QUIZ SHOW
THE QUIZ 1 Starting in about 1985, the Army was fully
invested in something called MANPRINT, which was written up in the magazine several times.
What was it? (MANPRINT was an acronym, of course, short for “management and personnel integration,” which really doesn’t provide much of a clue.)
A. The integration of management with rank-and-file employees.
B. A process that imposes human factors, manpower, personnel and training considerations across the entire materiel acquisition process.
C. A form of biometrics that never fully matured before being abandoned.
D. A full-body equivalent of a fingerprint.
Answer: B. Te MANPRINT program was intended to live up to what Gen. Creighton Abrams, Army chief of staff, said about equipping Soldiers: “Te difference between us and the U.S. Air Force is that they man equipment and the Army equips men.” It was, according to the author, Col. John Tragesser, the forerun- ner of “people are our most important resource.” MANPRINT was going to provide the Army of 2020 the materiel it needed. By 2003, the concept had been narrowed to “human/system interaction.”
2 When did the first Army artificial intelligence
system come online, based on mentions in this magazine?
A. 1997 B. 1967 C. 1987 D. 2007
Answer: B. Te Human Resources Research Office of George Washington University, which was the Army’s principal training research agency and was terminated in 1975, launched project IMPACT—an acronym for the tortured name of the program, Instructional Model Prototypes Attainable in Computerized Training—in 1967 (roughly). Te project was “intended to incorporate proven principles of the learning process into a single
pattern or model” and was expected to be of “vast significance to the education community as well as to its primary beneficia- ries—Army personnel seeking advanced skills.” Another program, PLATO (Programed [sic] Logic for Automatic Operations), which Army RD&A wrote about in 1965 and was later profiled in the early 1970s as an offshoot of IMPACT, morphed into a “proprie- tary mainframe based training system marketed by Control Data Corp.,” which supported MALOS-QDX (Quick Decision Exer- cise), a training system that used PLATO.
Te Army will always train, and always look for ways to do it more effectively and efficiently.
3 Army Futures Command’s Soldier Lethality
Cross-Functional Team recently announced Soldier Centered Design. What other efforts to
make “the Soldier the Centerpiece” has the Army undertaken?
A. MANPRINT B. Soldier as a system C. Human factors engineering D. All of the above.
Answer: D. An article in the May-June 1991 issue of Army RD&A Bulletin extolled the use of MANPRINT in the devel- opment of the Patriot Air Defense Artillery System. Te authors, John R. Erickson and Gary L. Kurtz, wrote that “Te HEL [the U.S. Army Human Engineering Lab, not high-energy laser] facil- ities and their mission funding posture provided a bridge over fluctuations in project funding caused by normal technological perturbation in the program. Tis led to major contribution to the air defense community, which included the development of the first simulation of the operating console for Patriot and the appli- cation of [human factors engineering] to the total Patriot system.”
Te Soldier-as-a-system concept first appeared in the maga- zine in the November-December 1992 issue, in an article by Dr. Madeline Swann about “Te Soldier As A System (SAAS) Symposium/Exposition,” an event held by the U.S. Army Materiel Command that drew “more than 700 attendees from govern- ment and private industry.” Six foreign governments also sent
100
Army AL&T Magazine
Spring 2020
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
