Research Report 1424

Information Requirements for

Battlefield Management System:

N Survey and Prototype Evaluation

00 Jared B. Jobe

ARI Field Unit at Fort Knox, Kentucky b

Training Research Laboratory

DTL EECTE f __ __ _ MAR 3 118

L E

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

June 1986

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

-8 .7 3 ,: 09~1
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WM. DARRYL HENDERSON EDGAR M. JOHNSON COL. IN

Technical Director Commanding'

Technical review by

Carl W. Lickteig

Randall X. Chambers

NOT ICES

DISTRIBUTION. Primary distribution of this report has been made by ARI. Please address corre

spondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S. Army Research institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences, ATTN: PER I-POT, 5001 Eisenhower Ave . Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

FINAL DISPOSITION. This report may he destroyed when it *s no longer needed Please do niot

return it to the U.S Army Research Institute for the Behavior dl ad Sm181 Sciences

NOTE The findings in this report are not to be conistruned da ,i official Del)dr tmferi of nt Airliv~

position, unless so designated by other aothor iied documents
UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (10"m Date EntorM4)________________

REPOR DOCUENTATION PAGE BIEFORE CMLM F0O01

1. RPORT NMEmS GOVT ACCESSION NO .&ReCIPSENVrS CATALOG NUMBER

ARI Research Report 1424 r

4. YITLE (ME~e4 S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

INFORNTION REQUIREMENTS FOR BATTLEFIELD Final Report

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: SURVEY AND PROTOTYPE January 1985-June 1985

EVALUATION G. PERPORMNGORG RE IPORT NUMBER

7. S.NO$ CONTRACT OR **ANY NWiOKWA)

Jared B. Jobe

9. PERORMING0 OIWANIZATI@N NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PRO0RAM ILEUENJ PROJECT. TASM

U.S. 

and 

Army 

Social 

Research 

Sciences, 

Institute 

Fort Knox 

for the 

Field Behavioral UnitJ AREAS G ORIE UNIT N"7SE

Steele Hall, Fort Knox, KY 40121 2Q263743A7 94

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral June 1986

and Social Sciences ISL NUMBER OF PAGE

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 45

14. MONITORING AGENCY HNM & ADORESS('g11feni fIte Cm~oI.*U Olioe) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of .W ftoSt)

- Unclassified

IC DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of IWO AWNet

'Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

'17. ISTRI8UTION STATEMENT (of Me. abb PI f mted be Wleek 20. It Athtemt be Ropme

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

IS. KEY WORDS (Cmt~nu on rosere side IH 000.660Y OWn 1~l y by block mao)

Command and control Battlefield information

User requirements Graphic portrayal

Armored Vehicle SMI Map information

Human factors engineering EMS

2L ANSTRACr (~~MEMw Powo uebb N nieOumy and hftwia7 by block mmb)

A~ Two survey projects that evaluated information requirements for platoon

leaders, platoon sergeants, and wingmen for a Battlefield Management System

are reported.

In Survey I, 30 armor officers and NCOs rated 34 information items on the

basis of their necessity for mission accomplishment. Ratings were compared to

the ratings of a group of four subject matter experts (SMEs). Results indicated that t here was substantial agreement among raters for (Continued)

AWN,, 03 EIINOPINVLISORLT UNCLASS IFIED

i SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OP THfS PACE (10bm, Dae Eaffwed
UNCLASSIFIED

SICUMITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Whm Dole Eneered)

ARI Research Report 1424

20. (Continued)

'>information requirements for the three duty positions and that there was substantial agreement between players and SMEs on the overall priorities. The

information items common to top 10 ratings of both groups were (1) critical

situation alert, (2) concept of operations, (3) heading reference/navigation, (4) call for fire, (5) comand mission, and (6) reports (format).

In Survey IT, 16 of the 30 players participated in a demonstration of a

Texas Instruments prototype system that presented these BMS information

items: (1) aided navigation, (2) friendly positions, (3) enemy positions,

(4) fuel status, (5) ammo status, (6) warning sensors, and (7) equipment

failure. Players rated the priority of the seven elements equally and indicated that they would like the information displayed in two clusters, tactical and logistical. Results are discussed in terms of their relationship to

duty positions. /e., ,, : - . . ,

Accession F'or

NTIS GRAV.

DTIC TAM; Unannounced

Justification

By

Distribution/

Availability Codes

Avail and/or

Dist Special @

UNCLASSIFIED

SIECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(rWh o#* Entered)
Research Report 1424

Information Requirements for

Battlefield Management System:

Survey and Prototype Evaluation

Jared B. Jobe

ARI Field Unit at Fort Knox, Kentucky

Donald F. Haggard, Chief

Training Research Laboratory

Harold Wagner, Acting Director

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

Office. Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

June 1986

Army Project Number Education and Training

20263743A794

Approved for public release: distribution unlimited.

i~i '3d -.
ARI Research Reports and Technical Reports are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and for other research and military agencies. Any findings ready

for implementation at the time of publication are presented in the last part

of the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

rt

."

5,

5,
FOREWORD

The Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI)

is currently conducting research to determine the effects of future battlefield conditions on tank gunnery performance. As part of this effort, the

Fort Knox Field Unit is conducting research to improve combat performance by

providing selected information to commanders and crews. This report presents

the results of two surveys evaluating information items of a Battlefield Management System (BMS) at the platoon level. Information items receiving high

ranks in these experiments are potential candidates for a BMS system. The

long-term goal of this research is to enhance soldier readiness by facilitating the soldier's capability to use future friendly weapons systems and by

devising means to counter future battlefield threats.

EDGAR M. J0HN ON

Technical Director

Z I,

V.N

N
INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BATTLEFIELD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM:

SURVEY AND PROTOTYPE EVALUATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Requirement:

New technologies offer many opportunities for improving armor system capabilities to enhance crew performance. Unfortunately, expensive technologies are

often adopted into weapons systems in the absence of reliable data to support

their effectiveness. The purpose of this project is to evaluate potential information items for a Battlefield Management System (BMS) at the platoon level.

This project is part of a widescale effort in progress at Fort Knox to develop

an effective BMS system for the maneuver force.

Procedure:

In Survey I, 30 armor officers and NCOs participated and rated 34 information items for the duty positions of platoon leader, platoon sergeant, and

wingman. Their ratings were compared to those of the same 34 items by four

Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). Sixteen of the former group participated in

Survey II, which was a demonstration of a prototype BMS system developed by

Texas Instruments.

Findings:

In Survey I, there was substantial agreement among subjects on the top 10

information items required for the duty positions, with 9 items appearing on

the top 10 lists for all positions tested. There was also significant agreement between the subjects and the SMEs on the overall requirements with 6 items

appearing on the top 10 of both groups. The items were (1) critical situation

alert, (2) concept of operations, (3) heading reference/navigation, (4) call

for fire, (5) command mission, and (6) reports (format). In Survey II subjects

found the Texas Instruments prototype system to be effective, but recommended

modification to the map display.

Utilization of Findings:

The knowledge gained from this project can he utilized in the development

of BMS hardware and software to significantly ,nhanct- th, combat ettectiveness

of the maneuver force.

vii
INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BATT'LEFIELD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM:

SURVEY AND PROTOTYPE EVALUATION

CONTENTS

Page

I NTRODUCTION. ....... . . . . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. I

SURVEY I METHOD . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... . 2

Subjects . .. . oo. ... ... .ooo...o. .. .. ...... 2

Instrumentso . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. .. ... 3

Procedure .o . . o . . . . . . o .. .. . . . o.. o. .. ... 3

Analysis ... o....ooo...... .. . . o. .. ..... o o . 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONo . . . . . o . o . o . . o o o . o . o o 4

Platoon Leader's TankRatis.. o.... ........... 4

Platoon Sergeant's Tank Ratings . o. . .. oo. ... . . . ... . 5

Wingman's Tank Ratings . . o . . ...... ... . . .. .... 6

Overall SME and Subject Ratingso . .o . . . . . ... o. .. . 6

Remaining Questions from BMS Elements Questionnaire . . .o.....7

SURVEY II o . . oooo . . .o . . . . ....... . . o.. .. ... o 8

METHOD .o . .. . ....... .. oo.. ... o.. .. ... o..oo.o. .. 8

Subjects.................. ..... .............. 8

Apparatus..o.................................8

Procedureo.......... . .. .. .. .. .o. ........ 8

Analysis. ........... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .... 11

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .. ..................... o..o...1

GENERAL DISCUSSION. ............................. 12

REFERENCES.. o............ ........ o. .. .. .. . ..... 14

APPENDIX A. BIOGRAPHICAL QUESTIONNAIRE........... ......... A-1

B. BMS ELEMENTS UESTIONNAIRE .................. B-1

C. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA...... ............ ........... C-i

D. PLATOON LEADEs'S TANK RANK SUMS OF BMS

INFORMATION ITEMS........ .................. D-1

Eo PLATOON SERGEANT'S TANK RANK SUMS OF BMS

INFORMATION ITEMS. ...........................-1

ix
CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

APPENDIX F. WINGMAN'S TANK RANK SUMS OF BMS INFORMATION ITEMS . . . . . . F-i

G. OVERALL WEIGHTED RANKINGS OF BMS INFORMATION

ITEMS BY SMEs AND SUBJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-i

H. POST TEST QUESTIONNAIRE. . . ................ H-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary demographic data ..... ..................... 3

2. Top ten information items . . . . ........ . . . . . . . 5

3. Display items and preferred display format for the

prototype TI system . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure i. Lab demonstration system ......... ................... 9

2. Battlefield leader's aid ...... ................. 10

x.
INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BATTLEFIELD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: SURVEY AND PROTOTYPE EVALUATION

INTRODUCTION

The Battlefield Management System (BMS) is a concept designed to enhance

command and control, surveillance, and fire distribution of the maneuver

force. The BMS concept is designed in response to the single greatest deficiency on the battlefield today and in the future: the lack of time availa- 6

ble to effectively coordinate combat systems and integrate battlefield information. BMS is intended as a replacement for inaccurate and inefficient

methods and equipment currently used by command fighting vehicles. These

methods include slow voice communications, hard copy maps with acetate and

grease pencils, soldier dependent slow target acquisition, tracking and handoff, and inaccurate land navigation (BMS, 1984).

The field artillery now uses the TACFIRE system to provide faster fire

support reaction times to targets on the battlefield than the conventional

method. Lessons learned from the TACFIRE led to the development of the Advance Field Artillery Test Designation System (AFATDS) (BMS, 1984). Efforts

are in progress to develop an even more sophisticated system for the M1 tank

and Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. An automated BMS might include an

elaborate sensor array (both on board and external), an on board computer, artificial intelligence, and a display system. Information presented might

include: (1) continuous real time information such as a terrain map,

friendly and enemy vehicle locations, and contaminated areas; (2) real time

information such as orders, identification friend or foe; (3) on call information such as operational plan, sectors of fire, adjacent unit situation;

(4) logistics data; (5) maintenance data; and (6) administrative data

(Blasche & Lickteig, 1983). Much research is required in BMS including what

information to prer . , how to present it, how to train soldiers to utilize

the information, and the effect of this information on overall crew performance. To date, only a few experiments have investigated the effects of some

of this information on crew performance.

The US Army Human Engineering Laboratory and the German Ministry of

Defense conducted an experiment evaluating the effects of presenting to tank

platoon leaders real time location information on enemy and/or friendly tanks

(Walker & Reiner, 1984). The experiment was conducted using the APKA system

which is a mobile, computer driven, interactive command and control simulator

operating in real-time. The system utilizes tank commander and driver displays, and up to 40 tanks of two different types may be allocated to opposing

forces. The test consisted of 72 free-play, opposing-force battles. Three

conditions were evaluated: baseline, in which the platoon operated with only

the normal operational orders information; friendly, in which the real-time

locations of all friendly tanks were shown to the platoon leader on a separate video screen; and friendly-enemy, in which real-time locations of all

enemy and friendly tanks were displayed to the platoon leader using different

symbols. Results indicated that platoons with electronic position information won more battles, but that differences in performance between the pla-

.1
toons receiving friendly location information and the platoons receiving

friendly and enemy location information were not substantial. In addition,

platoon leaders failed to use the information effectively. The authors report that this failure was likely due to the lack of specific training in

ways to take maximum advantage of this information.

Combat Developments Experimentation Center (CDEC) (1982) investigated

the effects of providing information on threat weapon location and identification to an armor or combined arms armor platoon leader. Information was

conveyed to the platoon leader by depicting the type and position of threat

weapons on copies of 1:50,000 cardboard-backed photocopied maps. Positions

were depicted dynamically by providing a sequence of maps showing successive

positions. The friendly force consisted of four tanks and one armored personnel carrier (APC) with a TOW anti-tank weapon; the threat force consisted

of one M60 tank simulating a Soviet tank (T-72) and one APC with TOW

simulating a Soviet infantry fighting vehicle (BMP) with SAGGER anti-tank

guided missiles. On some trials four tank decoys were used in the threat

array. The threat force was in a hasty defense; the friendly force conducted

a movement to contact or a hasty attack. On half the trials the friendly

platoon leader received the threat location information. Battles developed

more slowly and players fired fewer shots on trials with threat location

information. There were indications that the information was not effectively

disseminated to the platoon by the platoon leader, although platoon leaders

4reported the information provided a distinct advantage.

A recent Army Research Institute experiment (Jobe & Witmer, 1985) investigated the effectiveness of a display that provides target location and

prioritization information to an M60A1 gunner using the Battlesight arcade

style gunnery simulator. In that experiment presence or absence of the display in Phase I was combined factorially with presence or absence of the

display in Phase II. Results indicated that the target location and prioritization information significantly reduced the time to complete a session of

firing 50 rounds and significantly reduced the number of times the player was

killed by hostile fire. Players shifted from no display in Phase I to display in Phase II showed significant improvement in performance, whereas players shifted from display to no display showed large decrements in

*performance. Thus, two experiments show that one aspect of BMS, target location information, would greatly assist in detecting and destroying enemy

armor targets. The purpose of the present experiments was to determine which

information items armor crewmen prefer in a BMS system.

SURVEY I

METHOD

Subjects

The subjects for Survey I were 13 officers and 17 NCOs (9 platoon sergeants and 8 wingmen) from the Armor Officer Advanced Course, the Advanced

NCO Course, the Basic NCO Course, and the 194th Armor Brigade, Fort Knox, Ky.

Five of the officers had ')een armor company commanders. Mean time in service

for the group was 7 years 9 months, with 6 years 10 months mean time in ar2
mor. Mean General Technical (GT) score of the NCOs from the Armed Services

Vocational Aptitude Battery was 109.5 + 13.29. Over half (16) of the subjects had National Training Center experience. Summary demographic data are

presented in Table 1, and complete demographic data for the subjects are

presented in Appendix C.

Table 1

Summary Demographic Data

Officers NCOs

n 13 17

Age 26.8 years 28.8 years

Time in Service 5 years 2 months 9 years 9 months

Time in Armor 4 years 1 month 8 years 11 months

Education 13 college graduates 15 high school graduates, 2 GED

NTC Experience 6 10

GT Score N/A 109.5

Instruments

Instruments used in Survey I included a biographical questionnaire

(Appendix B) and the BMS Elements Questionnaire (Appendix C). Question 1 on

the EMS Elements Questionnaire asked for ratings of a list of 34 possible BMS

information items. The list was developed by a group of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) comprised of four O-3s from the US Army Armor Center and School.

The SMEs began with a list of 25 Commander's Critical Information Elements

(CACDA, undated) and added information items to arrive at a final list of 34.

Questions 2-5 related to the display of the information items. Questions 6

and 7 asked the subjects about handing off targets to other tanks and artillery.

Procedure

Prior to the beginning of the project, the four SMEs had rated the 34

information items according to the same criteria as the subjects (described

below). Upon arriving at the survey site, the subjects were given a brief

orientation to BMS by one of the four SMEs. After questions were answered,

the subjects first completed the biographical questionnaire and then the BMS

Elements Questionnaire. The SMEs explained any information items that were

not clear to the subjects.

The information items of Question 1 were rated by the subjects according

to the following scale: "Must" = must have to accomplish your mission;

"need" = can accomplish your mission without it, but in a degraded mode;

"good" = could use it to accomplish your mission, but can accomplish without

it; and "not needed" do not need to accomplish your mission.

3

e pe"
Platoon leaders (n = 13) and platoon sergeants (n = 9) rated the 34

information items for each of three tanks; Platoon leader's tank, platoon

sergeant's tank, and wingman's tank. Wingmen (n = 8) rated the 34 items only

for their own tank position. Therefore, there were 22 raters for the platoon

leader's and platoon sergeant's tanks and 30 raters for the wingman's tank.

Analysis

The following formula was used to score the responses of the subjects

and SMEs to question 1: 3 = must, 2= need, 1 = good, and 0 = not needed. The

scores were then weighted and summed. Total scores for the platoon leader's

tank were weighted by a factor of four, scores for the platoon sergeant's

tank were weighted by a factor of three, and scores for the wingman's tank

were weighted by a factor of two. Scores for the wingman's tank were also

multipled by 0.73 to account for the fact that there were 30 raters for the

wingman's tank as opposed to only 22 for the other positions. The weightedY

score considered that an information item at the platoon leader level could

be more critical to mission accomplishment than the same information at the

platoon sergeant or wingman level. These weighted scores were then summed

for each item to create a total weighted score which was used to rank order

the 34 items for each platoon position. Then an overall weighted score was

computed for the 30 subjects and was used to arrive at an overall rank order

of the 34 items. This overall rank order was then correlated with a rank

order from weighted scores provided by the SMEs (Siegel, 1956).

Detailed analyses were then performed on the subjects' ratings. Separate analyses were performed on the ratings for the platoon leader's tank,

the platoon sergeant's tank, and the wingman's tank using the Friedman TwoWay Analysis of Variance by Ranks (Siegel, 1956). The Friedman analysis

tests the null hypothesis that the rank (ordinal ratings) sums of the items

are drawn from the same population. In other words, a significant result

would indicate that there were differences in the rankings of the items. This

analysis also calculates Kendall's coefficient of concordance which measures

the agreement among rankings by the subjects. A significant coefficient

would indicate that there is agreement among raters (subjects). Post hoc

comparisons (Daniels, 1978) were then used to determine differences between

pairs of the rank sums. That is, these comparisons would examine the scores

for all possible pairs of information items to evaluate significant differences between items.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Platoon Leader's Tank Ratings

There were significant differences among the rank sums of the 34 BMS

information items, as supported by a significant Friedman ANOVA (x2 r (33) =

143.62, p < .0001). There was also significant agreement among raters of the

platoon leader's tank as supported by a significant Kendall coefficient of

concordance (W(33) = .1978, p < .0001). The top ten items rated by platoon

i

(W(33)%
leaders were: (1) concept of operations, (2) critical situation alert, (3)

identification friend or foe, (4) call for fire, (5) heading reference/navigation, (6) command mission, (7) reports (format), (8) maintenance status,

(9) enemy weapons systems, and (10) class III, V remaining. The top ten

information items for each platoon position tank are shown in Table 2.

A multiple comparison procedure was applied to the rank sums of the

items (Daniel, 1978), and revealed that in general there were no clearcut

breaking points in the order of the ratings. The only clear distinction was

that nuclear release policy was rated significantly lower than all other

items. Results of the comparisons and the rank sums of all items are presented in Appendix D.

Table 2

Top Ten Information Items

Rank

Platoon Platoon

Element Leader's Sergeant's Wingman's

# Item Tank Tank Tank

11 Concept of Operations 1 1 5

12 Critical Situation Alert 2 2 1

27 Identification Friend or Foe 3 5 3

32 Call for Fire 4 8 7

31 Heading Reference/Navigation 5 6 2

8 Command Mission 6 7 8

34 Reports (Format) 7 4 10

28 Maintenance Status 8 3 18

16 Enemy Weapons Systems 9 12 6

26 Class III, V Remaining 10 10 4

5 Avenues of Approach 12 9 12

29 Target Prioritization 17 16 9

Platoon Sergeant's Tank Ratings

There were significant differences among the rank sums of the 34 BMS

information items, as supported by a significant Friedman ANOVA (x2 r (33)

165.81, P < .0001). There was also significant agreement among the raters as

supported by a significant Kendall coefficient of concordance (W(33 ) = .2284,

p < .0001). The top ten item rated by platoon sergeants were: (, concept of

operations, (2) critical situation alert, (3) maintenance status, (4) reports

(format), (5) identification friend or foe, (6) heading reference/navigation,

(7) command mission, (8) call for fire, (9) avenues of approach, and (10)

class III, V remaining.

5 4

i
Multiple comparison procedures (Daniel, 1978) applied to the required

items for platoon sergeants rank sums revealed that there were no clear cut

breaking points in the order. Again, the only clear distinction was that

nuclear release policy was rated significantly lower than all other items.

Results of the comparisons and the rank sums of all items are presented in

Appendix E.

Wingman's Tank Ratings

As with the other two platoon tank positions, there were significant

differences among the rank sums of the information items required by wingmen.

This finding was supported by a significant Friedman ANOVA (x r (33) =

225.45, p < .0001). There was also significant agreement among raters as

supported by a significant Kendall coefficient of concordance (W(3 R) = .2277,

< .0001). The top ten items rated by wingmen were: (1) critical situation

alert, (2) heading reference/navigation, (3) identification friend or foe,

(4) class III, V remaining, (5) concept of operations, (6) enemy weapons

systems, (7) call for fire, (8) command mission, (9) target prioritization,

and (10) reports (format).

Multiple comparison procedures applied to the rated items for wingmen

again revealed that there were no clear cut breaking points in the order.

Nuclear release policy was rated last for the wingman's tank, but was not

significantly different from the other items as was the case for the platoon

leader's and platoon sergeant's ratings. Results of the comparisons and the

rank sums of all items are presented in Appendix F.

Overall SME and Subject Rankings

The SMEs rated the seven top items equally. These were: (1) critical situation alert, (2) target prioritization, (3) target distribution/rejection, (4) heading reference/navigation, (5) call for fire, (6) free text,

and (7) reports (format). Battlefield geometry was rated eighth, and concept

of operations and command mission were rated equally and completed the top

ten.

The subjects' overall weighted top ten were: (1) critical situation

alert, (2) concept of operations, (3) identification friend or foe, (4) heading reference/navigation, (5) call for fire, (6) command mission, (7) reports

(format), (8) maintenance status, (9) class III, V remaining, and (10) enemy

weapons systems. Six of the ten items were common to both group's top ten

ratings: (1) critical situation alert, (2) concept of operations, (3) heading reference/navigation, (4) call for fire, (5) command mission, and (6)

reports (format). There was significant overall agreement between the two

groups as supported by a significant Spearman rank correlation coefficient

between the two groups' weighted scores rs (32) = .65, . < .001). The overall weighted rankings for the two groups are presented in Appendix G.

6 F e4

e . e 4F e. ....U
Remaining Questions from BMS Elements Questionnaire

The remaining questions on the BMS Elements Questionnaire asked subjects

about diverse areas of BMS to include: alerts to changing conditions,

on-screen information, clusters of information, display format, and electronic hand off of targets.

Subjects were asked to list three to five items about which they would

like to be alerted if they changed. The top five items were (1) class III, V

remaining, (2) command mission, (3) critical situation alert, (4) maintenance

status, and (5) adjacent unit situation. Subjects were asked to list three

to five items which they would like to have constantly "on the screen". The

top four rated elements were (1) class III, V remaining, (2) heading reference/navigation, (3) enemy situation, and (4) battlefield geometry.

The subjects were asked to list items that they would want displayed

simultaneously. Six small clusters were identified by visual inspection. The

clusters were (1) adjacent unit situation and area of operations, (2) avenues

of approach and axis of advance information, (3) command mission and command 0

G2 guidance, (4) enemy aircraft, enemy mission, enemy situation, and enemy

weapons systems, (5) friendly activity and friendly unit, and (6) class III,

V remaining and maintenance status.

After being given examples of informational displays for which to

choose, subjects indicated that they preferred to have the majority of information elements displayed in either a graphic (map) display or alphanumeric

format as opposed to bar charts and pie charts. Graphic displays were preferred for items that would give the subject an overview of the battlefield

situation, such as axis of advance, adjacent unit situation, battlefield

geometry, key terrain, identification friend or foe (1FF), and heading reference/navigation. These views indicate that the subjects prefer the graphic i

display of the BMS system to have a sophisticated map capability showing

friendly and enemy vehicle locations and IFF as well as the features just

described. This would allow a platoon leader or other tank commander to

conceptualize the entire situation by looking at the graphic display. Thus,

the TC would not have to call up several alphanumeric entries to conceptualize the situation, or not have the information at all. This would have to be

accomplished without overloading the tank commander with too much information. Alphanumeric format was preferred for resource-related items such as

class III, V remaining, maintenance status, assets available, and command

controlled items. Preferred display format for each item is presented in

Appendix G.

Subjects indicated that they would like the platoon leader to be able to

electronically hand off targets to his tanks. Twelve strongly agreed, seven

agreed, three were neutral, six disagreed, and one strongly disagreed. Subjects also indicated that they would like to be able to electronically hand

off targets to artillery. Twenty-one strongly agreed, seven agreed, one

disagreed, and one strongly disagreed. Several subjects also strongly recommended that platoon leaders not be able to slew the turret of another tank in

their platoon to a target.

7

%1_1 'r
SURVEY II

The purpose of Survey 2 was to evaluate the information items presented

by the prototype Battlefield Management System developed by Texas Instruments

(TI).

METHOD

Subjects

The subjects were six officers and ten enlisted personnel who participated in Survey II after completing Survey I.

Apparatus

The TI BMS system consists of six major items (see Figure 1) which simulate potential controls and systems available to a tank commander. These

items are (1) computer terminal, (2) comnet radio, (3) speech interface

(voice recognition), (4) digital map generator, (5) display interface, and

(6) system data base. The system is designed to provide unit leaders at the

platoon, company, and battalion levels with a leadership aid in making quality decisions in less time than (see Figure 2). The system is also designed

to provide more tactical decision making time to maneuver element leaders at

these levels.

Procedure

The demonstration involved a 75 minute session of hands-on user evaluation. Each subject was first given a 15 minute briefing on the system by a

TI representative. Each subject was then given a 15-20 minute session to

learn to utilize the system and become familiar with each of its functional

capabilities. This was accomplished by having a TI engineer talk the subject

through the system step by step with the subject operating the controls. As

part of the process, the subject enrolled his voice on the voice emmulator

linked to the system. The subject was then given a simple scenario which

required him to move his simulated platoon across the map. He was asked to

operate the system with minimal assistance from the TI engineer. He performed the following functions while using the system: (1) created an overlay, (2) issued a movement order over a route he specified, (3) assigned

sectors of surveillance, (4) checked line of sight in these sectors, (5)

checked the logistical and personnel status of his vehicle and platoon, (6)

checked the maintenance status of his vehicle (fire control system), (7)

engaged an enemy target, and (8) utilized two types of maps (relief and contour). Finally, the subject completed a survey for TI and an ARI post-test

survey (Appendix H).

8
I

0 1 j

MU _

*-Z U V Am.

LU

I.- 

rm ..

0r Z 

I2~~Jo 

c~Sm

__ zz 

U 030 

00

o4c Ott

uJ o

m CC

zI UsI

4c 3w 0 0

cc 

I0 CC P

IL 

p.

LW -f

oam

ta, 

z 

* S.- 

5 ' .I 

*~ % m
z us

z c

ca z cc CO) z

a~~~ Cuu

w CC CC m a

0~ 0

irt.

0 zm

LU C5 O

w 00

OFL

I-L

00 0

amT

% %
Analysis

Subject prioritization of the seven items presented by the TI system

were analyzed using the Friedman two way ANOVA of Ranks (Siegel, 1956). Results of other questions on the ARI post-test questionnaire were summarized.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The seven information items on the TI BMS were rated according to the

criteria on the previous questionnaire, i.e., to the extent needed to accomplish the mission. There were no differences among the seven items for all

three platoon positions (PL, PSG, Wingman), with no significant differences

occurring on the Friedman analysis. The subjects preferences for displaying

the seven items are presented in Table 3.

Table 3

Display Items and Preferred Display Format for the

Prototype TI System

Item Display Format

Aided Navigation Graphic Display

Friendly Positions Graphic Display

Enemy Positions Graphic Display

Fuel Status Alphanumeric

Ammo Status Alphanumeric

Warning Sensors Graphic or Alphanumeric

Equipment Failure Alphanumeric or Graphic Display

Subjects generally indicated that they would like to see two cluster

displays-one logistical (ammo, fuel, and equipment) and one tactical (enemy

and friendly positions, navigation, and warning sensors). Nine players

thought the system should be portable to mount on the TC's hatch for use in

reconnaissance and removable for use in unit meetings. Four thought

portability was not a good idea, citing the system's sensitivity as making it

prone to damage.

Subjects were evenly divided as to the method of interacting with the

system, with eight preferring a touch screen capability and seven preferring

a voice interaction capability. Two preferred a keypad, one keyboard, and

one preferred a mouse. Fourteen of the participants recommended that the

display be presented in color, especially the map navigation.

%1

d,

4.. ., ,,, , . .. ,,,, ,., .:, ;- ,.: <. .:..,.<., :. .,'
The major shortcoming of the system, as reported by the subjects, concerned the map display. They preferred to have the forward position of the

tank and not compass north at top of the screen. Suggested improvements were

mostly related to the map display. These suggestions included greater detail, greater resolution, and adding grid lines.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

In Survey I, subject matter experts (SMEs), platoon leaders, platoon

sergeants, and wingmen completed a survey designed to rate their judgments

concerning potential information items for a battlefield management system.

There was generally high agreement among the duty positions and between the

duty positions and SMEs as to the ratings of the items.

For all three duty positions, concept of operations, critical situation

alert, and identification friend or foe ranked in the top five. Of the top

ten items in the platoon leaders requirements, nine were in the top ten requirements for the platoon sergeant and wingmen positions. This would tend

to support the idea that a single BMS with only minor modifications would

suffice for platoon level operations. Minor differences in the ranking would

appear to be due to differences in the duties required of the different duty

positions. For example, the high emphasis of maintenance status (3rd) and

reports format (4th) on the platoon sergeant's ratings can be attributed to

the platoon sergeant's responsibilities in the areas of maintenance and logistics. The high emphasis on heading reference/navigation (2nd) on the

wingmen's ratings can be attributed to the importance of maintaining accurate

position heading while "on the point". The wingman's point position responsibilities are also likely to be the reason why class III, V remaining (4th)

and enemy weapons systems (6th) ranked high on the list. The wingman must

keep close watch on his ammo and fuel and be alert for the location enemy

weapon systems.

Overall rankings between the subjects and the SMEs were also consistent.

Six out of the top ten items were identical in the two groups' lists. Differences between the two lists are reflected in greater emphasis by the SMEs on

offensive fighting capabilities rather than on administrative and support

functions. These differences are likely attributable to the fact that the

SMEs have had greater exposure to current doctrine regarding BMS concepts and

potential system capabilities. SMEs are therefore more cognizant of the possible magnification of kill ratios potentiated by these higher-order capabilities in order to execute the Airland battle doctrine.

Subjects indicated that they would like for the platoon leader to have

the capability to electronically hand off targets to his platoon, and to be

able to electronically hand off targets to fire support assets. However,

they strongly emphasized that they did not want their platoon leader to be

able to automatically traverse the turret of another tank to a target or

sector. The subjects indicated that the platoon leader did not have line of

sight to targets the other tanks were engaging and might slew them away from

a dangerous threat at an inopportune moment, thereby making a frien y tank

vulnerable.

12
Results of the TI prototype system evaluated in Survey II indicated that

the information items were rated equally for all three duty positions and

that subjects were generally enthusiastic about the potential of such a system. Suggestions were made for improving the map display and included making

it portable, having the map presented in color, and having the top of the map

indicating forward. Subjects also preferred two clusters of display, one

logistical in alphanumeric format, and one tactical in a graphic display or

map format. These results taken with the preferences expressed in Survey I

for the graphic display point out that the BMS system is potentially a double-edged sword. Specifically, a well-designed graphic display would aid the

tank commander in the assessment or conceptualization of the battlefield at a

glance, or could confuse him by, for example, having the top of the map display pointing north. In such a situation the tank commander may not utilize

the system at all.

Finally, these results, taken together with the results of other studies

(CDEC, 1982; Jobe & Witmer, 1985; Walker & Reimer, 1984) indicate that tank

commanders and platoon leaders need training in the processing and distribution of BMS information to their platoons. Further research is needed to

answer these questions, to investigate the possibility overloading the tank

comander with too much information, and to field test the findings of this

project.

0

%.
REFERENCES

Battlefield Management System (BMS). (9 May 1984). Fort Knox, KY: US Army

Armor Center.

Blasche, T. & Lickteig, C. (October 1983). Utilization of a vehicle inte

grated intelligence [V(INT)2 ] system in armor units. Fort Knox, KY: ARI

Working Paper 83-3.

Commander's critical information requirements. undated.

Vehicle integrated intelligence (V(INT)2 ). PHASE II A. (October 1982).

Letter Report.

Daniel, W.W. (1978). Applied nonparametric statistics. Boston: Houghton

Misflin Co.

Jobe, J.B. & Witmer, B.G. (February 1985). Effects of target acquisition

and prioritization information on gunner simulator performance. ARI

Research Report 1413.

Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences.

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Walker, J.R. & Reimer, J. (March 1984). Information requirements for

command and control (IRC ): Phase 1A. (Technical Note 6-84). Aberdeen

Proving Ground, MD: US Army Human Engineering Laboratory.

I

- 4
APPENDIX A

BIOGRAPHICAL QUESTIONNAIRE

Name Date

Class Subject #

1. Rank E- 0-

2. Time in Service years months

3. Time as TC _ years _ months

4. Time as Platoon Sgt __ years months

5. Time as wingman years months

6. Time in armor __ years ____ months

7. Present duty position

8. Age years

9. Education level

10. When did you last:

Command a tank year month

Quality a tank on Table VIII year _ month

Pass the TCGST year month

11. Have you ever participated in National Training Center exercises?

_ yes no

If yes what was your duty position

12. Other experience (Reforger, Jack Frost, Empire Glacier, etc.).

A-i
APPENDIX B

BMS ELEMENTS QUESTIONNAIRE

t.

'p

p.

**

B-i

~I'~-. % -- -. W N~ N {
BMS Elements Questionnaire

Name _________________ __Date _____________

-B-
1. Rate the following 34 information elements you might need in a tank

platoon in a defensive or offensive scenario.

Must = must have to accomplish your mission.

Need = can accomplish mission without it, but in a degraded mode.

Good = could use it to accomplish mission, but can accomplish without it.

Not Needed = does not need to accomplish mission.

1. Adjacent Unit Situation

2. Area of Operations

3. Assessment (EW + OPSEC)

4. Assets Available

5. Avenues of Approach

(Time/Distance Factor)

6. Axis of Advance

Information

7. Battlefield Geometry .

8. Command Mission

9. Command/G2 Guidance (EEI)

10. Command Controlled Items

11. Concept of Operation

12. Critical Situation Alert

13. Enemy Aircraft

14. Enemy Mission

15. Enemy Situation

(Time Distance Factor)

16. Enemy Weapons Systems

17. Friendly Activity

18. Friendly Unit

19. Intelligence Summary

20. Key Terrain

21. Radiation Dose Status _

22. Release Policy (Nuclear) _

23. Target Criteria

24. Task Organization

25. Kill Discrimination

26. Class III, V Remaining

27. Identification Friend or Foe

28. Maintenance Status

29. Target prioritization

(internal)

30. Target D1stribution/Rejection ,, _

31. Heading Reference/Navigation

32. Call for Fire

33. Free Text

34. Reports (Format) _ ____

B-3

_' __
2. List 3-5 of the above elements that you would like to be alerted to if

they changed.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

3. List 3-5 of the above elements that you would want to have constantly "on

your screen."

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

4. List several elements that you would like to see displayed on the screen

simultaneously.

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Cluster 6

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5B-5

B-4
5. What form would you like to see the above clusters displayed?

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3

1 graph 1 1

2 bar chart 2 2

3 alphanumeric 3 3

4 pie chart 4 4

Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Cluster 6

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

6. Based on your experience with armor, would you like the platoon leader to

be able to electronically hand off targets to his tanks?

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Why?

7. Would you like to have the capability to electronically hand off targets

to artillery using this system.

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Why?

B-5

.. .<
APPENDIX C

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

Time Time Time Time Time

Subj Age in in as as as NTC GT

# Rank Yrs Svc Armor Educ PSG VI TC Expr Score

(mo) (mo) (mo) (mo) (mo)

5 0-3 28 71 48 Coll - - 24 No N/A

6 0-3 27 56 56 Coll - - 12 Yes N/A

7 0-3 27 62 62 Coll - - 18 No N/A

8 0-3 26 45 36 Col - - 24 No N/A

9 0-1 27 98 61 Coll - 10 15 Yes N/A

10 E-7 29 135 135 HS 54 0 96 Yes 100

11 E-6 33 172 172 HS 27 18 99 Yes 95

12 E-6 36 177 144 GED 4 120 120 Yes 104

13 E-6 26 103 103 HS 48 12 62 Yes 116

14 E-6 35 124 124 HS+ 36 48 84 Yes 138

15 0-3 26 50 50 Coll - - 30 No N/A

16 0-3 26 58 58 Coll - - 6 Yes N/A

17 0-3 29 60 48 Col - - 24 Yes N/A

18 E-7 31 177 177 HS 72 12 168 Yes 115

19 E-7 30 117 117 HS 28 25 72 No 104

20 0-3 27 50 50 Coll - - 22 No N/A

21 0-3 29 85 42 Col - - 9 Yes N/A

22 0-3 25 70 70 Coll - - 52 No N/A

23 0-3 26 44 44 Coll - - 24 Yes N/A

24 E-7 38 184 87 Coll 25 0 66 No 141

25 E-6 34 169 134 HS+ 77 3 120 Yes 107

26 E-5 24 60 60 GED 0 15 10 No 110

27 E-5 22 32 28 HS 0 24 5 No 112

28 0-3 26 56 17 Coll - - 14 No N/A

29 E-5 23 67 67 HS 0 0 6 Yes 107

30 E-5 22 62 51 HS 0 0 5 Yes 92

31 E-5 23 60 60 HS 2 5 18 Yes 97

32 E-5 21 48 48 HS 0 8 8 No 103

33 E-7 32 159 159 HS 74 0 114 No 116

34 E-7 31 151 151 HS 44 0 54 No 105

C-1
APPENDIX D

PLATOON LEADER'S TANK RANK SUMS OF BMS INFORMATION ITEMS

Comparison

Item Rank of I

# Item Sum Means

11 Concept of Operations 551.5 A

12 Critical Situation Alert 541.5 A

27 Identification Friend or Foe 509.0 AB

32 Call for Fire 505.5 AB

31 Heading Reference/Navigation 494.5 ABC

8 Command Mission 489.5 ABC

34 Reports (Format) 479.5 ABC

28 Maintenance Status 471.0 ABCDE

16 Enemy Weapons Systems 453.0 BCDEF

26 Class III, V Remaining 446.5 BCDEFG

7 Battlefield Geometry 444.0 BCDEFGH

5 Avenues of Approach 436.5 BCDEFGH

2 Area of Operations 431.5 BCDEFGH

1 Adjacent Unit Situation 411.0 CDEFGHI

21 Radiation Dose Status 410.5 CDEFGHI

20 Key Terrain 400.0 DEFGHIJ

29 Target Prioritization 396.5 DEFGHIJ

6 Axis of Advance Information 386.5 EFGHIJK

33 Free Text 367.0 FGHIJKL

17 Friendly Activity 360.5 GHIJKLM

13 Enemy Aircraft 357.0 HIJKLM

4 Assets Available 342.5 IJKLM

15 Enemy Situation 334.5 IJKLMN

30 Target Distribution/Rejection 329.0 IJKLMN

25 Kill Discrimination 328.5 IJKLMN

24 Task Organization 326.5 IJKLMN

3 Assessment (EW & OPSEC) 322.0 JKLMN

18 Friendly Unit 306.0 KLMN

14 Enemy Mission 287.5 LMN

9 Command/G2 Guidance (EEI) 274.5 MN

23 Target Criteria 274.5 MN

10 Command Control Items 273.0 MN

19 Intelligence Summary 253.5 N

22 Release Policy (Nuclear) 95.5 0

* Items with the same letter are not significantly different from each

other.

ow

D-1

Im tx.W"1?"We otC c0Ct .6W z.tZ Z - Z qZ ?' L
APPENDIX E

PLATOON SERGEANT'S TANK RANK SUMS OF BMS INFORMATION ITEMS

Comparison

Item Rank of

# Item Sum Means

11 Concept of Operations 573.5 A

12 Critical Situation Alert 559.0 AB

28 Maintenance Status 543.0 ABC

34 Reports (Format) 504.5 ABCD

27 Identification Friend or Foe 494.0 ABCDE

31 Heading Reference/Navigation 483.0 BCDE

8 Command Mission 473.5 BCDEF

32 Call for Fire 472.5 BCDEF

5 Avenues of Approach 468.0 CDEF

26 Class III, V Remaining 466.5 CDEF

1 Adjacent Unit Situation 424.5 DEFG

16 Enemy Weapons Systems 424.5 DEFG

7 Battlefield Geometry 419.5 DEFG

20 Key Terrain 414.5 EFG

2 Area of Operations 414.0 EFG

29 Target Prioritization 414.0 EFG

30 Target D13tribution/Rejection 389.5 FGH

21 Radiation Dose Status 389.0 FGH

6 Axis of Advance Information 372.0 GHI

33 Free Test 372.0 GHI

13 Enemy Aircraft 369.0 GHIJ

17 Friendly Activity 304.0 GHIJ

25 Kill Discrimination 341.5 GHIJK

15 Enemy Situation 339.0 GHIJK

4 Assets Available 315.5 HIJKL

24 Task Organization 300.5 IJKL

14 Enemy Mission 297.0 IJKL

18 Friendly Unit 293.5 IJKL

10 Command Control Items 284.5 IJKL

9 Command/G2 Guidance (EEI) 281.5 JKL

3 Assessment (EW & OPSEC) 273.5 KL

23 Target Criteria 237.5 L

19 Intelligent Summary 234.5 L

22 Release Policy (Nuclear) 87.5 M

Items with the same letter are not significantly different from each

other.

%I

%I

F-1
APPENDIX F

WINGMAN'S TANK RANK SUMS OF BMS INFORMATION ITEMS

Comparison

Item Rank of

# Item Sum Means

12 Critical Situation Alert 818.0 A

31 Heading Reference/Navigation 768.0 AB

27 Identification Friend or Foe 760.0 AB

26 Class III, V Remaining 688.5 BC

11 Concept of Operations 653.5 BCD

16 Enemy Weapons Systems 653.0 BCD

32 Call for Fire 640.5 CDE

8 Command Mission 630.5 CDEF

29 Target Prioritization 618.5 CDEF

34 Reports (Format) 618.0 CDEF

13 Enemy Aircraft 613.0 CDEF

5 Avenues of Approach 588.5 CDEF

21 Radiation Dose Status 579.5 CDEF

7 Battlefield Geometry 574.5 CDEFG

20 Key Terrain 574.0 CDEFG

30 Target Distribution/Rejection 571.0 CDEFG

25 Kill Discrimination 566.5 DEFGH

28 Maintenance Status 566.5 DEFGH

6 Axis of Advance Information 530.0 EFGHI

2 Area of Operations 511.5 FGHIJ

15 Enemy Situation 456.5 GHIJK

17 Friendly Activity 448.5 HIJK

33 Free Text 442.0 IJKL

1 Adjacent Unit Situation 429.5 IJKLM

14 Enemy Mission 421.5 IJKLM

18 Friendly Unit 411.0 IJKLM

23 Target Criteria 407.0 JKLM

3 Assessment (EW & OPSEC) 378.5 KLM

24 Task Organization 358.5 KLM

9 Command/G2 Guidance (EEI) 355.5 KLM

4 Assets Available 338.0 KLMN

19 Intelligence Summary 327.5 LMN

10 Command Control Items 320.5 MN

22 Release Policy (Nuclear) 232.0 N

Items the same letter are not significantly different from each other.

F-1
APPENDIX G

OVERALL WEIGHTED RANKINGS OF BMS INFORMATION ITEMS BY SMEs AND SUBJECTS

SMEs Subjects

Subject's

Displal,

Item Rank' Format Item Rank

Critical Situation Alert 4 A/GD Critical Situation Alert 1

Target Prioritization 4 GD/A Concept of Operation 2

Target Distribution/Rejection 4 GD Identification Friend or 3

Foe

Heading Reference/Navigation 4 GD Heading Reference/ 4

Navigation

Call for Fire 4 A Call for Fire 5

Free Text 4 A Command Mission 6

Reports (Format) 4 GD/A Reports (Format) 7

Battlefield Geometry 8 A Maintenance Status 8

Concept of Operations 9.5 B/A Class III, V Remaining 9

Command Mission 9.5 GD Enemy Weapons Systems 10

Area of Operations 11.5 GD Battlefield Geometry 11

Friendly Unit 11.5 GD Avenues of Approach 12

Class III, V Remaining 13 GD/A Target Prioritization 13

Identification Friend or Foe 15 GD Key Terrain 14

Kill Discriminatin 15 GD Area of Operations 15

Target Criteria 15 A/B Radiation Dose Status 16

Maintenance Status 17 GD Adjacent Unit Situation 17

Enemy Aircraft 18 GD/A Enemy Aircraft 18

GD Axis of Advance 19

Avenues of Approach 19.5 Information

Axis of Advance Information 19.5 GD Target Distribution/ 20

Rejection

Enemy Weapons Systems 22 GD Friendly Activity 21

Key Terrain 22 GD Kill Discrimination 22

Command/G2 Guidance (EEI) 22 A Free Text 23

Enemy Situation 24 GD Enemy Situation 24

Adjacent Unit Situation 27 A Assets Available 25

Friendly Activity 27 GD Friendly Unit 26

Radiation Dose Status 27 A Enemy Mission 27

Task Organization 27 A Task Organization 28

Intelligence Summary 27 GD Assessment (EW & OPSEC) 29

Assessment (EW & OPSEC) 32 A Command/G2 Guidance (EEl) 30

Command Controlled Items 32 A Command Controlled Items 31

Assets Available 32 GD/A Target Criteria 32

Enemy Mission 32 A Intelligence Summary 33

Release Policy (Nuclear) 32 A Release Policy (Nuclear) 34

Identical raLings for different items indicates mean rank value across

ese items.

GD graphic display, A alphanumeric, P bar chart

G-1
POST TEST QUESTIONNAIRE

Name ___________________Date _________

1. How useful Wa3 the listed Information when you played the scenario?

Nmust know, N = need to know, G agood to know, and DN =don't need toI

a. aided navigation information N N G DN

b. friendly Positions N N G DNI

c. enemy positions N N G DN

d. fuel status N N G DN

e. ammo status M N G DIE

f. warning sensors N N G DN

g. equipment failures N N G DN

2. What additional information would you have liked to have?

a.

b.

C.

d.

e.

f.

3. Which of the information elements would a wingman need to know to carry

out his mission?

a. aided navigation information M N G DN

b. friendly positions M N G DN

c. enemy Positions N N G DN

d. fuel status M N G DN

e. ammo status M N G DN

f. warning sensors N N G DN

g. equipment failures N N G DN

H-1
4. Which of the information elements would a platoon sergeant need to know

to carry out his mission?

a. aided navigation information M N G DN

b. friendly positions M N G DN

C. enemy positions M N G DN

d. fuel status N N G DN

e. ammo status M N G DN

f. warning sensors M N G DN

g. equipment failures M N G DN

5. How would you prefer to have the information displayed? B : bar chart,

G= graph, A = alphanumeric, M : map

a. aided navigation

b. friendly positions

c. enemy positions

d. fuel status

e. ammo status

f. warning sensors

g. equipment failure

6. How would you cluster the information on one display? Describe:

7. Would you like to see the display portable? In what way?

H11-2
8. How would you prefer to interact with the screen?

a. keyboard

b. keypad

c. touch screen

d. mouse

e. voice

9. Would you like to have the display in color? Describe:

.Y

H-3.