1. Challenges & Tools for Effective Soldier System Integration By Linda Bossi, Head/Human Systems Integration Section DRDC Toronto September 21-22, 2010 Château Cartier Gatineau, Que. Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap Human and Systems Integration Workshop

2. HSI Process HSI Input to Soldier System Acquisition HSI Tools used in Soldier System Integration Importance of User Input What is needed for more effective HSI within DND soldier systems acquisition OUTLINE

3. Human Systems Integration : the technical process of integrating the 5 HSI domains with a materiel system to ensure safe, effective operability and supportability of the system: Human Factors Engineering Manpower and Personnel Training System Safety Health Hazard Assessment

4. How do we ensure HSI is considered in Soldier Systems? HSI in acquisition –DNDAF Human Views –Tool Development Stakeholder Collaboration –User Input –DLR 5, DSSPM, DRDC –Operational Clothing and Individual Equipment Working Group (OPCIEWG) –DRDC S&T Programme –SSTRM Workshops International Partnerships & Leverage –NATO LCG1/RTO –ABCA/TTCP (HUM TP 15 – HSI Land) –Bilateral Arrangements (US, AUS, NL)

5. Statement of Requirements Specification Development Design Test and Evaluation Select Option(s) Production & Implementation User Surveys Baseline System Performance Equipment Bench Tests Controlled Usability Trials Monitor system performance & acceptability User Acceptance Trials Fitting Trials & Sizing Tariffs Development of realistic, measurable performance-based specifications Human Lab and Field trials SOR Input HSI Advice to Design Teams Bid Evals

7. Army Combat Clothing & Equipment Survey System (ACCESS) Questionnaire-based system for the efficient collection, analysis and reporting of representative, unbiased user feedback Complements and overcomes limitations of existing feedback mechanisms Permits critical user input throughout equipment development, acquisition and life cycle management – identify deficiencies – specify user requirements – develop equipment performance and test criteria – validate acquisition success – monitor user satisfaction post-implementation

8. 1997 Land Forces Anthropometric Survey  Measured 708 Land Forces personnel (465 males, 243 females)  Selected through random sampling  200 traditional measures (140 direct, 60 indirect)  also took 2D body and 3D head scans

9. How Representative is the 1997 Survey of Current Land Forces? Survey is dated – does it reflect current population anthropometry? There is growing evidence that the survey may not adequately represent the larger soldiers: –HF equipment trials with Land Forces, predominantly combat arms –Clothing and equipment issue – insufficient numbers of large sizes, increasing numbers of “special fits” of larger personnel Before embarking on a new Land Force survey, is there a way to validate the relevancy/currency of the 1997 survey? Fortunately, Canada has developed and implemented a 2D body scanning system and has been capturing derived anthropometric data since 2003

10. Body Scanning System (BoSS XXI)

11. Simultaneous capture of 2 high resolution images (front & side) Image processing software analyzes images Automatically detects several anthro landmarks Calculates 3D location of each landmark Uses algorithms to calculate various body dimensions Applies garment sizing rules to recommend initial garment size as a start point for fitting BoSS XXI – How does it work?

12. BoSS XXI Anthro Data Set 64 anthro measures captured on 3,452 military personnel between 2003 and end- 2009 –1,776 were from Land Forces (86% male, 14% female) –700 were Combat Arms Data currently limited to measures relevant to clothing sizing

13. Comparison of 1997 LF Survey and BoSS XXI Datasets Statistical comparison undertaken between 6 select measures, common to both datasets: –Stature –Neck Circumference (at base of neck) –Neck Circumference (at collar) –Chest Circumference –Waist Circumference (at natural indentation of waist) –Out-seam Sleeve Length

14. Results for Stature t-test comparisons Female Stature 163.6 164.8 t(490)=2.24, p=0.025 Male Stature 175.5 177.4 t(1990)=5.1, p<0.01 t(942)=4.7, p<0.01 Combat Arms Male Stature 175.4 177.8

15. Male Combat Arms Stature Comparison Summary 1997 CLFS CA BoSS XXI CA Δ (BoSS CA- 1997CLFS CA) Max194.80198.864.06 Min158.30161.142.84 Mean175.38177.792.40 Median175.20177.522.32 SD6.756.920.17 SE0.440.26-0.18 5th %ile164.98166.641.66 95th %ile185.76190.484.72

16. Other Comparisons MeasureFemaleMaleCombat Arms Neck Circ. (collar) BoSS>LF97 Neck Circ. (base of neck) BoSS>LF97LF97>BoSS Chest Circ.BoSS>LF97 Waist Circ.BoSS>LF97n.s.n.s Outseam Length BoSS>LF97

17. Way Ahead BoSS XXI does not capture the detailed information obtained through traditional anthro surveys It does allow continuous and efficient capture of relevant information to characterize the general size and shape of the population (or sub-sets) It may be possible to use recent BoSS XXI data to forecast changes from the 1997 survey for other dimensions not captured using pattern matching –Missing information could be replaced by data from a subject with a similar profile across other known sources (e.g., 1997 survey) Stay tuned for outcome, which could influence future soldier system acquisition

18. Next Challenge – Clothed Anthro for Workspace Modelling Knowledge of clothed/encumbered soldier size and shape will be critical for integration in future fighting vehicles Last clothed anthro survey was in 1996 Dramatic changes since in soldier clothing, PPE, fighting order loads carried Expedient methods adopted for near-term vehicle acquisition –Photogrammetry –Compressed Clothing Thicknesses –User/Vehicle Fit/Accommodation Trials

19. Applicable only for length, breadth and depth measures. Does not take into account the compression of clothing that occurs when seated in vehicle compartment.

20. Other Anthropometry Challenges Continued use of percentiles to specify fit requirements for new clothing and equipment –Mil Std 1472 and all draft SORs/specs require fit/accommodation of 5 th percentile female to 95 th percentile male –This approach is promoted by the publication of Anthro Summary Statistics vice raw data with tools to properly apply the data Need to educate staff from each new project about multivariate approach to population accommodation Need to develop easy-to-use and affordable tools for non HF staff to be able to properly apply anthropometric data

21. Percentiles make sense for one variable

22. What happens with 2 variables?

23. What is the true accommodation? Percentiles left out an additional 8% of the population The fundamental problem is that dimensions are usually not well correlated; people vary in proportion, shape and size

24. Workspace Modeling and Analysis Need human/workspace modelling tools for soldier/vehicle integration analysis and workspace design Ideally integrating Canadian 3D clothed anthro

25. Advanced Personal Load Carriage System (APLCS) Suite of objective biomechanical measurement tools For characterizing the biomechanical impact of clothing, PPE and loads on soldiers For rapid iterative prototype design & analysis

26. Biomechanical Modeling Tools Rapid virtual prototyping and analysis To assess implications of soldier equipment design on soldier biomechanics and task performance Need affordable efficient models that incorporate current Canadian soldier anthropometry, clothing, PPE, personal equipment and key tasks Need to make the tools available to designers in industry! Z-Axis Torque L4 T12

27. IPME is a constructive modeling tool for front- end HFE analysis. –Simulated timeline of human and machine activities. –Predicts operator workload, performance and error production. Discrete event simulation Capable of interacting with other models and simulations. Supports HLA and DIS. Integrated Performance Modelling Environment

28. IPME and its predecessor SOLE has been used in support of many CF procurement programs since 1986. IPME is a joint UK/CA development. Continual upgrades have improved the efficiency and validity of the process (IPME v4, a Java/C application is in alpha testing stage). Projects include NSA, CFLH, AU, CP 140 CMS, ALEP, CPA, UTTH, MHP, E/SVS, R/SAOC, TBCS, LF2CIS, APG-65 and CF-18 IMP etc. Potential application to team issues in design Provides a framework for HSI (stressor modelling, CA MOCs, team models, etc.).

29. Virtual Reality Tools Applications To study aspects of soldier system integration (e.g. impact of new technology on team dynamics, stressors on decision-making; content/design of info displays; interface usability) Soldier training (indiv and team)

30. Key Challenge – Measurement of Effective Soldier System Integration Ideally, there would be a simple and efficient objective bench test to determine the suitability of the soldier system and its components The complexity of humans and context specific nature of soldier-system requirements makes this very difficult Progress is being made to develop some tools and validate objective test methods

31. Demands the involvement and opinions of representative users doing realistic tasks under realistic conditions –To validate user requirements –To inform iterative equipment design and evaluation –To determine optimal trade-offs between competing factors –To help select solutions (i.e., bid evaluation) But must use scientific methods, with awareness of and knowledge on how to control for the error/bias potential with studies involving human subjects

32. A Soldier’s Day Multi-media Database A multi-media database to inform all stakeholders in R&D, materiel development, acquisition & life cycle management about the Canadian soldier system.

33. Future for “A Soldier’s Day”? Up-grade to a web-based application Up-date to reflect current status of the Canadian soldier system Develop & implement a process to keep the database populated

34. How can we improve Soldier System Integration? Better understand and better inform all stakeholders about current soldier characteristics, capabilities, limitations, tasks, work domain Develop and make available HSI tools –Affordable or accessible –Relevant to Canadian soldier system Collaborate – HSI stakeholders from DND, industry, academia –Identify and prioritize HSI S&T –Share knowledge, methods, tools –Gather cost/benefit evidence of impact of HSI –Work together to make HF/HSI mandatory part of system design and acquisition (for the benefit of our soldiers!)

35. Questions? Linda Bossi Head/Human Systems Integration Section Defence R&D Canada - Toronto (416) 635-2197 linda.bossi@drdc-rddc.gc.ca