Docstoc

Trip Report 07 June 2007

Document Sample
Trip Report 07 June 2007 Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                                                 07 June 2007
                                       Trip Report
                                  Department of Defense
                    Human Factors Engineering Technical Advisory Group
                              (DOD HFE TAG) Meeting #57
                                     14-17 May 2007

       The 57th meeting of the DoD HFE TAG was held in Portsmouth, VA. The meeting was chaired by Mr.
Adrian Salinas, 311th Human Systems Wing, Brooks AFB, TX. The theme of the meeting was Reducing Risk
Through Collaboration. Approximately 100 people attended the meeting, representing the US Army, US
Navy, US Air Force, DARPA, NASA, FAA, DoD Laboratories, Canadian DRDC, several human factors-related
technical societies and industry associations. Several additional personnel representing industry and academia
attended as invited speakers.

Four items are attached:
         Background of the DoD HFE TAG, attachment (1)
         TAG-57 Theme, Attachment (2)
         Program Summary, attachment (3)
         DoD HFE TAG Operating Board, attachment (4)
         TAG attendees, attachment (5)
         DoD HFE TAG Policies, attachment (6)

Plenary Session Presentations

The DoD HFE TAG Chair for the 57th meeting, Adrian Salinas, welcomed attendees to the meeting and
elaborated briefly on the meeting theme. He stressed that the HFE community needs to understand,
communicate, participate and collaborate, as well as share tools, methods and research products. We also need
to ensure that our successful products transition to use.

Reducing Risks by Developing Software Human Factors Metrics and Methods - As a
Team was presented by Dr. Patricia Chalmers, Science Advisor, JFCOM (patricial.chalmers@jfcom.mil). Dr
Chalmers is usually the only HFE person on the team. What she usually hears is things like: You can‟t do that!
What about the Cost and Schedule? How many subjects do you want? I don‟t care what you do, just get „er
done! What we all have in common are tight schedules, funding cuts and the Warfighter. We need to adept a
business model, not just a research model. We need demonstrate return on investment. We also need metrics –
measures to assess benefits to our stakeholders (senior managers, fund providers, project managers, software
coders, testers and users. Some examples of practical types metrics we need to consider:
    Dollars saved in reduced calls to the help desk
    Hours saved in re-coding software
    Time to complete tasks
    Time and money saved due to errors avoided
    Time and money saved due to accidents avoided
    Latency in minutes
     Number of positive comments on new systems
When defining experiments, remember that our war-fighters depend upon the validity of pour experiments.
Everyone needs to cope with funding cuts, down-sizing, and egos. But, if you aren‟t developing capabilities for
as many services and agencies as possible, you may be developing tomorrow‟s problems.


Navy Human Systems Integration Update was presented by Mr. Richard M. Etheridge, OP-125
(richard.etheridge@navy.mil. Mr. Etheridge mentioned some recent influences on Navy HSI:
     Public Law 107-314, National Defense Appropriations Act 09-07
     GAO Report 02-520, June 03, Navy Actions Needed to Optimize Crew Size and Reduce Total
        Ownership costs.
     Systems Engineering Acquisition and Personnel Integration Report, 2004.

Some history of Navy investment in HSI:
    IMPRINT adopted – 2005
    MANPRINT adopted – 2005
    IMPRINT Improved – 2004
    Improved job performance – 2004
    Reduced total ownership costs – 2004
    Continue development of Manpower/Personnel tools - 2005-2006
    Develop advanced cognitive evaluation tools – 2006
    NAVPRINT - 2007
    Develop advanced tools and methods – Future
    Human Analysis & Requirements Planning System (HARPS) – 2007-2008 (contains and integrates all
      HSI analyses)Joint Capabilities Development Integration System (JCIDS)
    HSI guidance (OPNAVINST 5310.23)
    Virtual System HSI Guide- Volumes 1 (overview), 2 (implementation) and 3 (how-to)

According to the National Defense Appropriations Act, the LSI role as we know it today will disappear, with the
LSI job going to the service or to a consultant.

The way ahead for the Navy includes the following:
    OPNAVINST 5310.23 implementation
    HARPS functional requirements document
    Implement HARPS and OPNAVINST 5310.23
    Implement FY07-08 funding plan
    Update JCIDDS 3170.01
    Revise SECNAVINST 5000.2D
    Submit Congressional report on HSI by June 2007.

Reducing Risk for a Global C2 Enterprise Collaboration Capability was presented by Mr. Don
Monk, Air Force Research Laboratory, Human Effectiveness Directorate, don.monk@wpafb.af.mil. Mr. Monk‟s
current job is in visualization and collaboration for air operations centers. Collaboration is viewed on a
continuum:



October 2, 2011                                                                  2
       Cooperation --------------- Coordination     ---------------      Collaboration
  Short term, informal            Long term – around                      Pervasive &
 Parties have different goals      a single project                       Continuing

True collaboration is about providing a common workspace across all participants. The Air Force is currently
funding 6.2 and 6.3 projects leading to collaboration technology and fully distributed air operations centers.

Risk Reduction Through Collaboration: Army Views was presented by Dr. Elizabeth Bowman,
Army Research Laboratory-Human Research and Engineering Directorate, ebowman@arl.army.mil. Dr .
Bowman briefly described two activities underway examining collaboration:
    Soldier-Robotic Systems Teams:         Soldier-PakBot teams were investigated. Some of the issues
     discovered were:
         o Sensor camouflage is needed
         o Security /soldier survivability problems – Soldier distraction while operating robots
         o Use in the Rain proved difficult or impossible
         o The Stylus (for interacting with the controller) got lost – Soldiers used knives or whatever was
             available as a replacement
    Joint/Operational View: Multi-national experiment #4 sponsored by JFCOM.

Collaboration between NASA and the National Space Biomedical Research Institute
(NSBRI) was presented by Dr. Edna Fielder, Baylor College of Medicine, efielder@bcm.edu. Dr. Fielder is
working on collaborative project with NASA in human performance, design and crew procedures. [also please
see http://www.nsbri.org]

HSI Workshop Meeting - Update on HSI/MANPRINT Guidance to Industry Activity. Mr.
Adrian Salinas held a short update session to provide feedback to the group on the status of an activity requested
by Dr. Robert Foster. Dr. Foster has requested the DoD HFE TAG to provide assistance in providing improved
HSI guidance to industry. Mr. Salinas described a one-day workshop held in Orlando in June 2006, the
objective of which was to refine a Data Item Description (DID) on Human Systems Integration Program Plan
and to identify additional methods of providing guidance to industry. Some of those methods included
development of generic HSI briefing charts and development of a MIL-Handbook on HSI.

Mr. Salinas indicated that Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L) will be getting task to provide DoD
guidance to the Services. The TAG‟s activities to date are relevant to that work. The TAG needs to provide Dr.
Foster with a short description of what has been done thus far. A 5-10 chart briefing is needed, emphasizing:
    Need: It has been >4 years since DoDI 5000.2, Encl (7) described the HSI job.
    Progress: The TAG has helped author a DID and plans to work on a MIL-Handbook and more.
    Status: The DID has been approved, the Mil-Handbook and a DID for HSI Report are underway
    Plan Forward: Continue with the Mil-Handbook, briefings, and training materials and DID for HSI
       Report.

In addition to the briefing charts, a succinct white paper (1-2 pages) would also be useful.




October 2, 2011                                                                     3
Sub-Group Meetings Attended at the DOD HFE TAG:

Technical Society/Industry SubTAG. The Technical Society/Industry (TS/I) Sub TAG met twice
during the TAG meeting on Tuesday morning and afternoon. Dr. Jen Narkevicius
(jnarkevicius@jeniussolutions.com) chaired both two meetings.

In the morning session,
    Alan Poston (representing HFES Institute) expressed appreciation for TAG inputs on areas where MIL-
       STD-1472 requires updates.
    DIDs – The Navy selected six HFE DIDs for publication, plus two more (one of which is for the HSI
       Program Plan. Marcie Langelier is the Navy‟s point of contact, who is working on them with Jen
       Narkevicius.
    Dick Armstrong reported on a Navy project to develop an HSI MIL Handbook. A draft is planned for late
       in June or early in July 2997. The TAG will review it following completion of the draft. Dick Armstrong
       can be contacted at dick_armstrong@teambci.com or (850) 231-1155.

In the afternoon session, the first speaker was Stephen C. Merriman (972-705-8219,
stephen.c.merriman@boeing.com), who described the HSI/MANPRINT approach being taken on the Army‟s
Future Combat Systems (FCS) Program. He described the domains included within program MANPRINT,
described the 14 systems constituting the FCS family of systems and briefly discussed the larger “system of
systems” which includes literally dozens of other existing systems with which FCS must interoperate. ON FCS,
the Lead Systems Integrator is responsible for preparing the OSD-mandated Manpower Estimate report as well
as the Target Audience Description.. While difficult, these two efforts have provided great insight into the 100+
MOS needed to support the FCS brigade combat teams, the training requirements and the numbers of personnel.
This in-depth M&P knowledge provides essential information for making MANPRINT tradeoffs affecting the
MP&T domains. Challenges in the HFE domain include assuring commonality, not just at the display or crew
station level, but also at the platform and system of systems level. To help assure commonality, the LSI has
developed a five-volume Soldier-Machine Interface Standard, applicable to all 20+ FCS suppliers (or “One
Team Partners).

The second speaker was Julie Stark, PhD (jstark@systechnologies.com) who presented Human Factors Does
Not Equal Human Systems Integration. There are 5major differences between the two terms.
              Human Factors               Human Systems Integration
         Discipline / Field of study             Approach
              Science-based                      Policy-based
              Specific Issues                    Broad Issues
              Focused on User                    Focus on Trade-offs

What makes an HSI person?
       1. Extensive knowledge of one domain that doesn‟t interact with other domains?
       2. Extensive knowledge in one domain that interacts with other domains?
       3. Knowledge and interactions with two or more domains?
       4. Knowledge of all domains?



October 2, 2011                                                                   4
Human/Robotics Interface Special Interest Group (SIG). This SIG met for the first time as a
closed government session at the last TAG meeting. It was opened up to all TAG participants at TAG-57.

The first presenter was Dr. Mark Steinberg, Office of Naval Research and Naval Air Systems Command, who
spoke on Span of Control. Some of the current issues in robotics include the control of heterogeneous vehicles,
different levels and types of autonomy, significant differences in communications (reliability, bandwidth, etc),
highly limited manning on ships (low skill, no dedicated UMS controllers), moving to common control systems
and interoperability.
Some approaches to span of control include:

    Theoretical approaches and modeling
         o Requires simplification
         o Difficult to address performance, contingencies, novel systems
         o Single operator approaches may not scale to groups
    Empirical studies of complex operational scenarios/systems
         o Expensive to do statistically meaningful studies
         o Not clear how much results can be generalized

Intelligent Autonomy Program is managed by Dr. Steinberg. This program includes:
     Mission management of 5-10 heterogeneous unmanned systems of 3-5 types with a common control
        system.
     Highly autonomous re-tasking and fully autonomous
     Multi UxV (variety of unmanned systems)
     Maritime Image understanding
The main theoretical approach with DARPA has been neglect tolerance:

# Robots = 1 + Neglect time (how long robot can operate unattended)
               Interaction time (how long operator needs to attend to the robot)

The test approach to the experiment was:
    limited training time for 7 operators
    UUVs and UAVs
    vehicle operations/sensor operations/mission commanders

Measures used:
   SAGAT for situational awareness
   Mental Models (drawing maps to represent mental images)
   TLX plus Cooper-Harper ratings
   Reaction Time
   Usability scales
   User satisfaction scales




October 2, 2011                                                                    5
Next steps: experiment with more complex systems. Vary the number and type of vehicles, mission complexity,
automation levels and types, use common tests and methods. Future Navy science and technology direction
with regard to robotic control:
     Shared/collaborative control
     Shared control by non-dedicated teams
     Impact of cognitive models in autonomous systems
     Shift from management of vehicles to management of missions
     Human directed learning by autonomous systems
     Larger numbers of unmanned vehicles for persistent surveillance of larger, more complex areas

The second presenter was Dr. Michael Patzek (937-255-7883, Michael.patzek@wpafb.af.mil), System Control
Interfaces Branch, Warfighter Interface Division, Human Effectiveness Directorate, Air Force Research
Laboratory, who spoke on Air Force Unmanned Systems Control Activities. The following appear to be
emerging needs, with the vision being “multi-UAV supervision”:
     Rapid response capability for ISR and strike
     Persistence in multiple regions
     Increased span of control with a single control station

The 2003 summer UFAF SAB study concluded with the following needs:
     Reduce costs and accidents
     Increase span of control
     Greater persistence
     Better mission management, vehicle autonomy and human-computer interface
     Better SA and reduced operator workload
     Better measures of performance
The issues include bandwidth and system time delays.
The Vigilant Spirit program grew out of J-UCAS simulation software. Candidate decision support tools include
intelligent cueing, playbook delegation, change detection, Information fusion and expectation management.
Sensory interface technologies being examined include: Helmet-mounted display, haptic feedback tactile
display, speech recognition, synthetic overlays, and symbology improvements. One activity involves Multi-
aircraft video-Human/Automation Target Recognition – basically, computer-assisted scheduling of video
presentations to human operators from different sensors.

An advanced development program (6.3) involves multi-UAV supervisory control interface technology
MUSCIT) for Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR) and Close Air Support (CAS). The program
focuses on controls and displays, decision aids, multi-UAV. It is sponsored by the Predator program office and
others. It is examining adaptive interface using a predator control station, operated by 6 people, two people or
one person. The task is to control 1, 2, 3, or 4 UAVs. The program will be funded from FY-07 through FY10.

The program goals are to:
    Reduce operator-to-vehicle rations
    Increase mission effectiveness
    Increase awareness of system state
    Identify potential upgrades to existing systems




October 2, 2011                                                                   6
Human Factors Standardization (HFS) SubTAG: The chair/chair select for the Human Factors
Standardization SubTAG is Mr. Dave Britton david.briton@wpafb.af.mil). New incoming co-chairs will be
Josh Kennedy and Alan Poston.
    MIL-STD-2525 Update: Jacob Wetzel, PhD reported on activities in support of revision C. The
       symbology standards committee is scheduled to ratify the new version in June or July 2007.
           o The standard will be reorganized to include appendices for the various domains (air/space, land,
               maritime). Appendices will include command and control symbols and command and control
               tactical graphics.
           o A boundary octagon will be included within each symbol with four different information areas
               (top, left, right and bottom).
           o MIL-STD-2525 will be harmonized with NATO STANAG 2019 (App 6C) for space symbols.
               Both -2525 and App-6C will adopt white dotted frames to mean “assumed.”
           o Purple color will indicate Commercial Aircraft (COMAIR) tracks. This will aid in distinguishing
               them from military tracks without having to remove them from the display.
           o An optional external status bar, located beneath the symbol, will indicate operational status
               [green=fully operational; yellow=substantially operational; red= marginally operational; back -=
               non-operational].
           o Symbol colors now may be modified only by varying luminance (brightness).
    NASA Standard 3000 Evolution: Barry Tillman reported on efforts underway at NASA to update the
       standard by dividing it into two parts, standards and an implementation guide. The standard will consist
       of two volumes: Volume 1 – Medical, and Volume 2 - Environmental Health. Each program (e.g., ISS)
       will be responsible for its own implementation guide. A Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH)
       will include design guidance and provide assistance in developing program specific requirements. It will
       be a companion to the standards.
    MIL-Handbook for HSI: Dick Armstrong summarized his efforts in drafting a military handbook for
       Human Systems Integration. He is working on this for the Navy and is coordinating with the DOD HFE
       TAG.
    MIL-STD-1787: A new section is being added on Rotary Wing symbology.
    HFE/HSI DIDs: Jennifer Narkevicius and Marcie Langelier are proposing to transfer responsibility for
       the HFE DIDs from the Army to the Navy. HFE DIDs will be transferred and DIDs for HETR and HETP
       will be added back in. HFAC-81743 will address Human Systems Integration Program Plan and HFAC-
       81744 will address Human Engineering Program Plan.
    MIL-STD-1472: A proposed notice change to two tables on lighting and system response times will be
       cancelled. A survey is being conducted to identify areas in need of revision. Responses are being
       compiled now and should be ready for reporting at the November TAG meeting.
    MIL-STD-1474: Still working on an update to incorporate revisions by Army Research Laboratory.
    HFES Report: HFES-100 (computer work stations) is in work HFES-200 is in the comment cycle.

Craft Bio-dynamics Special Interest Group (SIG). This special interest group focuses on human
factors engineering issues unique to watercraft. The first presenter was Dr. Ron Peterson, with L3COM
(ronaldpeterson@comcast.net), who spoke on Long Term Health Surveillance for Naval Special Warfare
High Speed Craft. Special warfare craft pose extreme hazards for occupants. The bio-dynamic environment
adversely impacts performance and may cause injury. The long term health surveillance system was created to




October 2, 2011                                                                  7
monitor this environment. This presentation focused on the Mk V SOC special operations craft. This craft has a
history of causing problems. The CACTUS motion data acquisition system is being installed on several craft to
acquire data. In FY03-04, a suspended seat was investigated for the Mk V SOC craft; four candidates were
evaluated and one was confirmed as superior. Other efforts are examining throttle and throttle location, and a
semi-active seat. ISO2631 Part5 was selected as the primary criterion for these studies. Special operations craft
pose both acute and chronic problems. Stress is cumulative, resulting in lumbar spine problems (material
failure). Operators are tagged with RFID to keep track of what craft they ride and when, co cumulative
exposure can be tracked. This work is being sponsored by ONR and coordinated with Navy Health Research
Center NHRC).

The next presenter was Cameron Bass, University of Virginia and NWSC Dahlgren VA, who spoke on
Assessing Risk of Impact Injury in High Speed Craft. NSW Rigid and Mk V SOC are typical high-speed craft.
At speed, every 1 to 3 seconds the craft experiences vertical g‟s in the 7-10 g range falling over 1 second.
Approximately 65% of craft passengers have self-reported injury (89% in the past two years), with 33.6% being
lower back injury. ISO2361 Part 5 (3-axis spinal model) was developed for application to Army vehicles such
as Stryker (repeated jolts). Modeling is to predict injury from craft accelerations. The model has been validated
to +/- 4 gs but doesn‟t account for complex postures; it also under-predicts spinal load above 5 gs.

        3-axis seat pan  99 coefficient neural net  Peak lumbar spin acceleration  Injury Assessment

Madymo modeling (Mathematical Dynamic Modeling) was investigated due to under-prediction by the neural
net. This model was much better at predicting peak acceleration of the lumbar spine above 4 gs. Current efforts
involve incorporating the Madymo model into the surveillance program. Meta-models have been developed to
relate impact acceleration to L4 accelerations so they can go from input to seat to L4.

The next presenter was Dr. Mike McCauley, Naval Postgraduate School (831-6556-2191,
memccauley@nps.edu). Dr. McCauley and Eric Pierce, M.S., NSWC Panama City, have been investigating
High Speed Vessels, Motion and Human Performance. It has been reported that 90% of Utah Marines on the
USS Swift, in 8-10 ft. seas @ 40 knots were motion sick. The Littoral Combat Ship may expose passengers to
similar environment, causing motion sickness. Past investigations have been conducted on HSV-25 and five
other boats. The Benchijigua Express is a 40+ knot high-speed ferry that can carry up to 1300 passengers.
NSWC gained permission to instrument the ship and track data for the two-hour transits between LaPalma and
Tenerife. Eighty-six transits were recorded and 1994 questionnaires were completed. The Motion Sickness
Questionnaire (MSAQ) was used. It was found that there was a higher incidence of motion sickness reported
during evening transits (after sundown) than during the day. Beam seas were found to have minimal impact on
balance and motion sickness. Still, 60-90% of participants reported some motion sickness, although most
motion effects were fairly benign. New data will be obtained from a twin hull ship, the Sea Fighter (FSF-1).
The LCS will be tested in 2008.

Modeling and Simulation SubTAG:                Mr. Tom Mitchell served as SubTAG chair, filling in for LT.
Grubb who had a conflict. The presenters for this session were all Cadets from the US Military Academy. The
first presenter was Cadet Erik Mancik, who spoke on Modeling Targeting Performance Under Physiological
Stress. It was already known that three days of sleep deprivation can cause a reduction of 20% on simple
mathematical tests. The research questions for this effort were: Can changes in heart rate be used to model a
Soldier‟s shooting performance? And, how does sleep level affect precision? An engagement skills trainer was



October 2, 2011                                                                   8
used to demonstrate shooting skills. The dependent variables were precision, time to first shot and total time.
It is known that physiological stamina and heart rate are reasonably good predictors of precision. Some
stimulation is needed to achieve optimal performance while additional stress will cause a significant decrease.

The second speaker was Cadet Matt Webb, who spoke on Detecting Change in Social Networks Using
Statistical Process Control. Network analysis and statistical process control were used to quantify the
connections between people. Network measures included: network density, “Between-ness” (High would
represent a single person linking many others), and Closeness (a measure of the number of connections to others
– affects the speed of getting messages out). The first application was to examine density, closeness and
Between-ness of the Al Qaewda network. The second application was to the Tactical Officer‟s Education
Program, where Cadet Webb knew all members of the group and laptop computers were used to capture all
interactions between group members. This project ran over two semesters. They used a model to predict
performance in the second semester based on first semester data. There is potential to use this method to analyze
terrorist groups and other types of groups.

The third presenter was Cadet Mancik who spoke on Laboratory Simulation of Hierarchical and Network
Based Organizations. ELICIT (Experimental Laboratory for Investigating Communications and Trust) was
used. Students were presented with lots of „factoids” of information and their jobs were to piece together the
information in order to predict WHAT is going to happen and WHEN – such as a terrorist attack. Thirty-four
cadets were split into two groups of 17 each – one hierarchically organized group and one self-organizing group.
Both groups were briefed on the same scenario for 20 minutes. All messages between people had to be passed
through “the system” so that they could be tracked. The Organizational Risk Analyzer (ORA) was used to
analyze network performance. The self-organizing group was more efficient, quicker in coming to an
agreement (although they were incorrect). The hierarchically organized group (single platoon lead, four squad
leaders and three in each squad) took longer but the key people in the group agreed on the correct answer –
therefore it was more effective.

The last presenter was Cadet Patrick Kuiper, who spoke on Analysis of Sensitive Equipment Decontamination
(SED). The military currently has no means to decontaminate sensitive equipment. JPEO-CB is evaluating
several alternatives. There are procedures for decontaminating soldiers and large equipment, but not laptops,
PDAs, etc. The US Military Academy evaluated alternatives using mathematical modeling of how long
different techniques would take to decontaminate the sensitive equipment. A PRO-MODEL simulation
(discrete event simulation) was set up to compare the liquid immersion (fast but can only accommodate small
amounts of equipment at one time) or vapor-based (hydrogen peroxide + ammonia) techniques. USMA took
action to look into speeding up the vapor-based method using mathematical modeling.

User-Computer Interface SubTAG: The Sub TAG meeting is co-chaired by Nausheen Momen, LT,
MSC, USNR, Ph.D. (nmomen@namrl.navy.mil) and Stephen Merriman (stephen.c.merriman@boeing.com.
There were 31 attendees at the session, on Tuesday, 7 November 2006. No changes were proposed in SubTAG
leadership at this meeting. No revisions were proposed to the UCI SubTAG. Four presentations were made at
this session.

The first presenter was Cadet David Dawes (USMA), who spoke on Scaled Displays in Language Translation.
There are currently two main methods used to translate foreign intelligence documents into English for analysis:
Linguists and ARL-developed FALCON (Forward Area Language Converter) that is hosted on a laptop



October 2, 2011                                                                   9
computer. Linguists are slow but highly trusted. FALCON is faster but does not produce reliably-correct
translations. The USMA investigated placing an improved version of FALCON onto a small Personal Digital
Assistant (PDA) that would be highly portable. The Language Instant Screening Tool (LIST) was developed
for this purpose. It is equipped with a small camera to capture images of document pages. It uses optical
character reading (OCR) to translate the images into text and then performs machine translation, semantic text
analysis and other processing to derive thematic intent. The Cadets compared LIST performance against linguist
translators. They also compared LIST to the customer‟s needs (simple, fast, survivable, durable, portable, little
training, long battery life, maintainable and accurate). They build a value model to determine where LIST
would be most valuable. Using their value model, LIST scored an 80 while linguists scored 50. A sensitivity
analysis was conducted and it was determined that LIST is superior EXCEPT when battery life is low AND
weight is high. LIST battery life is currently 4.5 hours and weight is minimal. The use of LIST would create a
need for doctrine change wherein LIST would be used to perform initial triage on documents to quickly
determine which are of high value and therefore should be quickly translated and provided to the S2 for action.
In order to define follow-on work, USMA would like to have a point of contact at SOCOM, who may be
interested in pursuing this area. Next actions planned include investigation of:
      LIST output – what should it say?
      Product durability requirements
      Desirability of connectivity via a network

The second presenter was Mr. Mike Hűbler, US Army RDEC Software Engineering Directorate
(mike.hubler@us.army.mil), who spoke on Toward a Common Health and Status Panel for Missile Systems.
The Common Warfighter Machine Interface (CWMI) team, as the government voice for all user interface (UI)
issues in the Integrated Army Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) community, was tasked to design a standard UI
adapted to any user performing any task within an integrated system of AMD systems. CWMI has distilled
AMD user interfaces into individual, general CWMI components that can be assembled and customized based
on user roles. This presentation focused on the design of a “health and status” component that represents the
condition of sensors, launchers, communications and other equipment in any AMD system. The need for a
universal component to handle health and status display, as well as the functional description of the component
is based on extensive research of display requirements and screenshots from systems such as Patriot, THAAD,
Avenger/SHORAD, NASAMS, and GMD.

Recommendations for CWMI component designs stem from the analysis of quantitative and qualitative data
generated by a series of usability tests. The CWMI team conducted a focus group with twelve AMD warrant
officers at Fort Bliss, TX to help differentiate the display needs of different echelons and roles. CWMI
developers rapidly produced three fully interactive JAVA prototypes, based on military and video game industry
design research, for testing in two experiments. Using a prototype test engine, the team collected logs of detailed
mouse event and timing metrics on information retrieval and action scenario tests from 34 AMD subjects. Each
experiment includes a detailed interview and the unique ability to replay user interaction using the logs. These
qualitative tools provide a strong interpretative lens for viewing the quantitative performance results, allowing
usability engineers to not only judge a “winning” prototype, but to modify the winner based on more nuanced
understandings of what worked well from each of the three prototypes.

The third presenter was Chris Carobine, NETWARCOM, who spoke on It's all about the NEWS. This talk
included an overview of the user centered design considerations during the development of the NETWARCOM
Enterprise Work Space (NEWS) project, including a description of the early and continual SME involvement,



October 2, 2011                                                                     10
Six Sigma methodologies, documentation, and ongoing training efforts. The phased implementation of NEWS
was also be delineated.

The fourth presenter was Mr. Mike Hűbler, Army RDEC Software Engineering Directorate,
(mike.hubler@us.army.mil), who spoke on Collaborative user-interface development: How a CORUS might
review ACTORs on a STAGE. Human Machine Interface (HMI) development, with its unique emphasis on
human usability, graphic design and communication, should be its own creative effort, not fused to the same
software engineering teams or processes that produce the internal algorithms, information management schemas
and other back-end functions of an application. The RDEC is developing a collaborative environment for HMI
innovation by separating user interface development from the rest of the application and then distilling HMI‟s
further into components. Prototypes of HMI components could be individually evaluated and peer-reviewed
with a test application that stimulates them with data. The full capability environment for HMI component
development can be accomplished with three elements: the standard GUI evaluator (STAGE), adapted HMI
components to review (ACTORs), and a collaborative online review and update space (CORUS).

Human Factors Engineering/Human Systems Integration: Management and Applications.
The co-chairs for this SubTAG are Mr. Brad Collie, (Bradley.collie@navy.mil) and Daniel Wallace
(Daniel.wallace@navy.mil). The first presenter was Michael Salyer, Northrop Grumman Corp, who spoke on A
Review of Air Force and Joint Forces Capabilities Documents for HSI Requirements and Concerns. JCDs
and ICDs were reviewed for HSI requirements. CDDs and CPDs were also reviewed (sections 6 and 14. It was
determined that there are five levels of requirements:
    1. Clearly stated, verifiable, objective and threshold values, measurement criteria.
    2. Clearly stated, no measurable criteria
    3. Not clearly stated, cannot be verified, with rationale for HSI concept
    4. Not clearly stated, cannot be verified, with no rationale for HSI concept
    5. Not HSI.

The document most commonly containing HSI requirements was the CDD (53%of all HSI requirements). It
was determined that 90% of all HSI requirements were not verifiable. Within HSI, 61% of the HSI requirements
were in the Human Factors Engineering (HFE) domain. Eleven percent of all HSI requirements were KPPS
(5%) or KSAs (6%). There was a very high level of variability in terms of type; requirements were generally
poorly stated. There is a huge room for improvement.

The second presenter was Bonnie Novak, Serco, Inc. (bonnie.novak@serco-na.com), who spoke on HSI Port:
Current Capabilities & Future Enhancements. PORT is a Program On-line Review Tool. HSI Subject Matter
Experts (SMI) determined what HSI topics should be addressed at program reviews. HSI PORT was launched
two years ago to expedite HSI reviews. It is a common web-based forum, with standardized HSI questions for
all HSI domains. There are two main functions:
     Information Source: HSI PORT hosts 90 tools, metrics, DOD policies and points of contact.
     Review Source: Accesses program documentation and databases of questions used to assess programs.

HSI training courses are listed on the website: http://www.hsiport.serco-na.com. Contents include:
    Standard checklists
    Program documents
    HSI Assessment Reports



October 2, 2011                                                                  11
       Tools, metrics and guidance
       Password protection

After the rating is completed, the web site integrates the data and lists out: strengths, opportunities for
improvement. In the future, activities will concentrate on:
    HSI tutorial
    Links to reports
    Weighted risk assessment matrix
    Lessons Learned
    ROI statistics
    On-line chat forum to facilitate HSI decisions

For further information, contact Bonnie Novak or Bob Bost (bob.bost@serco-na.com).

The next presenter was Dr. Ken LaSala, KPL Systems (kplsys@verison.net) who spoke on Design
Collaboration Through REHMS-D (Reliable Human Machine Systems Developer). REHMS-D follows
the Systems Engineering process. It uses reliability as a metric for selection of human interface ant task
parameters.




The next presenter was Dr. Dale Nute, FSC Panama City, FL (dnute@pc.fsu.edu), who spoke on Underwater
Crime scene Investigation. He provided some insight into some of the unique requirements and experiences
involved with underwater crime scene investigation. FSU began the program at about the time of the USS Cole
attack The current approach is to pull up evidence from underwater and examine it at the surface. But, patterns
underwater can reveal evidence that can be missed. Customers for underwater crime scene investigation
include insurance companies, bridge/dam inspectors, environmental investigators. Underwater crime scene
investigators are part investigator, part scientist and part diver. Some of the tasks performed include location
and recognition of potential evidence, measurement and documentation of the scene and evidence, collection




October 2, 2011                                                                   12
and packaging of evidence, examination and interpretation of evidence at the scene. Areas of difference between
“normal” investigation and underwater investigation fall into four categories: time limitations, sensory
limitations, dexterity issues and hazards. New tools are always being sought to help see underwater, measure
underwater, document underwater and survive underwater. Robots and side-looking sonar, interfaced to a
network, would allow remote operations. Some of the detection equipment used include: eyes, binoculars,
photographs, thermal, remote operations vehicles, canines, magnetometers, metal detectors, ground penetrating
radar, sonar and chemical detectors.


Design Tools and Techniques SubTAG: Did not meet at TAG-57.

Workload and Stress SubTAG. Did not meet at TAG-57

Personnel Selection and Classification SubTAG: Not attended.

Sustained/Continuous Operations (SUSOPS/CONOPS) SubTAG: Not attended.

Human Factors Test and Evaluation SubTAG: Not attended.

Human Factors in Training SubTAG: Not attended.

Controls and Displays SubTAG: Not attended.

System Safety/Health Hazards/Survivability SubTAG. Not attended.


DOD HFE TAG Operating Board Meeting:

    1. TAG Reports: SubTAG chairs reported the numbers of presentations, charter changes and other items
        of interest.
    2. Service Reports:
         Army: Suggested holding some TAGs where there may not be a strong military presence but there is a
    strong industry presence
         Navy: Brad Collie is the new Service representative. The Navy requests that all papers and abstracts
    be placed on the TAG website and that the TAG theme be posted earlier to facilitate paper preparation.
         Air Force: Adrian Salinas will become the USAF Service representative in May 08. TAG-59 may be
    either at Hurlbert Field or Eglin AFB. The theme will be either best practices or unmanned systems. The
    USAF would like to see more emphasis placed papers emphasizing scientific method.
    3. Call for Papers: Future calls for papers will be linked to the web page. Sheryl will investigate
        electronic submission.
    4. Panel Facilitation: SubTAG chairs need to ensure that all panelists are in attendance and that there is
        an equal division of time available for each panelist.
    5. Dr. Foster Initiative: A white paper and accompanying charts will be prepared within the next 30 days
      on the “HSI Guidance to Industry” issue. The topics to be covered are need, progress, status and



October 2, 2011                                                                  13
     recommendations. When complete, they will be sent to the executive committee for action. Steve
     Merriman will prepare these documents.
   6. Operating Structure Changes: A discussion was held on changing the orientation of the TAG from
     HFE to HSI. While the Air force advocated this change, the Navy and Army preferred staying with HFE
     as the primary focus of the TAG. HFE is more aligned with science and engineering, while HSI is more
     of a management model. A vote was taken and it was confirmed that the TAG would remain aligned
     primarily aligned with HFE.
   7. Next TAG meeting: TAG-58 will emphasize extreme human factors engineering - Novel applications.

Submitted by:
Stephen C. Merriman
DoD HFE TAG, TS/I Credentialed EIA, SAFE, AsMA Representative
FCS MANPRINT Sr. Manager
3001 E. George Bush Highway, Suite 225
Richardson, TX    75082-2777
972-705-8219 (Office)
214-316-7071 (Cellular)
972-705-8098 (FAX)
stephen.c.merriman@boeing.com
scmerriman@tx.rr.com (Home)




October 2, 2011                                                             14
ATTACHMENT (1)

DOD HFE TAG Background

The DoD HFE TAG was begun via memorandum of agreement signed by the Service Secretaries in November
1976. Goals of the TAG were established as follows:

  •   Provide a mechanism for exchange of technical information in the development and application of human
      factors engineering.
  •   Enhance working level coordination among Government agencies involved in HFE technology research,
      development and application.
  •   Identify human factors engineering technical issues and technology gaps.
  •   Encourage and sponsor in-depth technical interaction, including subgroups as required in selected topical
      areas.
  •   Assist as required in the preparation and coordination of Tri-Service documents such as Technology
      Coordinating Papers and Topical Reviews.

The TAG addresses research and technologies designed to impact man-machine system development and
operation throughout the complete system life cycle. Topics include:

  •   Procedures for use by HFE specialists, system analysts and design engineers in providing HFE support
      during system development and modification
  •   Methodologies to identify and solve operator/maintainer problems related to equipment design, operation
      and cost/effectiveness
  •   Mechanisms for applying HFE technologies, including formal and informal approaches to validation and
      implementation, and the determination of time windows for application.

The TAG comprises technical representatives from Government agencies with research and development
responsibilities in the topical areas mentioned above. Additional representatives from activities with allied
interests affiliate with the TAG as appropriate. Technical experts in special topic areas may augment attendance
at specific meetings. Also participating in the TAG are official representatives of technical societies (e.g.,
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, SAFE Association) and industrial associations (e.g., Electronics
Industry Alliance) with a stated interest in HFE. These representatives may attend subgroup and general plenary
sessions and they must be credentialed by the TAG prior to attending any meetings.

To facilitate detailed technical information exchange, the TAG is composed of committees and subgroups, or
“Sub TAGs.” Committees are established to address specific issues or problems and are disestablished upon
completion of their tasks. Sub TAGs address problems of a general or continuing nature within a specific field
of HFE technology. Membership in Sub TAGs and committees may include non-government personnel
involved in research, development and application. Attendance by non-government individuals is possible if the
person is either sponsored by a government agency or if accepted by the TAG chair prior to the meeting.
Chairing of the various subgroups and committees is typically rotated among the Services and in some cases,
NASA, as provided in individual charters.

The current sub-groups typically meeting at the HFE TAG meeting were as follows.




October 2, 2011                                                                   15
Sub-TAGs:
    Controls and Displays
    Design: Tools and Techniques
    HFE/Human Systems Integration: Management and Applications
    Human Factors in Extreme Environments
    Human Factors and Operational Medicine
    Human Factors in Training
    Human Factors Standardization
    Human Factors Test and Evaluation
    Human Modeling and Simulation
    Personnel Selection and Classification
    Sustained/Continuous Operations Core Competencies
    System Safety/Health Hazards/Survivability Core Competencies
    Technical Society/Industry
    User-Computer Interaction
    Workload and Stress

Affiliated Groups:
    Mission Centric Human Performance Measurement Interest Group
    Human Robotic Interaction Interfaces Special Interest Group (New)
    Craft Bio-dynamics Special Interest Group (New)




October 2, 2011                                                          16
ATTACHMENT (2) TAG-57 Meeting Theme

                      Reducing Risk through Collaboration

Government acquisition and research processes are often characterized as highly formalized and
complex with multiple stakeholders who have competing interests. When a research or acquisition
program encounters technological challenges that may increase program risk via cost overruns,
slipped schedules, or poor performance outcomes, hastily improvised solutions have been met with
varying degrees of success. Technology woes often filter down to the human-machine interface and
become an additional burden to the user. This meeting of the DoD HFE TAG will focus on efforts to
reduce risk through collaboration for government-procured systems and government-funded research
programs.

Effective collaboration has been credited with lowering costs, reducing development time,
accelerating information exchange, reducing unnecessary redundancy, improving usability, and
driving innovation. Human Factors engineers and Human Systems Integration (HSI) practitioners can
participate in multiple collaborative efforts at different stages in the development cycle to reduce risk.
For example, they can be members of (1) a multidisciplinary acquisition team in which they work
engineering design issues, (2) a joint services HSI team working AIRPRINT, MANPRINT, and
SEAPRINT issues, and/or (3) research programs with academia and industry partners.

The goal of TAG-57 is to provide a forum for participants from the military and other government
agencies to discuss HSI within the context of collaboration, cooperation, and partnerships that have
reduced risk or have the potential to do so. Suggested topic areas include:

            • Building partnerships
            • Case studies, success stories, and lessons learned
            • Developing effective strategies
            • Facilitating collaboration, communication, and information sharing
            • Innovative and best practices
            • Leveraging resources
            • Managing complexity and risk
            • Overcoming obstacles
            • Sharing tools, methods, laboratories, and technologies
            • Technology transfer




October 2, 2011                                                               17
ATTACHMENT (3)
                                   PROGRAM SUMMARY

Monday 14 May 2007
0830 - 1000 Executive Committee meeting
1000 - 1100 New member orientation
1100 - 1300 Luncheon Break
1300 - 1700 Plenary Session
1800 - 2000 TAG Mixer
Tuesday 15 May 2007
0730 - 0830 Technical Society/Industry
0830 - 1100 Human Factors Test and Evaluation
0830 - 1100 Personnel Screening and Selection
0830 - 1100 Human Robotics Interface/Interaction Special Interest Group
0930 - 1000 Networking, coffee
1100 - 1230 Luncheon Break
1230 - 1430 Human Factors Standardization
1230 - 1430 Controls and Displays
1230 - 1700 Human Factors in Training
1430 - 1500 Networking, coffee
1500 - 1700 Human Factors in Extreme Environments
1500 - 1700 Craft Biodynamics Special Interest Group
1700 - 1830 TS/I and Service Caucuses
Wednesday 16 May 2007
0730 - 0830 Distributed and Dismounted Warfare Special Interest Group
0830 - 1100 Human Modeling and Simulation
0830 - 1100 Workload and Stress
0930 - 1000 Networking, coffee
1100 - 1230 Luncheon Break
1230 - 1430 Design: Tools and Techniques
1230 - 1430 User-Computer Interaction
1430 - 1500 Networking, coffee
1500 - 1700 Human Factors Engineering/Human Systems Integration: Management and
Applications
1500 - 1700 System Safety/Health Hazards/Survivability
1800 - 2200 Social
Thursday 17 May 2007
0800 - 0930 Operating Board
1015 - 1700 Tour (unofficial times – brown bag lunch available for purchase)
Note – The Workload and Stress, Design: Tools and Techniques, and the Sustained/Continuous
Operations subTAGs will not meet at TAG-57.




October 2, 2011                                                            18
ATTACHMENT (4) DoD HFE TAG Operating Board



     Executive Committee

     Proponent
     Robert E. Foster, Ph.D.
     Director, BioSystems
     ODUSD(S&T)/ODDR&E/OUSD(AT&L)
     3080 Defense Pentagon, Rm. 3E801
     Washington, DC 20301-3080
     (703) 588-7437; DSN 425-7437; FAX (703) 588-7560
     robert.foster@osd.mil
     Top-Executive Committee Listing


     Current Chair (Air Force)
     Mr. Adrian Salinas
     Engineer, HSI CONOPS Division
     2485 Gillingham Drive
     Brooks City-Base, TX 78235-5115
     (210) 536-4428 ; DSN 240-4428; FAX (210) 536-4475
     adrian.salinas@brooks.af.mil
     Top-Executive Committee Listing


     Vice Chair (Army)
     Ms. Katrina Baker
     ARL-HRED
     Attn: AMSRD-ARL-HR-M
     Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425
     (410) 278-5856; DSN 298-5856; FAX (410) 278-3988
     katrina.anne.baker@arl.army.mil
     Top-Executive Committee Listing


     Immediate Past Chair (Navy)
     Ms. Maureen Bergondy-Wilhelm
     NAVAIR Orlando TSD, AIR-4961
     12350 Research Pkwy.
     Orlando, FL 32826-3275
     (407) 380-4777; DSN 960-4777; FAX (407) 380-4110
     maureen.bergondy@navy.mil
     Top-Executive Committee Listing




October 2, 2011                                          19
     Army Representative
     Dr. Pamela Savage-Knepshield
     Attn: AMSRD-ARL-HR-ML
     Myer Center Rm. 2D311
     Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703-5630
     (732) 427-3854; DSN 987-3854; FAX (732) 427-3184
     pam.savageknepshield@us.army.mil
     Top-Executive Committee Listing


     Navy Representative
     LT Brent Olde
     OR Dept, Naval Postgraduate School
     1411 Cunningham Rd., Rm. 231E
     Monterey, CA 93943
     (831) 656-3807; FAX (831) 656-2595
     baolde@nps.edu
     Top-Executive Committee Listing


     Air Force Representative
     Mr. Darren Cole
     118 East Jones Rd., Bldg. 145
     Edwards AFB, CA 93524-8290
     (661) 275-0171; FAX (661) 275-0240
     darren.cole@edwards.af.mil
     Top-Executive Committee Listing


     FAA Representative
     Dr. Thomas McCloy
     FAA; ATO-P R&D, Rm. 907
     800 Independence Ave., S.W.
     Washington, DC 20591
     (202) 267-7167; FAX (202) 267-5797
     tom.mccloy@faa.gov
     Top-Executive Committee Listing


     NASA Representative
     Ms. Faith Chandler
     NASA Headquarters
     300 E St., SW
     Washington, DC 20546
     (202) 358-0411; FAX (202) 358-2778
     fchandle@hq.nasa.gov
     Top-Executive Committee Listing




October 2, 2011                                         20
     Program Coordinator
     Ms. Sheryl Cosing
     10822 Crippen Vale Ct.
     Reston, VA 20194
     (703) 925-9791; FAX (703) 925-9694
     scosing@comcast.net
     Top-Executive Committee Listing



     Ex Officio Members - SubTAG Chairs

     Controls and Displays
       Co-Chairs:
           Ms. Marianne Paulsen
           NSWC-PC
           110 Vemon Ave., Code E24
           Panama City, FL 32407-7001
           (850) 235-5527; FAX (850) 235-5511
           marianne.paulsen@navy.mil

                  Mr. Justin Kingsford
                  NSWC Dahlgren
                  17320 Dahlgren Road
                  Dahlgren, VA 22448
                  (540) 653-2508; FAX (540) 653-0831
                  justin.kingsford@navy.mil
     Top-SubTAG List


     Design: Tools and Techniques
       Co-Chairs:
           Dr. Pamela Savage-Knepshield
           Attn: AMSRD-ARL-HR-ML
           Myer Center Rm. 2D311
           Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703-5630
           (732) 427-3854; DSN 987-3854; FAX (732) 427-3184
           pam.savageknepshield@us.army.mil

                  Mr. Jeffrey Thomas
                  US Army Research Lab., Bldg. 459
                  Attn: AMSRD-ARL-HR-SE
                  Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425
                  (410) 278-5854; DSN 298-5854; FAX (410) 278-5923
                  jthomas@arl.army.mil



October 2, 2011                                                      21
     Top-SubTAG List


     Human Factors Engineering/Human Systems Integration: Management and Applications
       Co-Chairs:
           Mr. Brad Collie
           Naval Surface Warfare Center - Panama City
           110 Vernon Ave., Code E23
           Panama City, FL 32407-7001
           (850) 234-4744; FAX (850) 235-5152
           bradley.collie@navy.mil

                  Mr. Daniel Wallace
                  NAVSEA Dahlgrenr
                  17320 Dahlgren Rd.
                  Dahlgren, VA 22448
                  (202) 781-2598; FAX (202) 781-4778
                  daniel.wallace@navy.mil
     Top-SubTAG List


     Human Factors in Extreme Environments
     Mihriban Whitmore
     NASA/JSC
     2101 NASA Road One
     Houston, TX 77058
     (281) 244-1004; FAX (281) 483-3789
     mihriban.whitmore-1@nasa.gov
     Top-SubTAG List


     Human Factors in Training
       Co-Chairs:
           Dr. John Stewart
           Army Research Institute
           (Attn: TAPC-ARI-IR), Bldg. 5100
           Ft. Rucker, AL 36362-5354
           (334) 255-9109; DSN 558-9109; FAX (334) 255-9025
           john.e.stewart@us.army.mil

                  Dr. Brooke Schaab
                  US Army Research Institute
                  US Joint Forces Command J9
                  115 lake View Industrial Pkwy.
                  Suffolk, VA 23435
                  (757) 203-3306
                  brooke.schaab@us.army.mil



October 2, 2011                                                      22
     Top-SubTAG List


     Human Factors Standardization
     Mr. David Britton
     ASC/ENFC, Bldg. 560
     2530 Loop Rd. West
     Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7101
     (937) 255-2030; DSN 785-2030; FAX (937) 255-8063
     david.britton@wpafb.af.mil
     Top-SubTAG List


     Human Factors Test and Evaluation
       Co-Chairs:
           Mr. Darren Cole
           118 East Jones Rd., Bldg. 145
           Edwards AFB, CA 93524-8290
           (661) 275-0171; FAX (661) 275-0240
           darren.cole@edwards.af.mil

                  Ms. Trish Hamburger
                  NAVSEA HSI Directorate
                  17320 Dahlgreen Rd.
                  Dahlgreen, VA 22485
                  (540) 653-1119; FAX (540) 653-3607
                  patricia.hamburger@navy.mil
     Top-SubTAG List


     Human Modeling and Simulation
     LT Jeff Grubb
     NAVAIR
     48110 Shaw Rd., Ste. 2280-D9
     Patuxent River, MD 20670
     (301) 342-9284
     jeff.grubb@navy.mil
     Top-SubTAG List


     Personnel Selection and Classification
       Co-Chairs:
           LT Tatana Olson, Ph.D., MSC, USNR
           Naval Operational Medicine Institute
           Operational Psychology Department
           340 Hulse Rd.
           Pensacola, FL 32508-1092



October 2, 2011                                         23
                  (850) 452-2257 x 1090
                  tmolson@nomi.med.navy.mil

                  Dr. Larry Katz
                  Army Research Institute, Rotary Wing Aviation Research Unit (ARI-RWARU)
                  Attn: DEPE-ARI-IR
                  Fort Rucker, AL 36362-5354
                  (334) 255-2385
                  lawrence.c.katz@conus.army.mil
     Top-SubTAG List


     Sustained/Continuous Operations
       Co-Chairs:
            LCDR Walter Carr
            NMETC & NIH/NIDCD
            5512 Charles St.
            Bethesda, MD 20814
            (301) 435-5144
            carrw@nmrc.navy.mil

                  Thomas E. Nesthus, Ph.D.
                  FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute
                  Human Factors Research Lab. (AAM-510)
                  P.O. Box 25082
                  Oklahoma City, OK 73125
                  (405) 954-6297; FAX (405) 954-4852
                  tom.nesthus@faa.gov
     Top-SubTAG List


     System Safety/Health Hazards/Survivability
       Co-Chairs:
           George Murnyak
           USACHPPM, Attn: MCHB-TS-OHH
           5158 Blackhawk Rd.
           Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5403
           (410) 436-2925; DSN 584-2925: FAX (410) 436-1016
           george.murnyak@amedd.army.mil

                  Barbara Palmer
                  1900 Founders Dr., Ste. 300
                  Dayton, OH 45420
                  (937) 781-2803; FAX: (937) 781-2808
                  palmer_barbara@bah.com
     Top-SubTAG List




October 2, 2011                                                                 24
     Technical Society/Industry
     Dr. Jennifer Narkevicius
     23415 Three Notch Rd., Ste. 2008-148
     California, MD 20619
     (972) 900-2014
     jnarkevicius@jeniussolutions.com
     Top-SubTAG List


     User-Computer Interaction
       Co-Chairs:
           LT Nausheen Momen
           NAMRL
           280 Fred Bauer St.
           Pensacola, FL 32526
           (850) 452-3668; DSN: 922-3668; FAX: (850) 452-9290
           nmomen@kent.edu

                  Mr. Steve Merriman
                  The Boeing Company
                  Future Combat Systems
                  LSI MANPRINT Lead
                  3001 E. George Bush Hwy., Ste. 225
                  Richardson, TX 75082-2777
                  (972) 705-8219; cell (214) 316-7071
                  stephen.c.merriman@boeing.com
     Top-SubTAG List


     Workload and Stress
     Ms. Debra Patton
     ARL HRED, Bldg. 459
     ATTN: AMSRL-HR
     Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425
     (410) 278-5890; DSN 298-5890
     dpatton@arl.army.mil
     Top-SubTAG List




October 2, 2011                                                 25
     Affiliated Groups


     Mission Centric Human Performance Measurement Interest Group
     Mr. John Rice
     Navy Human Performance Center
     COMOPTEVFOR Detachment
     7970 Diven St.
     Norfolk, VA 23505
     (757) 282-5546 x 3802; FAX (757) 282-5532; Cell (757) 318-0671
     ricej@cotf.navy.mil




October 2, 2011                                                       26
ATTACHMENT (5) DoD HFE TAG Attendees




October 2, 2011                        27
ATTACHMENT (6) DoD HFE TAG Policies


1. Membership (General membership policies are outlined in the Operating Structure, under "Group Composition.")

         1.1 Individuals who are not affiliated with Government agencies (but who are associated with technical societies
         or industrial associations with a stated interest in human factors engineering) wishing to affiliate with the TAG
         may contact the current Technical Society/Industry SubTAG Chair to ascertain eligibility under the TAG
         Operating Structure. Once eligibility has been ascertained, the individual should submit a letter on the
         organization's letterhead, confirming his/her status as the organization's representative, to the current Chair of the
         Technical Society/Industry SubTAG.

         1.2 Emeritus Membership may be approved by the Executive Committee on a case-by-case basis for a former
         TAG member who is retired from government service or defense industry. Emeritus Membership is
         automatically deactivated during any period or re-employment with the government or defense industry.

2. Meeting Sites (Sites are recommended by the service caucus whose turn it is to host the TAG with a view toward a
balance in geographic location and meeting facilities.)

         2.1 TAG members are encouraged to recommend potential meeting sites.

         2.2 Organizations who wish to host the TAG should contact their Service Representative or the current TAG
         Chair.

3. Agenda (The agenda is determined approximately three months before the scheduled meeting. The Chair Select
selects the topics from those recommended by the Service Representatives, hosting agency and the TAG Coordinator.)

         3.1 TAG members are encouraged to suggest potential agenda topics or topics suitable for tutorial sessions to
         their Service Representative, the current TAG Chair, or the TAG Coordinator.

4. Registration (Registration fees and the date of the close of registration are announced in an information letter sent
approximately two months before the scheduled meeting.)

         4.1 All attendees are expected to pre-register and prepay by the announced close of registration.

         4.2 Only individuals receiving late travel approvals may pre-register on-site. Payments made at the meeting site
         must be in cash.

5. Minutes (The Minutes of each meeting serve as the principal mechanism for the reporting of TAG activities. The
Minutes will be published as a draft document on the website.)

         5.1 Individuals or agencies desiring to be included on the distribution list for a specific meeting should contact
         the TAG Coordinator.

6. SubTAGs and Committees (See the Operating Structure, section entitled "TAG SubTAGs," for specific information
regarding the purposes and operating procedures of SubTAGs and committees.)

         6.1 All SubTAGs and committees are encouraged to meet in conjunction with the TAG at least once each
         calendar year.




 October 2, 2011                                                                             28
        6.2 All SubTAGs and committees meeting in conjunction with the TAG are required to provide a chairperson for
        the specific meeting.

        6.3 All SubTAG and committee chairpersons are to submit a brief report of each meeting to be included in the
        set of TAG Minutes covering the SubTAG/committee meeting time frame.

        6.4 All SubTAGs and committees are required to provide the TAG Coordinator with an up-to-date list of their
        membership for use in the distribution of TAG announcements.

        6.5 All SubTAGs are required to submit to the Executive Committee a Charter including, but not limited to,
        statements regarding:

                          objectives          membership policies            meeting schedule
                          scope               chair selection/tenure

  6.6 Committees are required to submit to the Executive Committee a document including, but not limited to, brief
      statements regarding:

                                           objectives
                                           membership policies
                                           chair selection/tenure

   6.7 Rotation of the chair position is determined by SubTAG charter. If the position cannot be filled by the
       appropriate service at the election meeting, the SubTAG may progress to the next service willing to chair the
       SubTAG

7. SubTAG Establishment

   7.1 Groups interested in addressing technical areas not covered by existing SubTAGs may request the TAG Chair to
       provide meeting time.

        7.2 Formal SubTAGs and committees may be established by recommendation of the Executive Committee.

8. Chair/Representative Selection (General selection procedures are outlined in the Operating Structure under
"Conduct of Business.")

   8.1 A Service caucus may be called by the TAG Chair or the current Service Representative.

        8.2 Methods of determining the Chair Select and Service Representatives are Service dependent.

   8.3 Unexpired terms of office will be filled by appointment by the Executive Committee, until a caucus of the
       Service can be called at the next regularly scheduled TAG meeting.

9. Funding The funding required for the organization, conduct, franking, and documentation of all TAG meetings shall
be done jointly by the three Services and other selected agencies. The specific mechanisms to obtain and allocate
funding from the Services/agencies shall be arranged by the Current Chair, Chair Select, and Immediate Past Chair.

10. Policy Changes




October 2, 2011                                                                         29
    10.1 Additions to or amendments of the above policies may be recommended by submitting the suggested change(s)
in writing to the TAG Chair.

   10.2 Policies may be amended by a majority vote of those Operating Board members in attendance at the Operating
        Board meeting at which amendments have been proposed.

Amended 14 November 1989 at TG-23, Killeen, Texas.

Amended 3 May 1994 at TAG-32, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Amended 8 May 1996 at TAG-36, Houston, Texas.

Amended 7 November 2002 at TAG-48, Alexandria, Virginia.




October 2, 2011                                                                      30

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:22
posted:10/3/2011
language:English
pages:30