Manpower factors are those job tasks, operation/maintenance rates, associated workload, and operational conditions (e.g., risk of hostile fire) that are used to determine the number and mix of military and DoD civilian manpower and contract support necessary to operate, maintain, support, and provide training for the system. Manpower officials contribute to the Defense acquisition process by ensuring that the program manager pursues engineering designs that optimize manpower and keep human resource costs at affordable levels (i.e., consistent with strategic manpower plans). Technology-based approaches used to reduce manpower requirements and control life-cycle costs should be identified in the capabilities documents early in the process. For example, material-handling equipment can be used to reduce labor-intensive material-handling operations and embedded training can be used to reduce the number of instructors.

6.3.1.2. Manpower Parameters/Requirements

DoD Directive 5000.01 directs the DoD Components to plan programs based on realistic projections of the dollars and manpower likely to be available in future years. Manpower goals and parameters should be based on manpower studies and analysis. These studies and analyses should ensure that design options that reduce workload and ensure program affordability are pursued, and that lower-priority design features do not take precedence. Throughout the system life cycle, program managers should strive to keep manpower and the associated ownership costs at desired/targeted levels. Program managers should also preserve future-year resources rather than attempting to compete for additional funding later to address Manpower, Personnel or associated Training issues.

When there are Congressional or Administrative caps placed on military end strengths, the introduction of a new system or capability will require compensating reductions (trade-offs) elsewhere in the force structure or in the Individuals Account. Manpower officials should identify areas for offsets, or "bill-payers," for the new system and establish constraints based on available resources. If the new system replaces a system in the inventory, manpower officials should determine whether the constraints placed on the predecessor system also apply to the new system. They should consider the priority of the new system and determine if either additional resources will be provided, or if more stringent constraints will apply. Manpower authorities should consider the availability of resources over the life of the program and weigh competing priorities when establishing manpower constraints for acquisition programs. Reviews should account for all military and civilian manpower and contract support needed to operate, maintain, support, and provide training for the system over the entire life of the program.

Manpower can be a major determinant of program cost and affordability. In translating user requirements into a Defense Acquisition Program and its associated program documents, both the Program Managers and HSI practitioners should ensure that the requirements documents provide sufficient guidance to accurately move forward. The capability documents should identify any manpower constraints that, if exceeded, would require the Department to reconsider the utility of the program. The capability documents should specify the expected location of the system on the battlefield and the expected operational conditions (e.g., a high [or low] likelihood of hostile fire or collateral damage). These specifications affect early cost, manpower mix, training, personnel, and survivability requirements. Absent this guidance, further clarification should be requested from the users.

The capability documents should establish manpower parameters (objectives and thresholds) consistent with existing departmental constraints. If the program is manpower intensive, it may be prudent to establish a manpower Key Performance Parameter (KPP) early in the acquisition process. Setting a KPP will ensure the system fits within manpower parameters established by the Department, that agreed-upon resource thresholds are not exceeded, and that the system will not require additional resources from higher priority programs later in the acquisition process. A KPP should only be established if the adverse manpower effect of exceeding the KPP outweighs the overall benefits of the new capability. In all cases, manpower constraints and KPPs must be defendable and commensurate with the priority and utility of the new capability. Program Managers and HSI practitioners should work closely with the users and the sponsoring organization to ensure agreement on the appropriate parameters.

The capability documents should also address specific, scenario-based, factors that affect manpower, such as surge requirements, environmental conditions (e.g., arctic or desert conditions), and expected duration of the conflict. These factors are capability-related and directly affect the ability of the commander to sustain operations in a protracted conflict.

6.3.1.3. Manpower Planning

Manpower analysts determine the number of people required, authorized, and available to operate, maintain, support, and provide training for the system. Manpower requirements are based on the range of operations during peacetime, low intensity conflict, and wartime. They should consider continuous, sustained operations and required surge capability. The resulting Manpower Estimate accounts for all military (Active Reserve, and Guard), DoD civilian (U.S. and foreign national), and contract support manpower.

DoD Instruction 5000.02 requires the program manager to work with the manpower community to determine the most efficient and cost-effective mix of DoD manpower and contract support, and identify any issues (e.g., resource shortfalls) that could impact the program manager's ability to execute the program. This collaboration must be conducted within the Human Systems Integration (HSI) framework to ensure integration with the other HSI domains. The HSI lead for a program / project should be able to draw expertise from the manpower community to provide program assistance. Generally, the decision to use DoD civilians and contract labor in theater during a conflict where there is a high likelihood of hostile fire or collateral damage is made on an exception basis. In all cases, risk reduction should take precedence over cost savings. Additionally, the program manager should consult with the manpower community in advance of contracting for operational support services to ensure that sufficient workload is retained in-house to adequately provide for career progression, sea-to-shore and overseas rotation, and combat augmentation. The program manager should also ensure that inherently governmental and exempted commercial functions are not contracted. These determinations should be based on current Workforce Mix Guidance (DoD Instruction 1100.22).

Consistent with sections E1.1.4 and E1.1.29 of DoD Directive 5000.01, the program manager must evaluate the manpower required and/or available to support a new system and consider manpower constraints when establishing contract specifications to ensure that the human resource demands of the system do not exceed the projected supply. The assessment must determine whether the new system will require a higher, lower, or equal number of personnel than the predecessor system, and whether the distribution of ranks/grade will change. Critical manpower constraints must be identified in the capability documents to ensure that manpower requirements remain within DoD Component end-strength constraints. If sufficient end-strength is not available, a request for an increase in authorizations should be submitted and approved as part of the trade-off process.

When assessing manpower, the system designers should look at labor-intensive (high-driver) tasks. These tasks might result from accessibility or hardware/ software interface design problems. These high-driver tasks can sometimes be eliminated during engineering design by increasing equipment or software performance. Based on a top-down functional analysis, an assessment should be conducted to determine which functions should be automated, eliminated, consolidated, or simplified to keep the manpower numbers within constraints.

Manpower requirements should be based on task analyses that are conducted during the functional allocation process and consider all factors including fatigue; cognitive, physical, sensory overload; environmental conditions (e.g., heat/cold), and reduced visibility. Additionally, manpower must be considered in conjunction with personnel capabilities, training, and human factors engineering trade-offs.

Tasks and workload for individual systems, systems-of-systems, and families-of-systems should be reviewed together to identify commonalities, merge operations, and avoid duplication. The cumulative effects of system-of-system, family-of-systems and related system integration should be considered when developing manpower estimates.

When reviewing support activities, the program manager should work with manpower and functional representatives to identify process improvements, design options, or other initiatives to reduce manpower requirements, improve the efficiency or effectiveness of support services, or enhance the cross-functional integration of support activities.

The support strategy should document the approach used to provide for the most efficient and cost-effective mix of manpower and contract support and identify any cost, schedule, or performance issues, or uncompleted studies that could impact the program manager's ability to execute the program.

6.3.2. Personnel

6.3.2.1. Personnel Overview

Personnel factors are those human aptitudes (i.e., cognitive, physical, and sensory capabilities), knowledge, skills, abilities, and experience levels that are needed to properly perform job tasks. Personnel factors are used to develop the military occupational specialties (or equivalent DoD Component personnel system classifications) and civilian job series of system operators, maintainers, trainers, and support personnel. Personnel officials contribute to the Defense acquisition process by ensuring that the program manager pursues engineering designs that minimize personnel requirements, and keep the human aptitudes necessary for operation and maintenance of the equipment at levels consistent with what will be available in the user population at the time the system is fielded.

6.3.2.2. Personnel Parameters/Requirements

DoD Instruction 5000.02 requires the program manager to work with the personnel community to define the performance characteristics of the user population, or "target audience," early in the acquisition process. The program manager should work with the personnel community to establish a Target Audience Description (TAD) that identifies the cognitive, physical, and sensory abilities-i.e. capabilities and limitations, of the operators, maintainers, and support personnel expected to be in place at the time the system is fielded. When establishing the TAD, Human Systems Integration (HSI) practitioners should verify whether there are any recruitment or retention trends that could significantly alter the characteristics of the user population over the life of the system. Additionally, HSI analysts should consult with the personnel community and verify whether there are new personnel policies that could significantly alter the scope of the user population (e.g., policy changes governing women in combat significantly changed the anthropometric requirements for occupational specialties).

Per DoD Instruction 5000.02, to the extent possible--systems should not be designed to require cognitive, physical, or sensory skills beyond those found in the specified user population. During functional analysis and allocation, tasks should be allocated to the human component consistent with the human attributes (i.e., capabilities and limitations) of the user population to ensure compatibility, interoperability, and integration of all functional and physical interfaces. Personnel requirements should be established consistent with the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) of the user population expected to be in place at the time the system is fielded and over the life of the program. Personnel requirements are usually stated as a percentage of the population. For example, capability documents might require "physically accommodating the central 90% of the target audience." Setting specific, quantifiable, personnel requirements in the Capability Documents assist the establishment of test criterion in the Test and Evaluation Master Plan.

6.3.2.3. Personnel Planning

Personnel capabilities are normally reflected as knowledge, skills, abilities (KSAs), and other characteristics. The availability of personnel and their KSAs should be identified early in the acquisition process. The DoD Components have a limited inventory of personnel available, each with a finite set of cognitive, physical and psychomotor abilities. This could affect specific system thresholds.

The program manager should use the target audience description (TAD) as a baseline for personnel requirements assessment. The TAD should include information such as inventory; force structure; standards of grade authorizations; personnel classification (e.g., Military Occupational Code / Navy Enlisted Classification) description; biographical information; anthropometric data; physical qualifications; aptitude descriptions as measured by the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB)); task performance information; skill grade authorization; Military Physical Profile Serial System (PULHES); security clearance; and reading grade level.

The program manager should assess and compare the cognitive and physical demands of the projected system against the projected personnel supply. The program manager should also determine the physical limitations of the target audience (e.g., color vision, acuity, and hearing). The program manager should identify any shortfalls highlighted by these studies.

The program manager should determine if the new system contains any aptitude-sensitive critical tasks. If so, the program manager should determine if it is likely that personnel in the target audience can perform the critical tasks of the job.

The program manager should consider personnel factors such as availability, recruitment, skill identifiers, promotion, and assignment. The program manager should consider the impact on recruiting, retention, promotions, and career progression when establishing program costs, and should assess these factors during trade-off analyses.

The program manager should use a truly representative sample of the target population during Test and Evaluation (T&E) to get an accurate measure of system performance. A representative sample during T&E will help identify aptitude constraints that affect system use.

Individual system and platform personnel requirements should be developed in close collaboration with related systems throughout the Department and in various phases of the acquisition process to identify commonalities, merge requirements, and avoid duplication. The program manager should consider the cumulative effects of system-of-systems, family-of-systems, and related systems integration in the development of personnel requirements.

Consistent with DoD Instruction 5000.02, Enclosure 8, the program manager should summarize major personnel initiatives that are necessary to achieve readiness or rotation objectives or to reduce manpower or training costs, when developing the acquisition strategy. The Life-Cycle Sustainment Plan should address modifications to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of military occupational specialties for system operators, maintainers, or support personnel if the modifications have cost or schedule issues that could adversely impact program execution. The program manager should also address actions to combine, modify, or establish new military occupational specialties or additional skill indicators, or issues relating to hard-to-fill occupations if they impact the program manager's ability to execute the program.

6.3.3. Training

6.3.3.1. Training Overview

Training is any activity that results in enabling users, operators, maintainers, leaders and support personnel, to acquire, gain or enhance knowledge, skills, and concurrently develops their cognitive, physical, sensory, team dynamics and adaptive abilities to conduct joint operations and achieve maximized and fiscally sustainable system life cycles. The training of people as a component of material solutions, delivers the intended capability to improve or fill capability gaps.

Cost and mission effective training facilitates DoD acquisition policy that requires optimized total system performance and minimizing the cost of ownership through a "total system approach" to acquisition management (DoD Directive 5000.01).

The systems engineering concept of a purposely designed ‘total system’ includes not only the mission system-equipment, but more critically, the people who operate, maintain, lead and support these acquired systems. Including the training, training systems; and the operational and support infrastructure.

The Human Systems Integration (HSI) Training Domain assists program managers throughout the acquired system’s life cycle by focusing attention on the human interface with the acquired system, and by integrating and inserting manpower, personnel, training, human factors engineering, environment, safety, occupational health, habitability, and survivability as Systems Engineered elements into the Defense acquisition process consistent with DoD Instruction 5000.02, Enclosure 8

The Systems Engineered practice of continuous application of human-centered methods and tools ensures maximum operational and training effectiveness of the newly acquired system throughout its life cycle. Systems Engineering in DoD Acquisition provides perspectives on the use of systems engineered/developed training approaches to translate user-defined capabilities into engineering specifications and outlines the role of the program manager in integrated system design activities.

In all cases, the paramount goal of training for new systems is to develop and sustain a ready, well-trained individual/unit, while giving strong consideration to options that can reduce life-cycle costs and provide positive contributions to the joint context of a system and provide a positive readiness outcome.

6.3.3.2. Regulatory – Statutory Basis for Training

In order to achieve intended capabilities of new systems acquisition, enable joint integration, interoperability, testing and insure sustainment goals over the life-cycle of weapon systems, training of user, operator, maintainer, and leader personnel will be performed. (ref: DoDI 5000.02 Enclosure 2 & 6, Title 10 USC Sections 2433 & 2535)

To facilitate timely, cost effective and appropriate training content, development and planning of training should be performed during the earliest phases (e.g. Material Solution and Technology Development Phases) of the acquisition processes”, outlined within the AoA, System Training Plans (e.g. STRAPs, NTSPs or STPs) Acquisition Strategies(AS) and Acquisition Program Baselines (APB).” (ref: DoDI 5000.02 Enclosure 4, 7 & 8, Title 10 Sections 2433 & 2435)

To insure appropriate training for new systems acquisition and traceability to life cycle sustainment costs estimates, systems engineering processes should assess training impacts of material decision trades and appropriately document. New Equipment Training (NET) plans (e.g. STRAPs, NTSPs and STPs) should identify service joint warfighting training requirements. Training planning and training cost estimates should be incorporated within the Cost Analysis Requirements Description (CARD) “ and Life Cycle Sustainment Plans (LCSPs). (ref: DoDI 5000.02 Enclosure 7, DoDD 5000.04-M & 5141.01, Title 10 Sections 2433 & 2435)

6.3.3.3. Training Planning

Training Planning assists the Program Manager in understanding acquisition program (new or upgrade) systems training as a key performance parameter to successfully integrating DoD Decision Support Systems, e.g. the Acquisition System (DoD 5000 Series), the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) and the Planning, Programming, Budgeting & Execution (PPBE) Process, and effectively translate joint capabilities into training system design features.

Initially, the JCIDS process should address joint training requirements for military (Active, Reserve, and Guard) and civilian support personnel who will operate, maintain, lead and support the acquired system.

Training programs should employ integrated cost-effective solutions, and may consist of a blend of capabilities that use existing training program insights and introduces new performance-based training innovations. This may include requirements for school and unit training, as well as new equipment training, or sustainment training. This also may include requirements for instructor and key personnel training and new equipment training teams.

Training planning should be initiated early, by the PM in coordination with the training community within the capabilities development process beginning with the Capabilities Based Assessment and Analysis of Alternatives which support development of the Initial Capabilities Document, informing the Material Development Decision to support the Material Solutions Analysis phase, and continues with development of the Capability Development Document.

Training should also be considered in collaboration with the other Human Systems Integration (HSI) domains in order to capture the full range of human integration issues to be considered within the Systems Engineering process.

Early training planning will inform the Capability Development Document and should characterize the specific system training requirements and identify the training Key Performance Parameter:

Allow for interactions between platforms or units (e.g., through advanced simulation and virtual exercises) and provide training realism to include threats (e.g., virtual and surrogate), a realistic electronic warfare environment, communications, and weapons.
Appropriate embedded training capabilities that do not degrade system performance below threshold values nor degrade the maintainability or component life of the system are preferred.
That Initial Operational Capability (IOC) is attained and that training capabilities are met by IOC.
An embedded performance measurement capability to support immediate feedback to the operators/maintainers and possibly to serve as a readiness measure for the unit commander.
Training logistics necessary to support the training concept (e.g., requirements for new or upgrades to existing training facilities).
Provide concurrent capability with actual equipment and training devices and systems.

The training community should be specific in translating capabilities into system requirements. They should also set training resource constraints. These capabilities and constraints can be facilitated and worked through system integration efforts in several of the other HSI domains. Examples are:

The training community should consider whether the system be designed with a mode of operation that allows operators to train interactively on a continuous basis, even when deployed in remote / austere locations.
The training community should consider whether the system be capable of exhibiting fault conditions for a specified set of failures to allow rehearsal of repair procedures for isolating faults or require that the system be capable of interconnecting with other (specific) embedded trainers in both static and employed conditions.
The training community should consider whether embedded training capabilities allow enhancements to live maneuvers such that a realistic spectrum of threats is encountered (e.g., synthetic radar warnings generated during flight).
The training community should consider whether the integrated training system be fully tested, validated, verified, and ready for training at the training base as criteria for declaring Initial Operational Capability.

From the earliest stages of development and as the system matures, the program manager should emphasize training requirements that enhance the user's capabilities, improve readiness, and reduce individual and collective training costs over the life of the system. This may include requirements for expert systems, intelligent tutors, embedded diagnostics, virtual environments, and embedded training capabilities. Examples of training that enhances user's capabilities include:

Interactive electronic technical manuals provide a training forum that can significantly reduce schoolhouse training and may require lower skill levels for maintenance personnel while actually improving their capability to maintain an operational system;
Requirements for an embedded just-in-time mission rehearsal capability supported by the latest intelligence information and an integrated global training system/network that allows team training and participation in large scale mission rehearsal exercises can be used to improve readiness.

In all cases, the paramount goal of the training/instructional system should be to develop and sustain a ready, well-trained individual/unit/theater/joint, while giving strong consideration to options that can reduce life-cycle costs and provide positive contributions to the joint context of a system, where appropriate.

Training devices and simulators are systems that, in some cases, may qualify for their own set of HSI requirements. For instance, the training community may require the following attributes of a training simulator:

Accommodate "the central 90 percent of the male and female population on critical body dimensions;"
Not increase manpower requirements and considerations of reductions in manpower requirements;
Consider reduced skill sets to maintain because of embedded instrumentation;
Be High Level Architecture compliant;
Be Sharable Content Object Reference Model (as in DoDI 13322.26) compliant;
Be Test and Training Enabling Architecture (overview) compliant;
Use reusable modeling and simulation devices and architectures.

The acquisition program will be specific in translating new system capabilities into the system and its inherent training requirements.

From the earliest stages of development and as the future system design matures, the program manager should emphasize training requirements that enhance the user's capabilities, interoperability, improve readiness, and reduce individual and collective training costs over the life of the system. This may include requirements for expert systems, intelligent tutors, embedded diagnostics, virtual environments, and embedded training capabilities.

6.3.3.4. Development of Training Requirements

When developing the training system, the program manager shall employ transformational training concepts, strategies, and tools such as computer based and interactive courseware, simulators, and embedded training consistent with the program’s acquisition strategy, goals and objectives and reflect the tenants outlined in the next generation training strategy.

In addition, the program should address the requirement for a systems training key performance parameter as described in the JCIDS Manual.

The USD (P&R), as a member of the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB), assesses the ability of the acquisition process to support the Military Departments, COCOMs, and other DoD Components acquisition programs from a manpower, personnel, and training readiness perspective.

The acquisition program will characterize training planning, development and execution within the Cost Analysis Requirements Description. Life Cycle Support Plans and Manpower Estimate Reports tailored to each document-type. These training summaries will capture - support traceability of planned training across acquisition and capability documents, and will include logistics support planning for training, training equipment and training device acquisitions and installations

A Special Note on Embedded Training. Both the sponsor and the program manager will provide analysis that demonstrates careful consideration to the use of embedded training as defined in DoD Directive 1322.18: The sponsor's decisions to use embedded training will be determined very early in the capabilities assessment process. Analysis will be conducted to compare the embedded training with more traditional training media (e.g., simulator based training, traditional classroom instruction, and/or maneuver training) for consideration of a system's Total Operating Cost. The analysis will compare the costs and the impact of embedded training (e.g., training operators and maintenance personnel on site compared to off station travel to a temporary duty location for training).

Top of page

Previous and Next Page arrows