MANPRINT GUIDEBOOK

The purpose of this guidebook is to provide MANPRINT domain experts, Program Managers, and Requirements Offices/Concept Developers with checklists of domain-specific items covering possible design elements of analysis, features and issues when participating in Integrated Concept Teams, Integrated Product Teams, in test planning, and when assessing a system. This tool can also serve as a training aid for new MANPRINT practitioners and as a convenient reminder checklist even for experienced assessors. The checklists collectively function as a comprehensive guide and give the practitioner a feel for the topical coverage of each domain. The analyst should not assume that the checklists provide total coverage of all possible elements to rate, and indeed should add items to the lists as appropriate for assessing unique systems. The checklist items are best used as guides for "thinking" about system concepts and designs, and should not be used in any standardized form.

If you have items to add to the lists, or any suggestions or questions, please contact Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Personnel Technologies Directorate, DSN 225-7035 (comm 703-695). The fax is 703-697-1283 (DSN 227).

---

• AR 602-2, "MANPRINT in the System Acquisition Process"
• Handbook for MANPRINT in Acquisition. July, 1997. Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Personnel Technologies Directorate.
• DA Pamphlet 73-1, Part One, Chapter 12, MANPRINT Considerations in Test and Evaluation, 16 Oct 92
• AMC PAM 602-2, MANPRINT Handbook for Nondevelopmental Item (NDI) Acquisition, July 1988. Also available as DTIC # AD-A227 033.

---

The number of military and civilian personnel required and potentially available to operate, maintain, sustain, and provide training for systems.

• Are total manpower requirements within Army constraints? Are sufficient authorizations available to man the system? That is, ensure that human resource demands of the system do not exceed the available supply: Compare requirements of system with projected quantities of qualified personnel.
• Consider the numbers required in the Active Component, Reserve, Officer, Enlisted, Warrant Officer, & Civilian ranks
• Does new system require more, same, or fewer people than predecessor system?
• Will distribution of ranks/grade change?
• Have all MOS/ASI/SQI needed to support new system been identified?
• Will system increase requirements for supply items; have cost and logistical implications been identified?
• Has the impact on operator, maintainer, and support personnel requirements been determined?
• Were manpower constraints identified in the MNS?
• Was manpower addressed in the ORD?
• Has the impact of this system on force structure during replacement or "phase in" been determined? How long will "phase-in" take?
• Has a Manpower Estimate been done?
• If a plus-up is required in authorizations for existing units, have tradeoffs been identified?
• Is this system supportable in the current environment?

• Look especially for labor-intensive (high-driver) tasks, which might result from hardware or software interface design problems. Can increased workload be designed out by increasing system performance (e.g., built in error-malfunction diagnostics)?
• Is recommended manning of operators-maintainers-repairers sufficient for continuous operations?
• How long are shifts?
• Consider the effects of degraded manning on performance because of fatigue or reduced crew size due to attrition?
• What impact will unprogrammed losses have on workload and task completion? What is the impact of mechanical failure and increased task requirements on crew members?

Manpower must be considered in conjunction with personnel capabilities, training, and human factors engineering trade-offs.

• AR 570-5 Manpower Staffing Standards System

---

The cognitive and physical capabilities required to be able to train for, operate, maintain, and sustain materiel and information systems.

• Assess the aptitudes which the users must possess to complete all of the necessary training to operate, maintain, or support the system.
• The Army has a finite pool of soldiers and civilians (civil service or contractor) available with finite cognitive and psychomotor abilities. Aptitude, therefore, can become the limiting factor in system effectiveness potential. A truly representative sample of the target population must be used during T&E; to get a proper measure of system performance. If aptitude constraints affect system use, they can be identified.
• Target Audience Description (defines the qualifications of the users, operators, maintainers, and support personnel)
  1. Inventory, force structure & standards of grade authorizations
  2. MOS description
  3. Biographical information
  4. Anthropometric data
  5. Physical qualifications
  6. Aptitude descriptions (Note: Aptitude is measured by the Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB))

• Task performance information
• Skill grade authorization
• Physical profile (PULHES)
• Security clearance
• Reading grade level
• Does the target audience have new considerations (more civilians, more females, fewer high school graduates)?

Have the knowledge, skills and abilities required by the new system been identified and documented? Compared against the aptitudes which the target audience possesses? Examples:

• Are there any aptitude-sensitive critical tasks? Is it likely that personnel in the TAD can perform the critical tasks of the job?
• Have physical limitations for system personnel been determined? (color vision, acuity, hearing, and others)
• Have minimum physical standards been established for the Operator/ Maintainer/Repairer?
• Has the expected mental category distribution been considered in system design?
• Has the reading grade level been determined and documented for the 0perator-Maintainer/Repairer?
• Have security requirements been determined/documented for the Operator/Maintainer/Repairer, supporters and users or leaders?

Will the system require a new MOS?

What is the impact on recruiting and retention for this system generated by a new MOS?

Will the system require an Additional Skill Identifier (ASI)?

Will the system have a Space Identifier MOS (SIMOS) impact?

Does the proposed system have an impact on the reassignment system (turn around time) for operators/maintainers/repairers?

Has the impact of the proposed system on promotions and career development been determined for the operator/maintainer/repairer?

Note: Personnel skill shortfalls cannot be overcome by putting more lesser skilled people in the job

• AR 71-2 Basis of Issue Plans (BOIP) and Qualitative and Quantitative Personnel Requirements Information (QQPRI)

---

The instruction or education, and-on-the-job or unit training required to provide personnel their essential job skills, knowledge, and attitudes.

• The system must be designed so that the specified target population can be easily trained to perform to standard
• General issue: how much and what kind of training do soldiers, with the required aptitudes, need to acquire the skills necessary to accomplish their tasks?
• Note 1: Training generally cannot overcome poor system design
• Note 2: Aptitude + Training = Skill, but training cannot always make up for soldier aptitude deficits
• Kinds of training
  1. Individual
  2. Crew/team
  3. Unit Collective (e.g., platoon, company and higher echelons)
  4. Sustainment or refresher
• Training Plans
• How is training to be conducted
  1. Embedded
  2. Hands-on equipment
  3. Training aids devices, simulators, or simulations (TADSS), where simulations may be constructive (based on math or computer models), virtual using digital imagery, or live in the field.
• Where is training to be given
  1. School
  2. Unit organization
  3. On-the-job (OJT)
  4. Home (i.e., correspondence courses)
  5. Training Centers (e.g., National Training Center, Fort Irwin, CA)
• What is to be trained (specific system, or combat tasks)?
• Who does the training?
• Additional instructors needed?
• Special skills required?
• Who is to be trained (active, reserve, civilian): the Target Audience
• When is training/how long is training, and how is it distributed?
• Are the training objectives reasonably achievable?
• Are refresher courses needed
• Various measures of skill and knowledge acquisition:
  1. % of tasks performed to standard
  2. Time required to achieve qualification
  3. Number of practice trials required to achieve qualification
  4. % failures to follow procedures
  5. % tasks not trained to standard
  6. % tasks inadequately trained
  7. % tasks incorrectly trained
  8. Inadequate reference materials, lack of reference materials, lack of training equipment, or lack of TADSS
• Who evaluates acquisition of targeted skills and knowledge?
• Training Strategy Considerations:
  1. Is the target audience known and documented?
  2. Have the system's critical tasks been identified?
  3. Has the target audience and/or trainers participated in planning the training strategy
• If training TADSS are required have plans been made for their development?
• Does the system require New Equipment Training Teams (NETT)?
• Has a Training Effectiveness Analysis (TEA) been conducted?
• Has the training strategy’s validity been analyzed and checked?
• Resources, funds, facilities, time and trainers:
  1. Has the total implementation of operators/maintainers/repairers, and support personnel been considered in order to resource skill training and practice?
  2. Has personnel flow through the Trainees, Transients, Holdees, and Students (TTHS) account been evaluated?
  3. Has the impact on personnel training or availability to work, and on career progression been considered for officers/ warrant officers/enlisted personnel/ civilians?
• Will the system have an impact on Common Task Training requirements?
• How will the required training impact on total force readiness and on mobilization efficiency and speed?

• AR 351-1 Individual Military Education and Training
• FM 25-100 Training the Force
• TRADOC REG 350-70 Training Development

Early Comparability Analysis Tool

• A 12-step lessons learned approach which identifies high driver tasks that are costly in manpower, personnel, and training resources.
• Requires a predecessor system; especially useful for improving the design of fielded systems
• Steps:
  1. Initiation
  2. Identify relevant MOSs
  3. Collect task list
  4. Collect data
  5. Assign values to data
  6. Calculate task scores
  7. Identify high drivers
  8. Conduct tasks analysis
  9. Conduct learning analysis
  10. Identify deficiencies
  11. Identify solutions
  12. Prepare report

Source: For an ECA Procedural Guide, contact U.S. Army Total Army Personnel Command, Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans, Force Integration and Analysis, ATTN: TAPC-PLC (Mr. Art Pridemore), 200 Stovall St., Alexandria, VA 22332-1345. 703-325-2024.

IMPRINT (Improved Personnel Research Integration Tool)

• PC-based soldier-system analysis tool which focuses on the Manpower, Personnel, & Training domains of MANPRINT
• Models performance as a function of workload (cognitive & physical), soldier characteristics, stressors, and task time & accuracy standards
• Example application: Used to model Fox NBC Recon Vehicle

Source: Contact Dr. Laurel Allender, Army Research Laboratory-Human Research and Engineering Directorate, ATTN: AMSRL-HR-MB, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425. Phone 410-278-6233

FOOTPRINT

A relational data base which uses existing personnel data bases to quickly display manpower-personnel-training characteristics of each Military Occupational Specialty and Career Management Field for enlisted personnel, Branch and Area of Concentration for commissioned officers, and Branch and Military Occupational Specialty for warrant officers.

Source: Contact U.S. Army Total Army Personnel Command, Mr. Harold Robinett, 200 Stovall St., Alexandria, VA 22332-1345. 703-325-2092.

Note: For a full listing of tools see Appendix C in the first reference below.

• Handbook for MANPRINT in Acquisition. July, 1997. Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Personnel Technologies Directorate.
• Handbook for Conducting Analysis of the Manpower, Personnel, and Training Elements for a MANPRINT Assessment. Guerrier, J. H., Lowry, J. C., Jones, R. E., Guthrie, J. L., Barber, J. L., & Miles, J. L. U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences Research Note 91-43. April 1991.

---

The integration of human characteristics into system definition, design, development, and evaluation to optimize human-machine performance under operational conditions

To ensure operational effectiveness, a comprehensive technical effort must be made to integrate human factors qualitative and quantitative information into system design, testing, and acquisition. Such information includes:

• human characteristics
• operator/maintainer capability requirements
• soldier performance data
• system interface requirements
• biomedical factors
• safety factors
• training factors
• manning implication

• Make equipment easier to operate, maintain, and support
• Reduce the time to accomplish a task
• Reduce the chance for operator error and accident
• Reduce the amount of operator training
• Reduce need for selection of operators with special background or capabilities

Note 1: Make sure human factors engineering topics are addressed in the:

• Mission Needs Statement
• Operational Requirements Document
• Contract Statement of Work
• Testing and Evaluation plans

Note 2: The soldier cannot always adapt to design inadequacies. Has a user or user’s representative been an active participant in concept development, system design, and test planning?

Note 3: Equipment performance requirements cannot be considered independent of human performance requirements and capabilities. The total system design includes hardware/software and leaders/users, operators, maintainers, and support personnel.

• Obtain essential information
  1. Mission statements for organization in which the weapon system/equipment is used
  2. Mission statements for parent organization and subordinate organizations
  3. Lists of Battlefield Functions (Key Documents 2 and 3) that must be performed to execute the missions
  4. Required Capabilities
  5. Organizational wiring diagrams (chains of command)
  6. Job and job task descriptions
• Develop Preliminary Analysis (or Check) of Total System Functions for Achieving Required Capabilities (see Key Document 4)
• Check for:
  1. Consistency of missions, and Battlefield Functions
  2. Completeness of Total System functions specifications and Battlefield Functions
  3. Consistency of responsibilities and authorities
  4. Appropriateness of span of control
  5. Adequacy of lines of communication
     
     
     • internal
     • external
  6. Issues in formation and maintenance of trust/cohesion within the organization (see Key Document 5)
  7. Adequacy of provision for supplies (internal and external support)
• Allocate Total System Functions to Man or Machine (see Key Document 4):
  1. Human operators
  2. Equipment
  3. Human Maintainers
  4. Embedded fault detection and diagnostics

• Obtain data from:
  1. Checklists
  2. Interviews
  3. Questionnaires
  4. SME observations and ratings
  5. Direct performance measures
  6. Video (time & motion studies)
• Number of tasks attempted and completed
• Time to perform
• Accuracy
  1. Number or proportion of successfully completed tasks
  2. Human reliability: Consider sources of human error:
     
     
     • Inadequate aptitude: too difficult for selected personnel (e.g., too many steps)
     • Inadequate training
     • Equipment configuration induces error
     • Environmental conditions induce human error
     • Eliminate through design typical sources of human error

• Insufficient manpower
• Inadequate aptitudes
• Poor training
• Poor human factors design
• Lack of, or poor job performance aids
• Lack of feedback devices

• Task criticality, frequency of task, learning difficulty, decay rate
• "High driver" tasks
• Information flow analysis
• Task allocation analysis
  1. Soldier
  2. Soldier and machine
  3. Machine
  4. Manual override of specific functions considered?
  5. Sequence of operational instructions
  6. Task-interdependence of crew members
• Workload analysis
  1. Mental workload:
     
     
     • Information processing demands
     • Memory requirements
     • Learning and retention requirements
     • Sensory discrimination requirements
  2. Physical workload demands:
     
     
     • Task overload
     • Biomedical considerations
     • Strength and endurance considerations
  3. How will degraded manning affect performance?
  4. Is the number of soldiers planned to perform various critical tasks required by the system sufficient to meet the system performance requirements?
• Psychomotor requirements
• Task environment
• Maintenance, ease of: does system require major dismantling for access to frequently replaced components? Are built-in self-diagnostics feasible?

• Crew interfaces
• Human-computer interface
• Interface compatibility with the capabilities/characteristics of the target audience
• Usability (as judged by the test players via questionnaires, or exhibited in behaviors). Poor interface design or poor training could be reflected by:
  1. Repetition of task steps
  2. Increase in error rates
  3. Excessive use of on-line help or system documentation
  4. Requests for assistance
  5. Verbal/non-verbal complaints
• Ergonomic considerations
• Anthropometric data

• Heat stress
• Psychological stress
• Continuous operations
• Fatigue
• Isolation
• Crowding
• Will battle stress degrade performance?

NBC conditions: Can the operator perform all required tasks in the prescribed manner while wearing MOPP or other special equipment?

• TRADOC REG 71-17, Organizational Design, Unit Reference Sheets (URS), and Automated Unit Reference Sheets (AURS), 9 Oct 92 (see Chapter 3)
• TRADOC PAM 11-9, Blueprint of the Battlefield, 27 Apr 90
• TRADOC PAM 350-xx, Battlefield Functions
• MANPRINT: An Approach to Systems Integration, H.R. Booher (Ed.), Van Nostrand Reinhold, N.Y., 1990. See Chapter 6, Conceptual System Design and the Human Role (H.E. Price), subsection on Allocation of Functions (pp. 187-193)
• A Comparative Analysis of Organizations, 2nd Ed., Free Press, New York, 1975
• AR 602-1 Human Factors Engineering Program
• NASA Task Load Index

Note: The IMPRINT tool mentioned in the Manpower-Personnel-and-Training tools section contains a workload module.

---

The design features and operating characteristics of a system that serve to minimize the potential for human or machine errors or failure that cause injurious accidents.

System Safety deals with both the safety of the materiel system, as well as the operators, maintainers and support personnel.

Objective: Maximize operational readiness and mission effectiveness through accident prevention by ensuring that appropriate hazard control measures are designed into the total system (materiel, performance procedures, and training) in a timely manner.

Note: A large Lessons Learned accident data base is located at U.S. Army Safety Center.

Has a safety risk assessment been completed?

Have safety risks concerning power sources been considered?

• Electrical
• Mechanical
• Hydraulics/Pneumatics
• Chemical/explosive/propellants

Look for safety risks associated with:

• Exposed, moving equipment
• RF/MW antenna
• Hazardous materials or by-products
• Combustion processes
• High temperature devices
• Vehicular movement/flight
• Gun systems
• Missile systems

Ensure design requirement statements have been developed to address/prevent the impact of:

• Catastrophic loss of materiel system or soldier due to failure of component or procedural error/omission
• Operational loss of system or disabling soldier injury due to component failure/malfunction
• Loss of system effectiveness or soldier injury due to component malfunction or procedural error/omission

Are all trade-offs or impact issues looked at for their effects on all other MANPRINT domains as well as system cost and performance requirements (e.g., excessive training and personnel capability requirements to compensate for materiel system design weaknesses?

Are all functional, cost and performance data, as well as assumptions and other criteria, consistent with other analyses being performed on the system?

Is the system safe for the soldier/civilian to operate, maintain, repair, and support?

• AR 385-10 Army Safety Program
• AR 385-16 Systems Safety Engineering and Management
• MIL-STD-882B, 28 Jun 77 Systems Safety Program Requirements

---

The design features and operating characteristics of a system that create significant risks of bodily injury or death; prominent sources of health hazards include: lacoustic energy, chemical substances, biological substances, temperature extremes, radiation energy, oxygen deficiency, shock (not electrical), trauma, and vibration.

Areas of consideration (information taken from first reference listed at end of this domain section; please refer to it for complete details):

Acoustic energy: Consider probability of system-induced hearing loss

• Steady-State Noise: Magnitude, frequency, duration, type
• Impulse Noise: Auditory and nonauditory blast overpressure

Biological substances

• Diseases transmitted to human by various animal species
• Communicable diseases
• Exposure to toxic plants
• Exposure to stinging and biting insects and anthropods
• Exposure to species of poisonous lizards and snakes
• Exposure to bloodborne pathogens
• Diseases and debilitating ailments resulting from substandard levels of personal hygiene and sanitation
• Potential hazards associated with operation of food service facilities and management of field rations, microbiological quality of water supply, solid and liquid waste disposal, management of sewage disposal, infectious and medical wastes, pest management, graves registration, and field sanitation and personal hygiene practices and devices.

Chemical substances (combustion products & other toxic substances.)

• Solid or liquid exposures from various physical states via contact, inhalation, and/or ingestion.

Oxygen deficiency

• From poor ventilation in vehicle cabs or confined (enclosed) spaces.
• Hypoxia at high altitudes

Radiation energy

• Nonionizing radiation
• Ionizing radiation

Shock

• Shock (not electrical) (e.g., opening forces of a parachute or weapon recoil).
• Whole-body vibration
• Whole-body vibration (e.g., from military ground vehicles operating over secondary and cross-country routes.)
• Segmental vibration (e.g., localized body area or limb in direct contact with a vibrating source, operating a hand-held tool.)

Temperature extremes & humidity

Trauma

• Physical trauma (e.g., resulting from impact)
• Musculoskeletal trauma (e.g., resulting from heavy lifting or other adverse ergonomic health impact.)

Is a Health Hazard Assessment planned?

Have design requirement statements been developed to address/prevent the impact or consequences of exposure to health hazards during operation, maintenance, or repair from:

• The system itself?
• Associated equipment?

Is qualified ICT support available from Preventive Medicine Service personnel from supporting Medical activity collocated with TRADOC activity?

• U.S. Army Health Hazard Assessor’s Guide. August, 1996. U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, ATTN: MCHB-DC-OHH, 5158 Blackhawk Road, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21010-5422
• AR 40-10, Health Hazard Assessment Program in Support of the Army Materiel Acquisition Decision Process
• U.S. Army Health Hazard Assessment Manual, October 1994, U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, ATTN: MCHB-TS-OHH, 5158 Blackhawk Road, APG, MD 21010-5422.
• Department of Defense Instruction No. 6055.1, October 1984, SUBJECT: DOD Occupational Safety and Health Program.
• Department of Defense Regulation No. 5000.2-R, 15 March 1996, Mandatory Procedures for Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPS) and Major Automated Information System (MAIS) Acquisition Programs.

---

The characteristics of a system that can reduce fratricide, detectability and probability of being attacked, as well as minimize system damage, soldier injury, and cognitive and physical fatigue.

Assessment Components (the information below is from the first reference cited in the document section; it contains detailed listings of issues to rate):

Reduce Fratricide:

• Consider the system’s ability to prevent engagement by allied systems in a fratricidal incident.
• Assess the system’s ability to support correct identification of U.S. or allied systems, which might otherwise be engaged in a fratricidal incident.
• Consider the system’s support of crew training and readiness to reduce the probability of a fratricidal event.
• Assess the system’s weapons design characteristics which reduce the probability of committing fratricide.

Reduce Detectability of the Soldier:

• Consider the system’s physical signature as it affects the system’s detectability by threat forces.
• Assess the system’s operational characteristics as they affect the system’s detectability by threat forces.

Reduce Probability of being Attacked:

• Assess the system’s ability to avoid appearing as a high value target.
• Assess the system’s ability to actively prevent or deter attack.

Prevent System Damage:

• Assess the effect of the system’s concept of employment on the system’s survivability.
• Consider the system’s ability to minimize the risk to supporting personnel if this system is attacked.

Minimize Injury:

• Consider the system’s ability to protect the crew from attacking weapons.
• Consider the system’s potential sources of injury to the crew, or the supported troops, as they are affected by the fielding of this system
• Assess the system’s ability to protect the crew from hazards relating to on-board equipment (fuel, munitions, etc.) in the event of an attack.
• Assess the system’s ability to prevent further injury to the soldier after being attacked.
• Assess the system’s ability to support treatment and evacuation of injured soldiers.

Reduce Physical and Mental Fatigue:

• Consider the physical constraints and workload placed on the soldier by the system.
• Consider the cognitive constraints and workload placed on the soldier.
• Assess the system’s ability to minimize the effect of environmental stressors on the soldier.
• Assess the system’s ability to minimize the effect of physical and environmental stressors (e.g. noise, vibrations, bouncing, and extreme heat or cold) on the soldier.
• Assess the system’s ability to promote unit/team cohesion.

• Parameter Assessment List (PAL), &
• Parameter Assessment List - MANPRINT Automated Tool Edition (PAL-MATE)
  
  Note: The paper version (PAL) and PC-based version (PAL-MATE) of the Soldier Survivability rating guide were developed by Army research Laboratory-Human Research and Engineering Directorate and Army Research Laboratory-Survivability/Lethality Analysis Directorate. Contact Director, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, ATTN: AMSRL-SL-I (Mr. Richard Zigler), Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5068; phone 410-278-8625 (DSN 298)
  
  
• AR 70-75 Survivability of Army Personnel and Materiel

---

The creation of the MANPRINT guidebook was suggested by the Army Audit Agency in an audit of MANPRINT led by Joseph Mizzoni and Kathleen Newman.

This guidebook was constructed by Don Headley, Army Research Laboratory-Human Research and Engineering Directorate Liaison to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (ODCSPER), and Jack Hiller, Director, Personnel Technologies Directorate, ODCSPER.

The information is based on many sources, most notably:

Checklists provided by the Manpower, Personnel and Training (MPT) Domain Branch, Force Integration Division, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, Alexandria, VA

The Soldier Survivability Parameter Assessment List, created by the Army Research Laboratory’s Human Research and Engineering Directorate (Rick Tauson, Bill Doss, &Don; Headley) and the Survivability/Lethality Analysis Directorate (staff effort, with coordination by Rich Zigler), Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD

The U.S. Army Health Hazard Assessor’s Guide, prepared by the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland (the guidebook is the product of a multi-agency effort, and was coordinated by MAJ W.Michael McDevitt, USACHPPM)

---