New Military System Requirements For DoD Human Systems Integration

R. Christopher Deluca and Mitchell Woods

DoD program managers and engineers use the systems engineering process to influence system designs during all stages of the defense acquisition life cycle, especially to improve human performance and mitigate identified risks, issues, or hazards. A discipline that is critical to the delivery of military systems is Human Systems Integration (HSI). In September 2020, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (OUSD[A&S]), issued a directive, DoDD 5000.01 The Defense Acquisition System, that stated: 

Human systems integration planning will begin in the early stages of the program life cycle. The goal will be to optimize total system performance and total ownership costs, while ensuring that the system is designed, operated, and maintained consistent with mission requirements. (p. 8) 

Earlier, a January 2020 OUSD (A&S) instruction, DoDI 5000.02 Operation of the Adaptive Acquisition Framework, stated the following: “The AAF supports the DAS (Defense Acquisition System) with the objective of delivering effective, suitable, survivable, sustainable, and affordable solutions to the end user in a timely manner (p. 4). 

However, more identification of HSI in requirements development is necessary for implementing it as directed. This article will focus on the following HSI initiatives:

• Introduce the HSI-related requirements from the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) process to inform requirements managers.
• Introduce the identified and derived HSI requirements in functional DoD policy.
• Describe contributions of the HSI discipline to the DoD.
• Identify resources for implementing HSI within systems engineering; and focus on improved operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability.
• Provide an opportunity for the DAU Acquisition Workforce to participate in a DAU co-sponsored project with OUSD for Research and Engineering (OUSD[R&E]) to develop an “HSI in Contracting Language” Best Practice by the first quarter of Fiscal Year (FY) 2024.

The HSI discipline is managed within the OUSD(R&E) Systems Engineering and Architecture (SE&A) portfolio (DoDD 5137.02). HSI processes apply to both hardware and software within the system or its associated system of systems (SoS) to achieve DoD goals. HSI is intended to ensure that human performance is optimized to increase total system performance and minimize total system ownership costs. Incorporating HSI early in system design promotes more successful and effective transition of capability to the Warfighter. A definition of HSI according to DoDI 5000.95 is: 

… the System Engineering process and program management effort that provides integrated and comprehensive analysis, design, and assessment of requirements, concepts, and resources for human factors engineering, manpower, personnel, training, safety and occupational health, force protection and survivability, and habitability. (p. 14) 

DoDI 5000.88, Section 3.6 [Specialty Engineering], paragraph “d. Human Systems Integration,” states that the lead systems engineer is to perform the following:

1. Working for the PM, use a human-centered design approach for system definition, design, development, test, and evaluation to optimize human-system performance.
2. Conduct frequent and iterative end user validation of features and usability for identifying, communicating, and visualizing user needs under defined operational conditions and expected mission threads.
3. Working for the PM, ensure human systems integration risks are identified and managed throughout the program’s life-cycle.

An earlier section, DoDI 5000.88, Section 3.4 a (3), also states: 

For MDAPs, ACAT II, and ACAT III programs, the SEP [Systems Engineering Plan] will contain these elements, unless waived by the SEP approval authority: … (t) Specialty engineering and architectural factors as described in Paragraphs 3.6. and 3.7., and any additional applicable design considerations as described in the Defense Acquisition Guidebook. (pp. 12-14)  

In the case of HSI, the Human Systems Integration Guidebook should be used to apply the appropriate HSI design considerations. 

Seven domains of the HSI discipline are defined in DoDI 5000.95 (pp. 7–11). A domain is a constituent part or one of the factors determining the outcome of a process—in this case within the HSI discipline. The domains are also “tenets”—principles, beliefs, or doctrines generally held to be true, especially those commonly held by members of an organization or profession, such as HSI. Under this programmatic- and management-level activity are found HSI domain activities, which stem from domain-specific system requirements. These are system specification or technical requirements that affect the work and output of human systems-associated personnel (e.g., operators, maintainers, supporters, or other users). In addition, the HSI domain’s design and implementation considerations may be affected by SAE International’s definition of the Standard Practice for Human Systems Integration: 

This Human Systems Integration (HSI) Standard Practice identifies the Department of Defense (DoD) approach to conducting HSI programs as part of procurement activities. This Standard covers HSI processes throughout design, development, test, production, use, and disposal. Depending on contract phase and/or complexity of the program, tailoring should be applied. The scope of this standard includes prime and subcontractor HSI activities; it does not include Government HSI activities. (SAE 6906) 

The seven HSI domains (DoDI 5000.95, pp. 7–11) are interrelated and interdependent and must be among the primary drivers of effective, efficient, affordable, and safe system designs. HSI integrates and facilitates trade-offs among these domains and other systems engineering and design domains but does not replace individual domain activities, responsibilities, or reporting channels.  

Force Protection and Survivability

The Force Protection and Survivability (FP&S) domain covers the characteristics of a system that can reduce fratricide, detectability, probability of being attacked, and minimize system damage and user injury. The FP&S requirement should be included for any manned system or system designed to enhance personnel survivability in an asymmetric threat environment. Survivability (in combat), according to the DAU Glossary, is the capability of a system or its crew to avoid or withstand a manmade hostile environment without suffering an abortive impairment of its ability to accomplish its designated mission.  

According to Harold R. Booher’s Handbook of Systems Integration, survivability is the ability to exist and function through and after exposure to hostile situations or environments. This can apply to both personnel and equipment.  

Personnel survivability, the integration of the survivability of the individual soldier and how the system affects the soldier’s survivability (when individual soldiers manning weapons systems are in a close fight) should be addressed through dedicated evaluation. The potential operational impact of casualties on the ability of the platform (i.e., system survivability) to accomplish its mission should also be evaluated. Personnel survivability must also be addressed even where the platform cannot survive.  

Soldier survivability addresses the characteristics of a system that can reduce fratricide, as well as reduce detectability of the soldier, prevent attack if detected, prevent damage if attacked, minimize medical injury if wounded or otherwise injured, and reduce physical and mental fatigue. It also includes those factors (combat ensemble, training, or equipment) that enable soldiers to withstand or avoid adverse military action or the effects of natural phenomena that would reduce capability to continue effective mission performance.

The capability documents should include applicable FP&S parameters to meet Warfighter needs in protection, defense, and egress, which may include requirements to eliminate significant risks of fratricide or detectability or to be survivable in adverse weather conditions and the CBRN battlefield. CBRN survivability, by definition, encompasses the instantaneous, cumulative, and residual effects of CBRN weapons upon the system, including its users. 

It may be appropriate to require that the system permit the performance of mission-essential operations, communications, maintenance, resupply, and decontamination tasks by suitably clothed, trained, and acclimatized personnel for the survival periods and in CBRN environments. The consideration of FP&S should also include system requirements to ensure the integrity of the crew compartment and rapid egress when the system or platform is damaged or destroyed. It may be appropriate to require that the system provide adequate emergency systems for contingency management, escape, survival, and rescue. FP&S requirements would be included under the System Survivability KPP.

The Force Protection and Survivability (FP&S) domain covers the characteristics of a system that can reduce fratricide, detectability, probability of being attacked, and minimize system damage and user injury.

Habitability

The Habitability domain involves the characteristics of systems focused on satisfying personnel needs, such as berthing and hygiene, that are dependent upon the physical environment. Habitability is one of several important factors included in the overall consideration of War-fighter mission readiness, elements of personnel survivability, and effective human performance. A Habitability KPP should be included for any manned system where optimal working or living conditions are critical to Warfighter performance. According to the JCIDS Manual (2021), Habitability requirements should be incorporated under the FP KPP for “endorsement, which is applicable to all CDDs addressing manned systems, or systems designed to enhance personnel survivability.”

For systems in which Habitability is less critical, creating Key System Attributes or Other System Attributes for Habitability may be more appropriate. According to DoDI 5000.95, the component capability developer or PM, in conjunction with DoD component HSI subject matter expects and HSI practitioners, will work with Habitability domain representatives to establish Habitability requirements. While engineers should not design the facility or service solely around optimum Habitability factors, these factors cannot be systematically traded off in support of other readiness elements without eventually degrading mission performance. 

Meanwhile, the other domains of HSI, such as human factors engineering, manpower, personnel, and training, play a key role in development of Integrated Product Support Elements. Ultimately, HSI is a bridge between systems engineering and life-cycle sustainment and informs the Life Cycle Logistics competency for Product Support Management.

DAU Resources

• Human Systems Integration Webinar
• ENG 0620 OLT New Human Systems Integration (HSI) Training Course
• ETM 1050 Design Considerations Fundamentals Online Training (OLT) Course
• Human Systems Integration ACQuipedia Article
• Human Systems Integration Community of Practice (HSI CoP)

Read the full issue of 

Defense Acquisition magazine

DELUCA is a retired Army colonel and GS-15/NH-IV Director of Specialty Engineering within OUSD(R&E) Systems Engineering and Architecture. His career includes over 35 years of service in in combat arms and acquisition, including multiple command, leadership, and staff positions as well as a position on the Army staff. As a civilian, DeLuca served as Deputy Program Manager for a Major Automated Information System/Defense Business System and directed systems engineering and developmental test and evaluation analysis teams at the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Recently, he served as the USD(R&E) member of the Secretary of Defense Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations Cross Functional Team and is Level III certified in Program Management, Systems Engineering, and Test and Evaluation.

WOODS is an OUSD(R&E) Systems Engineering and Architecture (SE&A) contractor for HSI and the senior Principal Human Factors Engineer for Huntington Ingalls Industries. His career includes over 25 years’ experience as a DoD contractor supporting HSI discipline implementation into DoD acquisition activities. He has served for over five years in his current role as contractor support HSI Lead for OUSD(R&E) SE&A in developing and publishing HSI policy and guidance and maturing the HSI competency and discipline within DoD. Woods holds a B.S. and M.S. in Industrial and Systems Engineering (ISE) from the Grado Department of ISE at Virginia Polytechnic and State University. 

The authors can be contacted at [email protected] (please write “ATTN: Specialty Engineering” in the subject line).

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the Department of Defense. Reproduction or reposting of articles from Defense Acquisition magazine should credit the authors and the magazine.