ARL-TN-0715 ● NOV 2015

US Army Research Laboratory

Manpower, Personnel, and Training 

Assessment (MPTA) Handbook

Richard A Tauson and Wayne Cream

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.

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator.
ARL-TN-0715 ● NOV 2015

US Army Research Laboratory

Manpower, Personnel, and Training 

Assessment (MPTA) Handbook

Richard A Tauson and Wayne Cream

Human Research and 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 2015

2. REPORT TYPE

Final

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

1–30 June 2012

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Manpower, Personnel, and Training Assessment (MPTA) Handbook

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Richard A Tauson and Wayne Cream

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

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

US Army Research Laboratory

ATTN: RDRL-HRM-B

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

ARL-TN-0715

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Human Systems Integration Directorate, G-1 Office

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

The Manpower, Personnel, and Training Assessment (MPTA) is part of the Human Systems Integration Assessment (HSIA) 

that supports each Acquisition Milestone Review. Originally, the MPTA was completed by the Human Resources Command 

and reviewed the availability and completeness of the documents defining a developmental system’s manpower, personnel, 

and training (MPT) requirements. There was no technical analysis of how well the requirements were met. In 2005 that 

responsibility was transferred to the US Army Research Laboratory’s (ARL’s) Human Research and Engineering Directorate 

(HRED). The ARL–HRED field elements are experienced in the use of field data to provide technical human-factors analysis 

but some of the practitioners have less experience conducting MPTAs. The MPTA Handbook provides current guidelines for 

conducting an MPTA. It includes a list of the critical documents needed for the assessment; which agency produced each 

document; and the document’s contribution to the MPTA. It also includes 2 checklists: one to ensure the documents needed to 

support the MPTA are available and complete, and one to support the analysis of the technical suitability of the MPT 

characteristics of the proposed system. The purpose of this handbook is to provide the basis for more uniform, complete, and 

comprehensive MPTAs.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

manpower, personnel, training, human systems integration, MPTA Handbook

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

17. LIMITATION

OF ABSTRACT

UU

18. NUMBER

OF PAGES

54

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Richard A Tauson

a. REPORT

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

410-278-5836

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iii

Contents

List of Figures iv

List of Tables iv

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Human Systems Integration: Definition and Requirements 1

1.2 MPTA Definition and Requirements (AR 602–2) 2

2. Requirements and Sources 4

3. Key Documents 5

4. Reporting 8

5. References 11

Appendix A. Manpower, Personnel, and Training (MPT) Document 

Matrix 13

Appendix B. Manpower Personnel and Training Assessment Process 

Guide Sheet 23

List of Symbols, Abbreviations, and Acronyms 43

Distribution List 46
iv

List of Figures

Figure HSI in the acquisition process leading to a milestone decision by the 

Army Systems Acquisition Review Council (ASARC) ........................4

List of Tables

Table 1 HSI and HSI-domain assessment agencies by acquisition category 

(ACAT)..................................................................................................2

Table 2 Definitions of critical issues, major issues, and minor issues................9
1

1. Introduction

1.1 Human Systems Integration: Definition and Requirements

Human Systems Integration (HSI), which formerly was referred to as Manpower 

and Personnel Integration or MANPRINT, is the Army acquisition community’s 

mechanism for considering the human or Soldier costs associated with fielding a 

system. Programs are evaluated in terms of their cost, schedule, and technical 

performance, but the Army recognizes that it must be able to support the system by 

allocating the number and type of Soldiers needed to operate and maintain a system. 

The cost and time needed to ensure the system can be supported by the Soldier can 

add greatly to system-ownership cost over the system’s life cycle. Failure to 

consider manpower, personnel, and training (MPT) cost up front often results in a 

system that is more expensive to support and, initially, a system that does not 

perform well and one that has limited utility.

In order to ensure that HSI considerations are addressed in all acquisition programs, 

the program manager (PM), or joint program office (JPO) in multiservice 

acquisition programs, is required by Army Regulation (AR) 602–21 to establish an

HSI program. This includes forming an HSI working group that tracks HSI 

concerns and the program’s compliance with its requirements; makes 

recommendations on reducing HSI-related program risk; and provides an HSI

Assessment (HSIA) report prior to each Milestone Decision. The HSIA 

summarizes the HSI domain reports, listed in Table 1.

The US Army Research Laboratory’s (ARL’s) Human Research and Engineering 

Directorate (HRED) is both the integrator of the individual HSI assessments as well 

as the action office for conducting the Human Factors Engineering Assessment 

(HFEA) and the Manpower, Personnel, and Training Assessment (MPTA). Often,

the HFEA and MPTA are produced as a combined Human Factors Engineering–

Manpower, Personnel, and Training assessment. In some cases the Soldier 

Survivability Assessment may also be covered in the combined assessment. Format 

templates for MPTAs and combined assessments are frequently updated, but can 

be obtained through ARL HRED.

One of the HSI practitioner’s roles is to review all of the relevant program 

documents; identify deficiencies in HSI requirements, wording, and/or metrics; and 

provide specific recommendations that will bring the documentation and system 

into compliance with AR 602–2.

1 This document is intended to be a guide for HSI

practitioners conducting MPTAs or combined assessments. As a guide, this 
2

document is not intended to limit the MPTA evaluator from using additional 

resources or techniques, but it will encourage some consistency in MPTAs.

Table 1 HSI and HSI-domain assessment agencies by acquisition category (ACAT)

Assessment ACAT ID, IC, and II ACAT IA (IAM, IAC) ACAT III and IIIAC

Manpower, Personnel, 

and Training ARL HRED

Health Hazards APHC

Human Factors 

Engineering ARL HRED

Soldier Survivability ARL SLAD (lead)

ARL HRED (assist)

System Safety CRCa US Army CECOM AMC LCMC Safety 

Office

Draft G-1 HSI 

Assessment (Domain 

Integration)

ARL HRED

G-1 HSI final 

assessment (Domain 

Integration)

HQDA G-1 (DAPE-MR)

a

Combat Readiness Center (CRC) conducts Independent Safety Assessments

Notes: ARL HRED—Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Directorate; ARL 

SLAD—ARL’s Survivability/Lethality Analysis Directorate; APHC—Army Public Health Center;

CECOM—Communications–Electronics Command; AMC LCMC—Army Materiel Command, Life Cycle 

Management Command; HQDA G-1—Headquarters, Department of the Army, Personnel. (Adapted from 

AR 602–2, 2015)

1.2 MPTA Definition and Requirements (AR 602–2)

The MPTA, one of the HSI domain reports, addresses the direct human cost—in 

terms of number, type, and skills of Soldiers required—to operate and maintain the 

system. The areas of concern covered by the MPTA are

• Manpower—the number of Soldiers required to operate and maintain the 

system. Since the Army has a limited number of Soldiers, any additional 

manpower required to field a system must be offset by a reduction of the 

number of Soldiers somewhere else in the force. 

• Personnel—the type of Soldier required to operate and maintain the system. 

This includes Military Occupational Specialty (MOS), any Additional Skill 

Identifier (ASI) required, core knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) 

required for the job, rank, physical requirements, level of security clearance 

held, and Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) scores.

• Training—the appropriateness and completeness of the training provided to 

support the system. This assessment should consider if the training materiel 

is appropriate for the skill and knowledge level of the Soldiers being trained;
3

if the time allocated for initial training is adequate; if there are adequate 

training resources, equipment and support assets; and if the critical 

knowledge skills and abilities to operate and maintain the system can be 

retained by the appropriate Soldiers with the available sustainment training. 

This assessment should be different from and complementary to the formal 

evaluation of the training package performed by the US Army Training and 

Doctrine Command (TRADOC).

There are 2 very different, but potentially synergistic, components of an MPTA. 

The first component of the MPTA is primarily a review of critical documents to 

ensure they are completed or updated as required in each development phase and 

that the documents contain certain critical content. A rough list of required 

documents and when they are needed is available in Appendix A.

The second component of an MPTA involves identifying technical shortcomings 

in the system’s planned manpower allocation, personnel assignment, or training 

plans. For this part of the MPTA, data sources will include, but are not limited to,

test results, observation of training, usability assessments, interviews with Soldiers, 

and manpower modeling. Some guidelines on the type of questions to ask in this 

portion of the MPTA are available in Appendix B.

A complete MPTA should include both components. The required documents 

should be available and complete (though they may be in draft form). If they are 

not, this constitutes a serious void in the program’s planning for the system’s MPT 

requirements. The second component ensures that the program’s plans are realistic 

and supported by the system’s design, manpower and personnel allocation, and 

training plan. A simplified diagram of the process flow for an HSI Assessment, 

including the MPTA, is shown in the following Figure.

As the diagram suggests, it is the PM or JPO who requests the HSIA. Ideally this 

should have been anticipated by his formation of an HSI working group, which 

maintained the HSI plan (or equivalent document) in which HSI issues, including 

any MPT issues or concerns, are tracked. Once the HSIA report, with the domain 

reports, is completed, it must be approved by the director of HRED and the director 

of the G-1 HSI Office. The PM is provided with an information copy, but does not 

have approval authority for the report.
4

Figure HSI in the acquisition process leading to a milestone decision by the Army 

Systems Acquisition Review Council (ASARC)

2. Requirements and Sources

The HSI process, including the MPT decision-making process, begins prior to 

Milestone A with the system-requirements definition. TRADOC, as the training 

and combat developer, has control over the development of the requirements but it 

is very beneficial if the HSI requirements, including MPT, are reviewed by HSI 

practitioners to ensure the requirements are realistic and verifiable.

Once the system requirements are finalized and a program has entered the 

acquisition cycle, as each milestone is being addressed, one of the first steps in the 

assessment should be the collection of documents that will provide the basic 

requirements and known MPT implications of the systems. Generally, the evaluator 

should request these documents through the PM. A list of some of the key support 

documents (when they become available) and their purpose are in the “Manpower, 

Personnel, and Training (MPT) Document Matrix” in Appendix A.

The MPT evaluator should be aware that many of the documents may only be 

available in draft or incomplete form early in the program. They also may be 

updated or modified as the program matures, so they should be checked as part of 

updating the MPTA during each milestone review. Typically, the best way to 
5

acquire the most recent version of the manuals is to ask the PM’s representative. 

They often are stored on an online server or website. The agency responsible for 

producing each document can also be approached, but this is a more timeconsuming method.

3. Key Documents

This section draws upon entries at the Defense Acquisition University’s online 

Acquisition Encyclopedia (at https://dap.dau.mil/acquipedia).

2 An explanation of 

the acquisition process, including the Acquisition Phases, Milestones, and context 

in which many of the key documents are developed, is available in Department of 

Defense Instruction (DoDI) 5000.02.

3

1. Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) 

The ICD is developed by the Service Command, Joint Staff, or Office of the 

Secretary of Defense (OSD). It documents the capability gaps to be satisfied by the 

materiel or non-materiel solution. The ICD is developed to support the Analysis of 

Alternatives and the Milestone A decision and is not updated. (The Capabilities 

Development Document supports system development and demonstration and the 

Capability Production Document supports production and deployment.) 

The ICD describes a gap in an Army functional area and one or more change 

recommendations in Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and 

Education, Personnel, and Facilities (DOTMLPF). It documents the need for a 

materiel solution or a combined materiel and nonmateriel solution to satisfy the 

capability gap.

The MPTA analyst should look at the ICD to ensure that MPT were addressed. It 

may also provide subject-matter expert’s input on MPT factors relating to the 

capability gap and to issues identified in predecessor systems.

2. Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)

The AoA documents the advantages and disadvantages of different strategies to 

address the Army’s need in terms of operational effectiveness, life-cycle cost, and 

suitability. The AoA initially precedes the decision to adopt a materiel solution and 

may lead to a solution based on other changes to DOTMLPF. The AoA is produced 

by TRADOC and should be updated at each materiel-development phase.

The MPTA analyst should look at the AoA for insight into which predecessor 

systems were considered to answer the Army’s requirement as possible indicators 

of the MPT requirements for the new solution. The AoA may also indicate the 

technology readiness level (TRL) of proposed solutions, since systems with 
6

relatively low TRLs often lead to underestimation of the systems’ MPT 

requirements. Finally, the analyst should review the AoA to ensure the MPT 

requirements of each alternative were considered.

3. Supportability Strategy

The Supportability Strategy is developed by the Combat Developers Integrated 

Logistics Support Lead in support of Milestone A and then reused by the materiel

developer at Milestone B. It provides the Integrated Logistics Support (ILS)

requirements and the plan for its implementation. The Supportability Strategy 

provides some of the earliest insight into how the system will be supported and 

maintained, which will define the maintainer requirements for the MPTA.

4. Manpower Estimate Report (MER) (required for ACAT I systems only)

The MER is a projection of the numbers of active-duty and Reserve Soldiers needed 

to operate, maintain, and sustain a new system, as well as the Department of 

Defense (DOD) civilians and contractors needed to support the system. It presents 

the number of Soldier-hours that the Army must commit to fielding the system. The 

MER may be produced by TRADOC, or by ARL HRED, or both.

5. System Training Plan (STRAP)

The STRAP is a description of the required training needed for instructors, 

operators, maintainers, and leadership. It is written by the TRADOC proponent in 

accordance with AR 350–38.4 The STRAP should include a training strategy, 

identification of the target trainees (operators and maintainers), description of

individual and collective training requirements, and identities of the instructors. It 

may describe the duration of training and should specify any certification or 

licensing requirements for the system, including recertification requirements to 

remain an operator or maintainer.

6. Basis of Issue Plan/Basis of Issue Plan Feeder Data (BOIP/BOIPFD)

The BOIP is developed from the BOIPFD which is compiled by the Materiel

developer (PM or JPO). The BOIP describes the new system, its capabilities, the 

number of systems to be deployed to each unit, and the number and MOSs of 

Soldiers required to operate and maintain the new system. The BOIP is used by the 

PM to develop life-cycle costs, identify necessary changes to the unit’s Table of 

Organization and Equipment (TO&E), and to support trade-off analyses during the 

research and development process.
7

7. Capabilities Development Document (CDD)

The CDD is a derivative of the ICD prepared for the Milestone B decision by the 

combat developer or user representative. The CDD describes the proposed materiel

solution in terms of operational performance capabilities and introduces the 

system’s Key Performance Parameters and Key System Attributes. It should 

include operational mission capabilities and logistical characteristics such as 

reliability, maintainability, and availability (RAM) requirements. The CDD should 

indicate what the system must do but not limit the vendor in the technical approach 

to how that is achieved. As a result, it may include indications of what the 

manpower and workload requirements for the system will be but not absolutely 

define them. The CDD replaced the Operational Requirements Document (ORD) 

and Required Operational Capability of earlier acquisition programs.

8. Target Audience Description (TAD)

The TAD is the initial description of the number and type of personnel required to 

operate, maintain, and support a proposed system. This should include active 

Soldiers, reserve and National Guard components, civilian support, and contractor 

or field support representative (FSR) personnel. It should also include the 

characteristics (physical profile, ASVAB qualifying scores, ASIs, MOS, rank 

requirements, etc.) describing the Soldiers operating or maintaining the system. In 

cases where operating a system requires a security clearance, the TAD will define 

what level of clearance is needed. TRADOC is responsible for producing this 

document.

9. Materiel Fielding Plan (MFP)

The MFP details how to field and deploy a new system. There may be a unique 

MFP for each major command receiving the system. The MFP will include fielding 

and logistics requirements for the new system. The MFP is largely derived from 

information in the program documents, including the Life Cycle Sustainment Plan, 

the CDD, and the BOIP. The MFP contains information such as the fielding 

schedule and Army units receiving the new system. It can help provide advanced 

information on the “necessary materiel, personnel, skills, and facilities to properly 

receive, train, use, maintain, and support new Army systems.”5

10. Human Systems Integration Plan (HSIP) (or equivalent)

The HSIP, or an equivalent document, is maintained by the materiel developer 

usually with the help of the program’s HSI Working group. For programs that have 

ARL–HRED support, ARL HRED typically leads in the development and 

maintenance of the HSIP. As HSI-related issues are discovered, they are assigned 

to a domain and may be assigned a severity code and a remediation plan. Ideally, 
8

at each acquisition milestone the HSIP should have the issues identified for the 

MPTA. In practice, there may be differences in issues’ scoring, and some issues 

emerging from late test events may need to be added to the MPTA that were not 

captured in the HSIP.

11. Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP)

The TEMP is maintained by the materiel developer with the assistance of the Army 

Test and Evaluation Command. It may exist in a preliminary format, the Test 

Evaluation Strategy, to support Milestone A and evolve into the full TEMP by 

Milestone B with updates through the test and evaluation process. It identifies the 

test and evaluation requirements and major test activities and schedules. It can be 

used to identify test events that will allow the MPT evaluator to collect information 

to support the MPTA.

12. Operational Mode Summary/Mission Profile (OMS/MP)

The OMS/MP is developed by the Army Capabilities Integration Center’s

Capability Assessments and Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability Division. 

The OMS/MP includes the expected use of the system in combat and peacetime, 

including factors like projected use on various terrain types. This can be used to 

project operator and maintainer workload.

4. Reporting

Through each materiel-development phase of the system under assessment, there 

will be informational gaps, inconsistencies, or shortcomings discovered that will 

impact the MPT implications of the system on the Soldiers required to operate, 

maintain, or sustain the system. These informational gaps, inconsistencies, or 

shortcomings, should be categorized in terms of severity, in accordance with the 

definitions in AR 602–21 which are summarized in Table 2.

As issues or concerns are discovered, they should be reported to the HSI Joint 

Working Group (HSI-JWG) and entered into the HSIP, or equivalent, database. 

This allows the HSI-JWG to integrate the issues and concerns with any related 

issues affecting other domains. It also allows the PM’s office to remain aware of 

any issues or concerns and to work with the MPTA evaluator on mitigation 

strategies. 
9

Table 2 Definitions of critical issues, major issues, and minor issues1

Category Definition Rating implication

Critical Issue

An issue regarding one or more of the Army 

HSI domains which warrants immediate 

attention and/or resolution to preclude serious 

risk to the program and the Army, regarding 

one or more of the following areas of risk:

- high probability for catastrophic injury 

or death to the crew or other friendly 

personnel;

- seriously degraded mission 

performance or effectiveness; the 

requirement for major unprogrammed 

manpower, personnel, and training 

resources; or 

- jeopardized ability of the manpower, 

personnel, and training community 

(DCS, G–1, TRADOC, and Human 

Resources Command) to support 

system fielding with trained available 

personnel. 

Critical unresolved issues will be addressed in 

an HSI assessment and reported to the MDA. 

Critical issues often result in an overall RED

rating to the program (that is, a recommendation 

that the program not be allowed to proceed to 

the next phase until the issues are resolved or 

the risks have been mitigated).

Critical issues result in an overall 

RED rating to the program (that 

is, a recommendation that the 

program not be allowed to 

proceed to the next phase until the 

issues are resolved or the risks 

have been mitigated).

Major Issue

An issue regarding one or more of the Army 

HSI domains that, at the time of the rating, will 

not preclude the program from proceeding to 

the next acquisition phase. Major issues often 

differ from those deemed as critical in that the 

degree of severity or the probability for 

occurrence is lower, or there is adequate time 

within the program schedule to resolve the issue 

or mitigate the risk.

Major issues often result in an 

overall AMBER rating to the 

program. This generally results in 

a recommendation that the 

program proceed to the next 

phase, but that the major issues be 

mitigated before the next 

milestone or production decision, 

or the issues may be reassigned a 

Critical rating.

Minor Issue

Minor issues are potential issues or areas of risk 

regarding one or more of the Army HSI 

domains lacking sufficient supporting data or 

analyses. Actions to provide data and/or 

analyses will be accomplished as early as 

possible to determine the severity of the 

potential issue or the degree of probability for 

occurrence. This will facilitate issue resolution 

or risk mitigation.

Systems which have Minor issues

are rated AMBER.

Minor issues reflect findings that

would allow some aspect of the 

system to be improved in relation 

to MPT, but which are not serious 

enough to stop or delay the 

program if not corrected.

No Issue No issues are identified or previous issues have 

been mitigated. “No issues” is rated GREEN.
10

As the milestone or fielding decision approaches, the issues should be documented 

in a report following the format shown in Appendix A. The completed draft MPTA 

should be reviewed according to local policy and sent to the ARL–HRED director 

for signature. Typically an informational copy is also sent to the PM in order to 

provide an opportunity for comment. The MPTA or combined assessment will then 

be integrated into the HSIA Report and sent to the G-1 HSI Office, with a copy of 

the final report being sent to the PM’s office.
11

5. References

1. Headquarters, Department of the Army. Human systems integration in the 

system acquisition process. Washington (DC): Headquarters, Department of 

the Army; 2015 Jan 27. Army Regulation No.: AR 602–2.

2. Acquisition Encyclopedia. Defense Acquisition University [accessed 2015 

May 21]. https://dap.dau.mil/acquipedia

3. Department of Defense. Instruction 5000.02: Operation of the defense 

acquisition system; 2015 Jan 7 [accessed 2015 May 21]. 

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/500002p.pdf

4. Headquarters, Department of the Army. Policies and management for training 

aids, devices, simulators, and simulations. Washington (DC): Headquarters, 

Department of the Army; 2013 Mar 28. Army Regulation No.: AR 350–38.

5. Acquisition Encyclopedia: Military fielding plan (MFP). Defense 

Acquisition University [accessed 2015 May 21]. 

https://dap.dau.mil/acquipedia/Pages/ArticleDetails.aspx?aid=e2b7b1b5-

48b8-48b1-9f63-7d7933ac1778
12

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
13

Appendix A. Manpower, Personnel, and Training (MPT)

Document Matrix 

 

This appendix appears in its original form, without editorial change.
14

MPT Domain Guide System Documentation

DR (D)

IPR (Interim Progress Review) 

FRP (Full-Rate Production) 

Requirements Documents

Document Title

Regulations or

References

ACAT Level Review/Milestone Purpose of Document Prepared By and in

Coordination With...

Approved or

Validated By

Submitted to

I II III A DR B DR C FRP

DR

Capabilities 

Development 

Document (CDD)

Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff 

Instruction (CJCSI) 

3170.01E, 

11 May 05

DoDI 5000.2

8 Dec 08

X X X X X When an affordable 

increment of 

militarily-useful 

capability has been 

identified, the CDD 

will be developed to 

support subsequent 

program initiation and 

refine the integrated 

architecture. 

User or user’s 

representative

Army Chief of Staff 

for Warfighter systems

ACAT – I and IA: As 

designated by the 

JROC Chairman

ACAT – IC: As 

designated by the 

Service Chief or DoD 

Component Head or as 

delegated

Milestone Decision 

Authority Component 

Acquisition Executive 

(CAE); 

Program Executive 

Officer; 

Program Manager 

Capabilities 

Production 

Document (CPD)

CJCSI 3170.01E, 

11 May 05

DoDI 5000.2

8 Dec 08

X X X X X X Document developed 

to support Production 

and Deployment 

phase. 

User or user’s 

representative

Army Chief of Staff 

for Warfighter systems

ACAT – I and IA: As 

designated by the 

JROC Chairman

ACAT – IC: As 

designated by the 

Service Chief or DoD 

Component Head or as 

delegated

Milestone Decision 

Authority CAE; 

Program Executive 

Officer; 

Program Manager 

Initial 

Capabilities 

Document (ICD)

CJCSI 3170.01E, 

11 May 05

DoDI 5000.2

8 Dec 08

X X X X Multiple concepts and 

alternatives that 

examine affordability, 

technology maturity 

and responsiveness. 

Prepared by Services, 

Unified Commands, 

Joint Staff, or Office 

of the Secretary of 

Defense (OSD) Staff

Army Chief of Staff 

for Warfighter systems 

Chairman, Joint 

Requirements 

Oversight Council 

(JROC)

Under Secretary of 

Defense (Acquisition, 

Logistics & Test)

Mission Need 

Statement (MNS)

CJCSI 3170.01E, 

11 May 05

DoDI 5000.2

8 Dec 08

DA Pam 70-3

X X X X Defines a broad nonsystem specific 

statement of 

operational capability 

need written in board 

operational terms. 

MNS are rarely 

developed for ACT II 

through IV programs. 

DA Pam 70-3

Prepared by Services, 

Unified Commands, 

Joint Staff, or OSD 

Staff

Army Chief of Staff 

for Warfighter systems

Chairman, Joint 

Requirements

Oversight Council 

(JROC)

Under Secretary of 

Defense (Acquisition, 

Logistics & Test)
15

Program Documents

Document Title Regulations or

References

ACAT Level Review/Milestone Purpose of Document Prepared by and in

Coordination With

Approved or

Validated By

Submitted To

I II III A D

R

B D

R

C FRP

DR

Acquisition 

Decision 

Memorandum 

(ADM)

DoDI 5000.2

8 Dec 08

X X X X X X X Provides the decision of 

the ADM, including 

approval of the 

Acquisition Strategy if 

not approved prior the 

milestone) and the exit 

criteria for the next 

phase of the program.

Defense Acquisition 

Board Executive 

Secretary,

Component Executive 

Secretary,

Milestone Decision 

Authority staff

Milestone Decision 

Authority

Service Chief or as designated

Component Acquisition 

Executive

Component Program Manager

Acquisition Plan

(may be 

combined with 

the Acquisition 

Strategy)

DoDI 5000.2

8 Dec 08

DA Pam 70-3

X X X X X X Used to facilitate 

attainment of the 

acquisition objectives, 

the plan must address 

all the technical, 

business, management, 

and other significant 

considerations that will 

control the acquisition. 

Provided to the contract 

administration 

organization to 

facilitate resource 

allocation and planning 

for the evaluation, 

identification, and 

management of 

contractor performance.

Program Manager Program Manager.

Submitted as part of the 

Acquisition Strategy to the 

Milestone Decision 

Authority.

Milestone Decision Authority

Acquisition 

Program 

Baseline (APB)

DoDI 5000.2

8 Dec 08

DA Pam 70-3

X X X X X X APB is based on users' 

performance 

requirements, schedule 

requirements, and 

estimate of total 

program cost. 

Performance shall 

include interoperability, 

supportability and, as 

applicable, 

environmental 

requirements.

Program Manager in 

coordination with the 

user. Prepared using 

the Consolidated 

Acquisition Reporting 

System (CARS)

ACAT – I: Milestone 

Decision Authority with 

concurrence by the 

Program Executive Office 

(PEO) and CAE and 

coordination with the 

USD(Comptroller) and 

Requirements Authority

Milestone Decision Authority

Acquisition 

Strategy

DoDI 5000.2

8 Dec 08

FAR

X X X X X X X X Developed in 

preparation for program 

initiation. Defines the 

approach to be 

followed and provides a 

guide for program 

execution from 

initiation through 

procurement of 

systems, including how 

the program is 

structured to achieve 

full capability.

Program Manager 

through the WorkingLevel Integrated 

Product Team and 

Operational Test 

Agency (OTA) 

Milestone Decision 

Authority with 

concurrence by the PEO 

and CAE as appropriate.

Milestone Decision Authority
16

Document Title Regulations or

References

ACAT Level Review/Milestone Purpose of Document Prepared by and in

Coordination With

Approved or

Validated By

Submitted To

I II III A D

R

B D

R

C FRP

DR

Analysis of 

Alternatives 

(AoA)

(Formerly the 

Cost and 

Operational 

Effectiveness 

Analysis –

COEA)

AoA may not be 

required for an 

ACAT III or IV 

programs. 

DA Pam 70-3 (¶ 

2.4.1)

DoDI 5000.2

8 Dec 08

DA Pam 70-3

X X X X X X Analysis of alternative 

ways to meet the 

military need, 

including commercial 

and non-developmental 

technologies and 

products and services 

determined through 

market analysis. For 

most systems, the 

analysis shall consider 

and baseline against the 

system(s) that the 

acquisition program 

will replace, if they 

exist.

Training and Doctrine 

Command 

(TRADOC), (or 

appropriate principal 

staff office for Major 

Automated 

Information Systems 

(MAIS programs) 

responsible for the 

mission area in which 

a deficiency or 

opportunity has been 

identified. 

Program Analysis and 

Evaluation (PA&E), shall

assess the AoA, in terms 

of its comprehensiveness, 

objectivity, and 

compliance with the 

Clinger-Cohen Act. 

Component head or Principal 

Staff Assistant, and to the 

Milestone Decision Authority 

(MDA).

Basis Of Issue 

Plan/ Basis of 

Issue Feeder 

Data 

(BOIP/BOIPF) 

AR 71-32

DA Pam 70-3

DA Pam 700-

142

X X X X X X A compilation of 

specified 

organizational, 

doctrinal, training, and 

personnel information 

developed by the 

materiel developer and 

combat developer for 

new or modified 

materiel items. Feeder 

documents required for 

the Type Classification, 

Materiel Fielding Plan, 

and the Army 

modernization 

reference data 

BOIPF is developed 

by the Materiel 

Developer

BOIP is developed 

by Army Force 

Management Support 

Agency 

HQDA Milestone Decision Authority

Cost Analysis 

Requirements 

Description 

(CARD)

(Major Defense 

Acquisition 

Programs 

(DAPs) only)

DoDI. 5000.2

8 Dec 08

X X X X X Provides quantitative 

descriptions of the 

program characteristics 

from which cost 

estimates will be 

derived. Ensures that 

cost projections 

developed by the 

program office, service 

cost agencies, and the 

CAIG are based on a 

common definition of 

the system and the 

acquisition program. A 

separate CARD is 

generally prepared for 

each alternative under 

consideration.

Program Manager

Prepared for ACAT 

IA programs in 

coordination with the 

IPT members.

Reviewed by Cost 

Integrated Product Team 

(IPT) 

Normally approved by the 

sponsoring component's 

Program Executive Officer 

Draft CARD provided to the 

various cost teams.

Final CARD should be given 

to the Cost Analysis 

Improvement Group (CAIG)
17

Document Title Regulations or

References

ACAT Level Review/Milestone Purpose of Document Prepared by and in

Coordination With

Approved or

Validated By

Submitted To

I II III A D

R

B D

R

C FRP

DR

Economic 

Analysis 

(MAISs only)

DoDI 5000.2

8 Dec 08

DA Pam 70-3

X X Consist of a Life Cycle 

Cost Estimate and a 

life-cycle benefits 

estimate, including a 

return on investment 

calculation. The MDA 

usually directs an 

update to the EA 

whenever program 

cost, schedule, or 

performance 

parameters 

significantly deviate 

from the approved 

APB. 

Program Manager PA&E shall provide 

results of the assessment to 

both the PM and MDA.

Milestone Decision Authority 

shall consider the DoD 

Component cost analysis and 

PA&E assessment.

Health Hazard 

(HH) Domain 

Assessment

AR 602-2 X X X X X X The process of 

identifying, controlling, 

or eliminating health 

hazards during the 

acquisition process.

APHC Deputy Chief of Staff for 

Personnel (DCSPER) 

(DAPE-MR)

Human Factors 

(HFE) 

Engineering 

Domain 

Assessment

AR 602-2 X X X X X X Report that assesses 

systems design from 

the human factors 

engineering 

perspectives as the 

system approaches the 

end of a system 

acquisition phase.

ARL-HRED DCSPER (DAPE-MR)

Independent 

Cost Estimate 

(MDAPs only) 

(N/A for AIS)

Component Cost 

Analyses

(MAIS and 

selected 

MDAPs)

DoDI 5000.2

8 Dec 08

DA Pam 70-3

X X X X X Independent estimate 

of the full life-cycle 

cost of the program, 

including operation and 

support costs that affect 

the decision to proceed 

with development or 

production of the 

system, regardless of 

funding source or 

management control. 

ACAT-ID: Director, 

Cost Analysis 

Improvement Group 

(CAIG)

ACAT -IC: 

Component cost 

analysis activity

Director, Cost Analysis 

Improvement Group 

(CAIG)

Milestone Decision 

Authority

ACAT – ID & IC: Congress

Milestone Decision Authority

Lessons Learned 

from 

Predecessor 

Systems 

(May also be 

contained in 

HSIPs from 

related 

programs)

AR 602-2 X X X X Information provides 

the avoidance of costly 

mistakes during new 

system development

Functional Proponent/ 

user of predecessor 

system

PM
18

Document Title Regulations or

References

ACAT Level Review/Milestone Purpose of Document Prepared by and in

Coordination With

Approved or

Validated By

Submitted To

I II III A D

R

B D

R

C FRP

DR

Live Fire Test & 

Evaluation 

(LFT&E) Report 

DoDI 5000.2

8 Dec 08

X X X X Certification must 

include a report on 

plans to evaluate the 

survivability or 

lethality and assess 

possible alternatives to 

realistic survivability 

testing. Certifies to 

Congress, before the 

system or program 

enters System 

Demonstration, that 

live-fire testing of such 

system or program 

would be unreasonably 

expensive and 

impractical. 

Program Manager Milestone Decision 

Authority

Director, Operational Test 

and Evaluation (DOT&E) 

approves the alternate 

LFT&E Plan.

Congress

Manpower 

Estimate Report 

(MDAPs only) 

(N/A for AIS)

DoDI 5000.2

8 Dec 08

DA Pam 70-3

X X X X Outlines the DoD

Component's official 

manpower position, 

addresses whether the 

program is affordable 

from a military endstrength and civilian 

work year perspective, 

addresses availability 

of personnel, and 

clearly states the risks 

associated with 

achieving the 

manpower numbers 

reported in the 

estimate. Notifies 

Congress of manpower 

estimate for the 

program. 

Program Manager

Service manpower 

sponsor

ACAT – ID: Under 

Secretary of Defense 

(Personnel and Readiness)

Milestone Decision 

Authority

ACAT – ID & IC: Congress

ACAT – IC: Assistant 

Secretary of Defense (Force 

Management & Personnel) 

(information only)

Milestone Decision Authority

Manpower 

Personnel 

Training (MPT) 

Domain 

Assessment

AR 602-2 X X X X X X Assesses manpower, 

personnel and training 

risks of the system. 

Identifies MPT issues 

and addresses impacts 

the system has on MPT 

resources by examining 

a myriad of domain 

characteristics.

ARL-HRED DCSPER (DAPE-MR)

HSI Assessment AR 602-2 X X X X X X Independent review of 

the HSI status of the 

system. The objective 

is to present any 

unresolved HSI 

risks/issues to decision 

makers at appropriate 

decision points. The 

HSI Assessment is a 

rollup of the seven 

Domain assessments 

(M,P,T, SS, HFE, SSv, 

HH).

DCSPER (DAPEMR)

ARL-HRED

Deputy Chief of Staff for 

Personnel (DCSPER)

Milestone Decision Authority 
19

Document Title Regulations or

References

ACAT Level Review/Milestone Purpose of Document Prepared by and in

Coordination With

Approved or

Validated By

Submitted To

I II III A D

R

B D

R

C FRP

DR

Materiel 

Fielding Plan

AR 700-127

AR 700-142

DA Pam 700-

142

X X X X X X Serves as the single 

stand-alone document 

containing the detailed 

plans and actions the 

fielding and gaining 

commands will 

accomplish to 

successfully field and 

deploy a materiel 

system. The MFP will 

also address any 

system or materiel it 

replaces and describe 

how it will be 

transferred or 

retrograded.

Program Manager or 

fielding command, in 

coordination with the 

supportability IPT 

members, gaining 

Major Commands 

(MACOMs), and 

HQDA. Prepared for 

each new materiel 

system having a 

significant support 

impact on the gaining 

MACOM

Deputy Chief of Staff for 

Operations

Gaining MACOMs and 

HQDA

Operational Test 

Activity Report /

System 

Evaluation 

Report (SER) or 

System 

Assessment (SA)

DoDI 5000.2

8 Dec 08

AR 700-142

DA Pam 700-

142

DA Pam 70-3

X X X X X X Document test & 

evaluation results and 

presents a position 

relative to the proposed 

materiel release and 

lists the factors that 

would prevent a full 

release. The SER or 

SA assesses the 

technical performance; 

system safety; and 

operational 

effectiveness, 

suitability and 

survivability.

Army Test and 

Evaluation Command 

(ATEC)

ATEC, 

DOT&E

Congress

Milestone Decision Authority

Programmatic 

Environment, 

Safety, and 

Occupational 

Health 

Evaluation 

(PESHE)

DoD 5000.2 X X X X X X Helps the PM to 

identify and manage 

Environmental Safety 

and Occupational 

Health hazards, risks, 

and compliance with 

regulatory 

requirements.

Program Manager Program Manager

PostDeployment 

Performance 

Review

DA Pam 70-3 X X Used to verify whether 

the fielded system 

meets or exceeds 

thresholds and 

objectives for cost, 

performance, and 

support parameters 

approved at full rate 

production and assesses 

the acquisition 

programs compliance 

with the strategic plan.

Program Manager Program Manager Milestone Decision Authority
20

Document Title Regulations or

References

ACAT Level Review/Milestone Purpose of Document Prepared by and in

Coordination With

Approved or

Validated By

Submitted To

I II III A D

R

B D

R

C FRP

DR

Product Support 

Management 

Plan / 

Supportability 

Strategy

(Part of the 

Acquisition 

Strategy & 

formerly the ILS 

Plan) 

AR 700-127 X X X X X X Provides an integrated 

acquisition and 

logistics strategy 

necessary to maintain 

the readiness and 

operational capability 

of the system.

Program Manager in 

coordination with the 

Materiel Developer.

Program Manager. 

Submitted as part of the 

Acquisition Strategy to the 

Milestone Decision 

Authority.

Milestone Decision Authority

Request for 

Proposals 

/Statement of 

Work 

FAR

DA Pam 70-3

X X X X X Translates CDD/CPD 

system-specific 

requirements into 

contractor work efforts

PM’s contractor Source Selection Advisory 

Council

Soldier 

Survivability 

(SSv) Domain 

Assessment

AR 602-2 X X X X X X Soldier survivability 

Assessment assesses 

the system design 

characteristics in regard 

to soldier survivability.

ARL-SLAD (lead)

ARL-HRED (assist)

DCSPER (DAPE-MR)

Human Systems

Integration Plan 

(HSIP)/ HSIPlike tracking 

document/Comm

on Data 

Elements 

(These are HSI 

Issue Tracking 

Documents)

AR 602-2 X X X X X X X Serves as a planning 

and management 

Domain Guide and an 

audit trail to identify 

tasks, analyses, tradeoffs and decisions that 

must be made in order 

to address HSI issues 

during system 

development and the 

acquisition process.

HSI Working-level 

Integrated Product 

Team chaired by the 

Combat Developer 

develops a HSIP 

jointly with the 

Materiel Developer.

May be done by 

ARL-HRED in 

support of the PM

MAISRC systems: HSIP 

should be jointly approved 

by the Functional 

Proponent, the 

Program/Project Manager, 

and the Combat Developer 

or TRADOC System 

Manager (TSM).

ASARC systems: HSIP 

should be jointly approved 

by the Program/Project 

Manager and the Combat 

Developer or TSM.

Deputy Chief of Staff for 

Personnel (DCSPER)

System Safety 

(SS) Domain 

Assessment

AR 602-2 X X X X X X A report which 

assesses the overall 

safety of the emerging 

or changing system and 

ensures that system 

safety issues and 

concerns, and 

recommended solutions 

are integrated into the 

acquisition program.

Combat Readiness 

Center & AMC 

(ACAT ID, IC & II)

CECOM (IA (IAM, 

IAC))

AMC (ACAT III)

DCSPER (DAPE-MR)
21

Document Title Regulations or

References

ACAT Level Review/Milestone Purpose of Document Prepared by and in

Coordination With

Approved or

Validated By

Submitted To

I II III A D

R

B D

R

C FRP

DR

System Training 

Plan (STRAP)

Training 

Strategy 

/Training 

Development 

Plan / New 

Equipment 

Training (NET)

TRADOC Reg 

350-70

X X X X X X Identifies training 

initiatives that enhance 

the user’s capabilities 

and improve readiness. 

The STRAP documents 

the results of early 

training analyses (who 

requires training, what 

tasks are to be trained) 

and training design 

(where and how the 

Army will conduct 

raining, including 

identification of 

Training Aids, Devices, 

Simulators, and 

Simulations and 

embedded training 

requirements). NET 

accomplishes the 

transfer of knowledge 

on the operation and 

maintenance associated 

with the fielding of 

new, improved, or 

displaced equipment 

from the materiel 

developer to the tester, 

training, support and 

user.

Program Manager, in 

coordination with the 

training community 

or TSM

TRADOC. 

Submitted as part of the 

Acquisition Strategy to the 

Milestone Decision 

Authority.

Milestone Decision Authority

Target Audience 

Description 

(TAD)

AR 602-2

AR 611-1

DA Pam 611-21 

X X X X X X The TAD lists 

occupational identifiers 

for personnel who are 

projected to operate, 

maintain, train, and 

support a specific future 

Army system.

PM in coordination 

with User and 

Personnel 

Proponent(s)

Technology 

Development 

Strategy (TDS)

DoDI 5000.02 X X X X Describes how the 

(potential) acquisition 

program will address 

technology maturity, 

cost, schedule, 

performance goals, and 

exit criteria for the 

Technology 

Development phase. 

This document is the 

forerunner for the 

Acquisition Strategy 

developed for 

Milestone B

Program Manager in 

coordination with the 

user. 

Milestone Decision Authority
22

Document Title Regulations or

References

ACAT Level Review/Milestone Purpose of Document Prepared by and in

Coordination With

Approved or

Validated By

Submitted To

I II III A D

R

B D

R

C FRP

DR

Test & 

Evaluation 

Strategy/Test & 

Evaluation 

Master Plan 

(TEMP) 

(includes Critical 

Operational 

Issues and 

Criteria (COICs)

DoDI 5000.2

8 Dec 08

X X X X

 

X X X Coordinates 

developmental testing, 

operational testing, live 

fire testing, 

interoperability testing, 

modeling, and 

simulation activities 

into an efficient 

continuum. COICs are 

the operational 

effectiveness and 

operational suitability 

issues (not parameters, 

objectives or 

thresholds) that must be 

examined in operational 

test and evaluation to 

evaluate/assess the 

system’s capability to 

perform its mission.

Program Manager, 

through the program’s 

T&E Working–level 

Integrated Product 

Team and in concert 

with the user and test 

communities.

OIPT Leader

DOT&E

Milestone Decision Authority
23

Appendix B. Manpower Personnel and Training Assessment 

Process Guide Sheet 

 

This appendix appears in its original form, without editorial change.
24

Manpower Personnel & Training Assessment Process Guide Sheet

Milestone B & C

I. Document review

(Some of these documents may be unavailable or in draft form, but you should try to get as many of these as possible. Use 

Appendix A to check on the availability of required documents and include any voids in the MPTA)

Title Date Pre MS MS A MS B MS C

Analysis of Alternatives

Acquisition Program Baseline

Technology Development Strategy (MS A) or 

Acquisition Strategy (MS B)

Acquisition Plan

Operational Requirements Document (ORD)

Initial Capabilities Document (ICD)

Capabilities Development Document (CDD)

Capabilities Production Document

Mission Needs Statement (MNS)

Basis of Issue Plan / Basis of Issue Feeder (BOIP/BOIPF)

Cost Analysis Requirements Description (CARD)

Manpower Estimate Report

Target Audience Description

Materiel Fielding Plan

Operational Mode Summary / Mission Profile (OMS/MP)

Product Support Management Plan / Supportability Strategy

System HSI Management Plan (HSIP)(or equivalent)

System Training Plan (STraP)
25

Test & Evaluation Strategy / Test & Evaluation Master Plan

(Includes Critical Operational Issues & Criteria (COICs)

Operational Test Activity Report(s) / System Assessment Report

Any government or contractor reports involving operators, training, user 

feedback (User Juries, interviews).

Documents, usability test results, HSI Assessments, etc. for the predecessor 

system, if applicable.
26

These questions should form the core of the assessment. The questions, and data sources, are not limiting and additional concerns or 

information sources may be included, based on the characteristics of the system being assessed.

The data sources are the most direct sources of information for each question. Additional sources of information can be located in the 

document list in the MPTA Handbook.

II. MANPOWER

1. Are there sufficient numbers of Soldiers available to operate the system?

a. If this system replaces an existing 

system, is the same number of 

operators required?

Data Sources:

- Table of Organization and Equipment 

(TO&E) of the receiving unit

- Early design documents of the new 

system, showing the number of 

operators or crew.

- Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)

- Capabilities Development Document 

(CDD)

b. If the system is an entirely new 

system, not replacing a predecessor, 

can the available Soldiers in the 

receiving unit operate the system in 

addition to their existing duties?

Data Sources:

- Table of Organization and Equipment 

(TO&E) of the receiving unit

- Workload models, Soldier interviews, 

and results of User Evaluations using 

mock-ups or prototypes to predict 

workload.

- Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)

- Capabilities Development Document 

(CDD)
27

c. If the new system and the 

predecessor system will be used by a 

unit at the same time, is there a plan 

to provide Manpower for both 

systems?

Data Sources:

- TO&E of the receiving unit

- Workload models, Soldier interviews, 

and User Evaluations using mock-ups 

or prototypes to predict workload.

d. If the system requires additional 

Soldiers, has a source for those 

Soldiers (bill payer) been identified?

Data Sources:

- Manpower Assessment Report

e. Does evidence support that the 

proposed number of operators are 

sufficient to support the system? 

Data Sources:

- Workload studies 

- Field Study results

f. Have Active, Reserve, and National 

Guard components been considered 

in all of the above?

Data Sources:

- Manpower Assessment Report
28

Manpower (cont.)

2. Are there sufficient numbers of Soldiers available to Maintain the system?

a. What is the maintenance concept for this 

system?

Data Sources:

- Product Support Management Plan / 

Supportability Strategy

b. To what extent is maintenance 

performed by Soldiers, FSRs, or through 

shipping line-replaceable units (LRUs) 

to the rear.

Data Sources:

- Product Support Management Plan / 

Supportability Strategy

c. If this system replaces an existing 

system, is the same number of 

Maintainers required?

Data Sources:

- Table of Organization and Equipment 

(TO&E) of the receiving unit

- Workload models, Soldier interviews, 

Log Demos, & User Evaluations 

using mock-ups or prototypes to 

predict workload.

- Maintenance Strategy

- Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)

- Capabilities Development Document 

(CDD)

- Associated Items of Support 

Equipment

- Field Tests, Customer Tests, User 

Tests.

1. If the new system and the predecessor 

system will be used by a unit at the 

same time, is there a plan to provide 

- TO&E of the receiving unit

- Workload models, Soldier 

interviews, and User Evaluations 
29

Manpower to maintain both 

systems?

using mock-ups or prototypes to 

predict workload.

- Field Tests, Customer Tests, User 

Tests.
30

d. If the system is an entirely new system, 

not replacing a predecessor, can the 

available Soldiers in the receiving unit 

maintain the system in addition to their 

existing duties?

Data Sources:

- Table of Organization and Equipment 

(TO&E) of the receiving unit

- Workload models, Soldier interviews, 

& User Evaluations using mock-ups 

to predict workload

- Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)

- Capabilities Development Document 

(CDD)

- Associated Items of Support 

Equipment

- PM Technical Support contracts

- Field Tests, Customer Tests, User 

Tests.

e. Have the Soldiers required to perform 

Logistical Support and Sustainment, 

including Associated Items of Support 

Equipment (AIOSE) been considered in 

the Manpower requirements.

Data Sources

- Manpower Estimate

- Product Support Management Plan / 

Supportability Strategy

f. Does evidence support that the proposed 

number of maintainers are sufficient to 

support the system?

Data Sources:

- Workload studies

- LogDemo Results

- RAM/Integrated Logistics Support 

Analysis

- Field Tests, Customer Tests, User 

Tests.
31

g. If the system requires additional

Soldiers, has a source for those Soldiers 

(bill payer) been identified?

Data Sources:

- Manpower Assessment Report

h. Have Active, Reserve, and National 

Guard components been considered in 

all of the above?

Data Sources:

- Manpower Assessment Report
32

Manpower (cont)

3. Have the requirements for non-Soldier personnel required to maintain the system been identified?

a. How many civilians will be required to 

maintain or sustain the systems?

1. What Civilian Occupation will be 

required?

2. What Grade of Civilian will be 

required?

Data Source

– Manpower Estimate report

PM Support Contracts

Field Tests, Customer Tests, Operational 

Tests.

b. How many contractor personnel (Field 

Service Representatives (FSRs), 

contractor-instructors, etc.) will be 

needed to support the system?

1. Will the need for contractor support 

be on-going or reduced over time 

after initial fielding?

Data Source

– Manpower Estimate report

Field Tests, Customer Tests, Operational 

Tests.

c. Does evidence support that the proposed 

number of civilians are sufficient to 

support the system?

Data Sources:

- Workload studies

- LogDemo Results

- RAM/Integrated Logistics Support 

Analysis
33

Personnel

1. Are the Soldiers assigned to operate this system of the correct MOS, skill-set, rank, and aptitude?

a. Are the Operators of the correct

1. MOS: Military Occupational Specialty

2. WOMOS: Warrant Officers MOS

3. AOC: Area of Concentration

Data Sources

- DA Pam 611-21 Smartbook at 

https://smartbook.armyg1.pentagon.mil/default.aspx 

b. Rank: Are the Soldiers assigned to the 

system of ranks corresponding to skill and 

responsibility required? For instance, is 

vehicle command being assigned to an 

enlisted Soldier; is a high degree of 

experience being assumed when a junior 

operator is likely?

This will include listings of MOS, and 

the physical and mental requirements.

- TRADOC and target user population 

interviews will provide insight on skillsets, experience levels, and rank and 

responsibility crosswalks.

c. Skill Set: Are the skill required to operate 

the system compatible with the target 

user’s skills. If new skills need to be 

trained will this degraded the Soldier’s 

ability to maintain his core knowledge 

Skills and Abilities?

- Security Classification Guideline for the 

system.

- User Juries, or reports from operators in 

Maintenance or Operational Test or 

other Use Evaluations.

d. Aptitude: Are the tasks required to operate 

the system within the aptitude range for the 

target Soldier, in terms of ASVAB, 

education level?

- Target Audience Description

- Task Analysis
34

e. Security Clearance: Do the operators, 

maintainers, civilian support, and 

contractors associated with the system 

require security clearances, and at what 

level?

f. Physical requirements: Are the physical 

requirements (size, strength) required to 

maintain the system compatible with the 

operator Target Audience?

- PULHES (Physical capacity/stamina, 

Upper extremities, Lower extremities, 

Hearing/ear, Eyes, Psychiatric) 

requirement for the MOS

g. Is the operator MOS open to Male and 

Female Soldiers?

- Target Audience Description

h. Are the skills required to operate this 

system so specific or restrictive that it will 

restrict promotion or career development?

- Interviews with Senior NCOs following 

training and Operational Testing

- TCM Subject Mater Expert opinion

i. Will operating the system require special 

licensing, an additional Functional Area 

(officers), or Additional Skill Identifier 

(enlisted and Warrants)?

- ICD or CDD

- Target Audience Description
35

Personnel (Cont)

2. Are the Soldiers assigned to maintain this system of the correct MOS, skill-set, rank, and aptitude?

a. Are the Maintainers of the correct

MOS: Military Occupational Specialty

WOMOS: Warrant Officers MOS

AOC: Area of Concentration

Data Sources

- DA Pam 611-21 Smartbook at 

https://smartbook.armyg1.pentagon.mil/default.aspx

b. Rank: Are the Soldiers assigned to the 

system of ranks corresponding to skill and 

responsibility required? For instance, is 

vehicle command being assigned to an 

enlisted Soldier; is a high degree of 

experience being assumed when a junior 

operator is likely?

This will include listings of MOS, and 

the physical and mental requirements.

- TRADOC and target user population 

interviews will provide insight on skillsets, experience levels, and rank and 

responsibility crosswalks.

c. Skill Set: Are the skill required to maintain 

the system compatible with the target 

user’s skills. If new skills need to be 

trained will this degraded the Soldier’s 

ability to maintain his score KSAs?

- Security Classification Guideline for the 

system.

d. Aptitude: Are the tasks required to 

maintain the system within the aptitude 

range for the target Soldier, in terms of 

ASVAB, education level?

- User Juries, or reports from operators in 

Maintenance or Operational Test or 

other Use Evaluations

e. Security Clearance: Do the operators, 

maintainers, civilian support, and 

contractors associated with the system 

require security clearances, and at what 

level?

- Target Audience Description

- Task Analysis
36

f. Physical requirements: Are the physical 

requirements (size, strength) required to 

maintain the system compatible with the 

maintainer Target Audience?

- PULHES requirement for the MOS

g. Is the maintainer MOS open to Male 

and Female Soldiers?

- Target Audience Description

h. Are the skills required to operate this 

system so specific or restrictive that it will 

restrict promotion or career development?

- Interviews with Senior NCOs following 

training, LogDemo, and Operational 

Testing

- TCM Subject Mater Expert opinion

i. Will maintaining or supporting the system 

require special licensing, an additional 

Functional Area (officers), or Additional 

Skill Identifier (enlisted and Warrants)?

- ICD or CDD

- Target Audience Description

-
37

Training

1. Is the Training Strategy supportable?

-

a. Is there an approved New Equipment 

Training (NET) package?

Data Sources

- Training Manual (TM’s), Field Manuals 

(FM’s), training packages

- System Training Plan (STraP)

b. Are there instructors identified to conduct 

NET?

Data Sources

– System Training Plan (STraP)

– ICD or CDD

c. Is there a long-term training plan for new 

operators and maintainers?

Data Sources

– System Training Plan (STraP)

- ICD or CDD

d. Are there resources to support new 

operator and maintainer training, to include

1. Instructors

2. Student time (course length)

3. Facilities (classrooms, ranges, 

training aids such as mock-ups)

4. Support or auxiliary equipment or 

materiel required for system 

initialization

5. Equipment that must interface with 

the new system (e.g. information or 

situation awareness systems)

6. Simulators that emulate items 4 and 

5 above.

Data Sources

– System Training Plan (STraP)

- ICD or CDD
38

d.1. If the new system and the predecessor 

system will be in a unit at the same time, is 

there a plan to support training for both 

systems?

Data Sources

– System Training Plan (STraP)

ICD or CDD

e. Is there a strategy for Sustainment 

training?

Data Sources

– System Training Plan (STraP)

f. Are there resources to support operator and 

maintainer sustainment training, to include

1. Instructors

2. Student time (course length)

3. Facilities (classrooms, ranges, 

training aids such as mock-ups)

4. Support or auxiliary equipment or 

materiel required for system 

initialization

5. Equipment that must interface with 

the new system (e.g. information or 

situation awareness systems)

6. Simulators that emulate items 4 and 

5 above.

Data Sources

– System Training Plan (STraP)

- ICD or CDD
39

g. If there is a licensure, certification, or 

security clearance required to operate and 

maintain the system, has a license renewal 

or recertification process been defined?

– System Training plan (STraP)

h. Are the licensing or recertification 

requirement sustainable in terms of

1. Instructor availability

2. Time required

3. Resources (ranges, test equipment)

– TRADOC

i. Is there a Training Effectiveness Analysis 

(TEA) or formal training assessment 

planned?

Data Sources

– System Training Plan (STraP)

– Review of NET and Sustainment 

Training resources

– Observation or Reports from NET
40

Training (Cont)

2. Are training materials appropriate?

Data Sources (All Training issues)

- Training Manual (TM’s), Field 

Manuals (FM’s), training packages

- Subjective (Soldier & SME feedback) 

and Objective (ability of trained 

Soldier’s ability to complete tasks; 

reports on failed tasks of training 

gaps) from New Equipment Training 

for any User or Operational Testing.

- Training Effectiveness Analysis 

(TEA)

a. Is the material written at a 9th grade 

level or below 

Data Source

Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL)

From a sample of about 200 words

Calculate the average number of 

words per sentence (WPS)

Calculate the average number of 

syllables per word (SPW)

FKGL – (0.39 * WPS) + (11.8 * 

SPW) – 15.59
41

b. Is the training material Accurate? Data Sources

– Validate Maintenance Manuals 

through Log Demo

– Follow training with manuals to check 

for accuracy.

– Verify with Soldiers that Training 

provided them with the necessary 

information to operate or maintain the 

system through operational test

c. Is the training easy to understand? Data Sources

- Interviews with Soldiers completing 

training

- In testing, can trained Soldiers 

complete the required tasks?

d. Is there a need or strategy for collective 

training

- System Training Plan (STraP)

- ICD & CDD

e. Is the time and cost required for 

operator and maintainer training 

sustainable by the unit and the 

individual Soldier

- System Training Plan (STraP)Training 

requirements for predecessor system

f. Is there a training plan for Reserve or 

National Guard units?

- System Training Plan (STraP)

g. Is there a plan to use Simulators, Mockups, or Imbedded training for initial or 

sustainment training

- ICD

- STRAP

- VV&A for simulation

-
42

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
43

List of Symbols, Abbreviations, and Acronyms

ACAT acquisition category

AMC Army Materiel Command

AoA Analysis of Alternatives

APHC Army Public Health Center

AR Army Regulation

ARL US Army Research Laboratory

ASARC Army Systems Acquisition Review Council

ASI Additional Skill Identifier

ASVAB Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery

ATEC US Army Test and Evaluation Command

BOIP Basis of Issue Plan

BOIPFD Basis of Issue Plan Feeder Data

CAE Component Acquisition Executive

CAIG Cost Analysis Improvement Group

CARD Cost Analysis Requirements Description

CDD Capabilities Development Document

CECOM US Army Communications–Electronics Command

CJCSI Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction

COIC Critical Operational Issues and Criteria

DCSPER Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

DOD Department of Defense

DODI Department of Defense Instruction

DOT&E Director Operational Test and Evaluation

DOTMLPF Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and 

Education, Personnel, and Facilities
44

FSR field support representative

HFEA Human Factors Engineering Assessment

HQDA Headquarters, Department of the Army

HRED Human Research and Engineering Directorate

HSI Human Systems Integration

HSIA Human Systems Integration Assessment

HSIP Human Systems Integration Plan

ICD Initial Capabilities Document

ILS Integrated Logistics Support

IPT Integrated Product Team

JPO joint program office

JROC Joint Requirements Oversight Counsel

JWG Joint Working Group

KSA knowledge, skills, and abilities

LFT&E Live Fire Test and Evaluation

MACOM Major Command

MAIS Major Automated Information Systems

MDA Milestone Decision Authority

MDAP Major Defense Acquisition Program

MER Manpower Estimate Report

MFP Materiel Fielding Plan

MOS Military Occupational Specialty

MP Mission Profile

MPT manpower, personnel, and training

MPTA Manpower, Personnel, and Training Assessment

NET New Equipment Training

OMS Operational Mode Summary
45

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PA&E Program of Analysis and Evaluation

PEO Program Executive Officer

PM program manager

PULHES Physical (stamina), Upper extremities, Lower extremities, Hearing 

(ears), Eyes, Psychiatric (military physical profile)

RAM reliability, maintainability, and availability

SA System Assessment

SER System Evaluation Report

STRAP System Training Plan

TAD Target Audience Description

TEMP Test and Evaluation Master Plan

TO&E Table of Organization and Equipment

TRADOC US Army Training and Doctrine Command

TRL technology readiness level

TSM TRADOC System Manager
46

DEFENSE TECHNICAL

(PDF) INFORMATION CTR

DTIC OCA

2 DIRECTOR

(PDF) US ARMY RESEARCH LAB

RDRL CIO LL

IMAL HRA MAIL & RECORDS

MGMT

1 GOVT PRINTG OFC

(PDF) A MALHOTRA

1 ARMY RSCH LAB – HRED

(PDF) RDRL HRM D

T DAVIS

BLDG 5400 RM C242

REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 

35898-7290

1 ARMY RSCH LAB – HRED

(PDF) RDRL HRS EA DR V J RICE

BLDG 4011 RM 217

1750 GREELEY RD

FORT SAM HOUSTON TX 

78234-5002

1 ARMY RSCH LAB – HRED

(PDF) RDRL HRM DG J RUBINSTEIN

BLDG 333

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 ARMY RSCH LAB – HRED

(PDF) ARMC FIELD ELEMENT

RDRL HRM CH C BURNS

THIRD AVE BLDG 1467B RM 336

FORT KNOX KY 40121

1 ARMY RSCH LAB – HRED

(PDF) AWC FIELD ELEMENT

RDRL HRM DJ D DURBIN

BLDG 4506 (DCD) RM 107

FORT RUCKER AL 36362-5000 

1 ARMY RSCH LAB – HRED

(PDF) RDRL HRM CK J REINHART

10125 KINGMAN RD BLDG 317

FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5828

1 ARMY RSCH LAB – HRED

(PDF) RDRL HRM AY M BARNES

2520 HEALY AVE 

STE 1172 BLDG 51005

FORT HUACHUCA AZ 85613-7069

1 ARMY RSCH LAB – HRED

(PDF) RDRL HRM AP D UNGVARSKY

POPE HALL BLDG 470 

BCBL 806 HARRISON DR

FORT LEAVENWORTH KS 

66027-2302

1 ARMY RSCH LAB – HRED

(PDF) RDRL HRM AR J CHEN

12423 RESEARCH PKWY

ORLANDO FL 32826-3276

1 ARMY RSCH LAB – HRED

(PDF) HUMAN SYSTEMS

INTEGRATION ENGR

TACOM FIELD ELEMENT

RDRL HRM CU P MUNYA

6501 E 11 MILE RD 

MS 284 BLDG 200A 

WARREN MI 48397-5000

1 ARMY RSCH LAB – HRED

(PDF) FIRES CTR OF EXCELLENCE 

FIELD ELEMENT

RDRL HRM AF C HERNANDEZ

3040 NW AUSTIN RD RM 221

FORT SILL OK 73503-9043

1 ARMY RSCH LAB – HRED

(PDF) RDRL HRM AV W CULBERTSON

91012 STATION AVE 

FORT HOOD TX 76544-5073

1 ARMY RSCH LAB – HRED

(PDF) RDRL HRM DE A MARES

1733 PLEASONTON RD BOX 3

FORT BLISS TX 79916-6816

8 ARMY RSCH LAB – HRED

(PDF) SIMULATION & TRAINING

TECHNOLOGY CENTER

RDRL HRT COL G LAASE

RDRL HRT I MARTINEZ

RDRL HRT T R SOTTILARE

RDRL HRT B N FINKELSTEIN

RDRL HRT G A RODRIGUEZ

RDRL HRT I J HART

RDRL HRT M C METEVIER

RDRL HRT S B PETTIT

12423 RESEARCH PARKWAY

ORLANDO FL 32826
47

1 ARMY RSCH LAB – HRED

(PDF) HQ USASOC

RDRL HRM CN R SPENCER

BLDG E2929 DESERT STORM DR

FORT BRAGG NC 28310

1 ARMY G1

(PDF) DAPE MR B KNAPP

300 ARMY PENTAGON RM 2C489

WASHINGTON DC 20310-0300

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

12 DIR USARL

(PDF) RDRL HR

L ALLENDER

P FRANASZCZUK

K MCDOWELL

RDRL HRM

P SAVAGE-KNEPSHIELD

RDRL HRM AL

C PAULILLO

RDRL HRM B

J GRYNOVICKI

R TAUSON

RDRL HRM C

L GARRETT

RDRL HRS

J LOCKETT

RDRL HRS B

M LAFIANDRA

RDRL HRS D

A SCHARINE

RDRL HRS E

D HEADLEY
48

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.