2003-2004 Assessment of the Army Research Laboratory (2005)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

3 Human Research and Engineering Directorate INTRODUCTION The Human Research and Engineering Directorate (HRED) was reviewed by the Panel on Soldier Systems. HRED conducts basic and applied research and analysis to enhance soldier performance. A broad-based program of scientific research and technology development is directed toward optimizing soldier performance and soldier-machine interactions so as to maximize battlefield effectiveness. Analy- ses are conducted to ensure that soldier performance requirements are adequately considered in technol- ogy development and system design. HRED is organized in two divisions: Soldier Performance and Human Factors Integration. Tables A.1 and A.2 in Appendix A respectively characterize the funding profile and the staffing profile for HRED. CHANGES SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW HRED is in the process of adjusting its programs to meet the changing requirements for Army transformation—that is, moving from a threat-based approach to a capabilities-based approach that is more compatible with the anticipated security environment. This new military environment, as charac- terized by the HRED Director, has greater complexity, requires increased strategic responsiveness, reflects changes in the spectrum of conflict, pursues revolutionary technologies, and addresses the emergence of the maneuver unit of action that emphasizes adaptive performance by leaders and teams. Significant changes at the directorate since the previous review include the following: • The filling of core leadership positions; • Increases in funding; 15 

16 2003–2004 ASSESSMENT OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY • A new, director’s initiative in cognitive architecture; • A new research program on the effects of encapsulation (e.g., working in protective suits) on performance; • New acquisition-related efforts addressing manpower, personnel, and training (MPT) issues faced by the Future Combat System (FCS); • The development of databases that are valid for modeling tasks and human performance; • Upgrades for facilities involved in tactical environment simulation and shooter performance; and • Increased levels of participation in ARL science and technology objectives. The directorate has continued to expand its efforts in identifying and satisfying the education and training needs of its staff, including the mentoring and advising of staff members as to the specific requirements for and benefits of advanced training. One example of these expanded efforts is HRED participation in the development and implementation of the human systems integration degree program at the Naval Postgraduate School—five members of the HRED staff are currently participating in that program. Also, HRED has provided instruction during 2003 and 2004 as well as over several previous years through numerous invited lectures and seminars on technical subjects related to HRED projects. ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND OPPORTUNITIES Most Significant Advances The Panel and the Board noted an increased level of collaboration among HRED staff across projects, noting in particular the synergy evident between projects involving empirical research and those involving modeling. Significant advances have been made in designing and conducting empirical studies with a view to the data that they might provide to associated modeling efforts. This process and level of collaboration are likely to be even further improved by addressing criteria for moving data and their associated parameters into models. The development of soldier-centered design tools continues to be one of the most important and potentially valuable programs at HRED. The following quotation from the 2001-2002 Assessment of the Army Research Laboratory provides a benchmark for the current assessment of this program: “Within HRED, the utilization of models is continuing to increase and become more effective. As a conse- quence, there is greater need to validate, determine the sensitivity, and define the limits of the models being developed and used.”1 The HRED researchers appear to be fully cognizant of these past assess- ments and recommendations as they move forward with their modeling program. They have demon- strated an impressive understanding of how the program is related to other programs, of the extent of collaboration required with these other ongoing programs, and of the potential barriers and limitations to the ultimate use of human systems integration modeling. Two very promising strategies and approaches presented by the research team during this assess- ment were the linking of the Improved Performance Research Integration Tool (IMPRINT) to the unified modeling language (UML) and the development of new databases for equipment, biomechanics, clothing, and related materials. Such databases are needed to provide a more robust modeling of the 1National Research Council. 2003. 2001-2002 Assessment of the Army Research Laboratory. Washington, D.C.: The Na- tional Academies Press, p. 33. 

HUMAN RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING DIRECTORATE 17 physical environment and of related human interactions now being simulated within the digital human modeling community. Opportunities and Challenges The increased collaboration and synergy within HRED can provide a basis for extending collabora- tion to other ARL directorates. HRED participation in the Board’s assessments of crosscutting activities is likely to help identify opportunities at these boundaries of knowledge. HRED has also established a sound basis—with its present connections to related program activities in the Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI), the Collaborative Technology Alliance (CTA), and the cognitive modeling community—for expanding its interaction with the external research community and for extending its awareness of the work of other investigators related to HRED projects and programs. The Manpower and Personnel Integration (MANPRINT) program has high-impact potential for the Army. However, it continues to be limited by not being fully embraced in the procurement process and by additional needs for the development and validation of modeling tools. Impacting the procurement process is mainly a matter of taking advantage of opportunities as they occur (and HRED has done an excellent job of exploiting these opportunities). Model development, by contrast, can be an ongoing, systematic process. Because predictive human models are becoming the source of much of the engineer- ing design guidance provided by the Army, they must be correct. If they are not, a great deal of harm and performance loss will be incurred in Army systems. Support of MANPRINT, then, is another reason why the HRED modeling efforts are so important. During 2003, HRED had 152 work orders from Army customers in support of Army systems and programs. These work orders had a total value of almost $6.9 million. The Board recognizes that it can be difficult to negotiate with customers to preserve the scientific integrity of research efforts while also meeting pressing customer needs. The Board acknowledges that such negotiations are complicated by time pressures, coordination requirements, scheduling uncertainties, problems in obtaining resources, and the frequent necessity for meeting multiple objectives. Nonetheless, the Board encourages HRED to continue to negotiate with and educate customers in order to preserve the scientific integrity of research efforts. Additional intensive surveillance and analysis of fatality, injury, and performance databases should be undertaken for purposes of identifying future HRED research opportunities. For example, a recent analysis completed elsewhere found that vehicle-related events (involving both combatant and noncom- batant) accounted for a disproportionate number of Army deaths. This information suggests an avenue for bringing about significant reductions in Army fatalities. Another example is the excessive number of musculoskeletal problems that are resulting from manual handling of components, such as those re- quired for fixed-bridge construction. Access to and continuing, systematic review of data from medical and safety databases could help identify important areas for the expansion of HRED research and engineering efforts on problems that will lead to reducing injury and associated costs. The Board believes that HRED should explore opportunities for employing the Battle Lab at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, in its research efforts. The Board recognizes that the Battle Lab is primarily a training resource and that numerous problems must be overcome in adapting such a resource to research pur- poses. Nonetheless, it does appear that opportunities exist for leveraging existing automated data collec- tion (such as training data that are currently being collected for playback mode during training exer- cises) for various types of studies. These would include studies of teamwork, situation awareness, the Objective Force Warrior concept, and the nature and contributions of expertise—that is, the defining of 

18 2003–2004 ASSESSMENT OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY expert teams, of the actions of expert teams, and the way that a novice team develops into an expert team. CONTRIBUTIONS TO ARMY NEEDS AND THE BROADER COMMUNITY Contributions to Army Needs In its 2003 and 2004 on-site reviews of HRED programs, the Panel was impressed with the rel- evance and scientific merit of the HRED research projects that were presented. It was also impressed by the efforts put forth by HRED to influence systems acquisition and design and by the enthusiasm and professionalism of the HRED scientific and technical staff. The new HRED initiatives to provide cognitive foundations of performance in military environ- ments—particularly the current efforts on the improvement of shooting performance—reflect respon- siveness to the Army’s transition needs. The multiple-measures approach to investigating shooting and cortical activity—including the collection and analysis of neurophysiological (electroencephalogram) data, along with objective and subjective measures and the modeling of shooting performance—repre- sents a promising approach to the investigation of cognitive performance in high-stress, multitasking environments. The relevance of cognitive neuroscience to Army requirements and soldier performance research was well established by the researchers. The collaborative links with the external research community (such as MURI, CTA, and the University of Maryland) were impressive. Research on shooting and cognitive load highlights the challenges of validating simulator data and applying them to cognitive models. The strategy employed in this research, emphasizing a cycle of model exploration, data collection and enhancement, and model modification, is impressive and likely to be very productive in meeting these challenges. The Board recommends the consideration of an expanded model-test-model-test approach that includes the field-test validation of revised models at significant stages in the program. Research initiated on encapsulation is an ambitious, groundbreaking effort to identify the effects of encapsulation on the mission performance of the dismounted warrior. This research employs a number of measures of cognitive performance and three configurations of soldier equipment. It is also focused on identifying methodologies that might be useful for further research. Moreover, it is a positive example of conducting research with a view toward providing data and results for use in MANPRINT tools such as IMPRINT. The new acquisition-related efforts addressing manpower, personnel, and training have significant potential payoff for the Army and expand the role of HRED to include a new level of analysis. The Panel and the Board look forward to future developments in this area and encourage the communication of analytical results to program managers and higher-level decision makers. Maintenance is a particularly good area for MPT analysis, representing the need for systematic analyses of future skill requirements needed in order to maintain complex systems. The analyses of maintenance automation completed to date clearly identified the extent and nature of problems faced by the Future Combat System. The Panel and the Board support the modeling of maintenance tasks as a basis for future analyses and look forward to learning how this will be accomplished. Contributions to the Broader Community As mentioned above, HRED has continued to expand its interaction with the external research community and to extend its awareness of the work of other investigators related to HRED projects and 

HUMAN RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING DIRECTORATE 19 programs. For example, the 2001-2002 Assessment of the Army Research Laboratory recommended the pursuit of connections to related program activities in the MURI, CTA, and cognitive modeling commu- nities. The present assessment found that, subsequent to the earlier review, interactions with these communities were pursued with positive results. HRED has extended its participation with the scientific community over the past several years through an extensive program of lectures and seminars given by experts outside of HRED. These programs address a variety of technical subjects related to HRED projects. HRED has expanded its interactions with external users of IMPRINT. It has done so in part by providing training for current and potential users of the program. It appears that HRED is becoming a center of excellence for the development and application of human-centered modeling. RELEVANCE OF CROSSCUTTING ISSUES TO THIS DIRECTORATE Crosscutting issues on modeling should be relevant to this directorate. As discussed earlier, the development of soldier-centered design tools continues to be one of the most important and potentially valuable programs at HRED. Moreover, the HRED researchers appear to be cognizant of the need for verification and validation, the need to relate their programs to those of others, the extent of collabora- tion required to meet their objectives, and the potential barriers and limitations to the ultimate use of human systems integration modeling.