0840-0910 Dr. Pam Savage-Knepshi

					    NAVSEA Display
Commonality Initiatives

           DoD HFE TAG 59

               Janet Jaensch
                John Winters
                NAVSEA 05H
                  6 May 2008

   NAVSEA Display Commonality Background

   Commonality Examples

   Success Factors

   Commonality Perspectives
                NAVSEA Commonality Drivers

   Chief of Naval Operations Guidance for 2007-2008
    – “Using Open Architecture as an enabler, reduce Surface Ship
      Combat systems baselines from 16 to eight in the next ten years.”
   Department of the Navy Objectives for FY08 and Beyond:
    – “Implement Naval Open Architecture across Navy and Marine
      Corps combat systems”
   PEO Integrated Warfare Systems (IWS) Common Display
    System (CDS):
    – Small family of consoles for use on multiple platforms on Navy
      surface ships, submarines, and aircraft
    – Three-screen horizontal variant currently being designed
    – Common Processor System (CPS) also in development
                            Current Surface Ship
                             Combat Systems

Advanced Combat     Ship Self Defense
 Direction System        System
                                        Aegis Weapon    Aegis Ballistic
                                           System      Missile Defense

Combat Direction         LCS 1             LCS 2
   System                                                   DDG 1000

                                                       All images from navy.mil Navy NewsStand
      Surface Navy
Common Architecture Strategy

                       From Surface Navy Association 2008
                      NAVSEA Display Challenge





                 Current Console                    New Console
  Major issues for Modernization:
   Wider and shorter displays, with higher resolution
   Integration of communications panel and peripheral devices into main
   Potential replacement of physical buttons with touch screen interface
            SEA 05H Common Presentation Layer

   NAVSEA Standard 03-01, "Common Presentation
    Layer (CPL) Guide," dated September 2006
    – Level of detail comparable to style guide
    – Based on many existing Navy and industry standards
   Sections with detailed implementation guidance
    completed Sept 2007
    – Hull, Mechanical, and Electrical (HM&E) Interfaces
    – Tactical Situation (TACSIT) Interfaces
   CPL applications include:
    – Style Guide update for DDG 1000
    – Style Guide update for LCS
    – Style Guide basis for DDG Modernization Universal
      Control Console
    – User interface for Periscope Detection Radar
                     Example: PEO IWS
            Open Architecture Display Components
   Software components developed by PEO IWS and NSWC
    Dahlgren for reuse across systems with tactical displays
   Functionality selected based on:
    – Improved performance
    – Commonality across systems
    – Potential for decreased training, maintenance or upgrade time
   Components developed:
    – Common Track Filter: current filter controls do not support full
      range of symbology options
    – Pop-Up Declutter Tool: provides for information and selection from
      tightly packed group of track symbols
   Software components and supporting information
    submitted to SHARE (Software Hardware Asset Reuse for
    the Enterprise) repository
 PEO IWS OA Display Components


Common                   Tool
                                Tag On/Off

                 Border Style

Track History – On/Off

                                       Each Cell
          Filled / Unfilled        Previews Settings
                           Air Control Commonality
   Different user interfaces for shipboard air controllers in different
    combat systems
     – Required multiple simulators, training pipelines, and NECs
     – User interface terminology not fully consistent with radio communication
     – Substantial subset of functionality out-of-date
   New control menus developed, compatible with standardized
     – Common across combat systems
     – Common across fixed-wing (AIC) and rotary-wing (ASTAC) controllers
   Benefits:
     – User interface consistent with training procedures and voice
     – Consolidated training materials and pipelines
     – Increased options for personnel assignment
     – Improved performance
   Keys to Success:
     – Active, multi-organizational working group
     – Involvement of operational and training communities
     – Baseline schedule permits implementation of updates
                  Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program
   HFE IPT recently initiated for Naval Nuclear Propulsion
    Program (NNPP)
   Collaboration between SEA 08 (NNPP), SEA 05Z (HM&E),
    and SEA 05H (HSI)
   Goal is to refine a single style guide and common user
    interface based upon SEA 05H Common Presentation Layer:
    – NNPP components
    – Hull, Mechanical, and Electrical (HM&E) systems (steam and nuclear)
   Issues of interest:
    – Suitable for new construction or forward fit and for modernization or
    – Leverage transfer of training from existing systems where it makes
    – Compatibility with “cultural norms” and expectations of participating
    – Account for personnel differences, including color vision requirements
    – Accommodate different lighting environments
                           Success Factors for
                           Display Commonality
   Clearly establish scope
    – Select the components or programs that can be impacted
   Specify areas for commonality
    – Information sources, formatting, terminology, controls …
   Specify perspective for commonality
    – Address end-user perspective, not only developer perspective
   Obtain common funding for common solutions
    – Constrained funding leads to partial solutions
   Differentiate from or eliminate competitors
    – Keep the grass from being greener on the other side
   Quantify the benefits
    – Performance improvements should tie to mission performance
    – Cost ROI needs to bear fruit in 1-3 years
   Tackle high payoff items and get quick, powerful wins
                 Benefits of Display Commonality
   Benefits exist across HSI domains:
    – Human factors engineering
         Increased interface consistency reduces probability of error
         Better efficiency and effectiveness, if best among options is selected
    – Manpower
         Facilitates workload reduction, enabling concurrent oversight of
          multiple functions, possibly leading to reduced manpower
    – Personnel
         Personnel codes can cover broader range of systems or roles
         Increased flexibility in personnel assignments
    – Training
         Consolidation of training courses and materials
         Increased transfer of training and shorter training pipelines
         Subsequent training can focus on proficiency
   End-user
    – Greater flexibility in watchstation assignments
    – Potential increase in Ao with common troubleshooting capability
   Development and maintenance of software
    – Code reuse and modular designs
    – Quicker, easier upgrades
                    Improved Performance Under Stress
               Expected Commonality Benefits
                    Across Perspectives





            Some Benefit      Substantial Benefit
              Commonality Perspectives (1 of 3)

Within a component or system
 User fully expects commonality
 Most straightforward when within lifelines of a single program
    – Individual system may still have multiple developers
   May have different software components accessed via same hardware
    device or vice versa
   When it is missing:
    – Difficult and time-consuming training
    – Substantial user performance impacts
Within a task
 May cross components or systems
 User likely to expect commonality
 When it is missing:
    – Large impact expected on cognitive workload, task delays, and error rates
    – Increased training burden, increased training coordination
             Commonality Perspectives (2 of 3)

Within a role or job
 User unlikely to be surprised by differences
    – Different systems expected to lack full commonality
   When it is missing:
    – Increased error rates for critical differences
    – Inefficiencies in execution
    – May increase amount of training or cause negative transfer
Across a team
 User expectation will vary
 When it is missing:
    – Increased communications difficulty
    – Reduced common awareness
    – Reduced opportunity for cross-training or training transfer across
      roles in a team
               Commonality Perspectives (3 of 3)

Within a billet
 Individuals typically have multiple roles, multiple missions or modes
  (e.g., combat operations and damage control)
 When it is missing:
    – Lost opportunity for transfer of training
    – Possible increase in error probability
Across platforms
 Comparable functions with different systems
 When it is missing:
    – Multiple training pipelines
    – Reduced flexibility in personnel assignments
Along a career or within a community or specialty
 Opportunity to use prior training as basis for increased proficiency
 When it is missing:
    – More resources, longer trainee time required between assignments
    – Low transfer of training requires training focus on basics rather than
               Expected Commonality Benefits
                    Across Perspectives





            Some Benefit      Substantial Benefit

Shared By: