SHAPING ARMY ACQUISITION
the Integrated Visual Augmentation System. Tis project, which is develop- ing a heads-up-display with a wide array of capabilities, used Soldier touch-point events to understand users’ needs during the rapid, iterative development and eval- uation of prototype designs.
Our lessons learned are also extensible to traditional acquisition, phased product development, the waterfall process model and spiral system development. Which- ever acquisition process or model is used to develop hardware or software and procure commercial off-the-shelf products, early and iterative Soldier feedback is critical for ensuring systems meet user expectations well before they are fielded. As we have learned, Soldiers’ needs are not static; they evolve in response to new threats, advances in technology and changes in force struc- ture, doctrine, tactics, techniques and procedures. Including Soldiers through- out the process helps ensure your system’s design maintains relevance.
Agile and Soldier-centered design were conceived to improve upon traditional development processes. Although they share a common goal, historically the challenges and barriers to their success- ful integration have been difficult to overcome. However, by leveraging the strengths of each and understanding how teams can overcome inherent points of contention, the Army will be positioned to more quickly develop capabilities that users find useful and usable.
For more information about usability measures and metrics, conducting Soldier touch-point events, and Soldier-centered design contact Dr. Savage-Knepshield at
pamela.a.savage-knepshield.civ@mail. mil.
PAM SAVAGE-KNEPSHIELD, PH.D., is a research psychologist in the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Data and Analysis Center
leading human-
systems integration and Soldier-centered design
for the product manager Fire
Support Command and Control at PEO C3T. A former distinguished member of technical staff at Lucent Technologies/Bell Laboratories, she has a Ph.D. in cognitive psychology from Rutgers University, a B.A. in psychology from Monmouth University, and is a Fellow of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
LT. COL. JASON CARNERY is the prod- uct manager for Fire Support Command and Control at PEO C3T. He received an M.A. from Webster University and a B.A. from the University of South Alabama as well as Boise State University. He is Level III certified in program management and Level II certified in test and evaluation, and is a member of the Army Acquisition Corps.
MAJ. BRIAN MAWYER is the assistant product manager for Fire Support Command and Control at PEO C3T. He holds an MBA and master's in project management (MPM) from Western Carolina University, an M.S. in strategic communication from Troy University, an MBA from the Univer- sity of Georgia, and is Level 1 certified in program management.
ALAN LEE is the assistant product manager for the Precision Fires Dismounted system. He holds an M.S. from Monmouth Univer- sity in software engineering and a B.S. in electrical engineering from Brown Univer- sity. He is Level III certified in engineering and is a member of the Army Acquisi- tion Corps.
James Goon, deputy product manager for Mission Command Cyber, PEO C3T, contributed to this article.
DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE HSI PLAN
The table of contents from the Precision Fires Dismounted Block 2 human-systems integration plan conveys the critical elements that should be included in the human-systems integration, or HSI, plan. For example, it should describe usability measures and metrics, issue severity descriptions, agreements made with the vendor to track and mitigate issues, Soldier touch-point events that are planned and sample questionnaires that will be used during Soldier touch- point events to collect user feedback.
THE FEEDBACK LOOP
Dr. Katy Badt-Frissora, left, a Leidos User-Centered Design Team member, facilitates a usability test session with one Soldier while another observes their interaction at Fort Riley, Kansas. For this test, Soldiers were not provided training prior to participation because testing was designed to gauge the intuitiveness of the system’s user interface.
https://asc.ar my.mil
29
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
