completed manpower and personnel initiatives (e.g., reorganization, restructuring, or reengineering actions; or military occupational specialty consolidations), competitive sourcing initiatives (i.e., cost comparisons or direct conversions), or other actions could impact the manpower numbers.
2.3.10 HSI Activities for design of Specific Ship Systems
Supply/Support HSI Activities - Reduce supply/ support workload and manning levels through labor saving and workload reduction technology, automated inventory control and part-piece stowage and retrieval, expanded use of decision support systems, enhancement of interfaces between humans and automation, elimination of onboard personnel record keeping and administrative functions, facilitation of access to stow and retrieve items at supply locations, enhancement of cargo transfer throughout the ship, provision of facility arrangements to enhance access, human performance and safety.
Maintenance Activities - Maintenance planning, human machine interface (HMI) design, and demonstrations will result in reductions in the need for maintenance, time to repair, time to troubleshoot, incidence and impact of maintainer human error, and maintainer workload and manning levels; spares, supporting documentation, tools, and test equipment required for a maintenance activity will be located for ease of access at the worksite; the maintainer will always be aware of what is happening in an automated test sequence; the need for stand-alone TMDE and for special tools will be reduced; maintenance tasks will be simplified, and maintainer workloads will be reduced, through extensive intelligent decision aiding and incorporation of a maintainer's associate to assist in diagnostics decision making; HMI will conform to HE standards, and incorporate decision support, intelligent tutoring, on-line help, job aiding, data fusion, embedded training, and multi-modal/multi-media/hyper-media capabilities; time to repair will be reduced through a more usable design; maintenance access will be improved through imposition of human engineering workspace design standards; requirements for on-board skills will be reduced through tele-maintenance; and maintainer performance will be improved by ensuring that equipment is usable, workloads are reasonable, stress associated with the job is reduced, the worker is safe, attention has been focused on the role of personnel versus automation in the conduct of maintenance tasks, and the design for maintainability will enable workers to work faster with a heightened level of job satisfaction and personnel safety.
Damage Control Activities - Fire fighting and suppression will be conducted without human presence at the scene; , fire detection will be provided so that automated fire countermeasures are quickly enacted to maintain control of fire spread; firemain integrity will be controlled from a single station, such that breaks can be diagnosed and that break isolation and pump lightoff are controlled from that station; stability/ballast control can be maintained from a single location, movement of water ballast is controlled, and functions can be orchestrated with dewatering activities; fire detection will identify the extent and magnitude of fires and fire spread, and that effected compartments will be quickly isolated; the extent and rate of flooding can be determined and flooding controlled and flooded compartments can be isolated; requirements for plugging/patching will be minimized through design of compartment flooding isolation barriers; readiness of emergency medical facilities will be maintained to treat crew in the event of battle or other ships damage and to meet CBR threats; personnel location monitoring will account for all crew members in the event of all damage situations, and to determine human presence prior to compartment isolation or light off of hazardous fire suppression.
Battle Management Activities - Conduct of battle management will incorporate collaboration between automation and humans to ensure that the human is provided required situation awareness, tactical perspective, and decision making capability to effectively manage the tactical mission with minimum workload and human error potential; execution of planning and coordination functions will achieve mission objectives with minimum operator workload; tactical picture generation will provide watchstanders with current, usable, dynamic information to support situation awareness with maximum effectiveness and minimum operator workload; commanders will be provided with current and usable information in order to assess own-ship operational capability
Engineering Control Activities - Automation of propulsion and auxiliary machinery control will ensure human situation awareness and oversight with minimum human workload and error potential; propulsion and auxiliary machinery will not require maintenance for a sufficient period of time to support mission requirements; requirements for operator/maintainer physical presence in propulsion and auxiliary machinery spaces are minimized; and sub-systems will maximize human performance and safety and will minimize operator workload including: Fuel management systems, water distillation and chilling systems, and HVAC systems.
Helo Operations Activities - Labor intensive tasks on existing ships, such as helo hauldown, secure and traverse, will be automated to reduce human involvement; need for helo on-board maintenance will be reduced; workloads and human error potential associated with LSO operations will be reduced; and manpower reductions will not compromise ship and air crew safety.
Command Activities - Systems design to support performance of supervisory, monitoring and evaluation functions will ensure that commanders are able to maintain situational awareness and tactical perspective and to evaluate mission progress and ship readiness with minimum workload.
Ship Evolutions Activities - Labor intensive tasks on existing ships, such as underway replenishment will be automated to reduce human involvement, and will be designed to provide the human with a maximum of situation awareness and supervisory control with minimum potential for human error and accidents.
2.3.11 HSI as a Key Performance Parameter (KPP)
To the extent that human performance, quality of service, and manpower, personnel and training are important considerations in meeting the overall system mission goals, HSI should be considered as a KPP.
KPP requirements (values) shall be expressed in terms of objectives and thresholds.
An objective is a value beyond the threshold that could potentially have a measurable, beneficial impact on capability or operations and support above that provided by the threshold value (e.g., additional range that might reduce the number of refueling systems required or improve survivability by being able to avoid additional enemy defenses). Objectives in the ORD shall consider the results of the analysis of alternatives and the impact of affordability constraints.
A threshold is the minimum acceptable value for a parameter which, in the user's judgment, is necessary to provide a capability that shall satisfy the mission need.
To establish HSI as a KPP, the PM will identify the areas where HSI elements are critical for systems performance, and will establish objectives and thresholds as in the following examples:
Manpower - the absolute minimum level of manning consistent with human performance and safety, human reliability, affordability, and risk (objective); the level of manning which will meet human performance, human safety, and human reliability requirements (threshold);
Human performance - the human will be capable of performing required tasks 99% of the time (objective), 95% of the time (threshold);
Operator performance - operators shall maintain accurate situation awareness 99% of the time (objective); 95% of the time (threshold);
Maintainer performance - time to access items to be maintained shall not exceed 1 hour from time of fault isolation (objective); 2 hours from time of fault isolation (threshold);
Human reliability - human errors will not occur with a frequency less than 99.999% of the time (objective); with a frequency less than 99.99% of the time (threshold);
Training - trainees will acquire and retain needed skills associated with 99% of training objectives (objective); 90% of training objectives (threshold);
Safety - lost time accidents will not occur with a frequency of less that 99% of the time (objective); 95% of the time (threshold);
Health - ergonomic injuries will not occur with a frequency of less that 99% of the time (objective); 95% of the time (threshold).
2.3.12 HSI and Performance Specifications and the Performance Based Business Environment
DoD 5000.2R requires that the Department shall use performance specifications (i.e., DoD performance specifications, commercial item descriptions, and performance-based non-government standards) when purchasing new systems, major modifications, upgrades to current systems, and commercial and non-developmental items for programs in all acquisition categories. The Department shall emphasize conversion to performance specifications for reprocurements of existing systems at the subsystems level; and for components, spares, and services, where supported by a business case analysis; for programs in all acquisition categories.
Implementing Performance Specifications Human performance requirements can be addressed in terms of classes of human interfaces (functional, organizational, informational, environmental, operational, cooperational, cognitive, and physical). For each of these classes of interfaces, human performance dimensions can be identified, as well as human performance objectives, and finally human performance metrics. The accompanying table presents these human performance factors for each class of human interface:
Implementing a Performance-Based Business Environment (PBBE) According to DoD 5000.2R, the PM shall structure the PBBE to accomplish the following:
From a HSI perspective, human performance must be a critical element of the PBBE. The essence of PBBE is performance, at the system level, and at the level of the individual or team of managers, developers, testers, manufacturers, and sailors. According to DoD 5000.2R, the systems that benefit from a PBBE include highly interoperable systems, high tech/high cost systems, high return on investment systems, systems requiring a high degree of logistics readiness and/or technology insertion opportunity, and/or systems with a high TOC and/or a long predicted life. In all of these classes of systems, human performance is likely to be a major challenge. Human performance concerns cannot be met simply by training systems personnel after the system is designed, developed, and delivered. Rather, concerns for human performance must influence design, must be addressed early in the acquisition process, and must be reflected in the design of the human interfaces that enable and support human performance in system operations and maintenance.