Research Note 85-19

An Initial Analytic Process Model for

Systems Measurement:

Extensions of the Systems Taxonomy Model 4"*

Richard F. Bloom, John F. Oates, Jr., and John W. Hamilton

Dunlap and Associates, East, Incorporated

m (D

Submitted by

O ARI Field Unit at Fort Benning, Georgia

Seward Smith, Chief

Training Research Laboratory

Harold F. O'Nell, Jr., Director

SW\OCT

7,1985)

U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

February 1985

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

.85 10 16 10
4

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

L. NEALE COSBY

EDGAR M. JOHNSON Colonel. IN

Technical Dircctor Commander

Accession For

NTIS GRA&I

DTIC TAB

°ori

,-'We

" 1This report, as submitted by the contractor, has been cleared for release to Defense Technical Information Center

- (DTIC) to comply with regulatory requirements. It has been given no primary distribution other than to DTIC

1and will be available only through DTIC or other reference services such as the National Technical Information

IService (NTIS). The vicws. opinions. and/or findings contained in this report are those of the authorl and .

should not be construeJ as an officia; Cepattmeni of the Army position, policy, or decision. unless so designated

by other official documentation.

* % 
'-I

U nclassi fied

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE MWRon Date Enttered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE EFRE INSPTUTONS

AREPORT NUMBER 12.02VT ACCESS N SO. RECIPIENTIS CATALOG NUMBER

ARI Research Note 85-19

4. TITLE (and Subtitle) S. fYPE BFREPORT A PERIOD COVERED

An Initial Analytic Process Model for Systems Final Report Measurement: Extensions of the Systems Taxo- March 1980-February 1983

nomy Model *. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

293-14

7. AUTHOR(a) 0. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(&)

Richard F. Bloom, John F. Oates, Jr., and MDA9O3-80-C-0345 4f~r

John W. Hamilton

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 0.PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK

AREA II WORK UNIT NUMBERS

Dunlap and Associates East, inc. 2234A9

One Parkland Drive 2234A9

flarien__(Conneticuit nfRR9O________________

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

U.S. Army Research Institute for theFeray18 Behavioral and Social Sciences 12. NUMBER OF PAGES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333 192

14IONITORING A3EhICY NAdit A ADDRIESS(il differet from Cotrolling Office) 1S. SECURITY CLASS. (of this reprt)

Unclassified

ISa. OFCL ASSI ICATION/ DOWN GRADIN G SGNEDULE Z

IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the. abstract entered ISatoclk 20, it different free Report)

If. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Seward Smith, Contracting Officer's Representative

IS. KEY WORDS (Cemu ~anereverse aide it necessary utd identify by block number)

Human-machine system; performance evaluation measurement; effectiveness

measurement, system populations, Infantry Fighting Vehicle, IFV, Systems

Taxonomy Model, Analytic Process Model.

*206 AmrTRACT' cno mmue~ -eee uwm If umoeuvy ad utt Wee sm"W)

This report briefl3.. summarizes work completed under Task 3 of contract. It descrils several accomplishments including an evaluation of the state

of the art of -ma &e- systems measurement, the identification of research requirements on the basis of the literature review, the application of the modt recent

project model to the Infantry Fighting Vehicle, the resulting revision of the overall conceptual process model for performance measurement, and an initial look at

the potential for specifying codification strategies to be used in future model

development efforts._~ ,~,m ~.

DD 13 W3 m-nou I~@ f~v e5s isOSOLETE Unclas fie

S SECIRI? CLASSIFICATION OF ThIS PAGE (Whon Dole Entered)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors depended greatly upon the assistance of many individuals during

* "the course of this project. In particular, we wish to acknowledge the invaluable

technical assistance provided by Mr. Hal C. Strasel and Ms. Dorothy L. Finley

', of ARI, and Drs. Marvin Grunzke and Edward Youngling of Litton/Mellonics, all

at Fort Benning. We would also like to thank the word processing department of

ARI (Fort Benning) for their hard work in producing the typed copies of the many

abstracts generated during our review of the literature. Constant support and

assistance on technical and administrative issues were generously provided by

Messrs. Joseph T. Fucigna and Edward W. Bishop, the former and present

Responsible Officers for this project at Dunlap and Associates, Inc. Finally, we

acknowledge the help provided by the Dunlap technical librarian, Bernice

Astheimer; the Dunlap technical assistants, Frances Kowaleski, Cynthia Gilchrist,

Mary Ellen Pavlech, Susan Redford, Karen Schoelch and Janet Vartuli; and the

numerous others at Fort Benning and Dunlap who contributed their special skills

in so many helpful ways.

i.'.

II
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii

LIST OF FIGURES v

. I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. EXTENSIONS OF THE STM 5

77 A. Initial STM Concepts and Definitions 5

B. First Revision of the STM 14

C. Initial Application of the STM to the IFV 29

D. Derivation of an IFV Measures Hierarchy for the

Surveillance Function 49

E. "Final Revision" of the STM 57

IL STM UTILIZATION PROCEDURES 65

IV. INITIAL ANALYTIC PROCESS MODEL FOR SYSTEMS

MEASUREMENT 71

A. Groups of Stages in the Overall Measurement Process: The Framework for Further Research 71

B. Measurement Process Issues to be Addressed in the

Continuing Research 74

S V. RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS AND PLANS 80

- A. Implications for Research 80

B. Research Items: Scope, Potential Significance, and - Resource Implications 83

C. References for Section V. 93

APPENDIX A. Carrier Team Taxonomies 95

* APPENDIX B. Crew Compartment Team Taxonomies 155

-ivI l ;, ; . ."" - ." ''" ,' " . - "" ' , "" " " - " ." " --' ., "* '
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

1. A General Systems Taxonomy Model (Initial Status) 8

2. Initial Conceptual Outline of Stages in the Overall

Measurement Process 10

3. Structure of STM Taken as Point of Departure for "First

Revision" 15

4. Preliminary Principles/Guidelines for Organizing System

Taxonomies 18

5. General Representation of a System Hierarchical Structure 20

6. The Three-Dimensional Structure of the STM 21

7. System-Centered View of the Individual Mobile CB System

Hierarchy (Case Study) 23

8. System Taxonomies for the Individual Mobile CB System

14N (The System of Interest) 24

9. System Taxonomies for the Emergency All-Hours Responding

System (A Collateral System) 25

10. System Taxonomies for the Network of all CB Units (A

Supra-System) 26

11. "First Revision" of Taxonomic Guidelines 28

12. Hierarchical Structure Encompassing the IFV Squad System 37

13. Mission Scenario 38

14. Verbal Squad Order 42

15. Map of Platoon Attack 44

16. Example of a Systematic Coding Scheme Applied to the

IFV Carrier Team Unit 47

17. Carrier Team System Taxa Associated with "Surveillance"

Performance Element 50

18. IFV Surveillance: Potentiality-Oriented Measures 52

19. IFV Surveillance: Process-Oriented Measures 53

20. IFV Surveillance: Product-Oriented Measures 54

21. Partial Set of Measures 60

22. "Final Revision" STM, including Revised Taxonomic Guidelines 64

23. Groups of Stages in the Overall Measurement Process 72

24. Revised Conceptual Outline of the Measurement Process 75

25. Future Research Items 84

26. Rank-Ordered List of Research Items 90

27. Inter-Relationships of Research Items 91

28. Proposed Research Plan 92

""-,
I. INTRODUCTION ,..

This report was prepared under the overall contract for the "Study of

Effectiveness of Infantry Systems: TEA, CTEA, and Human Factors in Systems

Development and Fielding" (MDA903-80-C-0345). Dunlap and Associates, Inc.,

was responsible for Task 3 (System Development and Evaluation Technology) of

that contract, under subcontract (No. 05628) to the Mellonics Systems Develop-.-

ment Division of Litton Systems, Inc. The principal end product of Task 3 was

oan improved model for the overall process of measuring the performance and

. effectiveness of existing human-machine systems. It was not expected that this

would be a fully developed overall process model; such full development requires

N research that is beyond the present scope of work. However, the project has

yielded initial developments required to advance the measurement state of the

art, and has provided a foundation for further development in the future.

The rationale behind the work on this project rests with the problem that

testers, analysts and researchers too often use an incomplete or inappropriate

set of human performance measures in evaluating human-machine systems. Those

are usually known measures often selected without adequate consideration of the

system context, which may not help clearly assess system performance and may

not provide adequate answers to the essential questions about system effectiveness. Because there is no verified analytic process for deriving the optimal

measures of a system's performance or effectiveness, true assessment needs are

difficult to define and the process is relatively haphazard. The typical solution

is to measure the easy and accessible system points, but not necessarily those

that should be addressed. Without having more systematic procedures, people

measure what can be counted or observed (e.g., number of troops trained). They

design written tests to assess facts rather than understanding, and use criteria

such as end-of-course tests rather than on-the-job performance. Rarely do

people know the relationship between test performance and job performance, or

. between soldier job performance and unit effectiveness. The results of those

inadequacies of the measurement determination process are the wasting of valuable resources (time, effort, talent, money), the failure to provide adequate . answers to effectiveness questions, and the relegation to obscurity of the elusive

questions regarding human contributions to system performance. A better

method is required to decide what should be measured and how.

This project was conceived to produce more adequate and efficient processes

for measuring systems' effectiveness than now exist. A first step in this produc- tion is described in this report. It is an initial model of the conceptual and

analytic procedures necessary for the determination and development of fully

adequate systems' effectiveness measurement/testing. A major part of the model

is the Systems Taxonomy Model (STM) originally conceived by Finley et al. (1975,

1976).* This report describes the evolutionary revision of that STM (in part

*Finley, D.L., Muckler, F.A., Gainer, C.A. and Obermayer, R.W. An Analysis and

Evaluation Methodology for Command and Control: Final Technical Report. North-

. ridge, CA: Manned Systems Sciences, Inc., November 1975. NTIS No. AD A023871.

Finley, D.L. and Muckler, F.A. Human Factors Research and the Development of

a Manned Systems Applications Science: The System Sampling Problem and a Solution. Northridge, CA: Manned Systems Sciences, Inc., July 1976. NTIS No. AD

A029417.

* .. . ' -" .-- *." " ". . " " *' '. '' . "* ." ' ""'" " .. ". "'*-*"." "" -"". "" -"", ". .- • * -*.. .-. * .*- - .*""* . ,
* . 1

through application of the STM to several systems of varying complexity); the

initial thinking about the total model and the relevance of the STM to the model;

and considerations of the nature and extent of future research required for further development of these concepts and the eventual production of usable procedures for analytic application. A model of the overall process of measuring

the performance/effectiveness of human-machine systems must address the follow-

,: ,ing, among other issues:

The identification of measures of performance/effectiveness

that are relevant to the system under study and to the

measurement purpose at hand.

-- The specification of criteria or standards of performance/

effectiveness to be used to assess the outcome of the

measures.

*. The development of a comprehensive test plan in which the

measures are to be employed.

-*'The implementation of the test plan, including in particular

the collection of all appropriate data.

Reduction, analysis and interpretation of the data.

The initial issue in this overall conceptualization of the measurement

process ("identification of measures") is the purview or technical scope of the

STM. Basically, the STM is conceived to be a set of procedures for identifying

the system populations (taxonomies) to which a system of interest belongs, and

for organizing those populations in a way that provides information relevant to

the system's measurement. The role of system taxonomization in the humanmachine system measurement process derives from the following fundamental

observations, or postulates:

1. In any system measurement effort, the system itself must be

an important source (really, the key source) of measurement

variables. System measurement efforts often have failed or

been deficient because they focused exclusively on components

studied out of the system context.

2. Systems exist as viable entities that form populations. That

. . is, any system can be grouped with other systems on the basis

of some attribute that they share or have in common.

3. Important variables for measurement can be gleaned from a

knowledge of the populations to which the system under study

belongs. By identifying the populations, and their organizational bases, the measurement analyst can more easily discern

the system attributes of concern to the research at hand. Also,

organized sets of system populations can guide the analyst to

relevant segments of the published literature, to facilitate

extraction of information concerning measurement methods and

results derived from similar systems.

-2- .. . ..-.

"-'.°......... .................-. o.. . .o- . . ... . . .....
7.4

4. The system populations (or taxonomies) to which the system of

" "interest belongs are (in the abstract) the measures of performance/

effectiveness. They tell the analyst exactly what the system must

possess, or do, or produce in order to accomplish the mission

being studied. That is, they tell the analyst what must be

measured.

The key to using taxonomization as the means of identifying the appropriate

measures is the ability to isolate the system populations that truly are relevant

to the particular measurement application. Any system can be thought of as

belonging to a vast array of different populations, depending on the attributes

-4 or characteristics being considered. It is possible that there may be an infinite

number of population memberships for any given system. Assuming that the . -relevant measurement issues comprise a finite, manageable set, the problem

becomes one of being able to extract the corresponding finite, manageable collection of taxonomies from the vast array of possible memberships. The STM

was first proposed as a tool for solving that problem.

In the original research carried out by Finley and her colleagues, system

taxonomy modeling was viewed from the perspective of the types of measures

suited to the various research questions systems analysts face and to the various

levels of descriptive detail that characterize a system at any stage in its life-

* •cycle. What emerged was a structure that appeared to encompass satisfactorily

all taxonomies that might be relevant to a particular measurement application of

- -a particular system. However, the original research produced few if any guide- -. "i lines for applying the taxonomization process to an actual system. The present

project continues the STM development effort to the point where its utility for

measures generation could be tested, and where it (the STM) can be incorporated

into a model of the overall analytic process.

to The scope of this effort, then, was to develop further, to apply, and then

to extend the STM. The specific activities undertaken included:

* A review of the original research into the STM concept, both to

acquire fuller awareness of its fundamental principles and postulates and to identify specific needs for further development.

A review and analysis of all pertinent additional literature to

assure full awareness and consideration of all relevant data.

*- "A "first revision" of the STM, specifically to extend the concept

to the point where it could be applied to generate relevant

taxonomies for typical systems of interest.

* mA trial application of the revised STM to generate taxonomies

.7. and a measures hierarchy for a typical military human-machine

system (the Infantry Fighting Vehicle) in a typical applications

context.

* A "final revision" of the STM reflecting the findings and conclusions of the trial application. Detailed utilization proedures

were to be prepared for the "final revision" model.

-3
. Development of the initial form of the overall analytic process

model for design of system's effectiveness measurement procedures and techniques.

. Examination of the requirements for research and development

necessary to the further extension of the initial model and the

development of the requisite procedures and techniques.

The report documents the above-listed activities and their outcomes in the

-rcontext of the developmental framework that guided this project. Basic concepts dealing with system measurement evolved during the project. Chief among

these were notions regarding the dimensions and taxa of human-machine system

performance, and notions regarding the implications of those dimensions and

taxa for the measurement of system performance and effectiveness. The authors

have attempted to trace the evolution of their thinking, in order to communicate more effectively the logic and rationale behind the model that ultimately

. emerged. Thus, the report is organized around a historical perspective.

m4- o .

:4--4-
I. EXTENSIONS OF THE STM

A. Initial STM Concepts and Definitions

Measurement of performance and effectiveness has been going on for a

long time, and many pure and applied research efforts for assessing manned

systems capabilities and limitations have been reported. Widely accepted and

frequently used analytic techniques abound. The initial work on manned system

measurement and associated taxonomies by Finley and her colleagues indicated

that certain prerequisites exist for including "system" factors in manned system

performance measurement. They are:

. • Recognition of systems as viable entities in and of themselves.

o Development of conceptual tools for the purpose of:

- Grouping systems into populations.

- Defining these populations.

- Placing them into a context with other populations.

In all cases, the basic purpose of a taxonomy is to supply knowledge that is

specifically relevant to the particular analytic application at hand. Thus, each

system taxonomy is unique to the particular system and to the particular context

and purposes in and for which the measurement process is to be applied. What

Finley et al. sought was a systematic way of generating such taxonomies for

any given system and measurement purpose. Development of the STM by those

researchers and in the current project was intended to help meet that need. Within

an overall conceptual process model for evaluation, the STM is a tool that will

support the taxonomy development process for manned system studies. The STM

development was to provide a mechanism for identifying taxonomies (associated

2 with some particular human-machine system) that would supply information bearing

on the measurement of that system's performance and/or effectiveness. Knowledge of the human-machine system populations to which a particular system belongs

(or with which it interacts, in a fashion clarified below) should aid the performance/effectiveness measurement analyst in at least two ways:

* 'First, it should point out the factors or characteristics of the

system that must be addressed in the measures and/or measure-

.ss ment procedures that ultimately are selected. That is, system

-. populations can be formed on the basis of any and all of the

following: the kind of system each population member is supposed to be; the kind of mission each member is supposed to

be able to do; the circumstances, conditions, and constraints

under which each member is supposed to work; the specific

requirements and criteria each member is supposed to satisfy;

etc. Each such population immediately suggests measurement

issues, sueh as: Is the system what it is supposed to be? Can

" iit do what it should? Will it work where it is supposed to?

* Second, this knowledge of the populations associated with -a

particular human-machine system should provide a "road map"

-5-

a,!

.• . . . . . . . . . . .

,-.S S - S S . . .- . . . . . t -. , . 5 . --
to the relevant segments of the system measurement literature. ... If the populations are well defined, the analyst should be able

to extract information from previous research on systems similar to the one of interest-similar in the sense that they

share a population membership in common. It can plausibly

be argued that it is this aspect of system taxonomization that

* ultimately may prove most beneficial, in that it may impose

order on the vast body of system measurement literature, and

allow findings gained in the study of one system to be extended

to the studies of others.

The Original STM Concept: One Dimension (System Description Levels) Plus

Implications

The STM was originally viewed as a systematic method or mechanism for

identifying which of a system's many taxa (population memberships) are relevant to a specific measurement of that system's performance/effectiveness.

Such a model would be tantamount to a mechanism for specifying the measures

for that specific measurement application. The concept was organized around

three basic factors:

0! 1. Measurement Level Definitions-the two general measurement

levels are nominal and relative. The former encompasses measurement categories that are not ordered (in the mathematical

. - or comparative sense), e.g., "apples" and "oranges." The latter

pertains to ordered categories, including the ordinal, interval,

and ratio classifications familiar from elementary statistics.

One of the fundamental postulates (previously cited) asserts that

the taxonomies associated with a given system are abstractions

of measures of that system's performance/effectiveness. The

implication is that some taxonomies are abstractions of nominal

measures; others, of relative measures. Since the two general

levels of measurement often are suited to different measurement purposes, it is clear that the STM's structure should pro- -..- vide for separation or selective identification of a system's

nominal and relative taxonomies.

* 2. Types of Research Questions-every specific system measurement

application has its own unique set of specific research questions

or issues. Generally, however, such questions fall into two types,

viz., fundamental research or applied research. Fundamental

research issues typically are concerned more with generic classes

of systems than with a particular system. Applied research issues

often delve into the specific operational characteristics of a particular system, thus examining operations on a microscopic level.

* The kinds of measures appropriate to these two different research

perspectives are likely also to differ. The STM should allow the

system's taxa to be identified and organized in a way that reflects

the kinds of research questions at hand.

3. Levels of System Description-this factor is closely associ~ted with

the previous two. The concept of interest here is that any system

can be described on several levels of increasing detail. First, it

-6-

L
can be described as an indivisible, macroscopic entity, or "black

box"; this level of description can be thought of as focusing on

the system's basic objectives. Taxa that would be identified on

that level of description would be expected to generate nominal

measures of performance/effectiveness, and would tend to be

particularly well suited to fundamental research issues. Secondly,

the system can be described in terms of how it can be applied,

i.e., its functional purposes. This level of description probably

would produce taxonomies suited to both major types of research

questions and would generate both nominal and relative measures.

- Thirdly, a system can be described in terms of how it can

achieve its purposes, i.e., in terms of the characteristics of its

* '*' operations. This level of description would tend to correspond

to relative measurement, and to applied research issues.

- The original structure of the STM, as organized around ',e factors discussed

- above, is depicted in Figure 1. As shown, the objectives level of system description associates exclusively with nominal measurement. The characteristics level

associates exclusively with relative measures. The functional purposes level deals

- with both levels of measurement.

The review of the fundamental concepts underlying the STM led to the

conclusion that the structure illustrated in Figure 1 implies a logical basis for

organizing a system's taxa that are relevant to its measurement. However, it

was also apparent that substantial further development was needed before the

- model could actually be applied to generate measures hierarchies for specific

systems and specific measurement purposes. As points of departure for that further development, it was noted that:

- The STM must be system-oriented. Its structure must reflect the

fact that it is intended to be applied to individual systems, with '* their own features, attributes, operations, reasons-for-being, and

all the other qualities that, collectively, make a particular system

whatever it happens to be. All system measurement should proceed strictly in the context of the system itself. The STM's

original structure did not explicitly reflect the elements that make

up the system context.

The STM is not an end in itself. It is part of the overall model

of human-machine system measurement that is the ultimate focal

point of this project. Hence, the STM's structure should explicitly

reflect those stages of the total measurement process to which it

: - applies.

Preliminary Definitions of the Second Dimension (Process Stages)

* "Preparation for the "first revision" of the STM thus required the enumeration of the stages of the overall measurement process, in terms firmly imbedded

in the context of the system being studied. Then, it was necessary to identify

" "which stages fell within the purview of the STM, and to extend the model's

* structure to incorporate those stages explicitly. Accordingly, one of'the project

staff's first activities was to construct a preliminary outline of the components

-7- ,- . -
. 7 -_qIF 01

MEASUREMENT SYSTEM TAXONOMIC EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE

LEVELS LEVELS TAXONOMIC CATEGORIES & DIMENSIONS

* Production

. Supply

* Navigation

LEVEL Nominal Measurement SYSTEM OBJECTIVES * Air Traffic Control

ONE * Health & Welfare

0 Transportation

* Maintenance

* Weapons

-- . Surveillance

* Etc.

Nominal

0 Indirect eommand/control/guidance

operations

Nominal . Relatively direct control/navigation operations

0 Maintenance operations

* Data or materials processing

LE- TWO --- --- SYSTEM FUNCTIONAL FURPOSES Re-ati-e

TRelative

Relative * Command - Control

- Information

0 Data

, Organization and layout * Size

STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS . Level of automation

* Implementation capabilities

* .~ * Human skills, equipment conditions

OPERATOR/EQUIPMENT . Human abilities & IQs, equipment

CHARACTERISTICS capabilities -" . Values , . Needs

LEVEL Relative Measurement

THREE (Ordinal, Interval and . Ratio) 0 hnuts to operator

' * Operator processing -- OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS 0 Operator outputs

. Units being dealt with by system , Environment

*Feedback

SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS * Materials (including people)

CHARACTERISTICS 0 Maintenance (including people)

From: Finley A Muekler (1976) and Finley et al. (1975)

Figure 1. A General Systems Taxonomy Model (Initial Status)

,,. -8-
of the measurement process. Figure 2 depicts those components, each of which

is described briefly below.

Define the System

If the system is to serve as the key source of variables for its own

,. measurement, it seems appropriate to begin the measurement process by specifying exactly what that system is supposed to be. The analyst ought to be aware of precisely what kind of system is involved

in the research at hand.

Define the Mission

*. In any given measurement application, one is concerned with determining the performance/effectiveness of some particular system in

carrying out some particular mission (or set of missions). Thus, it

seems appropriate to include a mission-specification step explicitly

in the measurement process outline. The analyst needs to know

exactly what kinds of jobs the system is supposed to do, since the

ultimate purpose of the measurement is to determine how well or

how effectively the system can do those jobs.

Specify the Environment

The question, "Can the system do its job?", implicitly includes the

'- qualifying phrase, "at the times and places where it is supposed

to do its job". Performance/effectiveness measurement ultimately - must reflect how well the system does its jobs under real-world - conditions. The analyst needs to know exactly what those conditions will be in order to plan and implement the measurement

process properly.

Specify the General Constraints

A special case of the real-world conditions that surround a system

and its missions is the set of limitations or constraints imposed on

how the system is to do its job. Such imposed conditions arise from

4' .-. conscious, human intervention, in recognition of tactical doctrine,

safety and health protection, economic necessities, and various other

factors. The analyst also needs to know exactly what these conditions are for proper planning of the measurement application.

Identify the Ultimate Performance Requirements

A major determinant (if not the major determinant) of a system's performance/effectiveness is ts ability to produce the output expected of it. The measurement analyst clearly needs to know exactly what

goods, services, or other products are supposed to result from the

successful performance of the system's jobs.

-9-
**DEFINE DEFINE SPECIFY SPECIFY

THE

SYSTEM MISSION ENVIRON- GENERAL

MENT CONSTRAINTS

PERFORMANCE

-'- REQUIREMENTS Contextual

Stages of

IIDENTIFY Measurement

SJ FEULTIMATE

I --- PERFORMANCE

-I ICRITERIA

I [ IDENTIFY

S"I PRACTICAL

t J |MEASURABLE

-. [ATTRIBUTES Focal

=. I 2 Stages of

" I j IDENTIFY Measurement

PRACTICAL

I I ATTRIBUTE

| MEASURES

IDENTIFY IDENTIFY SPECIFY SPECIFY DETERMINE DETERM~INE

SPECIFIC SPECIFIC MEASURE- ANALYTIC TEST TEST

lFORMANCE PERFRMANCE MENT METHODS PARAMETERS APPARATUS

• l" tMEl CRITERIA PROCEDURES NEEDED

-. Im mpie"entat.o plem IEXECUTE PREPARE DETERMINE entation TES TESiTII

Stages of WilMeasurement TEST PLAN PERSONNEL

%-"! _ NEEDED

Interpretation ANALYZE INTERPRET CONCLUSIONS

Stages of DATA FINDINGS &

Measurement i"' 'RECOMMENDATIONS

Figure 2. Initial Conceptual Outline of Stages in the Overall Measurement Process

-10- . .°
Identify the Ultimate Performance Criteria

It isn't enough that a system manages to deliver the kind of product

expected of it. The product must meet certain standards of acceptance to satisfy the needs of its user. These standards, or criteria,

might pertain both to the quality and quantity of the products

delivered, to the timeliness of the delivery, to the cost to the user,

and to- various other attributes. The analyst needs to know exactly

what these criteria are in order to provide a full assessment of

system performance/effectiveness.

The six stages listed above can be grouped under the label, "contextual stages."

They reflect the system-as-source-of-variables. It is precisely this segment of . ." the overall measurement process that was taken to constitute the purview of

the STM.

-' ' Identify Practical Measurable Attributes

Once the analyst knows what the system is supposed to do and

produce, he or she must identify concrete, observable events, effects,

phenomena, etc., that can be used to determine whether or not the - system's jobs have been done and the intended results produced.

These events, effects, phenomena, etc., are things-that-can-be-measured,

and whose presence, size, weight, number, or whatever indicates how

well the system has done its job.

Identify Practical Attribute Measures

The analyst needs explicitly to determine exactly what features of

those events, effects, phenomena, etc., will be measured to assess

system performance/effectiveness. Some examples of such features

were given above, i.e., the presence of some phenomenon, the size of

some effect, the number of events of some type that occur, the

weight of some object that is produced. Other common examples of

V .measurable features might include the ratio of frequency of occurrence

.J of two kinds of events, the time at which some event takes place,

the speed of some moving object, etc. Any such feature that directly ' " .(or inversely) relates to system performance or effectiveness could

serve as a "yardstick," or measure. Identification of measures that

a' are both appropriate and practical is one of the most important steps

in the total measurement process. Often, it is a step that must be

pursued iteratively, about which more will be said subsequently.

The preceding two stages are called the "focal stages" of the overall measurement process. That is, the measurement analyst focuses on the attributes and

their measures as the prime ingredients of the assessment of system performance.

These two stages can also be viewed as the desired product of the system taxonomization process: It is the set of attributes and measures that the STM ultimately is to aid the analyst in specifying.

W e4

-11- ,
Identify Specific Performance Requirements

Once the measures have been selected (at least tentatively) the

analyst must translate the general expression of the system's intended

products, goods, services, etc. (i.e., the "ultimate performance requirements"), into terms keyed to the measures. This is the specification

of performance requirements in measurable terms. For example, the

human-machine system consisting of a bicycle and its rider must

produce personal transportation of the rider from some point ("A") to

another point ("B").

Identify Specific Performance Criteria

Similarly, the analyst must translate the general expression of product

adequacy (i.e., the "ultimate performance criteria, or standards") into

PP terms keyed to the measures. This is the specification of performance

criteria in measurable terms.

Specify Measurement Procedures

The technical and procedural details concerning how the measures will

be applied need to be established. Here the analyst must determine

. exactly how the data needed to generate each measure will be collected, and how quality control over the collection process will be

maintained. At this point, it is very possible that it may be determined that the data needed to provide some previously selected

measure simply cannot be collected, at least not with sufficient quality

or at tolerable cost. If so, the analyst must delete that measure from

his or her plans and select some alternate "yardstick" for that particular aspect of performance/effectiveness. Thus, as was suggested

* "above, the measures selection process may be iterative, and this pro-

* cedural specification step plays a key role in that regard.

Specify Analytic Methods

Before any data are collected, the analyst must determine exactly

what will be done with those data. This includes specification of the

" ," statistical tests to be employed, the combinatorial procedures to be

used, the level of precision desired, etc. From these, in turn, the

analyst must determine the scope of the measurement application,

. %e.g., sample size, replications, etc.

- Determine Test Parameters

At this point the analyst may determine what conditions will be varied

for test purposes, what will be held fixed, the sequence in which

.5'. Cvariables will be manipulated, how the data will be grouped into class

intervals, etc.

~'.?. Determine Test Apparatus Needed

The analyst must s[)ecify exactly what apparatus (hardware and soft- ... ware) will be used in the measurement application. This includes a

-12-
specification of the kinds of data such apparatus will output, the

format and media of the data, and any apparatus support requirements that may exist.

Determine Test Personnel Needed

o- 2Similarly, the analyst must specify exactly what types of people will

be involved in the measurement application. This includes both the

people who will conduct the test (as administrators, analysts, data

collectors, logistic support, etc.) as well as the people who will

operate the system during testing (test subjects). The analyst must

specify the numbers of people needed, the qualifications they must

have, relevant demographic or other characteristics they must have,

pre-test training they are to receive, etc.

sp Prepare Test Plan

This step is a summation and formal recording of the seven immedi- - :ately preceding steps. The plan documents the specific performance .- requirements and criteria, the measurement and analytic procedures

(including the final iteration on the measures selection), test

parameters, test apparatus, and test personnel for review, reconsideration, and possible revision.

Execute Test

At this point, the test plan is implemented, the measures finally are

taken, all data are collected, and the stage is set for conclusions to

be drawn concerning the system's performance/effectiveness.

The preceding nine stages are called the "planning and implementation stages."

It is at this segment of the overall measurement process that the analyst faces

the practical considerations that permit the measures of performance/effectiveness to be applied meaningfully in the context of a real-world test. 4

Analyze Data

In accordance with the analytic procedures defined in the test plan,

the analyst must reduce, combine, and manipulate the data to produce

the quantitative and qualitative bases for assessing the system's performance/effectiveness.

Interpret Findings

Based on the outcomes of the measurements and the statistical tests,

the analyst must extract a comprehensive, quantitative assessment of ' .the system's performance/effectiveness in the context of the research

issues at hand.

.* -Develop Conclusions and Recommendations

As the final step or component of the measurement process, the analyst

* :must apply his or her findings to answer the questions relevant to the

-13-
measurement application. Such questions might include: Is the

system feasible? Is it cost-effective? Is it, overall, better or worse

than some other, competing system? How can specific deficiencies

be corrected?

These last three stages are called the "interpretation stages" of the -overall

measurement process. It is here, finally, that the measures derived from the

system's taxonomies produce the desired assessment of the system's performance/

effectiveness.

The twenty steps discussed above and depicted in Figure 2 were considered

to provide a reasonably detailed and comprehensive outline of the overall measurement process, at least for the purposes of organizing the findings to be

gleaned from the review of the measurement applications literature. They obviously do not constitute the only valid representation of the overall process of

human-machine system measurement. Other researchers likely would use different (but equally correct) terminology to describe this total process, and

probably would organize the stages differently to suit the particular needs of

their own research pursuits. Let it suffice to say that this twenty-stage

schema is one valid model for the process and, most importantly, it is a model

that delineates the role of system taxonomies within that overall process.

Clearly, it was not considered to be a sufficiently well defined specification

of the process to permit construction of an overall Conceptual Process Model

(CPM). Indeed, it was not expected that the research effort that was about to

begin would accomplish much more than to improve the specificity of the

process outline to the point where one could start to construct major segments

of the overall model. Now that the first year's research effort has been completed, it is evident that the preliminary process outline contained numerous

ambiguities, and some room for improvement. Many of these have now been

clarified. Other improvements will be made in the near future. Details are

provided in subsequent sections of this report. To conclude this section, suffice it to note that what was expected of the preliminary process outline was

that it possess sufficient validity to serve as an efficient point of departure

for the research effort. That expectation was met.

B. First Revision of the STM (See Ref.*)

Some Further Definitions of the Second Dimension

Based upon the review of the original STM concept, and upon the enumeration of the overall measurement process stages, it was concluded that the STM

could be represented as a 3-by-6 matrix. The "cells" of that matrix correspond

to the interactions among each of the three levels of system description and *

each of the first six stages (the contextual stages) of the overall measurement

process. Figure 3 depicts this matrix structure. That structure was taken as

the point of departure for the STM revision effort. The immediate objective

was to develop procedural guidelines for identifying the taxonomies belonging to

each "cell" of the STM; that would constitute the "first revision" of the STM.

*Bloom, R.F., Oates, J.F. and Hamilton, J.W. , System Development knd

Evaluation Technology: Systems Taxonomy Model-First Revision. Darien, CT:

Dunlap and Associates, Inc., September 1980.

-14-
* .1.

o w~

jo. z

S.4

16 C

A..

c

00

C

C 0)

C -2

Ac C- Ph.:: 4-

4.,.

____ __ M g~ .'.~~2 
A basic premise of the first revision of the STM is that the measurementrelevant taxonomies for any human-machine system are those defined by the contextual stages of the overall measurement process. In other words, the STM is to

help insure that the system serves as a source of variables for its own perfor- - mance measurement by aiding the analyst in determining the population categories

to which the system belongs by virtue of the following six aspects of the system:.

a Basic System Definition

• Mission Definition

. Environment Specification

-* . General Constraints Specifications

* Ultimate Performance Requirements

,*,Ultimate Performance Criteria

Formation of Relevant Taxonomies

Two preliminary questions are involved in any instance where system taxonomies are to be generated in support of a performance measurement requirement:

1. What are the measurement purposes?

Why is this particular performance measurement effort being

undertaken and what are the fundamental issues involved?

Is it a basic research effort or is it strictly a pragmatic

evaluation of one specific system? Do the issues of interest

extend to all aspects of the system, and all of its objectives

and capabilities, or are they restricted to only some of the

system's performance requirements? The measurement purposes may range from the very restricted to the totally

comprehensive, and will affect how many of the system's

myriad of population categories really are relevant in the

specific instance at hand.

2. What levels of system description are pertinent?

The three levels of system description are the Objectives

Level, the Functional Purposes Level, and the Characteristics

Level. There is a logical correspondence among these levels

and the stage of a system's development. There is also a

correspondence between each level and the type of performance measures it tends to produce (nominal, relative or

"mixed") and thus between each level and the kinds of issues

for which it is appropriate (qualitative versus quantitative

aspects of system performance). The number and kinds of

system population categories that will prove to be relevant

in any particular measurement effort thus will depend heavily

on whether only one, or two, or all three of the levels of

system description are to be involved.

With the above questions in mind, the first STM revision developed general

guidelines for producing sets of taxonomies.

-16-

C.4
A Model Applications Approach

An iterative approach was adopted to identify taxonomization guidelines and

any further needs for revising the STM's structure. Conceptually simple systems

(presumably having simple sets of taxonomies associated with them) would be

studied. As their taxonomies were identified, the staff would seek to extract

principles for organizing those taxonomies. These principles would be written as

rudimentary -guidelines, and used to identify the taxonomies of slightly more complex systems, which in turn would disclose additional insight for clarifying the

guidelines. The process would continue until the guidelines achieved a degree of

specificity deemed sufficient for application to a typical military human-machine

system of reasonable complexity (e.g., the Infantry Fighting Vehicle).

Following the approach just outlined, attempts were made (by several staff

members, working independently) to identify the populations associated with such - very simple systems as:

" the bicycle/rider

. the typewriter/typist

" the photocopier/operator

* the radio receiver /operator-listener

Complete sets of taxonomies were not sought in all cases, but only a sufficient

number and variety to identify organizing principles within the eighteen "cells"

of the STM. What emerged was a set of questions, one per cell, that appeared

to express adequately the interaction between each level of system description

and each contextual stage of the measurement process. These preliminary

organizing principles are arrayed in the basic matrix format in Figure 4.

The preliminary set of principles or guidelines, although expressed in very .• : abstract terms, is sufficiently clear to permit some fundamental features of the

STM to emerge. First, the substance or focus of measurement consists of what

the system is supposed to be (system definition), what job it is supposed to do

vs! (mission definition), and what output it is supposed to produce (performance requirements and criteria). Second, the system's performance is to be measured

within the context of its surrounding (natural) environment and also within the

context of any constraints that are imposed upon it during the particular measurement application at hand. Third, the STM "cells" and their guidelines are

not totally independent, rather, the three levels of system description are strong-

- ly linked in a general-to-specific fashion. Thus, the guidelines on the Characteristics Level of description refer back to the Functional Purposes Level guidelines,

which in turn refer back to the Objectives Level. These basic features have re-

- .mained unchanged through all subsequent revisions and clarifications of the STM.

A Third Dimension (the System Hierarchical Structure) as a Source of Measurement

.- Variables.

One other very important finding emerged from the simple system taxonomization exercises. It became evident that it is impossible to identify all populations

relevant to the measurement of a particular system by examining that system in

isolation. Many systems actually are parts of larger systems, and carry out their

missions to serve the ends of the larger systems. Similarly, many systems themselves contain smaller systems whose performances are major determinants of the

-17-
C c c a W 0 c c

v Ev

f Ca-U a

02 E ~ th oc 0oC 0U) w

*U)1 U oE

W 

0 w =Uw0)

w N

In)>

* r. 0o 0) .- O U= -14 

0 C.% f C

~U)

c '0 to E0

E cc - a -4UI) 4 .

c 2E W Wr 0 0)

00 00 v W 4. - E C

w 00 0 0 01 o0~'c

o 2 0 ao. a

0 U

o Vo 0 co0

0j ) CO U U ) V ) -0 > V

W -0 , 0O 0 5E a CO a a> 

0I

) - ) EbE

E co E E or E)-

C)0 co 4- c

ob

-18-i
total system performance. Finally, many systems act in concert with other systems in an interactive network of input and output. All of this is simply to say

-- that the operation and performance of any system of interest has to be viewed

-" in the context in which that system actually exists.

Recognition of this fact led to the inclusion of a third dimension in the STM,

corresponding to the "system hierarchical structure." Thi-sexpanded STM concept .- can be visualized as a family of matrices, one of which corresponds to the system

being studied, and one to each interacting subsystem, collateral system, and suprasystem. Figure 5 displays a general representation of a system hierarchical structure, and Figure 6 shows the three-dimensional STM corresponding to that structure.

The third dimension of the STM system hierarchical structure is intended to

insure that proper attention to interacting entities is given in any system measurement process. The hierarchical structure includes every system with which the

system of interest directly interacts. The simple bicycle-rider system can elucidate this point. That system forms an integral (if minor) part of the total ground transportation system. It interacts directly with the traffic control system. It

coexists with all other ground transportation mechanisms, e.g., cars, trucks, buses,

motorcycles, other bicycles, joggers, etc., and shares numerous facilities with them.

Any meaningful measurement of bicycle-rider system performance/effectiveness

must take due account of the impact of all of these other systems as factors

facilitating or impeding the bicycle-rider system.

In general, a system interacts directly with:

- - larger systems, of which it is a part, and superior systems,

to which it is subservient in a command/control sense; col- . lectively, these larger and/or superior systems are termed

suprasystems in the hierarchical structure

* - smaller systems that comprise it, and inferior systems

over which it exercises command/control. Collectively,

these are termed subsystems

- .systems that exist and operate on their own level of

command and control, with which they share resources

and/or exchange input/output. Collectively, these are

called collateral systems.

Theoretically, it is probably possible to extend the hierarchical structure

almost indefinitely in the vertical direction. That is, subsystems might divide

* into sub-subsystems, which in turn break down into sub-sub-subsystems, etc.

Similarly, suprasystems might point toward supra-suprasystems, and so on.

However, at the present stage of development of the STM as a component of

the total performance measurement process, it is felt to be sufficient to limit

the view of a system's context to those entities with which it directly interacts,

on its own hierarchical level (collateral systems), the immediately superior level

(suprasystems), and the immediately lower level (subsystems).

The point of this discussion concerning the hierarchical structure surrounding some system of interest is this: the interacting, "neighboring" entities very

likely exert influence on what the system of interest is supposed to do and on

d ._ -19-

' ...'.-..' ' ,', , ... '.-.,'.. '. .-.. ,.. ... . -. ..-- -..-. q i .. -... ".. .'. ..... . , .. -: .. '.. . -. '. : "..... .. . .-. "...
bUPRAm SYSTEM -RA- .- CO , P -i

" SYSTEM

.. COL

ATRA OFLTE~

SYSTYS

• ... . I~ o_ I.... : SYS

Figue Reresntaion 5 Geera f aSysem ierrchcalStrCOLr

-20-S

::OLLTERA

- ." - " - " .. .% " '., '. '-' ., . % - " ' ".o' 'r .' . . '. - . '. .. . , : , . . . , , . . - . '. p . ' . SY - S " T"E '. M ', 3 .

.. . .S BSI - -
- -' . . . ~~~~~ 'W~ ... .... tr ....... . . .. - 1 -'.- -

Tao.me

9.~~ ~~ 1_______________ ~ ~~... .......

TaxonomiesI

for the System of-- -- --

* Interest

A-- ~ _

Taxonomie

7)"Oornis lefor6o,1

System

M .............. ............... .....

Figure 6. The Three-Dimensional Structure of the STM

-21-
how well, when, and where it can perform. The missions and performance requirements of a supra system, for example, certainly will impose jobs and requirements

on the system of interest, because that system exists, in part, to serve the purposes of the suprasystem. Similarly, the performance capabililty of a subsystem

might represent a basic limiting factor for the system's own performance. Finally,

to the degree that the system needs input from a collateral system, the ability of

•~~ -: * . the system to do its job will be limited by how well the collateral system does its

" job. To the- degree that the system must supply input to a collateral system, the

collateral system's performance requirement will have some determining influence

F7 over the system's own requirements.

Much like the second taxonomic dimension (contextual aspects of measurement), this third dimension is inextricably linked with a specific measurement

application. That is to say, the situation or specific scenario within which a

system's performance/effectiveness is to be measured will determine how many

and what types of other systems will interact with that system of interest. Thus,

system hierarchical structure is incorporated into the taxonomization process

as a means of insuring that the performance/effectiveness measures ultimately

selected are specifically relevant to the measurement problem and context at

hand. Like the other two dimensions, the hierarchical structure has been included

in the STM as a mechanism for identifying and organizing populations of systems,

and reflects the basic STM philosophy that knowledge of the system populations

associated with a system under study will contribute much to the measurement

of that system's performance/effectiveness. Unlike the other two dimensions,

however, the hierarchical structure helps the analyst focus on populations to

which the interacting systems belong, rather than on the system's own populations. Tsy question always should be the major source of variables

S -for its own measurement, but it should not be the only source of variables.

Important input also must be drawn from the systemrs ,orfaces with its neighbors.

. .* Preliminary Application of the Three Dimensional STM

At this point in the research, the tax-inomization process was applied to two

systems that, although still relatively simple, were significantly more complex than

were the very simple examples that had been used as the vehicles for deriving

preliminary guidelines. Those two systems were the individual mobile citizens'

band radio system and the squad automatic weapon (SAW) system. The application

': '"of the evolving STM to those systems was intended to permit further refinement/

clarification of the taxonomization guidelines so that subsequently the model might

be applied to still more complex systems.

Figure 7 displays the system hierarchical structure defined for a (simplified)

study of the individual mobile CB system. In the course of that study, and in the

parallel study of the SAW, arrays of taxonomies were prepared for several systems.

Figures 8, 9, and 10, respectively, exhibit taxonomy sets for the individual mobile CB

system itself, for the collateral emergency all-hours reporting system, and for the

CB network suprasystem.

The identification of these and similar taxonomy sets provided considerable

insight into the taxonomization process, and led to significant clarification of the

preliminary guidelines. In addition to the questions posed to suggest the kinds

. - -- of system populations relevant to each "cell" of the STM, it was possible to derive some instructions concerning how those questions could be answered. The

-22-

: .-. .. - . + . . . . . . ,*.. . ........ ~ .,. . . j :... . -.. . .,
The

network

of all

CB units

The of yste Int estAny one or

more

The individual

Regulatory On pcfcmobile or

OneSpeifi fixed- EnttyIndividual location

Mobile CB unit~s

Unit_______

The

Emergency

All-Hours

Responding

System

Figure 7. System-Centered View of the Individual Mobile

CB System Hierarchy (Case Study)

-23-

ci., &, ., f _ _-,
*~ ES

Iz

., Ek E.P 75 C,33. _ -

5-C

.' ,.5

! E' E-

. C - - ,-= ^ .

L.F E 0

.. ,1 ' . : .C *, --

~~~EC ~ rt 

" c . .- E' 0

. ,4 .cv. .- Ou z < :. zr0E . 0

' = E

... . C, : 0) ...... ,t a-.--

" .. . . I 

4~~5U c.a

._ c.--

- I,!=, ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • ".. . o. o = -- --

*" " z o .. -- 0 -" O9

I-.3~ E * - ... .*

-. , E

c E 0 - En

o" Go

| kE E : . .0

I C,

--" .aE

- £ -;".

El; c'

L °

- o

- 1 - 4-

E E s 3 0 E ;C! c f. 0 .Z0c - vWa

26 B c1

z! E - -- * 'a

=3 3 . ag~~~ ; E. 

,,C E 5 .* . . ., E - .' ~ ~ *-'

I. c~** E

c~*5 III1- a5 2~ a-0i 
E. Z I~t E&

I. F .~5.~ k- - C

L, a. 12~. E E- -E 

CL I.

CE -W 2 L M

- - E

c 11

-- I A 5

rr8

-C W? -E

c E

c .;~ Cgs E 

.c...

-j -- j =;.C

*E 1

cil 0*.

t S

o~~',. rx2U-S

-C U C - I B~ s d

.52

w '5 E7 E

.2 C; o6

_____ c It_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _

E 4; 2L E

40 C,

I..

z~ E

- -i

&ALL.3tO 53SOdVld 1YNOI.1Jl)MA 3LIJ)'II.

-25-
*IS

-' CCc-C 

a. ul E ft

kk Z

E. - I. b- I~ . z -0

AV ;,, 0EC 1

La E 0- ,

- Sc.

A6 E E

z E 

EE

I3 C. E ~ . -

4 k C - Z cE .g.It co

H E

P~E

0.Z

121 - E

z E E32.

-- E f jo! £e

- E E

I3.: I ". , I

E z 5 1.

AL133t9n 1V 'S~.~ O±4i 3LtJ.VV

-26

Ep ~- V.V%~.: E*~'
updated taxonomization guidelines, seen in Figure 11 represented the major end . product of the STM "first revision" effort. The guidelines were grouped into

eighteen "cells," each corresponding to the intersection between one of the three

levels of system description and one of the six contextual aspects of the system.

Of course, in some measurement applications only one or two of the rows in

this matrix may be pertinent. The analyst must determine the stage of develop-

-, -ment of the system of interest and the kinds of measurement issues to be faced

in order to decide which of the three levels of system description are pertinent.

Also, and most importantly, the analyst must apply taxonomization guidelines within

the context of the measurement purposes he or she is addressing. If those purposes are restricted, the analyst might be concerned only with some elements of

the system's definition, or only with certain of its missions, or only with a sub- . set of its performance requirements, etc. It is not always necessary or appropriate to apply the STM to generate all of the system population categories to which the system belongs by virtue of its contextual aspects. It is

only necessary and appropriate to identify those taxa that apply to the

measurement purpose at hand.

The guidelines given for each "cell" of the "first revision" STM consisted of a

question and a statement. The question was intended to focus the cell toward a specific

set of taxa; the key operative word or phrase in each cell was underlined. Thus,

for example, segments of the total matrix of taxonomies we directed toward

identifying population categories derived from the particular system's functions,

purpos, capabilities, functional outputs, etc. The statement following each

-question w intended" to clarify the meaning of the operative word or phrase and

to help the analyst apply the word or phrase to the system in question.

The Initially Revised STM: A Summary

The product of the first revision effort may be summarized as follows:

The STM is a three-dimensional array of procedures and guidelines for identifying the various population categories of systems

that might be relevant to some particular measurement of some -.1 particular system.

* .The three dimensions that provide the structure of the STM correspond to (1) a set of general aspects of any human-machine system

that represents the context of a system's performance; (2) several

levels of system description, which reflect different kinds of measures and measurement issues and which adapt well to different

stages of a system's development; and (3) the hierarchical structure

in which the particular system of interest exists.

--' . The three-dimensional STM can most easily be viewed as a collection of two-dimensional planes (See Figure 6). Each plane corresponds to one of the systemic entities in the system hierarchical structure,

Le., a plane corresponds either to the system of interest itself or -. to one of the supra systems, collateral systems, or subsystems with

which it interacts.

-27-

_e7 . .. .
1 11 

E

t t EA I

ow C -Z~ C A

2 00 C

:) ;

w Of C, C 21 .1

2~ ~~ Se: ~E3-.

U =~~~- ~- E. t - ' .

u. ;2 .2 i ~ '

Kz

E 0 Go t, 5 E

IA. F_~ Ca0

-' Cc, =CC3

342

3- 7

CC x

E iz

E Aa

00

E E

I 'E

1 E E a~~i la

=UG11dJcsOa W.1I.S JO umildunosso wals.. jo uotjd.j~aj jjisS jo bOAwlAq )eq teArj sosdd bwuO)3UhJ IOa,%t sfllsIJ3aw2jUJ

-28-
The two-dimensional plane forms a 3-by-6 matrix representing the

interaction between each level of system description (of which there

are three) with each system contextual aspect (of which there are

six).

. When one applies the STM, one develops sets of system population

categories to which the system of interest or one of its subsystems,

collateral systems, or supra systems belongs. Each population category represents a source of variables of potential relevance to the

measurement process.

•*"Having applied the STM, the analyst's task is to examine each system population category and to extract from it issues and implications for the performance measurement. This requires that the

analyst have a clear understanding of the purposes behind the mea-

, surement application at hand, and of the nature of the interface

between the system of interest and each of its subsystems, collateral systems, and suprasystems.

. .Once all relevant measurement issues and implications have been extracted from the taxonomization process, the analyst may proceed to

the focal stages and then to the planning and implementation stages

of performance measurement in order to select the appropriate set

of measures and apply those measures in the appropriate testing

i .context.

C. Initial Application of the STM to the IFV

The taxonomic guidelineg given in Figure 11 above were applied in an effort

to identify relevant system populations for the Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFM).

A decision was made to focus on an IFV squad within a typical measurement

application, namely, one in which the squad served as the platoon's bounding element

in a bounding overwatch during an offensive maneuver within an armored threat

environment. As a result of this application, considerable insight was gained

concerning the viability of the STM as a tool for measuring system performance/

effectiveness, and substantial progress was made toward improving the taxonomization procedures. Details of the trial application as a learning experience are

summarized below.

Overview of Trial Application Procedures and Findings

The original intention was to conduct the trial application of the "first

revision" STM to the IFV in a quasi-clinical fashion, not unlike the constraints

of a blind experiment. Thus, the project staff members who had developed the

initial set of taxonomic guidelines were to detach themselves from the application,

which was to become the sole responsibility of a third staff member who was

well familiar with the IFV, but not directly involved in the initial revision of the

STM. It was hoped that this procedure would help to uncover any need for clarification or further elaboration of the written guidelines as well as provide a

test of the basic taxonomy modelling concept.

-29-
Very shortly after the trial application began it became evident that the

guidelines shown in Figure 11 needed substantial clarification/elaboration. The abstract, often vague terms used in the guidelines forced the application analyst to

-." query the development analysts repeatedly in an attempt to ascertain exactly

what was being sought. For example, precise definitions (in the STM context)

- were sought for such terms as "entity", "functions", "intermediate tasks", "elements",

-etc. . These- questions, and the fact that they often proved difficult to answer,

led to the realization that there was a more fundamental deficiency in the "first

revision" STM: namely, the concepts imbedded in the three levels of system description and in the six contextual aspects of measurement were not yet very

clearly grasped. The taxonomic guidelines were vague because the staff's

understanding of the distinctions among system definition, mission definition, performance requirements, performance criteria, environment specification, and general

contraints was itself vague. The same could be said of the distinctions among

the objectives, functional purposes, and characteristics levels of system description.

The application analyst was experiencing difficulty in identifying relevant system

populations to which the IFV belongs largely because the principles for organizing

- those populations had not been clearly defined or grasped when the guidelines were

written.

Faced with this impass, the original approach to the trial application was

abandon-d, and a team effort was adopted. The application analyst and one of

the guideline developers began to work together, starting with an in-depth review

of the previous "simple system" STM applications in an attempt to isolate the key

distinctions among the cells of the model. The team then pooled their analytic

resources (i.e., IFV familiarity coupled with STM development experience) in the

hope that the application would proceed more efficiently. As the trial application

progressed, additional insight into the taxonomization process was gained. First,

it was recognized that the three contextual aspects labelled System Definition,

Mission Definition, and Performance Requirements actually represented three different views of what constitutes a system's performance. Each of these different

representations contributes one essential aspect of performance measurement.

They can be described as follows:

S System Definition is concerned with the system's performance

potential. The analyst needs to know at the outset of any

measurement application exactly what capabilities have been

incorporated into the system under study (or, what capabilities supposedly have been provided).

* Mission Requirements* is concerned with the system's performance process. It is in this context that the analyst

examines Fowa system performs.

* iPerformance Requirements is concerned with the system's

performance products, i.e., the end results (goods, services,

accomplishments, etc.) of its work.

* Originally, the term "Mission Definition" was used. However, "Requirements"

- is believed to connote better the process-orientation of this contextual aspect

of measurement.

-30-

"oP
The triad of potentialities, processes, and products was felt to be a logical

decomposition of the total scope of performance. Moreover, it is a decomposition

that intuitively lends itself well to measurement, and that seems to account well

for all measurement concerns that might arise at any stage of a system's life cycle.

As a second major insight, it was recognized that the Environment Specifications and General Constraints aspects of the measurement context are concerned

with the factors that may impede the system's performance (either its potentialities, or its processes, or its products). Those two aspects conceivably could be

-, grouped together under one column in the STM (e.g., a "General Impediments"

column). However, it seemed helpful to preserve a distinction between the "environment" and "general constraints," based upon the following perception:

Environment Specification covers any performance impeding

factors that arise naturally from the circumstances or conditions of the situation at hand. In general, these are impediments to performance that are not subject to arbitrary manipulation. For example, once a time and place for an IFV mission

or test have been selected, such factors as terrain and weather

conditions would be part of the environment specification.

"* General Constraints covers any performance impeding factors that

are imposed on the system as a direct result of a conscious decision. Tactical movement constraints (e.g., "Stay off roads, trails")

and other operating limitations (e.g., "maintain radio silence") are

examples of this type of impediment as it might apply to the IFV.

The third major insight concerned the relationships among the three levels of

system description. Every entry on any level is, of course, a particular population

of systems. However, there is not a complete independence between the populations

' found on two different levels of description: rather, the simple system applications

au clearly disclosed that there is a complete interdependence among the populations on

the three levels. The populations that are found on the topmost ("Objectives") level

of description are defined by the distinct classes of performance potentialities, processes, and products of the system of interest (in the context of the particular

measurement application), or by the distinct classes of naturally or consciously

occuring factors affecting its performance. * Each of those ObjectivesLevel populations gives rise to a set of more narrowly focused populations on the Functional

Purposes Level. These are identified by examining, for example, a particular

. performance potentiality (or process, or product) and then isolating the distinct

reasons why the system is supposed to have that potential (or carry out that process, or produce that product). That is, on the Functional Purposes Level, one

C. iidentifies the purposes for belonging to the populations previously found on the

Objectives Level. The purposes themselves form a set of related, more specifically

defined populations.

An example taken from the IFVtrial application may clarify the relationship

between the Objectives Level populations and their Functional Purposes Level

counterparts. Among a number of distinct performance potentialities, the IFV

squad must possess the capability of performing surveillance. Because of that fact,

it belongs (on the Objective Level of description) to the population of all systems

-31-
that perform surveillance. When one examines how the IFV is intended to apply .. that particular performance potentiality, one finds that it is to provide the IFV

squad with the capabilities of:

. Conducting sector surveillance

* Detecting targets

. Acquiring targets

- Identifying/classifying targets

* Tracking targets

Thus, on the Functional Purposes Level, the IFV belongs to (among many others)

live overlapping but distinct populations of systems, each defined by a distinct

application (or purpose) of the potential for surveillance.

Each Functional Purpose Level population, in turn, gives rise to a still more

narrowly focused set of populations on the Characteristics Level. These are identified by examining each purpose or application for a particular potentiality, process,

or product so that the discrete ways in which the system can satisfy that purpose

or application can be exhaustively listed. This is tantamount to identifying the

.• constituent sub-potentialities, or sub-processes, or sub-products that make up

each of the system's performance potentialities, processes, or products. For

example, as was seen above the IFV squad belongs to a population of systems

that have the potential for conducting sector surveillance. That is a population that emerges when the system is viewed on the Functional Purposes Level

of description. In the specific case of the IFV, unlike many other members of

that population, the purpose of conducting sector surveillance can be achieved

by:

* Conducting sector surveillance with direct vision (unaided optics)

. Conducting sector surveillance with aided vision (image magnification,

image intensification)

- Conducting sector surveillance with infra-red sensor.

Similarly, on the Functional Purposes Level, the IFV also belongs to the ?opulation

of systems that have the potential for tracking targets. Many systems belong to

that population (i.e., many systems can track targets). In the case of the IFV,

the discrete target tracking capabilities include:

*" Tracking moving targets while (IFV is) stationary

" Tracking moving targets while moving

* Tracking stationary targets while moving.

The recognition of the general-to-specific relationship between successive

levels of system description of course existed at the outset of this project, but

it was not until a careful study. had been made of the STM's applications (to the

' various simple systems and to the IFV) that a clear definition of the structure of

this relationship was achieved. That structure is as follows: -

-32-

.01
1. The Objectives Level of system description comprises all of

the discrete potentialities, processes, and products that, collectively, define the system's performance, as well as the

discrete categories of factors (both naturally - and consciously

occuring) that may impede or otherwise influence the performance. Each such discrete potentiality, process, product, and

factor defines a system population to which the system of

interest belongs. In any given measurement application, the

analyst is concerned only with the Objectives Level popula-

- tions that impact on that application (i.e., not every application exercises all of the system's potentialities, processes,

and products).

2. The Functional Purpose level of system description comprises

all of the discrete purposes or applications for the potentialities, processes, and products identified on the higher level, as

well as the (more specific) factors that may impede or otherwise influence achievement of those purposes/applications.

Each such discrete purpose and specific factor defines a system

population to which the system of interest belongs. Each of

these populations is directly traceable to some population previously identified on the Objectives Level. In any given measurement application, the analyst is concerned only with the

Functional Purposes Level populations that impact on that

application (i.e., not every measurement application exercises

all of the reasons why a system possesses some potentiality,

carries out some process, or produces some product).

3. The Characteristics Level of system description comprises all

of the discrete steps or ways in which the system can achieve

the purposes identified on the preceding level, as well as the

(even more specific) factors that may impede or otherwise influence the system's ability to accomplish those steps. Each

such discrete step and specific factor defines a system population

to which the system of interest belongs. Each of these populations is directly traceable to some population previously identified on the Functional Purposes Level. In any given measurement application, the analyst is concerned only with the characteristics Level populations that impact on the application

(i.e., not every measurement application exercises all of the

discrete steps or ways in which a system may achieve its

purposes).

The insights outlined above constituted major progress in the project staff's

understanding of the concepts imbedded in the columns and rows of the STM.

One additional issue was clarified during the IFV trial application, namely, the role

and scope of the sixth column, labelled "Performance Criteria." Throughout the

first revision effort, that column had been considered to be linked exclusively with

the "Performance Requirements" column, i.e., for each performance requirement

expected of the system, there would be a corresponding performance criterion

(or group of criteria). Once the STM's development had evolved to the point

where it was clear that the entries in the "Performance Requirements" column

-33-

°%

• " .'- ". '* "-,' ~~~ °- "-.'..'... .,' ' ". ". "'.- ~ - '.- ~ - " - ° " ' .. .- F- .-', .- .- -' - - . "- "" ' '. .- . , ' r,.
V"V.

represented only one aspect of a system's performance (namely, its products),

the question remained whether the criteria column should also be exclusively product-oriented, or whether it should encompass standards of potentiality and

process as well. A more fundamental question was also raised: Is it appropriate

to include performance criteria within the scope of the STM, or are they an

area to be addressed at a later stage of the overall measurement process? The

basic purpose of the STM, after all, is to generate sets of measures of effectiveness/

K performance for a system of interest. It is only after the MOE/MOP hierarchies

have been developed that it becomes meaningful toinvestigate and specify cri- S--teria of effectiveness or performance, because every criterion must be tied

directly to some measure. Thus, it is only after the basic purpose of the STM

has been satisfied that it becomes appropriate to deal with performance criteria.

Prior to the IFV trial application, there were insufficient data to answer

those questions. Thus, a decision was made to retain the "Performance Criteria" I- column in the STM for the IFV trial application, and to keep the focus of that

portion of the model exclusively on the products of performance. Upon completion of the trial application, an assessment was made of the need for retaining criterion-based taxonomies in the model and/or of the desirability of expanding the

scope of such taxonomies beyond their current product-orientation. Based on

that assessment, it was concluded that criterion specification belongs at a later

stage of the measurement process.

To summarize, actual trial application of the STM to the IFV squad thus

commenced with a reasonably clear understanding of the concepts and relationships represented by the columns and rows of the taxonomic matrix, but with

very few explicit, written guidelines for identifying how those concepts and relationships manifest themselves in the context of one particular system and one

specific measurement application. The two project staff members continued to

work as a team, continually examining the mission scenario to isolate the potentialities processes, and products required, the purposes/applications for these performance elements, the ways in which those purposes were achieved, and the

various factors impeding or otherwise influencing the performance elements.

As might be expected, this team effort was very highly iterative, with many

"false starts." The team members maintained a constructively critical attitude

toward each others' analytic suggestions and results, so that no taxonomies

were incorporated into the trial application until both parties concurred as to

their relevance. The hope was that, as the IFV squad's taxonomic structure

emerged from this rather slow and difficult analytic process, so would a set - of specific guidelines that would facilitate replication of the process in future

applications. That hope, fortunately, was justified. Further, results indicated

that the system taxonomies that emerge from this analytic model do provide

the basis for identifying satisfactory measures of performance/effectiveness for particular measurement applications. Details of the trial application are

summarized in the following paragraphs.

Specific Application to IFV

It was intended that the application to the IFV as a test case would further

define the role of the STM and of the taxonomies which can be obtained. Also,

the application was expected to result in an outline of the measures of effectiveness (MOE) hierarchy appropriate for one measurement purpose. Although

the principal reason for applying the STM to the IFV in this project was simply

-34-
to test and improve the model, it was also an objective that the trial applica-

'- ;~*tion would produce measures of IFV effectiveness and performance that could

actually be used during future tests of that system. With these desired objectives

in mind, candidate measurement purposes were considered in collaboration with

the COTR. They included: various size military units and associated operational

status evaluations; segments of the IFV Operational Test II; tactics and doctrine

issues; and, training effectiveness testing. To keep this task within practical

limits at this stage of STM development, a sample application for IFV squad operations against stationary targets was selected. The measurement purpose selected

to the revised STM to the IFV was:

* To evaluate the combat readiness of an IFV squad serving as

the bounding element of a platoon in bounding overwatch during

an offensive maneuver within an armored threat environment.

This measurement purpose was chosen for several reasons:

. First, the IFV weapons system is a complex system and an

attempt to apply the STM to a unit size larger than a squad

at this stage of STM development would require a much larger/

longer in-depth analysis. Even a complete analysis of squad

".operations , would require analyses beyond the scope of the present effort.

*..Second, a mounted operation with the squad activity limited

to conducting bound overwatch maneuvers and an engagement with a stationary armored threat was selected primarily

to keep the number of variables manageable.

,* Third, at the time of this work, no training circulars or field

manuals existed, which described IFV squad or higher unit opera- ... tions. It was intended that this application would serve as a useful experience in utilizing available system documentation and

adapt information/doctrine from similar type systems as would a

military analyst in applying the methodology to a new system.

The specific steps followed in applying the STM to the IFV under the abovenoted conditions are described in the following paragraphs.

7 Assumptions Made with Regard to the System of Interest

In applying the STM to an IFV Squad, certain assumptions had to be made

about the system of interest to simplify the taxonomization process and to enhance the generalizability of the results. The assumptions made were with regard to the qualifications of the IFV squad/platoon personnel and the IFV Table

of Organization and Equipment (TOE). These assumptions were as follows:

* "The IFV/Squad/Platoon personnel are MOS qualified and have

completed the necessary unit team training in order to participate in combat readiness exercises.

* The IFV squad is manned by TOE authorized levels. For the

purpose of this application, the assumption was made that the

IFV squad consists of nine personnel, i.e., Track Commander,

-35-

p............................................
U,

Gunner, Driver and six (6) Firing Port Operators, one of whom

is a fire team leader.

MR The IFV is prepared for this mission with maximum authorized

TOE supplies and equipment.

The IFV squad will remain mounted during the entire tactical

operation and would only dismount personnel if absolutely

necessary, e.g., prepare vehicle for fording, etc.

Determine the Hierarchical Structure in Which the System of Interest is Imbedded

Figure 12 depicts the external view of the hierarchical structure providing the

immediate context of the IFV Squad. For this measurement purpose, the system

of interest is imbedded in a subsystem/system/suprasystem structure that en-

_ Wcompasses an IFV Platoon. Within the system of interest there are two subsystems:

(1) the Carrier Team Subsystem, consisting of the Track Commander, Gunner and

Driver with their associated work stations and equipment and (2) the Crew Compartment Team Subsystem, consisting of the six Firing Port Weapons Operators and

their associated workstations and equipment. The two subsystems could be further

divided into sub-subsystems which would bring the level to individual system opera-

- tors and their associated equipment. However, considering the measurement purpose, this level is beyond the application interest of the STM. As depicted in

Figure 12, the collateral systems include two (2) other IFV squads, one (1) IFV

squad/platoon headquarters and the threat system(s). The suprasystem is the IFV

platoon.

U-4 In applying the STM, one should develop the total number of taxonomic sets

to which the system of interest belongs, including sets for each subsystem and

corresponding sets for the collateral systems and for the suprasystems. The development of taxonomies for the various system levels leads to the identification

of system-level interactions which influence relevant performance requirements

and in turn affect performance measurement issues for the system of interest.

Define and Review Scenarios and/or Documents Required for This Application

In order to become thoroughly familiar with the IFV Squad/Platoon system,

available system documents were reviewed. Those documents included the IFV

Materiel Needs document, IFV Systems Specifications, Mission Scenarios, IFV System

Task Descriptions, and Field Manuals (for similar systems) that provided guidance

with regard to tactical operations. As a point of departure and initial guidance

with regard to the measurement purpose, use was made of the Mission Scenario #1

' i(Bounding Overwatch Operation) from the IFV/CFV Personnel Selection Study.* That

scenario is reproduced here in Figure 13. A squad verbal order was also developed

to serve as guidance, and to aid in the identification of system population categories

relevant to the contextual stages of the measurement process. The verbal order is

presented in Figure 14, along with its associated map in Figure 15.

*Bloom, R.F., Pepler, R.D., Schimenz, M.V., and Lenzycki, H.P., IFV/CFV

Personnel Selection Analysis. Darien, CT: Dunlap and Associates, Inc., July

.979. (Army Research Institute Research Note 80-41)

-36-

".- . . . - . . , . " . -' .' . . . . . . .... , • ", " ". , , = , . , , ." . . .. --• .. = . *, . .. , . , , - . .. ' . .
SUPRASYSTEM

IFV

Platoon

(Mounted)

-9 -

0 5%

COLLATERAL SYSTEM

I FV Squad

* .and Platoon

COLLATERAL SYSTEM OF Hq (Mounted)

SYSTEM INTEREST

Armored IFV

. - Threat Squad

(Target) (Mounted) CLTEAL

-~ ___ ___ -SYS

COLLATERAL

IF SYSTEM

Sq IFV

Squad

(Mounted)

SSUBSYSTEM SUBSYSTEM

Carrier Crew

Team Compartment

Team

Figure 12. Hierarchical Structure Encompassing the IFV Squad System

-37-
+" ..,.b.

c U

* .,:_ . 1.-

£44. .t' Z .- "

.0 0 .

b. c b

a~ do

- E El' '

,' o.... ..!:.

W 

( cc-

= ,, .. ..- 3 .. ;

a",- "-" U I

LI 0 4 r. a . Ii

ac

5 . - b. 0, 0 1,-'3

03 of ' - i 0 a8 S c a4

-A L -3 8
44 1

36

;2 -) b 0 

1, U :6 - 'U, -

0 t

" i li '

- -- N.

" m

aa

'- 3•

- (ml 7-' -- ; 5 , 

"

,, IP

2":. " *!A 1,

°LON

0 - 391 C

o -W

* ' "3N -

-. " '. -3.. .
I a.L

sU 

.0 c

0 4'

A4 *0 z.

3.~11 cr 3A E US *) ab

'.5 

Ml

A Ilkot 'f1 : b

ja.£,.. *

-t 

w .-

.a.Aa.~ lid

-40N
0 0

. a

c

Ih II

IL r- 0

a at

S.P

'mm

w TO

A A
r."

SITUATION

"We are going to conduct an attack at 0600 hours today. This terrain

sketch I've made represents the ground we've got to cover. As you can see

the attack will cover a distance of about 3 kilometers. These little hills,

549 and 546 are platoon intermediate objectives. Hill 553, west of Lahm is - the platoon objective. We are presently on Hill 578. From what I was able

to see from the limited recon with the platoon leader, it looks like the enemy

has withdrawn to positions north of Lahm. Although I didn't see any armored

vehicles, LtDavies said the enemy has been identified as part of a motorized

* rifle unit. That means we have to be on the lookout for BMPs and maybe some

tanks. We may also encounter such obstacles as minefields and wide trenches. . The minefields are more than likely going to be forward of the trenchlines."

"Throughout the attack we will stay mounted. The Ist Platoon will be on

our left and the 3rd Platoon on our right. The platoon objective is going to be

hit with artillery and mortar fire just before we go in. The company has tanks

attached to support us through the attack.

" MISSION

"Our mission is to attack each of these intermediate objectives and final

objective. We have to clear the trenches and bunkers in our zone. Upon securing Hill 553 we are to prepare defensive positions. Once we're there and see the

terrain we'll talk more about it. We will move out at 0600."

EXECUTION

"When we move out, the platoon is going to be using bounding overwatch

and we are the bounding squad. With the platoon overwatching us from this hill,

we will move up this draw until we get to the patch of woods. I couldn't see

much of these woods; so once we get close I'll guide the track over the remainder

of the route. As soon as the rest of the platoon moves up to us, we'll bound

around to the left and up this ridge line. I could see it pretty clearly, and I

don't think anything is up there. When the rest of the platoon has moved up

and all the tracks are in position we'll wait for Lt. Davies' order to bound to

the first intermediate objective, Hill 549. Once we've taken Hill 549 we'll wait

for Lt. Davies' order to continue bounding overwatch. It's important that we

don't get too far ahead or behind the rest of the company. If we detect a

mine field we'll try to go around it so keep your eyes open."

"If we have to dismount, the platoon sergeant will be controlling the fires

0 - of the carrier team but that is very unlikely. Our priority is to engage any

armored vehicles in our sector and then bunkers."

(Continued)

Figure 14. Verbal Squad Order

Purpose: To Attack Hills 549,546 and 553 (Lichtenfels, Deutchland)

-42-

.............................
.4

"When we get to the trenches and enemy contact is made, Sgt. Jones

will control the fires of the FPWO's. Don't take any chances; lay down a

good base of fire. Report all possible targets for the carrier team."

SERVICE SUPPORT

"Sgt. Jones, you make sure that the squad compartment and crew have

the required basic load and equipment. Let me know when you're all complete.

I'll check the carrier team supplies and equipment."

"McCarthy, the POL track will be here around 0430; make sure our fuel

tank is topped off."

"Take care of any casualties within the track- give him some quick first

aid and get back to your position. The company aid track will come forward

just as soon as each intermediate and final objective is secured."

COMMAND AND SIGNAL

"We will cross the SP at 0600 on Lt Davies' hand signal. We will maintain radio silence until we reach Hill 549. During the attack no unnecessary

Intercom chatter."

"In case I get hit, Sgt. Kowaski, you take over- our call sign is TANGO 31."

"OK, the time is now 0230; 1 will inspect at 0515 hours. It will be daylight

at 0545. We have less than 4 hours before we move out. We will maintain radio

silence until contact with the enemy is made. The platoon and the squad will

use arm and hand signals during the maneuvers. Remember to maintain light

and noice discipline. Do you have any questions? If not, get ready."

.4

END

* I.*

h

Figure 14. (Concluded) Verbal Squad Order

-43-

' ' " ,''"- , "''", ," '" .". ." '-,' .' ." ." i' ". zJ, . "" ." " --..-...- "..-. - ;. . -. .. .-- . ",, t. K e .. '*,'.
4-..

~ Seoeday Road (6M wide; paved) Laght Surface Road

I Field/Forest Path (Fair Weather Rd.)

AL Derous Conif~ Forest

4L ~Pond/Stream Max. Stream [epth: O.3AI)

HflhHig Point

fb 4

4L

4L

Figure 15. Map of Platoon Attack

*~-:*::c- . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Specifying the measurement purpose also requires description of the measure-

. ment conditions. These include such factors as the geographic area(s) in which the

system is to perform its mission, the time period during which the system is to

perform its mission, the weather conditions and any other limiting variables. As

noted in the verbal squad order for this application, the geographic area selected

is a temperate zone of operations in Southern Germany, the time period of performance is 0600 to 1200 hours, the weather is defined as fair, no precipitation,

and good visibility.

Begin Applying the STM to the System of Interest to Derive Taxonomy Sets

As shown in the hierarchical system structure in Figure 12, the system of

interest has two subsystems, i.e., the Carrier Team and the Crew Compartment

- Team. The analyses were initiated at the subsystem level. The analyses of the

subsystems were initiated first, since it was felt that combining the subsystem

taxonomies would simplify the derivation of the taxonomy for the system of

interest itself. The initial subsystem selected for analysis was the Carrier Team.

The two analysts worked together as a team to derive the taxonomies for each

of the contextual stages of the measurement process, in the course of which

they also updated and refined the STM guidelines shown in Figure 11.

The STM first revision was applied to Carrier Team and Crew Compartment

Team subsystems, separately, to derive the eighteen different taxonomy subsets.

These correspond to the "intersections" of each of the three levels of system

-- description (Objectives, Functional Purposes, Characteristics) with each of the six

• "contextual stages of the measurement process (System Definition, Mission

Definition, Environment Specification, General Constraints, Ultimate Performance

do Requirements, Ultimate Performance Criteria).

Establish a Systematic Coding Technique

... The IFV system was found to be very complex, in contrast to the relatively

simple systems used in developing the first revision to the STM. As the analysis

progressed, it soon became apparent that procedures must be formulated to identify

more systematicaUy the population categories associated with the three levels of

system description (Objectives, Functional Purposes and Characteristics Levels).

The procedure adopted was to identify all the Objectives Level descriptions for a

* "-" particular contextual aspect, e.g., System Definition. Once these were identified,

then eaeN Objectives Level description was analyzed to determine a Functional

Purposes population category and its associated Characteristics population categories

before analyzing the next functional purpose and its associated characteristics.

A decimal numbering coding technique was established to facilitate the categorization of all three levels of system description. Each contextual aspect was

aigned a unique number, as follows:

1.0 System Description

2.0 Mission Definition

.* 3.0 Environment Specification

4.0 General Constraints

-45-

=m " ° ' ° ' . o % % - ......-....................... - - , • ".."........... - ... ".......................................... . "
5.0 Performance Requirements

6.0 Performance Criteria

At the Objectives Level, the population categories were assigned successive numbers

in the first decimal position. For example, at the Objectives Level under System Definition, each population category was identified as 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc. To be

specific, the taxa identified on the Objectives Level system description for the

System Definition of the IFV Carrier Team were designated as follows:

1.1 Providing surveillance

1.2 Conducting weapons fire

1.3 Providing squad command and control

1.4 Providing transportation

1.5 Providing communication

1.6 Providing squad protection

The Functional Purposes Level descriptions were assigned a two-decimal code, i.e.,

1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, etc. To continue the above example, the Functional Purposes

Level taxa of "1.1 Providing surveillance" were designated as:

1.1.1 Conduct sector surveillance

1.1.2 Ability to detect targets

1.1.3 Ability to acquire targets

1.1.4 Ability to identify/classify targets

1.1.5 Capability to track targets

The Characteristics Level of system description was assigned a three-decimal code,

i.e., 1.1.1.1, 1.1.1.2, 1.1.1.3, etc. In subdividing the functional purpose "1.1.1

Conduct sector surveillance," the characteristics which describe what capabilities

the system must have in order to satisfy that application were numbered as follows:

1.1.1.1 Visually conduct sector, surveillance, ground and

air, with unaided vision

1.1.1.2 Visually conduct sector surveillance with aided

vision (image intensification, image magnification)

1.1.1.3 Visually conduct sector surveillance with IR sensory device during periods of low visibility

The decimal numbering of the population categories simply aids in organizing the

population categories in such a way that our analyst can easily trace the sub-

" population categories of Objectives Level, Functional Purposes Level and

Characteristics Level populations. Figure 16 presents an example of a numeric

coding scheme which facilitated the categorization of the three levels of system

description and the six levels of the system's contextual aspects.

°.

-46-

Z.t

o4°2
IP

got ZC t+ i i f: e.++ 

&U Li [ ,+ l

4 4, 4 4 ., 4 44- - -i - + ' .'= I = . .

-I I I i +I' E

Ig 4.4

|i1L I+++ + + + "++ +P 0=.+ 

I I tlii it •I 14

- -an .9 - -, n * , -.

a

..i ... o

E ~ icg1 "l U+ -- ii, j ' - i. 1 f ji i Ii zi .

4 Ii. 4 44 4.64 . . . . o n. 

+ , 4

* ., ;a++

a . . .. . .

"a. . an+ a! ..,o an !na a

iI I ! i+'.' "- g '"bii- - lii"I Ill ;! IIjt ff -! !i nn 7

06- -47-

S. A-,t
Identify Taxonomies and Clarify Procedures

As previously noted, a review of earlier taxonomization exercises (based on

simple systems) preceded the identification of IFV taxonomies. That review

yielded clarification of the procedures for identifying taxonomies Additional

clarification emerged during the course of the IFV trial appl -ti-n itself. Among .- -- the major areas of clarification were these three:

The Respective Perspectives of System Performance

. The first three columns of the STM are directly concerned

with whatever it is that constitutes "performance" of the

" "- system under study. The "System Definition" column is

concerned with performance potential, i.e., the basic capabilities that the system possesses. "Mission Requirements"

focuses on performance processes, i.e., how the system

works. "Performance Requirements" addresses itself to the

products of performance, i.e., the goods or services output

by the system.

_ The Contexts within Which the System Performs

Two columns in the STM are concerned with identifying the

factors that may impede or otherwise influence system performance. These are "Environment Specification" and

"General Constraints." "Environment Specification" covers

any such factors that arise naturally from the circumstances

or conditions of the system performance situation. "General

Constraints" covers those impeding/influencing factors that

are imposed on the system as a direct result of conscious

decisions. It is incumbent upon a measurement analyst to

insure that such factors are identified and adequately

reflected in the measurement situation and process.

•. The Nature of the Levels of System Description

The Objectives Level is concerned with the various aspects

of system performance (potentialities, processes, and products)

as discrete, indivisible entities. On that level, the focus is on

.what - the system can do, not on why or how it does it.

The Functional Purposes Level goes beyond the "what" of

performance and concerns itself with the application to which

the system's performance is to be put. The focus is on why

a the system is to have the particular potentialities, carry out

the particular processes, and deliver the particular products.

The Characteristics Level examines each application or purpose

S,of performance in detail, and concerns itself with how the system can achieve that purpose. The emphasis is on the discrete

ways in which each purpose can be accomplished, or the dis- --crete steps or milestones that must be reached in order to

satisfy the purpose.

-48-
4 -'. -

Once the preceding major points were clarified, it became possible to con- .,-. tinue the identification of relevant taxonomies for the IFV squad. The process

of taxonomization initially was slow and laborious because the guidelines were

relatively rudimentary. However, as progress was made, the guidelines steadily

were refined and improved. Ultimately, complete taxonomies were developed

for the IFV squad's two principal subsystems, viz., the Carrier Team Unit and

the Crew Compartment Unit. For the former, 382 distinct (but closely related)

system populations were identified as being relevant to the measurement application at hand. For the latter, 220 were identified. These are much larger than 4, the taxonomy sets derived in the previous simple system exercises. (For the

bicycle-rider system, by way of comparison, 64 relevant taxa were identified.)

However, they appear to be manageable taxonomies, precisely because the STM

N, establishes a workable organization for those taxonomies. Figure 16 displays a

iportion of the total taxonomy for the IFV's Carrier Team Unit. A complete

presentation of that set is given in Appendix A; the taxonomy for the Crew

Compartment Team is given in Appendix B.

D. Derivation of an IFV Measures Hierarchy for the Surveillance Function

As a test of the utility of the IFV taxonomy, a set of measures was derived

from those taxa associated with the Carrier Team Unit's performance of

surveillance. The basic purpose behind the identification of system taxonomies,

the reader will recall, is to aid the selection of measures of system performance/

effectiveness. Thus, only if the STM application leads to practical and compre-

* - hensive measures can one conclude that the STM is a viable component of the

overall measurement process.

The advantages in choosing the performance element of surveillance were

that, first, it is a requirement common to many military human-machine systems

and, second, it entails many potentialities, processes, and products of performance

and is subject to the influence of many environmental and constraining factors.

Thus, as a test of the measures-derivation process, it permitted a wide variety

of system taxa to be included and offered the possibility of producing measures

relevant to many system applications.

Figure 17 displays the Carrier Team System taxa associated with the "surveillance" performance element. On the Objectives Level of system description,

these taxa include:

. The basic capability (potentiality) of surveillance.

- The process of sector surveillance, for both air and

ground sectors.

3. *The product of threat detections (for which surveillance

is a prerequisite).

- The physical and climatological environment.

- . Surveillance constraints.

- Threat constraints (the nature of the threats, and the , . -. tactical response required, may affect how the system

performs surveillance).

-49-

:'

, :.s-+',..'..'..' ,, , ." . A. . = * . .. 7-. .'* -. .'' .'', ...- -". " ." . .- '' ,. - '. .. .". - ,..
* 6 6

Z - Z L 

_A 2

- L. 3J:

o6 E' ED c Df

In E

26 E 3: m L,-V z

A

i~~i *~ea

cI I E0 0

N4. E

*. C4 C4

13 96

2 tz

#4 -0 -

050

%3 0
All taxa that "descend" from these on the Functional Purposes Level and the

Characteristics Level also are included.

The numbers shown in parentheses in Figure 17 refer to the taxonomy codification scheme illustrated in Figure 16. They allow the links among the three

levels of description to be indicated explicitly. For example, taxon 1.1.2.1

"descends" from taxon 1.1.2, which in turn "descends" from 1.1.

If the staff's actual purpose had been to devise and implement a plan for

evaluating the performance/effectiveness of the IFV Squad (rather than simply

testing the utility of an analytic procedure), a large-scale literature review would

have been conducted at this point. The taxa arrayed in Figure 17 would have

been used as search terms for accessing the body of published literature on

human-machine systems measurement, with a view toward identifying measures,

analytic methods, and other test procedures that previously were applied successfully to evaluate systems similar to the IFV Squad. Indeed, a major purpose

behind development of the STM is precisely to facilitate such access to relevant

,-. literature and, ultimately, to impose an effective organization upon the published systems measurement literature. For purposes of this example, however, it was

not deemed necessary to conduct a formal literature review. Instead, the staff

members relied on their own system measurement experience with surveillance

systems (especially those in the infantry and air defense artillery contexts) as

the source from which measures relevant to the listed taxa would be drawn.

Figures 18, 19, and 20, respectively, depict the measures that are

potentiality-oriented, process-oriented, and product-oriented. The first set of

measures (Figure 18) are intended to answer questions about the basic capabilities

for surveillance that the system possessed. The second set (Figure 19) answers

questions concerning how the system performs its various surveillance activities.

The third set (Figure 20) addressed questions concerning the results of those surveillance activities.

Each set of measures is organized in conformance to the STM's three levels

! of system description. The uppermost row in each figure contains only those

measures associated with Objectives Level taxa. All of those measures are of

the nominal variety. The second row is reserved for measures associated with

Functional Purposes Level taxa; those include both nominal and relative measures.

All lower rows deal with measures associated with Characteristics Level taxa.

Those are strictly relative measures.

Measures are labelled with reference to the particular attribute (taxon) of

performance on which they bear. Each such taxon is itself designated by a

numeric-decimal label. Each measure associated with a given taxon is labelled

-.., by that taxon's numeric-decimal, with parenthetic alphabetic postscript. For

example, three measures are identified in Figure 18 for the "Surveying Sector"

"taxon _ designated by 1.1.1 (a Functional Purposes Level taxon under the Performance Potentialities column). Those three measures are designated by 1.1.1(A),

1.1.1(B), and 1.1.1(C), respectively.

One important point that bears re-emphasis is that all measures listed in

Figures 18, 19, and 20 focus on the system's performance-of surveillance. Each

measure derives from some particular system taxon, but the measure is concerned

. .- 51-

. ........................ ........ '., .'-
at d

E c

j!, .

eL=- 8

~E_

Lww

' -.. lli ,t!]- -.--- "U li-l".'l - - - -

,I ", , i i

,.i .. .4 .4. 4-

I of! a

i-,"- "i i1"_,V

.-- - - -- .

! - ,IVN u,," i I CL))

-52

|d'. o '' 

i. .'. IRU'd : ., --.'. - ? -V ..-.-.-v .. , - . .- .-; -.... .- --.- ; ..-.. -. - -. .; -. _-_,_-_.- -_ ._ .--_ .-v ._. -. -_ -._. _- .- .-. _. .- --..-v ...-. -.-v .. --. .-..

- ' -.' ' ' ' ' ' ' -, , < _, -. ' " , , , ., ' ' ' ' , ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' , " " ., , ' ' , _ -5 2-.: - ' .. , ' " ' , ., ' , ; , , , , ' ' ' ' , , , -" " ' _L ] " " L " ' , .' - -
a -r

0 30. 34 e* a, eii

= :E;= :., -:E w- x= it A.. - ti ctc c

a A s a - Oa a a.~~ a a 4 0 C) 2" D., . 4 ~ 0 C) - - - - - -

IL lo eq It ~ f Iteq 

C4-

-c 3o

-0 we c, Z a-F-

-c 2 = c

a1

:.: E_ tC, aa a0

A C - - -o 4 0 ~ C. --. eq eq e it e eqeq Aq eq e

9.2 C4 C 440 4 4 C

04-

3.~lc E

last H' -oi

ac aa a

IvAoLLMMn SOLLSIII310VHVHD

...................................... * .... 
'S A 

*~* I o1 

es Si 0; 9&es vi

J4 4m o 4 d4 R

IL-

*1 W" I' .Ora es es

w I w 3d 11 a a -

~~. A j~A~;;

ad od of Ui4i4, 4-Ia Ik kS SI

EjM d~~ ~ fa E I'Id~u

asSui 1 zzo fzzJ z 

-54-
onl with the interaction of that taxon with surveillance. If some other aspects

system performance (eqg., "Squad Command and Control," "Communications") had

been under study, the relevant taxa might have included some items that are

similar to those listed for "surveillance." However, even if the taxa were identi- "" cal for the several performance aspects, different measures would most likely have been derived because of differing measurement purposes.

Some examples can clarify the preceding point. One of the product-oriented

taxa associated with surveillance is "Tactical Decisions" (item 5.2.3, on the

Functional Purposes Level in Figure 20). The association stems from the fact

that surveillance is a principal source of input for IFV Squad tactical decisions.

If an analyst wishes to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the system's performance of surveillance, one issue that must be addressed, therefore, is "How

well does the system's surveillance provide input to its tactical decisions?" It is

precisely that issue that is addressed by the measures listed under 'Tactical

Decisions" in Figure 20. The reader will note that those measures have nothing directly to do with the kinds of tactical decisions made, with the correctness of

those decisions, with the decision-making process itself. The measures are coneerned only with the kinds and quantities of tactical decision input data supplied

or overlooked by the surveillance process. Those measures are applied in the

context of tactical decisions, but they remain focused on surveillance.

Suppose for the moment, however, that measures were being sought not for

the "Surveillance" performance element, but rather for "Squad Command and

Control." Tactical decisions would also be included in the set of taxa associated

with that performance element because the formulation of tactical decisions is

an integral part of the exercise of command. Now, however, the key question would be, "How well does the system formulate its tactical decisions, given the

information available?" The measures needed to address that question would

focus on the kinds of decisions made, the decision algorithms used, the volumes

of decisions made, their correctness, their timeliness, etc. In short, different

sets of measures might derive from a common system taxon, depending upon the

performance element of interest.

Another example in this same context may be based on the measures listed

(in Figure 20) for the taxon, "Information on What Was Observed" (item 5.2.2.1,

on the Characteristics Level). Those measures address the system's performance in observing data bearing on the identification of threats, threat signatures, etc.

The issues of interest to the assessment of surveillance are how much of the

available data was observed, how much was missed, how much was observed

inaccurately, etc. None of these measures are at all concerned with what is

done with the data after they are collected through surveillance. However, if

one were studying the "Communications" performance element, this same taxon

would be involved, but the appropriate measures then would focus on how much

of the information on threat identification was transmitted to appropriate recipi- ents (e.g., Platoon HQ), how quickly the information was transmitted, how accurately, etc. Furthermore, if one were interested in the "Weapons Operation"

performance element, once again the same taxon would be included. But in that

case, the measures of the threat identification information would deal with how

well that information was used 'in the selection of weapons, ammunition, fire

rates, etc.

-55-
S.: The basic point, as has been mentioned before, is that the taxa are abstrac- . tions of measures. The concrete specification of the measures they represent depend on exactly which facet or element of the system's performance is being

studied.

The measures hierarchy depicted in Figures 18, 19, and 20, of course, is

an idealized set. That is, no attempt has been made to determine the feasibility

* -of using any of the measures, or to eliminate those that may require data that

cannot be obtained under realistic circumstances. That "weeding out" activity

properly belongs at a later stage in the overall measurement process. The pur- -- pose of the taxa is to guide the analyst in identifying and organizing a set of

measures that, if they can be used, would answer all the research questions at

hand. The taxa themseves shed little or no light on the practicality of those S-. measures.

There is no conclusive test or set of standards that can be used to judge the merits of the "Surveillance" measures hierarchy. The true merits of any

measure can be known only when the measure is actually employed under the

intended circumstances. This is especially true in this case, since no rigorous

search of the literature nor any appeal to subject-matter experts was involved

in the construction of this measures set. Nevertheless, while acknowledging that

this set could certainly be improved, the measures themselves appear intuitively

to be well suited to assess the IFV Squad's performance of surveillance. The

measures would allow the analyst to proceed in a careful and logical step-bystep fashion. Applied in the proper sequence, they would address the following

kinds of questions:

What capabilities does the IFV Squad possess in the area of . surveillance?

" . What surveillance capabilities did the system actually use in • ithis particular measurement application?

. How were these capabilities affected by the environmental

and other circumstances that pertained to this particular

measurement application?

* What procedures did the system actually use to apply its

surveillance capabilities?

*"-How did these procedures differ from the prescribed surveillance procedures?

"-"How did the environmental and other circumstances affect

the surveillance procedures?

* For what specific applications were the surveillance procedures conducted?

*" Was sufficient and appropriate information or other input

supplied to those applications through surveillance? _

.. What specific deficiencies were found in the information/

input provided by surveillance?

-56-

i?'-' :, .';< -?':". . ". - -'. ." "" * " . . ." .. . • • " " " " " . .. .-. . . . .;i.:, ., ., .. .. . -... , . .... ,; ..... ,,..... .. .:... .. .,. -..,. ? .- :.:. .. .. .., ...v- .-. : , ..- . .- -- *. " *- ,.- : .* -:--..1..
Achieving the ability to answer questions such as these in every analytic

application would, in the opinion of the authors, constitute substantial progress in

the state-of-art of human-machine systems measurement. In this specific instance

at least, the STM has produced a measures set that apparently is structured

around the right kinds of research questions, and that possesses the logical sequential organization required to address those questions. If nothing else, the

authors suggest that this result justifies continued efforts to improve and apply

-2 the STM, and the overall measurement process model as well.

E. "Final Revision" of the STM

Findings of the IFV Application pertaining to Taxonomization

The trial application using the "first revision" STM focused on the two major

subsystems of the IFV Squad, viz., the Carrier Team Subsystem and the Crew

Compartment Team Subsystem. Summing across the three levels of system

description and the six contextual aspects of measurement, several hundred system populations (taxa) were identified for each of those two subsystems. Had the 1 application been carried out to its final conclusion, similar taxa would have been

identified for the platoon suprasystem and for the various postulated threats

(collateral systems). Also, a merger of the Carrier Team and Crew Compartment

Team taxonomies would have been created to document the populations of interest

to the IFV Squad in toto. However, it was apparent that the trial application,

including the derivation of a sample hierarchy of measures, had been carried out

to an extent sufficient to permit conclusions to be drawn concerning the STM's

utility and needs for further revision. These conclusions are listed below.

1. THE THREE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF PEFORMANCE PROVIDE

A CONVENIENT AND PRACTICAL MEANS OF ANALYZING HOW

WELL A SYSTEM WORKS.

A triad of performance aspects, i.e., potentialities (System

S""Definition), processes (Mission Requirements), and products

(Performance Requirements) proved to be a workable and helpful concept for identifying system taxonomies and, ultimately,

measures of effectiveness/performance. It is true that the

taxonomies that emerged under those three columns had much

in common. All three encompassed system populations organized around such jobs as surveillance, movement, communica- ... --. tion, weapons operation, and the like. However, although their

taxa exhibited similar organizing principles, the taxa themselves

differed importantly, if subtly, from one column to the next.

Each column disclosed taxa that suggested some very useful

appearing measures of effectiveness/performance. No one column, nor any two of the three, produced all of the measures

that seemed appropriate. All three appear to be necessary

for a complete assessment of a system's value.

There is really nothing surprising in this result. Most researchers

agree that a product evaluation alone often cannot suffice to

judge the absolute or relative merits of a system. Despite the

common notion that nothing matters except "results," or the

"bottom line," it usually is necessary to consider how the system

-57-

r. . - . - = - - . -; > - . . -. - . - . . . . . . . . - , . - . . . . . . . - , . . . . - . . . . . - . . - . , - .
operates (process measurement) and what it is capable of doing

, ~(potentiality measurement) to obtain a full picture of its worth.

This is particularly true in cases where it is very difficult or

virtually impossible to obtain product-oriented measures, e.g., . when the system of interest is at an early stage of development

or is of a type (such as nuclear weapon systems) whose products

cannot be delivered for test purposes. On the other hand, it

would be equally inappropriate to exclude all product-associated _variables from the system measurement scheme and concentrate

exclusively on measures of process and potentiality. No matter

how satisfactory a system's capabilities and procedures may

appear to be, at some point it becomes necessary to ascertain - whether it does, in fact, produce the goods or services desired.

In sum, the overall scheme of human-machine system measurement must include adequate provision for all three aspects of

system performance. Based upon its trial application to the IFV,

the STM appears to provide adequately for that requirement.

2. THE THREE LEVELS OF SYSTEM DESCRIPTION INTERACT WITH

THE THREE ASPECTS OF PERFORMANCE TO PRODUCE SETS _ OF MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS/ PERFORMANCE.

When the STM concept was first formulated, one of its fundamental postulates was that two general levels of measurement are

relevant to the study of any human-machine system. The first

~'- ~level encompasses nominal measures of effectiveness/performance,

i.e., measurement categories that do not relate to one another

in any inherent order. The classic example of nominal measurement is the categorization of fruit as "apple" or "orange." In no - ,meaningful sense is an orange greater or less than an apple. The

second level of measurement is termed relative, and encompasses the familiar measurement scales called ordinal, interval, and ratio,

- all of whose measurement categories do possess an orderliness

(in the comparative sense). A driving principle behind the STM

concept is that, for any particular aspect or component of a

system's performance, there exists a set of related measures,

including both nominal and relative, that can be structured in a logical sequence. That is, for any of the system's potentialities,

processes, or products it must be possible to identify a series of

measures, beginning with the nominal and evolving toward the

relative, all of which can provide helpful information concerning

how well the system produces the product, carries out the process,

or possesses the potentiality in question. Moreover, that series

" .of measures must correspond directly to the system populations

(taxa) to which the system belongs by virtue of that particular

potentiality, process, or product. Indeed, it is another basic

premise of the STM concept that the taxa are the measures, at

least in the abstract. That is, the taxa ar'-dimensions which

provide the initial specification of, or basis for, defining useful

measures. The three levels of system description were incorporated into the STM to provide a mechanism for extracting the

measures set. All three levels would address the same issues

concerning the system's performance. However, the perspective of

-58-

• -7 8- *.
the Objectives Level was expected to disclose nominal measures

pertaining to the performance element in question, on a relatively

"macroscopic" scale. The Functional Purposes level was expected

to provide a mixture of both nominal and relative measures, but

focused on the major details of that performance element. The

Characteristics Level would provide relative measures, pertaining - -to the "microscopic" details of the performance element.

The IFV trial application showed that the three levels of System

Description do indeed play their intended roles in identifying

measures sets. The progression of perspectives for dealing with

the various aspects of system performance afforded by the three

levels of System Description potentially can yield an MOE hierarcay

that provides the expected sequence of nominal-to-relative measures. This is illustrated in Figure 21, which interprets a portion

., of the measures set for the IFV performance potentiality

'- "Providing Surveillance," previously shown in Figure 18.

3. THE TWO GENERAL CATEGORIES OF FACTORS IMPEDING OR

OTHERWISE INFLUENCING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE PROVIDE

WORKABLE MEANS OF RELATING THE MEASURES TO THE

MEASUREMENT PURPOSE AT HAND.

As previously described, there are two broad classes of factors,

associated with any particular measurement purpose, that may

impede or otherwise affect the system's performance. Those are

"" the factors that occur naturally and are beyond the arbitrary con- - trol of human agents, and the factors that occur because of a

conscious human decision or intervention. The former have been

termed "Environment Specification;" the latter, "General Constraints."

The experience of the IFV trial application suggests that it is relatively easy and straightforward to identify these factors, on all

three levels of system description. However, this can be done only

after all elements of the system's performance have been identified

>"-' (i.e., the various potentialities, processes, and products, their applications, and the ways in which they can be achieved). The impeding/

influencing factors drawn from the environment, tactical doctrine,

and other sources can be discerned only after one knows what elements of performance are relevant, and analyzes those elements to

-. determine how they might be impeded. Thus, the two contextual

aspects of measurement that have been labeled "General Constraints"

and "Environment Specification" should be retained in the STM, but

they should be addressed only after the performance-based taxonomies

have been identified.

- 4. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW

OF THE SYSTEM TAXONOMY MODEL

The attempt to identify taxa based on performance criteria (as

distinct from performance elements) added nothing of substance to

the trial application. It was noted above that taxa derived from

-59-
- Relevant Taxa Measures

"The IFV belongs to the popu- * Types of surveillance

lation of systems that are methods/mechanisms

OBJECTIVES capable of providing surveillance" included in the system

- LEVEL

(Discrete Performance Media in which the system

Elements) can provide surveillance

"The IFV belongs to the popu- 0 Types of targets that the

lation of systems that provide system can detect

surveillance in order to have

the capability of detecting Target detection probabilities

targets"

FUNCTIONAL

PURPOSES LEVEL

(Applications of the "The IFV belongs to the popu- Kinds of sectors in which

Elements) lation of systems that provide surveillance can be provided

surveillance in order to have

the capability of surveying Maximum sector physical

sectors" limits

* Sector scan rates

"The IFV belongs to the popu- * Degree of image magnification

lation of systems that can

survey sectors by means of * Degree of image intensification . ,,,,aided visual optics" aid v a o s Aided optics viewing angles

CHARACTERISTICS

LEVEL

(Ways in Which the "" Applications of the Performance Elements "The IFV belongs to the popu- • Signal-to-noise ratios

Can Be Achieved) lation of systems that can

survey sectors by means of 6 Effective Range

IR Sensor" - Sensitivity

Figure 21. Partial Set of Measures

(Showing the progression from primarily nominal to primarily relative measures)

-60-
performance elements (potentialities, processes, or products) are

actually abstractions of measures of those performance elements.

Similarly, it became evident that taxa derived from performance

criteria are abstract versions of measurement criteria. However,

they proved to be too abstract to be of practical value. The

criterion-based system populations that emerged from the IFV

trial application consisted essentially of such terms as "appropriate,"

"timely," "accurate," "complete," "efficiently," "quickly," "successfully," etc. Although these terms certainly express universally

accepted qualities of "goodness," they also certainly do not provide

the degree of specificity that an analyst needs to evaluate a system's performance. That specificity can only be achieved after

the actual hierarchy of measures has been extracted from the taxa.

In sum, selection/derivation of performance criteria obviously

remains an element of the overall process of system measurement,

but it does not fall within the segment of that process that is of

concern to system taxonomy modeling.

5. SPECIFIC, WORKABLE GUIDELINES FOR IDENTIFYING

TAXONOMIES RELEVANT TO A PARTICULAR SYSTEM AND A

PARTICULAR MEASUREMENT PURPOSE CAN BE DEVELOPED.

Perhaps the most significant result of the IFV trial application was

the fact that concrete guidelines for the taxonomization process

emerged. Once most of the system populations associated with the

IFV's performance elements and levels of system description had

been identified, organizing principles for those populations began to

become evident. The recognition of those principles allowed the

staff to accelerate the process of identifying the remaining relevant

taxa, which in turn helped to clarify the principles further. As

expected, then, the IFV trial application proved to be an excellent

and fruitful taxonomization learning experience. Ultimately it was

discovered that the organizing principle for any of the STM's "cells"

(intersections of levels of System Description with measurement

contextual aspects) could be described as an open-ended statement,

augmented by a series of specific analytic questions. The openended statement expresses the "common theme" that binds together

the entire set of system populations associated with the measurement aspect and level of system description in question. For - example, the population-defining statement for the "cell" corresponding to System Definition on the Objectives Level of description is:

"The system must be capable of ..."

aThat statement can be completed by a list of discrete performance

potentialities belonging to the system of interest. The list, collectively, defines the full range of capabilities belonging to that system.

Each entry in the list defiies a unique population of systems to

which the system of interest belongs. For the IFV squad, the list

that emerged in this particular "cell" was:

-0 providing surveillance

. -conducting weapons fire

" -,--81-
, providing squad command and control

* providing transportation

* providing communications . • providing squad protection

The analytic questions associated with a particular "cell" serve

to clarify the population-defining statement, and provide means

of identifying the taxa belonging to that "cell." The questions

associated with the "cell" discussed in the above example are:

• "What must this system be capable of doing or providing?"

" "What kinds of services must it be able to provide?"

0 "What needs is this system supposed to fulfill?"

' "For a military weapons system: what are the capabilities

that this system must have in order to move-shootcommunicate?"

The above questions are intended to be neither mutually exclusive

nor collectively exhaustive. They simply represent different conS-'. venient ways of exploring a system's potentialities. Similar sets

of questions emerged as means of exploring its processes, products,

and impeding factor All of these questions were derived in the --~ context of the IFV, but they probably are suitable for commencing

the taxonomization process for most human-machine systems. As

other applications of this concept are completed, additional useful

analytic questions undoubtedly will emerge. In this sense, one

expects that the usability of the STM will increase adaptively the

*more that it is used. It is for this reason that the title of this

section refers to the STM's "final" revision in quotation marks.

The revision process actually never will reach a final state since

every system measurement application using this model will contribute at least incrementally to every succeeding measurement

application. Indeed, that 6, one of the basic reasons why the STM

concept was first formulated.

Conclusions and "Final Revision"

"" The findings of the IFV trial application led to substantial further revision of

the STM. The model now includes five (rather than 6) columns; "Performance

Criteria" no longer is a basis for taxonomization, but rather is relegated to a later

stage of the overall measurement process. Of the five columns, three are oriented

toward performance-based taxonomies. These are termed "Performance Potentialities,

Processes, and Products." Those labels replace the earlier, less descriptive designations "System Definition," "Mission Requirements" and "Performance Requirements,"

respectively. The other two columns continue to be labeled "Environment Specification" and "General Constraints." They are oriented toward condition-based taxonomies, i.e., the circumstantial and situational factors that must be reflected in

the process of measurement. Those two are the right-most columns in the STM,

reflecting the fact that their taxonomies can be identified only after the performance-based taxonormies have been determined.

-62-

;-..

----------------------------------------- ** *--
Figure 22 depicts the revised version of the STM, including its updated

taxonomization guidelines. This is the "Final Revision" of the STM insofar as

the present project scope of work is concerned. However, the taxonomization

4- guidelines undoubtedly will be further improved as additional applications to

other systems occur.

The ultimate conclusion of the IFV trial application is that the STM is

a practical tool for identifying the hierarchy of measures of performance/

effectiveness for any human-machine system in any particular measurement

application. Although this first major application of the STM was exceedingly

- laborious and time-consuming, substantial progress was made toward developing

specific taxonomization procedures and guidelines. Future applications, therefore,

. should proceed much more efficiently, and lead to increased utility of the STM.

(.-- 3-.

F:-

S. . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . .

--. . . . . . . .....

.. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SS

0 , 'N

it IVi -

s--

V~ I

E - T

- li

EI 1%

=c 3

-=~V. -VOUMO S3L8 VV

L *-64-
.-. III. STM UTILIZATION PROCEDURES

The procedures for using the Systems Taxonomy Model evolved (as did

the STM itself) from the trials and errors of numerous system taxonomization

exercises, beginning with very simple systems and culminating with the IFV

Squad application. A major component of those procedures, of course, is the

' -set of taxonomization guidelines, the latest version of which was shown in

Figure 22. Theoretically, those guidelines are the STM utilization procedures.

- That is, one simply needs to follow the guidelines for any particular cell in

the STM until all relevant system populations belonging to that cell have been

found, then move on to another cell, and then to another, until finally all cells

in the matrix have been filled. As a practical matter, however, some prepara- . tion certainly is needed before one can attempt to apply any of the guidelines.

Also, experience dictates that it is best to start working on certain specific

cells, and to move on to the others in a particular sequence. Experience further shows that certain combinations of cells should be addressed in an iterative,

interactive fashion so that their taxa are identified in parallel.

, .These practical considerations are described in detail in the utilization

procedures outlined below.

S. -."A numeric or other suitable ordering scheme should be used

to help organize the taxa into logically associated groups.

The STM is not only supposed to aid the analyst in identifying the system

populations to which a system of interest belongs, but also to aid in organizing

those populations to support development of a logically structured hierarchy of

* measures of performance/effectiveness. The hierarchy depicted for "Surveillance"

in Figures 18, 19, and 20 in the previous section provides a good illustration of

* a logical structure. Those measures are arrayed in a descending sequence of

• increasing specificity, precisely because they are grouped under taxa that have

exactly that relationship to one another. When the project staff set out to

assemble that measures set, they were greatly assisted by the fact that the

o "links" among taxa were explicitly exhibited. Thus, once it was determined

which taxa on the Objectives Level of system description were relevant to

"Surveillance" it was immediately evident which taxa on the Functional Purposes

Level and Chracteristics Level were also relevant. A numeric ordering scheme

tied the three levels of taxa together explicitly.

The scheme that was adopted employs a hierarchical decimal notation.

The first (leftmost) digit indicates the particular system contextual aspect (i.e.,

". STM column) to which the designated taxon belonged. Originally, this scheme

permitted the first digit to take on the values 1 through 6, corresponding to the

six columns previously included in the STM. Since then, the column/contextual

aspect labeled "Performance Criteria" has been removed from the STM, and the

sequence and nomenclature of the remaining columns have been modified. In

the current taxonomy ordering scheme, the leading digit can take on any value

- from 1 to 5, where each digit has the following significance:

6-

. .-- 5-
. Do ta peforman p nlites.

1. Designates taxa oriented toward performance potentialities.

! "3. 2. Designates Designates taxa oriented toward performance processes. taxa oriented toward performance products.

4. Designates taxa oriented toward environment specification.

5. Designates taxa oriented toward general constraints.

Any taxon belonging to the Objectives Level of system description is designated by a two-digit number of the general form X.Y, where X has the value 1

through 5 (as explained above) and Y has the value 1 or greater. The "Y" digit

simply indicates the position of that particular taxon in that particular cell.

For example, a taxon labeled 2.3 would be the third one listed in the cell corresponding to the Performance Processes column (column number 2) on the

Objectives Level of system description; a taxon labeled 1.4 would be the fourth

entry in the Performance Potentialities cell on the Objectives Level.

As repeatedly noted, taxa on lower levels of system description "descend"

from taxa found on the Objectives Level. A principal purpose of the decimal

notation is to make this top-to-bottom relationship explicit. Thus, any taxon

found on the Functional Purposes Level of system description is designated by a

three-digit number of the general form X.Y.Z, where:

X.Y is the designator of the Objectives Level taxon from

which this Functional Purposes Level taxon "descends."

Z is the designator of the position that particular taxon

occupies in the list of those "descending" from the X.Y

Objectives Level taxon.

Obviously, the X.Y.Z taxon also belongs to column "X" in the STM, but is placed

on the Functional Purposes Level rather than the Objectives Level.

Similarly, any Characteristics Level taxon is assigned a four-digit number,

e.g., X.Y.Z.N, where X.Y.Z is the label of its "originating" Functional Purposes

,* Level taxon and N is its own sequence number. Those taxa are arrayed on the

lowest row of the STM, and in column "X".

Use of this or some other suitable ordering scheme greatly facilitates extraction of the taxa needed to generate any given measures hierarchy. The more

complex the system is, the more helpful it is to have such a scheme. But even

relatively simple systems tend to associate with fairly large sets of system populations; so an analyst almost always will find it worth the effort to include an

ordering scheme in the taxonomization process.

All available system documentation should be examined before any

"* , attempt is made to identify and organize the system taxonomy.

This is a fairly obvious procedural step, but it is important enough to warrant explicit mention. The analyst should insure that he or she has acquired the

fullest possible knowledge of the system being studied before beginning the

taxonomization process. Otherwise, the danger will exist that some elements of

system performance will be overlooked in the analysis.

-66-
The kinds of documentation that proved very helpful in the IFV Squad trial

application were the System Specifications, Materiel Needs Document, and System

Task Descriptions. Previous IFV test plans and test reports also would have been

accessed if a true, full-scale measurement application had been intended. Caution,

of course, must be exercised in reviewing previous test plans and reports to

acquire inputs for future performance measurement. There is a natural tendency

to ascribe validity to anything that has been used or done in the past. The fact

that a particular measure of performance was used in a previous test may lead

a careless analyst automatically to include that measure in future test plans.

Similarly, a measure previously rejected or excluded from prior applications may

not receive the consideration it deserves when a new application is being prepared.

The STM concept originally was formulated in response to a need to impose a

systematic orderliness on the process of measures selection, to avoid the mistakes

of the past. Previous test documents are a valid and essential source of input

for system taxonomization, but they must be reviewed with a healthy skepticism.

Other helpful sources for acquiring fuller knowledge of the system being

studied would include discussions with subject-matter experts (system designers,

fabricators, and operators) and, not to be overlooked, documentation on the system

or systems which the system of interest is supposed to replace. Few emerging

systems provide radically new potentialities, processes, or products. Usually, they

only offer (or promise) better performance. Thus, a basic idea about what should

be expected of the system can be gleaned from a review of what is provided by

the systems that currently do the jobs in question. Some inputs for the IFV

taxonomization, for example, were obtained from the staff's knowledge of the

M113 and its derivatives (such as the Improved TOW Vehicle).

The measurement application should be defined and described

in detail before the taxonomization process begins.

The scope of a system taxonomization exercise does not necessarily (or usu-

'I ally) extend to all of the potentialities, processes, and products that constitute a

system's performance under all circumstances. Rather, the scope is limited to

those elements of performance, and the factors that influence them, that come

into play in a given measurement application. The STM, after all, is definitely

applications-oriented.

Definition and description of the measurement application are especially

necessary for the identification of relevant taxa associated with Environment

Specification (column 4) and General Constraints (column 5). Many systems are

expected to perform under a wide variety of environments and constraints; so the

total numbers of taxa that potentially could be included in those columns are

huge. The application at hand must be clearly specified at the outset if those

"condition-oriented" taxa are to be limited to a manageable set.

Preparation of a detailed description of the measurement application can be

a fairly time-consuming task, resulting in an appreciable volume of documentation.

Even for the limited IFV trial application, the staff found that it was necessary

to prepare a comprehensive mission scenario, complete with maps, time-lines, etc.

Without this preparatory step, however, key inputs to the taxonomization process

would not have been available.

-67-
,*1

* '~The taxonomization process should proceed column by column,

* working from left to right through the STM matrix.

Very simply, one starts by identifying all taxa associated with performance

" potentiality, moves on to identify all that are associated with performance

processes, and then proceeds to identify all associated with performance products.

Only then does the analyst examine and organize the "conditions-oriented" taxa

associated with the environment and the imposed constraints.

This procedural step is rooted in the concept of performance as a logical

sequence of:

:4i * What can be done by the system.

.• How it actually does it.

* W-at actually results from doing it.

Thus, it is reasonable to begin by identifying basic capabilities, then the ways in

which those capabilities are applied, and finally the outcomes realized from their

j -applications. Once all of these elements of performance are known, one can

examine the circumstances and conditions under which they are supposed to exist.

Once an Objectives Level taxon is identified, its derivatives 7-.: on the two lower levels should immediately be identified.

-.. It might seem logical to attempt first to identify all taxa (in a particular column) that belong on the topmost (Objectives) Level of system description.

Then, once the analyst is satisfied that he or she has accomplished that milestonc

, " attention could move on to the Functional Purposes Level, and remain there

J. until all of those taxa have been identified. Finally, work could focus exclusively

-, on the Characteristics Level. If this approach were followed, taxa (and measures

.. ,:. sets) would emerge in a sequence corresponding to the natural evolution of systems and research issues. That is, the first sets of taxa identified would view

the system as a "black box" or basic concept, and would lead to nominal measures compatible with the fundamental research issues generally associated with a

system's conceptual stage of development.

The logic sketched above is quite compelling, and the taxonomization

sequence it suggests was in fait attempted at the outset of the IFV trial application. However, it proved to be difficult to apply in practice. The staff found

it conceptually much easier to focus on some particular element of performance

and to stay with that element until it was completely described at all levels of

detail. That is, it was found to be more effective to proceed as follows:

-: . ' .'

* +. Identify a taxon on the Objectives Level.

. Immediately identify a derivative taxon on the Functional

Purposes Level.

. Immediately identify a derivative taxon on the Characteristics

Level.

0 Continue identifying derivative Characteristics Level taxa until

no more can be derived from that Functional Purposes Level taxon.

-68-
Identify another derivative Functional Purposes Level taxon,

and immediately identify all of its derivative Characteristics

Level taxa.

* Repeat the preceding step until no more Functional Purposes

Level taxa can be derived from the original Objectives

" Level taxon.

I Identify another Objectives Level taxon and repeat the entire

process. Continue until no more Objectives Level taxa can

be found.

Of course, if the system under study were at a very early stage of development (e.g., concept definition stage), not all of its Characteristics Level or

even Functional Purposes Level taxa might be identifiable. In that case, the

procedure just outlined might be truncated.

The chief advantages found with this procedure were twofold. First, the

train of thought was simply easier to keep on track when one continued to focus

on a specific element of performance. By staying with a given element until all

of its associated taxa had been found, it was less likely that subtle issues or

aspects of that element would be overlooked. Second, the iterative cycling

among the three levels of system description often helped to clarify the taxa

that emerged. In many cases, the search for lower level derivative taxa produced refinements of their upper level origins. Sometimes, for instance, the

staff realized that an Objectives Level taxon had not been defined with the

degree of precision needed to allow lower level populations to be identified. In

essence, the attempt to identify Functional Purposes Level taxa provided a means

of assessing the thoroughness with which Objectives Level taxa had been specified. Likewise, the search for derivative Characteristics Level taxa served as a

check on the Functional Purposes Level entries.

Once all apparent taxa belonging to a particular cell have

been identified, the analyst should attempt to discern and

document the principles underlying the organization of

those taxa.

The guidelines associated with each cell in the STM exist to aid the analyst

in identifying what populations of systems should be included in that cell to help select measures for some particular system and measurement application. Those

guidelines are nothing more, or less, than ways of looking at the system in question so as to extract a particular set of its population memberships. The guide- lines are applied versions of principles for organizing or grouping together a

particular set of taxa. Each guideline says, in effect, "find all of the taxa associated with the system of interest that share this particular attribute, quality,

": feature, etc.; those comprise the taxonomy that belongs to this cell." For one

cell, the key organizing feature might be "the uses of a particular capability";

for another cell, it might be "the intermediate goods or services needed for

delivery of a particular product." Whatever the attribute or feature may be, it

has to be expressed in terms that are clearly understood by the analyst whose

task it is to find the taxa. Unless the analyst understands what he or she is

searching for, he or she is liable to find the process of taxonomization to be

very laborious, and copious errors are liable to be made. The clearer the guidelines, the easier will be the taxonomization process.

I-h --
The problem is that any set of descriptive words concerning an organizing

feature or attribute is likely to be less applicable to some human-machine systems

than to others. Sometimes, for example, an analyst might deal with the sort of -- system in which "intermediate goods and services" are not very easy to define.

Indeed, the usual concept of goods and services might be foreign to the system in

question. This is not to say that there exist no taxa associated with that system that properly belong to the cell usually organized around "goods and services."

Rather, it simply means that the organizing concept embodied in "goods and

services" requires an alternate verbal expression in order to be applicable to that - system. It might, for instance, be easier for the analyst to discern taxa associated with "milestones" that need to be achieved in order to derive benefit from

a particular system product, or the analyst might find the notion of "stepping

stones" easier to grasp in the context of that system.

The reader might be starting to suspect that an unwarranted amount of

PE mattention is being paid here to a purely semantic issue. If all that is being said

is that the guidelines need to incorporate some synonyms for clarity, then why

not simply list those synonyms and be done with it? But the issue is not quite

so simple. Whenever any concept is put into words, the concept becomes clouded

by the connotations of those words. No two synonyms have exactly the same connotation. Thus, each alternate expression (or guideline) for identifying/organizing

,-. taxa for a given cell conveys slightly different (and always at least slightly distorted) information to the analyst. It is possible that, if the analyst is presented with a wide variety of alternate expressions, ormed by virtually all combinations

of all conceivable synonyms, he or she may be able to cut across the connotative

clutter and extract the organizing principle in its pure, conceptual form. But it

is also possible, and probably more likely, that he or she will be sidetracked by all the verbiage and lose sight of the taxa being sought. The problem reduces to

the fact that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to write comprehensive guide- lines for taxonomization in the absence of an actual set of taxa. However,

when faced with a particular set of taxa known to share some common feature

,-. or attribute, it may be possible to deduce that attribute and express it in meaningfully descriptive words. Then, that particular expression can be of considerable

help in a future taxonomization task applied to a system with similar attributes

.*~of performance.

To summarize, the guidelines presently incorporated in the STM are better

suited to some systems than to others. If the applicability of the STM is to be

improved, alternate expressions of those guidelines must be developed and included

in the model so that the taxonomization process becomes steadily easier for more .- and more kinds of systems. This can perhaps best be done inductively, i.e., each

time the model is applied, the taxonomic sets that result can be studied as specifie examples from which concrete expressions of organizing principles can be

derived. Ultimately, entirely different versions of the STM might be developed,

each designed for some particular subset of the universe of human-machine systems. ft- Each version will be based on precisely the same concepts. But how those concepts are expressed will be tailored to the peculiarities of its own class of systems.

..This last step in the STM utilization procedures thus might have been titled,

"Now look at what you've done'and use it to improve the STM." It is, in fact, a

plea to allow the STM to continue to grow in usefulness by adapting past successes to future applications. A sharing of such successes among all applications

analysts would be of considerable future benefit to all.

-70-

. . . . . ..
IV. INITIAL ANALYTIC PROCESS MODEL

• FOR SYSTEMS MEASUREMENT

The preceding sections described the activities associated with revising,

applying, and extending the STM. Those activities accounted for the great majority of the effort expended during the past year. However, none of those activities were pursued as ends in and of themselves. The STM was not revised and

extended as a final end product, but merely as the first stage in an overall conceptual model of human-machine system measurement. A preliminary conception

of the structure of that overall model (Figure 2 above) had been prepared at the

outset of the research to guide the STM's further development along the proper

-" -,, path. That development, in turn, led to a fuller understanding of the total measurement process, and to important revision/clarification of the overall model's

structure. Key issues to be addressed in the continuing research also were clarified. These findings are summarized in this section.

A. Groups of Stages in the Overall Measurement Process:

The Framework for Further Research.

Figure 23 depicts the four groups of stages in the overall analytic

process model (APM) for human-machine system measurement. Each group is

discussed below.

GROUP 1: ESTABLISHING THE CONTEXT OF THE

MEASUREMENT APPLICATION

This could also be termed the group of "STM Stages", or the "Stages of

Taxonomization". The purpose of the process stages included herein is to treat * .. the system-and-mission(s) being studied as the source of variables for the study.

The idea is to examine the system's own definition, the definition of its relevant missions, the performance requirements to be achieved, the environment

within which the system is to perform, and the constraints governing that performance in such a way that all key variables relating to the effective per- formance of that system in those missions will emerge. Taxonomization is the

method or vehicle for that examination. Performance-relevant variables are

identified by isolating the types (classes, populations, etc.) of system to which

this particular system belongs by virtue of its potentialities, processes, products, environment, and constraints. The STM is GROUP 1 of the overall CPM.

The taxa that are identified through application of the STM provide important

input to the determination of what is to be measured and how it is to

be measured.

GROUP 2: IDENTIFYING THE FOCUS OF THE

MEASUREMENT APPLICATION

The purposes of the process stages included in this group are to select

specifically which variables are to be addressed in the measurement application,

and to choose the measures to be used to address them. The first stage in

this group, viz., selection of practical, measurable attributes, represents the

extraction of organized sets of variables from the identified system populations.

-71-

;"-
GROUP 1: CONTEXT OF MEASUREMENT

aspects of system performance:

potentialities, processes, products;

aspects of performance-influencing

factors; environment, constraints

The STM Stages: Identification

of Variables

-GROUP 2: FOCUS OF MEASUREMENT

practical measurable attributes,

practical attribute measures

Specification of the Set of MOPs/MOEs

to be Used to Assess System 4r Performanee/Effectiveness

o..

GROUP 3: PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION

%'. ~specific performance requirements and

eriteria, measurement and analytic

-, .. procedures, test parameters, apparatus,

, ,,. and personnel, test plan and execution

Specification of How the MOPs/MOEs

Will Be Used

7C ' GROUP 4: INTERPRETATION

data analysis, Interpretation of findings,

eonclusions and recommendations

,U The Assessment of System

Performanee/Effeetiveness

Figure 23. Groups of Stages in the Overall Measurement Process

,%%

• -72-
Each set of variables corresponds to some element or aspect of the particular

system's performance in some particular mission. To clarify exactly what this

stage entails, the trial application of the STM to one subsystem of the Infantry

Fighting Vehicle, namely, the Carrier Team Unit, produced hundreds of distinct

taxa. In order to assess a particular aspect of the Carrier Team Unit's work,

viz., its performance of "Surveillance," it was necessary first to determine exactly

which of those taxa were organized around variables of interest to surveillance.

It was found that approximately 75 different taxa applied to surveillance. If the

study's purpose had required assessment of some other aspect of the Carrier Team

7 Unit's work (such as "Transportation," "Protection," "Communication," or whatever),

some other set of taxa relevant to that aspect of performance would have been

identifl-e. That other set possibly would have had some taxa in common with the

"Surveillance" set, but certainly would not have been identical to it.

Identification of which taxa (and their underlying variables) are relevant to

the particular performance aspects to be assessed is precisely what is required for

the selection of practical, measurable attributes. The next stage is to choose

measures for each of those taxa. The set of measures is the actual focus of the

measurement process. It is usually appropriate and necessary to select several

measures for each attribute being studied, because rarely does one measure by

itself disclose everything of interest concerning that attribute. For example, in

constructing a set of MOPs/MOEs for assessing the Carrier Team Unit's performance of "Surveillance," it was determined that one important attribute to be

studied should be the Unit's success in identifying "Enemy Locations." All of the

following were proposed as worthwhile measures of that one attribute:

* The kinds of enemy locations that were correctly identified.

* The kinds of enemy locations that were not identified.

* The kinds of enemy locations that were mis-identified.

- The numbers of enemy locations identified (of each kind).

* The numbers of enemy locations not identified (of each kind).

" The numbers of enemy locations mis-identified (of each kind).

The final product of GROUP 2 of the measurement process is the set of

MOPs/MOEs, organized around all attributes (taxa) relating to the aspects

of system performance/effectiveness to be assessed in the research applica-

* tion at hand.

GROUP 3: PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING THE DETAILS OF

THE MEASUREMENT APPLICATION

The purposes of the stages included in this group are to restate the

research issues in terms relevant to the measures, to specify exactly how

the measures are to be applied, and finally to apply the measures in accordance

-73- U-

+-.-- * - . . . . . . .I * . . . .
with those specifications. The importance of this group notwithstanding, it

probably requires less research and development than do the preceding two groups.

That is to say, the process of planning and conducting tests, collecting data, controlling parameters, applying statistical procedures, etc. has become a rather exact

science (at least, in comparison to the other stages). What remains an art (with

much room for improvement) is the process of identifying the pertinent variables

and of selecting the appropriate measures. However, one key area for improvement in this group concerns the specification of measurement procedures. If the

outcome of the measurement is to be of maximum utility and validity, the measurement procedures must adequately reflect the real-world context in which that

system is supposed to work. In particular, those procedures must be specified in

accordance with the environment and constraints taxa derived in GROUP 1.

GROUP 4: INTERPRETING THE RESULTS

-- The purpose of the stages constituting the final group is to formulate answers to the research questions that motivated the assessment of the particular system's performance/effectiveness. Among other issues, this group must somehow permit the information gleaned from the diverse measures to be compiled

into some overall rating of the particular system 's work. This should be the

type of rating that would, for example, allow two competing systems (or system - designs) to be compared unambiguously. The process of compiling the information from the measures also should proceed in a fashion that allows specific desirable improvements in the system to be identified.

This four-group sequence corresponds generally to the original conceptualization of the overall measurement process originally depicted in Figure 2. But,

some notable changes have occurred in the concepts included within each group. The most extensive of these obviously took place in GROUP 1, which now focuses on

a much clearer model of the components or aspects of system performance. However, GROUP 2 also has undergone appreciable revision, in that the relationship of practical measurable attributes to measurement purposes, elements of performance, and system taxonomies now is much more explicitly defined. In addition,

the fashion in which MOE/MOP hitaarchies associate with elements of performance has been clarified somewhat, at least by example. GROUP 3, too, has . been modified, in that it has been established that a direct link exists between

procedural specifications and system taxonomies.

These modifications are depicted in Figure 24, the revised conceptual outline

of the overall measurement process.

B. Measurement Process Issues to be Addressed in the Continuing

Research

It remains now to determine whether a valid and workable overall APM

can be constructed around the framework depicted in Figure 24. In order to do

so, the authors suggest that the following issues or questions need to be resolved

in the near future.

1. Is It Possible and Practical to Facilitate Substantially

the System Taxonomization Process?

~4-.

-74-

.'< , ,, ., ., ,' , .. ', .,-, ' .. ,,. ,. _' .'. - '.. .-. ..'-.,4 ..- . -'. ". ... ." ". '.. .".... "'.". ..""_"." .' '.'"_N
~~~~ wwr~~~~~~I 9rS.w-w-wrw.wv -- - ~ -

TAXONOMIES TAXONOMIES TAXONOMIES TAXONOMIES TAXONOINIES

BASED ON BASED ON BASED ON BASED ON BASED ON

PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE PEFORMANCE EMONIET GENERAL

PCYI NfAWIES PROCESSES PRODUCTS SPECUICA7flONS 'YJNSTA%'7S

PRACTICAL

MEASURABLE

ATTRIBUTES

PRACTICAL

ATTRIBUTE ---

* MEASURES

SPECIFIC

PERFOR MANCE MEASURE- ANALYTIC TEST

AND vp.OCEDRES METHODS METERS

-CRITERIAH

TEST

PLAN TEST TEST

AND

PTEXECUTION PERSONNE APPARATUS

-. H

Figre 4. oncptul eviedOtlie o th Mesurmen PONCeSON

-75-NERRT N

Fgr 24 Reie Cocpta Ouln of th esrmn rcs
In its only major application to date (to the Infantry Fighting Vehicle), the STM initially was very laborious to use. As progress was made in that application, the taxonomization procedures were improved substantially in both speci-

* ficity and utility. However, further improvements can and should be made.

Identification of relevant system taxonomies based on performance potentialities,

processes, and products, and on the applicable environment and constraints is the

key input to the specification of measures sets and measurement procedures.

Anything that will streamline the taxonomization process thus will enhance the

utility of the overall APM.

Two related issues, in particular, need to be explored to improve STM

specificity and utility. First, is it possible to list representative taxa for each . cell of the STM that would be compatible with most of the human-machine

systems of potential interest (e.g., military weapons systems)? Second, what is

the potential for computer-aiding of the STM utilization procedures? There is -- no doubt that the total number of populations that exist among the universe of

human-machine systems is enormous. However, if one's principal interest is centered on a particular sub-universe of systems, it may be possible to identify a -"finite, manageable set of populations whose members span the range of variables

pertinent to performance/effectiveness measurement of (at least) most of the

systems belonging to that sub-universe. In particular, it may be possible to

organize that finite, manageable set into subsets corresponding to the cells . iformed by interaction of the first two dimensions of the STM (i.e., System

Descriptive Levels interacting with Measurement Contextual Aspects). This would

" •produce fifteen lexica of system taxa, with each lexicon corresponding to the

*interaction of one of the three Descriptive Levels with one of the five

Contextual Aspects. The existence of these lexica presumably would greatly

E. mfacilitate the application of the STM to any particular human-machine system

belonging to the sub-universe of interest: to identify the total set of taxa for

that system, one would search through each lexicon in turn, "pulling out" the

populations to which the system belonged. Occasionally, one possibly would

discover that the system also belonged to a population not contained in the

lexicon. That population could be added to the lexicon to improve its applicabil- -. ity to other systems in the future. The fifteen lexica thus would "grow adap- S-. tively," incorporating more of the taxa associated with more of the systems of

their sub-universe.

The compilation and use of such lexica should be greatly facilitated

by automated data processing. In its trial application to just one subsystem of

a (not very complex) military weapons system, the STM produced more than 200

taxa. The "finite, manageable set" of taxa for the class of all such weapons

systems easily could have several thousand or even tens of thousands of entries. - .Manual searching and extracting from such voluminous lexica would be very

laborious and error-prone. But if the lexica were maintained in an interactive

computer system, it might be possible to reduce the labor involved significantly.

Supporting software could be written so that, given certain descriptive features .of the system of interest as input, the automated routine might take a "first

cut" at selecting at least the Objectives Level taxa (corresponding to the "what"

of system performance). Of course, the human analyst could always amend

those "first cut" choices by deleting or adding taxa, but at least his or her

1search time should be shortened substantially. Perhaps more importantly, the

computer-based implementation could include a permanent memory of all of

-76-
-... its past taxonomization applications. This could allow keeping track, for example,

of the frequency with which each population in each lexicon has been selected

and of the groupings of populations that have occurred in past applications. The

sequence in which populations are presented to the human analyst for his or her

consideration could be continually refined based upon the observed frequencies

and groupings of previous selections. Given enough previous applications, the soft- * -ware could become progressively "smarter," and become capable of making steadily

* :more accurate "first cut" selections of taxa based on what it has "learned" in

the past. It almost certainly will never be possible to dispense entirely with the

human analyst in the final selection of taxa, but it should be possible to eliminate

* -much of the work that presently is required. Furthermore, it should be relatively

easy to design the memory to permit new entries to be made to the lexica, and

* even to delete old, never-chosen entries as time goes on.

2. Can Explicit Procedures Be Developed for Identifying

* Which Taxa are Relevant to Any Given Element or

Aspect of System Performance?

S.As a result of the first year's research, explicit, workable procedures

were developed for identifying relevant system populations, on three different

Levels of System Description, associated with the system's potentialities, processes,

and products of performance. From the viewpoint of the overall APM, the sole

purpose for identifying those taxa is to provide sets of practical, measurable

attributes, ,an the basis of which particular elements of the system's performance/

- effectiveness can be assessed. But the question remains: given some performance

element of interest, and given the array of performance-based taxa, how does one

determine-systematically and analytically-which taxa represent attributes relevant

to that performance element? What are the procedures for determining the

hierarchy of taxa associated with any given element of a system's performance?

In the trial application of the STM to the Infantry Fighting Vehicle, the

preceding questions were not directly addressed. However, as a "test" of the

validity of the taxa identified, an attempt was made to construct a set of

MOPs/MOEs for one element of that system's performance, namely, its performance of "Surveillance." The first step was to isolate the potentiality, process,

and product taxa that bear on "Surveillance." Of 221 taxa associated with the

three perspectives of performance, 42 were identified as having relevance to

measurement of "Surveillance." That is, those 42 taxa became the practical,

measurable attributes that would be used for that particular assessment of

performance/effectiveness.

But how were those 42 taxa identified? Very simply, they were

identified because they "seemed" to the analyst, "intuitively," to have something

to do with surveillance. The remaining 179 taxa "intuitively seemed" not to have

anything appreciable to do with surveillance, and so were not chosen as attributes

for the measurement process.

The identification of measurable attributes based on intuitive feelings was

reasonable for the limited purpose of testing the output of the STM trial application, but something much more "precise and systematic is needed for the future.

Without some means of insuring that all of the proper taxa, and only the proper

taxa are chosen, all of the work expended thus far in developing a systematic

-77-

"" .:' . " . " .. .." " " " " " " .. . " >'.".". - ' I . ,'." *.*.' *.,. , .':..''. ,, '. ,"

",," "*' o',-,-, J/e ,--.p d . ",, " ".' . -, . ." , ... . -.. . .. Y.. . . . . . . . .
:. -

taxonomization process will not have achieved its potential. If the intuitive selection either fails to include some relevant attributes, or includes some that are not

relevant to the performance element in question, the set of measures ultimately

constructed will not be completely valid. And as a result, a distorted assessment

of performance/effectiveness will emerge. Ultimately, guidelines should be developed for identifying the subset of taxa alplicable to any particular system measSurement need.

3. Can Explicit Procedures Be Developed for Selecting

Measures for Each Identified Attribute of Performance?

This is the logical extension of the previous issue. Once explicit procedures/guidelines for identifying the measurable attributes are in place, it will be . - necessary to uvelp similar procedures for determining exactly how those

attributes should be measured. In the present state-of-art of human-machine -. system measurement, the selection of measures is another of those crucially

important steps for which no widely used systematic process exists. Instead,

measures are chosen intuitively, in hit-or-miss fashion. As a result, the analyst

can never be sure that he or she has chosen the most appropriate measures to

examine any particular attribute. For example, 141 measures were identified for

the 42 "surveillance"-related attributes associated with the Infantry Fighting

Vehicle. All a intuitively to be valid, worthwhile measures. But presently * - there is no means of determining whether these are the best available measures

for those attributes, nor is there any way of proving, a priori, that all of these

measures are in fact valid and worthwhile. Given the same array of attributes,

another analyst might choose a quite different hierarchy of measures. Who is to

say which hierarchy would be superior?

4. Is It Possible and Practical to Develop Methods of

Specifying Performance Requirements and

Measurement Procedures?

Assuming the preceding research issues are resolved, explicit procedures will have been developed for GROUPS 1 and 2 of the overall APM. This

•- issue concerns the first extension of the model into GROUP 3. The focus of

attention here is on the commencement of formal planning for testing the system's performance/effectiveness. Specification of performance requirements must

be accomplished in relation to each chosen -measure of performance/effectiveness.

That is, the elements of system performance of interest to the measurement

"* application at hand must be expressed in terms of the measures. For example, * .suppose the measurement application were focused on the Infantry Fighting

Vehicle and on its performance of surveillance. It would be necessary to establish specific requirements in terms of all 141 measures of that performance

element, i.e., requirements relating to the kinds of sectors to be assigned to the

system, the numbers and types of enemy locations to which the system is to be

exposed, the maximum tolerable false alarm and missed target rates, the kinds

and numbers of targets and target signatures to be deployed, etc. All of these

specifications are important inputs to the test scenarios that will provide the

" " measurement context. The other major input to the scenarios and the overall

test plan is the set of measurement procedures, i.e., the specification of precisely how, when, and where the measures will be taken. These derive, in part,

from the specific requirements and procedures, and in part from the taxa

-78-

L) .. , =j . ** : _. - =. . = . . _ . . . " -. - .- .. .. .. . : . * -. . .* _ .* . : . . : . , . . , .
associated with performance-influencing factors (environment and constraints).

Choosing the correct measurement procedures is every bit as important as choosing the appropriate measures themselves. A valid measure will be of no value,

and might even confound the assessment of system performance/effectiveness, if it is not applied at the right times and places, e.g., when/where the necessary

data are available. If applied carelessly, the measurement process might actually

interfere with the performance being studied, or create other unanticipated and

undesirable effects that contaminate the data. Clearly then, it is not sufficient

that the model include explicit procedures for choosing the right measures. It

also needs to possess explicit procedures for determining how to use those

measures.

5. Assuming That The Previous Questions Can Be Answered

Affirmatively, wht Specific Benefits Can D_ Achieved?

If the preceding four issues can be resolved, a model will have been

constructed of the measures selection/measurement procedures specification portions of the overall measurement process. That is, approximately the first half

of the overall APM will be available. It then will be appropriate to assess the

utility of that partial model for accomplishing certain key applications. Chief

among these applications will be the following:

.* Utility of the model for differentiating between MOEs and

MOPs and identifying the MOE/MOP functional relationships

and for breaking out measures hierarchies for subsystems.

" Utility of the model for identifying the human contribution

to each system MOE/MOP, and in turn for identifying appropriate measures of human performance.

* Utility of the model for providing input to system definition

and specification (as well as to system evaluation).

* The concluding section of this report presents specific plans for a

research effort designed to address the issues just discussed and others derived

from the earlier subtasks in this research project.

'

- -79-
V. .)

V. RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS AND PLANS

The need to address certain major research issues was determined during

the two major endeavors of this study, viz., the state-of-art review of system

measurement and the STM revision and application to the IFV. Within each of

the major issues, a number of specific implications for research planning may be

found. These implications are discussed below, in subsection A, with reference

to their origins in the state-of-art review and the STM revision/application. A

recommended research plan based on these implications is outlined in subsection B.

A. Implications for Research

In the state-of-art review of measurement literature for this project

(Edwards et al.. 1981),* it became apparent that measurement models need to be

further developed, supported with appropriate human performance data, refined

through more consistent and comprehensive applications, and validated by independent corroborations of some kind. Furthermore, the general sense of impracticality and the need for simplifying assumptions in some cases strongly suggest

a requirement for improving the "efficiency" of measurement models by reducing

the magnitude of effort required, while remaining true to the real world of the

system under assessment. This latter need for procedure magnitude reduction

could be accomplished in a stepwise fashion by an overall direct effort, supported by individual limited efforts for the clarification and simplification of

specific concepts and the modification of analytic approaches. One of those

approaches, for example, could be the introduction of computer-aided procedures

-memploying carefully developed taxonomies and checklists.

The literature review cited several authors who noted severe limitations on

system measurement (Blanchard et al., 1969; Clovis et al., 1975; Kelley, 1968;

Levy, 1968; Meister, 1968; Pew et al., 1977; Rigby, 1967; and Ultrasystems, Inc.,

t" 1972). One concern, expressed by Blanchard et al. (1969), was the lack of valid

human performance data, a problem which can seriously limit the utility of an

evaluation model. Subjectively derived performance data continue to be given

prime emphasis, and it was felt that this is not likely to change soon. Clovis

et al. (1975) suggested that in dealing with the limitations of their study, a

". cross-validation effort be conducted to test the efficiency of the regression

equations used in calculating the index of performance. Also, it was recommended that situational exercises be used to validate and to provide practical

application guidelines. Kelley (1968) made the point that human performance is

not linear and may be poorly represented by linear control-theory models except

for fairly simple or restricted tasks. Also, human control is exercised not on

the basis of present error, but rather on the basis of future (anticipated) error.

A need for validation of man-machine models was noted by Levy (1968).

It was suggested that a research design for developing and validating applied

models be undertaken. This design would call for the collection of performance

*For convenience, all reports cited here are listed at the end of this section.

-80-
data and input data in field situations with the input data recorded for use in

laboratory studies aimed at model development. The models, in turn, would be

validated by comparing their outputs with the pre-collected field performance

data. Meister (1968) discussed the human reliability model primarily as a means

of illustrating certain characteristics of behavioral models in general and certain

characteristics of model makers themselves. In the author's view, a model is

effective to the extent that it helps to either gather data and/or to explain those data. He stated that any behavioral model which is not concerned with

real-world data (as opposed to laboratory data) is not useful. However, he

observed that behavioral models characteristically employ laboratory data and

have ignored or have been unable to handle natural event data. The author

asserted that the human reliability model's assumptions derive from the unsystematic manner in which the model's input data were secured and that, at least

in part, these assumptions demonstrably are not in accord with empirical reality.

Pew et al. (1977) noted that, for the most part, human information processing

models deal with the average performance of well motivated, high-practiced

individuals under relatively ideal conditions. There are many hypotheses but few

data and virtually no models in the information processing literature on how

human performance capacities change under stress, reduced motivation, or before

practice has stabilized performance. Rigby (1967) asserted that the development

of an accurate data base of human error rates is impeded by several factorsaccidents and mission failures resulting from human error are not reported as

regularly or as accurately as equipment failures, and that there is a lack of

standardization in terminology, manner of development and level of reporting.

Finally, Ultrasystems, Inc. (1972) presented 12 areas of limitations on system measurement. First of all, it was noted that the criteria for success are

seldom stated explicitly and that there exists more than one way of defining a

mission as well as more than one way of quantifying how well the criteria for

success are met. It was noted that the rationale for MOE selection is not

always presented and, in general, the MOEs used are those that are readily obtained via model development. Very seldom, when more than one MOE is

identified, is a ranking of importance given or a combined measure developed

and used. Expected value type MOEs are most prevalent in force level studies,

whereas probability type MOEs are most often found in subsystem level studies.

With regard to independent variables, it was felt that over twice as many occur

in the friendly force category than in the threat and target categories combined.

In addition, as the study level increases from subsystem to system to force

level, the percentage of independent variables in the friendly force category

decreases and the friendly force interaction with threat or target category

* increases. It was noted that there are cases in which the variables selected for

model formulation are not readily (if at all) measurable in the real world.

Physical environment aspects appear to be generally ignored or casually treated

in effectiveness studies and, finally, it is not easy to compare similar effectiveness studies.

In summary, it appeared that limitations of major concern to those developing models are the lack of valid human performance data (resulting in part from

the absence of information on performance under "real-world" conditions), lack of

standardization in development and reporting of data, and the need to validate

man-machine models with field performance. In addition, limitations in system

measurement were reported to exist in the areas of defining a mission and

-81-

'I . -. € ;' '.'.< ,-' ,' , .-.. \,... , ,,,,' ' ,. .,, . .. ..'.. , .'.'.'.;.-,..'' .. '., .,..,'., ,,'., .,.V..
quantifying its success, lack of rationale in MOE selection and the selection of

variables which are measurable in the real world. There was some discussion in

the documents reviewed of priorities for measurement improvement. In most

-, cases, recommendations were limited to the system of specific interest to the

author and generally were directed toward verification of the research just completed. Several authors, however, made recommendations for future research

which would have broader application to system measurement improvement.

Regarding the absence of a body of quantitative evidence about the performance effectiveness of personnel in present systems, it was suggested that, as a

: first step, a data bank on personnel performance be developed that would select

samples of personnel performance which could be generalized to entire classes of

populations. One study recommended that large quAntitiP.; of data frnm multiple

trials be methodically built into a data base for each variable, team member

and subtask of a standard test. In addition, it recommended that objective field

monitoring techniques, such as video recordings, should be utilized to provide

standard structured coverage by separate variables and subtasks.

Some studies recommended research on combining subtasks or models to

assess performance in more complex tasks and aggregate systems. Yet another

addressed the problem of estimating conditional probabilities of dependent task

steps. It noted that two major problems must be solved in this effort: 1) the

identification of factors responsible for dependent relationships among task steps,

and 2) determination of the effects of dependent relationships. Others (Finley

et al., 1975; 1976) actually began the improvement process by developing basic

STM principles and concepts that would lead to the present study.

In addition to the literature review, the trial application of the STM to

the IFV produced a wealth of insights and implications concerning system measurement. It was discovered that the organizing principle for any of the STM's

,-, *"cells" could be described as an open-ended statement, augmented by a series of

specific analytic questions. All of these analytic questions were derived in the

context of the IFV, but they appeared suitable for commencing the taxonomizaOP tion process for most human-machine systems. As other applications of this con-

_,. cept are completed, additional useful analytic questions undoubtedly will emerge.

This first major application of the STM was exceedingly laborious and timeconsuming. But, substantial progress was made toward developing specific

taxonomization procedures and guidelines, and future applications can be expected

to proceed much more efficiently, and lead to steadily increased utility of the

STM.

In summary, the work of the Dunlap project staff and the published reports

-: of other researchers have served to identify a number of major limitations in the

* state of the art of measurement models. Clearly the steps and concepts of the

measurement process must be defined more specifically, the model application

T. guidelines must be better described, the categories of populations and measures

must be structured more specifically into appropriate taxonomies, the level of

effort required for applying the model must be reduced to more practical levels,

and a human performance data base is needed to help later assessment of the

potential, the process and the performance of any system. The positive results

of the STM application to the IFV indicate that one of the most promising

approaches to model development is that of sample applications to real systems.

Therefore, a series of applications must be carried out, not only for the purpose

of system performance measurement and evaluation but for other potential

-82-

-,Q
purposes the model might serve, such as the assessment of personnel performance

in existing systems, or the development of design specifications and training programs in planned systems. In the process of this needed development effort,

there will also be an opportunity to address specific issues, such as the relationship between MOEs and MOPs, the role of operators in the total measurement

process, the problems associated with eventually placing the measurement model

on an interactive computer system for machine-aided application, and methods

for carrying out some of the above activities (such as for collecting a consistent

base of human performance data).

It is envisioned that much time, effort, and money can be saved, irrelevant

measurements can be avoided, and meaningfulness can be enhanced by making the

kinds of improvements noted above. Ultimately, these improvements could make - the difference between an oversized, difficult-to-use measurement and evaluation

procedure with limited acceptance and few users and a clearly established, easyto use procedure with wide acceptance and many users.

B. Research Items: Scope, Potential Significance, and Resource Implications

The kinds of measurement model issues and research implications that were

identified above appear to be assignable to three convenient categories of study:

development, application and special or limited study items. Figure 25 lists those

items within the three categories.

In order to determine the scope, potential significance and resource implications of each research item, five Dunlap professional staff members*

who were most involved in this project met to review all items and to

reach a consensus on their ratings. After a brief description of a research

item, each project staff member made an independent assessment of the underlying limitation(s) necessitating the additional research (basic theory, application

history, essential technology), the potential results of the research (remove or

reduce the deficiency), the priority for completion (high, medium, low), the

effort required (professional person-months), the duration of the required

effort (mc-ths), a start date (year) and a preliminary cost estimate (dollars).

After these independent assessments were made, each item was discussed and

all raters were then permitted to change their assessments. When all were

satisfied with their individual ratings, a tally was made which formed the basis

for the final consensus discussion. The conclusions of the project staff regarding

each future research item are in the following paragraphs.

Item 1. Further Development of the Overall Analytic Process

'Model for Manned System Measurement

The purpose of this research item is to advance model development further toward the ultimate goal of providing a practical and useful end

product. The research task ultimately should'address all stages of the model in order

to extend Its conceptualization and development in each of its aspects. The

research method should include model application and analysis with several systems

• ?to verify or modify its component parts, its adequacy, and its practicality. The

effort should also produce revised or newly recommended procedures and guidelines for using the model. This is considered a high priority item because of

its intrinsically broad and basic nature.

OThe five staff members were: Dr. Richard F. Bloom (Project Director); Mr. John

F. Oates, Jr.; Mr. John W. Hamilton; Ms. Joan Edwards; and Mr. Paul Brainin.

-83-
Development Items

1. Further Development of the Overall Analytic Process

Model for Manned System Measurement

2. Further Development of Procedures for Deriving "Practical Measurable Attributes" from the "Contextual

Components" of the Overall Model

3. Further Development of Taxonomies within the System

Taxonomy Model

4. Further Development of Procedures and Guidelines for

Carrying Out the Application of the Analytic Process

Model

5. Procedure Magnitude Reduction

6. Development of a Human Performance Data Base

- . Applications Items

7. Extension of the First Application of the Measurement

Model to the IFV

8. Second Application of the Analytic Process Model to

* an Army System

9. Application of the Analytic Process Model to

Personnel Performance Assessment

10. Application of the Analytic Process Model to

Developing System Design Specifications

Limited Study Items

11. Relationship Clarification for MOEs and MOPs

12. Clarification of Operator Roles in System Measurement

and Evaluation

13. Implications of Placing All or Part of the Analytic

Process Model on an Interactive Computer System

14. Identification of Requirements for Collecting Human

Performance Data

15. Development of Standards for the Reporting of Human

Performance Data

Figure 25. Future Research Items

-84-

I ':' . ..• .''. ..'', ." " -" " .. .''.' ".: ,.-., .' .'-. ."'. .v --'. -. ' '. :. .' ." -' ." *. , ., ." .' ." -' -' .' .' -. .,.T
Item 2. Further Development of Procedures for Deriving "Practical - Measurable Attributes" from the "Contextual Components"

of the Overall Model

The purpose of this research item is to help facilitate and

standardize utilization of the overall measurement process model. The research

~. should address the specific transition point within the model which links the system

performance and performance-influencing factors identified as the output of taxonomization with the next step (at the beginning of the focal group) called "Identi- - fication of Practical Measurable Attributes." Guidelines for deriving those measurable attributes and sets of specific candidate attributes should be generated in this

task. The research method employed should apply and analyze the model with

-. ~several systems to help identify the best ways of deriving measurable attributes.

This is considered a high priority item because it lies in the critical sequence of

steps in applying the overall model. Failure to improve upon this transition step

Ile could impede use of the model and result in inappropriate or ineffective system

measurement.

Item 3. Further Development of Taxonomies within the STM

The purpose of this research item is to extend and clarify the

taxonomies within the cells of the STM. The research also should further develop

the structure and compile detailed classifications for guiding users of the overall

APM. The methods used should include: the review and adaptation of taxonomies

*from prior research; the extension and development of additional taxonomies; the

employment of codification strategies identified in prior research; and the structuring of the final recommended taxonomies to be compatible with use on interactive computer. This is also considered a high priority item because it impacts directly on the ease of using the STM and the overall APM. It will insure a

greater degree of standardization, or at least compatibility between the analyses

of different systems and different researchers.

Item 4. Further Development of Procedures and Guidelines for

Carrying Out the Application of the APM

The purpose of this research item is to refine and extend the

rules for performing the steps of the APM, It is a more specific and in-depth

development of guidelines than is found in Item 1, and does not involve the

further development of the model itself (as Item 1 does). The research should

include a review of all prior applications of the model and the guidelines employed, the identification of areas needing further clarification and the providing

of such clarification by refinement and extension of the guidelines. This is

considered a high priority item because of its direct impact on the effective

application of the model, and its potential for helping to maximize standardization and precision in the model's use.

-85-

-. *.,*#*.*r~ *-- .*~- ~~ - *.J!
Item 5. Procedure Magnitude Reduction

This most important research item is directed at reducing the

amount of effort and resources required for a satisfactory application of the

measurement model, so as to make the process practical for general use. It

was found in the applications conducted to date that the process could easily

become extremely time-consuming and exhaustive. It is apparent that ways of

-, reducing the number and complexities of analyses can be found, without significantly undermining confidence in the results. The procedures used in this

research task should involve the application and analysis of the process model

with several systems to insure the necessity and efficiency of each step, plus

minimizAtion of the procedures by eliminating, combining, replacing. prioritizing.

" .~and other methods. The task should produce an end product consisting of

recommended guidelines for procedures of reduced complexity and other guidelines for generating further complexity reduction in specific applications. This

task is considered to be the highest in priority of all those recommended here

because it bears such a direct impact on whether use of the model can even

be tried in the context of projects with fixed and limited resources of time,

money and manpower. If found to be too time-consuming or costly, the model

may be abandoned regardless of how effective it can be. The present research

task would keep the model application effort compatible with total system

development effort.

" Item 6. Development of a Human Performance Data Base

pro ac The purpose of this task is to assemble a data base of human

performance information in compliance with previously determined requirements,

" for use in the evaluation of manned systems. Of primary use in determining

system effectiveness by providing criteria for assessing human performance in

specific cases, this task would also be potentially useful to all human factors,

operations, and systems analysts, whether they use this project's measurement

model or some other one. The task should be carried out by reviewing the

findings provided in current human performance literature and assembling rele-

* "- vant existing data into a preliminary base of human performance information.

It should also define the need for further research to obtain missing data or

to replace inadequate data. Despite its potentially widespread applicability,

and its implications for long lead times if new data need to be developed, this

task is considered to be of medium priority because its direct impact on model

development is less than critical.

Item 7. Extension of the First Application of the Measurement

Model to the IFV

Derived directly from research conducted under the present

contract, this task recognizes the complexity and exhaustive effort repre-

"ented by a vigorous application of the model. Clearly, project resources

did not allow more than a limited trial application of the model to the IFV.

The recommended research item is intended to develop further the techniques,

concepts, and guidelines for practical application of the measurement model,

by continuing the same application example with the IFV. Continuation of

this kind will allow for work to be conducted on more components of the system hierarchy (subsystems, collateral systems, and suprasystems) and to a greater

-86-
rw. P - - 7r 1- TOZ7

4, depth at the three system description levels (Objectives, Functional Purposes and

Characteristics). This task should, therefore, continue the prior application of

the STM to the IFV, enlarge upon the limited sample of steps and depth previously employed, and enlarge upon the guidelines developed for application. This

task, too, is seen as having a high priority because it directly affects, through

'.4 actual application, the overall development of a useful measurement model.

Item 8. Second Application of the APM to an Army

System

It is considered essential that there also be applications to some

other systems than the IFV, and/or to the IFV with another measurement purpose

in order to facilitate the generalizability of the model for use in analyzing

different vqtemq. General applicability to various sa tm .s uld be manifesLed

by practical techniques, concepts and guidelines for utilizing the measurement

model. The research effort should consist of selecting a manned system and

measurement purpose other than the one used in the prior IFV case, and then

applying and further refining the model. This task is considered to be of high

priority, since it will clearly improve the applicability of the model. Nevertheless, meaningful model development could still proceed even in the absence

of this task.

Item 9. Application of the APM to Personnel Performance

Assessment

Work with the STM has suggested that the overall model's products would be useful in areas other than that motivating the current research.

One of the potential areas of model application is in the assessment of personnel

performance in operating systems. This task would attempt to determine the

applicability of the APM in assessing personnel performance, in both quantitative

and qualitative terms. The research should identify a suitable personnel activity

and measurement purpose and then apply the model so as to assess its ability

to produce the personnel assessment measures useful in determining performance.

The task output should also include recommended application guidelines for

this kind of application. As a secondary, though valuable application of the

model, not essential to the primary development effort, this task is considered

to be of medium priority.

Item 10. Application of the APM to Developing System

Design Specifications

Another application area is in the development of design specifications for planned systems. The goal of this task is to determine the feasibility of using the APM to assist in developing system design specifications and

other routine documentation associated with the system design phase. In conducting this task, the researchers should: select one or more appropriate

systems currently in the design phase; apply the model to help specify operating

requirements; use model-generated information to aid in completing design phase

documentation, and recommend guidelines for this application. As in Item 9, this potentially valuable, secondary application study is considereI to be of

medium priority.

-87-

o -.
|- -- * .

i *. Item 11. Relationship Clarification for MOEs and MOPs

In the attempt to clarify further certain concepts and terms

used in applications of the measurement model, the specific need for precision

of meaning interrelationships and consequent focus of effort was recognized in

regard to measures of effectiveness (MOEs) and measures of performance (MOPs). - Traditionally, effectiveness measures are criterion-referenced indicators while

performance measures are simply normative indicators. Other usage suggests

that effectiveness measures directly address the primary mission product or * * goal (e.g., time for a runner to reach the finish line), while performance measures address related process factors which may or may not determine ultimate

effectiveness (e.g., the runner's heart rate). Furthermore, the MOE at the subsystem level could be an MOP at the higher system level. These and other

issues should be examined by defining MOEs and MOPs for one or more selected

systems and their hierarchical counterparts. The study should note how MOEs at

one level can be MOPs at another level. Finally, a summary report should be

*prepared which describes the essential characteristics of MOEs and MOPs. Although this clarification of terms is important for the precise application of the

model, relative to the other research items noted here it is considered to be

of lesser priority.

' -Item 12. Clarification of Operator Roles in System Measurement

and Fvaluation

Another issue that emerged as requiring specific clarification, o so as to facilitate effective model use by those not well-versed in human factors engineering, is the one identifying the many (sometimes subtle) roles of

operators and their output quality in relation to system effectiveness. Researchers should apply the appropriate techniques of Human Factors Engineering

to define the roles and influence of operators in the various system attributes

selected for measurement in order to carry out this task. Because this kind

of human factors sensitivity is essential, and some researchers using the model

S,,in the near future may require assistance in developing such an orientation, this

task is considered to be of medium priority.

Item 13. Implications of Placing All or Part of the APM on

an Interactive Computer System

It is foreseen, even at this relatively early date, that a reduction in the magnitude of effort required and greater ease in applying the model

can be greatly enhanced if an interactive computer system is employed. Such

a system could reduce the user's creative effort by presenting a sequence of - "general-to-specific questions or checklists and by using branching routines that

insure thoroughness, proper use of concepts, and avoidance of departures from

the guidelines. This research task is intended to determine the feasibility and

, .resource implications of incorporating the APM (or at least the STM) onto an

interactive computer system for machine-aided applications. In its execution,

the task should include the examination and step-by-step documentation of procedures followed in one or more model applications. It should then assess how

each step could have been programmed on an interactive computer, especially . those steps in the model application which necessitate the analyst's review of

taxa. Because this innovation in using the model is probably important

only after more basic development is completed, it is considered to be of

relatively lesser priority.

-88-

S.*...-**
Item 14. Identification of Requirements for Collecting Human

Performance Data

This task should be completed prior to Item 6 (Development of

a Human Performance Data Base), so that the kinds of human performance

data to be assembled are identified clearly. This research item should define the recommended task areas, operator characteristics, environments and

other conditions for which data on human performance are required. This

should be accomplished by reviewing specific data requirements noted in the

measurement and evaluation literature, and in this project. That review should

be instrumental in helping to determine the requirements for specific data on

human performance, operator and operating parameters, and environmental conditions. To the extent possible, the products of this research should indicate

the applieAtinn ArPR or .t-n: tM hP Airied hv the identified data requirements.

This task is considered to be of medium priority because, while not critical,

it will help to identify gaps or missing information needed for meaningful

use of the APM.

Item 15. Development of Standards for the Reporting of Human

Performance Data

Also related to Research Items 6 and 14, this task is intended

*" to recommend standard conditions and constraints to be used in the reporting of

human performance data from field and laboratory research. It should be completed concurrently with or subsequent to Item 14, and before any experimental

work on Item 6 is carried out. It should make use of the defined needs from

Item 14 to help specify the conditions and constraints necessary for future reporting of human performance data intended for use in system measurement and

evaluation models. Its priority is considered to be medium, being less important

than determining data requirements (Item 14) and unnecessary if the development

of a data base (Item 6) is ruled out entirely.

The 15 research items described in the previous section are summarized in

Figure 26. They are also placed in rank order based on the scores received in

the project staff assessment described previously. Figure 27 shows a simplified

diagram of their interdependencies. The estimated start dates for each item

determined the way in which the proposed research plan of Figure 28 was constructed. Three consecutive years of integrated work are indicated for a grand

total of 235 professional person-months (19.6 professional person-years). The

total cost of $1470K was estimated using a rule-of-thumb of $75K per professional person-year. If the work is divided into three separate year-long

efforts, the integrated costs are $345K, $685K and $440K for years 1, 2, and

* 3, respectively. These "integrated" costs reflect economies expected to result

when several tasks are performed concurrently, so these figures are lower

than the straight sums of the independent task items in the column for each

year.

It should be noted that this recommended plan represents the needs and

estimates of the human-machine systems measurement research program as

viewed from the perspective of the Dunlap staff only. Unquestionably, any

final research plan should also account for factors not known to this staff,

for influences and factors emerging after this report is issued, and for other

factors known only to staff members of the Army Research Institute.

-89-

*- . .. .: .. , ,. - • . .-. ,.-. ; , . '.. : ..- .> . - . .*.,*, *.. ... - . .. , .% 
Lft LM Lo~ LfOU15 C OLm~r m

ca '- , , -- t- - Lm Rr

C- _ m , .M /Ct - / ,

4 ~00~ 0o 0 o 0 c 0lo co0 0

'Q- - - ,-H Q; -

-- E

0 E

o c

ill C),L: I >!!,.io~ -, ~ , ,C- c vo-/i: ) = l ' ' i ccEQ co E

0- o

0c 0 L E UtE ca E 0

-, " - 00

bD =. r- t./;,l ./

0 r cz~ bD 0

0 Z ca >3

Z ow wC C) r.-. - - - R

-0

0) ca ca C) 0 2 0

0 () ow f0

- 0 EE)r 4 

.) 0C)0 -L '& ca 0 gg ow0

V~r E bD~~~C

a ow 0 0 wi

*E E' ~~to EO 

CL 4-I 

G .C 0j-q..Q 0 0 Uo

tf~ - ' ,Z00 -:

' "- -..- - ->-- - - c-- --

0,90
Reduce Clarity Apply Model

Magnitude Relationship to

of between Personnel

Application MOP's and Performance

14cdue Identifysmen

"', 

Taxonomies 

r .

APM A"M L Apply M o d e l -? J F itrther4. rte]

Requerments 

evelo

...

( 1-12) r to Develop Procedures Develop Model

Another for Deriving Application yArmy 

[..I 

Measurable 

Poeue 

n

Performancean

-

S y s t e m i m p A t t r i b u t e s G u i d e l i n e s

(13-24) (17-24) (25-36)

1 Stanard

ta

7= 1 

1 Implic ation s 10 Apply Model

Application to 2 Ie Develop of R Interactive System

the -| Computer Design

at'o

13- (19-24) (25-36)

J Clarify

~in System

~and Evaluation

Require ments 

AjDevelop

for Collecting 

Human

,:Human 

Performance

•- Performan ce Data 

Data Base

"-'i 

(13-30)

-. 

for Reporting

"." 

Human

" 

Performance

Data

"Legend: 

Numbers in parentheses indicate proposed months of

... performance (i.e., start month - end month) Ref. Figure 28

m.:.-Figure 

27. Inter-Relationships of Researh Items
V4 .LM %j CD tfl Ifn tLn LM C C t

L) cm a) C- V- n l www- to -

E E

.V V. E C - EE 4 04 4

K K

x x x x UMI" x x x x

x be -- w -

x PC x x x x x x- x x

x ~ x

x~~ x x~~ x ccK x x K x x x x x x x c c x K K -

x x x x x xcK 0 x x x x C

K K

K K K Cm 4)

CC K K x c K x K x K K

K K K U V

K K K nu

- 0

*- .6..0 CM

. E E - E L. E~gA

E t 2c J! 2 0w

22 LI 0 E

u' 'a 0CI

E 3 IAEu .2

-5(A

Z~0 0

0~ 21.-.5.~

* ~~X* . S1 0 0 0

i -2-: .
C. References for Section V.

Blanchard, R.E. & Smith, R.L. Field test of a technique for establishing personnel

performance requirements. 1969 Annals of Assurance Sciences, 272-277.

New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, July 1969.

Clovis, E.R. & Muller, T.H. Development of procedures for evaluating unit performance (TRA-75/009, Final Report, Vol. 1). Monterey, CA: Litton Mellonics

.DTe'nse Sciences Laboratories, March 1975.

Edwards, J.M., Bloom, R.F. & Brainin, P.A. State of the art of manned system

measurement. Darien, CT: Dunlap and Associates, Inc., 30 January 1981.

Finley, D.L. & Muckler, F.A. Human factors research and the development of

a manned systems applications science: The system sampling problem and a solution. Northridge, CA: Manned Systems Sciences, Inc., July 1976.

Finley, D.L., Muckler, F.A., Gainer, C.A. & Obermayer, R.W. An analysis and *" - evaluation methodology for command and control: Final technical report. Northridge, CA: Manned Systems Sciences, Inc., November 1975.

Kelley, C.R. Human operator models for manual control. In G.W. Levy (Ed.),

-i . Symposium on applied model of man-machine systems performance (NR69H-591).

Columbus, OH: North American Aviation, November 1968. (AD-697 939).

Levy, G.W. Criteria for selection and application of models. In G.W. Levy (Ed.), Symposium on applied model of man-machine systems performance. (NR69H-591). Columbus, OH: North American Aviation, November 1968. (AD697 939).

" Meister, D. Assumptions underlying the human reliability model. In G.W. Levy (Ed.), Symposium on applied model of man-machine systems performance. (NR69H-591). Columbus, OH: North American Aviation, November 1968. (AD697 939).

Pew, R.W., Baron, S., Feehrer, C.E. & Miller, D.C. Critical review and analysis of performance models applicable to man-machine systems evaluation. (BBN

Report No. 3446). Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc., March 1977.

(AD-A038 597).

Rigby, L.V. The Sandia Human Error Rate Bank (SHERB). In R.E. Blanchard &

D.H. Harris (Eds.), Man-machine effectiveness analysis. Papers presented at the

Human Factors Symposium, University of California at Los Angeles, June 15,

1967. (AD-735 718).

-93-

.;.-. ,- ', ,'--' .".-.v.- . . . :'- Q*.*- -'. ;-***' : ~.-" .*. '" . . ............... .. .. .... ,
Ultrasystems, Inc. A study of measures of effectiveness used in Naval analysis studies (Vol. 1: Summary). Newport Beach, CA: Ultrasystems, Inc., October

1972. (AD-912 443).

-..

S--

)

.,, v
APPENDIX A - CARRIER TEAM TAXONOMIES
Carrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition (Objective Level)

The carrier team must be capable of:

1.1 Providing carrier team surveillance

1.2 Conducting fire of weapons operations

1.3 Providing for squad command and control

1.4 Providing squad transportation

1.5 Providing for squad and platoon communications

1.6 Providing squad protection

p9

.

-95-

* -. ,o°~

1
Carrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.1 Providing carrier team surveillance (objective level)

-J

1.1.1 Conduct sector surveillance (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

-m The system must have ability to:

1.1.1.1 Visually conduct sector surveillance, ground and air, (TC,

Gunner) with unaided optics (direct vision)

1.1.1.2 Visually conduct sector, ground, surveillance with aided

optics (image intensification)

1.1.1.3 Visually conduct sector surveillance with IR sensing device

(sighting system) during periods of low visibility

-96 .I.

-9-

S. ..

° ..--
Carrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.1 Providing carrier team surveillance (objective level)

1.1.2 Ability to detect targets (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

The system must have ability to:

1.1.2.1 Visually detect targets/target signatures, air or ground, unaided vision

1.1.2.2 Visually detect targets/target signatures, air or ground, aided vision

1.1.2.3 Detect target with IR sensor, ground target

-97-

. . . . . . . . . .*

- . . . - .. .
7 Carrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.1 Providing carrier team surveillance (objective level)

1.1.3 Ability to acquire targets (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

The system must have ability to:

1.1.3.1 See the target, air or ground visually, unaided

1.1.3.2 See the target, ground visually, with aid of IR sensor

Ui

U

-98-

4" b '
Carrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.1 Providing carrier team surveillance (objective level)

1.1.4 Ability to identify and classify targets (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

The system must have ability to:

1.1.4.1 Identify and classify the following type targets visually, aided/unaided:

* Tank

* BMP

* ATGM

• *• Arty

" Wheeled vehicle

* CP area

, Personnel

a Aircraft

• Bunker

a Etc.

1.1.4.2 Identify and classify the following type targets with IR:

* Tank

* BMP

* ATGM

* Arty

* Wheeled vehicle

.. Personnel

- Etc.

-99-

. . .
Carrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.1 Providing carrier team surveillance (objective level)

* . 1.1.5 Capability to track targets (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

. System must have ability to:

- 1.1.5.1 Track a moving target via stabilized platform while own vehicle

is moving

1.1.5.2 Track a stationary target via stabilized platform while own

vehicle is moving

1.1.5.3 Track a moving target while own vehicle is stationary

-

U"

-100

..........................-. °.*...- - - -
IIT

Carrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.2 Conducting fire of weapons operations (objective level)

1.2.1 Ability to select weapons (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

", System must have ability to:

m 1.2.1.1 Select 25mm gun for medium to long range engagements

1.2.1.2 Select 7.62mm coax MG for medium to short range engagements

1.2.1.3 Select 5.56mm Firing Port Weapons for short range engagements

m u 1.2.1.4 Select TOW for long range anti-armor engagements

m

-.

-101

- . a-. 

- . * -;.,,t.'~*a- a-. *

. . . . . . . -- -- - - - -aa -
Carrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

" 1.2 Conduct fire of weapons operations (objective level)

1.2.2 Ability to select ammunition and fire rate for 25mm gun

(functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must have abiility to:

" 71.2.2.1 Select 25mm AP, single shot, low fire rate, high fire rate

1.2.2.2 Select 25mm HE, single shot, low fire rate, high fire rate

-I.

-102-

. . . . . . . . . . .
Carrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.2 Conducting fire of weSoons operation (objective level)

- 1.2.3 Capability to determine range to target (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

7 System must have ability to:

" 1.2.3.1 Provide capability to estimate range utilizing day/night sight

(ranging V)

1.2.3.2 Provide capability to fire 25mm high velocity flat trajectory

ammunition up to medium-long range

1.2.3.3 Provide capability of producing visual traceable fires (25mm and

7.62mm ammunition)

r%

:,

-103-

•-

:-'~~~~~~~~~. :' " ?:':'.:-, . ...-. ."----.- .'-.: ,': .---"g-. .. . . , ..-. .:-,- .i , -"" . " 4-. : - -- "--" -' - --- ':'-' -;" " "- ., ,-.-'
-.

4,.

*' Carrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.2 Conducting fire of weapons operation (objective level)

1.2.4 Ability to load weapons (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must have ability to:

1.2.4.1 Load/reload 25mm AP & HE

1.2.4.2 Load/reload 7.62mm Coax MG

p 1.2.4.3 Load/reload TOW

.i

,?

-104-

, 7
Carrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.2 Conducting fire of weapons operation (objective level)

1.2.5 Ability to aim weapons (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must have ability to:

1.2.5.1 Provide a sighting system which permits the fine aiming of

turret weapons during day/night normal operations (day/

night sight)

1.2.5.2 Provide a sighting system which permits the gross aiming of

turret weapons (vane sight)

1.2.5.3 Provide a sighting system which permits the aiming at ground

targets

1.2.5.4 Provide a sighting system which permits the aiming at aerial

targets

-105-

•5- 105- --
FCarrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.2 Conducting fire of weapons operation (objective level)

1.2.6 Capability to fire weapons (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must have ability to:

1.2.6.1 Provide capability to fire turret weapons from TC or Gunner

S.Position in normal operating mode

1.2.6.2 Capability to fire turret weapons in degraded mode

-

"" -10 6-

, •. ,o -. . V . -. - -, -.. . . . ~. -= . - - - , . , . o. ~ , • ,
Carrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.3 Conduct squad command and control (objective level)

1.3.1 Ability to control squad/team operations

Characteristics Level

System must have ability to:

1.3.1.1 Communicate orders.

1.3.1.2 Coordinate/monitor team actions

* 1.3.1.3 Override team actions

1

* ,.

.4

' , "o

,-107-

-i: '
w

t   . .       . , , . ,,,.. .. , . r . . 

Carrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.3 Conduct squad command and control (objective level)

1.3.2 Ability to perform threat assessment (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must have ability to:

1.3.2.1 Determine most dangerous threat

1.3.2.2 Determine dangerou threat

w 1.3.2.3 Determine least dangerous threat

-,.

,-

? -,

,# 108-
' ,Carrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.3 Conduct squad command and control (objective level)

1.3.3 Ability to make tactial decisions (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

The system must have:

"." 1.3.3.1 Knowledge of Co/Pit Tactical SOP

- 1.3.3.2 Knowledge of situation, enemy, and mission

1.3.3.3 Knowledge of tactical doctrine

1.3.3.4 Ability to make use of terrain

1.3.3.5 Ability to communicate tactical decision

,m 1.3.3.6 Knowledge of system capabilities and its limitations

1.3.3.7 Ability to coordinate w/supporting squads

-109-

o N - -

m. .- .. . . . . .

p...
Carrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.3 Conduct squad command and control (objective level)

1.3.4 Ability to control squad/team engagements (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

* The system must have ability to:

1.3.4.1 Determine appropriate weapon and maneuver

, 1.3.4.2 Communicate and control conduct of fire

d 1.3.4.3 Determine engagement effectiveness

1.3.4.4 Determine when to terminate engagement

-110-
Carrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.3 Conduct squad command and control (objective level)

1.3.5 Capability to relay platoon commands (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

The system must have ability to:

1.3.5.1 Receive and relay passive platoon commands (hand, arm or flag

signals)

1.3.5.2 Receive and relay platoon commands via radio

K2

-111
Carrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.4 Provide squad transportation (objective level)

1.4.1 Provide for squad cross country transportation (functional purpose

level)

Characteristics Level

The system must have ability to:

1.4.1.1 Transport squad over flat terrain

1.4.1.2 Transport squad over hilly/rugged terrain

1.4.1.3 Transport squad over loose/soft soil conditions

, 1.4.1.4 Transport squad over vegetated/unvegetated terrain

S"1.4.1.5 Transport squad with low to medium speed mobility

i

= 12

I.

. - . . * 

- -. - - - - . . . . . . . n.'
Carrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.4 Provide squad transportation (objective level)

1.4.2 Provide for squad tactical movements (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

The system must have:

1.4.2.1 Ability for squad to conduct traveling movement (contact with

enemy, not likely)

1.4.2.2 Ability for squad to conduct traveling overwatch movement,

.,contact wth enemy, possible

1.4.2.3 Ability for squad to conduct bounding overwatch movement,

contact with enemy, expected.

I4-

-113-

-. .
Carrier Team Subsystem

-. 1.0 System Definition

1.4 Provide squad transportation (objective level)

. i. 1.4.3 Provide for transportation of system (squad) TOE equipment/

*' supplies (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

The system must have ability to:

1.4.3.1 Transport TOE equipment/supplies over flat terrain

1.4.3.2 Transport TOE equipment/supplies over hilly/rugged terrain

1.4.3.3 Transport TOE equipment/supplies over loose/soft soil conditions

1.4.3.4 Transport TOE equipment/supplies over vegetated/unvegetated

terrain

1.4.3.5 Transport TOE equipment/supplies with low to medium speed mobility

-11-

.. . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .
E.

Carrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

,, 1.4 Provide squad transportation (objective level)

1.4.4 Provide ability to ford shallow water obstacles (functional purpose

level)

Characteristics Level

The system must have ability to:

" 1.4.4.1 Determine that water obstacle is fordable

1.4.4.2 Ford shallow water obstacles with minimum essential preparation/

interruption of advance

1.4.4.3 Enter ford and exit obstacle in an appropriate manner

1.4.4.4 Ford water obstacle with minimum penetration and no damage due

to water

1.4.4.5 Resume normal land operations after fording with minimum preparations

S__

-115-
Carrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.4 Provide squad transportation (objective level)

1.4.5 Provide ability to swim across deep water obstacles (functional

purpose level)

Characteristics Level

The system must have ability to:

1.4.5.1 Determine that water obstacle is appropriate for swim operation

1.4.5.2 Swim obstacle with minimum essential preparation/interruption

of advance

1.4.5.3 Enter, swim and exit obstacle in an appropriate manner

1.4.5.4 Swim water with minimum penetration and no damage due to

water

1.4.5.5 Resume normal land operations after swimming with minimum

preparation

-116-

..... , , .... . .. . . . . . . .. . , . , .. . .. , .. ,..... ,.. . ....
Carrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.5 Provide squad transportation (objective level)

S"1.5.1 Enable intra-squad radio communication (functional purpose level)

The Characteristics Level

The system must have ability to:

1.5.1.1 Allow all carrier team system personnel to transmit information

securely to all squad members when appropriate

1.5.1.2 Allow all carrier team system personnel to receive secure information from selected crew compartment personnel

.°

rZ:

o - * .

.. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .
Carrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.5 Provide squad transportation (objective level)

1.5.2 Enable squad/platoon radio communication (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

The system must have ability to:

1.5.2.1 Allow all carrier team system personnel and selected crew

compartment personnel to receive information from the overwatch

element

1.5.2.2 Allow selected carrier team and/or crew compartment personnel

to transmit information to the overwatch element

I"-

""€ "-118-

' . '.: -.........- ... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~... -....... •....-..... -. ........- ,.".....'.,..,..,.-.,,,,.,".,...'.......
Carrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.5 Provide squad transportation (objective level)

1.5.3 Enable squad/platoon communication during periods of radio

silence (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

The system must have ability to:

1.5.3.1 Allow carrier team personnel to receive non-radio tactical/

administrative communication

1.5.3.2 Allow carrier team personnel to transmit non-radio tactical/

administrative communication

Ao

€'" Vi

"" -:119-
... +. _ + . . . _ . . . . - - -v -. - -+, , -* - r '- '- . '* .fl, r 2+. - l- - - ,,o - . -. - ' ° ' 7 r

Carrier Team Subsystem

* -, 1.0 System Definition

1.6 Providing squad protection (objective level)

1.6.1 Provide armor protection against hostile fire (functional purpose

level)

Characteristics Level

The system must have ability to:

1.6.1.1 Provide full armor protection against hostile small arms fire

1.6.1.2 Provide full armor protection against machine gun fire

1.6.1.3 Provide full armor protection against shell fragments

1.6.1.4 Provide varying armor protection against nuclear effects

1.6.1.5 Provide varying armor protection against automatic cannons

1.6.1.6 Provide varying armor protection against anti-armor

1.6.1.7 Provide varying armor protection against aircraft ...

7,

*42 . 4."

-120-

." °Ma-
'o-W -I

Carrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.6 Providing squad protection (objective level)

1.6.2 Provide internal environmental control (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

.. The system must have ability to:

1.6.2.1 Provide for adequate internal illumination

1.6.2.2 Provide for adequate protection from the elements

1.6.2.3 Provide for adequate ventilation

1.6.2.4 Provide for adequate noise protection

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .i . . . . . . ..

...............

.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Carrier Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.6 Providing squad protection (objective level)

1.6.3 Provide for life support (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

The system must have ability to:

1.6.3.1 Provide for adequate storage of sufficient rations

1.6.3.2 Provide for adequate storage of sufficient water

1.6.3.3 Provide for adequate storage of medical supplies

- 1.6.3.4 Provide for adequate fire extinguishing equipment

- 1.6.3.5 Provide for personal flotation devices

I- * *. **.,
.

Carrier Team Subsystem

2.0 Mission Requirements (Objective Level)

The system must be able to:

2.1 Perform overwatch bounding element duties in response

to platoon movement order

2.2 Conduct air/ground surveillance within assigned sectors

2.3 Conduct threat engagement of identified threat(s)

2.4 Conduct appropriate communications as required by mission

-

• -12 3-

5-

o .... .
Carrier Team Subsystem

2.0 Mission Requirements

2.1 Perform overwatch bounding element duties in response

to platoon movement order (objective level)

2.1.1 Bound to secure forward position (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

2.1.1.1 Select an appropriate bound position

2.1.1.2 Select an appropriate bound route

2.1.1.3 Perform the bound over the route

2.1.1.4 Occupy the bound position

2.1.2 Enable platoon movement (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

2.1.2.1 Determine that the bound position is secure

) 2.1.2.2 Communicate that the overwatch element can proceed to the

bound position

2.1.2.3 Provide security to the overwatch element during advance

0,

-124-

fg'
-.. Carrier Team Subsystem

2.0 Mission Requirements

2.2 Conduct air/ground surveillance within assigned sectors (objective level)

2.2.1 Locate threat signatures (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

2.2.1.1 Detect threat signature, e.g. signatures of track vehicles,

anti-tank guided missiles, artillery, aircraft, soldiers, etc.

2.2.1.2 Identify threat signatures, e.g., as above

" 2.2.2 Locate likely threat avenues of approach/positions

(functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

-*2.2.2.1 Assess terrain to identify likely avenues of approach/positions

2.2.2.2 Classify likely avenues of approach/position in terms of the

degree of likely threat to squad/platoon/mission

2.2.3 Locate actual threats (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

2.2.3.1 Detect actual threats, e.g. track vehicles, wheeled vehicles,

ATGM's, artillery, personnel, aircraft, etc.

2.2.3.2 Identify actual threats, track vehicles, wheeled vehicles,

ATGM's Artillery, personnel, aircraft, etc.

2.2.3.3 Classify actual threats in terms of degree of threat to

X - squad/platoon/mission

, ."

-- ' Y"-125-

.L

,. . . . ., .... . .-.. .. , .... .:.-.- ...,..,...a : . - .: .. . .
Carrier Team Subsystem

2.0 Mission Requirements

2.3 Conduct threat engagement of identified threat(s) (objective level)

2.3.1 Engage and destroy/neutralize/suppress threats along the

axis of squad/platoon advance that have not detected

platoon presence (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

" .~System must be able to:

2.3.1.1 Communicate warning of threat presence

2.3.1.2 Determine and occupy an appropriate firing position

2.3.1.3 Determine appropriate weapons against threat

2.3.1.4 Conduct and control system weapon fire

2.3.1.5 Determine effectiveness of weapon's fire

2.3.1.6 Cease fire when desired effect has been achieved without overexpending resources

2.3.2 Engage to destroy/neutralize/suppress threats that are

conducting, are about to conduct hostile operations against

system or overwatch element. (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

2.3.2.1 Take appropriate maneuvering action

• 2.3.2.2 Determine and occupy an appropriate firing position

2.3.2.3 Determine app,,opriate weapon against threat

2.3.2.4 Conduct and control system weapon fire to gain fire superiority

2.3.2.5 Coordinate firing with platoon headquarters

2.3.2.6 Determine effectiveness of weapon's fire

2.3.2.7 Cease fire when desired effect has been achieved without

overexpending resoures

-126-

..-.. "."-'". -.-. . . ..-.-. .,. . " . . . . . . . . . ': . . - .. ' .,.-,.,.-h,- ,,r.."' .. - -- -
" .. Carrier Team Subsystem

2.0 Mission Requirements

2.4 Conduct appropriate communications as required by mission (Objective level)

2.4.1 Coordinate platoon/squad movement (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

2.4.1.1 Receive movement instructions from platoon

2.4.1.2 Transmit movement instructions

S

2.4.2 Exchange intelligence information with squad/platoon

(functional purpose level)

*. Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

2.4.2.1 Report observations of threats, threat signatures, and likely

approaches/positions of threats to platoon

2.4.2.2 Receive factual intelligence information from platoon

2.4.3 Exchange intra-squad information (functional purpose le% )

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

2.4.3.1 Permit the intelligible exchange of necessary administrative and

tactical information among the carrier team system personnel

2.4.3.2 Permit the intelligible exchange of necessary administrative

and tactical information between the carrier team system and

the crew compartment system

-117

-127-

• . ".- . . ., "-" .".. .. ., . -. . .: - . *..- " . i . - .: i : .:. .'. ,: ,,.. i ". "J . ; - .- - .- '. . -
Carrier Team Subsystem

2.0 Mission Requirements

p.

2.4 Conduct appropriate communications as required by mission (objective level)

.- 2.4.4 Coordinate squad/platoon conduct of fire operations

(functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

- 2.4.4.1 Receive conduct of fire information from platoon/other squads

2.4.4.2 Transmit conduct of fire information to platoon/other squads

-128-
Carrier Team Subsystem

LA

3.0 Environment Specification (Objective Level)

The system must:

3.1 Operate over rolling terrain

3.2 Operate over various rural and agricultural land areas

3.3 Operate in the presence of indigenous obstacles

3.4 Operate in summer, fair weather in Southern Germany

-i29-

. . . . -.. tl --. - .

--:-.- : "-: -.-- ' - -- .. -, -" . "-: .- • . - " " - .-- - . , -i .- -- -- ,,'- .- .- ..,,i -, 2-" . i- i- : " -- -,. ,-..",-
Carrier Team Subsystem

3.0 Environment specifications

" 3.1 Operate over rolling terrain (objective level)

3.1.1. Operate over hills (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

3.1.1.1 Operate over a maximum upslope up to eight degrees

3.1.1.2 Operate over an upgrade whose length does not exceed 250 meters

3.1.2 Operate over valleys (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

-. *3.1.2.1 Operate over a maximum downslope up to eight degrees

3.1.2.2 Operate over a maximum downslope up to 1000 meters

3.1.3 Operate over flat terrain (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

-, 3.1.3.1 Operate over terrain which has little or no change in elevation

3.1.3.2 Operate over a maximum area of flat terrain up to 1000 meters

-130-
! K Carrier Team Subsystem

3.0 Environment specifications

3.2 Operate over various rural and agricultural land areas (objective

level)

3.2.1 Operate over land area with fields (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

3.2.1.1 Operate over an open uncultivated grassy land area (not plowed)

3.2.1.2 Operate over an open cultivated land area (plowed)

3.2.2 Operate over land area with roads (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

3.2.2.1 Operate over secondary roads (paved)

3.2.2.2 Operate over light duty roads (dirt)

3.2.2.3 Operate over trails

3.2.3 Operate over land area with farms (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

- 3.2.3.1 Operate in the presence of land areas utilized for the raising

of livestock

3.2.3.2 Operate in the presence of land areas utilized for the raising

of agricultural crops

3.2.4 Operate over land areas with forests (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

3.2.4.1 Operate over land areas covered with deciduous trees

3.2.4.2 Operate over land areas covered with coniferous trees

3.2.4.3 Operate over land areas covered with mixed deciduous and

* coniferous trees.

-131-

CharateriticsLeve
Carrier Team Subsystem

3.0 Environment specification

3.3 Operate in the presence of indigenous obstacles (objective level)

3.3.1 Bypass dry stone walls (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

3.3.1.1 Bypass stone walls that are more than 1-1/2 meters high

3.3.1.2 Bypass stone wall less than 1-1/2 meters high where there is an

"- opening within 25 meters of desired route

3.3.2 Bypass rocky outeroppings (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

3.3.2.1 Bypass boulder more than 1/2 meter high judged to be large

3.3.2.2 Bypass jagged rocks

* 3.3.3 Bypass marshy/swampy areas (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

3.3.3.1 Bypass untrafficable marshy/swampy land areas

3.3.3.2 Bypass any kind of soft terrain if hard surface soil is within 25

meters of desired route

3.3.4 Maneuver around trees (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

3.3.4.1 Maneuver around all trees of a diameter 4? or more.

3.3.4.2 Maneuver around any tree whenever an open route is within

3 meters

-132-

,..' . . . . .. .- .. . .. . . . . . . .. •. . . . .... . .. ,.,.... --. ......... ... .. .-.- / ---. ' .- . 4 . , .-- -- ', .. ,. . .' ... .. . ., ,' ., . - .. " ,.. . .;.- . ,' . , . , ,-,: L : ,- , . . .. .
,. I*..

Carrier Team Subsystem

3.0 Environment specification

3.3 Operate in the presence of indigenous obstacles (objective level)

- 3.3.5 Maneuver around wide trenches (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

3.3.5.1 Maneuver around all trenches that are more than 2-1/2 meters

wide and more than 1 meter deep

3.3.5.2 Maneuver around all trenches that extend less than 25 meters

from desired route

-0..- - .4

L .. "

• .- -133-
Carrier Team Subsystem

3.0 Environment specifications

3.4 Operate in summer, fair weather in Southern Germany (objective

level)

3.4.1 Operate in warm to hot temperate zone environment

-- (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

3.4.1.1 Operate in temperatures ranging from 270 to 320 C

3.4.1.2 Operate in low to moderate humidity

3.4.2 Operate in daylight (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

3.4.2.1 Conduct operations in morning hours beginning 15 minutes after

sunrise concluding at noon

3.4.2.2 Conduct operations under mostly sunny conditions

3.4.3 Operate without any precipitation (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

3.4.3.1 Operate in dry climatic conditions

3.4.3.2 Operate in dusty environment

3.4.4 Operate with good visibility (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

. 3.4.4.1 Operate with a visibility limited only by terrain and

obstacle masking

3.4.4.2 Operate with sun glare toward East-Northeast during early

morning hours

-134-
Carrier Team Subsystem

4.0 General Constraints (Objective Level)

The system must:

4.1 Maximize surveillance within the surveillance constraints

4.2 Maximize inter-intra communications within the communication

constraints

*4.3 Carry out tactical movements within the movement constraints

4.4 Carry out mission requirements within equipment and

personnel constraints

4.5 Carry out mission requirements within threat constraints

4.6 Carry out mission requirements within weapon constraints

-15

°.4

-135-
Carrier Team Subsystem

4.0 General Constraints

Ap 4.1 Maximize surveillance within the surveillance constraints

~I. (objective level)

4.1.1 Provide for continuous surveillance, ground and air, throughout

assigned sector (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

4.1.1.1 Scan throughout sector unaided vision

4.1.1.2 Scan throughout sector aided vision

4.1.1.3 Scan throughout sector popped hatch

4.1.1.4 Scan throughout sector hatch down via vision blocks

4.1.2 Provide for observation of likely threat (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

4.1.2.1 Identify those locations within the assigned sector that are

likely to conceal threats

4.1.2.2 Train surveillance attention on locations that are likely to

--conceal threats with aid/unaided vision

4.1.2.2 Aim turret weapons on locations that are likely to conceal

threats

.. -16

. .. .
o-.'

Carrier Team Subsystem

4.0 General Constraints

4.2 Maximize inter-intra communications within the communication

constraints (objective level)

4.2.1 Maintain communication security (functional purpose level)

-'. Characteristics Level F -

4.2.1.1 Avoid radio transmission before contact

4.2.1.2 Use of hand/arm/flag signals with external systems

4.2.1.3 Maintain light and noise discipline

4.2.2 Exchange command and control information with platoon (-)

(functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

2 4.2.2.1 Exchange vehicle movement information

.. 4.2.2.2 Exchange intelligence information

4.2.2.3 Exchange squad/platoon system status information

4.2.3 Exchange command and contact information within the carrier

team system (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

4.2.3.1 Exchange information required to command and control vehicle

4.2.3.2 Exchange command and control information with regard to

surveillance of assigned sectors

4.2.3.3 Provide command and control of turret weapons

4.2.3.3 Maintain intercom discipline

-137-

-, 1" .- 
- "Carrier Team Subsystem

4.0 General Constraints

- 4.2 Maximize inter-intra communications within the communication

.,constraints (objective level)

4.2.4 Exchange command and control information with squad

compartment crew (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

4.2.4.1 Exchange surveillance information

4.2.4.2 Exercise command and control of FPW operations

4.2.4.3 Coordinate turret weapons support requirements

4.2.4.4 Maintain intercom discipline with crew

-P
I.',

Carrier Team Subsystem

4.0 General Constraints

4.3 Carry out tactical movements within the movement constraints

(objective level)

4.3.1 Stay within squad sector during movement (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

4.3.1.1 Knowledge of sector limits

4.3.1.2 Control vehicle within squad/platoon limits

4.3.2 Maintain reasonable visual contact with platoon (-) (overwatch

element)

Characteristics Level

4.3.2.1 Stay within visual communication sources

!" 4.3.2.2 Maximize visibility of route of advance to platoon (-)

4.3.3 Minimize system signature

Characteristics Level

, 4.3.3.1 Utilize maximum cover and concealment from likely threats

4.3.3.2 Avoid 'skylining"

4.3.3.3 Minimize vehicle smoke and dust signatures

4.3.4 Maintain movement speed consistent with the movement

order considering squad order

Characteristics Level

4.3.4.1 Maintain average speed consistent with movement plan and

hostile action

4.3.4.2 Achieve a speed consistent with low vehicle signature requirements

4.3.4.3 Achieve speed over terrain consistent with the mission requirements

which will not jeopardize crew safety or result in damaged equipment.

-139-

I-

',- .- . - .. ,.'= . = / . .".." .. ,o' ,. m•, •• , . ,'., .' % .,% % % ,% % % % %= , , '%d -,
Carrier Team Subsystem

.- 4.0 General Constraints

4.3 Carry out tactical movements within the movement constraints

(objective level)

4.3.5. Execute bound to maximize weapon support from platoon(-)

(functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

4.3.5.1 Bound distance should not exceed overwatch element weapon

support

4.3.5.2 Bound positions must be visible to the overwatch element

.. ,

-140-

-LK
Carrier Team Subsystem

4.0 General Constraints

4.4 Carry out mission requirements within equipment and

personnel constraints (objective level)

4.4.1 Carry out mission requirement with system personnel constraints

(functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

4.4.1.1 Operate with the authorized number of carrier team personnel

4.4.1.2 Operate with MOS qualified personnel

4.4.1.3 Operate with personnel whose physical size meets system

anthropometric design limits

4.4.2 Carry out mission requirement with system TOE equipment

(functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

4.4.2.1 Operate with only the authorized TOE equipment

4.4.2.2 Utilize applicable TOE equipment for appropriate purpose

4.4.2.3 Operate equipment properly throughout mission

U--7

-141
Carrier Team Subsystem

4.0 General Constraints

4.5 Carry out mission requirements within threat constraints

. (objective level)

"' 4.5.1 Conduct operations to neutralize threats effectively, when

appropriate (functional purpose level)

-. Characteristics Level

4.5.1.1 Bring appropriate firepower to bear

4.5.1.2 Minimize system exposure

4.5.2 Evade threats effectively, when appropriate

Characteristics Level

S-" 4.5.2.1 Deny the threat the ability to engage the carrier team system

4.5.2.2 Preserve system integrity

4.5.2.3 Preserve mission integrity

.

-142-

..

- . . -. . . . . . . . .

.i .. : . ... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ...... " : : ::: .. : : -:: :i.l • .'... . ..... ... * .. . . . . - -,... : -,'" . " ,
Carrier Team Subsystem

4.0 General Constraints

4.6 Carry out mission requirements within weapon cons' air ts

(objective level)

- 4.6.1 Fire weapons only within assigned sector (functional purpose level)

- Characteristics Level

4.6.1.1 Maintain knowledge of sector boundaries

S'4.6.1.2 Maintain knowledge of support forces

4.6.2 Fire weapons employing safe fire rates

Characteristics Level

4.6.2.1 Employ fire rate consistent with safe weapon operations

4.6.2.2 Employ a fire rate consistent with effective engagement of

*the target

"13

~-143-
Carrier Team Subsystem

5.0 General Performance Requirements (Objective Level)

The system must be able to:

5.1 Perform squad bound

5.2 Detect threats

5.3 Engage threats

-144-
I,

Carrier Team Subsystem

5.0 Performance Requirements

5.1 Perform squad bound (objective level)

5.1.1 Provide for platoon security (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

5.1.1.1 Occupy bound position to afford maximum fields of fire

5.1.1.2 Communicate that bound position is secure to overwatch element

5.1.1.3 Provide covering fire, when appropriate in support of overwatch

element advance

5.1.2 Advance toward the objectives (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

5.1.2.1 Select an approximate bound route

5.1.2.2 Select and control an appropriate vehicle speed

a.

-145-

-> ...

WW

°-d
Carrier Team Subsystem

5.0 Performance Requirements

, 5.2 Detect threats (objective level)

5.2.1 Locate the enemy (functional purpose level)

71 Characteristics Level

5.2.1.1 Observe surveillance area for threat signatures

5.2.1.2 Observe surveillance areas for actual threats

5.2.2 Provide Intelligence Information (functional purpose level)

- -Characteristics Level

5.2.2.1 Information regarding what was observed

5.2.2.2 Information regarding how many observed

" 5.2.2.3 Information regarding where and when observed

5.2.2.4 Information regarding what enemy was doing

% . 5.2.3 Formulate tactical decisions (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

5.2.3.1 Degree of threat to squad/platoon

5.2.3.2 System Capability, vis-a-vis, the threat

5.2.3.3 Degree the threat is a jeopardy to the mission

L6- 4 

-'V..

• -146-
Carrier Team Subsystem

5.0 Performance Requirements

5.3 Engage threat (objective level)

5.3.1 Destroy/neutralize the threat (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

5.3.1.1 Take appropriate action for self preservation

5.3.1.2 Produce effective conduct of fire operations

5.3.1.3 Hit the threat with appropriate ammunition

5.3.1.4 Assess correctly when threat has been destroyed/neutralized

I 5.3.1.5 Cease fire when appropriate

5.3.2 Self protection (functional purpose level)

WO qCharacteristics Level

5.3.2.1 Minimize system profile

5.3.2.2 Use firepower to deny threat conduct of fire operations

5 3.2.3 Effective use of camouflage and concealment

5.3.2.4 Request supporting fires

a 5.3.3 Seize the advantage of the situation (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

5.3.3.1 Achieve control of the terrain

5.3.3.2 Reduce or neutralize threat offensive capability

5.3.3.3 Gain tactical superiority

5.3.3.4 Reduce or neutralize threat defensive capability

-147-
,- -

Carrier Team Subsystem

5.0 Performance Requirements

5.3 Engage threat (objective level)

5.3.4 Deny the enemy the advantage of the situation (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

5.3.4.1 Maintain system offensive capability

5.3.4.2 Maintain system defensive capability

5.3.4.3 Maintain control of the terrain

5.3.4.4. Maintain tactical superiority

4

• -
K:

Carrier Team Subsystem

l-p

6.0 General Performance Criteria (Objective Level)

The system must be able to:

6.1 Achieve an appropriate bound position, distance

and time

6.2 Detect all targets within sector, without false

detections

6.3 Engage successfully all appropriate targets within

sector, with minimum expenditure of time and

resources

-19 -149

|.. * 5* *. ...- . . . . . . . . . .
Carrier Team Subsystem

6.0 General Performance Criteria

6.1 Achieve an appropriate bound position, distance and time

(objective level)

6.1.1 Bound position must provide optimum forward security for

overwatch element (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

The system must:

6.1.1.1 Provide maximum effective fields of fire for all system weapons

6.1.1.2 Afford the means to communica'e the forward movement of the

overwatch element conssternt with communication constraints

6.1.1.3 Provide appropriate, timely, and effective covering fire to

support overwatch elements advance

6.1.2 Bound position must provide an efficient advance toward mission

objectives (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

The system must:

.*. 6.1.2.2 Afford as direct an advance toward bound position as possible,

consistent with all applicable constraints

6.1.2.2 Afford as rapid an advance toward bound position as possible

consistent with all applicable constraints

-150-
Carrier Team Subsystem

K 6.0 General Performance Criteria

6.2 Detect all threats within sector, without false detections

(objective level)

6.2.1 Locate all threats within sector in a timely fashion

(functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

The system must:

6.2.1.1 Locate and recognize threat signatures quickly and

_W accurately

6.2.1.2 Locate and recognize actual threats quickly and accurately

6.2.2 Provide accurate, complete intelligence information consistent

with the mission (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

The system must:

6.2.2.1 Provide accurate, timely, and useful information concerning

what was observed

6.2.2.2 Provide accurate, timely, and useful information concerning how

many were observed

6.2.2.3 Provide accurate, timely, and useful information concerning

where and when the observations were made

6.2.2.4 Provide accurate, timely, and useful information concerning

what the enemy was doing

-151-
. Carrier Team Subsystem

6.0 General Performance Criteria

6.2 Detect all threats within sector, without false detections

(objective level)

6.2.3 Formulate appropriate and timely tactical decisions concerning

detection of threats (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

The system must:

6.2.3.1 Provide accurate and timely assessment of the degree of

threat to squad and platoon

, 6.2.3.2 Provide accurate assessment of system status and system

capabilities as well as threat's capabilities

6.2.3.3 Provide accurate assessment of the degree the threat is a

jeopardy to the mission

.

* 

"

l,=

' -152-
Carrier Team Subsystem

6.0 General Performance Criteria

6.3 Engage successfully all appropriate targets within sector,

with minimum expenditure of time and resources (objective level)

6.3.1 Destroy/neutralize threats, when appropriate, in a timely and

efficient manner (functional purpose level)

*" Characteristics Level

% iThe system must:

6.3.1.1 Maximize self-preservation while conducting effective

* weapon fire operations

6.3.1.2 Direct and produce accurate, timely conduct of fire to

* destroy/neutralize the threat

Vt 6.3.1.3 Hit the threat with appropriate ammunition, type and amount,

in order to destroy/neutralize threat

6.3.1.4 Assess accurately and timely threat destruction/neutralization

6.3.1.5 Cease fire upon successful destruction/neutralization of the

threat

6.3.2 Engage sucessfully all appropriate threats in a timely and

efficient manner to provide for self protection (functional

" purpose level)

r ""* Characteristics Level

The system must:

6.3.2.1 Expose the smallest possible profile to the threat while

maintaining system weapons capabilities

6.3.2.2 Produce weapon fire sufficient to deny the threat's ability *- . to produce effective weapons fire operations

6.3.2.3 Make proper use of available camouflage and concealment to

S.-deny the threat's ability to produce effective weapon's fire

operations

6.3.2.4 Request supporting fire that are appropriate, timely, accurate,

and complete

* °"...53
i " Carrier Team Subsystem

6.0 General Performance Criteria

6.3 Engage successfully all appropriate targets within sector,

with minimum expenditure of time and resources (objective level)

6.3.3 Seize the advantage of the situation by efficient use of terrain

and system capabilities (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

The system must:

6.3.3.1 Establish and maintain fire superiority over the likely avenues

of approach

6.3.3.2 Use system weapon and maneuver capabilities and terrain so

as to deny threat's abilities to conduct effective offensive

operations

6.3.3.3 Use system weapons maneuverability and terrain to gain fire

superiority in order to reduce/neutralize threats defensive

capabilities

.

-154

-"-" """0 , . " '"" - : " - ' " - ' " ' - " " ' " " -"- -- ' " ---- - . " " '
. .

, 

 

.

a

m

APPENDIX B - CREW COMPARTMENT TEAM TAXONOMIES

I.

a

6

£ - - - *.-.-~-. .----- *.- ~
Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition (Objective Level)

The crew compartment team must be capa.ble of:

*1.1 Providing for crew compartment team surveillance

1.2 Conducting fire of weapons operations

1.3 Providing for crew compartment team command and control

*1.4 Providing for crew compartment transportation

1.5 Providing for squad and platoon communications

1.6 Providing for squad protection

.... * % . . . . . . . . . .
Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.1 Providing for crew compartment team surveillance (objective level)

1.1.1 Conduct sector surveillance (functional purpose level)

- Characteristics Level

System must have ability to:

1.1.1.1 Conduct visually ground sector surveillance in through vision

blocks on left side of crew compartment

1.1.1.2 Conduct visually ground sector surveillance through vision blocks on

right side of crew compartment

1.1.1.3 Conduct visually ground sector surveillance through vision blocks

on rear side of crew compartment

1.1.2 Ability to detect targets (functional purpose level)

Charactistics Level

System must have ability to:

1.1.2.1 Detect visually ground target signatures

1.1.2.2 Detect visually ground target

1.1.3 Ability to identify targets (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must have ability to:

1.1.3.1 Identify the following type targets visually through vision

blocks at a visibility range of 1000 meters (vehicle stationary)

, Tank • CP area

" BM P • Personnel

ATGM • Aircraft

Arty • Bunker . Wheeled vehicle • Etc. AmL

-156-
Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

.1.1 Providing for crew compartment team surveillance (objective level)

1.1.1 Conduct sector surveillance (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must have ability to:

1.1.1.1 Conduct visually ground sector surveillance in through vision

blocks on left side of crew compartment

1.1.1.2 Conduct visually ground sector surveillance through vision blocks on

right side of crew compartment

1.1.1.3 Conduct visually ground sector surveillance through vision blocks

on rear side of crew compartment

1.1.2 Ability to detect targets (functional purpose level)

Charactistics Level

System must have ability to:

1.1.2.1 Detect visually ground target signatures

1.1.2.2 Detect visually ground target

1.1.3 Ability to identify targets (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must have ability to:

1.1.3.1 Identify the following type targets visually through vision

blocks at a visibility range of 1000 meters (vehicle stationary)

. Tank • CP area

-"BMP 0 Personnel

. ATGM • Aircraft

* Arty • Bunker

. Wheeled vehicle * Etc.

-157-

.A 2.
r ! IT

Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.1 Providing for crew compartment team surveillance (objective level)

1.1.3.2 Identify the following type targets visually through vision

blocks of a visibility range of 1500 meters

." Tank

BMP

== . Wheeled vehicle

-158-

17

.. *..
Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

, _ 1.0 System Definition

'. 1.2 Conducting fire of weapons operations (objective level)

1.2.1 Ability to conduct firing port weapons operations

(functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must have ability to:

1.2.1.1 Estimate range to ground targets

1.2.1.2 Control firing rate of FPW's

1.2.1.3 Observe and correct bursts on target

1.2.1.4 Load/reload FPW's

1.2.1.5 Determine when target has been suppressed/destroyed/

neutralized

:K,

.4 , ..-

, . . , $' . ,",.',. 4. .. . . . . . .. . . - ... .. . . ............... .N ., , . . .
bP.

Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.3 Providing for crew compartment team command and control

(objective level)

K. 1.3.1 Ability to control team operations

Characteristics Level

System must have ability to:

1.3.1.1 Communicate orders

1.3.1.2 Coordinate/monitor team actions

1.3.2 Ability to perform threat assessment (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must have ability to:

1.3.2.1 Determine most dangerous threat

1.3.2.2 Determine dangerous threat

1.3.2.3 Determine least dangerous threat

1.3.3 Ability to make tactical decisions (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must have:

1.3.3.1 Knowledge of Plt Tactical SOP

1.3.3.2 Knowledge of situation, enemy, and mission

1.3.3.3 Knowledge of tactical doctrine

1.3.3.4 Ability to communicate tactical decision

1.3.3.5 Knowledge of system capabilities and its limitations -

-160-
Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.3 Providing for crew compartment team command and control

(objective level)

1.3.4 Ability to control team engagements (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

. +System must have ability to:

1.3.4.1 Communicate and control conduct of fire

1.3.4.2 Determine engagement effectiveness

1.3.4.3 Determine when to terminate engagement

1

.1

I ~

-

"+ -161-

Sr-. .... . .. ....... ... •
~-=

Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

i 1.4 Provide crew compartment transportation (objective level)

- 1.4.1 Provide for transportation of system TOE equipment/supplies

(functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must have ability to:

1.4.1.1 Transport TOE equipment/supplies over flat terrain

1.4.1.2 Transport TOE equipment/supplies over hilly/rugged terrain

1.4.1.3 Transport TOE equipment/supplies over loose/soft soil conditions

1.4.1.4 Transport TOE equipment/supplies over vegetated/unvegetated

terrain

1.4.1.5 Transport TOE equipment/supplies with low to medium speed

mobility

-162-

I-" °'": ' * . . - - '-*** .. ** . . . . . . . .

I ''°S
,- Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

g ~ 1.5 Providing for squad and platoon communications

" "" (objective level)

1.5.1 Enable intra-squad radio communication (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must have ability to:

1.5.1.1 Allow selected crew compartment team system personnel to

transmit information securely to all squad members when

appropriate

1.5.1.2 Allow all crew compartment personnel to receive secure information

from any carrier team member

1.5.2 Enable squad/platoon radio communication (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must have ability to:

1.5.2.1 Allow selected crew compartment personnel to receive information

from the overwatch element

1.5.2.2 Allow selected crew compartment personnel to transmit information

-to the overwatch element

-163-

.. ' .°o 
Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.6 Providing for squad protection (objective level)

1.6.1 Provide armor protection against hostile fire

(functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must have ability to:

1.6.1.1 Provide full armor protection against hostile small arms fire

1.6.1.2 Provide full armor protection against machine gun fire

1.6.1.3 Provide full armor protection against shell fragments

1.6.1.4 Provide varying armor protections against nuclear effects

1.6.1.5 Provide varying armor protection against automatic cannons

1.6.1.6 Provide varying armor protection against anti-armor

1.6.1.7 Provide varying armor protection against aircraft

1.6.2 Provide internal environmental control (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must have ability to:

1.6.2.1 Provide for adequate internal illumination

1.6.2.2 Provide for adequate protection from the elements

1.6.2.3 Provide for adequate ventilation

1.6.2.4 Provide for adequate noise protection

-164-

a-L
r',r 'w-rrr:v -?w,

Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

1.0 System Definition

1.6 Providing crew compartment protection (objective level)

1.6.3 Provide for life support (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must have ability to:

1.6.3.1 Provide for adequate storage of sufficient rations

1.6.3.2 Provide for adequate storage of sufficient water

1.6.3.3 Provide for adequate storage of medical supplies

1.6.3.4 Provide for adequate fire extinguishing equipment

1.6.3.5 Provide for personal flotation devices

.

-4t

.. . .. . .. . . .. . .... . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .

. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .

. . .
Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

4

2.0 Mission Requirements (Objective Level)

P

The system must be able to:

2.1 Conduct air/ground surveillance within assigned sectors

2.2 Conduct threat engagement of identified threat(s)

2.3 Conduct appropriate communications as required by mission

'9

a,J

.466-

• .....-..... .. . - . ,..'. ... '....- .-. .• -......-...-... ....... ...... .. ...... -........ =
.

Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

2.0 Mission Requirements

* 2.1 Conduct ground surveillance within assigned sectors

(objective level)

2.1.1 Locate threat signatures (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

* 2.1.1.1 Detect threat signature, e.g. signatures of track vehicles,

anti-tank guided missiles, artillery, aircraft, soldiers, etc.

2.1.1.2 Identify threat signatures, e.g., as above

2.1.2 Locate likely threat positions (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

2.1.2.1 Assess terrain to identify likely positions

2.1.2.2 Classify likely position in terms of the degree of likely

threat to squad/platoon/mission

2.1.3 Locate actual threats (functional purpose level)

* Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

2.1.3.1 Detect actual threats, e.g. track vehicles, wheeled vehicles,

ATGM's, artillery, personnel, aircraft, etc.

2.1.3.2 Identify actual threats, track vehicles, wheeled vehicles,

ATGM's artillery, personnel, aircraft, etc.

2.1.3.3 Classify actual threats in terms of degree of threat to squad/platoon/mission

-167-

.- . .
Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

2.0 Mission Requirements

2.3 Conduct appropriate communications as required by mission

(objective level)

- 2.3.1 Exchange intelligence information with squad

(functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

.%

2.3.1.1 Report observations of threats, threat signatures, and likely

approaches/positions of threats to squad leader

2.3.1.2 Receive factual intelligence information from squad

2.3.2 Exchange intra-squad information (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

2.3.2.1 Permit the intelligible exchange necessary administrative and

-- tactical information with the carrier team system personnel

:'- :~2.3.2.2 Permit the intelligible excl'ange of necessary administrative

and tactical information between the crew compartment system

2.3.3 Coordinate squad/platoon conduct of fire operations

(functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

" System must be able to:

. 2.3.3.1 Receive conduct of fire information from platoon/other squads

2.3.3.2 Transmit conduct of fire information to platoon/other squads

" -16R-
*1%,

, 'Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

,- 2.0 Mission Requirements

2.2 Conduct threat engagement of identified threat(s) (objective level)

- 2.2.1 Engage and destroy/neutralize/suppress "soft" threats along

the axis of squad/platoon advance that have not detected

platoon presence (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

- "System must be able to:

- 2.2.1.1 Communicate warning of threat presence

2.2.1.2 Determine that firing port weapons are appropriate against

threat

2.2.1.3 Conduct and control system weapon fire

- 2.2.1.4 Determine effectiveness of weapons' fire

2.2.1.5 Cease fire when desired effect has been achieved without

* .overexpending resources

2.2.2 Engage to destroy/neutralize/suppress "soft" threats that are

- conducting, are about to conduct hostile operations against

* system or overwatch element. (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

-. 2.2.2.1 Communicate warning of threat presence

- 2.2.2.2 Determine that firing port weapons are appropriate against

threat

* 2.2.2.3 Conduct and control system weapon fire to gain fire superiority

2.2.2.4 Determine effectiveness of weapon's fire

- 2.2.2.5 Cease fire when desired effect has been achieved without

overexpending resources

-169-
r - .C I 

' . , r- ° - -- tr -V .. . T . ] -, , .f, . F, , '.' L '' L ' " S "-- s" z u- " r T-

Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

3.0 Environment Specification (Objective Level)

The system must:

3.1 Operate in summer, fair weather in Southern Germany

.1

F.-

;ii -170-

-"- - . .< " >-. " . " ' " " ,-,,,- - ', '" , . " _'. " - -. . ", , . - ,,-, " " - .'. - '- ' -. - . ,,- : "'] . ''
Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

. :: 3.0 Environment Specification

3.1 Operate in summer, fair weather in Southern Germany

(objective level)

3.1.1 Operate in warm to hot temperate zone environment

(functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

3.1.1.1 Operate in temperatures ranging from 270 to 320 C

3.1.1.2 Operate in low to moderate humidity

3.1.2 Operate in daylight (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

" . System must be able to:

3.1.2.1 Conduct operations in morning hours beginning 15 minutes ,- -. "after sunrise concluding at noon

3.1.2.2 Conduct operations under mostly sunny conditions

3.1.3 Operate without any precipitation (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

3.1.3.1 Operate in dry climatic conditions

3.4.3.2 Operate in dusty environment

3.1.4 Operate with good visibility (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

S3.1.4.1 Operate with a visibility limited only by terrain and obstacle masking

3.1.4.2 Operate with sun glare toward East-Northeast during early morning hours

-171-

:- .-. .) -: J -, -.:. . -,"- " .i.i: ".. "- .:ii ..: . .::J . i i:" -.i , i,, '. .-: ~ ~i ";: : : . . . , _. .. .-" " " ", -" ...:...""." " '
Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

4.0 General Constraints (Objective Level)

The system must:

4.1 Maximize surveillance within the surveillance constraints

4.2 Maximize inter-intra communications within the communication

constraints

4.3 Carry out mission requirements within equipment and

personnel constraints

4.4 Carry out mission requirements within threat constraints

4.5 Carry out mission requirements within weapon constraints

-172-
Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

4.0 General Constraints

4.1 Maximize surveillance within the surveillance constraints

(objective level)

4.1.1 Provide for continuous ground surveillance throughout assigned

sector (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

4.1.1.1 Scan throughout sector unaided vision, popped cargo hatch

4.1.1.2 Scan throughout sector hatch down via vision blocks

4.1.2 Provide for observation of likely threat areas

(functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

=- System must be able to:

4.1.2.1 Identify those locations within the assigned sector that are

likely to conceal threats

4.1.2.2 Train surveillance attention on locations that are likely to

,q conceal threats with unaided vision (vision blocks)

4.1.2.3 Aim firing port weapons on locations that are likely to conceal

threats

U.,

-173-

.",• '. . . . . . . . ' ...... . "-"" ."-, , ... •"-' ,-.:. ,.z . .. = = I .. : , ~~ ,,. .=; , . .. ,'
Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

4.0 General Constraints

4.2 Maximize inter-intra communications within the communication

constraints (objective level)

4.2.1 Maintain communication security (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

4.2.1.1 Avoid radio transmission before contact

4.2.1.2 Maintain light and noise discipline

•.5 .'.

4.2.2 Exchange command and control information with carrier team (-)

(functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

- .System must be able to:

4.2.2.1 Exchange lateral vehicle movement information

4.2.2.2 Exchange intelligence information

• 4.2.2.3 Exchange squad/platoon system status information

4.2.2.4 Maintain intercom discipline

4.2.3 Exchange command and control information with squad

compartment crew (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

S.4.2.3.1 Exchange surveillance information

4.2.8.2 Exercise command and control of FPW operations

4.2.3.3 Coordinate turret weapons support requirements (reload of

turret weapons)

-174-.

r..:...-.2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...,i........'.-'.............,,....-..-.- •, -""-" ".... ".. ..-. .. ---
Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

4.0 General Constraints

- 4.3 Carry out mission requirements within equipment and

personnel constraints (objective level)

4.3.1 Carry out mission requirement with system personnel constraints

-, .(functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

Systermi must be able to:

4.3.1.1 Operate with the authorized number of new compartment team

personnel

4.3.1.2 Operate with MOS qualified personnel

4.3.1.3 Operate with personnel whose physical size meets system

anthropometric design limits

4.3.2 Carry out mission requirement with system TOE equipment

(functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

-- System must be able to:

4.3.2.1 Operate with only the authorized TOE equipment

4.3.2.2 Utilize applicable TOE equipment for appropriate purpose

4.3.2.3 Operate equipment properly throughout mission

-175-

- 7-

. . . . . ..-

- ..- J.-iy . E. t A . .2 ..
Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

". 4.0 General Constraints

4.4 Carry out mission requirements within threat constraints

(objective level)

" 4.4.1 Conduct operations to neutralize threats effectively, when

appropriate (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

- System must be able to:

4.4.1.1 Bring appropriate firepower to bear

4.4.1.2 Minimize system exposure

-176

I

-1712
Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

4.0 General Constraints

4.5 Carry out mission requirements within weapon constraints

(objective level)

4.5.1 Fire weapons only within assigned sector (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

4.5.1.1 Maintain knowledge of sector boundaries

4.5.1.2 Maintain knowledge of support forces

4.5.2 Fire weapons employing safe fire rates

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

4.5.2.1 Employ fire rate consistent with safe weapon operations

" 4.5.2.2 Employ a fire rate consistent with effective engagement of

the target

-177-

- .-

... '... .* 
Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

5.0 General Performance Requirements (Objective Level)

The system must:

5.1 Support platoon/squad bounds

5.2 Detect threats

5.3 Engage threats

-178-

- . . .

.. . . . . . . 5. .
-- 

 

 V VI al IT' I- -. -q,- w-- u -; -~ T -

•. ..:

Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

-' ~5.0 General Performance Requirements

5.1 Support platoon/squad bounds (objective level)

': 5.1.1 Provide for platoon/squad security (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

5.1.1.1 Provide maximum fields of fire at bound position

5.1.1.2 Provide covering fire, when appropriate, in support of

overwatch element advance

7,.

-19
Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

5.0 General Performance Requirements

5.2 Detect threats (objective level)

5.2.1 Locate the enemy (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

5.2.1.1 Observe surveillance crew for target signatures

5.2.1.2 Observe surveillance areas for actual targets

5.2.2 Provide intelligence information (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

A System must'be able to:

5.2.2.1 Information regarding what was observed

5.2.2.2 Information regarding how many observed

5.2.2.3 Information regarding where and when observed

5.2.2.4 Information regarding what enemy was doing

.

-180-
Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

5.0 General Performance Requirements

5.3 Engage threats

5.3.1 D-estroy/neutralize/suppress the target (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

5.3.1.1 Take appropriate action for self preservation

5.3.1.2 Produce effective conduct of fire operations

5.3.1.3 Hit the target with appropriate ammunition

5.3.1.4 Assess correctly when target has been destroyed/neutralized/suppressed

5.3.1.5 Cease fire when appropriate

5.3.2 Self protection (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

5.3.2.1 Minimize system exposure by staying "buttoned up"

5.3.2.2 Use firepower to deny threat conduct of fire operations

5.3.3 Seize the advantage of the situation (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

5.3.3.1 Reduce or neutralize threat offensive capability

5.3.3.2 Gain tactical superiority

5.3.3.3 Reduce or neutralize threat defensive capability

i 21 -181- "

q-I
Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

* -. 5.0 General Performance Requirements

5.3 Engage threats (objective level)

5.3.4 Deny the enemy the advantage of the situation (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

5.3.4.1 Maintain system offensive capability

5.3.4.2 Maintain system defensive capability

5.3.4.3 Maintain tactical superiority

-l 2

.rn

- .,-.b .
X'- r-.

Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

6.0 General Performance Criteria (Objective Level)

The crew compartment team must be able to:

6.1 Support overwatch element advance

- 6.2 Detect all targets within sector, without false detections

6.3 Engage suczessfully all appropriate targets within sector,

with minimum expenditure of time and resources

I18

S.-

= ' -183-
Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

6.0 General Performance Criteria

6.1 Support overwatch element advance (objective level)

- 6.1.1 The system must provide optimum forward security for

overwatch element (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must:

6.1.1.1 Provide maximum effective fields of fire for all system

* weapons at the bound position

6.1.1.2 Provide appropriate timely, and effective coverine fire

to support overwatch element's advance

1l

..

r!

L.
4-

Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

6.0 General Performance Criteria

6.2 Detect all targets within sector, without false detections

(objective level)

6.2.1 Locate all threats within sector in a timely fashion

(functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

6.2.1.1 Locate and recognize target signautres quickly and accurately

6.2.1.2 Locate and recognize actual targets quickly and accurately

6.2.2 Provide accurate, complete intelligence information consistent

with the mission (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to"

6.2.2.1 Provide accurate, timely, and useful information concerning

what was observed

6.2.2.2 Provide accurate, timely and useful information concerning

how many were observed

6.2.2.3 Provide accurate, timely and useful information concerning where

and when the observations were made

6.2.2.4 Provide accurate, timely, and useful information concerning what

the enemy was doing

6.2.3 Formulate appropriate and timely tactical decisions concerning

detection of threats (functional purpose level)

rCharacteristics Level

System must be able to: 'I.

6.2.3.1 Assess the degree of threat to squad and platoon accurately and timely

6.2.3.2 Assess accurately system status and system capabilities as well as

threat's capabilities

6.2.3.3 Assess accurately degree of the threat jeopardy to the mission

-185-
Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

6.0 General Performance Criteria

6.3 Engage successfully all appropriate targets within sector,

with minimum expenditure of time and resources

(objective level)

6.3.1 When appropriate, destroy/nautralize/suppress target

in a timely and efficient manner (functional purpose level)

.' Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

6.3.1.1 Maximize self-preservation while conducting effective weapon

fire operations

6.3.1.2 Direct and produce accurate, timely conduct of fire to destroy/

nautralize the threat PTD

6.3.1.3 Hit the target with appropriate amount of ammunition in order

to destroy/neutralize/suppress threat

6.3.1.4 Assess threat destruction/neutralization/suppression accurately

and timely

6.3.1.5 Cease fire upon successful destruction/neutralization/suppression

of the threat

6.3.2 Engage successfully all appropriate threats in a timely and efficient

manner to provide for self protection (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be able to:

24 6.3.2.1 Produce weapon fire sufficient to deny the threat's ability to

produce effective weapons fire operations

6.3.2.2 Make proper use of available armor protection to deny the threat's

ability to produce effective weapon's fire operations

%-16-
Crew Compartment Team Subsystem

6.0 General Performance Criteria

1 6.3 Engage successfully all appropriate targets within sector,

with minimum expenditure of time and resources

(objective level)

6.3.3 Seize the advantage of the situation by efficient use of =- . terrain and system capabilities (functional purpose level)

Characteristics Level

System must be ablt to:

6.3.3.1 Establish and maintain fire superiority over the likely

threat positions

6.3.3.2 Use system weapon's capabilities to deny threat's abilities

to conduct effective offensive operations

6.3.3.3 Use system weapons to gain fire superiority in order to

reduce/neutralize/suppress threat's defensive capabilities A

.'

-17