Human Systems Integration Was the statement “Bringing Human Performance Science to Engineering Practice” a given statement or is it just trying to convey a concept? If a concept, I wonder about the use of “science.” I would think that focusing on human performance during acquisition might also convey a strong intent but I do not know what has been said by the Admirals in the past. 14 May 2007 Mr. Richard M. Etheridge (OPNAV N125)

Objective Provide update on Human Systems Integration Program Baseline What we knew… Strategy What we know… What are we working on… Way Ahead Today I would like to apprise you of the work that is being done to resolve the T2Q requirements barrier and our recommendation for validation of those requirements. First, the BLUF message is that considerable progress has been made in defining T2Q requirements and we expect additional efforts to be completed in the next 60 days. These efforts include further clarification on trainer fidelity, mission package training and lessons learned from T2Q efforts. Additionally, the CoC and stakeholders developed a framework for T2Q and associated responsibilities. Finally, budget requirements for training requires additional analysis based on future Navy decisions. Note: Program Management costs Train-to-Qualify is being worked into approved acquisition documents. Wholeness CONOPS provided a brief description of the framework. Draft revision of the 2004 CDD contain T2Q concepts with specific mention of the simulator training capability. The revision was recently pulled from review by N86 pending the outcome of the PMAG and SECNAV decision after 8 Mar 2007. The next slide shows the delivery profile of 15 Mar 2007

What we knew Background HSI is a requirement and a commitment: Public Law 107-314, National Defense Appropriation Act, 03-07 GAO Report - 03-520 Navy Actions Needed to Optimize Crew Size and Reduce Total Ownership Costs, Jun 03 Systems Engineering Acquisition & Personnel Integration Report to Congress, Mar 04 DoD Report to the House Armed Services Committee, Dec 05 Navy needs to do more to consider HSI issues early in system development cycle for defense acquisition No centralized office with clear singular authority to manage program Navy does not optimize trade-offs among the domains or among families of systems when they cross warfare areas Lack of authority and accountability to optimize human performance capabilities and reduce Navy life cycle costs National Defense Appropriation Act FY 03-08 Chief of Naval Operations Guidance, Mar 07 I made some changes so that it did not say what was HSI but said we had both a requirement and commitment from “on high.” Today I would like to apprise you of the work that is being done to resolve the T2Q requirements barrier and our recommendation for validation of those requirements. First, the BLUF message is that considerable progress has been made in defining T2Q requirements and we expect additional efforts to be completed in the next 60 days. These efforts include further clarification on trainer fidelity, mission package training and lessons learned from T2Q efforts. Additionally, the CoC and stakeholders developed a framework for T2Q and associated responsibilities. Finally, budget requirements for training requires additional analysis based on future Navy decisions. Note: Program Management costs Train-to-Qualify is being worked into approved acquisition documents. Wholeness CONOPS provided a brief description of the framework. Draft revision of the 2004 CDD contain T2Q concepts with specific mention of the simulator training capability. The revision was recently pulled from review by N86 pending the outcome of the PMAG and SECNAV decision after 8 Mar 2007. The next slide shows the delivery profile of 15 Mar 2007

What we knew Background Definition: An aspect of System Engineering that addresses the risk to humans are required to operate, maintain, and support a system. An assessment and plan to optimize manpower, improve performance, and minimize risk. Systems Engineering Personnel Integration versus Navy Acquisition Personnel Integration Enterprise approach to Human Systems Integration SECNAV and OPNAV agree that HSI requirements in JCIDS is the focus “Provides a proactive approach to defining, developing, and managing the future Naval Force Requirements” 1 “Includes specific Joint Capabilities Integration Development System requirements controls and assessments1 This is really busy and a bit confusing, perhaps Nita at the NPS can help sort this our since the SYS ENG folks there are influencing SECNAV. Today I would like to apprise you of the work that is being done to resolve the T2Q requirements barrier and our recommendation for validation of those requirements. First, the BLUF message is that considerable progress has been made in defining T2Q requirements and we expect additional efforts to be completed in the next 60 days. These efforts include further clarification on trainer fidelity, mission package training and lessons learned from T2Q efforts. Additionally, the CoC and stakeholders developed a framework for T2Q and associated responsibilities. Finally, budget requirements for training requires additional analysis based on future Navy decisions. Note: Program Management costs Train-to-Qualify is being worked into approved acquisition documents. Wholeness CONOPS provided a brief description of the framework. Draft revision of the 2004 CDD contain T2Q concepts with specific mention of the simulator training capability. The revision was recently pulled from review by N86 pending the outcome of the PMAG and SECNAV decision after 8 Mar 2007. The next slide shows the delivery profile of 15 Mar 2007

NAVPRINT Program Baseline Make sure you define (verbally) IMPRINT and MANPRINT)

NAVPRINT Strategy & Status Congressional Manpower, Personnel, Training Problem in Acquisition 6.2 Applied Research for feasibility and practicability studies 6.3 Advanced Technology Development, assessment of operability and productivity 6.5 RDT&E Management Support for technical integration efforts and technical information and activities HSI Education and Training for the Workforce Fuels, & GCCS-M Case Studies GAO Report on 03-520 Navy Actions Needed to Optimize Crew Size and Reduce Total Ownership Costs, Jun 03 Systems Engineering Acquisition & Personnel Integration Report to Congress, Mar 04 Preliminary Report to the House Armed Services Committee Human Systems Integration Activit in DoD Acquisition Programs, Dec 05 Follow-up on GAO Report 03-520, to USD (P&R), 10 Mar 06 Follow-up GAO Report 03-520, To USD (P&R), Sep 06 Joint HSI Steering Group Stood-up by USD (P&R), Oct 06 Report to House Armed Services Committee Human Systems Integration Activity in Dodd Acquisition Programs, TBD (Jun 07) E2C Case Study IMPRINT-N and Navy Stressors MANPRINT Analysis HSI Measures and metrics Development HSI Department Of Defense Architecture Framework OPNAVINST 5310.23 SECNAVINST 5000.2D 2003 NDAA 2004 NDAA 2005 NDAA 2006 NDAA 2007 NDAA Department of Defense Architecture Phase 1 “What” “What to do Process” Volume 1 “Why” Volume 2 “What” Phase 2 “How to” Integrated Architecture Volume 3 “How to” Phase 1 Human Analysis & Requirements Planning System (HARPS) Phase 2 Human Analysis & Requirements Planning System (HARPS) FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

What we are working on OPNAV and SECNAV HSI Implementation O P N A V S Joint Capabilities Development Integration System (CJCSI 3170.01D) Operation of the Defense Acquisition System (DoDI 5000.2) Implementation & Operation of the Defense Acquisition System & The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System SECNAVINST 5000.2C) Human Systems Integration (OPNAVINST 5310.23) VIRTUAL SYSCOM HSI Guide Domain Analysis Policy & Guidance Manual of Navy Total Force Manpower, Policy & Procedures (OPNAVINST 1000.16J Navy Training System Requirements, Acquisition, and Management (OPNAVINST 1500.76A) Human Performance Systems Model Shipboard Habitability Program (OPNAVINST 9640.01A) Safety & Occupational Health (MIL-STD-882D) NAVSEA (NAVSEAINST 3900.8X) NAVAIR (NAVAIRINST XXX) SPAWAR (SPAWARINST XXX) Link Volume 1 Human Systems Integration Overview Volume 2 Implementing The HSI Process Into Acquisition Programs Volume 3 How to Process SYSCOM Policy SAME COMMENTS AS BEFORE Accomplishment in HSI include: Establishment of a vital link between OPNAV and SECNAV to implement Human Systems Integration in OPNAVINST 5310.23. The link provides the requirements in JCIDS documents for HSI and ensures that the SYSCOMs optimize manpower and improve human performance to maximize system capabilities. This policy includes language in Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System that documents appropriate Human Systems Integration manpower, personnel, training, human factors, habitability, safety, occupational health, personnel survivability requirements. Additionally, N125 and VSYSCOM published the HSI Guides Volume 1, 2, 3 that provide the SYSCOM’s an overview, and guidance on implementing the HSI process into acquisition programs and the how to process. The intent behind these volumes is to ensure a uniform methodology for standardized HSI is reached and the PEOs and PM are provided with a systematic approach that can be managed across multiple domains. Finally, N125 and the vSYSCOMs will work together to revise SECNAVINST 5000.2E and clearify the ASN Role/Resp (M&RA, I&E, RD&A, etc.) and OPNAV Role/Resp (N1, N4, N6, N8, etc.). Detailed guidance will be worked in for Systems Engineering Guidance and Policy (e.g., Systems Engineering Plan, Systems Engineering Technical Review, Technical Authority, etc.) Now, I would like to shift the focus to a few success stories…. OPNAV Policy provides a link between requirements, funding, and SECNAV acquisition execution.

NAVPRINT Implementation Policy VCNO HSI GOVERNANCE BOARD N12 Chair NAVSEA 05H SPAWAR 4G NAVAIR 4.6 NAVSUP 04 OPNAV 093 OPNAV 09F ONR CNA Barrier Removal NETC NPDC HPC NAVMAC NWC NPGS PERS 4 BUMED JCIDS CNP Resource Requirements Review Board Executive Secretary N125 Programmatic HSI Governance: Optimize manpower Improve Performance Mitigate risk Policy, Requirements, Resource Integration OPNAV N1, N8, N4, N6, OPTEVFOR, NAVMAC, HPC This slide captures the April 2006 CFFC organizational vision as well as associated Speaker Notes. This overviews the functional relationships of the DS enterprise. VADM Moran has nominated RDML Barnett as the MPT&E pillar lead and coordinate with BUMED for support. This pillar may result in a two enterprise leads, however, it is difficult to remove the medical considerations from the MPT&E enterprise. RADM Brooks will head the Maintenance pillar, and RADM Stone has designated RDML Kowba for the Logistics pillar. A war fighting pillar is under consideration and could be assigned to COMSECOND and COMTHIRD Fleet collectively, or designate COMSECOND fleet as the lead. An interim solution to the War Fighting pillar may be VADM Etnyre as he works the LCS issues. While each pillar lead is responsible for the functions of their pillar, the OAG, FORCEnet Integration, and Enterprise leads will have to establish specific business rules which all will use. This affords a common process and assessment taxonomy for the OAG to make recommendations on program priorities. At the highest level, we need business rules to associate requirements to readiness (NMETS). Specifically, the rules must asses impact on readiness, ROI, infrastructure reduction, cost to proceed and overall benefits of adopting specific pillar lead recommended DS initiatives. A high level rack and stack to ensure that the DS focus is balanced. Pillar leads would be required to provide the DS Governance Board periodic overviews of ongoing DS initiatives within their enterprise. This is intended to ‘keep the pressure on.’ It also serves as an opportunity to assess the DS integration across all pillars – which is a specific goal of DS. Pillar leads should initially review known ongoing initiatives, products and applications to assess continuing utility as well as applicability across the pillars. This would be supported by the OAG. The OAG addresses functionality as well as utility based on the business rules established, across all pillars. The ForceNet Integration or FNI ensures that pillar initiatives leverage ForceNET, can be accommodated in the architecture, and may help ForceNet focus on alternative requirements necessary to meet Pillar needs. Those would be briefed to the DSGB. These periodic updates will review program efficiency, ROI, Return on Readiness, benefits and Rough Order of Magnitude to proceed. In addition to reviewing pillar progress and overseeing DS and ForceNet integration, the Distance Support Governance Board (DSGB) can also serve as a barrier removal tool as necessary. Recommendations to OPNAV, not only on program focus, but also supporting policy changes to leverage Distance Support is a DSGB function. Once all of the pillars are up and functioning, governance requirements may be re-defined to support the process. Technical Authority & Execution ASN RD&A, DASNs, PEOs, SYSCOM,s, PMs Environment, Safety, Occupational Health Personnel Habitability Manpower Training Survivability Requirements (Warfare Enterprises) Aviation, Expeditionary, Submarine, Surface, Networks Common Policy, Processes, Procedures

What we are we doing OPNAV scorecard Estimates are based on SECNAV 15 Mar 07 Procurement and Ship Profile 4:3:1 crew buy 50/50 LM vs. GD buy until Flight 1 down-select during FY10 Assumes second homeport trainer required in FY14 bought in FY13 (reuse of existing facility (no MILCON required) by N86 Assumes LM upgrades (15M) and GD trainer (21M) FY07 by N86 Assumes Mission Package Training provided by Networked Tactical Training System funding provided by DASN and ONR 07 Assumes Business Case Analysis (transition of vendor to Navy training) completion June 07 Assumes Readiness Control Officer training is at Fleet Concentration Area (negates the N1(MPT&E) bill for OPN 07 unfunded Assumes Cove Training (N86) and operational area models are provided (N1 MPT&E) Assumes Initial crew training provided by vendor N86, and includes replacement crews for FY09 and out (decision required based on Ready for Training date) Assumes Other T2Q requirements is $1.7M per variant for a requirements study to determine Engineering Hot Plant Mock-up requirements for each ship variants and provided in FY09 (LM) and FY12 (GD) funded by N86 .

What we are doing Program Scorecard Estimates are based on SECNAV 15 Mar 07 Procurement and Ship Profile 4:3:1 crew buy 50/50 LM vs. GD buy until Flight 1 down-select during FY10 Assumes second homeport trainer required in FY14 bought in FY13 (reuse of existing facility (no MILCON required) by N86 Assumes LM upgrades (15M) and GD trainer (21M) FY07 by N86 Assumes Mission Package Training provided by Networked Tactical Training System funding provided by DASN and ONR 07 Assumes Business Case Analysis (transition of vendor to Navy training) completion June 07 Assumes Readiness Control Officer training is at Fleet Concentration Area (negates the N1(MPT&E) bill for OPN 07 unfunded Assumes Cove Training (N86) and operational area models are provided (N1 MPT&E) Assumes Initial crew training provided by vendor N86, and includes replacement crews for FY09 and out (decision required based on Ready for Training date) Assumes Other T2Q requirements is $1.7M per variant for a requirements study to determine Engineering Hot Plant Mock-up requirements for each ship variants and provided in FY09 (LM) and FY12 (GD) funded by N86 .

What we are doing HSI Scorecard Estimates are based on SECNAV 15 Mar 07 Procurement and Ship Profile 4:3:1 crew buy 50/50 LM vs. GD buy until Flight 1 down-select during FY10 Assumes second homeport trainer required in FY14 bought in FY13 (reuse of existing facility (no MILCON required) by N86 Assumes LM upgrades (15M) and GD trainer (21M) FY07 by N86 Assumes Mission Package Training provided by Networked Tactical Training System funding provided by DASN and ONR 07 Assumes Business Case Analysis (transition of vendor to Navy training) completion June 07 Assumes Readiness Control Officer training is at Fleet Concentration Area (negates the N1(MPT&E) bill for OPN 07 unfunded Assumes Cove Training (N86) and operational area models are provided (N1 MPT&E) Assumes Initial crew training provided by vendor N86, and includes replacement crews for FY09 and out (decision required based on Ready for Training date) Assumes Other T2Q requirements is $1.7M per variant for a requirements study to determine Engineering Hot Plant Mock-up requirements for each ship variants and provided in FY09 (LM) and FY12 (GD) funded by N86 . Applicable Statute: OPNAVINST 1500.76A When Required: Initial: MS A, Draft: MS B/C, Update: MS C 14 working days prior to release date

Way Ahead OPNAVINST 5310.23 implementation HARPS Functional Requirements Document Implement OPNAVINST 5310.23 and HARPS I/II Implement FY07-08 Funding Plan Update JCIDS 3170.01 Instruction and Manual Revise SECNAVINST 5000.2D ASN Role/Resp (M&RA, I&E, RD&A, etc.) OPNAV Role/Resp (N1, N4, N6, N8, etc.) Systems Engineering Plan and Technical Authority Guidance Department of the Navy Acquisition Guidebook Guidance Submit Congressional Report by Jun 07 SUGGEST YOU DO NOT SAY APPROVAL SINCE THAT SUGGESTS IT IS NOT APPROVED. FOCUS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INST. Also just state HARPS as though it is approved and say submit congressional report. Today I would like to apprise you of the work that is being done to resolve the T2Q requirements barrier and our recommendation for validation of those requirements. First, the BLUF message is that considerable progress has been made in defining T2Q requirements and we expect additional efforts to be completed in the next 60 days. These efforts include further clarification on trainer fidelity, mission package training and lessons learned from T2Q efforts. Additionally, the CoC and stakeholders developed a framework for T2Q and associated responsibilities. Finally, budget requirements for training requires additional analysis based on future Navy decisions. Note: Program Management costs Train-to-Qualify is being worked into approved acquisition documents. Wholeness CONOPS provided a brief description of the framework. Draft revision of the 2004 CDD contain T2Q concepts with specific mention of the simulator training capability. The revision was recently pulled from review by N86 pending the outcome of the PMAG and SECNAV decision after 8 Mar 2007. The next slide shows the delivery profile of 15 Mar 2007

BACK-UP

What we are working on HSI Success: E-2D Hawkeye NAVAIR 4.6 High HSI impact - Cost avoidance - Survivability, Safety, Health Hazard Risk avoidance - Performance enhancement - Cross domain use of task and role analysis Mockup used for assessing software in development, as well as anthropometrics, hardware interfaces, lighting evaluation, maintainability, and general operator usability Before After Be prepared for the following questions: When did this occur (years)? How long did it take? What was the HSI technology that was used? Was it current or past?

What we are working on HSI Success: DDG-1000 NAVSEA 03/05H High HSI impact Cost avoidance Survivability, Safety, Health Hazard avoidance Performance enhancement Cross domain use of task and role analysis Fleet brought in early to identify design hazards, proposing modifications to optimize design for human performance Leveraged human performance modeling very early in system design to explore impact of manning concepts, automation technologies, and other system design concepts on crew ability perform the mission Be prepared. Isn’t NAVSEA 05H a new office,. Was it 03 earlier? If so perhaps you need to make that change in the title.

What we are working on HSI Success: GCCS-M SPAWAR 04G Significant HSI Pay-off Performance enhancement Cost avoidance Cross domain use of task and role analysis Applied HSI to each domain to improve human performance and systems performance Analyzed existing task and function information, yielding task and redesign Program Management Office and fleet customer response extremely positive Suggested change in the checked box wording

What we are working on Human Performance Success: The Seal Story SEAL Selection Goal: Reduce attrition in BUDS by identifying more, better qualified candidates. Recommendation: Develop psychological battery to better select SEAL candidates. Status: Deployed battery to incoming SEAL class. (FEB 07) Compare candidate retention data from ‘Hell Week” against selection battery results. (MAR 07-in Great Lakes) SEAL Promotion Goal: Develop a promotion model that better reflects SEAL values than current FMS (Final Multiple Score). Recommendation: Implement a SEAL promotional algorithm based upon critical factors. Status: Conducted a ‘mock’ board using algorithm with high success. (AUG 06) Replicate ‘mock’ board using new SEAL rating exam. (JUN 07) As mentioned in the first part of my keynote address, the one constant in our world is change. We find ourselves in extended missions both traditional and non-traditional. One example of this is a rising demand for Seals in the Navy. One of the Human Performance Center Successes is the “Seal Story”. Seal Training is conducted by the Center for Explosive Ordnance Disposal/Diving at Panama City, FL who is responsible for the Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL School at Coronado, CA. The attrition rate for BUDS training was reduced by identifying more better qualified candidates. This reduction increased BUDS graduation and the Navy’s capability.

Phase I Implementation Phase II Implementation What we are working on HARPS Timeline 6.5 RDT&E Management Support for technical integration efforts and technical information and activities HARPS Phase I: Job Task Analysis NTSP Data Manpower Estimate Report Data Executable HSI IA HARPS Phase I Scope (Complete) Functional Req (Complete) Software Spec (Complete) SOA Tech Stack (Complete) Software Build 1 (July 07) Software Build 2 (Aug 07) Software Test/Pilot (Sept 07) Rpt of Lessons Learned (Sept 07) Phase I Implem Strategy (Sept 07) Phase I Implementation HARPS Phase II: NTSP Data Capture Web Service Integration with Manpower, Learning Modeling & Simulation Executive Dashboard & Decision Support Phase II Implementation HARPS Phase II Phase I Operational (Implementation) Project Scope Functional Requirements Software Specifications Software Build 1 Software Build 2 Software Test/Pilot Training Development & Delivery DADMS Registration FY06 FY07 FY08

What we are working on IMPRINT-N Timeline FY06 FY07 FY08 6.5 RDT&E Management Support for technical integration efforts and technical information and activities “IMPRINT-N” FY ‘06 Research whole body vibration literature (Complete) Review results of new sea trials (Delayed) Preliminary algorithm development (Ongoing) Implement stressor benchmarks in IMPRINT Pro (Complete) Draft paper on WPA and potential future IMPRINT Pro impacts (Complete) “IMPRINT-N” FY ‘06: Sea state stressor task effects Stressor benchmarks Whole Person Assessment “IMPRINT-N” FY ‘07: Advanced sea state stressor architecture Add Navy personnel designators Add Navy personnel projection capability DADMS and NMCI “IMPRINT-N” FY ‘07 Research other sea state impacts (Motion sickness over time) and Motion Induced Interruptions) Collect Navy personnel designators (ratings) and associated attributes Define functional requirements for DADMS and NMCI Design preliminary plug-in for IMPRINT Pro sea state impacts Establish a validation plan for plug-in use DADMS Registration and NMCI certification Now you have me confused. What is the transition from NAVPRINT to IMPRINT? FY06 FY07 FY08