Human systems integration

Human Systems Integration

Human Systems Integration (HSI) is an interdisciplinary managerial and technical approach to developing and sustaining systems which focuses on the interfaces between humans and modern technical systems. The objective of HSI is to provide equal weight to human, hardware, and software elements of system design throughout the systems engineering and lifecycle logistics management. The end goal is to optimize total system performance and minimize total ownership costs. The field integrates work from multiple human centered domains of study include training, manpower (the number of people), personnel (the qualifications of people), human factors engineering, safety, occupational health, survivability and habitability.

HSI is a total systems approach that focuses on the comprehensive integration across the HSI domains, and across systems engineering and logistics support processes. The domains of HSI are interrelated: a focus on integration allows tradeoffs between domains, resulting in improved manpower utilization, reduced training costs, reduced maintenance time, improved user acceptance, decreased overall lifecycle costs, and a decreased in the need for redesigns and retrofits. An example of a tradeoff is increased training costs that result from reducing manpower or increasing the skills necessary to perform a specific maintenance task. HSI most effective when it is initiated early in the acquisition process, when the need for a new or modified capability is identified. Application of HSI should continue throughout the lifecycle of the system, integrating HSI processes alongside the evolution of the system.

HSI is an important part of systems engineering projects:

• New systems can benefit from early incorporation of HSI practices, analyses and decisions, which is the best time to realize life-cycle cost benefits from HSI.
• Systems upgrades or modernization efforts can benefit from applying HSI upgrades to outstanding issues with the system and leveraging HSI principles to system upgrades.
• For commercial-off-the shelf procurements, HSI principles can be leveraged in analysis of alternatives, request for information, request for proposals and source selection processes.
• Rapid prototyping, accelerated acquisitions and research and development projects can incorporate HSI requirements, design principles, usability and testing in early documentation. HSI continues to be relevant throughout iterative or agile development processes, testing, verification and validation, and acceptance.

History

In 1980, The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine established the Committee on Human Factors, which was later renamed the Committee on Human Systems Integration. Human Systems Integration in the United States originated in 1986 as a US Army program called the Manpower and Personnel Integration (MANPRINT) program.  With roots in WWII era human factors advances and ties to industrial engineering and experimental psychology, MANPRINT focused on the needs and capabilities of the soldier during the development of military systems.  MANPRINT framed a human-centered focus in six domains: human factors engineering, manpower, personnel, training, health hazards and system safety. The US Navy added a human systems integration to NAVSEA 03 division, initially titling the program NAVPRINT, but the organization later removed the acronym. The US Air Force began an HSI program in 1982 as "IMPACTS", similarly abandoning the acronym later on. The Air Force currently manages HSI through the Air Force Office of Human Systems Integration (AFHSIO). The US Coast Guard implemented an HSI program in 2000 in the strategy and HR capability division (CG-1B) of the human resources directorate. The US Department of Homeland Security initiated an HSI program under the Science and Technology Directorate in 2007, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) initiated a focused HSI effort under the umbrella of DHS S&T in 2018. The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have HSI programs similarly rooted in human factors and modeled after the Army MANPRINT program.

HSI was formally integrated into DoD acquisition policy as a distinct focus area in the Operation of the Defense Acquisition System (DoD Instruction 5000.02) issued in 2003. Updated in 2008, this policy expanded the domains from six domains in the MANPRINT program to seven, re-focusing systems safety as safety and occupational health, and adding habitability and survivability to the list (Department of Defense, 2008). In 2010, the National Academy of Sciences committee on human systems integration was transitioned to a board under the division of behavioral and social sciences and education. The Board on Human Systems Integration (BOHSI) issues consensus studies, reports and proceedings on HSI research and application. A 2013 update of the DODINST 5000.02 added force protection was added to the survivability domain.  In 2020, the DoD 5000.02 title and content shifted to the "Operation of the Adaptive Acquisition framework", which describes HSI activities tailored to each acquisition pathway, according to the unique characteristics of the capability being required.

HSI in policy

SAE 6906

The SAE 6906 Standard Practice for Human Systems Integration is the newest HSI technical standard. It defines standard practices for procurement activities related to HSI. The standard is provided for industry to apply HSI during system design, through disposal and all related activities. This standard includes an overview of HSI and the domains, the domain relationships and tradeoffs, systems development process requirements, and a number of technical standard references.DOD 5000.02

HSI was formally integrated into DoD acquisition policy as a distinct focus area in the Operation of the Defense Acquisition System [1](DoD Instruction 5000.02) issued in 2008. Subsequent updates to this policy expanded the domains from five to seven, re-focusing systems safety as safety and occupational health, and adding habitability and survivability to the list [2].  Force protection was added to the survivability domain in the 2013 version of the instruction.  In 2020, the DoD has shifted to an adaptive acquisition framework, which will describe HSI activities tailored to each acquisition pathway, according to the unique characteristics of the capability being required.

Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG)

The DAG devotes an entire chapter to manpower planning and HSI. In addition to focused discussion on each domain, the DAG emphasizes viewing HSI from a total system perspective, viewing the human components of a system as integral to the total system as any other component or subsystem. HSI should be represented in all aspects of programmatic Integrated Product and Process Development, strategic planning and risk management.

Integrated Product Support (IPS) Elements Guidebook

The Defense Acquisition University IPS Elements guidebook provides guidance for developing continuous product support throughout the lifecycle of the system. Product Support management includes twelve integrated product support elements, these include the HSI domains of training, manpower and personnel. The 2019 version of this guidebook includes a description of HSI and all the domains, including those that are not considered to be among the 12 elements of IPS. The 2021 update of the IPS guidebook removed the description of HSI and the non-IPS domains, and greatly expanded the discussion of training and training support, and manpower and personnel

International Council On Systems Engineering (INCOSE) Systems Engineering Guidebook

The INCOSE Systems Engineering Guidebook provides an authoritative refence to understand the discipline of Systems Engineering for student and practicing professionals. In this guidebook, the human part of the system is associated with systems engineering activities from start to finish: from requirements development, to architectural design processes, verification, validation and operation. HSI is covered in detail in the guidebook section 9.12: Usability Analysis/Human Systems Integration. The guidebook focuses on the integration of HSI into SE processes, and notes that intuitive understanding of the important role of the human as an element of a system is not enough. HSI assists engineers though the addition of human-centered domains ensuring that human considerations are integrated into systems design. HSI is a broad and disciplined approach that focuses on important user issues such as usability, safety and health, maintainability and trainability. HSI trade studies and analyses are key methods of HSI that often result in insights not otherwise realized in systems engineering. HSI is described as integral to the systems engineering process, and must be addressed in all program level integrated development product teams at program, technical, design, and decision reviews throughout the lifecycle of the system. The INCOSE Systems Engineering Guidebook recommends a number of steps to effectively incorporate HSI into systems engineering processes:

• Initiate HSI early and effectively
• Identify HSI issues and plan analyses
• Document HSI requirements
• Make HSI a factor in source selection for contracted development
• Execute Integrated Technical Processes (including HSI domain integration
• Conduct Proactive Tradeoffs
• Conduct HSI Assessments

Other HSI policy, standards and guidance:

Human Systems Integration in the System Acquisition Process Army Regulation (AR) 602-2

United States Air Force Human Systems Integration Handbook

Air Force HSI

NASA Human Systems Integration Practitioners Guide

ASTM F1337-10 Standard Practice for Human Systems Integration Program Requirements for Ships and Marine Systems, Equipment and Facilities

HSI Data Information Descriptions include:

DI-HFAC 81743 Human Systems Integration Program Plan

Domains

Human Factors Engineering

Human Factors Engineering (HFE) is an engineering discipline that ensures human capabilities and limitations in areas such as perception, cognition, sensory and physical attributes are incorporated into requirements and design. An area of focus for HFE is the relationship between anthropometry of the system user group and the physical dimensions of a system spaces. If the physical dimensions of the system accommodate the users' anthropometry, hazards that result in acute injury or chronic musculo-skeletal disorders are reduced. This represents a tradeoff between HFE and systems safety. Another area of focus for Human Factors Engineers is workload and cognitive capacity. Intuitive design and interfaces that are easy to use will reduce the workload required to use a system. If a system has intuitive design and adheres to usability best practices, workload will be reduced, and the number of people required to operate or maintain the system may be reduced, or the minimum qualification level of the operators and maintainers may be lower. Additionally, training requirements may be reduced. All three of these tradeoffs between HSI domains have the potential to reduce total lifecycle cost.

HFE standards and requirements include:

ASTM F1166-07 Standard Practice for Human Engineering Design for Marine Systems, Equipment and Facilities

HFES-200 Human Factors Engineering of Software User Interfaces

MIL-STD 46855 Human Engineering Requirements for Military Systems, Equipment and Facilities

MIL-STD 1472 DoD Design Criteria Standard for Human Engineering

HFE Data Information Descriptions include:

Human Engineering Program Plan (HEPP) DI-HFAC- 81742

Human Engineering Systems Analysis Report (HESAR) DI-HFAC-80745

Human Engineering Design Approach Document (HEDAD-M) DI-HFAC-80747

Human Engineering Design Approach Document (HEDAD-O) DI-HFAC-80746

Human Engineering Test Plan (HETP) DI-HFAC-80743

Human Engineering Test Reports (HETR) DI-HFAC-80744

FAA Human Factors Design Standards (HFDS) HF-STD-001B

Manpower

Manpower focuses on evaluating and defining the right mix of personnel (sometimes referred to as "spaces") for people to operate, maintain and support a system. Manpower requirements should be based on task analysis and consider workload, fatigue, physical and sensory overload, environmental conditions (heat/cold) and reduced visibility. Manpower requirements are the highest cost driver for a system, and can account for up to 70% of the total lifecycle cost . Requirements are based on the full range of operations from a low operational tempo, peacetime scenario to continuous sustained operations, and should include consideration for surge operations capacity. In the manpower analysis process, labor intensive "high driver tasks" should be examined, and targeted for engineering design changes to reduce the manpower requirement through automation, or improved usability in design. A top down functional analysis can be the basis for determinations of which functions can be eliminated, consolidated, or simplified to control manpower costs.

DoD manpower policy comes from DoD Directive 1100.4, Guidance for Manpower Management

Personnel

The personnel domain is concerned with the human performance characteristics of the user population (cognitive, sensory and physical skills, knowledge, experience and abilities) of operators, maintainers and support staff required for a system. Cost effective engineering designs minimize personnel requirements, and keep them consistent with the user population. Systems that require new or advance personnel requirements will experience cost increases in other domains, such as training. The user group identified for a system may be referred to as the "target audience". The target audience is situated within a larger organizational structure, and recruitment, retention and personnel policies that may impact or be impacted by the new system should be considered. HSI and the personnel domain may impact policy, or policy may impact HSI. For example, the system may require additional recruitment to sustain the organizational workforce while employing the new system. An example of policy impacting HSI is increased diversity in the user population that may alter anthropometric requirements for the system and impact requirements in the HFE domain.

Manpower and personnel standards include:

Standard Practice for Manpower and Personnel SAE1010

Training

The training domain is concerned with giving the target audience the opportunity to acquire, gain or enhance the knowledge, skills and abilities of a user group to operate, maintain and support a system. Training the operators, maintainers and support personnel to conduct their respective tasks is a component of the total system and a part of delivering the intended capability of the system. The objective of training is to develop and sustain ready, well trained personnel while reducing lifecycle costs, contributing to a positive readiness outcome.

Training standards include:

Guidance for the Acquisition of Training Data Products and Services (Part 1 of 5) MIL-HDBK 29612/1

Instructional Systems Development/Systems Approach to Training and Education (Part 2 of 5) MIL-HDBK 29612/2

Environment, Safety and Occupational Health

The environment, safety and occupational health domain is focused on determining system design characteristics that minimize risks to human health and physical wellbeing such as acute or chronic illness, disability death, or injury. In a physical system design, systems safety works closely with systems engineers to identify, document, design out, or mitigate system hazards and reduce residual risk from those hazards. The three areas that must be considered are:

• environment, or the natural and manmade conditions in and around the system and the operational context of the system
• safety factors in systems design that minimize the potential for mishaps, such as walking surfaces, work at heights, pressure extremes, confined spaces, control of hazardous energy releases, fire and explosions
• occupational health: system design features that minimize the risk of injury, acute or chronic illness, or disability or reduce long term job performance from hazards such as noise, chemicals, atmospheric hazards (such as confined spaces), vibration, radiation and repetitive motion injuries.

A health hazard analysis should be performed periodically during the system lifecycle to identify risks, initiating the risk management process. In DoD programs, program managers must prepare a Programmatic Environmental, Safety and Occupational Health Evaluation (PESHE) which is an overall evaluation of ESOH risks for the program, and documents the progress of HHA program monitoring.

Systems safety is grounded in a risk management process but Safety risk management has a unique set of processes and procedures. For example, identified hazards should be designed out of the system whenever possible, either through selecting a different design, or altering the design to eliminate the hazard. If a design change isn't feasible, engineered features or devices should be added to interrupt the hazard and prevent a mishap. Warnings (devices, signs or signals) are the next best mitigation, but are considered to be far less beneficial to preventing mishaps. The last resort is personal protective equipment to protect people from the hazard, and training (knowledge skills and abilities to protect against the hazard and prevent a mishap). HFE review and involvement with design interventions introduced to address hazards is an important connection between the systems safety and HFE domain specialists. Design interventions may have manpower and personnel implications, and training mitigations for hazards must be incorporated into continued operator and maintainer training in order to sustain the training intervention.

Systems safety standards include:

MIL-STD 882 System Safety

Force Protection and Survivability

Survivability is design features that reduce the risk of fratricide, detection and probability of an attack, and enable the crew to continue the mission and avoid acute or chronic illness, severe injury, disability or death in hostile environments. Elements of survivability include reducing susceptibility to a mishap or attack (protection against detection for example) and minimizing potential wounds or injury to personnel operating and maintaining the system. Survivability also includes protection from chemical, biological, radioactive and nuclear (CBRN) threats. and should include requirements to preserve integrity of the crew compartment, rapid egress in case of system destruction, and emergency systems for contingency management, escape, survival and rescue.

Survivability is often categorized in the following topics:

• Reduce Fratricide
• Reduce detectability
• Reduce probability of attack
• Minimize damage if attacked
• Minimize injury
• Minimize mental and physical fatigue
• Survive extreme environments

Habitability

Habitability is the application of human centered design to the physical environment (living areas, personal hygiene facilities, working areas, living areas, and personnel support areas) to sustain and optimize morale, safety, health, comfort and quality of life of personnel. Design aspects such as lighting; space; ventilation and sanitation; noise and temperature control; religious, medical and food services availability; berthing, bathing and personal hygiene are all aspects of habitability, and directly contribute to personnel effectiveness and mission accomplishment.

Habitability Standards Include:

Color Coordination Manual for Habitability DI-MISC 81123

Design Criteria Limits Noise Standards MIL-STD 1474

Further Reading

Boehm-Davis, D., Durso, F. T., & Lee, J. D. (2015). APA handbook of human systems integration. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Booher, H. R. (1990). Manprint: An approach to systems integration. New York, NY: Reinhold.

Hardman, N. S. (2009). An empirical methodology for engineering human systems integration.

Pew, R. W., & Mavor, A. S. (2007). Human-system integration in the system development process: A new look. Washington: National Academies Press.

Rouse, W. B. (2010). The economics of human systems integration valuation of investments in peoples training and education, safety and health, and work productivity. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.