 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||
 |
 |
 |
|||||||
| Copyright © 2012. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Immure ^
Operational
resting and
Evaluation
and Methods of Combining Test Information for the
Stryker Family of Vehicles and Related Army Systems
Phase II Report
Panel on Operational Test Design and Evaluation
of the Interim Armored Vehicle
Committee on National Statistics
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF ME NATIONAL ACADEMIES
TH E NATIONAL ACADEMI ES PRESS
Washington' D.C.
www.nap.edu
OCR for page R2
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of
the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National
Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The
members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences
and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Contract No. DASW01-02-C-0011 between the National Academy
of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Defense. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recom-
mendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect
the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-09102-0 (Book)
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number ISBN 0-309-52817-8 (PDF)
Additional copies of this report are available from National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street,
N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Wash-
ington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu
Printed in the United States of America
Copyright 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Suggested citation: National Research Council. (2004). Improved Operational Nesting arid Evalua-
tiorl arid Methods of Com~oirlirlg Test Irlformatiorlfor the Stryker Family of Vehicles arid Related Army
Systems. Phase II Report, Panel on Operational Test Design and Evaluation of the Interim Armored
Vehicle, Committee on National Statistics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
OCR for page R3
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Stienre, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of
distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the
furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the
authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a
mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical
matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of
the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It
is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with
the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal govern-
ment. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed
at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the supe-
rior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy
of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sci-
ences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the ex-
amination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts
under the responsibility given tO the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional
charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to
identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is presi-
dent of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences
in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's
purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in
accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become
the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the Na-
tional Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and
the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by
both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A.
Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
www.national -academies.org
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
PANEL ON OPERATIONAL TEST DESIGN AND EVALUATION
OF THE INTERIM ARMORED VEHICLE
STEPHEN M. POLLOCK (Chair9, Department of Industrial and
Operations Engineering, University of Michigan
SETH BONDER, Consultant, Ann Arbor, Michigan
MARION BRYSON, North Tree Fire International, Marina, California
WILLIAM Q. MEEKER, Department of Statistics, Iowa State University
VIIAYAN NAIR, Department of Statistics, University of Michigan
JOHN E. ROLPH, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern
California
FRIEDRICH-WILHELM SCHOLL, The Boeing Company, Seattle,
Washington
HAL S. STERN, Department of Statistics, University of California,
Irvine
ALYSON G. WILSON, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos,
New Mexico
JAMES P. McGEE, Staidly Director
MICHAEL L. COHEN, Sta~O~icer
MICHAEL l. SIRI, Project Assistant
v
OCR for page R6
COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL STATISTICS
2003-2004
JOHN E. ROLPH (Chair9, Marshall School of Business, University of
Southern California
JOSEPH G. ALTONII, Department of Economics, Yale University
ROBERT BELL, AT&T Laboratories, Florham Park, New Jersey
LAWRENCE D. BROWN, Department of Statistics, University of
Pennsylvania
ROBERT M. GROVES, Survey Research Center, University of Michigan
PAUL HOLLAND, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey
JOEL HOROWITZ, Department of Economics, Northwestern
University
WILLIAM KALSBEEK, Department of Biostatistics, University of North
Carolina
ARLEEN LEIBOWITZ, School of Public Policy Research, University of
California, Los Angeles
VIIAYAN NAIR, Department of Statistics, University of Michigan
DARYL PREGIBON, AT&T Laboratories, Florham Park, New Jersey
KENNETH PREWITT, School of International and Public Affairs,
Columbia University
NORA CATE SCHAEFFER, Department of Sociology, University of
Wisconsin, Madison
ANDREW A. WHITE, Director
v'
OCR for page R7
Contents
PREFACE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1X
1
1 INTRODUCTION TO COMBINING INFORMATION 11
2 EXAMPLES OF COMBINING INFORMATION
Combining Information to Improve Test Design, 17
Combining Information to Improve Estimation, 22
COMBINING INFORMATION IN PRACTICE
Combining Information to Assess Suitability, Survivability, and
Effectiveness, 41
Issues in Combining Information for Reliability Assessment, 42
4 PREREQUISITES FOR COMBINING INFORMATION
Need for a Broader Definition of Data, 54
Need for a Test Data Archive, 57
Representations, 61
Combining Information for Complex Systems, 65
Need for Additional Statistical Capabilities, 66
. .
v''
17
40
OCR for page R8
vIll
CONTENTS
5 TESTING CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES POSED
BY THE FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEM
Testing Challenges, 71
Testing Opportunities, 73
Strategy for Testing and Evaluation, 75
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
A Further Details Concerning the Bearing Cage Example
B Technical Details on Combining Information in Estimation: A
Treatment of Separate Failure Modes
C The Rocket Development Program
D Acronyms and Abbreviations
PHASE I REPORT: Operational Test Design and Evaluation of the
Interim Armored Vehicle
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF PANEL
MEMBERS AND STAFF
69
77
81
85
90
99
103
213
OCR for page R9
Preface
The U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) is respon-
sible for the operational testing and evaluation of Army systems in
development. As the Stryker/Stryker Brigade Combat Team
(SBCT, formerly named the Interim Brigade Combat Team, IBCT) en-
tered into the final stage of development, ATEC accelerated detailed prepa-
rations for its initial operational test (IOT). ATEC was faced with the chal-
lenge of developing a test design sophisticated enough to address the
complex system of systems that Stryker/SBCT represents. Furthermore,
since the reliability requirement of 1,000 miles between operational mis-
sion failures was unlikely to be demonstrated at typical levels of statistical
inference based solely on the JOT, the possibility of using developmental
test data jointly with operational test data needed to be considered. Cogni-
zant that a previous National Research Council panel had issued a 1998
report stressing the need to examine models for combining information in
order to address this limitation of operational test data, and considering in
addition that report's examination of test design and measures issues, ATEC
requested that the National Research Council form the Panel on Opera-
tional Test Design and Evaluation of the Interim Armored Vehicle (Stryker).
The charge to this panel was to explore three issues concerning the
IOT plans for the Stryker/SBCT. First, the panel was asked to examine the
measures selected to assess the performance and effectiveness of the Stryker/
SECT in comparison both to requirements and to the baseline system.
Second, the panel was asked to review the test design for the Stryker/SBCT
Six
OCR for page R10
x
PREFACE
initial operational test to see whether it is consistent with best practices.
Third, the panel was asked to identify the advantages and disadvantages of
techniques for combining operational test data with data from other sources
and types of use.
In a previous report (appended to the current report) the panel pre-
sented findings, conclusions, and recommendations pertaining to the first
two issues: measures of performance and effectiveness, and test design.
In the current report, the panel discusses techniques for combining infor-
mation.
The panel was charged with a task atypical of National Research Coun-
cil panels: providing an assessment and review of an ongoing activity, the
operational testing of an important military system. The procedures for the
extremely complex and highly sensitive testing are specified in the Army's
system evaluation plan (SEP) for the Stryker family of vehicles. This panel
has been able to build on the recommendations ofthe 1998 NRC report by
treating the Stryker IOT as a case study of how the defense community
might make more effective use of test resources in test design and in the
analysis of test data.
In this report, the panel makes a strong argument for the use of infor-
mation-combining techniques for use in the operational evaluation of
Stryker and similar systems. As mentioned several times in later chapters,
such techniques are sensitive to various assumptions, so that model valida-
tion is a crucial part of their proper application. In developing models,
analysts will need to represent the implications of any problems or unusual
events that arose during system development or developmental testing.
Therefore, we strongly urge that those involved in the application of the
techniques described collaborate closely with those who have in-depth
knowledge of the development of the system in question.
This study is occurring at a dynamic time for the service test agencies.
Defense systems are becoming increasingly complex, they are required to
operate in more varied sets of environments and with greater suitability,
and test budgets are increasingly limited. At the same time, new statistical
methods are being developed in response to similar needs for the test and
evaluation of industrial systems in development, and the ability to store
and manipulate huge quantities of information is constantly improving. In
these new and evolving circumstances, it is crucial for the Department of
Defense to exploit state-of-the-art statistical methods that make full use of
the available information for both test design and test evaluation.
OCR for page R11
PREFACE
X'
The panel has greatly benefited from the excellent and generous coop-
eration of, and information obtained from, the staff of ATEC, in particular
its previous commanding officer, Major General John Marcello, its current
commanding officer, General Robert Armbruster, Frank I. Apicella (tech-
nical director of the Army Evaluation Center), Major David Rohall (Stryker
IOT evaluator), Nancy Dunn, Ron Corson, and Bruce Grigg. In addition,
we would like to thank lack Arnold (General Motors, retired), Steve Daly
and Ernest Seglie (both at the Office of the Director of Operational Test
and Evaluation, DOT&E), Paul Ellner (Army Materiel Systems Analysis
Activity), Don Gaver (Naval Postgraduate School), Chuck Hemeyer (Gen-
eral Motors), Max Morris (Iowa State University), and Nancy Spruill (Of-
fice of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Lo-
gistics) for providing presentations to the panel on the topic of combining
· r
1ntormatlon.
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for
their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with proce-
dures approved by the NRC's Report Review Committee. The purpose of
this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that
will assist the institution in making the published report as sound as pos-
sible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objec-
tivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review com-
ments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of
the deliberative process.
We thank the following individuals for their participation in the re-
view of this report: Herman Chernoff, Professor Emeritus of Statistics,
Harvard University; John D. Christie, Senior Fellow, Logistics Manage-
ment Institute; Donald P. Gaver, fir., Distinguished Professor of Operations
Research, Naval Postgraduate School; and Dennis E. Smallwood, Professor
of Social Science, U.S. Military Academy.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive
comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions
or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its
release. The review of this report was overseen by William F. Eddy, Depart-
ment of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University. Appointed by the National
Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an indepen-
dent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institu-
tional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered.
Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the
authoring committee and the institution.
OCR for page R12
xI'
PREFACE
This report is the collective product of the entire panel, and each mem-
ber took an active role in drafting sections of chapters, leading discussions,
and reading and commenting on successive drafts. Staff at the NRC also
made important contributions to our work. We express our appreciation to
Andrew White, director of the Committee on National Statistics, for his
valuable insight, guidance, and support, and to Michael Siri, the panel's
project assistant, who was indispensable in organizing meetings, arranging
travel, compiling agenda materials, coordinating with the interested com-
munity, copyediting and formatting the report, and managing the exchange
of documentation among the committee members. Finally, the editing skills
of Cameron Fletcher have improved this report in many ways.
Stephen M. Pollock, Chair
lames P. McGee, Staidly Director
Michael L. Cohen, Sta~O~icer
Panel on Operational Test Design
and Evaluation of the Interim
Armored Vehicle (Stryker)
