Advertisement

Designing the User Experience for C4ISR Systems in the U.S. Army

  • Pamela Savage-Knepshield
  • Jeffrey Thomas
  • Christopher Paulillo
  • James Davis
  • Diane Quarles
  • Diane Mitchell
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8519)

Abstract

A unique set of challenges exist for implementing user-centered design principles in the context of military acquisition over and above those typically encountered by user experience designers. This paper focuses on the tools and techniques that we have utilized to help ensure that a positive user experience (UX) will result when Soldiers and systems interact under harsh conditions on the battlefield. Insights gained from applying these techniques to system design and evaluation early in the acquisition process and the impact that their use has had on training and system design are discussed.

Keywords

Agile development incorporating DUXU design philosophy and DUXU usability methods and tools 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Skelton, I.: MANPRINT for the US Army. Congressional Record—House, H8269-71 (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pew, R.W., Mavor, A.S. (eds.): Human-System Integration in the System Development Process: A New Look. National Academy Press, Washington, DC (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Savage-Knepshield, P.A.: Soldier-Centered Design and Evaluation Techniques. In: Savage-Knepshield, P., Martin, J., Lockett III, J., Allender, L. (eds.) Designing Soldier Systems: Current Issues in Human Factors, pp. 275–307. Ashgate, Farnham (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Army News Service: Army Demonstrates New Agile Acquisition Process to Industry Partners. DefenceTalk (2011), http://www.defencetalk.com/army-demonstrates-new-agile-acquisition-process-to-industry-partners-37071
  5. 5.
    Mitchell, D.K., Samms, C.L., Henthorn, T.J., Wojciechowski, J.Q.: Trade Study: A Two- Versus Three-Soldier Crew for the Mounted Combat System (MCS) and Other Future Combat System Platforms (ARL-TR-3026). Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mitchell, D.K., Brennan, G.: Soldier Workload Analysis of Infantry Vehicles With Alternative System Designs (ARL-TR-6375). Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mitchell, D.K., Brennan, G., Lobo, B.: Workload Analyses of Reconnaissance Vehicle Commander: With and Without Robotic Asset Responsibilities (ARL-TR-6607). U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mitchell, D.K.: Workload Analysis of the Crew of the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle: Baseline IMPRINT Model (ARL-TR-6083), U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    U.S. Government Accountability Office: Army Networks: Opportunities Exist to Better Utilize Results from Network Integration Evaluations: Report to the SubCommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives (GAO Publication No. GAO-13-711) (2013), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-711
  10. 10.
    The Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation: DOT&E FY2013 Annual Report (2013), http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2013

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pamela Savage-Knepshield
    • 1
  • Jeffrey Thomas
    • 1
  • Christopher Paulillo
    • 1
  • James Davis
    • 1
  • Diane Quarles
    • 1
  • Diane Mitchell
    • 1
  1. 1.U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering, Directorate, Aberdeen Proving GroundUSA

Personalised recommendations