Human Systems Integration

The US Navy initiated the Military Manpower versus Hardware (HARDMAN) Methodology in 1977 to address problems with manpower, personnel and training in the service.[7] In 1980, The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine established the Committee on Human Factors, which was later renamed the Committee on Human Systems Integration.[8] The modern concept of Human Systems Integration in the United States originated in 1986 as a US Army program called the Manpower and Personnel Integration (MANPRINT) program.[9]  With ties to the academic fields of industrial engineering and experimental psychology, MANPRINT incorporated human factors engineering with manpower, personnel and training domains into an integrated discipline.[10] MANPRINT focused on the needs and capabilities of the soldier during the development of military systems, and MANPRINT framed a human-centered focus in six domains: human factors engineering, manpower, personnel, training, health hazards and system safety.[11] The US Marine Corps, a component of the Navy, implemented aspects of both HARDMAN and MANPRINT programs to achieve HSI objectives, issuing a formal HSI policy in Marine Corps Order 5000.22 in 1994.[12] The US Air Force began an HSI program in 1982 as "IMPACTS".[10] Modern HSI programs abandoned early acronyms such as HARDMAN, MANPRINT and IMPACTS over the course of the development of their HSI programs.[13][14] For example, the Air Force currently manages HSI through the Air Force Office of Human Systems Integration (AFHSIO). The US Coast Guard implemented an HSI program in 2000[15] in the strategy and HR capability division (CG-1B) of the human resources directorate. The US Department of Homeland Security initiated an HSI program under the Science and Technology Directorate in 2007, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) initiated a focused HSI effort under the umbrella of DHS S&T in 2018.[15] The Federal Rail Administration (under the National Transportation Safety Board) and NASA Ames Research Center also address HSI. The United Kingdom, Canada,[16] Australia and New Zealand have HSI programs similarly rooted in human factors and modeled after the Army MANPRINT program.[10] In Europe HSI is known as Human Factors Integration.

DoD acquisition policy to formalize manpower, personnel, training and safety processes started in 1988.[12] HSI as a distinct focus area was first addressed in the Operation of the Defense Acquisition System (DODINST 5000.02) issued in 2003.[17] Updated in 2008, this policy expanded the six domains in the MANPRINT program to seven, re-focusing systems safety as safety and occupational health, and adding habitability and survivability to the list.[18] In 2010, the National Academy of Sciences committee on Human Systems Integration was transitioned to a board under the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The Board on Human Systems Integration (BOHSI) issues consensus studies, reports and proceedings on HSI research and application.[8] A 2013 update of the DODINST 5000.02 added force protection to the survivability domain.[19]  In 2020, the DODINST 5000.02 title and content shifted to the "Operation of the Adaptive Acquisition framework", which describes HSI activities tailored to each acquisition pathway, according to the unique characteristics of the capability being required.[20]

The Defense Acquisition Guidebook, first published in 2002,[21] devotes an entire chapter to manpower planning and HSI. In addition to focused discussion on each domain, the DAG emphasizes viewing HSI from a total system perspective, viewing the human components of a system as integral to the total system as any other component or subsystem. The DAG emphasizes the importance of representing HSI in all aspects of programmatic Integrated Product and Process Development, strategic planning and risk management.[3]

The Standard Practice for Human Systems Integration (SAE 6906) was issued in 2019, and defines standard practices for procurement activities related to HSI. The standard is provided for industry to apply HSI during system design, through disposal and all related activities. This standard includes an overview of HSI and the domains, the domain relationships and tradeoffs, systems development process requirements, and a number of technical standard references[22]

ASTM F1337-10 Standard Practice for Human Systems Integration Program Requirements for Ships and Marine Systems, Equipment and Facilities

DI-HFAC 81743 Human Systems Integration Program Plan

Human Factors Engineering (HFE) is an engineering discipline that ensures human capabilities and limitations in areas such as perception, cognition, sensory and physical attributes are incorporated into requirements and design.[3] Effective HFE ensures that systems design capitalizes on, and does not exceed, the abilities of the human user population.[3] HFE can reduce the scope of manpower and training requirements, and ensure the system can be operated maintained and supported by users, in a habitable, safe and survivable manner.[3] HFE is concerned with designing human-systems interfaces such as:[3]

• Functional interfaces: functions, tasks, and allocation of functions to human or automation
• Informational interfaces: information and characteristics of information that support understanding and awareness of the environment and system
• Environmental interfaces: natural and artificial environments, environmental controls, and facility design
• Cooperational interfaces: provisions for team performance, cooperation and collaboration
• Organizational interfaces: job design, management structure, policies and regulations that impact behavior
• Cognitive interfaces: decision rules, decision support systems, provisioning for situational awareness and mental models.
• Physical interfaces: hardware and software elements such as controls, displays, workstations, worksites, accesses, labels and markings, structures, steps and ladders, handholds, maintenance provisions, and more.

Technical standards and requirements:

ASTM F1166-07 Standard Practice for Human Engineering Design for Marine Systems, Equipment and Facilities

HFES-200 Human Factors Engineering of Software User Interfaces

MIL-STD 46855 Human Engineering Requirements for Military Systems, Equipment and Facilities

MIL-STD 1472 DoD Design Criteria Standard for Human Engineering

FAA Human Factors Design Standards (HFDS) HF-STD-001B

HFE Data Information Descriptions:

Human Engineering Program Plan (HEPP) DI-HFAC- 81742

Human Engineering Systems Analysis Report (HESAR) DI-HFAC-80745

Human Engineering Design Approach Document (HEDAD-M) DI-HFAC-80747

Human Engineering Design Approach Document (HEDAD-O) DI-HFAC-80746

Human Engineering Test Plan (HETP) DI-HFAC-80743

Human Engineering Test Reports (HETR) DI-HFAC-80744

Manpower focuses on evaluating and defining the right mix of personnel (sometimes referred to as "spaces") for people to operate, maintain and support a system. Manpower requirements should be based on task analysis and consider workload, fatigue, physical and sensory overload, environmental conditions (heat/cold) and reduced visibility. Manpower requirements are the highest cost driver for a system, and can account for up to 70% of the total lifecycle cost.[3] Requirements are based on the full range of operations from a low operational tempo, peacetime scenario to continuous sustained operations, and should include consideration for surge operations capacity. In the manpower analysis process, labor-intensive "high driver tasks" should be examined, and targeted for engineering design changes to reduce the manpower requirement through automation, or improved usability in design. A top down functional analysis can be the basis for determinations of which functions can be eliminated, consolidated, or simplified to control manpower costs.[3]

DoD manpower policy comes from DoD Directive 1100.4, Guidance for Manpower Management

The personnel domain is concerned with the human performance characteristics of the user population (cognitive, sensory and physical skills, knowledge, experience and abilities) of operators, maintainers and support staff required for a system.[4] Cost effective engineering designs minimize personnel requirements, and keep them consistent with the user population. Systems that require new or advance personnel requirements will experience cost increases in other domains, such as training.[3] The user group identified for a system may be referred to as the "target audience". The target audience is situated within a larger organizational structure, and recruitment, retention and personnel policies that may impact or be impacted by the new system should be considered. HSI and the personnel domain may impact policy, or policy may impact HSI. For example, the system may require additional recruitment to sustain the organizational workforce while employing the new system. An example of policy impacting HSI is increased diversity in the user population that may alter anthropometric requirements for the system and impact requirements in the HFE domain.[3]

Manpower and personnel standards include:

Standard Practice for Manpower and Personnel SAE1010

The training domain is concerned with giving the target audience the opportunity to acquire, gain or enhance the knowledge, skills and abilities needed to operate, maintain and support a system.[3][26] The target audience may be individuals or groups; training in a systems engineering / acquisition setting is focused on job-relevant knowledge, skills and abilities aimed at satisfying performance levels specific to the system being designed.[23] Training the operators, maintainers and support personnel to conduct their respective tasks is a component of the total system and a part of delivering the intended capability of the system.[3] This includes the integration of training concepts and strategies with elements of logistics support, including technical manuals and procedures, interactive electronic technical manuals, job performance aids, computer based interactive courseware, simulators, and actual equipment, including embedded training capabilities on actual equipment.[23] Training is an important aspect of configuration management: it is critical that training impacts of any and all changes to the system are evaluated.[23] The objective of training is to develop and sustain ready, well trained personnel while reducing lifecycle costs, contributing to a positive readiness outcome.[3] The industry standard practice to develop cost effective training is instructional systems design.

Training standards include:

USA:

Guidance for the Acquisition of Training Data Products and Services (Part 1 of 5) MIL-HDBK 29612/1

Instructional Systems Development/Systems Approach to Training and Education (Part 2 of 5) MIL-HDBK 29612/2

UK

JSP 882 Defence Direction and Guidance for Training and Education

The environment, safety and occupational health domain is focused on determining system design characteristics that minimize risks to human health and physical wellbeing such as acute or chronic illness, disability death, or injury.[4] In a physical system design, systems safety works closely with systems engineers to identify, document, design out, or mitigate system hazards and reduce residual risk from those hazards.[5] The three areas that must be considered are:[3]

• environment, or the natural and manmade conditions in and around the system and the operational context of the system
• safety factors in systems design that minimize the potential for mishaps, such as walking surfaces, work at heights, pressure extremes, confined spaces, control of hazardous energy releases, fire and explosions[3]
• occupational health: system design features that minimize the risk of injury, acute or chronic illness, or disability or reduce long term job performance from hazards such as noise, chemicals, atmospheric hazards (such as confined spaces), vibration, radiation and repetitive motion injuries.

A health hazard analysis should be performed periodically during the system lifecycle to identify risks, initiating the risk management process.[3] In DoD programs, program managers must prepare a Programmatic Environmental, Safety and Occupational Health Evaluation (PESHE) which is an overall evaluation of ESOH risks for the program, and documents the progress of HHA program monitoring.[4]

Systems safety is grounded in a risk management process but Safety risk management has a unique set of processes and procedures. For example, identified hazards should be designed out of the system whenever possible, either through selecting a different design, or altering the design to eliminate the hazard. If a design change isn't feasible, engineered features or devices should be added to interrupt the hazard and prevent a mishap. Warnings (devices, signs or signals) are the next best mitigation, but are considered to be far less beneficial to preventing mishaps. The last resort is personal protective equipment to protect people from the hazard, and training (knowledge skills and abilities to protect against the hazard and prevent a mishap). HFE review and involvement with design interventions introduced to address hazards is an important connection between the systems safety and HFE domain specialists. Design interventions may have manpower and personnel implications, and training mitigations for hazards must be incorporated into continued operator and maintainer training in order to sustain the training intervention.

Systems safety standards include:

USA:

MIL-STD 882 System Safety

UK:

Defence Policy for Health, Safety and Environmental Protection (DSA 01.1)

Survivability is design features that reduce the risk of fratricide, detection and probability of an attack, and enable the crew to continue the mission and avoid acute or chronic illness, severe injury, disability or death in hostile environments.[3][4] Elements of survivability include reducing susceptibility to a mishap or attack (protection against detection for example) and minimizing potential wounds or injury to personnel operating and maintaining the system. Survivability also includes protection from chemical, biological, radioactive and nuclear (CBRN) threats. and should include requirements to preserve integrity of the crew compartment, rapid egress in case of system destruction, and emergency systems for contingency management, escape, survival and rescue[3]

Survivability is often categorized in the following topics:[3]

• Reduce Fratricide
• Reduce detectability
• Reduce probability of attack
• Minimize damage if attacked
• Minimize injury
• Minimize mental and physical fatigue
• Survive extreme environments

Habitability is the application of human centered design to the physical environment (living areas, personal hygiene facilities, working areas, living areas, and personnel support areas) to sustain and optimize morale, safety, health, comfort and quality of life of personnel.[4] Design aspects such as lighting; space; ventilation and sanitation; noise and temperature control; religious, medical and food services availability; berthing, bathing and personal hygiene are all aspects of habitability, and directly contribute to personnel effectiveness and mission accomplishment.[3]

Habitability Standards Include:

Color Coordination Manual for Habitability DI-MISC 81123

Design Criteria Limits Noise Standards MIL-STD 1474