Step 6.0

6. HSI in Prototype to Production Acquisition

6.0 Prototype to Production

Overview The approach of acquiring a system by progressing directly from prototype to production relies on a top down requirements analysis and uses the technique of simulation based design. Prototype to production is an attempt to reduce cycle time to produce a system.

Relationship to System Acquisition Prototype to production represents an attempt to reduce cycle time and get system capabilities to the fleet in shorter time.

Inputs: Decision to procede from prototype to production.

Output: Evaluated prototype

Substeps/Activities/Guidelines The substeps associated with prototype to production are depicted in the figure above.

Step 1. Conduct Top Down Requirements Analysis

Overview: The overall thrust of HSI in ship acquisition is to address how to reduce ship manning and human workloads (resulting in reduced ship life cycle costs) while at the same time enhancing the performance and safety of the shipboard warfighter. To accomplish this, HSI must define the complete range of requirements for human involvement, human utilization, human performance, and human safety from the earliest stages of ship system development. Since HSI is a systems engineering discipline, the application of HSI represents a systems approach. Top Down Requirements Analysis (TDRA) is the HSI process for defining human requirements early in system development. It represents a systems engineering approach to specifying the concerns for the human in ship systems. As a systems engineering approach, TDRA is requirements-driven, and is focused on defining system interfaces. In terms of requirements, TDRA is concerned with identifying, analyzing and integrating requirements for missions, system functions, and human involvement in the performance of functions. These requirements lead ultimately to development of design requirements for human-machine interfaces and human-automation interaction. In terms of a concern for systems interfaces, the scope of TDRA includes the interfaces between the human and other system elements (hardware, software, information, procedures, communications, organizations, and environments).

The TDRA comprises the basis for a disciplined development of innovative design concepts. As a systems engineering approach, it is requirements-driven, resulting in design concepts based on mission, function and system requirements. The TDRA is based on a formalized HSI design process and is an adaptation of the human engineering front-end analysis. It is human-centered in that it focuses on roles and requirements of humans, defines design concepts in terms of human performance, safety and workload requirements, results in design approaches for human-machine interfaces, and establishes manpower, personnel and training approaches. It is knowledge-based in that it relies on concepts based on mission, function and system requirements, and in that it is concerned with generation and processing of knowledge as well as information. The TDRA is based on a formalized HSI design process and is an adaptation of the human engineering front-end analysis. Finally, as applied in the early phases of acquisition of a radically new system concept, as in the case of the DD 21, it relies on extensive application of modeling and simulation.

The NAVSEA HSI TDRA approach has the following distinguishing characteristics:

it is a top-down systems engineering approach which considers the human as a critical element of the system; is based on analysis of mission and function requirements for mission scenarios; and it develops design concepts through the process of allocating functions to human or automated performance, defining the roles of humans vice automation early in system acquisition, and identifying requirements attendant to the human roles.
it is requirements-driven, with emphasis on functional and task requirements, human performance and safety requirements, information and decision requirements, and design and evaluation requirements.
it has as its foundation a standardized, formalized HSI design process integrated into the ship/system acquisition process.
it is knowledge-based, in (a) the HSI expertise residing in the design process, (b) its reliance on subject matter experts from the Fleet for lessons learned and identification of high driver functions, and (c) its emphasis on the generation and processing of knowledge as well as information in ship systems.
it is human-centered, in its emphasis on the role of the human in system functions; its focus on human workload, human performance, and safety; its concern for human-machine interface design and evaluation; its application of human engineering standards, its concern for the impact of manning reduction on human performance and safety; its reliance on decision support technology to reduce cognitive workloads; its emphasis on human reliability and designing to reduce the incidence and impact of human errors; and its concern for designing to support and enhance human interaction with automation.
it is dependent on modeling and simulation to assess alternate function allocation strategies and design concepts early in system development.
it relies heavily on technology, including automated HSI tools and data for implementation of the HSI process, and technologies to reduce workload, manning levels, human error potential, and hazards and accidents through function automation, consolidation, elimination, and simplification.

Relationship to the Ship Acquisition Process (SHAP): Development of a system prototype will be based on requirements developed in the TDRA

Inputs: Operational requirements and constraints. Results of earlier HSI analyses.

Outputs:

Requirements, including mission, function, task, training, manning, safety, and human performance requirements.
Determination of the required role of the human vice automation in the conduct of functions associated with mission scenarios.
Manning budgets by system and total ship.

Substeps/Activities/Guidelines See Step 1.0 in the Concept and Technology Development Phase

Step 2. Conduct Simulation-Based Acquisition

Overview: Simulation-Based Acquisition (SBA) will affect DOD'S ownership costs such as those in the logistics support area that generally are the drivers of life cycle cost. SBA cuts cycle times by getting rapid answers to questions about requirements and designs and by distributing them simultaneously to many users. Program managers can incorporate SBA into their programs without significantly expanding cycle time.

Simulation-based design is a dramatically improved acquisition process enabled by the application of advanced information technology (IT); legislation, policy, budgeting and management changes; and the education and motivation of all participants. The benefits of simulation-based design are as follows:

Better informed decisions and reduced risk by more accurate and comprehensive assessments of design, manufacturing, employment and support concepts earlier in the acquisition cycle.
The optimization of system performance versus total ownership cost (TOC) by early and continuing collaborative exploration of the largest possible trade space: across all of a system's life cycle activities, within and among multiple government and commercial organizations, across professions and disciplines, and up through system of systems mission area perspectives.
Faster time to field through increased concurrency, tighter decision cycles, more efficient and effective testing, and a reduction in costly fixes for problems discovered late in the acquisition cycle.
Lower total ownership cost of individual systems via lower personnel and material costs accruing from the above, and from the standards-based reuse of information and software to minimize their cost.
Greater modernization for DoD through this reduction in the cost of individual systems and the more optimal program investments enabled by system of system mission area assessments.
The provision of enduring collaborative environments, in which government and/or industry experts utilize off-the-shelf (or minimally modified) sets of reusable, interoperable tools and supporting resources (such as information sets) to assess the attributes of an emergent capability, concept, doctrine, tactic, process or situation in the broader context of an expected real-world environment.
The efficient, automated and near-real-time sharing of relevant information among all personnel with a need to know, such that they have accurate and consistent understandings of a system (both physical and behavioral) and its external environments, including their variants, as they evolve. Information about the system is shared via a distributed product description (DPD). Information about its external environments is shared by similar mechanisms. A DPD is characterized by:
- Web-based access and user-friendly search, display, parsing, download and subscription mechanisms, with alert, trigger and threshold functions to enable delivery of only relevant information (to minimize bandwidth and processing costs, and avoid human overload);
- The aggressive, comprehensive application and sharing of mature advancements in information technology such as distributed networking, multi-user computer environments, database management systems and particularly advanced modeling and simulation (M&S) tools, including commercial product development automation tools (e.g., CAD, ERP), HLA-based distributed simulation, and interactive virtual reality.

Relationship to the Ship Acquisition Process (SHAP): The system prototype will be developed by means of simulation based acquisition.

Inputs: Results of the top down requirements analysis analyses.

Outputs: Prototype conceptual design

Substeps/Activities/Guidelines

2.1 Identify system features to be simulated

2.2 Identify simulation objectives. The objectives of HSI modeling and simulation are to:

assess alternative system design concepts in terms of human performance, productivity, workload, and safety using a logical, physical or virtual representation of the system, equipment, and environment before finalizing design decisions and directions;
provide human performance inputs to system level modeling and simulation, and determine the impact of system design and organization on human performance and safety;
quantify relationships between human capabilities, operational variables, and design concepts for workload, visual fields, arrangements, traffic patterns, personnel interactions, display, maintenance access, etc.;
visualize and quantify spatial relationships between humans and workstations, worksites, spaces, equipment, and environments;
engage in realistic, high fidelity training of Navy personnel;
provide means to effectively engage in war gaming and mission rehearsal that is both low cost and effective.

2.3 Identify simulation methods. The classes of HSI modeling and simulation are:

computer models and simulations of human interactions with system operations, equipment and conditions.
warfighter-in-the-loop simulations.
HSI CAD simulations.

2.3.1 Computer models of human interaction with systems elements are of three basic types:

task network modeling and simulation (for workload assessment and quantification),
human performance models (for inclusion into system level simulations),
problem solving/planning simulation (diagnostic problem solving - reduction of uncertainty, rehearsal - playout of expected scenarios, mission planning, predictive "what-if" simulation, and war gaming).

2.3.2 Warfighter-in-the-loop simulation involves the simulation situation where one or more human participants interacts with synthetic system elements (including other crew) using a representation of the system aspects of interest. This simulation is of three types

a single human warfighter-in-the-loop actually performing tasks with a virtual representation of system human interfaces - controls, displays, workstation elements, information, environments, or maintenance workspace. The results of these simulations are concepts and criteria for: human performance as a function of human machine interface (HMI) design concepts; human interaction with automation - decision support; teleoperation - telemaintenance; workload measurement - dynamic allocation of functions; and information management;
multiple human warfighters-in-the-loop performing mission tasks as in the single warfighter class. Results of these simulations include concepts and criteria for: team performance as a function of HMI design; communications design and protocols; collaborative/cooperative problem solving; and investigations of the impact of stress on human performance,
mixed real and synthetic warfighter-in-the-loop incorporating a combination of several human operators and several simulated operators performing tasks involving real and simulated systems and platforms, under real and simulated environmental conditions, conditions of readiness, and threat conditions. The results of these simulations include: full mission simulations; total ship training simulation; and battle force tactical training.

2.3.3 HSI CAD simulation includes the simulation setup where a representation of one or more synthetic warfighters interact with synthetic elements of the system for purposes of visualization of workstation or ship space arrangements and demonstration of operational requirements, traffic patterns, and resource allocations. The two types of simulation in this class are:

single human model or mannequin observed to perform tasks at a workstation or worksite with emphasis on visualization of reach envelope, field of view or visual envelope, control and display placement, workstation anthropometrics, etc. The results of these simulations are: design concepts and criteria for physical interactions with arrangements; visual - reach envelopes; maintenance access; emergency egress; and watchstation arrangement and orientation.
multi-human models or mannequins (physical or virtual) observed to perform tasks in a simulated environment where the emphasis is on visualization of arrangements, layouts, queuing, interactions. Results of these simulations include concepts and criteria for: aircraft servicing; multi-person maintenance activities; deck operations; space arrangements - multi watchstations; and traffic patterns - cargo transfer.

2.4 Identify simulation measures - which constitute the dependent variables of the simulation, and include the measures of performance and the measures of effectiveness needed to meet simulation objectives

2.5 Identify requirements to optimize simulation data quality. Simulation data quality is a direct function of data reliability, data validity, data accuracy, and data relevance.

Data reliability is an index of the extent to which spurious factors influence the simulation data. Data reliability requirements indicate the need for precision in the data as a function of the adequacy of the experimental controls applied in the acquisition of data. Data reliability is a measure of the amount of measurement error in the data and data reliability is maximized (measurement error minimized) through strict control of data acquisition conditions.
Data validity is an indication that the simulation data measure what they were intended to measure. Data validity is also an indication of the amount of sampling error in the data. Sampling addresses the requirement that simulated conditions are representative of conditions in the real world being simulated. A sample is a subset of a population selected to ensure simulation data will be generalizable to the population. Fidelity on the other hand is concerned with the extent to which the simulated representation reflects some aspect of the real world.
Data accuracy requirements indicate the extent to which inaccuracies will be accepted in test data. Accuracy of acquired data depends on the precision of the data acquisition and recording provisions in the simulation.
Data relevance is an indication of the extent to which simulation data are pertinent to the issue at hand. HSI simulation is usually concerned with some aspect of human performance, behavior, response, safety, workload, adaptation, limitations, and interaction with machines and other humans.

2.6 Develop the experimental design. The experimental design is concerned with defining the experimental variables, and the relationships among these variables. Experimental variables include: independent variables, control variables, and dependent variables.

independent variables are the attributes or characteristics of the system being evaluated. Thus in a simulation to assessing the effects of alternate display concepts on human performance, the different display concepts represent the levels of the independent variable.
control variables are factors that are either held constant to enhance data reliability, or which are varied systematically to enhance data validity. In the example of a simulation to assessing the effects of alternate display concepts on human performance, control variables which are held constant across different simulation exercises include ambient light levels, noise levels, and operator procedures. In this example, control variables which may be varied systematically include test subject characteristics (height for example), mission scenarios which are simulated, and tactical conditions.
dependent variables are the measures of performance or effectiveness.

2.7 Develop the HSI Modeling and Simulation plan, including the requirements identified above, and the test schedule. In the evaluation of a modeling and simulation plan the following issues should be addressed:

Is there a plan for identifying and selecting M/HSI models for use in design and evaluation?
Does the plan provide for developing criteria for selecting HSI models to ensure that they demonstrate functions allocated to operators and associated task performances?
Does the plan address fidelity requirements relative to the HSI functions and tasks necessary to validate requirements and mission analyses?
Does the plan provide for developing criteria to ensure that HSI models are compatible with M&S federation techniques and will conform with the Smart Product Model Capabilities?
Does the plan provide for criteria in selecting verification and validation (V&V) methods appropriate for HSI models and associated federation techniques selected by industry?
Does the plan reflect a phased approach to V&V that accounts for the maturity of HSI design?
Does the strategy address criteria for use of simulations and warfighted-in- the-loop methods to demonstrate human machine interface design, including management of operator uncertainty and ambiguity of tactical data?
Does the strategy address certification plans for databases to be used in developing or populating HSI models?
Does the plan adequately address experimental controls to be implemented to ensure simulation data reliability?
Does the plan adequately address sampling of test subject characteristics and real world attributes to enhance the validity and generalizability of the data?
Does the plan address functional fidelity, response fidelity, and physical fidelity of the test situation to the real world situation being represented?

Step 3. Provide HSI Inputs to the Prototype Performance Specification

Overview: The prototype system development will culminate with the publication of a performance specification, defining what the system will be capable of doing, and specifying the performance tolerances required for successful performance.

Relationship to the Ship Acquisition Process (SHAP): The system prototype will be developed to meet the performance specification

Inputs: System prototype requirements

Outputs: HSI inputs to the system performance specification

Substeps/Activities/Guidelines

An example of HSI considerations in a performance specification is presented below:

2. APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

2.3 Non-Government Document

(1) ASTM F 1166

(2) ASTM 1337

(3) SECNAVINST 5000.2B.

3. REQUIREMENTS

3.2 Mission Support Requirements

3.2.3 C4ISR

3.2.3.1 Information Display Requirements

C4ISR displays shall be meaningful, readable, integrated, accurate, current, complete, clear, directive, transparent, readily associated with control actions and other related displays, and responsive to information requirements;

3.2.3.2 Computer System Requirements

To promote reductions in operator workloads, and consequently reduced manning, C4ISR human computer interfaces (HCI) shall be designed in accordance with human engineering standards in reference (1), and will incorporate extensive decision support, intelligent tutoring, on-line help, job performance aiding, data fusion, embedded training, and multi-modal/multi-media/hyper-media capabilities to achieve function and task simplification and consolidation.
Computer systems shall be usable by intended users. In this context usability of a system interface refers to extent to which: (a) human-computer interfaces have been designed in accordance with user cognitive, perceptual, and memory capabilities; (b) software command modes are transparent to the user; (c) displays are standardized and are easily read and interpreted; (d) the user is always aware of where he or she is in a program or problem (situational awareness); (e) procedures are logically consistent; (f) user documentation is clear, easily accessed, and readable; (g) on-line help is available and responsive; (h) the user is only provided with that information needed when it is needed; and i) the user understands how to navigate through a program and retrieve needed information.

3.2.6 PERSONNEL

3.2.6.1 Required Human Performance

Specification of system human performance shall address requirements for:

- the capability for sustained human performance;

- prevention of human error;

- information management approaches which will reduce human error and cognitive workload while enhancing human decision making and warfighting capabilities;

- provision of information products and effective integration of information so as to minimize the probability of human error;

- design concepts for human-machine interfaces and shipboard communications systems that address human capabilities and requirements;

3.2.6.2 Measures of Effectiveness

Mission Success Measures

determine adequacy of human completion of mission tasks in required time

Safety measures

identify safety and health hazards

- likelihood of accidents.

- likelihood of health hazards.

- likelihood of psychological stress.

- likelihood of physical stress

- environmental constraints

- unsafe operating, test, maintenance and emergency procedures

- life support requirements and safety implications

- unsafe facilities and support equipment

- availability of safety-related equipment, safeguards, and alternate approaches such as interlocks, system redundancy, subsystem protection, fire suppression systems, personal protective equipment, industrial ventilation, and noise or radiation barriers

Risk measures

cost risks - risks due to:

- operational manning levels

- maintenance manning levels

- training costs

- requirements to redesign to satisfy user needs

- extended down time/system non-availability

- excessive time to repair

- excessive supportability requirements

- excessive accident rates

- excessive personnel non-availability

- integration of cost risks

schedule risks - risks due to:

- non-availability of data

- non-availability of tools and methods

- non-availability of resources

- non-availability of technology

design risks

- human performance risks for each alternative

- safety and health risks

- risks due to human error

- risks due to expected accident rates

- risks due to unacceptable performance levels

- risks due to expected inadequate productivity

- risks due to expected ineffective training

- risks due to expected excessive workloads

- risks due to inadequate function allocation

- risks due to excessively complex tasks

- risks due to expected health hazards

Affordability measures

reduction of acquisition costs

- HSIE/MPT/safety and health integration

- reduced need to redesign

reduction of life cycle costs

- reduced operations manning

- reduced maintenance manning

- reduced training time and training pipelines

- reduced needs for new training facilities

- reduced accident rates

- reduced human error rates

- reduced time to repair

- reduced supportability requirements

- reduced system downtime

- reduced personnel non-availability

affordability constraints - limits on:

- operational manpower

- maintenance manning

- training time and training pipelines

- new training facilities

- accident rates

- human error rates

- time to repair

- supportability requirements

- system downtime

- personnel non-availability

Training measures

adequacy of training system

- adequacy of training effectiveness

- adequacy of training pipeline

- adequacy of training development

- adequacy of on-board/organic training

- adequacy of cross training

- adequacy of performance training

- cost of training

Personnel quantity/quality measures

numbers of personnel required
skill levels, skill mix, and skill progression of required personnel

Personnel satisfaction measures

crew satisfaction with/acceptance of living conditions, including provisions for free volume, social interaction, and privacy, and berthing space arrangements.
crew satisfaction with/acceptance of working conditions, including workloads, equipment and software design, and workspace arrangements.

3.2.6.3 Measures of Performance

time to respond
time to complete
performance accuracy/precision
amount completed in a designated time (productivity)
successful completion of tasks
workload associated with task performance

- physical workload (exertion, tempo of operations)

- cognitive workload (task completion per unit time)

- administrative workload (record keeping, procedures, supervision, training)

human error potential

- likelihood of error occurrence

- likelihood of error correction

- extent to which the system is error resistant

- extent to which the system is error tolerant

adequacy of cognitive performance requirements of operators and maintainers - time to perform, and performance accuracy of:

- information reception and integration

- decision making

- problem solving

- diagnosis

- understanding the tactical situation

adequacy of performance under psychological, physiological, and physical stress
adequacy of performance in handling/using/disseminating information

- adequacy of information access

- adequacy of information validation

- information readability/usability

- adequacy of information communication

adequacy of human performance with automation

- adequacy of the understanding on the part of the user as to what is going on in the automated system

- adequacy of the extent to which the user understands what he or she needs to do next

- adequacy of the extent to which the user understands what response to expect of the system

- extent to which human-computer interfaces have been designed in accordance with user cognitive, perceptual, and short-term memory capabilities and limitations

- extent to which software command modes are transparent to the user

- extent to which displays and display formats are standardized and are easily read and interpreted

- extent to which the user understands the capabilities of the system and the procedures required to exercise these capabilities

- extent to which procedures are logically consistent

- extent to which user documentation is clear, easily accessed, and readable

- extent to which on-line help is available and responsive

- extent to which the user is only provided with that information needed when it is needed

- extent to which the user understands how to navigate through a program and retrieve needed information.

- error potential - likelihood of error occurrence

- probability that, having occurred, an error can be corrected

- productivity - amount completed per unit time

adequacy of team performance

- adequacy of communication (speech intelligibility, message transmit rate, error rates)

- adequacy of crew interaction/collaboration

adequacy of sustained human performance

- performance degradation over time

- adequacy of provisions to maintain performance levels

adequacy of maintainer performance

- maintainer error potential

- extent to which time to repair is reduced

- time to conduct repair activities

- time to reconfigure system components

- time to conduct tests/troubleshooting

- extent to which maintainer workload and manning levels required for maintenance are reduced.

- extent to which maintainer skill requirements and training burdens are reduced

- adequacy of maintenance access

- adequacy of maintenance procedures

- adequacy of maintainer productivity.

adequacy of human performance as it impacts system performance

- adequacy of performance throughout graceful degradation

- adequacy of performance of battle management activities

- adequacy of performance of command and control activities

- adequacy of performance of surveillance activities

- adequacy of target engagement performance

- adequacy of seakeeping performance

- adequacy of damage control performance

- adequacy of ship support performance

- adequacy of maintainer performance

- adequacy of machinery control performance

- adequacy of engineering performance

- adequacy of aircraft management performance

3.4 Environmental Requirements

3.4.4 Facility arrangements

The single most important determiner of the design of a manned facility should be the requirements of the facility users, including personnel who will inhabit the facility and who will perform operations, maintenance and support functions within the facility. The end result is often a constructed facility which fails to meet important user requirements and needs but which cannot be modified without considerable additional costs. The ideal situation is to address user requirements and needs early in the design process where human engineering considerations can influence facility design at a nominal cost.

3.4.5 Impact of environmental factors on human performance and safety -- criteria from ASTM-1166

3.5 Standards and Interface Requirements

3.5.3 System Readiness

3.5.3.1 Reliability, maintainability, and availability

human error will not degrade the reliability of systems. A human-machine interface approach design strategy must be implemented which emphasizes human engineering design of interfaces, software, and systems to be standardized (following the standards in ASTM-1166, and also to be error resistant, and error tolerant.

3.5.3.2.2 Maintenance Capabilities

Maintenance functions and tasks will be simplified, and maintainer workloads reduced, through extensive intelligent decision aiding and incorporation of a maintainer's associate to assist in diagnostics decision making.
Maintenance human-machine interfaces will be designed in terms of human engineering standards, and will incorporate decision support, intelligent tutoring, on-line help, job performance aiding, data fusion, embedded training, and multi-modal/multi-media/hyper-media capabilities to achieve function and task simplification and consolidation.

3.5.3.2.3 Advanced Manning/HSI Maintenance Goals

Reduce the need for maintenance through employment of high reliability equipment and attention to human reliability.
Reduce the time to repair through a more usable design, including use of troubleshooting practices which take into account human decision-making capabilities, improved maintenance access, simplified design concepts, improved alarms and annunciators, and improved procedures.
Reduce the incidence and impact of maintainer human error through imposition of human engineering design standards; reliance on test and evaluation procedures; examination of work samples; observation of task sequences; use of simulation; and investigation of critical incidents to understand the dynamics and etiology of human error.
Reduce maintainer workload and manning levels required for maintenance through improved diagnostics, procedures, decision aids, imposition of human engineering design standards, maintenance task simplification, improved design of human-machine interfaces, improved maintenance information handling, improved automated test and diagnosis, and maintenance job design/job aids to reduce the need for multi-person maintenance tasks.
Reduce maintainer skill requirements and training burden through design simplification, procedures improvement, application of advanced instructional technology, and use of decision aids.
Improve the design for maintenance access through imposition of human engineering workspace design standards and development of models and mockups to assess the accessibility of components and subassemblies for removal/replacement or in-situ maintenance. A major issue in accessibility is the physical anthropometry of the maintenance personnel, which can range from the 5th percentile female to the 95th percentile male.
Improve maintenance procedures accessibility, content, and organization.
Enhance maintainer safety and health through hazard identification, design to eliminate or control safety hazards, and design of jobs to reduce the incidence of health hazards.
Increase maintainer productivity 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.
Enhance system affordability by reducing costly errors and accidents, system downtime , training time, and numbers and skills of personnel required.

3.5.4 Advanced Manning/Human Systems Integration (HSI)

3.5.4.1 Scope

The scope of the Advanced manning/HSI effort includes system manning (ship and support systems), personnel requirements, training, human engineering, and safety.

3.5.4.2 Objectives - Specific objectives of HSI in ship design are:

To reduce the manning of the ship as compared with the baseline ship to the absolute minimum level consistent with ship mission performance, reliability, and readiness, and human performance and safety;
To influence the design of ship and ship system human-machine interfaces to reduce task complexity and operator/maintainer workloads, thereby contributing to the manning reduction objective;
To enhance ship and ship system reliability by reducing the incidence of human errors
To enhance ship and ship system maintainability by reducing time to repair, and simplifying maintainer tasks;
To enhance ship and ship system safety and survivability by reducing the incidence of hazards and enhancing crew performance in damage control;
To enhance ship and ship system supportability by increasing crew performance capability of supply/support activities;
To enhance ship habitability by designing arrangements in terms of human requirements and limitations;
To enhance ship and ship system fightability by increasing crew performance capability in command and combat system activities;
To enhance ship and ship system affordability by reducing manning and training burdens, reducing costly human errors and accidents, reducing support requirements, and increasing system availability.

3.5.4.3 Manning

Opportunities to reduce human workload, and ship/system manning, while maintaining required levels of human performance and safety, will be identified through a top-down, requirements-driven, human-centered systems analysis focused on identifying the role of the human, vice automation, in system operation and maintenance. Downsizing of manpower requirements will be achieved through:

- the automation of ship systems, tactical and non-tactical,

- determination of performance requirements associated with human-automation interaction,

- use of advanced technology systems focused on consolidation, simplification, and elimination of system functions,

- extensive implementation of decision support systems such as an operator's associate, to reduce cognitive workloads,

- self-analysis and built-in-test maintenance capabilities, and human engineering design approaches to reduce time to maintain,

- tradeoffs which cost-effectively reduce MPT requirements while enhancing human performance and health and safety.

3.5.4.4 Human Engineering

The human engineering ship design refers to design approaches which have been demonstrated to reduce operator error and workload. The results of human engineering design are:

- displays which are meaningful, readable, integrated, accurate, current, complete, clear, directive, transparent, readily associated with control actions and other related displays, and responsive to information requirements;

- controls which are reachable, identifiable, operable, consistent, compatible with expectations and conventions, and simple to use;

- consoles and panels which include the required control and display functions which are arranged in terms of functions, sequence of operations, and priorities;

- procedures which are logical, consistent, straightforward, and which provide immediate feedback;

- communications which are standardized, consistent, intelligible, clear, concise, identifiable, prioritized, and available;

- environments which are within performance, comfort and safety limits, designed in terms of task requirements, and consider long term as well as short term exposure.

Human engineering design goals include the following:

- the system shall be designed to accommodate personnel requirements.

- standardization and commonality shall be addressed in the design of human-machine interfaces,

- unique human interface requirements, documentation needs, and special software certifications shall be identified,

- characteristics of automated decision support systems, such as the operator's associate, shall be identified,

- human workloads and human performance requirements shall be assessed through human performance and task modeling, task network simulation, and human-in-the-loop simulation,

- human engineering design standards shall be applied to reduce human error potential.

If there are known human performance or workload problems with the baseline system, the goals should address the elimination or reduction of these problems.
A goal should also address the establishing of a HSIE program to ensure that human performance and workload issues detected during system development are eliminated.
Human engineering design criteria shall be in accordance with ASTM-1166

3.5.4.5 Safety

If there are any known safety problems in the baseline system, they should be described and goals should be stated to eliminate these problems.
A goal should address establishing a system safety program to ensure that safety issues detected during system development are eliminated
Hazard and safety design criteria shall be in accordance with ASTM-1166

3.6 Design constraints

3.6.1 Manning Constraint

3.6.2 VALIDATION CRITERIA

3.6.3 Standards and Interface Requirements

3.6.4 Advanced Manning/HSI

4.5.4.1 Drawing review

HSI requirements will be addressed in the review of engineering drawings, specifically:

- review human-system interface characteristics which require extensive cognitive, physical, or sensory skills; require complex manpower and training intensive tasks; or adversely affect human performance, identifying those elements that will be targeted for human factors engineering changes;

- review system safety and health hazard issues and lessons learned and identify factors which result in frequent or critical human performance errors;

- identify how such human-system interface characteristics and factors can be avoided or corrected through system design and human engineering efforts.

4.5.4.2 Developmental Testing - The Advanced Manning/HSI inputs to the Developmental Test and Evaluation Outline will summarize how developmental T&E will:

verify the status of human engineering design of human machine interfaces;
verify that design risks have been minimized;
verify that required information is available when needed in a usable format;
substantiate achievement of Advanced Manning/HSI contract technical performance requirements;
certify personnel readiness for dedicated operational test;
identify any HSI technology/subsystem that has not demonstrated its ability to contribute to system performance and to fulfill mission requirements.
identify design risks:

* Identify risks due to human error

* Identify risks due to expected accident rates

* Identify risks due to unacceptable performance levels

* Identify risks due to expected inadequate productivity

* Identify risks due to expected ineffective training

* Identify risks due to expected excessive workloads

* Identify risks due to inadequate function allocation

* Identify risks due to excessively complex tasks

* Identify risks due to expected health hazards

4.5.4.3 Operational testing - The Advanced Manning/HSI inputs to the Operational Test and Evaluation Outline will address critical operational issues as they impact human performance, readiness, and safety. The outline will also include Operational Test and Evaluation to Date, and required future Operational Test and Evaluation including configuration description; T&E objectives; T&E events, scope of testing, and basic scenarios; and limitations which may affect the evaluator's ability to draw conclusions, impact of these limitations, and resolution approaches. Specific Advanced Manning/HSI inputs to the Operational Test and Evaluation Outline will summarize how operational T&E will:

identify scenarios which should be included in OT&E as situations wherein human performance and/or safety would be challenged;
identify operational conditions to be included in OT&E as test conditions;
verify the adequacy of individual human performance;
verify the adequacy of team performance;
Advanced Manning/HSI Measures to be included in OT&E exercises include the following:

Ship impact measures

evaluation of the extent that the design approach addresses the impact of manning levels on ship/system design to achieve this manning, and provisions for remaining crew performance, workload and safety.

Human performance measures

Identify human performance risks

- tasks/conditions which increase the likelihood of human error, and/or for which an error would be difficult to detect or correct.

- tasks which are at or beyond human physical performance capabilities.

- tasks associated which are at or beyond human cognitive performance capabilities.

- tasks or conditions which contribute to excessive workloads.

- tasks or conditions which contribute to inadequate productivity.

- tasks or conditions which contribute to unsatisfactory team performance/interaction.

identify individual human performance measures

- potential for human error occurrance

- potential for human error recovery

- time to perform task sequences

- reaction time

- accuracy of performance

- workloads associated with task sequences

- adequacy of performance throughout graceful degradation

- adequacy of performance of battlefield management activities

- adequacy of performance of command and control activities

- adequacy of performance of surveillance activities

- adequacy of target engagement performance

identify cognitive performance measures

- time and accuracy of information reception and integration

- time and accuracy of decision making

- time and accuracy of problem solving

- time and accuracy of short term memory

- time and accuracy of diagnosis

- correctly understanding the tactical situation

identify team performance measures

- time to perform team tasks/sequences

- performance accuracy

- potential for human error

- adequacy of communications (message intelligibility, time to conduct and accuracy of communications)

- adequacy of crew interaction/collaboration

safety measures

Identify safety and health risks

- tasks/conditions which increase the likelihood of accidents.

- tasks/conditions which increase the likelihood of health hazards.

- tasks/conditions which increase the likelihood of psychological stress.

- tasks/conditions which increase the likelihood of physiological stress.

- tasks/conditions which increase the likelihood of physical stress.

- tasks/conditions which increase the likelihood of dealing with environmental constraints

- tasks/conditions which increase the likelihood of dealing with unsafe operating, test, maintenance and emergency procedures.

- tasks/conditions which fail to take in to account life support requirements and their safety implications

- tasks/conditions which increase the likelihood of dealing with unsafe facilities and support equipment

identify safety and health hazards:

- likelihood of accidents.

- likelihood of health hazards.

- likelihood of psychological stress.

- likelihood of physical stress.

- existance of unsafe operating, test, maintenance and emergency procedures

- existance of unsafe facilities and support equipment

4.5.4.4 Quality Assurance Program Advanced Manning/HSI quality control efforts will address assessment of:

HSI Program Plan (HSIP)
Human Engineering Program Plan
Systems Safety/Life Support Plan
Human-Machine Integration Test and Evaluation Plan
Advanced Manning/HSI Front-End Analysis
Role-of-Human (Versus Automation) in the System
Advanced Manning/HSI Conceptual Design
Preliminary Manning Analysis
Preliminary Training Analysis
Human engineering Design of Consoles, Control Panels, Controls and Displays
Human engineering Design of Information Systems and Communications
Human engineering Design of Facilities/Workspace
Advanced Manning/HSI Design Reviews
Advanced Manning/HSI D/O Test and Evaluation
Manpower and Training Programs
System Procedures and Documentation
Advanced Manning/HSI Criteria and Specifications

4.5.4.5 Quality Assurance - Ship

Identify the need to determine potential Advanced manning/HSI problems with ship arrangements and installations. Identify problems based on lessons learned from baseline systems; drawings; mockup walkthroughs; and by comparing installation requirements and facility concepts. Identify alternate solutions to problems with:

- Compartmentalization concepts

- Arrangements concepts - traffic patterns

- Accommodations concepts - compartment equipment and fixtures

- Safety concepts - concepts for hazard avoidance, guarding, or warning

- Facility maintenance concepts - workspace and access

- Equipment maintenance concepts - maint access

- Environmental control concepts

- Communications concepts

- Supply/support concepts

Step 4. Assess Prototype Risks

Overview: The prototype system risk will be evaluated specifically for HSI elements of risk

Relationship to the Ship Acquisition Process (SHAP): The system prototype will be evaluated to assess the risks associated with the design concept

Inputs: System prototype design characteristics

Outputs: Assessment of HSI risks for prototypes

Substeps/Activities/Guidelines

Specific evaluation factors for assessing prototype risk are as follows:

1) are program risks and risk management plans addressed at each milestone decision point?

2) are critical parameters that are design cost drivers or have a significant impact on readiness, capability, or life cycle costs identified early?

3) are technology demonstrations and prototyping coupled with early operational assessments to reduce risk

4) is test and evaluation used to determine system maturity and identify areas of technical risk

5) do solicitation documents require contractors to identify risks and plan to assess and eliminate risks or reduce them to acceptable levels

6) do risk areas assessed at milestone decision points include: technology, design and engineering, support, manufacturing, cost, and schedule; and the risks inherent in the degree of concurrency being proposed

7) does the risk management program include clearly defined criteria for elements leading to the risk assessment events.

8) does the risk analysis identify high-risk technology areas

9) does the HSI risk analysis identify alternatives to the high risk technologies

10) does the HSI risk analysis identify risks due to operational staffing levels

11) does the HSI risk analysis identify risks due to maintenance staffing levels

12) does the HSI risk analysis identify risks due to training costs

13) does the HSI risk analysis identify risks due to reqmts to redesign to satisfy user needs

14) does the HSI risk analysis identify risks due to extended down time/system non-availability

15) does the HSI risk analysis identify risks due to excessive time to repair

16) does the HSI risk analysis identify risks due to excessive supportability requirements

17) does the HSI risk analysis identify risks due to excessive accident rates

18) does the HSI risk analysis identify risks due to excessive personnel non-availability

19) does the HSI risk analysis integrate/assess cost risks

20) does the HSI risk analysis identify risks due to non-availability of data

21) does the HSI risk analysis identify risks due to non-availability of tools and methods

22) does the HSI risk analysis identify risks due to non-availability of resources

23) does the HSI risk analysis identify risks due to non-availability of technology

24) does the HSI risk analysis integrate/assess schedule risks

25) does the HSI risk analysis identify tasks/conditions with an alternative which increases the likelihood of human error.

26) does the HSI risk analysis identify tasks/conditions for which a human error would be difficult to detect.

27) does the HSI risk analysis identify tasks/conditions for which a human error would be difficult to correct.

28) does the HSI risk analysis identify tasks associated with an alternative which are at or beyond human physical performance capabilities.

29) does the HSI risk analysis identify tasks associated with an alternative which are at or beyond human cognitive performance capabilities.

30) does the HSI risk analysis identify tasks or conditions which contribute to excessive workloads.

31) does the HSI risk analysis identify tasks or conditions which contribute to inadequate productivity.

32) does the HSI risk analysis identify tasks or conditions which contribute to unsatisfactory team performance/interaction.

33) does the HSI risk analysis identify tasks/conditions with an alternative which increase the likelihood of accidents.

34) does the HSI risk analysis identify tasks/conditions with an alternative which increase the likelihood of health hazards.

35) does the HSI risk analysis identify tasks/conditions with an alternative which increase the likelihood of psychological stress.

36) does the HSI risk analysis identify tasks/conditions with an alternative which increase the likelihood of physiological stress.

37) does the HSI risk analysis identify tasks/conditions with an alternative which increase the likelihood of physical stress (e.g. extreme exertion, cramped environment)

38) does the HSI risk analysis identify tasks/conditions with an alternative which increase the likelihood of dealing with environmental constraints

39) does the HSI risk analysis identify tasks/conditions with an alternative which increase the likelihood of dealing with unsafe operating, test, maintenance and emergency procedures

40) does the HSI risk analysis identify tasks/conditions with an alternative which fail to take in to account life support requirements and their safety implications

41) does the HSI risk analysis identify tasks/conditions with an alternative which increase the likelihood of dealing with unsafe facilities and support equipment

42) does the HSI risk analysis identify alternative design concepts which do not provide safety-related equipment, safeguards, and possible alternate approaches such as interlocks, system redundancy, subsystem protection, fire suppression systems, personal protective equipment, industrial ventilation, and noise or radiation barriers

43) does the HSI risk analysis identify risks due to expected accident rates

44) does the HSI risk analysis identify risks due to unacceptable performance levels

45) does the HSI risk analysis identify risks due to expected inadequate productivity

46) does the HSI risk analysis identify risks due to expected ineffective training

47) does the HSI risk analysis identify risks due to expected excessive workloads

48) does the HSI risk analysis identify risks due to inadequate function allocation

49) does the HSI risk analysis identify risks due to excessively complex tasks

50) does the HSI risk analysis identify risks due to expected health hazards

51) does the HSI risk analysis integrate/assess design risks

52) does the HSI risk analysis summarize risks for each alternative

53) does the HSI risk analysis summarize cost, schedule, and design risks resulting from human factors

54) does the HSI risk analysis highlight current human system cost drivers, MPT drivers, performance and safety high drivers

Step 5. Assess Prototype Affordability

Overview: The prototype system affordability will be evaluated specifically for HSI elements of risk

Relationship to the Ship Acquisition Process (SHAP): The system prototype will be evaluated to assess the affordability associated with the design concept

Inputs: System prototype design characteristics

Outputs: Assessment of HSI aspects of affordability for prototypes

Substeps/Activities/Guidelines

Specific evaluation factors for assessing prototype affordability are as follows:

1) does the prototype result in reduced acquisition costs through HFE/MPT/safety and health integration

2) does the prototype result in reduced acquisition costs through reduced need to redesign systems and equipment to resolve unmet user needs

3) does the prototype result in reduced life cycle costs through reduced operations manning

4) does the prototype result in reduced life cycle costs through reduced maintenance manning

5) does the prototype result in reduced life cycle costs through reduced training time and training pipelines

6) does the prototype result in reduced life cycle costs through reduced needs for new training facilities

7) does the prototype result in reduced life cycle costs through reduced accident rates

8) does the prototype result in reduced life cycle costs through reduced human error rates

9) does the prototype result in reduced life cycle costs through reduced time to repair

10) does the prototype result in reduced life cycle costs through reduced supportability requirements

11) does the prototype result in reduced life cycle costs through reduced system downtime

12) does the prototype result in reduced life cycle costs through reduced personnel non-availability

13) verify that the proposed acquisition strategy is in line with Defense Planning Guidance and long-range modernization and investment plans.

14) verify that the adjustments required of the proposed acquisition strategy due to HSI affordability factors

15) verify changes to the acquisition strategy, or alternative acquisition strategies to resolve problems due to HSI affordability factors

16) assess alternative design concepts on HSI affordability factors

17) identify alternative design concepts having problems with HSI affordability factors

18) verify changes to alternative design concepts to improve performance HSI affordability factors

Step 6. Assess Prototype Human Machine Interfaces

Overview: The prototype system HMI will be evaluated specifically for HSI elements of risk

Relationship to the Ship Acquisition Process (SHAP): The system prototype will be evaluated to assess the HMI associated with the design concept

Inputs: System prototype design characteristics

Outputs: Assessment of HMI for prototypes

Substeps/Activities/Guidelines

Specific evaluation factors for assessing prototype HMI are as follows:

1) Verify that the number of watchstations is reduced, and that workloads required at each watchstation are reduced;

2) Evaluate the extent to which tradeoff criteria are presented, and human systems integration concerns are included;

3) Verify that concepts are presented for all human- machine interfaces;

4) Verify that concepts reflect concerns for biomedical effects, safety, and environmental effects;

5) Verify that concepts reflect concerns for manning and skill levels of personnel;

6) Verify that concepts for maintainability design are included;

7) Assess that designs depicted in drawings conform to ASTM 1166;

8) Verify that maintenance workspace and accessibility are evident in facility drawings;

9) Verify that there is a formal Manning/HSI sign- off of drawings.

10) Verify that standardization and commonality are addressed in the design of human-machine interfaces

11) Verify that unique human interface requirements, documentation needs, and special software certifications are identified

12) Verify that characteristics of automated decision support systems, such as the operator's associate, are identified,

13) Verify that human workloads and human performance requirements are assessed through human performance and task modeling, task network simulation, and human-in-the-loop simulation,

14) Verify that human engineering design standards are applied to reduce human error potential.

15 Verify that human performance risks have been addressed;

16) Verify that the design concepts have addressed tasks/conditions which increase the likelihood of human error.

17) Verify that the design concepts have addressed identifying tasks which are at or beyond human physical performance capabilities.

18) Verify that concepts address tasks at or beyond human cognitive performance capabilities.

19) Verify that concepts address tasks/ conditions which contribute to excessive workloads.

20) Verify that the design concepts have addressed identifying tasks or conditions which contribute to inadequate productivity.

21) Verify concepts address tasks which contribute to unsatisfactory team performance/interaction.

Step 7. Assess Prototype Design for Usability

Overview: The prototype system design for usability will be evaluated specifically for HSI elements of risk

Relationship to the Ship Acquisition Process (SHAP): The system prototype will be evaluated to assess the design for usability

Inputs: System prototype design characteristics

Outputs: Assessment of prototype design for usability

Substeps/Activities/Guidelines

Specific evaluation factors for assessing prototype design for usability are as follows:

1) have requirements for man-computer interface been identified?

2) have tasks requiring a man-computer interface been identified?

3) have requirements for specific HCI features been identified?

4) have requirements been identified for data access - retrieval dialogues

5) have requirements been identified for command modes

6) have requirements been identified for retrieval modes

7) have requirements been identified for data entry devices

8) have requirements been identified for displays and display formats

9) have requirements been identified for page composition

10) have requirements been identified for data compilation

11) have requirements been identified for dedicated versus multi-function displays

12) have requirements been identified for help mode

13) have requirements been identified for display transparency

14) have requirements been identified for direction - cueing

15) have requirements been identified for human-computer interaction

16) have requirements been identified for HCI approaches in predecessor and baseline systems

17) have studies and simulations to develop and evaluate alternate HCI concepts been conducted?

18) has an identification been made of who will use the workstation

19) have functions been allocated to human or machine performance

20) was a cognitive task analysis performed to identify the actions the equipment and human must take in order to accomplish human cognitive functions and provide a basis in which the tasks identified can be analyzed to determine what information is required in order to support these tasks.

21) have information requirements been identified

22) have display elements been identified

23) have icon design concepts been developed

24) have display pages been constructed

25) have major HF deficiencies been identified that might compromise understandability or effectiveness of the proposed displays

26) have user needs been identified

27) has the interface been mocked up

28) has rapid prototyping been conducted

29) have User Acceptance Tests been conducted

30) has production software and accompanying documentation been completed

31) have comparative evaluations been conducted

32) is the design of Human-computer interfaces complete

Step 8. Assess Prototype Design for Interoperability

Overview: The prototype system design for interoperability will be evaluated specifically for HSI elements of risk

Relationship to the Ship Acquisition Process (SHAP): The system prototype will be evaluated to assess the design for interoperability

Inputs: System prototype design characteristics

Outputs: Assessment of prototype design for interoperability

Substeps/Activities/Guidelines

Specific evaluation factors for assessing prototype design for interoperability are as follows:

1) are there standards for common displays, display formats, feedback, alerts and alarms?

2) are there standards for common and consistent procedures and methods for system operation and maintenance?

3) there are standards for common protocols and architectures for information retrieval, integration, and dissemination?

4) are there standards for common verbal and written communications message structure, format, syntax, and semantics?

5) are there techniques in place for visualization of system architecture to depict system structure?

6) are there techniques in place for visualization of system architecture to depict the system environment?

7) are there techniques in place for visualization of system architecture to facilitate navigation through the architecture?

8) are there standards for common tactical frames of reference to enhance communications?

9) are there standards for common tactical frames of reference to support decision making?

10) are there standards for common tactical frames of reference to facilitate maintaining situation awareness and tactical perspective?

Step 9. Assess Prototype Design for Safety

Overview: The prototype system design for safety will be evaluated specifically for HSI elements of risk

Relationship to the Ship Acquisition Process (SHAP): The system prototype will be evaluated to assess the design for safety

Inputs: System prototype design characteristics

Outputs: Assessment of prototype design for safety

Substeps/Activities/Guidelines

Specific evaluation factors for assessing prototype design for safety are as follows:

1) has a System Safety Program Plan been developed?

2) have preliminary engineering designs for safety been developed?

3) have safety design requirements been developed?

4) have hazards identified during the earlier phases been eliminated or the associated risks reduced to an acceptable level?

5) have system safety requirements in system specification/design documents been completed?

6) have safety and health analyses been completed?

7) has the SSHA been completed?

8) has the SHA been completed?

9) have hazards identified by analyses and tests been eliminated or their associated risk controlled?

10) has need for special tests to demonstrate or verify system safety functions been identified?

11) have analyses, inspection, and test requirements for other contractors' or GFE/GFP (hardware, software, and facilities) to verify prior to use that applicable system safety requirements are satisfied been prepared?

12) have results of safety testing, other system tests, failure analyses and mishap investigations been collected?

13) have safety considerations or tradeoff studies been identified?

14) have concepts for guarding the hazard been identified?

15) have concepts for labeling the hazard been identified?

16) have concepts for alarming the hazard been identified?

17) have concepts for safety training/procedures been identified?

18) have safety & health design criteria been identified?

19) have appropriate engineering documentation (drawings, specifications, etc.) been reviewed to make sure safety considerations have been incorporated?

20) has the adequacy of safety and warning devices, life support equipment, and personal protective equipment been identified?

21) has need for safety training and provide safety inputs to training courses been identified?

22) have safety provisions been included in the planning and layout of the production line?

23) are adequate safety provisions included in inspections, tests, procedures, and checklists for quality control of the equipment being manufactured?

24) do production and manufacturing control data contain required warnings, cautions, and special safety procedures?

25) was testing and evaluation performed on early production hardware to detect and correct safety deficiencies at the earliest opportunity?

26) is minimum risk involved in accepting and using new designs, materials, and production and test techniques?

Step 10. Assess Prototype Design for Habitability

Overview: The prototype system design for habitability will be evaluated specifically for HSI elements of risk

Relationship to the Ship Acquisition Process (SHAP): The system prototype will be evaluated to assess the design for habitability

Inputs: System prototype design characteristics

Outputs: Assessment of prototype design for habitability

Substeps/Activities/Guidelines

Specific evaluation factors for assessing prototype design for habitability are as follows:

1) have facility human functions and associated facility requirements been identified?

2) have requirements for entering the facility been identified?

3) has the design effort identified access location requirements?

4) has the design effort identified access identification requirements?

5) has the design effort identified access dimension requirements?

6) has the design effort identified access safety requirements?

7) have requirements for preparing the facility been identified?

8) have requirements for configuring the facility been identified?

9) have requirements for inhabiting the facility been identified?

10) have requirements for accessing a workspace within the facility been identified?

11) have requirements for accessing procedures, documentation, and equipment been identified?

12) have requirements for accessing consoles and panels been identified?

13) have requirements for performing facility operations been identified?

14) have requirements for performing tests within facilities been identified?

15) have requirements for performing maintenance in the facility been identified?

16) have requirements for performing locomotion in the facility been identified?

17) have traffic pattern requirements been identified?

18) have facility staffing requirements been identified?

19) have requirements for performing cargo transfer within the facility been identified?

20) have requirements for responding to alarms in the facility been identified?

21) have requirements for communicating within the facility been identified?

22) have requirements for communicating with personnel exterior to the facility been identified?

23) have requirements for accessing and using emergency equipment in the facility been identified?

24) have requirements for egressing the facility in an emergency been identified?

25) have facility design problems been identified from feedback systems?

26) have walkthrough of task sequences been completed?

27) have alternative facility concepts been developed?

28) have facility design criteria been developed?

29) Are HSI concepts based on requirements for users to perform facility maintenance-arrangement of equipment and components

30) Are HSI concepts based on requirements for users to perform locomotion in facility

31) Are HSI concepts based on requirements for users to perform cargo transfer within facility

32) Are HSI concepts based on requirements for users to respond to alarms

33) Are HSI concepts based on requirements for users to communicate within the facility

34) Are HSI concepts based on requirements for users to communicate with personnel exterior to the facility

35) Are HSI concepts based on requirements for users to use emergency equipment in the facility

36) Are HSI concepts based on requirements for users to conduct facility emergency egress

37) verify that facility designs and arrangements are based on what people must do in them

38) verify that likely errors have been identified for each facility

39) verify that traffic patterns have been identified

40) verify that arrangements reflect traffic patterns

41) verify that arrangements reflect cargo transfer requirements

42) verify that man-machine interface designs (hand holds, steps, passageways, etc.) comply with criteria of MIL-STD-1472D and/or ASTM-1166

43) verify that arrangement designs include consideration of requirements for maintenance access

44) verify that workspace for maintenance sufficient based on use anthropometrics

45) verify that emergency equipment (i.e., fire extinguishers) are readily accessible

46) verify that protective clothing is readily accessible

47) verify that safety hazards are shielded or guarded

48) verify that environmental controls are included in facilities

49) verify that environmental limits comply with MIL-STD-1472D/ASTM-1166

50) verify that provisions for environmental protection have been included in the design

51) verify that biomedical requirements and risk areas have been resolved