During the course of the committee’s deliberations during its information-gathering activities and in the subsequent report-drafting phase, four principles kept emerging that, to the committee, seemed essential for the Army to embrace if it is serious about providing dismounted Soldiers and small units with decisive overmatch across the range of potential missions and tasks envisioned for future unified land operations. Without rigorous adherence to these principles, the “optimization” of Soldiers and small units to achieve overmatch across the expanded range of military operations, will not be achieved, no matter what piece-part technologies are developed to facilitate “decisive Soldier capabilities.”
1. The human dimension, as defined by the Army, needs to be expanded in scope, and more emphasis needs to be placed on this expanded concept of the human dimension and other non-materiel aspects of potential solutions to provide overmatch capability. The committee’s view of what the human dimension should include is discussed below.
2. The complexity of what the dismounted Soldier does and of the means available to accomplish those tasks requires that the Soldier be viewed as a system in which components and subsystems must work together seamlessly and without interference with or diminishment of other functions of this Soldier-system. The committee thus agrees with the assertion, made by the Army and advanced in numerous prior reports to the Army, that the Soldier is a system—albeit a human-based system unlike platform-based systems such as tanks, submarines, or fighter aircraft. If the Soldier is a human-based system, then a dismounted TSU is a system of these Soldier-systems. From this perspective, a comprehensive, analytically based systems engineering capability is essential to evaluate and make trades among capability options that encompass all the domains of TSU performance captured under the military rubric of DOTMLPF: Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel and Facilities.
3. Metrics (e.g., attributes, measures of performance, and measures of effectiveness) for the Soldier and TSU are needed at the outset to guide and measure actions to provide capability improvements in all facets of the Soldier and TSU acquisition life cycles (conceptualization, development, test and evaluation, training, etc.)
4. The Army’s acquisition system needs to be integrated, streamlined, and tailored to embrace the three principles above and to ensure that solutions identified through a systems engineering methodology are developed, tested, and delivered in an expeditious and efficient manner.
The committee devoted considerable time and energy to distilling and illustrating these four principles while continuing its efforts, in response to the