- Email: [email protected]
MANPRINT implications for product design and manufacture
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 7 (1991) 197-206 Elsevier
197
MANPRINT implications for product design and manufacture Harold R. Booher office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Department of the Army, Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0300, USA (Received October 12, 1989; accepted in revised form June 15, 1990)
Abstract MANPRINT is a U.S. Department of Defense initiative which changes the focus of industry from a products view only toward a total system view that considers human performance and product reliability together as a system. Socioeconomic environments reflected in manpower demographieal restrictions, global competition, and constraints in fiscal resources are creating similar pressures on both the military and commercial sectors. This paper outlines several of the social, economic, and technical trends in government and industry which have created a favorable environment for MANPRINT. Through its initiatives in government policy and technical advancement of design and decision-making tools, MANPRINT is helping to define an expanding role for ergonomics in designing products and processes for manufacturabitity. MANPRINT also has implications for ergonomics research and offers new challenges to ergonomics education.
Relevance to industry The MANPRINT program was developed by the U.S. Department of the Army to model the effect on human operators of product design, manufacture and distribution. Software has been developed for a wide range of problems including CAD animation and assessments of types of skills required in assembly. These facilities can be adapted for use by industry.
Keywords Manufacturing, productivity, maintainability, human factors, CAD animation, systems integration.
Introduction M A N P R I N T ( M a n p o w e r a n d P e r s o n n e l Integration) is b o t h a technical a n d a m a n a g e m e n t p r o g r a m with a p r i m a r y objective to i m p r o v e milit a r y systems' p e r f o r m a n c e . It is a D e p a r t m e n t o f D e f e n s e initiative which changes the o r i e n t a t i o n o f i n d u s t r y t o w a r d a total system view that considers h u m a n p e r f o r m a n c e a n d p r o d u c t reliability together as a system ( A r m y , 1986; Booher, 1988; D e p a r t m e n t of Defense, 1988). T h e p r o g r a m integrates several p e o p l e - o r i e n t e d disciplines with a c o m m o n focus t o w a r d influencing p r o d u c t design, m a n u f a c t u r e a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n . A s a p p l i e d in the A r m y , the scope is e x t r e m e l y b r o a d , b r i n g i n g together all m a n a g e m e n t a n d technical processes, 0169-1936/91/$03.50 © 1991 - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
p r o d u c t s , a n d r e l a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m the disciplines of h u m a n factors engineering, m a n p o w e r , personnel, training, s y s t e m safety, a n d h e a l t h hazards. S u m m a r i z e d in figure 1, M A N P R I N T is a h u m a n factors p h i l o s o p h y for systems integration a n d has a n u m b e r of u n i q u e aspects for i n f l u e n c i n g c o r p o r a t e change. M A N P R I N T considers, for e x a m p l e , the n e e d for a t o p - d o w n app r o a c h s t a r t i n g with c o r p o r a t e or g o v e r n m e n t leaders and working downward. As noted elsewhere (Booher, 1990), giving higher level visib i l i t y to p e o p l e - o r i e n t e d c o n c e p t s p r o v i d e s a realistic e n v i r o n m e n t for i n c o r p o r a t i n g wide sweeping changes t h r o u g h o u t a n organization. If those at the t o p o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n u n d e r s t a n d these concepts, t h e y c a n b e t t e r o r i e n t i m p r o v e m e n t ef-
198
H. Booher / M A N P R I N T implications
High level visibility of people-oriented concepts Focus throughout total organization on competence and motivation Top-down approach rather than bottom-up Multi-disciphnary views of design Quantification of people variables Systematizes early warning of human error consequences Provides trade-off techniques early in design Pushes technology and aids engineering advances Inherent part of system - not just supporting role Communicates in decision maker's language Encourages resources redirection rather than net increases Educates all people in the process Reduces demand for manpower, personnel and training Fig 1. MANPRINT philosophy for influencing product design and manufacture (Booher, 1990).
forts and set up a reward system which instills competence and motivation in its employees. Central to M A N P R I N T is ensuring the concurrent involvement of multiple disciphnes in considering potential product designs. The human factors engineer is often the one who should take the lead in integrating the other disciplines into systems design. Another aspect of M A N P R I N T which is especially important is the quantification of people variables because it allows system tradeoffs to be made after equal consideration of both human and product variables. Several of the other unique aspects are discussed in the paper. For greater detail on the M A N P R I N T philosophy see Booher (1990) and Booher and Rouse (1990). The socioeconomic environments which created the need for M A N P R I N T in the military places similar demands on commercial industry. Demographics through the 1990's and into the 21st century show a smaller pool of young workers to draw upon (Spenser, 1989), a rising need for higher skills (Binkin, 1986) and an increase of women and minorities in the work place (Johnston and Packer, 1987). The trend toward high technology like automation and robotics is encouraging as a method to offset the demand for total number of workers, but places an increased premium on higher education and skills among its workforce (Binkin, 1986; Rouse, 1989; Price, 1990). Also facing both the military and commercial sectors is the growing realization that customer satisfaction must be a central consideration in any product manufactured. High quahty as well as
favorable price are demanded by the customer, whether military operators and maintainers of weapons for national defense or the purchasers of automobiles, stoves, and television sets in the market place. Only industries having products of the highest quahty will survive in a world with open market competition. M A N P R I N T ergonomic concepts have had major beneficial results for the mihtary in each of the primary product processes which contribute to quality, i.e. design, manufacturing and consumer use. Through the Army's pohcy of making M A N P R I N T a separate major area for source selection in contract awards, corporate leaders are motivated to place a high premium on human factors considerations. This initially results in management requiring designers to search out and utilize h u m a n factors expertise and information. Further, the designer is often rewarded by being supported with the most recent and highest quality ergonomic design tools. When the M A N P R I N T concepts are used there is also a much higher regard in the design process for test and evaluation data which comes directly from product users and designers. The overall effect is highly stimulating to both the designer and the h u m a n factors specialist, because together they produce a product that is recognized by both the consumer and upper management to be a vast improvement over what would have been produced without the M A N P R I N T philosophy. Moreover, there are often totally unexpected synergistic effects. In a recent airframe design effort, M A N P R I N T ' s focus on improving maintainability design resulted in extraordinary manufacturing process improvements. In order to make access for field maintenance simpler, the entire aircraft structure concept was dramatically changed. But in so doing, not only was maintainability greatly enhanced, but also mechanical assembly time was cut in half (Blier, 1990). Overlaying the demographical restrictions and demand for increased quality are constraints in fiscal resources. The military must be able to maintain an acceptable level of readiness and warfighting capability with a fixed or even dechning budget. The commercial sector must find ways to increase productivity in an environment where new capital investments are tight and labor costs are increasing. Finally both public and private
H. Booher / MANPRINT implications
sectors are experiencing increasing social pressures for public health and safety, better overall living conditions, and greater job security and job satisfaction. There is a growing need, therefore, for the ergonomist to appreciate the social, economic, and technical trends influencing government policy and industrial management decision making. This paper outlines several of these trends, especially those directed toward improved quality management approaches and systems integration processes in product design and manufacture. These trends project expanding roles for the ergonomist including such diverse activities as transitioning advanced technology from aerospace applications (Rouse and Hunt, 1990) to taking on greater leadership in systems integration projects (Mittler et al., 1990) or acting as the critical interdisciplinary link between producers and management (Booher and Rouse, 1990). MANPRINT recognizes these trends and the important role for the human factors engineer and other ergonomics specialists. Through its initiatives in government policy and technical advancement of design and decision-making tools, MANPRINT is helping to define this expanding ergonomics role for industry. MANPRINT also has implications for ergonomics research and offers new challenges to ergonomics education. These trends and implications for product design and manufacture are discussed below in more detail.
Industrial management trends Total Quality Management (TQM) is a novel and highly successful managerial approach being seen by industrial leaders as a way to enhance competitiveness in the global market place (Pfau, 1989) and by the military as a way to improve the effectiveness of its procurement process (Defense System Management College, 1989). Improving quality is big business considering that quality control problems can equal one-third or more of total manufacturing costs even in well-managed industries (Drucker, 1985). The management philosophies of TQM and MANPRINT are similar. Booher and Fender (1990) describe several important tenets of the TQM philosophy which correspond directly to the MANPRINT approach. These include:
199
(a) The focus on people, whether as (1) the end user, or (2) the worker as a controller and changer of the processes that go into producing goods and services. (b) Dependence on scientific measures of success. An organization which is successful in its desire to improve product quality depends on the availability of a rational method to measure improvement (Pfau, 1989). TQM uses tools and methods which incorporate statistical data collection and analysis techniques well known to behavioral scientists and specialists in operations research. MANPRINT's approach to measure system performance implies that the system is quantitatively defined with the user as part of the system. Product performance is measured by testing user performance with the product. (c) Both TQM and MANPRINT stress early error correction. The earlier errors are discovered, the lower the cost for correction (TQM); rapid and inexpensive system design changes for specific products can be made most successfully early in the process (MANPRINT). I m p r o v e d communication
Perhaps the most significant change in an organization which is serious about quality improvement is a reorganization which enhances effective communication. Companies often find that their organization is composed of several operational islands that refuse to communicate with one another for fear they may give up information which could strengthen their opponents (Kerzner, 1984). MANPRINT thrives in an organization which rewards teamwork, drives out fear and selfishness which stifles communications, and provides methods for rapid communication both vertically and across functional areas. As described by Pfau (1989, p. 21), 'people need to communicate across organizational levels, functions, product lines and locations to solve current problems, avoid recurrences and implement change'. A particularly promising MANPRINT approach that aids communication and decision making is the methodology developed by McDonnell Douglas to assist in integrating MANPRINT objectives into the engineering design process. Entitled the MANPRINT Design Analysis Tech-
200
H. Booher / MANPRINT implications DISCIPLINE RELATIONSHIPS DIVISIONS
DOMAINS
PROCESSES
SURVI¥\ALR~IT~/GIUL~NA~ IL1T Y ~ WE,G.TS
UMAN -
- -
FACTORS
SYSTEMS NGIN RING
SAFETY
". ATAINARILIT -\ RELIABILITY ~ TRAINING ~
.~_
PERSONNEL ~
.
MANPOWER ~ _ ~ PRODUCT w ~ ~ SUPPORT
/ I
TECH PUBS ~ ~ . 'rD /twNv~f: n~'vlc't¢~ ,I" ...................
,. . . .
MANPOWER PERSONNEL . . . . . . . . . . . . .
,
~ .
~
INTEGRATED LOGISTICS SUPP RT
suPPO
\ Fig. 2. Inter-communication relationships for disciplines using MANPRINT Design Analysis Technique (MDAT) (McDonnell Douglas).
nique (MDAT), it is a computer database management system which provides analysts and decision makers with on-line, real-time information on design activities. Figure 2 illustrates the complex relationship which results from M A N P R I N T integration to improve communications among divisions, domains, and processes. Note that without Manpower and Personnel Integration, there are no common specialties (i.e. domains) between major corporate divisions. Similarly, the primary project processes (Systems Engineering and Integrated Logistics Support) tend to have few areas of overlap. This results in low perceived need for communication across divisions and engineering operations. MANPRINT, however, requires domain communication across organizational divisions and the other processes. M D A T provides immediate input and output access by multiple disciplines and multiple systems, allowing extensive horizontal communication on systems being designed. Described by Mittler et al. (1990), some of its features include: - An audit trail and historical report of the evolution of system design and lessons learned,
- System design high driver inputs from any of the participating disciplines. Too hard design issues remain in the database as a constant reminder of need for solution. Because of the audit nature, a requirement for management attention and resolution of high drivers before design is fixed. - A method for weighting and evaluating all design issues and alternative solutions in terms of system performance and life cycle costs at time of decision. -
Cost effectiveness tradeoffs Through M A N P R I N T , decision makers and facilitators can take better advantage of new technological developments in system integration. Inherent in several of these developments is quantification of people variables. This enables decision makers to make tradeoffs with functions previously difficult to assess. Human factors experts have long argued that front end investments in human factors bring far-reaching costs savings in the future. A good example is the damage that the
H. Booher / MANPRINT implications
Three Mile Island accident did to an entire industry's image, which essentially came from failure to consider the potential for human error in design and development stages. But experience shows that fear of a future catastrophe does not strongly motivate improvements in product design. In the past, ignorance of the benefits that people-oriented disciplines may offer has caused a lack of front end investment. But there are also other, more subtle reasons. One of the more important ones is that capital costs must be traded off against recurring costs. Similarly, the value of hard assets must be traded off against that of people assets. Hard assets and capital costs are considered more reliable indicators of a corporation's fiscal health than are people assets and recurring costs. Only a high level decision maker can make large capital trades in favor of ergonomics. This is not likely to occur if benefits cannot be equated to near term profits or demonstrated cost avoidance. Neither the ability nor the incentive exists at lower management levels to make these kind of investment tradeoffs. TQM and M A N P R I N T change this approach by illustrating how cost advantages can be obtained from the very outset. A company that recently adopted M A N P R I N T for the design of a military helicopter engine reduced skill level demands as well as maintenance personnel requirements and even predicts a more reliable engine as a result of adopting the M A N P R I N T philosophy. These improvements came at no added cost over the original design plan (Zelko et al., 1989; Booher and Rouse, 1990). On another Army program, the military showed $60 million cost avoidance (or a 10 per cent increase in warfighting capability) from a $300,000 investment in M A N P R I N T (Zelko et al., 1989; Booher and Rouse, 1990). Still another A r m y p r o c u r e m e n t which utilized M A N P R I N T will save the military at least one million per annum by the avoidance of added electrician costs (Booher, 1989; Hunter, 1989). Once the corporate environment has changed sufficiently to appreciate the near term benefits, secondary effects begin to take place. For example, there are some very encouraging reports of increases in job satisfaction from the team approach utilized by organizations like McDonnell Douglas and Boeing in designing the new Light Helicopter (LH).
201
Advances in design and decision aids M A N P R I N T stimulates the need for continuous improvements in ergonomic design. In addition to the analysis technique described above, there are computer-aided ergonomic design tools; cognitive workload assessment techniques; and analytical methodologies to forecast the implications of design and production on manpower, personnel and training. C A D models
Expert systems are now being developed for CAD modeling which allow the system designer to perform the analysis of an expert ergonomist. Three-dimensional models like C O M B I M A N and CREW C H I E F are already being utilized for design of operator and maintenance work space (McDaniel and Hofmann, 1990). These provide electronic mock-ups of crews and work space with realistic human size, strength, and mobility. An automated task analysis can be conducted for people ranging anywhere from the 1st to 99th percentile. This capability is potentially more important to the commercial world than the military. The military uses a restricted set of anthropometric dimensions but products for the general population (e.g. automobile driver or airplane passenger seats) must be developed using a greater range of body dimensions. Future CAD ergonomic tools will incorporate h u m a n motion capability. 3-D models are already in existence with complex animation of multiple human figures to aid the designer in visualizing a task without a prototype or physical mock-up. An example of a 3-D computer generated mock-up is presented in figure 3. The Virtual Mock-up, known as 'JACK', can be used to evaluate complex man-machine interaction issues which heretofore was nearly impossible without a prototype and a representative human subject. McDaniel and Hofmann (1990) describe a sample problem with an anti-tank weapons system ( D R A G O N ) gunner to illustrate this point. In the system studied, the gunner must hold his breath while aiming the sight on the target after launch. Breathing while the missile is in flight will cause the aim to deviate. Gunners are expected to hold their breath from 12 to 25 seconds through aiming, firing and missile flight.
202
H. Booher / M A N P R I N T implications
Fig. 3. Computer-generated virtual mock-up of an animated task sequence of a h u m a n operator at a control station.
This is not easy especially if the soldier has been running prior to firing. By programming the dynamics of breathing into the Virtual Mock-up, different behaviors like over and understeering and their effect on aiming may be simulated and visualized. Automation not only replaces manual assembly in product manufacturing but is also assuming an increasing share of the plant process command and control functions as well. According to Phillips (1989), we are now at a stage where products are produced by a series of information changes rather than production lines. Paperless manufacturing now characterizes modern manufacturing. Plant automation does not mean the end of human factors in the process, however. In fact, when automation is not carefully introduced, unforeseen human-machine problems will arise. These can take the form of increased safety problems (Weiner, 1985; Moray et al., 1988), or reductions
in productivity (British Steel Corp, 1976). Almost always increased automation requires greater human involvement (Price, 1990). In general, the introduction of new technology means a continuing shift in emphasis from worker physical characteristics to worker cognitive attributes. The problem for the ergonomist is how to reliably assess complex work loads for operators in different environments under varying tasks. A project recently completed by the Army Research Institute (Lysaght et al., 1989) should provide a very useful tool for this purpose. Known as OWL, an operator workload expert system is now complete for M A N P R I N T managers, designers, and evaluators. A special feature of OWL is its interactive computer-based capabilities for not only describing the various assessment methods but also recommending the most appropriate methods tailored to specific user requirements.
H. Booher /MANPRINT implications Analyses and tradeoff tools
A central feature of the system integration efforts of MANPRINT has been to provide analysis and tradeoff tools to better forecast Manpower, Personnel and Training (MPT) implications of acquiring and fielding new weapon systems. These tools generally focus on operator and maintainer tasks predicted by proposed system designs (Bogner et al., 1990). Currently available analytical techniques like Hardware versus Manpower (HARDMAN) and Man Integrated Systems Technology (MIST) aid the analyst in systematically predicting or assessing tasks that may be difficult or time consuming. Currently available models like Army Manpower Cost System (AMCOS) can be used to assess manpower on a system by system basis at each stage of design and development and to predict costs and other ramifications (e.g., Is there adequate manpower to field the system?) throughout its life cycle. MANPRINT models of the future are expected to be able to provide similar information for entire units and ultimately for the entire force. Any organization which produces commercial systems and equipment or is seeking to better utilize advanced technology (e.g. automation) in its manufacturing processes should become aware of those MANPRINT analyses and tradeoff techniques. It is an important role of the ergonomist to show industry where they may be most relevant. Weddle (1986) noted that these Department of Defense developed products can: - permit product engineers to assess design impact on likely user populations; - allow tradeoff analyses to be conducted to identify design changes to improve the usability of the product; -be used to evaluate alternative production strategies to assure the total production process can (with people-in-the-loop) actually meet production and quality goals; - help determine the types of skills and skill levels required in manufacturing assembly or for operating process control equipment. Weddie suggested that the benefits from applying such analytic tools to human resource planning could be especially useful for development and implementation of training programs or perhaps in supporting union negotiations regard-
203
ing a planned work force change as a result of introducing new technology. Recommendations
The environment facing the ergonomist today is one in which skills and techniques that add to goods and services quality are being viewed as a premium. At the same time, pressures are immense to reduce costs, especially labor costs. Labor and other personnel costs in the military and some industries can run well over 50 per cent of total expenses. But future changes in demographics and increased use of high technology will tend to increase manpower and training costs. The challenge for the commercial ergonomist encouraged by MANPRINT lies in three major areas. (1) Becoming a leader in systems integration. Ergonomists should become leaders in systems integration and act as stronger links between producers and management. Successful application of C A D / C A M technologies, integrated warehousing and material handling, production planning and control all require human expertise in information integration. MANPRINT in weapon systems integration has brought together the best of peopleoriented analysis tools and the analysts themselves in order to make people issues full and equal concerns in product acquisition decisions. Successful military system integration to date has been with the traditional ergonomist or human factors engineer playing a central but not generally a leading role. Continued successful technical integration needs greater leadership from individuals with strong education and experience in both engineering and human behavioral processes. If systems, industrial, or logistics engineers continue to take on the leader's role in the future, they almost certainly will still need the advice and consent of an ergonomist to produce a truly integrated system. In order for a leader to be a successful integrator, he must have an appreciation of the other people-oriented disciplines as well as the engineering and maintenance issues associated with system performance. In order to provide a strong link between producers and management, ergonomists need to take every opportunity to document design change influence and demonstrate the added value from people-ori-
204
H. Booher / MANPRINT implications
ented considerations, both for the short and the long term. This must be expressed in a language managers understand, i.e. cost savings, productivity, profits. (2) Conducting and transferring ergonomics research. M A N P R I N T stimulates and sponsors research in all of the traditional areas of human factors and ergonomics. For example, MANP R I N T has sponsored efforts in human factors engineering that are leading to breakthroughs in new technology (e.g. human motion in CAD) and to a better understanding of operator workload characteristics under varying tasks. The emphasis is toward research that contributes to total system performance enhancements either in using the product or in the processes involved in manufacturing the product. In that sense, M A N P R I N T has found the concepts of macroergonomics and microergonomics (Hendrick, 1986; Geirland, 1989) helpful in describing its activities. The disciplines of human factors engineering, system safety and health hazards are more easily identified with microergonomics whereas manpower, personnel, and training are considered closer to macroergonomics, although there are obvious overlaps. Management methods which integrate all disciplines with a focus on system design management (such as M D A T above) demonstrate the macroergonomics concept at work. There are extensive human resources and human performance data banks available in both government and industry which tend to fall into either the micro or macro areas (Haas and Laine, 1990). The challenge for the M A N P R I N T ergonomist is to be familiar with both sets of data and better utilize them in combination. MANPRINT sponsorship of new tools and technologies is currently concentrating on the macroergonomics challenges (e.g. H A R D M A N III; Booher and Hewitt, 1990) since microergonomic tools for systems analysis are much further developed. The primary challenge for tool makers in the micro area is to continue efforts to make them design engineer friendly. Areas of research suggested by Geirland (1989) on the development of empirically based models of cooperative work are very much in line with the M A N P R I N T philosophy. The future of large scale decision making on issues of how and what new technologies will be
introduced and implemented will depend more and more on computer-based models having quantitative data on human behavior and human resources. At present there is relatively little empirical data on group behavior in socio-technical settings. Because of the enormous complexity that macro models introduce, it is noted by Geirland (1989) 'when the system supports the cooperative work of multiple users, a higher level of complexity is involved. Interaction among multiple users creates a set of interdependencies not found in single-user systems' (p. 3). This makes it all the more important that human performance data collection be resourceful. The M A N P R I N T focus is on human performances which make global differences. In Army combat models, it has been found that data on stress and fatigue are needed to improve the predictions of human performance in a combat scenario. Battles can be won or lost due to differences in these factors (Parry et al., 1990). Finally, more research data is needed to support the development and validation of economic feasibility models to assess impact of human resource investments. In the past, ergonomics investments have primarily been in response to contractual, regulatory and legal liability requirements (Rouse and Cacioppo, 1989). This emphasis (most visible in public health and safety issues) stresses the ergonomic feature of problem avoidance. M A N P R I N T supports this emphasis but also stresses the more positive aspects that are important to corporate management which result from ergonomics contributions to enhancing total system performance and manufacturing quality products. It is necessary here to demonstrate the specific value of various, often competing human resource investments and help to ensure that predictions or recommendations can be done in a systematic and credible manner. (3) Recognizing educational implications. If ergonomics is to take a leading role in supporting the global trends discussed in this paper, major changes in ergonomics education are envisioned. Skills, knowledges, and abilities for the ergonomics specialist are currently produced through graduate course work and direct government or industry experience primarily in the microergonomic areas. Course work in these areas is generally pro-
H. Booher / M A N P R I N T implications
vided by university psychology or industrial engineering departments. Greater emphasis on macroergonomics and interface with systems engineers in these curricula is suggested. Operations research curricula, on the other hand, need to have greater exposure to human performance parameters for more realistic model building of processes and their interactions. M A N P R I N T is encouraging the development of centers of excellence where multiple disciplines can work together on research and acquire higher education to advance both macro and micro ergonomics. Undergraduate curricula in engineering also needs to place greater emphasis on ergonomics. It is far more beneficial from a total quality approach to reduce the propensity for design error than to have ergonomics experts search for the errors. Industry also needs greater participation in its education and training activities for ergonomics within a M A N P R I N T perspective. The increased attention to training encouraged by the TQM approach should give numerous opportunities for greater ergonomics exposure to all people involved in the processes affecting product design and manufacture. Finally, ergonomics specialists need to set their long term career goals for higher positions in industry and government. Today, corporate management is run by individuals coming primarily from business or engineering. M A N P R I N T and TQM expect to see individuals at senior executive positions coming from backgrounds in ergonomics as well as business or engineering. The pressures for global competition, better product performance in the hands of the user, and better utilization of human resources has enabled M A N P R I N T to become institutionalized in much of the military. If ergonomics continues to grow as a field which supports the macro as well as micro decisions related to product design and manufacture, programs like M A N P R I N T will continue to thrive well into the 21st century. References Army Regulation (AR) 602-2, Manpower and Personnel Integration (MANPRINT) in the Material Acquisition Process (April 1990). Binkin, M., 1986. Military Technology and Defense Manpower. The Brookings Institute, Washington, DC.
205
Blier, R.J., March 28, 1990. Personal communication. Boeing/Sikorsky First Team LHX, Trumbull, CT. Bogner, M.S., Kibbe, M. and Laine, R., 1990. Directory of Design Support Methods. Developed for Department of Defense Human Factors Engineering Technical Group (Designing for the User Subgroup). Washington, DC. Headquarters, Department of the Army, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, MANPRINT Directorate. Booher, H.R., 1988. Progress of MANPRINT - The Army's human factors program. Human Factors Society Bulletin, 31(12): 1-3. Booher, H.R., May 9-11, 1989. Future of MANPRINT. In: A Perspective on Manpower, Personnel, Training, and Safety into the 21st Century, National Security Industrial Association, San Antonio, TX. Booher, H.R., 1990, Introduction, The MANPRINT philosophy. In: H.R. Booher (Ed.), MANPRINT, An Approach to Systems Integration. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Booher, H.R. and Fender, K., 1990. Total quality management and MANPRINT. In: H.R. Booher (Ed.), MANPRINT: An Approach to Systems Integration. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Booher, H.R. and Hewitt, G.M., 1990. MANPRINT tools and techniques. In: H.R. Booher (Ed.), MANPRINT: An Approach to Systems Integration. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Booher, H.R. and Rouse, W.B., 1990. MANPRINT as the competitive edge. In: H.R. Booher (Ed.), MANPRINT: An Approach to Systems Integration. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. British Steel Corporation, 1976. Human Factors Evaluation: Hoogovens Number 2 Hot Strip Mill. Technical FR-251. Defense System Management College, February 1989. Total Quality Management, Fact Sheet, Program Manager's Notebook, DSMC, Technical Management Department No. 1.13, Washington, D.C. Department of Defense Directive 5000.53, Dec 30, 1988. Manpower, Personnel, Training, and Safety (MPTS) in the Defense System Acquisition Process, Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management and Personnel), Washington, DC. Drucker, P.F., Sep 20, 1985. Automation payoffs are real. Wall Street Journal. Geirland, J., 1989. Developing design guidelines for computersupported cooperative work: A macroergonomic approach. Human Factors Society Bulletin, 32(9): 1-4. Haas, P. and Laine, R., 1990. National human performance data banks. In: H.R. Booher (Ed.), MANPRINT: An Approach to Systems Integration. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Hendrick, H.W., 1986. Macroergonomics: A conceptual model for integrating human factors with organizational design. In: O; Brown, Jr. and H.W. Hendrick (Eds.), Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management II: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 467-478. Hunter, D., Sep 20, 1989. Airborne Target Handover System/Avionics Integration: A MANPRINT Success
206
H. Booher / M A N P R I N T implications
Story; MANPRINT Industry Executive Seminar, U.S. Army, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Washington, DC. Johnston, W.B. and Packer, A.E., 1987. Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the Twenty-First Century. The Hudson Institute, Indianapolis, IN. Kerzner, H., 1979. Project Management. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Lysaght, R., Hill, S., Dick, A., Plamondon, B., Linton, P., Wierwille, W., Zaklad, A., Bittner, Jr., A. and Wherry, R., June 1989. Operator workload: Comprehensive review and evaluation of operator workload methodologies. ARI Technical Report 851, U.S. Army Research Institute, Fort Bliss, TX. McDaniel J. and Hofmann, M., 1990. Computer aided ergonomic design tools. In: H.R. Booher (Ed.), MANPRINT: An Approach to Systems Integration. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Mittler, E., Hewitt, G.M. and Vehlow, C., 1990. Management integration methods. In: H.R. Booher (Ed.), MANPRINT: An Approach to Systems Integration. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Moray, N.P. and Huey, B.M. (Eds.), 1988. Human Factors Research & Nuclear Safety - National Research Council on Human Factors. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Parry, S., Collins, D. and Van Nostrand, S., 1990. Complex environment models in systems integration. In: H.R. Booher (Ed.), MANPRINT: An Approach to Systems Integration. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Pfau, L.D., 1989. Total quality management gives companies a way to enhance position in global market place. Industrial Engineering, 21(4): 17-21. Phillips, D.T., 1989. Operations research and ergonomics/human factors form scientific roots of IE. Industrial Engineering, 21(4): 42-45. Price, H.E., 1990. Conceptual system design and the human role. In: H.R. Booher (Ed.), MANPRINT: An Approach to Systems Integration. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Rouse, W.B., 1989. Human resource issues in system design. In: N.P. Moray, W.R. Ferrell and W.B. Rouse (Ed.), Robotics, Control, and Society. Taylor and Francis, London. Rouse, W.B. and Cacioppo, G.M., Sept. 1989. Prospects for Modeling the Impact of Human Resource Investments on Economic Return, Search Technology, Norcross, GA. Rouse, W.B. and Hunt, R.M., 1990. Transitioning advanced interface technology from aerospace to manufacturing applications. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. Spenser, G., Jan. 1989. Projection of the Population of the U.S. by Age, Sex and Race: 1988 to 2080. U.S. Dept. of Commence, Bureau of the Census; Ser P-25, NO. 1018. Weddle, P.D., 1986. Capturing the Benefits of High Technology. Personnel Administrator. Weiner, E.L., 1985. Beyond the sterile cockpit. Human Factors, 27: 75-90. Zelko, M., Adams, C. and Braun, B., 1989. MANPRINT. Military Review, 69(4): 22-30.
197
MANPRINT implications for product design and manufacture Harold R. Booher office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Department of the Army, Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0300, USA (Received October 12, 1989; accepted in revised form June 15, 1990)
Abstract MANPRINT is a U.S. Department of Defense initiative which changes the focus of industry from a products view only toward a total system view that considers human performance and product reliability together as a system. Socioeconomic environments reflected in manpower demographieal restrictions, global competition, and constraints in fiscal resources are creating similar pressures on both the military and commercial sectors. This paper outlines several of the social, economic, and technical trends in government and industry which have created a favorable environment for MANPRINT. Through its initiatives in government policy and technical advancement of design and decision-making tools, MANPRINT is helping to define an expanding role for ergonomics in designing products and processes for manufacturabitity. MANPRINT also has implications for ergonomics research and offers new challenges to ergonomics education.
Relevance to industry The MANPRINT program was developed by the U.S. Department of the Army to model the effect on human operators of product design, manufacture and distribution. Software has been developed for a wide range of problems including CAD animation and assessments of types of skills required in assembly. These facilities can be adapted for use by industry.
Keywords Manufacturing, productivity, maintainability, human factors, CAD animation, systems integration.
Introduction M A N P R I N T ( M a n p o w e r a n d P e r s o n n e l Integration) is b o t h a technical a n d a m a n a g e m e n t p r o g r a m with a p r i m a r y objective to i m p r o v e milit a r y systems' p e r f o r m a n c e . It is a D e p a r t m e n t o f D e f e n s e initiative which changes the o r i e n t a t i o n o f i n d u s t r y t o w a r d a total system view that considers h u m a n p e r f o r m a n c e a n d p r o d u c t reliability together as a system ( A r m y , 1986; Booher, 1988; D e p a r t m e n t of Defense, 1988). T h e p r o g r a m integrates several p e o p l e - o r i e n t e d disciplines with a c o m m o n focus t o w a r d influencing p r o d u c t design, m a n u f a c t u r e a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n . A s a p p l i e d in the A r m y , the scope is e x t r e m e l y b r o a d , b r i n g i n g together all m a n a g e m e n t a n d technical processes, 0169-1936/91/$03.50 © 1991 - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
p r o d u c t s , a n d r e l a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m the disciplines of h u m a n factors engineering, m a n p o w e r , personnel, training, s y s t e m safety, a n d h e a l t h hazards. S u m m a r i z e d in figure 1, M A N P R I N T is a h u m a n factors p h i l o s o p h y for systems integration a n d has a n u m b e r of u n i q u e aspects for i n f l u e n c i n g c o r p o r a t e change. M A N P R I N T considers, for e x a m p l e , the n e e d for a t o p - d o w n app r o a c h s t a r t i n g with c o r p o r a t e or g o v e r n m e n t leaders and working downward. As noted elsewhere (Booher, 1990), giving higher level visib i l i t y to p e o p l e - o r i e n t e d c o n c e p t s p r o v i d e s a realistic e n v i r o n m e n t for i n c o r p o r a t i n g wide sweeping changes t h r o u g h o u t a n organization. If those at the t o p o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n u n d e r s t a n d these concepts, t h e y c a n b e t t e r o r i e n t i m p r o v e m e n t ef-
198
H. Booher / M A N P R I N T implications
High level visibility of people-oriented concepts Focus throughout total organization on competence and motivation Top-down approach rather than bottom-up Multi-disciphnary views of design Quantification of people variables Systematizes early warning of human error consequences Provides trade-off techniques early in design Pushes technology and aids engineering advances Inherent part of system - not just supporting role Communicates in decision maker's language Encourages resources redirection rather than net increases Educates all people in the process Reduces demand for manpower, personnel and training Fig 1. MANPRINT philosophy for influencing product design and manufacture (Booher, 1990).
forts and set up a reward system which instills competence and motivation in its employees. Central to M A N P R I N T is ensuring the concurrent involvement of multiple disciphnes in considering potential product designs. The human factors engineer is often the one who should take the lead in integrating the other disciplines into systems design. Another aspect of M A N P R I N T which is especially important is the quantification of people variables because it allows system tradeoffs to be made after equal consideration of both human and product variables. Several of the other unique aspects are discussed in the paper. For greater detail on the M A N P R I N T philosophy see Booher (1990) and Booher and Rouse (1990). The socioeconomic environments which created the need for M A N P R I N T in the military places similar demands on commercial industry. Demographics through the 1990's and into the 21st century show a smaller pool of young workers to draw upon (Spenser, 1989), a rising need for higher skills (Binkin, 1986) and an increase of women and minorities in the work place (Johnston and Packer, 1987). The trend toward high technology like automation and robotics is encouraging as a method to offset the demand for total number of workers, but places an increased premium on higher education and skills among its workforce (Binkin, 1986; Rouse, 1989; Price, 1990). Also facing both the military and commercial sectors is the growing realization that customer satisfaction must be a central consideration in any product manufactured. High quahty as well as
favorable price are demanded by the customer, whether military operators and maintainers of weapons for national defense or the purchasers of automobiles, stoves, and television sets in the market place. Only industries having products of the highest quahty will survive in a world with open market competition. M A N P R I N T ergonomic concepts have had major beneficial results for the mihtary in each of the primary product processes which contribute to quality, i.e. design, manufacturing and consumer use. Through the Army's pohcy of making M A N P R I N T a separate major area for source selection in contract awards, corporate leaders are motivated to place a high premium on human factors considerations. This initially results in management requiring designers to search out and utilize h u m a n factors expertise and information. Further, the designer is often rewarded by being supported with the most recent and highest quality ergonomic design tools. When the M A N P R I N T concepts are used there is also a much higher regard in the design process for test and evaluation data which comes directly from product users and designers. The overall effect is highly stimulating to both the designer and the h u m a n factors specialist, because together they produce a product that is recognized by both the consumer and upper management to be a vast improvement over what would have been produced without the M A N P R I N T philosophy. Moreover, there are often totally unexpected synergistic effects. In a recent airframe design effort, M A N P R I N T ' s focus on improving maintainability design resulted in extraordinary manufacturing process improvements. In order to make access for field maintenance simpler, the entire aircraft structure concept was dramatically changed. But in so doing, not only was maintainability greatly enhanced, but also mechanical assembly time was cut in half (Blier, 1990). Overlaying the demographical restrictions and demand for increased quality are constraints in fiscal resources. The military must be able to maintain an acceptable level of readiness and warfighting capability with a fixed or even dechning budget. The commercial sector must find ways to increase productivity in an environment where new capital investments are tight and labor costs are increasing. Finally both public and private
H. Booher / MANPRINT implications
sectors are experiencing increasing social pressures for public health and safety, better overall living conditions, and greater job security and job satisfaction. There is a growing need, therefore, for the ergonomist to appreciate the social, economic, and technical trends influencing government policy and industrial management decision making. This paper outlines several of these trends, especially those directed toward improved quality management approaches and systems integration processes in product design and manufacture. These trends project expanding roles for the ergonomist including such diverse activities as transitioning advanced technology from aerospace applications (Rouse and Hunt, 1990) to taking on greater leadership in systems integration projects (Mittler et al., 1990) or acting as the critical interdisciplinary link between producers and management (Booher and Rouse, 1990). MANPRINT recognizes these trends and the important role for the human factors engineer and other ergonomics specialists. Through its initiatives in government policy and technical advancement of design and decision-making tools, MANPRINT is helping to define this expanding ergonomics role for industry. MANPRINT also has implications for ergonomics research and offers new challenges to ergonomics education. These trends and implications for product design and manufacture are discussed below in more detail.
Industrial management trends Total Quality Management (TQM) is a novel and highly successful managerial approach being seen by industrial leaders as a way to enhance competitiveness in the global market place (Pfau, 1989) and by the military as a way to improve the effectiveness of its procurement process (Defense System Management College, 1989). Improving quality is big business considering that quality control problems can equal one-third or more of total manufacturing costs even in well-managed industries (Drucker, 1985). The management philosophies of TQM and MANPRINT are similar. Booher and Fender (1990) describe several important tenets of the TQM philosophy which correspond directly to the MANPRINT approach. These include:
199
(a) The focus on people, whether as (1) the end user, or (2) the worker as a controller and changer of the processes that go into producing goods and services. (b) Dependence on scientific measures of success. An organization which is successful in its desire to improve product quality depends on the availability of a rational method to measure improvement (Pfau, 1989). TQM uses tools and methods which incorporate statistical data collection and analysis techniques well known to behavioral scientists and specialists in operations research. MANPRINT's approach to measure system performance implies that the system is quantitatively defined with the user as part of the system. Product performance is measured by testing user performance with the product. (c) Both TQM and MANPRINT stress early error correction. The earlier errors are discovered, the lower the cost for correction (TQM); rapid and inexpensive system design changes for specific products can be made most successfully early in the process (MANPRINT). I m p r o v e d communication
Perhaps the most significant change in an organization which is serious about quality improvement is a reorganization which enhances effective communication. Companies often find that their organization is composed of several operational islands that refuse to communicate with one another for fear they may give up information which could strengthen their opponents (Kerzner, 1984). MANPRINT thrives in an organization which rewards teamwork, drives out fear and selfishness which stifles communications, and provides methods for rapid communication both vertically and across functional areas. As described by Pfau (1989, p. 21), 'people need to communicate across organizational levels, functions, product lines and locations to solve current problems, avoid recurrences and implement change'. A particularly promising MANPRINT approach that aids communication and decision making is the methodology developed by McDonnell Douglas to assist in integrating MANPRINT objectives into the engineering design process. Entitled the MANPRINT Design Analysis Tech-
200
H. Booher / MANPRINT implications DISCIPLINE RELATIONSHIPS DIVISIONS
DOMAINS
PROCESSES
SURVI¥\ALR~IT~/GIUL~NA~ IL1T Y ~ WE,G.TS
UMAN -
- -
FACTORS
SYSTEMS NGIN RING
SAFETY
". ATAINARILIT -\ RELIABILITY ~ TRAINING ~
.~_
PERSONNEL ~
.
MANPOWER ~ _ ~ PRODUCT w ~ ~ SUPPORT
/ I
TECH PUBS ~ ~ . 'rD /twNv~f: n~'vlc't¢~ ,I" ...................
,. . . .
MANPOWER PERSONNEL . . . . . . . . . . . . .
,
~ .
~
INTEGRATED LOGISTICS SUPP RT
suPPO
\ Fig. 2. Inter-communication relationships for disciplines using MANPRINT Design Analysis Technique (MDAT) (McDonnell Douglas).
nique (MDAT), it is a computer database management system which provides analysts and decision makers with on-line, real-time information on design activities. Figure 2 illustrates the complex relationship which results from M A N P R I N T integration to improve communications among divisions, domains, and processes. Note that without Manpower and Personnel Integration, there are no common specialties (i.e. domains) between major corporate divisions. Similarly, the primary project processes (Systems Engineering and Integrated Logistics Support) tend to have few areas of overlap. This results in low perceived need for communication across divisions and engineering operations. MANPRINT, however, requires domain communication across organizational divisions and the other processes. M D A T provides immediate input and output access by multiple disciplines and multiple systems, allowing extensive horizontal communication on systems being designed. Described by Mittler et al. (1990), some of its features include: - An audit trail and historical report of the evolution of system design and lessons learned,
- System design high driver inputs from any of the participating disciplines. Too hard design issues remain in the database as a constant reminder of need for solution. Because of the audit nature, a requirement for management attention and resolution of high drivers before design is fixed. - A method for weighting and evaluating all design issues and alternative solutions in terms of system performance and life cycle costs at time of decision. -
Cost effectiveness tradeoffs Through M A N P R I N T , decision makers and facilitators can take better advantage of new technological developments in system integration. Inherent in several of these developments is quantification of people variables. This enables decision makers to make tradeoffs with functions previously difficult to assess. Human factors experts have long argued that front end investments in human factors bring far-reaching costs savings in the future. A good example is the damage that the
H. Booher / MANPRINT implications
Three Mile Island accident did to an entire industry's image, which essentially came from failure to consider the potential for human error in design and development stages. But experience shows that fear of a future catastrophe does not strongly motivate improvements in product design. In the past, ignorance of the benefits that people-oriented disciplines may offer has caused a lack of front end investment. But there are also other, more subtle reasons. One of the more important ones is that capital costs must be traded off against recurring costs. Similarly, the value of hard assets must be traded off against that of people assets. Hard assets and capital costs are considered more reliable indicators of a corporation's fiscal health than are people assets and recurring costs. Only a high level decision maker can make large capital trades in favor of ergonomics. This is not likely to occur if benefits cannot be equated to near term profits or demonstrated cost avoidance. Neither the ability nor the incentive exists at lower management levels to make these kind of investment tradeoffs. TQM and M A N P R I N T change this approach by illustrating how cost advantages can be obtained from the very outset. A company that recently adopted M A N P R I N T for the design of a military helicopter engine reduced skill level demands as well as maintenance personnel requirements and even predicts a more reliable engine as a result of adopting the M A N P R I N T philosophy. These improvements came at no added cost over the original design plan (Zelko et al., 1989; Booher and Rouse, 1990). On another Army program, the military showed $60 million cost avoidance (or a 10 per cent increase in warfighting capability) from a $300,000 investment in M A N P R I N T (Zelko et al., 1989; Booher and Rouse, 1990). Still another A r m y p r o c u r e m e n t which utilized M A N P R I N T will save the military at least one million per annum by the avoidance of added electrician costs (Booher, 1989; Hunter, 1989). Once the corporate environment has changed sufficiently to appreciate the near term benefits, secondary effects begin to take place. For example, there are some very encouraging reports of increases in job satisfaction from the team approach utilized by organizations like McDonnell Douglas and Boeing in designing the new Light Helicopter (LH).
201
Advances in design and decision aids M A N P R I N T stimulates the need for continuous improvements in ergonomic design. In addition to the analysis technique described above, there are computer-aided ergonomic design tools; cognitive workload assessment techniques; and analytical methodologies to forecast the implications of design and production on manpower, personnel and training. C A D models
Expert systems are now being developed for CAD modeling which allow the system designer to perform the analysis of an expert ergonomist. Three-dimensional models like C O M B I M A N and CREW C H I E F are already being utilized for design of operator and maintenance work space (McDaniel and Hofmann, 1990). These provide electronic mock-ups of crews and work space with realistic human size, strength, and mobility. An automated task analysis can be conducted for people ranging anywhere from the 1st to 99th percentile. This capability is potentially more important to the commercial world than the military. The military uses a restricted set of anthropometric dimensions but products for the general population (e.g. automobile driver or airplane passenger seats) must be developed using a greater range of body dimensions. Future CAD ergonomic tools will incorporate h u m a n motion capability. 3-D models are already in existence with complex animation of multiple human figures to aid the designer in visualizing a task without a prototype or physical mock-up. An example of a 3-D computer generated mock-up is presented in figure 3. The Virtual Mock-up, known as 'JACK', can be used to evaluate complex man-machine interaction issues which heretofore was nearly impossible without a prototype and a representative human subject. McDaniel and Hofmann (1990) describe a sample problem with an anti-tank weapons system ( D R A G O N ) gunner to illustrate this point. In the system studied, the gunner must hold his breath while aiming the sight on the target after launch. Breathing while the missile is in flight will cause the aim to deviate. Gunners are expected to hold their breath from 12 to 25 seconds through aiming, firing and missile flight.
202
H. Booher / M A N P R I N T implications
Fig. 3. Computer-generated virtual mock-up of an animated task sequence of a h u m a n operator at a control station.
This is not easy especially if the soldier has been running prior to firing. By programming the dynamics of breathing into the Virtual Mock-up, different behaviors like over and understeering and their effect on aiming may be simulated and visualized. Automation not only replaces manual assembly in product manufacturing but is also assuming an increasing share of the plant process command and control functions as well. According to Phillips (1989), we are now at a stage where products are produced by a series of information changes rather than production lines. Paperless manufacturing now characterizes modern manufacturing. Plant automation does not mean the end of human factors in the process, however. In fact, when automation is not carefully introduced, unforeseen human-machine problems will arise. These can take the form of increased safety problems (Weiner, 1985; Moray et al., 1988), or reductions
in productivity (British Steel Corp, 1976). Almost always increased automation requires greater human involvement (Price, 1990). In general, the introduction of new technology means a continuing shift in emphasis from worker physical characteristics to worker cognitive attributes. The problem for the ergonomist is how to reliably assess complex work loads for operators in different environments under varying tasks. A project recently completed by the Army Research Institute (Lysaght et al., 1989) should provide a very useful tool for this purpose. Known as OWL, an operator workload expert system is now complete for M A N P R I N T managers, designers, and evaluators. A special feature of OWL is its interactive computer-based capabilities for not only describing the various assessment methods but also recommending the most appropriate methods tailored to specific user requirements.
H. Booher /MANPRINT implications Analyses and tradeoff tools
A central feature of the system integration efforts of MANPRINT has been to provide analysis and tradeoff tools to better forecast Manpower, Personnel and Training (MPT) implications of acquiring and fielding new weapon systems. These tools generally focus on operator and maintainer tasks predicted by proposed system designs (Bogner et al., 1990). Currently available analytical techniques like Hardware versus Manpower (HARDMAN) and Man Integrated Systems Technology (MIST) aid the analyst in systematically predicting or assessing tasks that may be difficult or time consuming. Currently available models like Army Manpower Cost System (AMCOS) can be used to assess manpower on a system by system basis at each stage of design and development and to predict costs and other ramifications (e.g., Is there adequate manpower to field the system?) throughout its life cycle. MANPRINT models of the future are expected to be able to provide similar information for entire units and ultimately for the entire force. Any organization which produces commercial systems and equipment or is seeking to better utilize advanced technology (e.g. automation) in its manufacturing processes should become aware of those MANPRINT analyses and tradeoff techniques. It is an important role of the ergonomist to show industry where they may be most relevant. Weddle (1986) noted that these Department of Defense developed products can: - permit product engineers to assess design impact on likely user populations; - allow tradeoff analyses to be conducted to identify design changes to improve the usability of the product; -be used to evaluate alternative production strategies to assure the total production process can (with people-in-the-loop) actually meet production and quality goals; - help determine the types of skills and skill levels required in manufacturing assembly or for operating process control equipment. Weddie suggested that the benefits from applying such analytic tools to human resource planning could be especially useful for development and implementation of training programs or perhaps in supporting union negotiations regard-
203
ing a planned work force change as a result of introducing new technology. Recommendations
The environment facing the ergonomist today is one in which skills and techniques that add to goods and services quality are being viewed as a premium. At the same time, pressures are immense to reduce costs, especially labor costs. Labor and other personnel costs in the military and some industries can run well over 50 per cent of total expenses. But future changes in demographics and increased use of high technology will tend to increase manpower and training costs. The challenge for the commercial ergonomist encouraged by MANPRINT lies in three major areas. (1) Becoming a leader in systems integration. Ergonomists should become leaders in systems integration and act as stronger links between producers and management. Successful application of C A D / C A M technologies, integrated warehousing and material handling, production planning and control all require human expertise in information integration. MANPRINT in weapon systems integration has brought together the best of peopleoriented analysis tools and the analysts themselves in order to make people issues full and equal concerns in product acquisition decisions. Successful military system integration to date has been with the traditional ergonomist or human factors engineer playing a central but not generally a leading role. Continued successful technical integration needs greater leadership from individuals with strong education and experience in both engineering and human behavioral processes. If systems, industrial, or logistics engineers continue to take on the leader's role in the future, they almost certainly will still need the advice and consent of an ergonomist to produce a truly integrated system. In order for a leader to be a successful integrator, he must have an appreciation of the other people-oriented disciplines as well as the engineering and maintenance issues associated with system performance. In order to provide a strong link between producers and management, ergonomists need to take every opportunity to document design change influence and demonstrate the added value from people-ori-
204
H. Booher / MANPRINT implications
ented considerations, both for the short and the long term. This must be expressed in a language managers understand, i.e. cost savings, productivity, profits. (2) Conducting and transferring ergonomics research. M A N P R I N T stimulates and sponsors research in all of the traditional areas of human factors and ergonomics. For example, MANP R I N T has sponsored efforts in human factors engineering that are leading to breakthroughs in new technology (e.g. human motion in CAD) and to a better understanding of operator workload characteristics under varying tasks. The emphasis is toward research that contributes to total system performance enhancements either in using the product or in the processes involved in manufacturing the product. In that sense, M A N P R I N T has found the concepts of macroergonomics and microergonomics (Hendrick, 1986; Geirland, 1989) helpful in describing its activities. The disciplines of human factors engineering, system safety and health hazards are more easily identified with microergonomics whereas manpower, personnel, and training are considered closer to macroergonomics, although there are obvious overlaps. Management methods which integrate all disciplines with a focus on system design management (such as M D A T above) demonstrate the macroergonomics concept at work. There are extensive human resources and human performance data banks available in both government and industry which tend to fall into either the micro or macro areas (Haas and Laine, 1990). The challenge for the M A N P R I N T ergonomist is to be familiar with both sets of data and better utilize them in combination. MANPRINT sponsorship of new tools and technologies is currently concentrating on the macroergonomics challenges (e.g. H A R D M A N III; Booher and Hewitt, 1990) since microergonomic tools for systems analysis are much further developed. The primary challenge for tool makers in the micro area is to continue efforts to make them design engineer friendly. Areas of research suggested by Geirland (1989) on the development of empirically based models of cooperative work are very much in line with the M A N P R I N T philosophy. The future of large scale decision making on issues of how and what new technologies will be
introduced and implemented will depend more and more on computer-based models having quantitative data on human behavior and human resources. At present there is relatively little empirical data on group behavior in socio-technical settings. Because of the enormous complexity that macro models introduce, it is noted by Geirland (1989) 'when the system supports the cooperative work of multiple users, a higher level of complexity is involved. Interaction among multiple users creates a set of interdependencies not found in single-user systems' (p. 3). This makes it all the more important that human performance data collection be resourceful. The M A N P R I N T focus is on human performances which make global differences. In Army combat models, it has been found that data on stress and fatigue are needed to improve the predictions of human performance in a combat scenario. Battles can be won or lost due to differences in these factors (Parry et al., 1990). Finally, more research data is needed to support the development and validation of economic feasibility models to assess impact of human resource investments. In the past, ergonomics investments have primarily been in response to contractual, regulatory and legal liability requirements (Rouse and Cacioppo, 1989). This emphasis (most visible in public health and safety issues) stresses the ergonomic feature of problem avoidance. M A N P R I N T supports this emphasis but also stresses the more positive aspects that are important to corporate management which result from ergonomics contributions to enhancing total system performance and manufacturing quality products. It is necessary here to demonstrate the specific value of various, often competing human resource investments and help to ensure that predictions or recommendations can be done in a systematic and credible manner. (3) Recognizing educational implications. If ergonomics is to take a leading role in supporting the global trends discussed in this paper, major changes in ergonomics education are envisioned. Skills, knowledges, and abilities for the ergonomics specialist are currently produced through graduate course work and direct government or industry experience primarily in the microergonomic areas. Course work in these areas is generally pro-
H. Booher / M A N P R I N T implications
vided by university psychology or industrial engineering departments. Greater emphasis on macroergonomics and interface with systems engineers in these curricula is suggested. Operations research curricula, on the other hand, need to have greater exposure to human performance parameters for more realistic model building of processes and their interactions. M A N P R I N T is encouraging the development of centers of excellence where multiple disciplines can work together on research and acquire higher education to advance both macro and micro ergonomics. Undergraduate curricula in engineering also needs to place greater emphasis on ergonomics. It is far more beneficial from a total quality approach to reduce the propensity for design error than to have ergonomics experts search for the errors. Industry also needs greater participation in its education and training activities for ergonomics within a M A N P R I N T perspective. The increased attention to training encouraged by the TQM approach should give numerous opportunities for greater ergonomics exposure to all people involved in the processes affecting product design and manufacture. Finally, ergonomics specialists need to set their long term career goals for higher positions in industry and government. Today, corporate management is run by individuals coming primarily from business or engineering. M A N P R I N T and TQM expect to see individuals at senior executive positions coming from backgrounds in ergonomics as well as business or engineering. The pressures for global competition, better product performance in the hands of the user, and better utilization of human resources has enabled M A N P R I N T to become institutionalized in much of the military. If ergonomics continues to grow as a field which supports the macro as well as micro decisions related to product design and manufacture, programs like M A N P R I N T will continue to thrive well into the 21st century. References Army Regulation (AR) 602-2, Manpower and Personnel Integration (MANPRINT) in the Material Acquisition Process (April 1990). Binkin, M., 1986. Military Technology and Defense Manpower. The Brookings Institute, Washington, DC.
205
Blier, R.J., March 28, 1990. Personal communication. Boeing/Sikorsky First Team LHX, Trumbull, CT. Bogner, M.S., Kibbe, M. and Laine, R., 1990. Directory of Design Support Methods. Developed for Department of Defense Human Factors Engineering Technical Group (Designing for the User Subgroup). Washington, DC. Headquarters, Department of the Army, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, MANPRINT Directorate. Booher, H.R., 1988. Progress of MANPRINT - The Army's human factors program. Human Factors Society Bulletin, 31(12): 1-3. Booher, H.R., May 9-11, 1989. Future of MANPRINT. In: A Perspective on Manpower, Personnel, Training, and Safety into the 21st Century, National Security Industrial Association, San Antonio, TX. Booher, H.R., 1990, Introduction, The MANPRINT philosophy. In: H.R. Booher (Ed.), MANPRINT, An Approach to Systems Integration. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Booher, H.R. and Fender, K., 1990. Total quality management and MANPRINT. In: H.R. Booher (Ed.), MANPRINT: An Approach to Systems Integration. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Booher, H.R. and Hewitt, G.M., 1990. MANPRINT tools and techniques. In: H.R. Booher (Ed.), MANPRINT: An Approach to Systems Integration. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Booher, H.R. and Rouse, W.B., 1990. MANPRINT as the competitive edge. In: H.R. Booher (Ed.), MANPRINT: An Approach to Systems Integration. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. British Steel Corporation, 1976. Human Factors Evaluation: Hoogovens Number 2 Hot Strip Mill. Technical FR-251. Defense System Management College, February 1989. Total Quality Management, Fact Sheet, Program Manager's Notebook, DSMC, Technical Management Department No. 1.13, Washington, D.C. Department of Defense Directive 5000.53, Dec 30, 1988. Manpower, Personnel, Training, and Safety (MPTS) in the Defense System Acquisition Process, Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management and Personnel), Washington, DC. Drucker, P.F., Sep 20, 1985. Automation payoffs are real. Wall Street Journal. Geirland, J., 1989. Developing design guidelines for computersupported cooperative work: A macroergonomic approach. Human Factors Society Bulletin, 32(9): 1-4. Haas, P. and Laine, R., 1990. National human performance data banks. In: H.R. Booher (Ed.), MANPRINT: An Approach to Systems Integration. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Hendrick, H.W., 1986. Macroergonomics: A conceptual model for integrating human factors with organizational design. In: O; Brown, Jr. and H.W. Hendrick (Eds.), Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management II: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 467-478. Hunter, D., Sep 20, 1989. Airborne Target Handover System/Avionics Integration: A MANPRINT Success
206
H. Booher / M A N P R I N T implications
Story; MANPRINT Industry Executive Seminar, U.S. Army, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Washington, DC. Johnston, W.B. and Packer, A.E., 1987. Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the Twenty-First Century. The Hudson Institute, Indianapolis, IN. Kerzner, H., 1979. Project Management. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Lysaght, R., Hill, S., Dick, A., Plamondon, B., Linton, P., Wierwille, W., Zaklad, A., Bittner, Jr., A. and Wherry, R., June 1989. Operator workload: Comprehensive review and evaluation of operator workload methodologies. ARI Technical Report 851, U.S. Army Research Institute, Fort Bliss, TX. McDaniel J. and Hofmann, M., 1990. Computer aided ergonomic design tools. In: H.R. Booher (Ed.), MANPRINT: An Approach to Systems Integration. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Mittler, E., Hewitt, G.M. and Vehlow, C., 1990. Management integration methods. In: H.R. Booher (Ed.), MANPRINT: An Approach to Systems Integration. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Moray, N.P. and Huey, B.M. (Eds.), 1988. Human Factors Research & Nuclear Safety - National Research Council on Human Factors. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Parry, S., Collins, D. and Van Nostrand, S., 1990. Complex environment models in systems integration. In: H.R. Booher (Ed.), MANPRINT: An Approach to Systems Integration. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Pfau, L.D., 1989. Total quality management gives companies a way to enhance position in global market place. Industrial Engineering, 21(4): 17-21. Phillips, D.T., 1989. Operations research and ergonomics/human factors form scientific roots of IE. Industrial Engineering, 21(4): 42-45. Price, H.E., 1990. Conceptual system design and the human role. In: H.R. Booher (Ed.), MANPRINT: An Approach to Systems Integration. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Rouse, W.B., 1989. Human resource issues in system design. In: N.P. Moray, W.R. Ferrell and W.B. Rouse (Ed.), Robotics, Control, and Society. Taylor and Francis, London. Rouse, W.B. and Cacioppo, G.M., Sept. 1989. Prospects for Modeling the Impact of Human Resource Investments on Economic Return, Search Technology, Norcross, GA. Rouse, W.B. and Hunt, R.M., 1990. Transitioning advanced interface technology from aerospace to manufacturing applications. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. Spenser, G., Jan. 1989. Projection of the Population of the U.S. by Age, Sex and Race: 1988 to 2080. U.S. Dept. of Commence, Bureau of the Census; Ser P-25, NO. 1018. Weddle, P.D., 1986. Capturing the Benefits of High Technology. Personnel Administrator. Weiner, E.L., 1985. Beyond the sterile cockpit. Human Factors, 27: 75-90. Zelko, M., Adams, C. and Braun, B., 1989. MANPRINT. Military Review, 69(4): 22-30.