Challenges & Tools for Effective Soldier System Integration

1. Soldier Systems Technology RoadmapHuman and Systems Integration Workshop Challenges & Tools for Effective Soldier System Integration By Linda Bossi, Head/Human Systems Integration Section DRDC Toronto September 21-22, 2010 Château Cartier Gatineau, Que.

2. OUTLINE • HSI Process • HSI Input to Soldier System Acquisition • HSI Tools used in Soldier System Integration • Importance of User Input • What is needed for more effective HSI within DND soldier systems acquisition

3. Human Systems Integration: the technical process of integrating the 5 HSI domains with a materiel system to ensure safe, effective operability and supportability of the system: Human Factors Engineering Manpower and Personnel Training System Safety Health Hazard Assessment

4. HSI in acquisition DNDAF Human Views Tool Development Stakeholder Collaboration User Input DLR 5, DSSPM, DRDC Operational Clothing and Individual Equipment Working Group (OPCIEWG) DRDC S&T Programme SSTRM Workshops International Partnerships & Leverage NATO LCG1/RTO ABCA/TTCP (HUM TP 15 – HSI Land) Bilateral Arrangements (US, AUS, NL) How do we ensure HSI is considered in Soldier Systems?

5. Monitor system performance & acceptability Baseline System Performance User Surveys Fitting Trials & Sizing Tariffs Production & Implementation User Acceptance Trials SOR Input Statement of Requirements Select Option(s) Bid Evals Specification Development Test and Evaluation Controlled Usability Trials Design Development of realistic, measurable performance-based specifications Human Lab and Field trials Equipment Bench Tests HSI Advice to Design Teams

7. Questionnaire-based system for the efficient collection, analysis and reporting of representative, unbiased user feedback Complements and overcomes limitations of existing feedback mechanisms Permits critical user input throughout equipment development, acquisition and life cycle management identify deficiencies specify user requirements develop equipment performance and test criteria validate acquisition success monitor user satisfaction post-implementation Army Combat Clothing & Equipment Survey System (ACCESS)

8. 1997 Land Forces Anthropometric Survey • Measured 708 Land Forces personnel (465 males, 243 females) • Selected through random sampling • 200 traditional measures (140 direct, 60 indirect) • also took 2D body and 3D head scans

9. How Representative is the 1997 Survey of Current Land Forces? • Survey is dated – does it reflect current population anthropometry? • There is growing evidence that the survey may not adequately represent the larger soldiers: • HF equipment trials with Land Forces, predominantly combat arms • Clothing and equipment issue – insufficient numbers of large sizes, increasing numbers of “special fits” of larger personnel • Before embarking on a new Land Force survey, is there a way to validate the relevancy/currency of the 1997 survey? • Fortunately, Canada has developed and implemented a 2D body scanning system and has been capturing derived anthropometric data since 2003

10. Body Scanning System (BoSS XXI)

11. Simultaneous capture of 2 high resolution images (front & side) Image processing software analyzes images Automatically detects several anthro landmarks Calculates 3D location of each landmark Uses algorithms to calculate various body dimensions Applies garment sizing rules to recommend initial garment size as a start point for fitting BoSS XXI – How does it work?

12. 64 anthro measures captured on 3,452 military personnel between 2003 and end-2009 1,776 were from Land Forces (86% male, 14% female) 700 were Combat Arms Data currently limited to measures relevant to clothing sizing BoSS XXI Anthro Data Set

13. Statistical comparison undertaken between 6 select measures, common to both datasets: Stature Neck Circumference (at base of neck) Neck Circumference (at collar) Chest Circumference Waist Circumference (at natural indentation of waist) Out-seam Sleeve Length Comparison of 1997 LF Survey and BoSS XXI Datasets

14. 177.8 164.8 175.4 163.6 177.4 Combat Arms Male Stature Female Stature 175.5 Male Stature t(1990)=5.1, p<0.01 Results for Stature t-test comparisons t(942)=4.7, p<0.01 t(490)=2.24, p=0.025

15. Male Combat Arms Stature Comparison Summary

16. Other Comparisons

17. BoSS XXI does not capture the detailed information obtained through traditional anthro surveys It does allow continuous and efficient capture of relevant information to characterize the general size and shape of the population (or sub-sets) It may be possible to use recent BoSS XXI data to forecast changes from the 1997 survey for other dimensions not captured using pattern matching Missing information could be replaced by data from a subject with a similar profile across other known sources (e.g., 1997 survey) Stay tuned for outcome, which could influence future soldier system acquisition Way Ahead

18. Knowledge of clothed/encumbered soldier size and shape will be critical for integration in future fighting vehicles Last clothed anthro survey was in 1996 Dramatic changes since in soldier clothing, PPE, fighting order loads carried Expedient methods adopted for near-term vehicle acquisition Photogrammetry Compressed Clothing Thicknesses User/Vehicle Fit/Accommodation Trials Next Challenge – Clothed Anthro for Workspace Modelling

19. Applicable only for length, breadth and depth measures. Does not take into account the compression of clothing that occurs when seated in vehicle compartment.

20. Continued use of percentiles to specify fit requirements for new clothing and equipment Mil Std 1472 and all draft SORs/specs require fit/accommodation of 5th percentile female to 95th percentile male This approach is promoted by the publication of Anthro Summary Statistics vice raw data with tools to properly apply the data Need to educate staff from each new project about multivariate approach to population accommodation Need to develop easy-to-use and affordable tools for non HF staff to be able to properly apply anthropometric data Other Anthropometry Challenges

21. Percentiles make sense for one variable

22. What happens with 2 variables?

23. What is the true accommodation? • Percentiles left out an additional 8% of the population • The fundamental problem is that dimensions are usually not well correlated; people vary in proportion, shape and size

24. Need human/workspace modelling tools for soldier/vehicle integration analysis and workspace design Ideally integrating Canadian 3D clothed anthro Workspace Modeling and Analysis

25. Suite of objective biomechanical measurement tools For characterizing the biomechanical impact of clothing, PPE and loads on soldiers For rapid iterative prototype design & analysis Advanced Personal Load Carriage System (APLCS)

26. Z-Axis Torque T12 L4 Biomechanical Modeling Tools • Rapid virtual prototyping and analysis • To assess implications of soldier equipment design on soldier biomechanics and task performance • Need affordable efficient models that incorporate current Canadian soldier anthropometry, clothing, PPE, personal equipment and key tasks • Need to make the tools available to designers in industry!

27. Integrated Performance Modelling Environment • IPME is a constructive modeling tool for front-end HFE analysis. • Simulated timeline of human and machine activities. • Predicts operator workload, performance and error production. • Discrete event simulation • Capable of interacting with other models and simulations. • Supports HLA and DIS.

28. Applications To study aspects of soldier system integration (e.g. impact of new technology on team dynamics, stressors on decision-making; content/design of info displays; interface usability) Soldier training (indiv and team) Virtual Reality Tools

29. Ideally, there would be a simple and efficient objective bench test to determine the suitability of the soldier system and its components The complexity of humans and context specific nature of soldier-system requirements makes this very difficult Progress is being made to develop some tools and validate objective test methods Key Challenge – Measurement of Effective Soldier System Integration

30. Demands the involvement and opinions of representative users doing realistic tasks under realistic conditions To validate user requirements To inform iterative equipment design and evaluation To determine optimal trade-offs between competing factors To help select solutions (i.e., bid evaluation) But must use scientific methods, with awareness of and knowledge on how to control for the error/bias potential with studies involving human subjects

31. A Soldier’s Day Multi-media Database A multi-media database to inform all stakeholders in R&D, materiel development, acquisition & life cycle management about the Canadian soldier system.

32. Up-grade to a web-based application Up-date to reflect current status of the Canadian soldier system Develop & implement a process to keep the database populated Future for “A Soldier’s Day”?

33. Better understand and better inform all stakeholders about current soldier characteristics, capabilities, limitations, tasks, work domain Develop and make available HSI tools Affordable or accessible Relevant to Canadian soldier system Collaborate – HSI stakeholders from DND, industry, academia Identify and prioritize HSI S&T Share knowledge, methods, tools Gather cost/benefit evidence of impact of HSI Work together to make HF/HSI mandatory part of system design and acquisition (for the benefit of our soldiers!) How can we improve Soldier System Integration?

34. Questions? Linda Bossi Head/Human Systems Integration Section Defence R&D Canada - Toronto (416) 635-2197 linda.bossi@drdc-rddc.gc.ca