Advertisement

Maintenance Manpower Modeling: A Tool for Human Systems Integration Practitioners to Estimate Manpower, Personnel, and Training Requirements

  • Mala Gosakan
  • Susan Murray
Chapter
  • 1.8k Downloads
Part of the Springer Series in Reliability Engineering book series (RELIABILITY)

Abstract

This chapter discusses the maintenance manpower modeling capability in the Improved Performance Research Integration Tool (IMPRINT) that supports the Army’s unit of action. IMPRINT has been developed by the US Army Research Laboratory (ARL) Human Research and Engineering Directorate (HRED) in order to support the Army’s need to consider soldiers’ capabilities during the early phases of the weapon system acquisition process. The purpose of IMPRINT modeling is to consider soldiers’ performance as one element of the total system readiness equation. IMPRINT has been available since the mid 1990s, but the newest version includes significant advances.

Keywords

Maintenance Action Maintenance Task Weapon System Operational Readiness Manpower Requirement 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Adkins R, Dahl SG (1993) Final report for HARDMAN III, Version 4.0. Report E-482U, prepared for US Army Research Laboratory. Micro Analysis & Design, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adkins R, Dahl SG (1992) Front-end analysis for HARDMAN III in Windows. Report E-21512U, Prepared for Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Micro Analysis & Design, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alion Science and Technology (2008) Micro Saint Sharp version 3.0 User Manual. Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alion Science and Technology and ARL (2009) IMPRINT Pro V3.0 User GuideGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Allender L et al. (1999) Evaluation of human performance under diverse conditions via modeling technology. In: Improved performance research integration tool (IMPRINT), user’s guide (Appendix A). US ARL, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MDGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Allender L et al. (1995) Verification, validation, and accreditation of a soldier-system modeling tool. In: Proceedings of the 39th human factors and ergonomics society meeting, October 9–13, San Diego, CA. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CAGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Archer R et al. (1987) Product 5: manpower determination aid. Final concept paper for US ARI. Micro Analysis & Design, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Archer S, Adkins R (1999) IMPRINT user’s guide prepared for US Army Research Laboratory. Human Research and Engineering Directorate, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Archer SG, Allender L (2001) New Capabilities in the Army’s Human Performance Modeling Tool, Proceedings of the Military, Government, and Aerospace Simulation Conference. editor Michael Chinni, Seattle, WA, pp 22–27Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Archer SG, Gosakan M et al. (2005) New capabilities of the army’s maintenance manpower modeling tool. J Int Test Eval Assoc 26(1):19–26Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bloechle W, Schunk D (2003) Micro Saint Sharp Simulation. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Winter Simulation Conference, New Orleans, LAGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dahl SG (1993) A study of unit measures of effectiveness to support unit MANPRINT. Final report prepared for Ft. Huachuca Field Unit. US Army Research Laboratory, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dahl SG (1992) Integrating manpower, personnel and training factors into technology selection and design. In: Proceedings of the International Ergonomics Society. Micro Analysis & Design, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dahl et al. (1990) Final report for concepts on MPT estimation (Development of MANPRINT methods, Report E-17611U. Prepared for US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Micro Analysis & Design, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Defense acquisition guidebook (DAG). Chapter 6, Human systems integration. https://acc.du.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=314774&lang=en-USGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fleishman EA, Quaintance MK (1984) Taxonomies of human performance: the description of human tasks. Academic Press, Orlando, FLGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Booher HR (2003) Introduction: human systems integration. In: Handbook of human systems integration. Wiley, Hoboken, NJCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hoagland DG et al. (2000) Representing goal-oriented human performance in constructive simulations: validation of a model performing complex time-critical-target missions. SIW conference. Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization, San Diego, CA, Paper Number 01S-SIW-137Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kaplan JD et al. (1989) MANPRINT methods. In: Aiding the development of manned system performance criteria. Technical report 852, US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Alexandria, VAGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Laughery KR et al. (2005) Modeling human performance in complex systems. In: Salvendy G (ed) Handbook of industrial engineering, 4th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Laughery KR et al. (1988) A manpower determination aid based upon system performance requirements. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd annual meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA, pp 1060–1064Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lockett JF, Archer SG (2009) Impact of digital human modeling on military human-systems integration and impact of the military on digital human modeling. In: Duffy VG (ed) Handbook of digital human modeling – research for applied ergonomics and human factors engineering. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Manpower and personnel integration MANPRINT handbook, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G1. MANPRINT Directorate, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    Simpson J et al. (2006) IMPRINT output analysis final report. Technical report prepared by FSU-FAMU College of Engineering Simulation Modeling Group for MA&D and ARL-HRED, April. Tallahassee, FLGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wojciechowski JQ et al. (1999) Modeling human command and control performance sensor to shooter. Proceedings of human performance, situation awareness, and automation conference, Savannah, GAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mala Gosakan
    • 1
  • Susan Murray
    • 2
  1. 1.MA&D OperationAlion Science & TechnologyBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Missouri University of Science and TechnologyRollaUSA

Personalised recommendations