FIGURE 1
Tis expression means effectiveness is a function of size, weight, mobility, power consumption, cost and capability, where capability is a composite index of the various performance attributes of a par- ticular capability under consideration.
Optimizing effectiveness essentially
means finding the best balance among size, weight, mobility, power con- sumption, cost and capability at the Soldier-as-a-system level, versus maxi- mizing the performance of an individual capability-providing component. For example, the M16A2 rifle offers a slightly longer effective range compared with the M4 carbine; however, when consider- ing mobility trade-offs, the M4 carbine offers a lighter weight and more portable option, thus enhancing system effective- ness in most operational scenarios.
Decision-making with respect to equip- ping Soldiers
requires buy-in from a
variety of stakeholders and evaluation of possible solutions, all of which the Soldier
enterprise must weigh against
Soldier acceptability and human perfor- mance. To rationalize this process, PEO Soldier has successfully used the analytic hierarchy process
(AHP) on a number
of operational and materiel technology selection problems.
AHP, adapted from Dr. Tomas L. Saaty’s book “Fundamentals of Deci- sion Making and Priority Teory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” is a decision support tool that uses data from multiple sources, including WinSite. It enables us to measure different objec- tive and subjective qualities against one another to arrive at deliberate, reasoned optimal outcomes.
An example is Soldier mobility. We have been closely following the U.S. Marine Corps’ Gruntworks Squad Integration
Facility’s evaluation of the Marine Corps Load Effects Assessment Program (MC- LEAP), which is the Marines’ attempt to
apply metrics to the integration
of humans with systems. MC-LEAP consists of an instrumented series of combat-representative tasks derived from recent experience in Iraq and Afghani- stan, and provides tools for determining how mobility changes as equipment is added, subtracted or changed. Te pair- wise comparison process used in AHP readily
accepts measurement scales,
which we can use in assessing many of the physical and other parameters of the problems we consider.
With proper application and scientific rigor, the MC-LEAP model offers sig- nificant potential
in providing us the insight we need to objectively assess and
consider Soldier mobility in our decision process. Te Soldier enterprise and the Army’s Maneuver Battle Lab are in the process of procuring and establishing an Army version of the LEAP at Fort Ben- ning, GA, and at an RDECOM research lab in Natick, MA, to enable the assess- ment of this key parameter.
Te final and perhaps most challeng- ing parameter we require insight into is capability. Tis is an aggregate fac- tor that will vary depending upon the specific product under consideration. Te upfront systems engineering and integration work conducted at PEO Sol- dier’s WinSite during the early phases of a program of record should lead to bet- ter product design and integration, as demonstrated in the developmental and operational testing. Knowledge from that
ASC.ARMY.MIL 109
Integrated product and process
development
Collaborative design environment
Real-time feedback and analysis-based decisions
Collaborative design environment
Real time feedback and analysis based decisions
SOLDIER ENTERPRISE INTEGRATION MODEL This model, which supports the systems engineering and technical coordination phases of the configuration management process, represents the three essential components of the equipping and integration process. (SOURCE: Brian W. Raftery, PEO Soldier)
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200
