A Test Protocol for Advancing Behavioral Modeling and Simulation in the Army Soldier Systems Engineering Architecture

  • Joan H. JohnstonEmail author
  • Samantha Napier
  • Clay Burford
  • Shanell Henry
  • Bill Ross
  • Colleen Patton
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 780)


When developing military capabilities, it is essential to determine the effect that equipment, tasks, and training will have on Soldier and unit readiness. Human factors processes require technology enablers that streamline the systems engineering design process. Toward this end, a collaboration between the U.S. Army Science and Technology Objectives for the Soldier Systems Engineering Architecture (SSEA) and Training Effectiveness for Simulations (TEfS) was established in 2015. An operational SSEA is envisioned to enable analysts to implement systems engineering procedures to achieve more effective results in predicting best system designs. Best practices from TEfS is critical to improving the predictive analyses. In this paper we describe best practices from a squad training use case and propose how the training method could be applied as a test protocol in SSEA SaaS modeling.


Behavioral modeling Systems Engineering Architecture Team performance Training effectiveness 


  1. 1.
    Chassé, C.: Training and doctrine command’s big 6+1 capabilities. Armor: Mounted Maneuver J. CXXVIII, 60–63 (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    United States Army Warfighting Challenges, February 2017Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Auer, R.J., Burford, C.W., Gallant, S., McDonnell, J.: A soldier system engineering architecture modeling and simulation application. In: MODSIM World Conference Proceedings (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Savage-Knepshield, P., Martin, J., Lockett III, J., Allender, L. (eds.) Designing Soldier Systems: Current Issues in Human Factors (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stowers, K., Oglesby, J., Sonesh, S., Leyva, K., Iwig, C., Salas, E.: A framework to guide the assessment of human–machine systems. Hum. Factors 59, 172–188 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hawley, J.K., Mares, A.L.: Training and testing revisited: a modest proposal for change. ITEA J. 30, 251–257 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Napier, S., Best, C., Patton, D., Hodges, G.: Using an augmented training event to collect data for future modeling purposes. In: International Conference on AugCog, pp. 421–430 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Salas, E.E. (eds.): Making decisions under stress: implications for individual and team training. American Psychological Association (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pharmer, J.A., Hildebrand, G., Campbell, G.E.: Measuring the impact of human-centric design on human performance in a combat information center. In: International Symposium on Optical Science and Technology, pp. 221–227 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Salas, E.: Team Training Essentials: A Research-Based Guide. Routledge, Abingdon (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freeman, J.T., Campbell, G.E., Hildebrand, G.: Measuring the impact of advanced technologies and reorganization on human performance in a combat information center. In: Proceedings of the HFES, vol. 44, pp. 642–645 (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Osga, G.A., Van Orden, K.F., Kellmeyer, D., Campbell, N.L.: Task managed watchstanding: concepts for 21st century naval operations. In: Proceedings of the HFES, vol. 44, pp. 457–460 (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Milham, L.M., Phillips, H.L., Ross, W.A., Townsend, L.N., Riddle, D.L., Smith, K.M., Butler, P.V., Wolf, R.J., Irizarry, D.J., Hackett, M.G., Johnston, J.H.: Squad-level training for tactical combat casualty care: instructional approach and technology assessment. J. Def. Model. Simul.: Appl. 14, 345–360 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johnston, J., Gamble, P., Patton, D., Fitzhugh, S., Townsend, L., Milham, L., Riddle, D., Phillips, H., Smith, K., Ross, W., Butler, P., Evan, M., Wolf, R.: Squad overmatch for tactical combat casualty care: phase II initial findings report. Program Executive Office Simulation, Training and Instrumentation, December 2016Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature (outside the USA) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joan H. Johnston
    • 1
    Email author
  • Samantha Napier
    • 2
  • Clay Burford
    • 1
  • Shanell Henry
    • 2
  • Bill Ross
    • 3
  • Colleen Patton
    • 4
  1. 1.United States Army Research Laboratory Human Research and Engineering Directorate (ARL HRED)OrlandoUSA
  2. 2.ARL HREDAberdeen Proving GroundUSA
  3. 3.Cognitive Performance GroupOrlandoUSA
  4. 4.University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations