Predicting Total System Performance: The Benefit of Integrating Human Performance Models

The MANPRINT (Manpower and Personnel Integration) Program is a comprehensive program designed to enhance human performance and reliability during weapon system development with the overall goal – of optimizing total system performance. Total system performance is a function of equipment performance and human performance as they are affected under varying environmental conditions which includes physical, social and operational conditions. The challenge the U.S. Army has today is to ensure these issues are addressed early in and continuously throughout the design process.

Download Full-text

The Human Systems Integration Framework: Enhanced HSI support for System Acquisition

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting ◽

10.1177/1541931213601978 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 61 (1) ◽

pp. 1720-1724

Author(s):

Frank C. Lacson ◽

Matthew R. Risser ◽

John W. Gwynne ◽

William D. Kosnik

Keyword(s):

Systems Engineering ◽

System Performance ◽

Web Application ◽

Human Performance ◽

Systems Integration ◽

Integrated System ◽

Total System ◽

Human Systems Integration ◽

System Acquisition ◽

Human Systems

Ensuring that human performance factors are adequately considered during the system engineering process has proven to be a challenging task for Human Factors and Human Systems Integration (HSI) practitioners. Programs that do not sufficiently include HSI as an integral aspect of planning and execution are at risk of diminished user performance and total system performance, leading to costly and time-consuming re-work. To encourage a greater involvement of HSI in systems engineering, the HSI Framework (HSIF) was developed to explicitly incorporate HSI tasks and products in all stages of system acquisition. The HSIF is a web application that contains general and domain-specific HSI activities, references, and related products. For HSI Practitioners and System Engineers, the HSIF provides technical guidance and best practices, thereby fostering early, explicit, and properly-scoped HSI efforts. In turn, Program Managers and Technical Authorities are provided with the information needed to accurately assess and manage human performance-related risks, leading to relevant, effective, and integrated system performance.

Download Full-text

From models to methods to models: Tools and techniques for using, developing, and analyzing cognitive human performance models

PsycEXTRA Dataset ◽

10.1037/e577362012-008 ◽

2005 ◽

Author(s):

Wayne D. Gray ◽

Christopher W. Myers

Keyword(s):

Human Performance ◽

Performance Models ◽

Tools And Techniques

Download Full-text

Total System Performance Assessment-Viability Assessment-Methods and Assumptions

10.2172/762965 ◽

1997 ◽

Author(s):

R.W. Andrews

Keyword(s):

Performance Assessment ◽

System Performance ◽

Assessment Methods ◽

Total System ◽

Viability Assessment

Download Full-text

Validating Human Performance Models: Building a House without Bricks

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting ◽

10.1177/1071181320641362 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 64 (1) ◽

pp. 1511-1514

Author(s):

Richard Steinberg ◽

Raytheon Company ◽

Alice Diggs ◽

Raytheon Company ◽

Jade Driggs

Keyword(s):

Air Force ◽

Human Performance ◽

Control Program ◽

Real Data ◽

Performance Model ◽

Force Model ◽

Performance Models ◽

Actual System ◽

Support Design ◽

Trade Offs

Verification and validation (V&V) for human performance models (HPMs) can be likened to building a house with no bricks, since it is difficult to obtain metrics to validate a model when the system is still in development. HPMs are effective for performing trade-offs between the human system designs factors including number of operators needed, the role of automated tasks versus operator tasks, and member task responsibilities required to operate a system. On a recent government contract, our team used a human performance model to provide additional analysis beyond traditional trade studies. Our team verified the contractually mandated staff size for using the system. This task demanded that the model have sufficient fidelity to provide information for high confidence staffing decisions. It required a method for verifying and validating the model and its results to ensure that it accurately reflected the real world. The situation caused a dilemma because there was no actual system to gather real data to use to validate the model. It is a challenge to validate human performance models, since they support design decisions prior to system. For example, crew models are typically inform the design, staffing needs, and the requirements for each operator’s user interface prior to development. This paper discusses a successful case study for how our team met the V&V challenges with the US Air Force model accreditation authority and successfully accredited our human performance model with enough fidelity for requirements testing on an Air Force Command and Control program.

Download Full-text