A Human Factors Assessment of the Maneuver Command 

and Control (MC2) Interface at Company Level and Below 

by Bruce S. Sterling and Cheryl A. Burns 

ARL-TR-3364 November 2004 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
NOTICES 

Disclaimers 

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position 

unless so designated by other authorized documents. 

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or 

approval of the use thereof. 

DESTRUCTION NOTICEDestroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to 

the originator. 
Army Research Laboratory 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425 

ARL-TR-3364 November 2004 

A Human Factors Assessment of the Maneuver Command 

and Control (MC2) Interface at Company Level and Below 

Bruce S. Sterling and Cheryl A. Burns 

Human Research & Engineering Directorate, ARL 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
ii 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and 

Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 

person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

 November 2004 

2. REPORT TYPE 

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

 A Human Factors Assessment of the Maneuver Command and Control (MC2) 

 Interface at Company Level and Below 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

 62716AH70

5e. TASK NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

 Bruce S. Sterling and Cheryl A. Burns (both of ARL) 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

 U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

 Human Research & Engineering Directorate 

 Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

 REPORT NUMBER 

 ARL-TR-3364 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBERS 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

14. ABSTRACT 

Research for the November 2003 Unit of Action Developmental Experiment 1, which was conducted by the Human Research and Engineering 

Directorate of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory, had three objectives. The first was to assess the level of functionality of the maneuver 

command and control (MC2) system as a C2 interface at company level and below. The second was to determine operator situational 

awareness (SA) and workload levels. The third objective was to examine aspects of the interface design, such as visual display, to determine 

if the Soldier-machine interface was satisfactory. The MC2 was subjectively rated by users at company level and below as performing poorly 

on many key functions necessary for C2 in an automated manner and in assisting users in performing these functions. These functions 

included maintain SA; access relevant information; collaboratively develop plans; develop operations orders (OPORDs) and create graphics; 

distribute OPORDs and graphics; rehearse the plan; maneuver forces; call for fires; control fires; notice changes in the situation in a timely 

manner; and respond to changes in a timely manner. This could be a result of the limited training (three days) that the personnel received but 

also reflects the need to improve interface design. Given the results noted here, it is no surprise that the SA of MC2 users was insufficient 

with a mean rating of 6 (insufficient; not aware of all the information required to perform the task) on a scale of 10 (higher numbers = higher 

SA) for all trials. However, even though the interface did not help users much on critical functions, workload was rated moderate with a mean 

of 5 (reduced spare capacity on a scale of 10 (higher numbers = higher workload) for all tasks. This was probably because some units were 

not “in the fight” during most of the time in the scenario but were waiting for the situation to develop. Concerning interface design, most 

aspects of the visual display interface were seen as borderline, which suggests difficulties in Soldiers’ seeing objects on the screen. 

Concerning software functionality, intuitiveness was evenly divided between borderline and poor; feedback was generally seen as poor, while 

usability was again divided between borderline and poor. Maps and graphics were generally rated borderline to poor with overlays rated most 

positively. Concerning information management, sending messages was rated mostly borderline, while maintenance was rated mostly as poor. 

Many aspects of the interface were only occasionally used. Only OPORDs and graphics were used consistently. However, most aspects were 

rated as borderline to poor in ease of use, which may account for why they were not used more frequently. Results are discussed in terms of 

subject matter expert and participant observations, suggesting reasons for the low ratings, and highlighting those aspects of the interface that 

users would like to see improved. Recommendations are made concerning changes in the MC2 that would improve SA, facilitate the

development of OPORDs and rehearse the plan collaboratively, simplify calls for fire and controlling fires, and enhance interface design. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

 battle command; command and control interface; common operational picture; maneuver command and control 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

 Bruce S. Sterling 

a. REPORT 

 UNCLASSIFIED 

b. ABSTRACT 

UNCLASSIFIED

c. THIS PAGE 

UNCLASSIFIED

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

30 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

 502-624-1964 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iii 

Contents 

List of Figures v

List of Tables vi

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Overview .........................................................................................................................1 

1.2 Experiment ......................................................................................................................1 

2. Method 2

2.1 Participants ......................................................................................................................2 

2.2 Instruments ......................................................................................................................2 

2.3 Procedure.........................................................................................................................2 

2.4 Analyses ..........................................................................................................................3 

3. Results 3

3.1 Overall Summary ............................................................................................................3 

3.2 Automation of Functions and Assistance With Key Tasks (Objective 1).......................4 

3.2.1 Automation of Functions.....................................................................................4 

3.2.2 Assistance With Key Task Performance .............................................................6 

3.3 Situational Awareness and Workload Using the MC2 (Objective 2) .............................6 

3.3.1 Situational Awareness .........................................................................................7 

3.3.2 Workload .............................................................................................................7 

3.4 MC2 Interface Design (Objective 3)...............................................................................8 

3.4.1 Visual Display .....................................................................................................8 

3.4.2 Software Functionality ........................................................................................9 

3.4.3 Maps and Graphics............................................................................................10 

3.4.4 Information Management ..................................................................................13 

3.4.5 Frequency and Ease of use of Functions and Application ................................14 

3.4.6 Command and Control ......................................................................................17 

3.4.7 Use of MC2 and SC4.........................................................................................18 

3.4.8 Information From After-Action Reviews..........................................................18 

4. Conclusions 19

4.1 Objective 1 (automated functions) ................................................................................19 
iv 

4.2 Improve SA by Noticing and Responding to Changes in Maneuver Units While 

Improving Access to Relevant Information ...........................................................................19 

4.3 Develop OPORDs and Rehearse Plan Collaboratively.................................................20 

4.4 Calls for Fire and Controlling Fires ..............................................................................21 

4.5 Objective 2 (Workload and SA)....................................................................................21 

4.6 Objective 3: (Interface design).....................................................................................22 

4.7 Comparison With Other Battle Command Systems......................................................23 

5. References 24

Appendix A. Data Tables 25

Appendix B. Company and Platoon Level Functions and Workload Survey 31

Appendix C. Visual Display Survey 35

Distribution List 41 
v 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Automation of current operations tasks...........................................................................5 

Figure 2. Automation of future operations tasks. ...........................................................................5 

Figure 3. Automation of terrain analysis tasks. ..............................................................................5

Figure 4. Ratings of MC2 functions on assisting in key tasks........................................................6 

Figure 5. SA and workload ratings. ................................................................................................7 

Figure 6. Visual display assessments..............................................................................................8 

Figure 7. Software functionality-intuitiveness................................................................................9 

Figure 8. Software functionality-feedback. ....................................................................................9 

Figure 9. Software functionality-usability. ...................................................................................10 

Figure 10. Maps and graphics-maps. ............................................................................................11 

Figure 11. Maps and graphics-overlays........................................................................................11 

Figure 12. Maps and graphics-symbology....................................................................................12 

Figure 13. Maps and graphics-other. ............................................................................................13 

Figure 14. Information management-sending messages................................................................13 

Figure 15. Information management-maintenance.......................................................................14 

Figure 16. Frequency of use-maps and graphics. .........................................................................15 

Figure 17. Ease of use maps and graphics. ...................................................................................15

Figure 18. Frequency of use-information management................................................................16 

Figure 19. Ease of use-information management. ........................................................................16 

Figure 20. Frequency of use-C2 functions....................................................................................17

Figure 21. Ease of use-C2 functions.............................................................................................17 

Figure 22. Use of SC4 and MC2...................................................................................................18 
vi 

List of Tables 

Table A-1. Ratings of MC2 functions on assisting in key tasks...................................................25 

Table A-2. SA and workload for operator utilizing MC2..............................................................26 

Table A-3. Visual display assessment ..........................................................................................26 

Table A-4. Software functionality ................................................................................................27 

Table A-5. Maps and graphics......................................................................................................28 

Table A-6. Information management............................................................................................29 

Table A-7. Frequency and ease of use of the following functions and applications ....................29
1 

1. Introduction 

1.1 Overview 

Research conducted by the Human Research and Engineering Directorate of the U.S. Army 

Research Laboratory for the Unit of Action Developmental Experiment (UADEV) 1 had three 

objectives in assessing the surrogate battle command system interface (maneuver command and 

control) for future force use: 

 1. Assess command and control (C2) functionality, 

 2. Determine operator SA and workload levels, and 

 3. Assess interface design. 

A brief overview of the experiment is presented, followed by a description of the experimental 

method. Results are then given for each of the three objectives, followed by a summary and 

explanation of the results and recommendations. 

1.2 Experiment 

The UADEV 1 was conducted from 10 to 20 November 2003 at the Unit of Action Battle 

Laboratory’s (UAMBL) mounted warfare test bed at Fort Knox, Kentucky. The purpose of the 

UADEV 1 was to examine networked battle command at the company level and below and 

refine the operational requirements document for the future C2 system (U.S. Army Armor 

School and Center, 2003). 

The experiment was based on the future combat system organizational and operational concept 

(Department of the Army, 2003) and involved a C2 cell for one combined arms battalion (CAB), 

with five maneuver company teams that consisted of a reconnaissance, surveillance, and target 

acquisition (RSTA) company, two infantry companies, and two mounted combat system (MCS) 

companies. The RSTA company and one MCS company had subordinate platoons, while the 

other three companies were represented by a company commander, with platoons controlled by 

research assistants. An aviation squadron, non-line-of-sight (NLOS) battalion, and a mortar 

battery were “played” as a constructive simulation1

. The unit of action (UA) and opposing 

forces (OPFOR) were represented by a “white cell2” which served as higher headquarters for the 

CAB and controlled the OPFOR. 

The experiment was preceded by three days of training. The first day consisted of individual 

through company-level training, and the final two days were devoted to training as a CAB. A 

 1In constructive simulation, an entire unit (such as a company or battalion) is controlled by one person, versus 

having crews in each vehicle as in virtual simulation. 

2A white cell consists of personnel who role played higher headquarters in the simulation.
2 

two-day pilot test was run, followed by six days of experimental runs, with three days for each of 

two trials. The pilot test primarily involved movement from the assembly area, with little enemy 

contact. The first experimental trial involved an attack in open terrain with an infantry platoon 

attached to the MCS company, while the second experimental trial was an attack in urban terrain. 

The simulation was relatively stable over the experiment, with relatively few “crashes” or 

problems with system integration. There were some lags in the revisions of the common 

operational picture (COP), but these were not so severe or common as to disrupt the experiment. 

2. Method 

2.1 Participants 

Participants were 19 personnel with current or previous active duty experience, who role played 

company commanders, platoon leaders, and squad leaders. Data were collected through surveys 

from the following leadership positions: five company-level leaders (commanders or executive 

officer); four platoon-level leaders (platoon leaders or platoon sergeant]); and five squad-level 

leaders (squad leaders or robotics non-commissioned officer [NCO]). Not all respondents 

answered the item concerning position, and not all participants answered all other survey items. 

2.2 Instruments 

The survey was the primary instrument for this experiment and contained of six types of 

questions. The first type of question was to determine which functions the maneuver command 

and control (MC2) could perform automatically. The second type of question was to determine 

how well the MC2 interface assisted with tasks that could not be fully automated. The third type 

asked participants to rate their situational awareness (SA) and workload to perform certain tasks 

during the trials. The fourth type of question examined interface design (e.g., visual display, 

intuitiveness of design). The fifth and sixth types of questions examined frequency and ease of 

use of key functions. 

2.3 Procedure 

Surveys were administered to each participant three times: after the pilot test, trial 1 and trial 2. 

The surveys were on line and respondents completed the surveys after they completed the trials. 

For each question, responses were tabulated for each of three runs and overall (all three runs 

combined). A total of 36 to 40 responses per question was collected; 17 to 19 respondents 

answered questions concerning the pilot, 13 to 15 answered questions about the first trial run, 

and six answered questions about the second trial run. 
3 

2.4 Analyses 

Because of the small number of respondents and the repeated surveys, only descriptive statistics 

were used. Except for objective 1 (tasks that could be automated), responses were analyzed by 

trial and totaled over all trials to provide an overall view of the results. For objective 1, only 

overall results were provided. It was determined that breaking responses into three categories 

(automated tasks, tasks that the interface assists in performing, tasks that the interface cannot 

perform) and then three trials would result in an insufficient number of responses per cell to 

provide for an effective interpretation. The figures in the main body of the report present overall 

data only. The tables in appendix A present data from all three trials as well as overall data. 

The following conventions are used in discussing the figures. If 75% or more of the responses 

were in the top two categories (e.g., good or very good; easy or very easy; often or always) of the 

five-point scale, the item was considered “good” or “used”. If 50% to less than 75% of the 

responses were in the top two categories, the item was considered “borderline”. If less than 50% 

of the responses were in the top two categories, the item was considered “poor” or “not used”. 

3. Results

3.1 Overall Summary 

Results address three objectives: automation of functions, workload and SA, and interface 

design. 

The only functions that respondents agreed could be automated were identification of type and 

strength of friendly units. Respondents also rated the interface as poor in performing many 

functions that required user input (i.e., functions that could not be automated), such as maintain 

SA and control fires. While some of these ratings could be attributed to lack of training (only 

three days), it was apparent that interface design needed to be improved as well. 

SA was insufficient (since the interface could not perform many key functions well, the 

insufficient SA is not surprising), and workload was seen as relatively low (which could have 

resulted from the pace of the scenario). 

Most ratings for interface design were borderline to poor. Maps and overlays were the only 

features used frequently. Most interface features were rated as borderline to poor in ease of use, 

which may account for their infrequent use. The simulated command, control, communications, 

and computer (SC4) interface was generally used more than the MC2 interface, particularly in 

the urban fight. 

User comments derived from the data analysis are used to identify specific improvements needed 

in the MC2. 
4 

3.2 Automation of Functions and Assistance With Key Tasks (Objective 1) 

This objective was divided into two parts: 

 1. Assess function automation, and 

 2. Assess functions that could assist in key tasks. 

There was no clear consensus whether the MC2 could perform key functions automatically, with 

operator assistance, or at all. Most respondents indicated that the MC2 could automatically 

identify type and strength of friendly units. MC2 is designed similarly to Force XXI battle 

command brigade and below (FBCB2) in that location and composition (type and strength) of all 

friendly units in the network are automatically and continuously reported. Also, most stated that 

the MC2 could assist the operator in identifying enemy strength and civilian strength, as well as 

projecting future location of friendly units. That is, the interface could not actually do these 

functions but could provide information to the user so that the user could perform the task. 

There were no functions that most respondents felt the interface could not perform. 

3.2.1 Automation of Functions 

Before the experiment, 16 functions were identified as being possible to fully automate (i.e., 

could be automatically performed by the interface without user input) at the company level and 

below. Soldiers were asked to assess if the MC2 could perform these functions automatically. If 

it could not, Soldiers were to assess whether the MC2 could assist them (with some user input) in 

performing those functions or if the interface was unable to perform the function at all. 

Figure 1 shows ratings of automation of current operations tasks. For two tasks (identify friendly 

unit type and strength), a bare majority indicated that the tasks can be automated. MC2 is 

designed similarly to Force XXI FBCB2 in that location and composition (i.e., type and strength) 

of all friendly units in the network are automatically and continuously reported. Also, most 

respondents stated that MC2 could assist them in identifying enemy strength and strength of 

civilians on the battlefield. 

Figure 2 shows ratings of automation of future operations tasks. Most respondents agreed that 

the MC2 could assist users in projecting future locations of friendly units. This is a key element 

of assessing the progress of the current plan. 

Figure 3 shows ratings of automation of terrain analysis tasks. There is no clear consensus 

concerning whether the MC2 can perform these tasks automatically, assist the user, or not 

perform them at all. It seems desirable that identifying types of terrain and their effects on 

friendly maneuver should be automated. 
5 

Automation of Current Operations Tasks

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

IDs

friendly

unit type 

IDs

friendly

unit

strength 

IDs

friendly

unit

location

IDs

enemy

unit type

IDs

enemy

unit

strength

IDs

enemy

unit

location

Provides

current

logistical

information

Provides

strength

of civilians

on

battlefield

Tasks

Percentage

Performs Automatically

Assists

Cannot Perform

Figure 1. Automation of current operations tasks. 

Automation of Future Operations Tasks

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Projects 

future location 

of friendly 

units

Projects 

predicted 

attrition of 

friendly units

Projects

future 

location 

of enemy 

units

Projects

predicted 

attrition of 

enemy units

War games

courses of 

action (COAs)

Tasks

Percentage

Performs Automatically

Assists

Cannot Perform

Figure 2. Automation of future operations tasks. 

Automation Terrain Analysis Tasks

0

5

10

20

25

3035

40

45

50

Locates 

obstacles 

on terrain

Identifies

restricted, 

severely 

restricted, 

impossible 

terrain

Identifies effects

of terrain on 

friendly 

maneuver

Tasks

Percentage

Performs Automatically

Assists

Cannot Perform

15

Figure 3. Automation of terrain analysis tasks. 
6 

3.2.2 Assistance With Key Task Performance 

Eleven high-level tasks (e.g., maintain SA) critical to battle command, which the MC2 could 

assist the Soldier in performing, were identified with input from UAMBL personnel before the 

experiment. Results in figure 4 show that no tasks were rated positively by most overall 

respondents. Since operators only received a few days of training, it could be that with more 

training, the ratings would have improved. However, it is likely that improvements in interface 

design are needed as well. 

Only for one trial (trial 2) did half or more of respondents rate the performance of the MC2 as 

good or very good on all tasks (see appendix A, table A-1). Since this was the last trial, the 

results may represent some improvement as a result of experience. However, because of the 

smaller number of respondents, this information may be suspect. The pilot results showed that 

exactly half rated the MC2 as good or very good in developing operation orders (OPORDs) and 

graphics (see appendix A, table A-1). 

Ratings of MC2 functions on assisting in key tasks

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Maintain SA

Access relevant information

Develop plans collaboratively

Develop OPORDs and graphics

Distribute OPORDs and Graphics

Rehearse the plan

Maneuver forces

Call for fires

Control fires

Notice changes rapidly

Respond to changes rapidly

Tasks

Percentage 

Percent of favorable responses

Figure 4. Ratings of MC2 functions on assisting in key tasks. 

3.3 Situational Awareness and Workload Using the MC2 (Objective 2) 

SA and workload were rated on 10-point behaviorally anchored scales (see appendix B). Results 

indicated that SA was insufficient and did not vary substantially over trials. SA was slightly 

lower in the third trial, perhaps reflecting the inherent difficulty of maintaining SA in urban 

combat (see appendix A, table A-2). Workload was relatively low throughout and even lower in 
7 

the last trial (see appendix A, table A-2). This may be a result of learning, but it is based on a 

small number of observations. 

3.3.1 Situational Awareness 

As shown in figure 5, SA was insufficient. Given the ratings of the ability of the interface to 

perform key C2 functions, it is not surprising that the interface did not provide good SA. The 

simulation itself was relatively stable over the experiment, so the rating of SA is unlikely to be 

attributed to problems with the simulation itself. 

Appendix A, table A-2 shows SA ratings for all trials. The SA was rated approximately 6 

(insufficient-not aware of all the information required to perform the task) on a scale of 10 

(higher numbers = higher SA) for all trials. The SA for trial 3 was slightly lower than for other 

trials, although ratings of effectiveness of MC2 were higher for that mission. Based on these 

results, it appears that the MC2 did not provide sufficient SA. 

3.3.2 Workload 

As indicated in figure 5, workload was relatively low. This may reflect a lack of activity during 

the trial while we were waiting for events to develop. Overall, workload was 5 (spare capacity 

was reduced) on a scale of 10 (higher numbers = higher workload) for all tasks. The workload to 

plan missions appeared to be slightly lower than the workload for the other three tasks, which 

suggests that not much planning was performed (or that planning is not as cognitively complex 

as execution or task management). 

Workload for all trials is shown in appendix A, table A-2. Workload for trial 3 was slightly 

lower than workload for the other trials, except for workload to plan a mission. This may reflect 

more experience with the interface but is based on a small number of respondents. 

SA and Workload Ratings

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SA Workload to

maintain

SA

Workload to

plan

missions

Workload to

maneuver

forces

Workload to

control fires

SA and Workload

Rating

Mean rating

Figure 5. SA and workload ratings. 
8 

3.4 MC2 Interface Design (Objective 3) 

Interface design is divided into four areas: visual display, software functionality, maps and 

graphics, and information management. Most aspects of the visual display were seen as 

borderline, which suggests that Soldiers were having some difficulties in seeing objects on the 

monitor. Concerning software functionality, intuitiveness was evenly divided between 

borderline and poor; feedback was generally seen as poor, while usability was again divided 

between borderline and poor. Maps and graphics were generally rated borderline to poor with 

overlays rated most positively. Concerning information management, sending and receiving 

messages was rated mostly borderline, while maintenance was rated mostly as poor. In addition, 

interface design addressed the frequency and ease of use of different MC2 features. Many 

aspects of the interface (other than maps and overlays) were not frequently used. Many aspects 

were rated as difficult to use, which may partially account for the fact that they were not used. 

3.4.1 Visual Display 

Most aspects of the visual display are seen as borderline (50% to less than 75% of favorable 

responses). Figure 6 shows assessment of various visual display aspects. Only contrast, field of 

view, and finding the cursor (38% of the items) were rated good (75% or more favorable 

responses) overall. All other ratings of the visual aspects of the interface (62%) were borderline, 

which indicates that improvements could be made in the display. Many of the borderline ratings 

seem to concern intensity, sharpness, and general resolution, thus suggesting that Soldiers were 

having difficulty in seeing objects on the monitor. 

As shown in appendix A, table A-3, ratings of the pilot test (the least challenging) were the most 

positive. 

Visual display assessments

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Intensity Contrast

between

colors on

screen

Sharpness

of displayed

images

Adjustability

of viewing

angle

Field of view

of monitor

General

resolution

Location Ease of

finding

cursor on

screen

Aspect of display

Percentage

Percentage of favorable ratings

Figure 6. Visual display assessments. 
9 

3.4.2 Software Functionality 

Software functionality was assessed in three categories: intuitiveness, feedback, and usability. 

Intuitiveness was evenly divided between borderline and poor. Feedback was generally seen as 

poor, while usability was again divided between borderline and poor. 

3.4.2.1 Intuitiveness 

As shown in figure 7, the items were divided evenly between borderline and poor (less than 50% 

favorable responses), which indicates that improvement is needed in making the software more 

intuitive; even the borderline areas were in the low end of the scale (50s and 60s). The areas of 

finding needed information, consistency from one application to another, and intuitiveness of 

abbreviations, codes, and acronyms were rated particularly low. 

Software functionality-intuitiveness

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Intuitiveness

of window

labels

Intuitiveness

of processes

Logical

sequences of

processes

Finding

needed info

Intuitiveness

of

abbreviations

etc.

Consistency

Location of

windows

Aspect

Percentage

Percentage of favorable ratings

Figure 7. Software functionality-intuitiveness. 

3.4.2.2 Software Feedback 

As shown in figure 8, nearly all aspects (81%) were rated poor. Problems appeared to center in 

the areas of error avoidance or correction, alerts concerning incoming information, or navigating 

the interface. This is an area that particularly needs improvement. 

Software functionality-feedback

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Feedback

from

applications

Error

recovery

Helping to

avoid

mistakes

Audible

alerts to

mistakes

Audible

alerts to

incoming

information

Visual alerts

to

information

Visual alerts

to mistakes

Prompts and

helps

Menu

selection

Ability to

identify

incoming

critical

information

Ability to

identify

incoming

information

Aspect

Percentage

Percentage of favorable ratings

Figure 8. Software functionality-feedback. 
10 

3.4.2.3 Usability 

As shown in figure 9, ratings were divided between borderline (60% of items) and (40%) poor. 

Significantly, overall user friendliness was rated as poor. 

Software functionality-usability

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Flexibility of 

automated 

tools

Power MC2 

and log on

Aspect

Percentage

Percentage of 

favorable responses

Usability 

of “hot keys”

Overall user

friendliness

Stop and re-start a 

process

Figure 9. Software functionality-usability. 

As shown in appendix A, table A-4, over all areas, the pilot test (least challenging) had the 

highest ratings, whereas the first experimental trial had the worst ratings. This could represent 

the contrast between the easy run and the first more demanding trial. 

3.4.3 Maps and Graphics 

Maps and graphics were assessed in four categories: maps, overlays, symbology, and other 

functions. In general, these aspects were rated borderline to poor, with overlays rated most 

positively. 

3.4.3.1 Maps 

As shown in figure 10, maps were rated as borderline (67% of the items) to poor (33%). 

Performing terrain analysis was seen as particularly poor, which corresponded to user comments. 
11 

Maps and graphics-maps

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

terrain feature

size

Map tool

functionality

Terrain analysis

Aspect

Percentage

Percentage of favorable

responses

Figure 10. Maps and graphics-maps. 

3.4.3.2 Overlays 

As shown in figure 11, overlays were rated as borderline (83% of the items) to good (17%). The 

capability of saving an overlay was seen as especially good. 

Maps and graphics-overlays

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Create an

overlay

Display

an overlay

Save an

overlay

Import an

overlay

Create

and save

an area of

interest

Create

and save

a

shapshot

Aspect

Percentage

Percentage of favorable

responses

Figure 11. Maps and graphics-overlays. 
12 

3.4.3.3 Symbology 

As shown in figure 12, symbology was rated as borderline (67% of the items) to poor (33%). 

Non-combatant symbols, unit boundaries, and making changes in units (command relationships) 

were seen as especially poor. The non-combatant symbols were as large as unit symbols, which 

could have led to their negative ratings. Users commented that they would like units to be color 

coded to indicate identity or ownership. If it existed in this version, it was not taught. 

Maps and graphics-symbology

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Alphanumeric

character size

Noncombatant

symbology

Icon size

Edit overlay

symbols

Unit symbol

size

Unit

identification

General

symbol size

Unit

boundaries

Change

command

relationship

Aspect

Percentage

Percentage of favorable responses

Figure 12. Maps and graphics-symbology. 

3.4.3.4 Other 

Under the “other” category, the animation tool (used for planning) was rated barely borderline, 

while “whiteboards3” were rated poor (see figure 13). Generally, effective standing operating 

procedures (SOPs) must be established before members can be joined to a whiteboard 

conference without “crashing” the system. 

Ratings of maps and graphics for all trials are shown in appendix A, table A-5. Again, as with 

other ratings, the pilot test generally had the most positive ratings, with the first trial receiving 

the most negative. 

 3A whiteboard is software that enables personnel in separate locations to conduct collaborative planning. In a 

collaborative session, using the same operational graphics, participants can draw proposed routes, etc., on their 

computer screens, and all others in the whiteboard conference can see them. Audio communication by radio is also 

available to all participants.
13 

Maps and graphics-other

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Use animation tool Operate whiteboard

Aspect

Percentage

Percentage of favorable

responses

Figure 13. Maps and graphics-other. 

3.4.4 Information Management 

Information management was divided into sending/receiving messages and maintenance. 

Sending/receiving messages was typically rated as borderline, while maintenance was rated 

mostly as poor. 

3.4.4.1 Sending Messages 

As shown in figure 14, sending/receiving messages was rated as borderline for 80% of the items, 

while 20% were rated as poor. Distributing outgoing information was rated as poor, which 

corresponded to user comments about transmitting OPORDs and graphics. 

Information management-sending/receiving messages

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Aspect

Percentage

Percentage of favorable 

responses

Create a 

messa

g

e

Send a 

message

Access 

incoming 

messa

ges

Create a 

distribution 

list

Ease of 

distributing 

information 

Figure 14. Information management-sending/receiving messages. 
14 

3.4.4.2 Maintenance 

As shown in figure 15, maintenance was generally rated as poor (83% of the items, with 17% as 

borderline). Only copying and moving files were rated as borderline. All other aspects of file or 

database management were rated as poor. This is another area that needs improvement. 

Ratings for information management on all trials are shown in appendix A, table A-6. Again, the 

pilot test received the most positive ratings and the first trial received the most negative. 

Information management-maintenance

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Aspect

Percentage

Percentage of favorable responses

Copy and 

move files 

Create 

directories

Create and 

display reports

Back up a 

database

Restore a 

database

Create an 

OPORD

Interface 

with Army 

Battle 

Command 

System 

(ABCS)

Figure 15. Information management-maintenance. 

3.4.5 Frequency and Ease of use of Functions and Application 

Frequency and ease of use of functions and applications are divided into three categories: maps 

and graphics, information management, and C2 functions. Because of transcription errors 

between the survey submitted and the survey placed on the web browser, frequency questions 

were not asked for all the same items as were ease of use questions, leading to some of the data 

being missing. Overall, the only features that were reported used with any frequency were maps 

and overlays. Ease of use was rated from borderline to poor for most items, with maps and 

graphics having the most favorable rating. 

3.4.5.1 Maps and Graphics 

Figure 16 shows that these were rated as not used except for maps and overlays (17% of the 

items). In the after-action reviews, the ability to construct and transmit graphic control measures 

was one aspect of the C2 interface cited as critical. Maps and overlays were the only functions 

used often or always by half or more respondents overall. 
15 

Frequency of use-maps and graphics

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Maps and overlays

Graphic tool

Drawing tool

MCOO

Line of sight tool

3D view tool

Field of view tool

Snapshot

Whiteboard

Aspect

Percentage

Percentage of responses

indicating frequent use

Figure 16. Frequency of use-maps and graphics. 

Figure 17 shows that maps and overlays were rated borderline along with most maps and 

graphics tools (78%). Only the modified combined obstacle overlay (MCOO) and whiteboard 

were rated as poor. As stated earlier, the whiteboard was difficult without a good SOP. Good 

SOPs were developed for use in other experiments. 

Ease of use-maps and graphics

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Maps and overlays

Graphic tool

Drawing tool

MCOO

Line of sight tool

3D view tool

Field of view tool

Snapshot

Whiteboard

Aspect

Percentage

Percentage of favorable

responses

Figure 17. Ease of use maps and graphics. 

3.4.5.2 Information Management 

As shown in figure 18, these features were rarely used, possibly because Soldiers were not trained. 
16 

Frequency of use-information management

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Filters Sending/

Receiving

Messages

Netscape Microsoft

Office

Aspect

Percentage

Percentage of responses 

indicating frequent use

Figure 18. Frequency of use-information management. 

Figure 19 shows that ease of use for information management tools was rated as borderline (50% 

of items) to poor (50% of items). Surprisingly, Netscape4 and Office5 were rated poor in the ease 

of use, perhaps reflecting the ease of accessing these features from MC2 or integration of these 

features with MC2. Although demographic data about the participants were not available, many 

users had participated in other UAMBL experiments and had seemed reasonably computer 

literate. 

Ease of use-information management

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Filters Messaging Netscape Microsoft

Office

Aspect

Percentage

Percentage of favorable

responses 

Ease of use-information management

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Filters Netscape Microsoft

Office

Aspect

Percentage

Percentage of 

favorable responses

Sending/

Receiving

Messages

Figure 19. Ease of use-information management. 

 4 Netscape® is a registered trademark of Netscape. 

5 OfficeTM is a trademark of Microsoft Corp. 
17 

3.4.6 Command and Control 

Figure 20 shows that these functions were rarely used. Perhaps most of these functions were not 

used because participants saw no need for these tools at company level and below or there was a 

lack of training. 

Frequency of use-C2 functions

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Aspect

Percentage

Percentage of responses

indicating frequent use

Unit task 

or

ganization

Operation plan 

(OPLAN)-OPORDfragmentary 

order (FRAGO)

Synchronize 

matrix

Force-toforce ratio

Animation 

system

C2 productsUnix file 

manager

Figure 20. Frequency of use-C2 functions. 

However, figure 21 shows that their ease of use was rated borderline (67% of items) to poor 

(33%), especially OPORDs and synchronization matrices. 

Frequency and ease of use ratings for all trials are reported in appendix A, table A-7. Frequency 

of use was relatively uniformly low over all trials, but ease of use was again rated highest on 

trial 2. Again, this may reflect a learning curve or be an artifact of the small number of 

respondents. 

Ease of use-C2 functions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Aspect

Percentage

Percentage of favorable responses

Unit task 

or

ganization

Synchronize 

matrix

OPLANOPORDFRAGO 

Force-toforce ratio

Animation 

system

C2 productsUnix file 

manager

Figure 21. Ease of use-C2 functions. 
18 

3.4.7 Use of MC2 and SC4 

Figure 22 shows use of the MC2 versus the SC4 interface. The SC4 is another battle command 

interface developed by UAMBL, which was also available to the users. The SC4 had higher 

usage than the MC2 in both trials, thus suggesting that this is the C2 system of choice for more 

demanding trials. Standard deviations for both systems were comparable (34.3 for SC4 and 31.5 

for MC2). Comments indicated that the SC4 had a better digital map, which was especially 

critical in the urban vignette (trial 2). Furthermore, the SC4 was more comparable to the 3-D 

(out of “vision blocks”) imagery seen from simulated vehicles. Both systems were used more on 

trial 2, which could suggest that C2 systems are particularly important in urban operations. 

Use of SC4 and MC2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Pilot Trial 1 Trial 2 Total

Exercise Run

Percentage of time used

SC4

MC2

Figure 22. Use of SC4 and MC2. 

3.4.8 Information From After-Action Reviews 

The ability to quickly and easily create and send overlays with graphic control measures was the 

most commonly requested feature. In order to develop graphic control measures, users requested 

a template of pre-formatted graphics, as well as the ability to easily initiate a collaborative 

session and draw with a “Madden pen”6

. A separate window (or monitor) for collaboration was 

also desired. These remarks match survey findings that maps and overlays and drawing tools for 

maps and overlays were the only tools reported used often or very often by most respondents. 

Other features mentioned as useful were 

 1. Ability to tailor the visual display (color code units with own choice of colors; have 

only certain units, such as platoons in your company, displayed); this may relate to the rating of 

difficulty of changing command relationships. 

 6provides the ability to draw on the map with the mouse 
19 

 2. Ability to track logistics (fuel, ammunition, etc.). 

 3. Auto template of range fan of enemy weapons. 

 4. Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) footprint (range fan of UAV sensors). 

 5. Filters for different sensor views (i.e., entities identified by your platoon’s sensors 

only, company’s sensors, etc.). 

 6. Indicators of areas where current fire missions are scheduled. 

 7. Better target identification and battle damage assessment (BDA)—more a systems 

problem than an interface issue. 

4. Conclusions 

Results address three objectives: automation of functions, workload and SA, and interface 

design. 

4.1 Objective 1 (automated functions) 

The MC2 was rated as only performing 2 of 16 key functions automatically: identification of 

type and location of friendly units. Improvements are needed in terms of automated information 

about the enemy, terrain analysis features, logistics, and decision tools (e.g., projecting 

movement). 

The MC2 was rated by users at company level and below as not supporting many key functions 

necessary for C2. These functions included maintain SA, access relevant information, develop 

plans collaboratively, develop OPORDs and create graphics, distribute OPORDs and graphics, 

rehearse the plan, maneuver forces, call for fires, control fires, notice changes in the situation in a 

timely manner, and respond to changes in a timely manner. 

Comments from subject matter experts (SMEs) and participants can, to some extent, explain why 

functionality was rated poorly in these areas. The functions just listed are grouped in section 4.2 

into similar clusters, and reasons gleaned from SMEs and participants that may explain these 

ratings are provided for each cluster. 

4.2 Improve SA by Noticing and Responding to Changes in Maneuver Units While 

Improving Access to Relevant Information 

 1. The UAVs did not report the presence of enemy dismounts to either the MC2 or SC4. 

Thus, players were uninformed about locations and concentrations of enemy dismounts. 
20 

 2. The interface should reflect the timeliness of information (i.e., how old is the 

information or when was the last revision). 

 3. The interface should incorporate an alarm system to alert the user when sensor 

coverage of an area is lost. 

 4. A “reach-back” capability to access historical and contemporary information from 

UA and national assets is needed. 

 5. Players were not able to tailor the MC2 display to their needs. For example, players 

were not able to color code units (e.g., one color for their company, another for other units in 

their battalion), set filters to display only certain units, or group or ungroup units easily. Other 

tools or filters requested were logistics tracking (fuel, ammunition, etc.) by specific unit; 

displaying range fans of enemy and friendly systems, including UAVs; a filter for what different 

sensors see (e.g., what my unit sensors see versus what other network sensors see); a filter for 

identifying enemy units; and a filter for where current fire missions are scheduled. 

 6. The MC2 map did a poor job of identifying urban areas. The MC2 map was simply a 

picture. When the “zoom in” function was used, the picture was degraded into an 

incomprehensible mass of shape and color (as noted in the UAMBL report). A digital map, 

similar to that in SC4, is needed to enhance SA in urban areas. 

 7. The MC2 map did not match what could be seen out of “vision blocks” of simulated 

vehicles. 

 8. There was no clear decision-making process (i.e., no decision-making tactics, 

techniques, and procedures [TTPs]) in the experiment. That is, with the COP, certain processes 

in the military decision-making process (such as developing three courses of action) seem to be 

obviated, but there was no established procedure about how to formulate a plan. 

 9. These shortcomings could be a result of the limited training given but could also 

reflect the need to improve the interface design. 

4.3 Develop OPORDs and Rehearse Plan Collaboratively 

 1. The interface should include a capability to publish and disseminate orders. 

 2. MC2 does not enable rapid development of graphics. Instead of a template of graphic 

control measures that can be selected, MC2 has a series of pull-down menus, such as “type of 

graphics” (e.g., maneuver, intelligence), then “type of maneuver graphic” (ground or aviation), 

then “type of ground graphic,” etc. Saving or editing overlays is also seen as being difficult. 

 3. Terrain analysis tools should be automated. 

 4. Drawing tools were also considered poor in MC2, especially compared to the SC4 

tool. Also, graphics need to conform to military definitions of operational terms and symbols. 
21 

 5. Training and SOPs for conferencing (collaborative planning) are necessary. A 

window for planning and a window for execution mode on the MC2 would also be useful. The 

ability to have multiple collaborative sessions is also desired by users. The capability to filter 

collaboration sessions (setting permissions on who is in a session) by echelon or unit was also 

desired. 

 6. Distribution of maps and overlays to all relevant participants was not easy or quick. 

Automated lists of who should receive overlays would be useful. This is reflected in the rating 

of distributing information. 

4.4 Calls for Fire and Controlling Fires 

 1. The attack guidance matrix (AGM) in the MC2 for this experiment was rigid. When 

commanders did not receive requested fires, they tried to circumvent the system by requesting 

fires from the white cell. 

 2. Once a call for fire (network fires) was initiated in MC2, all visibility for that call was 

lost. There was no indication of whether it was approved, where it was in the queue, what 

delivery system it went to, or if the shot was actually made. 

 3. Moreover, there was no systematic plan for BDA. If a sensor saw a target after it had 

been shot, it revised the status of the target. BDA is more a function of unit TTPs than an 

interface capability, since automatic BDA is probably unrealistic. However, tools to help track 

enemy BDA (assuming sensor coverage) are critical. Players were reduced to using paper-andpencil charts of destroyed enemy assets. 

4.5 Objective 2 (Workload and SA) 

Given the results noted, the SA of MC2 at user level was insufficient. This area received an 

overall rating of 6 (insufficient-not aware of all the information required to perform the task) on 

a scale of 10 for all trials. 

However, even though the interface did little to help users in critical functions, overall workload 

was moderate—around 5 (spare capacity was reduced) on a scale of 10 for all tasks. One of the 

reasons that workload may have been perceived as low was the pace of battle. Since the 

experiment was a “target-rich environment,” many units (e.g., the reconnaissance troop) spent 

much time calling for fires to reduce the threat. Since the AGM did not always supply the fires 

requested and BDA was poor, this slowed the pace of operations and delayed the commander’s 

timeline. 
22 

4.6 Objective 3: (Interface design) 

Overall, the visual display was rated borderline. Only aspects such as color contrast, field of 

view, and finding the cursor on the screen were seen as good. General screen resolution was 

noted as borderline. Screen clutter could account for these findings. 

Software functionality was rated as borderline to poor. Aspects such as location and 

intuitiveness of windows were seen as borderline. Many other aspects were seen as poor, 

including consistency, feedback, prompts, cues to avoid or correct errors, information alerts, 

finding information, intuitiveness of codes and abbreviations, and overall user friendliness. 

Observers in the experiment noted that too much clutter and information were available on MC2. 

Much of the clutter covers other data and windows, making it difficult for the user to know 

where he or she is in the interface. Making the interface more related to the Microsoft Windows7

operating system would help with familiarization. Additionally, more automation and 

information management tools to assist the user would be useful. Reducing the number of 

mouse clicks to accomplish functions (e.g., filter information so that only certain units are 

presented on the screen) is necessary. Again, the brief training may have played a role in these 

ratings, but improved interface design should be considered. 

Concerning maps and graphics, many aspects of the visual display, such as character and icon size 

were seen as borderline. This version of MC2 needs a robust and customized icon option. Terrain 

analysis was rated as poor, which parallels the participant’s comments on the need for a terrain 

analysis tool. The lack of ability to adjust the icon size on this version of MC2 is reflected in the 

poor rating of “non-combatant” symbology, which was noted as being as large as unit icons. The 

poor rating of unit boundaries may reflect the problems with the graphics features of this version 

of MC2 and lack of a Madden pen. The ability to change command relationships (assign friendly 

vehicles or platoons to another units) was rated as poor. Although this feature existed, it may 

have been taught only briefly or perceived as too difficult. The poor rating of whiteboards could 

be attributed to a lack of an SOP for initiating a whiteboard conference. 

Overall, information management was rated as poor. This included distribution as well as 

maintenance aspects of creating directories, creating and displaying reports, backing up a database, restoring the system, creating an OPORD and interface with the Army Battle Command 

System. Again, a lack of ability to quickly create and send overlays, as described in participant 

comments and here, may account for the poor rating concerning information distribution. An 

interface similar to the Microsoft Windows operating system could solve many of the file 

management problems encountered. 

Although ease of use was seen as borderline, the ability to “save overlays” was considered an 

easy task. Aspects such as starting the system, file management, sending/receiving messages, 

and tasks involving overlays were borderline. A set-up wizard would be useful to help users 

 7WindowsTM is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation. 
23 

customize the interface. Important tasks such as terrain analysis, reports, OPORDs, database 

backup, and restoring the system after a crash were seen as difficult. As noted before, the brief 

training may have played a role in these ratings, but improved interface design should be 

considered. 

Many features were not used. Of the many features available, the maps and overlays feature was 

the most commonly used. Furthermore, all features were rated as borderline or poor in ease of 

use, which may help to explain why they were not used. Those rated as poor include the operation plan, synchronization matrix, MCOO, Netscape, Office, and the whiteboard. Observers 

commented that there were many tools and options, but there is a need for the interface to link, 

compare, and fuse information across all layers of the battle command system. In discussions, 

again, the most frequently mentioned feature required was the ability to quickly and easily create 

and send overlays with graphic control measures, including obstacles (i.e., MCOO). This 

information was not automatically revised by the system. The unit in contact with obstacles or 

minefields had to make an overlay and transmit it to the rest of the unit or inform the staff so that 

they could construct the overlay. Participants also stated that terrain analysis (e.g., go, slow-go, 

and no-go terrain) should be automated. 

As a final consideration, many issues were related to problems with the simulation. For 

example, the logistics data in the commander’s portal were not being supplied by the simulation, 

so they could not be portrayed in MC2. 

4.7 Comparison With Other Battle Command Systems 

A previous report by the authors (Sterling and Burns, 2004) showed that the MC2, at least at 

crew and platoon levels, was rated as third in a comparison of four battle command systems. 

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency future command and control was rated the 

highest, the SC4 was rated as next highest, and the MC2 was rated as third best overall, with the 

Force XXI FBCB2 being rated as least favorable overall. The ratings of functionality at crew 

and platoon level were generally similar to ratings of the MC2 in this report. 
24 

5. References 

Department of the Army. The U.S. Army Objective Force Operational and Organizational Plan 

Maneuver Unit of Action; TRADOC Pam 525-3-90; U.S. Army Training and Doctrine 

Command: Fort Monroe, VA, 2003. 

Sterling, B.S.; Burns, C.A. A Comparison of the Capabilities of Four Command and Control 

Systems at the Platoon Level and Below; ARL-TN -0217; U.S. Army Research Laboratory: 

Aberdeen Proving Ground MD, 2004. 

U.S. Army Armor School and Center. UAMBL, Operational Requirements Document for the 

Future Combat Systems Change 3 (JROC Approved). Unit of Action Maneuver Battle 

Lab: Fort Knox, KY, 2003. 
25 

Appendix A. Data Tables 

For all tables except the tables concerning workload and SA, the following shading conventions 

were used. If three quarters or more of the respondents answered in the top two categories (on a 

five-point scale), the item was considered positive (no shading), since that seems to be a general 

endorsement of the item. If more than half (but less than three quarters) answered in the top two 

categories, the item was considered borderline (grey) since a majority but not three quarters of 

respondents were favorable. If less than half of respondents answered in the top two categories, 

the item was considered poor (diagonal), since a majority did not rate it favorably. Since 

workload and SA had seven-point rating scales, a different shading convention was needed. 

Here, if the mean was in the “best” three categories (lowest three for workload and highest three 

for SA), the item was considered positive (no shading). If the mean was in the “middle” three 

categories, the item was considered borderline (grey). If the mean was in the “poorest” four 

categories (i.e., highest four categories for workload or lowest four categories for SA), it was 

considered poor (diagonal). 

Table A-1. Ratings of MC2 functions on assisting in key tasks 

Task Pilot (n=17 to 

19) 

Trial 1 

(n=15 to 15) 

Trial 2 

(n=6) 

Overall 

(n=36 to 40) 

Maintain Situational Awareness 39 29 67 40 

Access relevant information 22 39 67 35 

Develop plans collaboratively 39 30 50 41 

Develop OPORDs and create graphics 50 31 50 43 

Distribute OPORDs and graphics 50 46 50 40 

Rehearse the plan 47 23 67 42 

Maneuver forces 29 36 50 35 

Call for fires 6 39 67 27 

Control fires 11 39 50 27 

Notice changes in the situation in a timely 

manner 

6 14 67 18 

Respond to changes in a timely manner 17 14 67 24 

No fill = 75%-100% of respondents responding favorably 

Grey = 50%-74% of respondents responding favorably 

Diagonal = less than 50% of respondents responding favorably
26 

Table A-2. SA and workload for operator utilizing MC2 

Situational Awareness Pilot 

(n=17 to 

19) 

Trial 

1(n=15 

to 15) 

Trial 2 

(n=6) 

Overall 

(n=36 to 

40) 

Maintain SA 6.0 6.0 5.7 6.0 

Workload 

Workload to maintain SA 5.5 5.0 4.7 5.2 

Workload to plan mission 4.4 4.8 5.0 4.6 

Workload to maneuver forces 5.4 5.2 3.8 5.1 

Workload to control fires 5.2 5.3 4.0 5.0 

SA; Diagonal = 1-4; Grey = 5-7; No Fill = 8-10 

Workload; Diagonal = 8-10; Grey = 5-7; No Fill = 1-4 

Table A-3. Visual display assessment 

Pilot 

(n=12) 

Trial 1 

(n-6) 

Trial 2 

(n=9) 

Overall 

(n=27) 

Intensity 75 67 67 70 

Contrast between colors on screen 100 88 67 85 

Sharpness of displayed images 75 67 55 67 

Adjustability of viewing angle of monitor 67 100 55 70 

Field of View of monitor 75 100 77 82 

General resolution 58 50 56 56 

Location of windows 83 33 78 70 

Ease of finding cursor on screen 92 60 89 85 

No fill = 75%-100% of respondents responding favorably 

Grey = 50%-74% of respondents responding favorably 

Diagonal = less than 50% of respondents responding favorably
27 

Table A-4. Software functionality 

Intuitiveness Pilot 

(n=12) 

Trial 

1(n-6) 

Trial 2 

(n=9) 

Overall 

(n=27) 

Intuitiveness of window labels 75 33 67 63 

Intuitiveness of processes or sequences 82 17 56 50 

Logical sequences of performing functions on screen 73 0 56 50 

Finding needed information 55 0 50 40 

Intuitiveness of abbreviation, codes and acronyms used in applications 64 0 44 42 

Logical sequences of performing functions on screen 73 0 56 50 

Consistency (similar functions or sequences) from one application to 

another 

58 17 44 44 

Location of windows 83 33 78 70 

Software Feedback Pilot 

(n=12) 

Trial 

1(n-6) 

Trial 2 

(n=9) 

Overall 

(n=27) 

Feed back from applications (example-know that a message or map was 

sent and received) 

64 0 44 44 

Error recovery (know what problem is, how to fix or correct it) from 

applications 

64 0 50 46 

Applications showed attributes selected to help avoid mistakes (example 

highlighted selected data) 

50 0 57 42 

Audible alerts to recognize and correct mistakes in applications 60 0 33 44 

Audible signals alerts to critical information 50 0 33 38 

Visual alerts to critical information 60 20 40 45 

Visual alerts to recognize and correct mistakes in applications 60 20 40 45 

Applications prompts and helps 55 0 50 43 

Application instructions and menu selections 64 40 57 57 

Ability to tell if you have incoming critical information 33 20 29 29 

Ability to tell if you have incoming information 75 20 71 63 

Usability Pilot 

(n=12) 

1st Trial 

(n-6) 

2nd Trial 

(n=9) 

Overall 

(n=27) 

Flexibility of automated tools 75 17 67 59 

Usability of “hot keys” or short cuts in applications 60 0 44 42 

Overall user friendliness of applications 50 0 44 39 

Kill and re-start a process 71 0 50 50 

Power up and log onto MC2 64 50 83 67 

No fill = 75%-100% of respondents responding favorably 

Grey = 50%-74% of respondents responding favorably 

Diagonal = less than 50% of respondents responding favorably
28 

Table A-5. Maps and graphics 

Maps Pilot 

(n=12) 

Trial 1(n=6) Trial 2 

(n=9) 

Overall 

(n=27) 

Terrain feature size 50 50 56 52 

Map tool functionality 67 17 56 52 

Perform terrain analysis 63 0 68 48 

Overlays Pilot 

(n=12) 

Trial 1 (n-6) Trial 2 

(n=9) 

Overall 

(n=27) 

Create an overlay 43 40 75 55 

Display an overlay 50 40 78 59 

Save an overlay 100 50 89 85 

Import an overlay 63 40 78 65 

Create and save an Area of Interest 43 40 75 55 

Create and save a snapshot 50 50 57 53 

Symbology Pilot 

(n=12) 

Trial 1 

(n=6) 

Trial 2 

(n=9) 

Overall 

(n=27) 

Alphanumeric character size 83 50 67 70 

Noncombatant symbology 64 33 33 46 

Icon size 92 33 44 63 

Edit overlay symbols 57 20 75 55 

Unit symbol size 75 50 67 67 

Unit identification 58 17 67 52 

General symbol size 75 33 44 56 

Unit boundaries and other control symbols 50 17 44 41 

Change command relationship 33 0 60 33 

Other Pilot 

(n=12) 

Trial 1 

(n=6) 

Trial 2 

(n=9) 

Overall 

(n=27) 

Use animation tool 43 20 75 50 

Operate a whiteboard 50 0 67 36 

No fill = 75%-100% of respondents responding favorably 

Grey = 50%-74% of respondents responding favorably 

Diagonal = less than 50% of respondents responding favorably
29 

Table A-6. Information management 

Messaging Pilot (n=12) Trial 

1(n=6) 

Trial 2 

(n=9) 

Overall 

(n=27) 

Create a message 63 20 71 55 

Send a message 63 20 71 55 

Access incoming messages 38 20 76 50 

Create a distribution list 50 20 83 53 

Ease of distribution outgoing information 46 17 57 42 

Maintenance 

Copy and move files 50 25 86 59 

Create directories 38 20 71 45 

Create and display reports 14 0 57 29 

Back up a database 60 0 67 42 

Restore the data base in event of system crash 63 0 60 47 

Create an OPORD 50 0 50 33 

Interface with ABCS 50 0 67 40 

No fill = 75%-100% of respondents responding favorably 

Grey = 50%-74% of respondents responding favorably 

Diagonal = less than 50% of respondents responding favorably

Table A-7. Frequency and ease of use of the following functions and applications 

Pilot 

(n=12) 

Trial 1 

(n=6) 

Trial 2 

(n=9) 

Overall 

(n=27) 

Maps and Graphics Freq. Ease Freq. Ease Freq. Ease Freq. Ease 

Maps and Overlays 90 40 60 60 56 78 71 58 

Graphic Tool 38 25 75 50 

Drawing Tool 50 43 0 25 67 68 48 55 

MCOO 20 20 0 0 17 88 13 47 

Line of Sight Tool 13 50 0 25 25 86 15 59 

3D View Tool 60 25 75 54 

Field of View Tool 50 25 71 53 

Snapshot 25 60 0 0 33 83 24 57 

Whiteboard 13 25 0 0 25 67 15 27 

Information Management Freq. Ease Freq. Ease Freq. Ease Freq. Ease 

Filters 29 60 25 0 43 67 33 50 

Messaging 25 57 0 50 33 75 23 62 

Help/Netscape 25 60 0 0 0 75 15 46 

Microsoft Office 13 25 0 25 14 80 11 46 

C2 Functions Freq. Ease Freq. Ease Freq. Ease Freq. Ease 

Unit Task Organization 50 50 40 75 44 67 46 61 

OPLAN/OPORD/Warning 

Order (WO)/ FRAGO 

29 20 0 33 13 60 15 39 

Synchronization Matrix 22 17 20 20 17 67 20 33 

Force to Force Ratio 25 40 0 50 25 60 20 50 

Animation System 25 50 0 50 33 87 21 61 

C2 Products (UNIX File 

Manager) 

14 33 25 25 17 86 18 53 

No fill = 75%-100% of respondents responding favorably 

Grey = 50%-74% of respondents responding favorably 

Diagonal = less than 50% of respondents responding favorably
30 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
31 

Appendix B. Company and Platoon Level Functions and Workload Survey 

1. Enter the last four digits of your SSN_____ 

2. Vignette 

__ 1 

__ 2 

__ 3 

3. Please indicate your position by putting an “x” in front of the appropriate position: 

____ RSTA Company Commander 

____ RSTA Executive Officer 

____ RSTA Company Vehicle Commander 

____ RSTA Platoon Leader 

____ RSTA Platoon Vehicle Commander 

____ MCS Company Commander 

____MCS Platoon Leader 

____ Infantry Platoon Leader 

____ Infantry Platoon Sergeant 

____ Robotics NCO 

____ Infantry Squad Leader 

____ Infantry Weapons Squad Leader 

4. For the tasks listed below, indicate whether the interface performs the task automatically, 

assists you to perform it, or cannot be effectively performed with the interface. Put an “X” in the 

appropriate box. 
32 

Task Performs 

Automatically 

Assists 

Performance 

Cannot Perform 

with Interface 

Wargame COAs 

Identifies location of enemy unit 

Identifies type of enemy unit 

Identifies strength of enemy unit 

Projects future location of enemy unit 

Provides BDA on enemy unit 

Locates obstacles on terrain 

Identifies restricted, severely restricted, impossible terrain 

using MCOO 

 

Identifies effects of terrain on friendly maneuver 

Identifies location of friendly units 

Identifies type of friendly units 

Identifies strength of friendly units 

Projects future location of friendly units 

Provides projected attrition on friendly units 

Provides current logistical information 

Provides location of civilians on battlefield 

Provides strength of civilians on battlefield 

5. Following are tasks on which the interface can provide assistance in performing. Please rate 

the assistance provided on each task on the following scale. 

Task Very Poor Poor Borderline Good Very 

Good 

Maintian Situational Awareness 

Access relevant information 

Develop plans collaboratively 

Develop OPORDs and create graphics 

Distribute OPORDs and graphics 

Rehearse the plan 

Maneuver forces 

Call for fires 

Control fires 

Notice changes in the situation in a timely 

manner 

 

Respond to changes in a timely manner 
33 

6. Situational Awareness (SA): Rate your Situational Awareness (SA) during the vignette on 

the following scale: 

 Far Too 

Low - 

Could 

not 

perform 

the task 

because 

I did 

not 

possess 

the 

necessary 

information 

Extremely Low – 

Unaware 

of almost 

all the 

information 

required 

to perform the 

task 

Very 

Low – 

Unaware 

of most 

of the 

information 

required 

to perform the 

task 

Low – 

Unaware 

of about 

half the 

information 

required 

to perform the 

task 

Reduced 

– 

Unaware 

of some 

important 

information 

required 

to perform the 

task 

Insufficient – 

Not 

aware of 

all the 

information 

required 

to perform the 

task 

Not 

Complete – 

Able to 

perform 

the task 

but not 

satisfactorily 

Mostly 

GoodAble to 

perform 

the task 

well 

most of 

the time 

Good – 

Able to 

perform 

task 

well all 

the time 

Excellent 

– Able to 

perform 

task 

extremely 

well all 

the time 

Over

-all 

SA 

 

7. Workload: Rate your workload for the following tasks during the vignette on the following 

scale 

Tasks 

Workload 

Insignificant 

Workload 

Low 

Enough 

spare 

capacity for 

all 

desirable 

additional 

tasks 

Insufficient 

spare 

capacity 

for easy 

attention 

to additional 

tasks 

Reduced 

spare 

capacity – 

additional 

tasks 

cannot be 

given the 

desired 

amount of 

attention 

Little 

spare 

capacity 

– level 

of effort 

allows 

little 

attention 

to additional 

tasks 

Very little 

spare 

capacity – 

but 

maintenance of 

effort in 

the primary task 

not in 

question 

Very high 

workload 

with 

almost no 

spare 

capacity – 

difficulty 

in maintaining 

level of 

effort 

Extremely 

high 

workload 

– no spare 

capacity 

and 

difficulty 

in maintaining 

level of 

effort 

Task 

abandoned 

– 

unable 

to 

apply 

sufficient 

effort 

Maintain 

SA 

 

Plan 

mission 

Maneuver 

forces 

Control 

fires 
34 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
35 

Appendix C. Visual Display Survey 

1. Enter the last four digits of your SSN: __________ 

2. Vignette 

__1 

__2 

__3 

3. Indicate your position by putting an “x” in front of the appropriate position: 

____ RSTA Company Commander 

____ RSTA Executive Officer 

____ RSTA Company Vehicle Commander 

____ RSTA Platoon Leader 

____ RSTA Platoon Vehicle Commander 

____ MCS Company Commander 

____MCS Platoon Leader 

____ Infantry Platoon Leader 

____ Infantry Platoon Sergeant 

____ Robotics NCO 

____ Infantry Squad Leader 

____ Infantry Weapons Squad Leader 

4. Rate the following aspects of the visual display: 
36 

Visual Display Assessment 

 Very 

Poor 

Poor Borderline Good Very 

Good 

Not Applicable 

Intensity (brightness/darkness) adjustment 

Contrast between colors on screen 

Sharpness of displayed images 

Adjustability of viewing angle of monitor 

Field of View of monitor 

Alphanumeric character size 

Terrain feature size 

Unit symbol size 

Unit identification 

Unit boundaries and other control symbols 

Noncombatant symbology 

General symbol size 

Icon size 

Unit boundaries and other control symbols 

Map tool functionality 

General resolution 

Intuitiveness of window labels 

Location of windows 

Finding cursor on screen 
37 

5. Rate the following features: 

 Very 

Poor 

Poor Borderline Good Very 

Good 

Not 

Applicable 

Flexibility of automated tools 

Logical sequences of performing functions on 

screen 

 

Intuitiveness of processes or sequences 

Consistency (similar functions or sequences) from 

one application to another 

 

Feed back from applications (example-know that a 

message or map was sent and received) 

Usability of “hot keys” or short cuts in 

applications 

Error recovery (know what problem is, how to fix 

or correct it) from applications 

Applications showed attributes selected to help 

avoid mistakes (example highlighted selected 

data) 

Audible alerts to recognize and correct mistakes in 

applications 

 

Audible signals alerts to critical information 

Visual alerts to critical information 

Visual alerts to recognize and correct mistakes in 

applications 

 

Applications prompts and helps 

Application instructions and menu selections 

Ease of finding cursor on screen 

Ability to tell if you have incoming information 

Ability to tell if you have incoming critical 

information 

 

Ease of distribution outgoing information 

Overall user friendliness of applications 

Finding needed information 

Intuitiveness of abbreviation, codes and acronyms 

used in applications 

 

5a. Overall, what percentage of time did you used the MC? 

____ Percent 

5b. Overall, what percentage of tiem did you use the SC4? 

____ Percent 
38 

6. Rate the ease or difficulty of performing the following critical tasks using MC2: 

 Very 

Hard 

Hard Borderline Easy Very 

Easy 

Not 

Applicable 

Power up and log onto MCS 

Create directories 

Copy and move files 

Create a distribution list 

Access incoming messages 

Create a message 

Send a message 

Create an overlay 

Display an overlay 

Create and save an Area of Interest 

Edit overlay symbols 

Import an overlay 

Save an overlay 

Perform terrain analysis 

Use animation tool 

Create and display reports 

Change command relationship 

Create and save a snapshot 

Create an OPORD 

Operate a whiteboard 

Back up a database 

Interface with ABCS 

Kill and re-start a process 

Restore the data base in event of a crash 

7. Rate the frequency of use of the following functions and applications in MC2: 

 Never Almost 

Never 

Sometimes Often Always Not 

Applicable 

Unit Task Organization 

Messaging 

OPLAN/OPORD/Warning Order 

(WO)/ FRAGO 

 

Maps and Overlays 

Synchronization Matrix 

Briefing System 

MCOO 

C2 Products (UNIX File Manager) 

Help/Netscape 

Microsoft Office 

Line of Sight Tool 

Force to Force Ratio 

Snapshot 

Whiteboard 

Filters 

Graphic Tool (Maps & Overlays) 

Drawing Tool (Maps & Overlays) 
39 

8. Rate the ease of use of the following functions and applications: 

 Very 

Hard 

Hard Borderline Easy Very 

Easy 

Not 

Applicable 

Unit Task Organization 

Messaging 

OPLAN/OPORD/Warning Order 

(WO)/ FRAGO 

 

Maps and Overlays 

Synchronization Matrix 

Animation System 

MCOO 

C2 Products (UNIX File Manager) 

Help/Netscape 

Microsoft Office 

3D View Tool 

Line of Sight Tool 

Field of View Tool 

Force to Force Ratio 

Snapshot 

Whiteboard 

Filters 

Graphic Tool (Maps & Overlays) 

Drawing Tool (Maps & Overlays) 
40 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
41 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 * ADMINISTRATOR 

 DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFO CTR 

 ATTN DTIC OCA 

 8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD STE 0944 

 FT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218 

 *pdf file only 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN IMNE AD IM DR MAIL & REC MGMT 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL CI OK TP TECH LIB 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 UNIT OF ACTION MANEUVER BATTLE LAB 

 ATTN ATZK UA 

 BLDG 1101 

 FORT KNOX KY 40121 

 1 ARL HRED AVNC FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MJ D DURBIN 

 BLDG 4506 (DCD) RM 107 

 FT RUCKER AL 36362-5000 

 1 ARL HRED AMCOM AUN FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MI 

 BLDG 5464 RM 202 J MINNINGER 

 REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898-7290 

 1 ARL HRED AMCOM MSL FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MO T COOK 

 BLDG 5400 RM C242 

 REDSTONE ARS AL 35898-7290 

 1 ARL HRED USAADASCH FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR ME A MARES 

 ATTN ATSA CD 

 5800 CARTER ROAD 

 FORT BLISS TX 79916-3802 

 1 ARL HRED ARDEC FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MG R SPINE 

 BUILDING 333 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 ARL HRED ARMC FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MH C BURNS 

 BLDG 1002 ROOM 117 

 1ST CAVALRY REGIMENT RD 

 FT KNOX KY 40121 

 1 ARL HRED CECOM FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR ML J MARTIN 

 MYER CENTER RM 2D311 

 FT MONMOUTH NJ 07703-5630 

 1 ARL HRED FT BELVOIR FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MK J REINHART 

 10125 KINGMAN RD 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5828 

 1 ARL HRED FT HOOD FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR S MIDDLEBROOKS 

 MV HQ USAOTC 

 91012 STATION AVE ROOM 111 

 FT HOOD TX 76544-5073 

 1 ARL HRED FT HUACHUCA FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MY M BARNES 

 2520 HEALY AVE STE 1172 BLDG 51005 

 FT HUACHUCA AZ 85613-7069 

 1 ARL HRED FLW FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MZ A DAVISON 

 320 MANSCEN LOOP STE 166 

 FT LEONARD WOOD MO 65473-8929 

 1 ARL HRED NATICK FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MQ M R FLETCHER 

 NATICK SOLDIER CTR BLDG 3 

 AMSRD ARL NSC SE E 

 NATICK MA 01760-5020 

 1 ARL HRED SC&FG FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MS C MANASCO 

 SIGNAL TOWERS RM 303A 

 FORT GORDON GA 30905-5233 

 1 ARL HRED STRICOM FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MT C CHEN 

 12350 RESEARCH PARKWAY 

 ORLANDO FL 32826-3276 

 1 ARL HRED TACOM FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MU M SINGAPORE 

 6501 E 11 MILE RD MAIL STOP 284 

 BLDG 200A 2ND FL RM 2104 

 WARREN MI 48397-5000 
42 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 ARL HRED USAFAS FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MF C HERNANDEZ 

 BLDG 3040 RM 220 

 FORT SILL OK 73503-5600 

 1 ARL HRED USAIC FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MW E REDDEN 

 BLDG 4 ROOM 332 

 FT BENNING GA 31905-5400 

 1 ARL HRED USASOC FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MN R SPENCER 

 DCSFDI HF 

 HQ USASOC BLDG E2929 

 FORT BRAGG NC 28310-5000 

 1 ARL HRED FT LEAVENWORTH FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MP 

 D UNGVARSKY 

 BATTLE CMD BATTLE LAB 

 415 SHERMAN AVE UNIT 3 

 FT LEAVENWORTH KS 66027-2326 

 1 ARL HRED AMEDD FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MM V RICE 

 BLDG 4011 RM 217 

 1750 GREELEY RD 

 FT SAM HOUSTON TX 78234-5094 

 1 ARL HRED SPO 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR M M STRUB 

 6359 WALKER LAND STE 100 

 ALEXANDRIA VA 22310 

 1 ARL HRED JFCOM FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MJF D BARNETTE 

 JFCOM JOINT EXPERIMENTATION J9 

 JOINT FUTURES LAB 

 115 LAKEVIEW PKWY STE B 

 SUFFOLK VA 23535 

 1 US ARMY SAFETY CTR 

 ATTN CSSC SE 

 FORT RUCKER AL 36362 

 ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL CI OK (TECH LIB) 

 BLDG 4600 

 1 US ATEC 

 RYAN BLDG 

 APG-AA 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL CI OK TP S FOPPIANO 

 BLDG 459 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MB J NAWLEY 

 BLDG 459 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR M F PARAGALLO 

 BLDG 459