SIMTOS: A Man-in-the-Loop Interactive Simulation of a Tactical Operations System

  • J. D. Baker


Shubik and Brewer [1] recently reported findings from a detailed survey of 132 Models, Simulations and Games (MSG) used in the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). Among the findings, they discovered that only ten percent of the MSG’s dealt with man-machine or manual system problems. Additionally, they found that approximately seventy-five percent of the MSG’s employed in the DOD are large and deal primarily with machine simulations or force structure, i. e., they are mainly machine (or weapons system) evaluation tools. They also found that most of the MSG’s being used were not very scientific and, consequently, rarely were the MSG’s used as research tools.


Interactive Simulation Army Research Institute Human Factars Society Category Desire Original Display 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Shubik, M. and Brewer, G.S. Models, simulations and games - A survey. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation R-1060-ARPA/RC, May 1972Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baker, J.O. Human factors experimentation within a tactical operations system (TOS) environment, BESRL Research Study 68–4, October 1968Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baker, J.D. Acorns in flower pots/psychologists in the field. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 1972, 2, p 88Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baker, J.D. Human performance research in military information systems: Quo fuimus et quo vadimus? Proceedings: NATO Defense Research Group Seminar on Man-Machine Relations, May 1973Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krumm, R.L. A rationale for experimentation in the Army Research Institute simulated tactical operations systems ( SIMTOS ). Paper prepared for ARI, June 1974Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chapanis, A. Men, machines and models. American Psychologist, 1961, 3, 113–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hamilton, W.F. and Nance, D.K. Systems analysis of urban transportation. Scientific American, 1969, 221, 19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baker, J.D. A comparison of two logic symbol coding techniques in a simulated digital device maintenance environment. USAF Electronic Systems Division Technical Documentary Report 62–196, July 1962.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hitt, W.D., Schutz, H.G., Christner, C.A., Ray, H.W., and Coffey, L.J. Development of design criteria for intelligence display formats. Human Factors, 1961, 3, 86–92Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kennedy, J.L. Psychology and system development. In R.M. Gagne (Ed.) Psychological Principles in System Development, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1962Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ryan, T.G. Studies of tactical military decision making: II. An information network aid to scenario development. BESRL Research Study 69–11, September 1969Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krumm, R.L., Rowe, C.H., and Torpey, F.E. Research on tactical military decision making: I. Design of a simulated tactical operations system (SIMTOS). BESRL Research Problem Review 70–1, October 1970Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nawrocki, L.H. Graphic versus tote display of information in a simulated tactical operations system. U.S. Army Research Institute Technical Paper 243, (AD 766 217), June 1973Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krumm, R.L., Robins, J.E. and Ryan, T.G. Research on tactical military decision making: III. Predictor variables and criterion measures. BESRL Technical Research Note 229, (AD 765 457), May 1973Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Robins, J.E., Buffardi, L. and Ryan, T.G. Research on tactical military decision making: Applications of a decision prediction concept in a SIMTOS environment. ARI Technical Paper 246, March 1974Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Strub, M.H. Evaluation of man-computer input techniques for military information systems. BESRL Technical Research Note 226 (AD 730 315), May 1971Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mc.Kendry, J.M., Wilson, R.C., Mace, D.J. and Baker, J.D. Application of a method for determination information requirements in a field army, Technical Paper 247, August 1973.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baker, J.O. and Mace, D.J. Information requirements in a field army. ARI Technical Paper, in press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Strub, M.H. Tactical planning (offensive and defensive) information requirements: Comparison of survey questionnaire and laboratory exercise data. ARI Technical Paper, in pressGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Strub, M.H. Tactical planning (offensive and defensive) minimum essential information requirements. ARI TECHNICAL PAPER, in pressGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Strub, M.H. and Levit, R.A. Computer compatibility with decision style: Eddies in a bit stream. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, October 1974Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grande, T.M. A comparison of a standard map and a reduced detail map within a SIMTOS offensive scenario. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, October 1974Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Christensen, J.M. Trends in human factors. Human Factors, 1958, 1, 2–7Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. D. Baker
    • 1
  1. 1.U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social SciencesArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations