SOLDIER-CENTERED AGILE
FIGURE 3
Instruction 5000.02 by emphasizing front- end planning to enhance design, reduce life cycle ownership costs, improve safety and survivability, and optimize total system performance. Soldier-centered design ensures Soldier inclusion in the acquisition process. In the U.S. Army, human-systems integration analysts, who are typically human factors engineers or research psychologists, develop human- systems integration plans documenting the Soldier-centered design process and planned Soldier touch-point events. Tey also develop standardized usability measures and metrics and data collec- tion instruments to measure and track progress.
Human-systems integration analysts draft an issues tracker, a companion document to the human-systems integration plan, to monitor the status of issue mitigation. Before major acquisition milestones, unre- solved issues in the tracker are reported in an assessment to the milestone decision authority. Rather than using a spreadsheet to track issues, analysts can complement Agile development by leveraging the same tools used for configuration management.
Te human-systems integration plan and issue tracker are not contractually binding documents. Formal contractual agree- ments should specify how issues will be categorized (defect, enhancement), prior- itized (high, medium, low) and monitored during the configuration management process. Furthermore, incentives must be established to encourage a higher level of performance.
CONCLUSION Although our lessons learned were derived from merging the two processes for soft- ware development, they are equally applicable to hardware products and plat- forms, as demonstrated by the middle tier acquisition rapid prototyping effort,
28 Army AL&T Magazine Spring 2021 PARTICIPATORY DESIGN
Scott Sines, CACI International, Inc., moderates a participatory design session with Marines at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. During the session, Marines created paper prototypes of mocked up display screen content and task flows that they believed would support their ability to meet the “Five Requirements for Accurate Fire” and field artillery time standards for fire mission processing.
REFINE THE DESIGN
A screen shot from an online survey designed to collect preference and performance data. Results determined which of two design alternatives should be implemented based on Soldier feedback.
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