SSTRM - StrategicReviewGroup.ca - Human and Systems Integration Workshop - Volume 1 - Report (November 25, 2010)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

SSTRM - StrategicReviewGroup.ca - Human and Systems Integration Workshop - Volume 1 - Report (November 25, 2010)

on

  • 1,622 views

SSTRM HSI Report Nov 25, 2010 version

SSTRM HSI Report Nov 25, 2010 version

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,622
Views on SlideShare
1,621
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
30
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://strategicreviewgroup.ca 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    SSTRM - StrategicReviewGroup.ca - Human and Systems Integration Workshop - Volume 1 - Report (November 25, 2010) SSTRM - StrategicReviewGroup.ca - Human and Systems Integration Workshop - Volume 1 - Report (November 25, 2010) Document Transcript

    • Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap Workshop 6: Soldier Human and Systems Integration Gatineau, Québec, September 21-22, 2010 Volume 1. Report Department of National Defence Defence Research and Development Canada Industry Canada November 25, 2010
    • AcknowledgementsThe Department of National Defence (DND), Defence Research and Development Canada(DRDC), and Industry Canada (IC) would like to acknowledge the contributions and supportprovided by the IC Special Events team that organized the Soldier Human and SystemsIntegration workshop venue, logistics, and accommodations; the Human and Systems Integrationtechnical subcommittee and co-chairs and the Executive Steering Committee for sharing theirtime and expertise; The Strategic Review Group (SRG) Inc., for facilitating the workshop; and theparticipants from across Canada, the United States, and abroad, who contributed to making theworkshop a success. Special thanks to those who presented at the workshop, for sharing theirtime, energy, and knowledge.In addition, many thanks to the Canadian Forces Directorate of Armoured Vehicle ProgramManagement for providing a LAV 3 vehicle, to Mr. D. Palmer and Captain A. Dionne of theDirectorate of Land Requirements (DLR-5), the Canadian Forces rifle section from the CameronHighlanders of Ottawa, and the light armoured vehicle driver from the Régiment de Hull, whoprovided an demonstration of the challenges associated with integrating human and systemscomponents of the soldier system in a combat situation. Page ii of 122
    • Table of ContentsExecutive Summary .......................................................................................... viiHuman and Systems Integration Workshop and the SSTRM.......................... 8 About the Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap .................................................... 8 Human and Systems Integration Workshop and the Roadmap................................. 9 The Workshop Process .......................................................................................... 10 Introductory Presentation Abstracts ........................................................................ 11 Opening Remarks, Mr. T. Elliot, DG IC; Dr. D. Reding, DG DRDC Toronto; Mr. L. Garland (TSC Industry Co-Chair) .............................................. 11 Workshop Program and TRM Background, Mr. G. Nimmo (IC) ....................... 12 Workshop Process, Mr. P. Carr (Strategic Review Group Inc.) ........................ 12 Soldier Systems TRM Update, LCol. M.A. Bodner (DRDC) ............................. 131. Exploring Operational Space: Key Deficiencies and Priorities .............. 15 Presentation Abstracts ........................................................................................... 15 1.1 Future Soldier System Capability Areas: H&SI Requirements and Challenges, Maj. J. Herbert (DLR5-6) .................................................. 15 1.2 Human and Systems Integration: Lethal and Non Lethal, Maj. B. Gilchrist (DBRT 5-5)............................................................................. 16 Demonstration of Soldier Equipment/Usage by Mr. Douglas Palmer and Canadian Forces Personnel ............................................................................ 17 The Cast of Characters ................................................................................... 17 Instructions for Observing the Demonstration .................................................. 17 Introduction to the Demonstration .................................................................... 18 The Action—Close With and Destroy the Enemy............................................. 19Chapter 2. Exploring Functional Space: Related H&SI Challenges ............. 25 Presentation Abstracts ........................................................................................... 25 2.1 Introduction to Workshop Themes and Physical Ergonomics and Integration Challenges, Mrs. L. Bossi (DRDC Toronto) ........................ 25 2.2 Soldier Equipment/Vehicle/Communications Integration Requirements, Mr. M. A. Rochon (DSSPM-10-4-4) .............................. 27 Page iii of 122
    • 2.3 USMC Approach to Soldier Burden, Mr. D. Tack (Humansystems Inc. Rep. USMC MERS Project)........................................................... 27 2.4 Luncheon Speaker: Dr. E. S. Redden (ARL), Advanced Interfaces for Dismounted Warfighters ................................................................. 28 2.5 Challenges of Soldier Protection Integration, Mr. S. Boyne (DRDC Toronto) ............................................................................................... 29 2.6 Requirements for Enhancing Soldier Perception, Situation Awareness and Cognition, Mr. D. Tack (Humansystems Inc.) .............. 30 2.7 Soldier System Integration Challenges and Issues: An Industry Perspective, Mr. W. Downing (Industry Rep, TSC Speech).................. 31 2.8 ICee-Wiki Update, Mrs. M. Huard (IC-DND) ......................................... 32 Breakaway Session 1. Key Challenges for Human and Systems Integration Themes ......................................................................................... 33 Themes for Breakaway Session 1 ................................................................... 33 Seating Plan for Breakaway Session 1 ............................................................ 35 Instructions for Breakaway Session 1 .............................................................. 35 Plenary Report Back for Breakaway Session 1................................................ 36 Detailed Results of Breakaway Session 1 ....................................................... 38 Homework Instructions .................................................................................... 393. Exploring Solution Space: Enabling Technologies, Processes and Tools .................................................................................. 40 Stickies on the Wall Exercise.................................................................................. 40 Presentation Abstracts ........................................................................................... 41 3.1 Challenges and Tools for Effective Soldier System Integration, Mrs. L. Bossi (DRDC Toronto) ............................................................. 41 3.2. The Role of Biomechanics in Effective Soldier System Integration, Dr. J. Stevenson (Queens University) ................................................. 42 3.3 Virtual Simulations for Soldiers: Concepts and Applications, Dr. F. Bernier (DRDC Valcartier) .......................................................... 42 3.4 Decision Aids for Soldiers, Dr. D. Bryant and Dr. J. Hollands (DRDC Toronto) ................................................................................... 43 3.5 Soldier-Vehicle Integration: A TTCP Approach, Dr. M. Ducharme (DRDC Valcartier) ................................................................................ 44 Page iv of 122
    • Breakaway Session 2. System Optimization: Solutions, Enabling Technologies, Processes and Tools ....................................................................................... 45 Instructions for Breakaway Session 2 .............................................................. 46 Plenary Report Back for Breakaway Session 2................................................ 48 Detailed Results of Breakaway Session 2 ....................................................... 514. Exploring R&D Space: Focus Areas and Potential Collaborations ........ 52 Luncheon Speaker ................................................................................................. 52 4.1 Luncheon Speaker: Overview of the Strategic Aerospace and Defence Industrial Program (SADI), Mr. M. A. Blais (IC-ITO) ............... 52 ICee Contest Winner Presentation Abstracts.......................................................... 53 4.2 Infantryman Communication Interface (ICI), Mr. A. Poirier, Rheinmetall Defence............................................................................ 53 4.3 Software Solutions for NVG ENVG Integration, Mr. G. Martin, Robotics and Computer Vision System Integration .............................. 54 4.4 Human Performance Centered Engineering, Mr. J. Johnson, SantosHuman ...................................................................................... 54 4.5 Knee Stress Release Device (K-SRD™), Mr. M. Rittenhouse, B-TEMIA .............................................................................................. 55 Breakaway Session 3: R&D Focus Areas and Potential Collaborations .................. 56 Instructions for Breakaway Session 3 .............................................................. 56 Plenary Report Back from Breakaway Session 3 ............................................. 58 Results of Breakaway Session 3 ..................................................................... 585. Soldier Systems TRM Next Steps ................................................................ 68 SSTRM Next Steps and Workshop Closure, LCol. M.A. Bodner (DRDC) ............... 68 Developing the Roadmap ....................................................................................... 69 Sharing Knowledge with the ICee Database and Wiki ............................................ 69 Page v of 122
    • AppendixesA. Workshop Agenda ........................................................................................ 70B. List of Participants ........................................................................................ 72C. Breakaway Session 1 Participant Input: Key Challenges by Theme ............ 76D. Breakaway Session 2 Participant Input: System Optimization Solution: Enabling Technologies, Processes and Tools ............................................ 111List of FiguresFigure 1. Soldier Human and Systems Integration and the Soldier Systems TRM ............................................................................ 9Figure 2. The Workshop Process........................................................................ 10Figure 3. The Human and Systems Integration Themes ..................................... 34Figure 4. Breakaway Session 1 Plenary Report Back......................................... 36Figure 5. Example of Technology Roadmap Brainstorming Sticky ..................... 39Figure 6. Technical-Functional Challenges Identified by Workshop Participants .......................................................................... 38Figure 7. The Shift to a Horizontal View of Capability Optimization .................... 46Figure 8. The Challenge List for Step 1 of Breakaway Session 2 ....................... 47Figure 9. The Table for Step 4 of Breakaway Session 2 ..................................... 47Figure 10. Breakaway Session 2 Plenary Report Back—Potential Solutions and Related Enabling Technologies ................................... 48Figure 11. Sample Breakaway Session 3 Output Form ...................................... 57 Page vi of 122
    • Executive SummaryThis report describes the Soldier Human and Systems Integration Workshop held inGatineau, Québec, in September, 2010—the sixth in a series of workshops held as partof the Soldier Systems Technology Roadmapping (SSTRM) initiative.The Introduction, Human and Systems Integration Workshop and the SSTRM,provides an overview of the roadmap, places the human and systems integrationworkshop in the context of the roadmap, describes the workshop goal and process, andincludes abstracts of introductory presentations made at the workshop.Chapter 1, Exploring Operational Space: Key Deficiencies and Priorities, providesabstracts of workshop presentations focusing on the deficiencies and prioritiesassociated with human and systems integration and the Canadian soldier. It alsodescribes a demonstration presented by Canadian Forces personnel to illustrate thosedeficiencies and priorities.Chapter 2, Exploring Functional Space: Related H&SI Challenges, providespresentation abstracts related to workshop themes and challenges. It also describesbreakaway session 1, a roundtable discussion during which workshop participantsrefined their understanding of the challenges from the perspective of three workshopthemes.Chapter 3, Exploring Solution Space: Enabling Technologies, Processes andTools, provides additional presentation abstracts and describes breakaway session 2,during which workshop participants brainstormed on solutions to the challenges, andrelated technologies for overall system optimization.Chapter 4, Exploring R&D Space: Focus Areas and Potential Collaborations,provides abstracts for the luncheon speaker and for ICee contest winner speakers. Italso describes breakaway session 3, during which workshop participants identifiedcollaborations for addressing solutions to integration and soldier systems needs.Chapter 5, Soldier Systems Next Steps, describes the next phases in the SSTRMprocess.Appendixes provide the workshop agenda, a list of participants, and detailed participantinput from breakaway sessions 1 and 2. Page vii of 122
    • Human and Systems Integration Workshop andthe SSTRMThe Soldier Human and Systems Integration Workshop was held in the Château CartierHotel in Gatineau, Québec, September 21-22, 2010, as part of the development phaseof the Soldier Systems Technology Roadmapping (SSTRM) initiative.About the Soldier Systems Technology RoadmapThe Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap project is a unique industry-governmentcollaboration that applies roadmapping principles and processes to develop acomprehensive knowledge-sharing platform and identify emerging technology prioritiesin support of the Canadian Forces Soldier Modernization Effort.Participation in the Soldier Systems TRM is free and voluntary and open to Canadianand international manufacturing, services, and technology-based companies of all sizes,and to researchers and other experts from academia, government, and not-for-profitresearch organizations from Canada and around the world.The focus of the Soldier Systems TRM—the soldier system—is defined within NATO asthe integration of everything the soldier wears, carries and consumes for enhancedindividual and collective (small unit) capability within the national command and controlstructure. It centers on the needs of the dismounted soldier, who is often away from thesupply network, and must be self-sufficient for up to 72 hours.The overarching goal of the Soldier Systems TRM is to understand how todaystechnology—and tomorrows—might contribute to a superior soldier system thatincreases capacities and operational effectiveness for the individual soldier in the fiveNATO capability areas of Command, Control, Communications, Computers andIntelligence (C4I); Survivability; Mobility; Lethality; and Sustainability.The Soldier Systems TRM exercise is governed by an Executive Steering Committeemade up of government and industry representatives, and includes technicalsubcommittees dedicated to each capability area.For information about any aspect of the Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap project,visit http://www.soldiersystems-systemesdusoldat.collaboration.gc.ca Page 8 of 122
    • Human and Systems Integration Workshop and the RoadmapSoldier Human and Systems Integration was the Figure 1. Soldier Human andsixth workshop held as part of the development Systems Integrationphase of the Soldier Systems TRM. (Figure 1. Workshop and the Soldier Systems TRMSoldier Human and Systems Integration Workshopand the Soldier Systems TRM). 1.The goals of the workshop were to: Visioning & Future Capabilities  identify/validate future soldier capability requirements 2. Technical Workshop:  identify/validate related technical/functional Power/Energy/Sustainability challenges  identify/prioritize enabling/emerging 3. Technical Workshop: technologies, R&D focus areas and Weapons: Lethal & Non-Lethal collaboration opportunities.Human and Systems Integration Theme 4a) Technical 4b). TechnicalAreas Workshop: Workshop:To help focus this effort, three human and systems C4I Sensorsintegration themes were identified: 1. Physical Integration on the soldier. 5. Technical Workshop: Internal physical integration. Survivability/Sustainability/ Mobility 2. Perceptual/Cognitive Integration on the soldier. Internal psychological integration. 6. Technical Workshop: 3. System Architecture and Interoperability. Human & Systems Integration External integration.During parts of the workshop, tables were labeled Roadmap Integrationwith these themes, giving participants the Capstone Reportopportunity to sit at tables consistent with their Information/feedback sessionsprimary areas of expertise and interest. Page 9 of 122
    • The Workshop ProcessTo achieve its goal, the workshop followed a carefully designed, four-step process(Figure 2. The Workshop Process): 1. Explore operational space to define the problem 2. Explore functional space to identify challenges 3. Explore solution space to define potential solutions/technologies and system optimization 4. Explore S&T and R&D space to identify potential collaborations to build solutionsThis report summarizes the presentations and breakaway sessions associated with eachstep in the process. It follows the structure of the workshop agenda (Appendix A.Workshop Agenda). Figure 2. The Workshop Process Page 10 of 122
    • Introductory Presentation Abstracts Note. Complete workshop presentations are provided in Volumes 2 and 3 of the workshop documentation. The presentations are also available in the ICee tool on the Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap web site: http://www.soldiersystems- systemesdusoldat.collaboration.gc.ca and on the web site of the Strategic Review Group: http://strategicreviewgroup.ca/Opening Remarks, Mr. T. Elliot, DG IC; Dr. D. Reding, DG DRDC Toronto;Mr. L. Garland (TSC Industry Co-Chair)The workshop was opened, and participants welcomed, by Mr. Tim Elliot, DirectorGeneral, Industry Canada; Dr. Dale Reding, Director General, DRDC Toronto; and Mr.Laurin Garland, of Vernac Ltd., Industry co-chair of the Human and Systems IntegrationTechnical Sub-committee of the Soldier System Technology Roadmap, representingindustry.These speakers emphasized the importance of the Soldier Systems TRM as a vehiclefor promoting collaboration among the many stakeholders in the realm of the soldiersystem, and welcomed and thanked those attending for their participation. Commentsincluded:  A recognition by Mr. Elliot of the innovative nature of the Innovation and Collaboration Exchange Environment (ICee), the first public-facing Wiki of the Government of Canada  The acknowledgement by Dr. Reding that the SSTRM is a way to support Canadas soldier modernization effort by helping converge on future soldier systems capability needs and the requisite supporting technologies, stimulate and forecast technological developments, and provide the structure around which planning and coordination of technical planning can take place  The observation by Mr. Garland that the SSTRM is a true collaborative effort by industry, government and academia that is rare, and that promises concrete results Page 11 of 122
    • Workshop Program and TRM Background, Mr. G. Nimmo (IC)Defines and provides anoverview of the technology Development Phase Activities Development Phase Activitiesroadmapping process. 09/10 09/10 10/11 10/11 2011 2011 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04Describes other Canadianroadmapping experiences. Weapons Effects (Toronto) Power/Energy (Vancouver) Weapons Effects (Toronto) Power/Energy (Vancouver) C4I/Sensors (Montréal) TRM Consolidation Workshop C4I/Sensors (Montréal) (Gatineau, Sept 21-22, 2010) TRM Consolidation Workshop Capstone Report & Action Plan Visioning (Gatineau) Human/Systems Integration (Gatineau, Sept 21-22, 2010) Capstone Report & Action Plan Visioning (Gatineau) Human/Systems Integration Kick-off (Ottawa) Kick-off (Ottawa) Close up EventOutlines the Soldier Systems Close up Event PPE (Ottawa) PPE (Ottawa)TRM Project, including itsobjectives and the roles ofindustry/academia andgovernment. Describes theoverall TRM phases, including Launch Oct. 09 Launch Oct. 09 Web Collaboration Tool (ICee): Technologies & Capability database Web Collaboration Tool (ICee): Technologies & Capability databasethe current Development 55Phase. Outlines DevelopmentPhase activities and schedule.Workshop Process, Mr. P. Carr (Strategic Review Group Inc.) Outlines the workshop Functional Objective // Technical Challenge Functional Objective Technical Challenge (Where to Put the Bar and When?) objectives. Describes the (Where to Put the Bar and When?) workshop process. Asserts that Performance Parameter (e.g. Bandwidth) Performance Parameter (e.g. Bandwidth) workshop success means Perf. Excess ? Perf. Excess ? discussion, contribution, Overall System Performance sss Overall System Performance rees oogr g gyy r ppr edss s collaboration, creativity, interest lo g oolo re Ne ed Ne need s e ts)) ed n Futu re ldierr ne ireme nts c eec n hhn Futu so ie Futu re mance req tu r ance u m re so ld requ ire and curiosity. TT Fu rfo rm (Pe rfo (Pe Real Gap Real Gap Perf. Perf. Growth Growth Presents a definition for Current Gap Current Gap functional objective/technical Baseline Baseline challenge. Today Today Cycle 1 Cycle 1 Cycle 2… Cycle n Cycle 2… Cycle n Time Time 44 Page 12 of 122
    • Soldier Systems TRM Update, LCol. M.A. Bodner (DRDC)Outlines army capabilityconcepts and land systems,and refers to the future securityenvironment. Describes theCanadian SoldierModernization Effort (Army ofTomorrow, Army of the Futureconcepts). Defines the soldiersystem as everything that asoldier wears, carries,consumes, or otherwise uses tooptimize and sustain his tasksand performance(cognitive/physical/social) in alloperational environments. Explains the "system of systems" approach and challenges. Provides highlights of earlier workshops: Power & Energy; Soldier Lethal and Non-Lethal Weapons; C4I-Sensors; Soldier Survivability, Sustainability, Mobility. Outlines capability trade-offs, and the hard problem of balancing all aspects of the soldier system to generate a holistic solution that maximizes soldier effectiveness. Page 13 of 122
    • Page 14 of 122
    • 1. Exploring Operational Space: Key Deficiencies and PrioritiesThis chapter provides abstracts of presentations that focused on Human and SystemsIntegration deficiencies and challenges, and describes a demonstration presented byCanadian Forces personnel to illustrate integration deficiencies and challenges.Presentation Abstracts1.1 Future Soldier System Capability Areas: H&SI Requirements and Challenges, Maj. J. Herbert (DLR5-6)Describes the tasks theCanadian soldier is called on toperform. Outlines the missionof the Directorate of LandRequirements (DLR).Describes soldier systemrequirements, the soldier oftoday, the challengesassociated with meetingcapabilities. Describes theISSP Networked Soldier.Presents a vision for soldiersystem integration.Emphasizes the need forhuman testing of systems. Introduces the soldier demonstration that follows, usingCanadian Forces personnel to illustrate key integration challenges and human factors. Page 15 of 122
    • 1.2 Human and Systems Integration: Lethal and Non Lethal, Maj. B. Gilchrist (DBRT 5-5)Provides an overview of lethaland non-lethal weapons effectsfuture requirements related tohuman factors and systemsintegration. Explains why non-lethal effects are needed, anddescribes the "escalation offorce continuum capability gap."Describes small arms in currentuse, and outlines the SARP 2project to modernize or replacemost small arms. Emphasizesthe need to reduce weight andto provide power to the system. Page 16 of 122
    • Demonstration of Soldier Equipment/Usage by Mr. DouglasPalmer and Canadian Forces PersonnelA highlight of past Soldier Systems Technology Roadmap workshops has been a seriesof demonstrations by Canadian Forces personnel illustrating the challenges associatedwith performing combat missions using currently available equipment. At the Human andSystems Integration Workshop, the demonstration involved a dismounted section inpartial battle gear exiting a LAV 3 armoured vehicle, performing a number ofmanoeuvres, and returning to the vehicle.The Cast of CharactersThe demonstration was lead by Mr. D. Palmer of the Directorate of Land Requirements(DLR 5) Soldier Systems Section, and a member of the Project Director Team for theIntegrated Soldier System Project. Mr. Palmer spent 42 years in the Canadian Forces,most of them the Infantry.The soldiers participating in the demonstration were:  A rifle section from the Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa. Two of the soldiers have seen service in Afghanistan  A LAV 3 driver from Le Régiment de Hull, who has done a tour of duty in AfghanistanThe vehicle used for the demonstration was a LAV 30140 provided by the Directorate ofArmored Vehicle Program Management. In addition to the soldiers used in the demo,this vehicle normally has a commander and a gunner, which were not part of this demo.Instructions for Observing the DemonstrationThe workshop participants were asked to keep in mind two questions while observingthe demonstration: 1. Name one human/system integration issue that was not mentioned in the demonstration. 2. Which integration issues or deficiencies do you think are the most important to the soldier system?Participants were told they would have an opportunity to provide their answers during aplenary debriefing session following the demonstration. Page 17 of 122
    • Introduction to the DemonstrationThe demonstration was designed to provide the workshop audience with insights into thehuman factors aspects of the soldier as a weapon platform within the dismountedinfantry.Along with the associated presentations, it addressed the first part of the four-stepworkshop process, exploring the operational space, and providing a capability recap anddemo to identify key deficiencies and priorities.To prepare the audience for the demo, it was pointed out that they would see:  Basic load and equipment configurations for four Canadian Forces roles: Commander, C9 Gunner, M203 Gunner, and rifleman  The soldiers would be divided into two four-man assault groups in an eight person sectionIt was also pointed out what the audience would not see, and would need to remember:  The weight, volume, and power demands of the rifle section when combat loaded (for the demonstration, not all of the usual equipment was included)  The demand for increased tactical-level individual and team performance in complex terrain that is a result of a detailed understanding by the soldier of: o What the commander wants to accomplish o The situation that the soldier is being exposed to o The ability to conduct target acquisition rapidly and accurately  The fact that, while equipment is designed to accommodate 95% of the population, the expectation is that 100% of the population will be required and capable of deploying and using all weapons and equipment Page 18 of 122
    • The Action—Close With and Destroy the EnemyThe infantrys role is to close with and destroy the enemy—a task that places individualsin direct contact with the enemy, where close combat is likely.To illustrate a typical infantry mission, the demonstration was divided into seven sub-demos, with the action becoming more intense and dynamic over time.Action 1—Vehicle dismount into extended lineIn this part of the demo, the rear door of the armoured vehicle was lowered, and thesoldiers:  Dismounted from the vehicle, orienting themselves toward the enemy (the vehicle is always oriented with the enemy in front)  Made appropriate observations of the surrounding area  Took up fire positions, spacing to reduce casualties from enemy fire or IEDs  Began verbal communication about, and coordination of, their missionAction 2—Movement into single file to wood lineIn this part of the demo, the soldiers oriented themselves toward a line of woods, wherethe enemy was thought to be positioned. This illustrated:  The type of all-round observation conducted by the soldiers on an ongoing basis  The continued spacing to reduce casualties  The ability to engage targets to either side of the soldiers  Ongoing communication and coordination via verbal and hand signalsAction 3—Movement in extended line over open groundThe soldiers then moved toward the enemy position, illustrating how very exposedsoldiers are in this type of operation. In the process, they continued to demonstrate theall-round observation, spacing, ability to engage on left or right, and communication andcoordination activities that began when they first left the vehicle. Page 19 of 122
    • Action 4—Movement into the vehicleReturning from the wood line, the soldiers demonstrated how they re-enter the vehicle,continuing to engage in all-round observation, and handing off observationresponsibilities as they enter the vehicle one-by-one. Coordination and communicationcontinued as before.Action 5—Dismount to assault lineThe soldiers then exited the vehicle again, and demonstrated an alignment designed touse firepower to the front of the vehicle and engage the enemy as a section, coveringground and engaging in close combat.Action 6—Room clearanceThe soldiers split into two groups to demonstrate entering and clearing a room. Therooms were represented by areas marked on the parking lot where the demonstrationoccurred. This illustrated:  The need for speed and good technique and tactics  The areas of responsibilities of the different soldiers  The need for continued communication and coordinationAction 7—Demonstration of individual rolesFinally, the soldiers made clear the different roles associated with the preceding actions:  An eight person section, make up of Sergeant, Master Corporal, and six corporals or privates  Two assault groups of four persons (Sergeant and three corporals or privates)  Within each assault group, a Commander, C9 Gunner, M203 Gunner, and RiflemanInteraction with observersFollowing the demonstration, the soldiers made themselves available to answerquestions and explain various pieces of equipment to the workshop participants. Thevehicle was also available to examine. Page 20 of 122
    • The Plenary Debrief—Integration Issues ObservedAfter viewing the demonstration and interacting with the soldiers and equipment, theworkshop participants returned to the meeting room to answer the questions they hadbeen given: 1. Name one human/system integration issue that was not mentioned in the demonstration. 2. Which integration issues or deficiencies do you think are the most important to the soldier system?What follows is a summary of observations shared by participants during the debrief.Observation 1. Communications integration and coordination  Observed the need for communications integration and coordination among the soldiers and between the soldiers and the vehicle  The vehicle driver and soldiers use separate communications systemsObservation 2. Customization  There was a lot of customization going on—soldiers customizing the kit they take on operations  The backpacks the soldiers were carrying were light relative to the kit actually carried in battle, which would make it even more difficult to exit and enter a vehicleObservation 3. Situation awareness  Having spoken to all eight soldiers about deficiencies, the comment about situation awareness (SA) kept coming up  The level of SA provided will need to be adjusted to minimize information overload, and SA is not meant to be used during close-combat actionObservation 4. Low visibility for driver and commander  Visibility for the driver and commander is limited  It takes time to transition from darkness to bright sunlight or heavy fog  Noted that there is a screen inside the vehicle to show what the driver sees outside the vehicle Page 21 of 122
    • Observation 5. Integration and compatibility of the equipment  The communications system doesnt seem to fit well with the rest of the equipment  Additional ammunition is needed but can get in the way  Best arrangement of equipment on the soldier is not trivial and is subject to personal preferences  Compatibility issues mainly raised for the gas mask which is not fully compatible with the communications system (Putting on the mask means losing the communications system, and resorting to hand signals)Observation 6. Lack of communication/education  Soldiers could be better informed about the equipment development/acquisition process, i.e., explaining why decisions are made  Need to better inform soldiers and get them more involved in feedback/decisions about equipmentObservation 7. International considerations  Canada rarely deploys as a single force, but is integrated with NATO and others  What are the interoperability capabilities among different NATO forces? Different equipment, different ammunitionObservation 8. The soldier as sensor  The soldier is the main sensor system out there  Integration of remote sensors, unmanned systems, would significantly reduce the risk and lower the workload on the soldierObservation 9. Soldiers vs. police and first responders  The soldier kit doesn‘t seem as much state-of-the-art as police and first responders kit  Little things can make big differences—e.g., gloves that dont allow easy use of equipment, a holster that is not optimal for operations, a load-carrying vest that works  Some of these minor deficiencies noted may be addressed easily and at low cost  The equipment display didn‘t appear to be as fully integrated as it could be Page 22 of 122
    • Observation 10. Human thermoregulation issues  Enhanced thermoregulation (heat/cold management) was raised as an important issue, especially heat stroke prevention and cold managementObservation 11. The tactical vest  Limitations of current vest for carrying more equipment  Carrying 10 mags of ammunition in actual operations means less space for other components  Need the ability to snap equipment components into placeObservation 12. No knee or elbow protection  The soldiers were not wearing knee and elbow protection  It was raised that knee pads are part of the current kit, but were not worn during the demo  Need to have a solution that stays in place and permits the soldier the flexibility to reach all equipmentObservation 13. More gear means less mobility  The soldiers didnt wear everything they could possibly have in the demo—for example, no night-vision binoculars, no illuminator (TAG IR) for night ops that shows position  Soldier equipment solutions are always adjusted to its mission. Close combat night operations are the most demanding situations where more equipment is needed  Need to bear in mind that the more equipment a soldier carries the less mobile the soldier becomesObservation 14. Different sensors from different companies  Part of the problem is that different sensors come from different companies, each with their own IP, which limits full integration  Need to define good interface standard  Need to find ways enabling all the different sensors to work togetherObservation 15. Accessibility of sensors  Sensors are only good if the soldier can reach them and use them  Optimal sensors location is critical Page 23 of 122
    • Observation 16. Kudos for including a vehicle in the demonstration  Kudos for including a vehicle in the demonstration, so that it was more realistic  Vehicles are used well in support of the soldier—e.g., for power and other functions—and need to be considered with the soldier system. They are not just for loading and carrying, but provide support in many ways  What additional ways could the vehicle be used to support the soldiers once they had exited?Conclusions Soldier Demo – Key Integration Challenges Soldier Demo – Key Integration Challenges Weight/volumeThe feedback received from Weight/volume Load carriagethe participants during the Load carriage Mobility vs Protection Mobility vs Protectionplenary session is coherent Power Powerwith the integration challenges Consumption Consumptionidentified by the Army: Nature Natureweight/volume; power; Anthropometrics Anthropometricsanthropomentrics; soldier- Soldier – Vehicle Interoperability Soldier – Vehicle Interoperabilityvehicle interoperability; and Communications Communicationstarget detection, Target Detect-Discriminate-Inform-Prosecute Target Detect-Discriminate-Inform-Prosecutediscrimination, information,and prosecution. In addition,workshop participants went beyond these basic challenges to describe other points andchallenges during the plenary. Page 24 of 122
    • Chapter 2. Exploring Functional Space: Related H&SI ChallengesThis chapter provides abstracts of workshop presentations that focused on Human andSystems Integration challenges. It also describes Breakout Session 1. Key Challengesfor Human and Systems Integration Themes.Presentation Abstracts2.1 Introduction to Workshop Themes and Physical Ergonomics and Integration Challenges, Mrs. L. Bossi (DRDC Toronto)Defines the multidisciplinary field of Human and Systems Integration (HSI). Presents amodel for considering thesoldier as a system. Introducesthe workshop HSI themes:  Physical Integration on the soldier  Perceptual/Cognitive Integration on the soldier  System Architecture and Interoperability.Outlines the physicalergonomics and integrationchallenges faced. Page 25 of 122
    • Page 26 of 122
    • 2.2 Soldier Equipment/Vehicle/Communications Integration Requirements, Mr. M. A. Rochon (DSSPM-10-4-4)Provides an overview of theSoldier Modernization Programand integration requirements.Describes key goals for C4I,power, communications,position generation, and battlemanagement. Describescurrent and future solutions fora rifleman personal network.Emphasizes the need toenhance all aspects of soldiercapabilities, reduce cognitiveload, minimize userintervention, and minimizeweight and volume.2.3 USMC Approach to Soldier Burden, Mr. D. Tack (Humansystems Inc.Rep. USMC MERS Project)Describes the MarineExpeditionary Rifle Squad(MERS) mission. Outlines MC-LEAP, the Marine Corps LoadEffects Assessment Program.Discusses the marine burden,program aims, and the LEAPdata cloud, which includesdimensions of weight, stiffness,and bulk. Describes the "designlight" initiative. Providesoverview of sensor integrationand hearing protection. Page 27 of 122
    • 2.4 Luncheon Speaker: Dr. E. S. Redden (ARL), Advanced Interfaces for Dismounted Warfighters Describes the ways that displays are used. Provides examples of advanced displays, including multifunction displays (MFDs). Describes displays currently used, and lessons learned from them. Introduces helmet-mounted displays, and potential problems with them. Discusses fused night-vision goggles, including urban enhanced night vision goggles (UENVG).Discusses conformational displays, including flexible displays and tactile displays.Introduces see-through displays, including augmented reality displays.Notes that civilian technology offers examples to learn from and leverage. Concludesthat:  the dismounted warfighter is the most difficult customer for displays  as technology advances, todays failures may be tomorrows successes  displays should be chosen based on mission requirements, echelon level, and environmental considerations  human factors considerations and experimentation are critical for effective display design Page 28 of 122
    • 2.5 Challenges of Soldier Protection Integration, Mr. S. Boyne (DRDC Toronto)Provides an overview of thechallenges associated withsoldier equipment integration,weapon integration, equipmentintegration (including packs,helmets, and other items), andvehicle integration. Makes thecase for a modular approach tointegrating all elements of thesoldier system. Providesexample of a modular approachto integrating protection andsensors in the soldier helmet. Page 29 of 122
    • 2.6 Requirements for Enhancing Soldier Perception, Situation Awareness and Cognition, Mr. D. Tack (Humansystems Inc.) Explains what situation awareness is, and why it is important. Provides a picture of the anticipated future battlespace, with net-enabled weapons, netted fires, adaptive dispersed operation, a dismounted role, and night operations. Describes the forms that situation awareness can take, and how situation awareness needs can vary.Explains why human andsystem integration is importantfor situation awarenesssystems. Describes ways toenhance visual, auditory, andtactual senses. Emphasizesthat effective situation aware isvery complex. Page 30 of 122
    • 2.7 Soldier System Integration Challenges and Issues: An Industry Perspective, Mr. W. Downing (Industry Rep, TSC Speech)Provides an overview of the futuresoldier. Describes challenges facingthe soldier, including rapidly changingtechnologies, the need for integratedsystems, and the need to manage theequipment lifecycle. Outlines theneeds, including integrated/modularsystems, power, information, weightmanagement, training, and life cycleand supply chain management.Proposes a development paradigm tofollow and proposed roles for industryand the Government (Department ofNational Defence). Page 31 of 122
    • 2.8 ICee-Wiki Update, Mrs. M. Huard (IC-DND)Describes the Innovation,Collaboration and ExchangeEnvironment (ICee), a web-based application for capturing,organizing and sharinginformation on futurecapabilities, technologies,projects, products and otheritems relevant to the CanadianForces Modernization Effortused to feed the SoldierSystems TechnologyRoadmap. Outlines recentenhancements. Makes the casefor exploring and using the ICee to stay up to date with, and contribute to, the technologyroadmap. Notes that there are currently over 400 users of the ICee-Wiki. Page 32 of 122
    • Breakaway Session 1. Key Challenges for Human and SystemsIntegration ThemesThe goal of the first breakaway session was to have workshop participants discuss theirunderstanding of key human andsystems integrations issues based onthe preceding presentations and ontheir own areas of expertise, and toprovide oral and written feedback onthose discussions.The breakout session addressed thesecond of the four steps in theworkshop process: exploring functionalspace and identifying related humanand systems integration functional andtechnical challenges for internal,physical/cognitive, and systemarchitecture and interoperability(external integration).Themes for Breakaway Session 1To ensure that all areas of integration received attention, that participants were able tofocus on their areas of interest and expertise, and that each of the approximately twentytables had participants from different sectors, the participants were asked to follow aseating plan and to focus on one of three themes that had been defined based on inputfrom the Human and Systems Integration Technical Sub-Committee: 1. Physical Integration on the soldier 2. Perceptual/Cognitive Integration on the soldier 3. System Architecture and InteroperabilityFor more detail about the scope of each theme, see Figure 3. Page 33 of 122
    • Figure 3. The Human and Systems Integration ThemesTheme 1 – Physical Integration on the Soldier  Soldier system Characterization (e.g., physical environment, task analyses, user characteristics)  Soldier Burden (physiology, load and volume/bulk, biomechanics)  Usability/ergonomy  Fit/form/Anthropometry  Demographics  Compatibility/Interfaces  Display and Controls Hardware  Tools and ProcessesTheme 2—Perceptual/Cognitive Integration on the Soldier  Soldier Burden (workload, information)  Situation Awareness  Soldier Interfaces to Enhance Perception and Cognition (from displays to decision-making tools on soldier computers)  Displays and Controls Software (GUI)  Tools and Processes  Usability  Decision aidsTheme 3—System Architecture & Interoperability (External Integration)  Integration/Interoperability with Other Platforms o Vehicles o Weapon Systems o C4I Systems o Autonomous Sensors (UXV)  System Architecture o Modularity/Configurability o Adaptability o Scalability o Hardware Integration/Optimization Page 34 of 122
    • Seating Plan for Breakaway Session 1Each table in the room waslabelled with one of the threethemes that had been defined,and participants were asked tosit at a table with the theme oftheir choice.Participants were also asked tofollow the Table Seating Rulesoutlined in the slide shown here.Instructions for Breakaway Session 1Participants were given the following question to discuss at each table: What are the 5 most important functional challenges related to your Human and Systems Integration theme? Whats the problem? (You can express it as a technical challenge too.) 1. E.g., Critical parameter (e.g., Balance, bandwidth) 2. What should it be (setting the bar for 2020 & 2025)?They were asked to record their answers on flipcharts, and to follow these rules:  Sit with people from other organizations  Fill the tables  Choose a leader and recorder  Write clearly  Focus on the questions  Ask facilitators for clarifications, if necessary Page 35 of 122
    • Plenary Report Back for Breakaway Session 1When the participants hadcompleted the BreakawaySession 1 task, a report back(plenary) session was held togive them the opportunity toshare their results verbally withthe other workshop participants.The slide shown here providedguidelines for the session.What follows, in Figure 4,Breakout Session 1 PlenaryReport Back, is a summary ofthe points made during thereport back. Figure 4. Breakaway Session 1 Plenary Report Back Theme 1—Physical Integration on the Soldier (4 Tables Reporting)1. Setting standards  Setting standards is a complex process requiring coordination  Interoperability is difficult when there is a proprietary mindset2. Complexity and uncertainty of trade-offs  Same issue, but key label is "Complexity and uncertainty of various trade-offs"  Looked at performance vs. options—there must be a "sweet zone" where you want to find yourself  Could be balancing anything from cost, to system performance, to the complexity of the system .  No self-evident road to go down—its a multi-dimensional problem based on complex systems  The challenge is to define overall system requirements precisely, to decide on overall trade offs Page 36 of 122
    • Figure 4. Breakaway Session 1 Plenary Report Back3. Soldier burden  One of the challenges is related the procurement process  Technology is moving extremely quickly, and there is a need for a more evolutionary approach to the acquisition process  Need to ensure an acquisition cycle that fits with rapidly evolving technology4. Encumbrance: a psychological tolerance to carrying load  Challenge is resisting homeostatis—i.e., you could do all the work you want to reduce the weight of items, but the soldier will still load himself up with more stuff  Need to encourage the soldier not to overload himself. Theme 2—Perceptual/Cognitive Integration on the Soldier (2 Tables Reporting)1. Dont forget the "human" in human factors  DND representatives at the table were treated as the customers, and asked what their issues are  The human must be in control of the information, because that is the nature of who we are  Anything we do moving forward should recognize we are humans, and the system must adapt to the human rather than the other way around  Looking forward, in 25 years, imagine having a laser on a rifle that enables you to laser anything in range; you push a button and you are given all necessary information about the target2. Information overload  The real issue is that soldiers today are getting too much information, a lot of it contradictory, missing, or wrong, and they are overwhelmed by data and unable to glean the necessary information  Need complete information, but not overloaded  Situational awareness, eyes forward, moving ahead  The soldier cant choose what information is delivered Page 37 of 122
    • Figure 6. Technical-Functional Challenges Identified by Workshop Participants During Breakout Session 1Theme 1—Physical Integration1. Improving system characterization (physical) 13. Improving socio/psychological readiness2. Improving tools & processes (physical) 14. Enhancing/augmenting soldier perception3. Reducing physical soldier burden 15. Reducing cognitive burden (information load) (weight overload)4. Improving physical usability 16. Improving situation awareness/understanding5. Improving modularity/configurability 17. Improving decision making6. Improving fit, form, anthropometry 18. Enhancing displays/GUI7. Improving interfaces compatibility 19. Improving human computer interaction8. Improving body-worn equipment/sensors integration Theme 3—External Integration9. Improving display/control hardware design 20. Improving integration with weaponsTheme 2—Psychological/Cognitive Integration 21. Improving integration with C4I systems10. Improving system characterization (psychological) 22. Improving integration with combat vehicles 23. Improving integration with autonomous11. Improving tools & processes (psychological) vehicle/sensors12. Reducing the effects of stressors 24. Enabling future capability growth Detailed Results of Breakaway Session 1 Following the breakaway session, the flipcharts on which participants had written their responses were collected and compiled. The results are provided in Appendix C, Breakaway Session 1 Participant Input: Key Challenges by Theme. Page 38 of 122
    • Homework InstructionsAfter Breakaway Session 1, before ending the first day of the workshop, participantswere given a homework assignment that would get them started working on potentialsolutions to the challenges previously identified. That involved: 1. Getting 3 stickies from the facilitators. 2. Picking 3 of the challenges already discussed. 3. Filling in the blanks on the stickies to describe proposed solution, development timeframe, related technologies, technology readiness level (TRL), and key players in the area. 4. Bringing the stickies to Day 2 of the workshop. Figure 5. Example of Technology Roadmap Brainstorming Sticky To help participants fill in their 3 stickies, they were given this example of a completed sticky. Page 39 of 122
    • 3. Exploring Solution Space: Enabling Technologies, Processes and ToolsThis chapter describes the "stickies on the wall" exercise, which was conducted at thestart of the second day of the workshop. It also provides abstracts of the presentationspreceding the second breakaway session, and describes Breakaway Session 2: TheTechnical ChallengesStickies on the Wall ExerciseBetween the first and second day of the workshop, the SSTRM team identified a list oftechnical-functional challenges based on participant input during the first day.Before the start ofthe second day,staff constructed agrid on two walls ofthe meeting room(as shown here),with the challengeslisted across the top,grouped by the three integration themes of physical, psychological/cognitive, and systemarchitecture and interoperability.At the start of the second day, and during the first coffee break, workshop participantscopied the stickies they had filled in as homework, and posted them on the grid to beused during the second breakaway session described later in this chapter. Page 40 of 122
    • Presentation Abstracts3.1 Challenges and Tools for Effective Soldier System Integration, Mrs. L. Bossi (DRDC Toronto)Describes the Human-SystemIntegration (HSI) process.Outlines a process for ensuringthat HSI is considered in soldiersystems. Describes the ArmyCombat Clothing andEquipment Survey System(ACCESS) and the 1997 LandForces Anthropometric Survey.Introduces BoSS XXI BodyScanning system, explains howit works, and compares resultswith the 1997 survey. Outlines the way ahead, including challenges associated with clothed anthro for workspace modelling and other anthropometry challenges, such as workspace modeling and analysis, an Advanced Personal Load Carriage System (APLCS), biomechanical modeling tools, an integrated performance modelling environment, virtual reality tools. Describes the key challenge as developing ameasurement of effective soldier system integration. Discussed "A Soldiers Day Multi-media Database," designed to inform all stakeholders in R&D, materiel development,acquisition and life cycle management about the actual Canadian soldier system. Page 41 of 122
    • 3.2. The Role of Biomechanics in Effective Soldier System Integration, Dr. J. Stevenson (Queens University) Defines and explains the importance of biomechanics for the soldier system. Describes tools for measuring biomechanics, including direct and indirect internal forces, effects at the human-object interface, motion, line of sight, and sound. Explains ergonomics. Describes using the military or Caesar (Civilian American and European Anthropometric Resource) database to aid in design.Discusses soldier system integration. Describes the ERG mission, objectives andprocess.3.3 Virtual Simulations for Soldiers: Concepts and Applications, Dr. F. Bernier (DRDC Valcartier)Defines immersive virtualsimulation. Describes theVirtual Immersion Laboratory(VIL), and the Gaming andEmerging TechnologyLaboratory (GETL). OutlinesDRDC defence and securityactivities. Describesapproaches to creating aStressful Virtual Environment(SVE). Provides the example ofmedic training in a combatenvironment. Page 42 of 122
    • 3.4 Decision Aids for Soldiers, Dr. D. Bryant and Dr. J. Hollands (DRDC Toronto)Defines combat identity (CID).Explains decision supportconcepts. Outlines IMMERSIVE(Instrumented Military ModelingEngine for Research usingSimulation and VirtualEnvironments). Describesimmersive bots (roboticcompute controlled entities),simulated rifle-mounted IFF.Discusses testing done, andresulting hit rates and falsealarm rates. Describes currentBFT (Blue Force Tracking)systems and studies. Page 43 of 122
    • 3.5 Soldier-Vehicle Integration: A TTCP Approach, Dr. M. Ducharme (DRDC Valcartier) Provides an overview of TTCP (The Technical Cooperation Program) Land TP-2. Discusses land-systems integration, and the system-of- systems approach. Describes the vehicle integration study, focusing on the integrated soldier and vehicle protection, and the networked soldier and vehicle integration. Describes the Land Systems Integration Laboratory (SIL), and the TP-2 vision in development. The 3TTCP reports will be posted on the ICee too whenever the final versions are completed. Page 44 of 122
    • Breakaway Session 2. System Optimization: Solutions, EnablingTechnologies, Processes and ToolsThe second breakawaysession addressed the thirdpart of the four-step workshopprocess: exploring the solutionspace and identifying potentialsolutions/technologies forsystem optimization.The goal of the session was tobrainstorm solutions and theirrelated technologies (S&T) foran overall systemoptimization. For the session,participants were asked tochange the lens through whichoverall soldier system capability optimization was viewed—that is, to shift theperspective from the vertical orientation to a horizontal view that integrated solutionsacross silos (figure 7). Page 45 of 122
    • Figure 7. The Shift to a Horizontal View of Capability OptimizationInstructions for Breakaway Session 2The workshop participants were given the following instructions : 1. Review the challenge list (distributed on each table) (5 minutes) (See Figure 8). 2. Share your proposed solutions (homework stickies) (15 to 20 minutes). 3. Identify 3 to 5 new potential horizontal solutions and related technologies. 4. Summarize your answers on the table provided (See Figure 9). Page 46 of 122
    • Figure 8. The Challenge List for Step 1 of Breakaway Session 2 Figure 9. The Table for Step 4 of Breakaway Session 2 Page 47 of 122
    • Plenary Report Back for Breakaway Session 2When the participants hadcompleted the BreakawaySession 2 task, a plenarysession was held to give theman opportunity to share theirresults verbally with the otherworkshop participants. Theslide shown here providedguidelines for the session.What follows, in Figure 10, is asummary of the points madeduring the report back andlater collected from each tableof participants. Figure 10. Breakaway Session 2 Plenary Report Back—Potential Solutions and Related Enabling TechnologiesTable 1 1. Wearable power.  Use of newer technologies to allow recharge at the platoon level  Technical/functional challenges 8, 2, 5 2. Device proliferation  How to militarize existing integrated consumer applications  Technology challenges 3, 5, 16 3. Difficulty of gathering and applying field feedback.  Need to get immediate small groups of soldiers returning from deployment, specifically infantry, engineers, medics, armoured and gunners  Technology challenges 20, 21, and 22Table 2 1. Reducing burden.  Need to save weight and integrate with fibre optical and other textile technology  Technology challenges 3, 6, and 11 2. Sensor Integration  Need standards for defining standards and minimum interoperability requirements Page 48 of 122
    • Figure 10. Breakaway Session 2 Plenary Report Back—Potential Solutions and Related Enabling TechnologiesTable 3 1. Improving body worn sensors integration  Technology challenge 8  The backbone of the system will have to be a "smart skin" that will provide a physical backbone for connectivity 2. Reducing the effects of stressors  Technology challenge 12  The skin will have to provide environmental controls (e.g., for heat and cold) 3. Improving integration with C4I Systems  Technology challenge 21  The skin must be wired to a PAN (Personal Area Network)Table 4 1. Improve modularity/configurability  The vest becomes a modular system on which the soldier can connect components  The weapon is also modular, and components can connect to it 2. Improve interface compatibility  This becomes a mission-specific issue  Software should use all available information and provide details for each soldier and soldier group as to what they need for the mission  The vest and weapons must be modular enough to attach what they need for the missionTable 5 1. Need a mandated requirement for Human/Systems integration program  Best way to address all integration needs  HSI must be mandated as a key component of all projects—cuts across all processes and programs  It was done in the States, and can be done here 2. Multiple functional and technical challenges (physical)  Cut across many challenges on the physical interface, sensor integration and C4I integration  Key is to use multi-functional materials and devices 3. Multiple functional and technical challenges (optimized Human/Machine interface) Page 49 of 122
    • Figure 10. Breakaway Session 2 Plenary Report Back—Potential Solutions and Related Enabling Technologies  Need a common, tailored, optimized soldier system human/machine interface  Would enable cutting across an enormous number of challengesTable 6 1. Improving integration with everything  Challenges 20-23--Define an integration process and project management process that gets applied to all design problems—an integration process  Integration with weapons, C4I, vehicles, sensors, and so on—a system of systems  Integrating a text bed that includes actual soldiers in the testing  From a physiological and psychological perspective, the soldier is not going to change noticeable over the next 100 years  Define those boundaries, which are independent of technology, as the start point for integration 2. Integrating HSI into the acquisition process  Need to legislate human systems integration into the acquisition process  DRDC taking the lead to develop a Human/Systems Integration lab where industry can come to get info and try out solutions with real soldiersTable 7  Smart textiles  Regroup as much as possible to think in terms of system of systems  Breathable textiles; drug-dispensing textiles; self-cleaning textiles; conductive fibres; energy-harvesting textiles; harvesting water textiles  For C4I—smart visorsTable 8  Battle space situational awareness  Looked at challenges 7, 16, and 21, with a few others thrown in  Focus was on battle space, and situational awareness between the top and front line  Ability to use comms type system with filtering capability dealing with audio, text, symbolsTable 9 1. Displays  Challenges 4, 5 and 7: improving physical usability, modularity, configurability and system compatibility—all intertwined  Looked at displays, and having only one display per soldier 2. User Interfaces Page 50 of 122
    • Figure 10. Breakaway Session 2 Plenary Report Back—Potential Solutions and Related Enabling Technologies  Need to focus on user interfaces and basing them on background knowledge of how commercial companies use them.  Must be high-impact—dont need all small improvements, must be importantTable 10 1. Improving interface capability  Important to be able to connect all components of system with common power source  Need unlimited connectivity  Hope military will continue to describe needs  Need to focus on connectors and standard for small, light-weight connectors 2. Reducing physical burden  Smart textiles in garments  Integration of systems 3. Improving fit/form and anthropometry  SkeletBone skin that does not lose user capabilitiesTable 11  Sensor integration  Need to enable modularity—to make equipment from different suppliers available  Need an industry/government standards ecosystem that would be responsible for defining standards and minimum requirements  Need to modify the procurement process –go through the process, select a short list of vendors who come close, and then choose a supplier  Related to the procurement process, need to look at a minimum threshold and some kind of point system beyond thatDetailed Results of Breakaway Session 2Following the breakaway session, the stickies and the completed tables were collectedand compiled. The results are provided in Appendix D, Breakaway Session 2 ParticipantInput: System Optimization. Enabling Technologies, Processes and Tools. Page 51 of 122
    • 4. Exploring R&D Space: Focus Areas and Potential CollaborationsThis chapter provides abstracts of the luncheon presentation and ICee contest winnerpresentations that preceded the third breakaway session. It also describes BreakawaySession 3: Focus Areas and Collaborations.Luncheon Speaker4.1 Luncheon Speaker: Overview of the Strategic Aerospace and Defence Industrial Program (SADI), Mr. M. A. Blais (IC-ITO)Provides an overview of the Industrial Technology Office --Overview Industrial Technology Office Over viewStrategic Aerospace andDefence Initiative (SADI), which SADI Objectives SADI Objectives  Encourage strategic R&D that will result in innovation andwas launched in April 2007 as a Encourage strategic R&D that will result in innovation and excellence in new products and services; excellence in new products and services;replacement for Technology  Enhance the competitiveness of Canadian aerospace, defence, Enhance the competitiveness of Canadian aerospace, defence,Partnerships Canada (TPC). space and security companies; and, space and security companies; and,Describes SADI objectives,  Foster collaboration between research institutes, universities, Foster collaboration between research institutes, universities, colleges, and the private sector. colleges, and the private sector.eligibility requirements, proposalassessment criteria, benefitsmonitoring, and repaymentplans. Provides contactinformation. 33 Page 52 of 122
    • ICee Contest Winner Presentation AbstractsFollowing are abstracts of presentations made by workshop participants who won theICee contest associated with the Soldier Systems and Human Integration workshop.These participants, or their organizations, posted relevant information on the ICee, wereentered in a draw as a results, and won the opportunity to present at the workshop.4.2 Infantryman Communication Interface (ICI), Mr. A. Poirier, Rheinmetall DefenceDescribes the need for tailoredC4I solutions with a minimal setof features to address specificsoldier missions. Outlinesdesign constraints. Proposes asolution: the SoldierCommunication Interface (ICI),which acts as an intelligent linkbetween the customer GPS andradio to provide improvedsoldier capabilities.Describes the radio interface,solution GPS interface, powerconsiderations, and systemintegration and human factor considerations. Page 53 of 122
    • 4.3 Software Solutions for NVG ENVG Integration, Mr. G. Martin, Robotics and Computer Vision System IntegrationPoints out that no automationsystem is more accurate thanits instrument. Describesproblems associated with imagefusion and night vision. Explainsthe high-accuracy cameracalibration, software imagecorrection, and sub-pixel edgeanalysis solution offered byRobotics and Computer VisionSystem Integration. Describescalibration performance criteria,and presents calibration results.4.4 Human Performance Centered Engineering, Mr. J. Johnson, SantosHuman Describes the synthetic environment created by SantosHuman using soldier- centered engineering. Explains the human digital modeling used to build a unique virtual human, and the advantages of using the virtual human in a variety of testing situations. Describes VTOS, the Virtual Try-Out Space, its applications and advantages for developing a range of predictive capabilities to help improvehuman performance, provide crew safety, and evaluate designs. Page 54 of 122
    • 4.5 Knee Stress Release Device (K-SRD™), Mr. M. Rittenhouse, B-TEMIAProvides a corporate overviewof B-TEMIA. Describes theissue of overload bearing, andthe cost in terms of injury,reduced operational efficiency,and therapy and rehabilitation.Introduces the knee stressrelease device design toprovide active support to thelower extremities, assists in gaitactivities, and providesadditional power to the knee.Describes performanceevaluation of the proof-of-concept prototype, including video of outdoor trials. Page 55 of 122
    • Breakaway Session 3: R&D Focus Areas and PotentialCollaborationsThe third breakaway sessionaddressed the final stage in theworkshop process: exploring theResearch and Development spaceand identifying R&D focus areas andpotential collaborations.Its goal was to have participantsidentify enabling technologies havingthe potential to address thechallenges presented earlier,describe the necessary R&D effortsand identify the key players in thedomain.Instructions for Breakaway Session 3The workshop participants were given the following objective and instructions: 1. Select 2 or 3 most enabling technologies (S&T) (right column on your summary sheet from session 2) 2. Explain briefly why you chose them 3. Describe the R&D efforts that should be pursued for each enabling technology 4. Identify collaborators that could be involved in these R&D effortsThey were provided with output forms on which to organize their results for thebreakaway session (See Figure 11. Sample Breakaway Session 3 Output Form.) Page 56 of 122
    • Figure 11. Sample Breakaway Session 3 Output Form Page 57 of 122
    • Plenary Report Back from Breakaway Session 3When the participants hadcompleted the Breakaway Session 3task, a plenary session was held togive them an opportunity to sharetheir results verbally with the otherworkshop participants. The slideshown here provided guidelines forthe session, which consisted ofdescribing the R&D areas of focusand the collaborators identified.Results of BreakawaySession 3The following tables describe horizontal, cross-cutting R&D efforts that participants atthe workshop suggested would contribute to human/system integration for the soldier.Each of the following R&D focus area section includes:  A description of the R & D Area  The relevant R&D requirements  Potential collaborators/experts in the domain that were identified Page 58 of 122
    • R&D Focus Area 1. Smart Clothing/UniformDescription System connectivity/intelligent textiles/conformal connectors/"intelligent skin" projectTables 21, 23, 18Relevant R&D Ergonomics, "thermo mechanical, physiological properties" System architecture, technical specifications Integration with fabric, nanotechnologies, textile technologies Methods of transferring signal, data/interface/open architecture/local TCPIP/"nervous systems" Adaptable connector and physical interface Advanced fibre optics for personal networks Self-sensing data/bus type and data format Flexible transport implementation location of connectors/wiresPotential CollaboratorsFabric  Vetra Electronics  Foster Miller  Teraxion  Intelligent Textiles  TR Labs  Lincoln Textiles Wiring and connectors  CTT Group  Tyco  Corcan Textiles  Precision InterconnectorsDesign (soft goods)  Raytheon  Pacific Safety Products  Glenair  Mustang Survival  Physical Optics Corporation  Allen Vanguard Human factors, HSI:Power supply/integrators/electronics  HUMANsystems,  Rockwell Collins International  Shumac  Rheinmetall  NRC  Intel  Universities: Queens, Alberta, Carleton  AMD  University of Alberta  NRC  Canadian Space Agency Page 59 of 122
    • R&D Focus Area 2. Improved Situation AwarenessDescription Information management and distribution for improved situational awarenessTables 22Relevant R&D Bandwidth management using PRRs Prioritizing, categorizing information Dynamic communications systemPotential Collaborators Communications Research Centre Communications Security Establishment General Dynamics Raytheon HUMANsystems Inc. Rheinmetall Northrop Grumman Mission Systems Europe Shumac LTi Software and Engineering Page 60 of 122
    • R&D Focus Area 3. Smart Vest ConceptDescription A modular vest with a better interface.Tables 19Relevant R&D Mechanical joints between rigid and flexible support (cloth) Adding sensors, radios, computers, displays, input devices, etc. into vest Centralized power sources/batteriesPotential CollaboratorsHuman Factors HUMANsystems Inc.Protective materials, fabrics Pacific Safety Products Ltd. Lincoln Fabrics NRC - IAR, materials and analysis Intelligent Textiles Corcan textiles Allen VanguardDevices/integrators/battery companies Raytheon Page 61 of 122
    • R&D Focus Area 4. Multifunctional materialsDescription Materials that can perform a range of functions (e.g., power conduction, communications, temperature controlTables 6Relevant R&D"Disciplines to mash-up"  Smart fabrics  Low temperature semiconductor deposition  Nanotechnology  Ballistic materials sciencePotential Collaborators Intelligent Textiles Ltd IPE Stuttgart MIT Carleton University NRC - IAR & IMI BAE Systems Allen Vanguard Armorworks Inc. Pacific Safety Products Page 62 of 122
    • R&D Focus Area 5. A common, cross-platform, human/machine interfaceDescription A common, cross-platform, human/machine interfaceTables 6, 3Relevant R&D Cognitive human factors - HMI design Display technology Displays for all tasks and environments Gaming engineers Defence system integratorsPotential Collaborators Universities: Waterloo, Toronto, Carleton Therefore Design Kent Displays Liteye Systems Philips EA Games Nintendo Advanced Human Factors Inc. HUMANsystems Inc. Rheinmetall Raytheon Corcan Textiles Vetronics (General Dynamics) WAMCO ? ASU Apple Dell Sony Panasonic Sharp Hunting gear designers Page 63 of 122
    • R&D Focus Area 6. Anthropometric data collectionDescription Anthropometric data collection capability—CAD toolTables 3Relevant R&D Blue screen technology Automation of 3D CAD models (data capture and store) Defining "proper sample" Development of more detailed and capable models - feet vs. hands vs. head Biometrics - full range - behavioural task analysisPotential Collaborators Human Santos Universities: Queens, Toronto Page 64 of 122
    • R&D Focus Area 7. Virtual simulatorsDescription Virtual simulatorsTablesRelevant R&D Ability to link up multiple people with the same scenarioPotential Collaborators Canadian Electronic Consortium Film and special effects industry Communications Research Centre Gaming industry Digital media companies Carleton University HotLab Tyco Electronics LTi Software and Engineering Page 65 of 122
    • R&D Focus Area 8. ExoskeletonDescription ExoskeletonTablesRelevant R&D Resolve power portability - power to exceed 72 hoursPotential Collaborators NRC Energy Lab Ballard Power Rockwell Collins Ultralife Lockheed Martin B-Temia Universities: Queens, Simon Fraser Page 66 of 122
    • R&D Focus Area 9. A business ecosystemDescription A business ecosystem to create standards and enable integration and interoperability. Integrate Human/Systems Integration into system engineering processes.Tables 16, 20Relevant R&D Define and integration process Create/identify key standards in areas by program/by nation Develop/establish standing evaluation groups ID and enable selection tools Develop neutral standards body (IEEE-like)Potential Collaborators Universities: Queens, Waterloo, Carleton , universities known for systems engineering - HSI/HFE/applied psychology Create a "Soldier Systems Integration Centre Rowanwood International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) NRC NSERC Industry members with strong HSI capabilities, such as automotive and electronic gaming Page 67 of 122
    • 5. Soldier Systems TRM Next StepsThis chapter provides an abstract of the closing presentation by LCol. Bodner, describeshow the roadmap will be developed further with a Capstone Report and Action Plan, andoutlines ongoing roadmap activities on the ICee database and wikiSSTRM Next Steps and Workshop Closure, LCol. M.A. Bodner(DRDC)Reviews the objectives andoutcomes of the currentdevelopment phase of theSoldier Systems TRM.Describes overall TRM phases.Discusses the objectives of theupcoming implementationphase, its approach andgovernance. Introduces theSoldier Systems TechnologyHub, which will be at the coreof the implementation phase,and the hub participants.Outlines the ways in which the upcoming Capstone Report and Action Plan will be usedto guide the next phase. The functions of the proposed Soldier systems Center aredescribed.Outlines potential funding programs that might assist future R&D projects. Provides anexample of how the SSTRM findings can be applied to solving soldier requirements.Show coherence of TRM process to DRDCs four interrelated roles. Describes short andlong-term measures of success for the SSTRM. Outlines remaining Development Phaseactivities. Reiterates soldier systems challenges, and encourages workshop participantsto stay engaged in the TRM process. Page 68 of 122
    • Developing the RoadmapThe content of the workshop, the briefings and input from the Human and SystemsIntegration Technical Steering Committee and the SSTRM Project Management Office,will be used to write a Soldier Systems TRM Capstone Report and Action Plan.Sharing Knowledge with the ICee Database and WikiKnowledge will continue to be shared using the Soldier Systems TRM Innovation,Collaboration and Exchange Environment (ICee), which provides an online databaseand Wiki that can be used to collaborate with others who are interested in soldiersystems. This password-protected tool includes sections for communicating restricted,sensitive information meant for a selected audience.The ICee is open to all who wish to participate in the Soldier Systems TechnologyRoadmap. Participants can contribute to both the database and the Wiki. For moreinformation about the ICee tool visithttp://www.soldiersystems-systemesdusoldat.collaboration.gc.ca Page 69 of 122
    • A. Workshop Agenda Soldier Human and Systems Integration WorkshopTuesday, September 217h30 – 8h00 Registration - Continental breakfast8h00 – 8h10 Welcome and Opening Remarks, Mr. T. Elliot, DG IC, Dr. D. Reding, DG DRDC Toronto and Mr. L. Garland (TFC CO-CHAIR)8h10 – 8h20 Workshop Program and TRM Background, Mr. G. Nimmo (IC)8h20 – 8h30 Workshop Process, Mr. P. Carr (StrategicReviewGroup.ca)8h30 – 8h40 Soldier Systems TRM Update, LCol. M.A. Bodner (DRDC)8h40 – 8h50 Future Soldier System Capability Areas, H&SI Requirements and Challenges—Part 1 Maj. J. Herbert (DLR5-6)8h50 – 09h50 Outdoor Demo of Soldier Equipment/Usage09h50 – 10h00 Future Soldier System Capability Areas, H&SI Requirements and Challenges—Part 2 Maj. Bruce Gilchrist (DBRT 5-5)10h00 – 10h30 Coffee Break (ICee Registration & Networking)10h30 – 11h00 Demo Debrief (Plenary), Mr. P. Carr11h00 – 11h20 Introduction to Themes and Physical Ergonomics and Integration Challenges, Mrs. L. Bossi (DRDC Toronto)11h20 – 11h40 Soldier Equipment/Vehicle/Communications Integration Requirements, Mr. M. A. Rochon (DSSPM-10-4-4)11h40 – 12h00 USMC Approach to Soldier Burden, Mr. D. Tack (HSI Inc. Rep. USMCMERS Project)12h00 – 13h30 Lunch (no host) – ICee Individual Training and Registration13h00 – 13h30 Guest Speaker: Dr. Elizabeth S. Redden (ARL), Advanced Interfaces for Dismounted Warfighters17h00 – 18h00 ICee Registration/Individual Training Sessions17h00 – 18h00 Cash Bar Reception - Networking13h30 – 13h50 Challenges of Soldier Protection Integration, Mr. S. Boyne (DRDC Toronto)13h50 – 14h10 Requirements for Enhancing Soldier Perception, Situation Awareness and Cognition, Mr. D. Tack (HSI Inc.)14h10 – 14h30 Soldier System Integration Challenges and Issues: An Industry Perspective, Mr.W. Downing, (Industry Rep TSC speech) Page 70 of 122
    • 14h30 – 14h40 Breakaway Session (1) Instructions, Mr. P. Carr14h40 – 15h00 Coffee Break15h00 – 16h00 Breakaway (1): Key Challenges for Each Theme (roundtable)16h00 – 16h40 Report Back, Mr. P. Carr16h40 – 16h45 Sticky Homework Instructions, Mr. P. Carr16h45 – 17h00 ICee-Wiki Update, Mrs. M. Huard (IC-DND)Wednesday, September 227h30 – 8h00 Registration - Continental breakfast8h00 – 8h05 Program of Day 2,Mr. G. Nimmo (IC)8h05 – 8h25 Challenges and Tools for Effective Soldier System Integration, Mrs. L. Bossi (DRDC Toronto)8h25 – 8h45 The Role of Biomechanics in Effective Soldier System Integration, Dr. J. Stevenson (Queens University)8h45 – 9h05 Virtual Simulations for Soldiers : Concepts and Applications, Dr. F. Bernier (DRDC Valcartier)9h05 – 9h25 Decision Aids for Soldiers, Dr. D. Bryant and Dr. J. Hollands (DRDC Toronto)9h25 – 9h45 Soldier - Vehicle Integration: A TTCP Approach, Dr. M. Ducharme (DRDC Valcartier)9h45 – 10h15 Coffee Break10h15 – 10h25 Breakaway Session (2) Instructions, Mr. P. Carr10h25 – 11h25 Breakaway (2): System Optimization: Solutions, Enabling Technologies, Processes and Tools11h25 – 12h15 Report Back, M. P. Carr12h15 – 13h30 Lunch (no host) Guest speaker: Mr. M.A. Blais (IC-ITO), Overview of the Strategic Aerospace and Defence Industrial Program (SADI)13h30 – 14h30 ICee Contest Session, G. Nimmo (4 Industry/Academia Briefings)14h30 – 14h40 Breakaway Session (3) Instructions, Mr. P. Carr14h40 – 15h50 Breakaway (3): R&D Focus Areas & Potential Collaborations15h00 – 15h30 Coffee Available15h50 – 16h20 Report Back, Mr. P. Carr16h20 – 16h30 SSTRM Next Steps and Workshop Closure, LCol. M.A. Bodner (DRDC) Page 71 of 122
    • B. List of Participants Last Name First Name Title Company1 Beaudoin R. (Bob) Vanguard Magazine2 Boone Paul Combat Networks3 Brusin Brankica Senior Investment IC Analyst, ITO4 Campbell Ross Industry Canada5 Cao Linli BM Technology Inc6 Cochran Bruce Textile Technology consultant7 Compton David Colt Canada8 Cote Denis NRC9 Culligan Iain Esterline | CMC Electronics10 Darling Marie Rockwell Collins11 Dec Albert BAE Systems12 Della Vedova Ron Fellfab Inc.13 Desbiens André Université Laval14 Detombe John ADGA Group15 Dolez Patricia Chercheure Ecole de Technologie Supérieure16 Dontigny Sherrie Pacific Safety Products Inc.17 Duheme Yvon Monterey Textiles 1996 Inc18 Dyck Walter DND19 Eastaugh Graham NRC20 El Tassi Albert Director of Peerless Peerless Garments LP Garments LP21 Espenant Mark DRDC22 Farsi Fred Pikala Systems23 Fiset Robert Levitt Safety Ltd24 Frim John DND25 Gagnon Michel Acolam inc Page 72 of 122
    • Last Name First Name Title Company26 Galasso Robert S. Prospice Consulting27 Gaumond Claude Groupe medical gaumond28 Goldenberg Andrew Engineering Services Inc. (ESI)29 Goss Ben BAE Systems30 Gregg Stewart Phirelight E Business Solutions31 Hart Ken Industry Canada32 Hatashita Kris DND33 Hayes Kevin NRC34 Haynes Justin W.L. Gore and Associates35 Hofford Suzanne Martintek USA36 Hosein Charlene Director, Phirelight E-Business Solutions Inc. Professional Services Group37 Hulme Andrew Principal Consultant Hulme Consulting38 Intwala Zarina DND39 Jain Rajesh DND40 Kan Adir Elbit Systems41 Key Brent Combat Networks42 King Philippa Ontario Centres of Excellence43 Kirkpatrick Doug Phirelight E Business Solutions44 Ko Frank University of British Colombia45 Kondratova Irena NRC46 Labbe Paul DRDC47 Lacasse Pierre B-TEMIA Inc.48 Lefebvre Vivier DRDC49 Lopez Damian Thales Systems Canada50 Lundahl Sonny AMITA Corporation51 Mack Charles Department of National Defence52 Maclean Iain Difco Performance Fabrics Inc Page 73 of 122
    • Last Name First Name Title Company53 Manuel Christopher Sierra Nevada Corporation54 Masse Marc DRS Technologies55 Matthews Rob L-3 Electronic Systems56 McKoy Rocky Cantec Systems57 McNiven Nancy DFAIT58 Meloche John DRDC59 Minduik Andrew NORLEANS Technologies Inc60 Minduik Fred NORLEANS Technologies Inc61 Mitchell Lyndon NRC62 Mlynarek Jacek Groupe CTT63 Mohan Dave Directorate Technical Airworthiness and Engineering Support64 Nammour Georges DND65 Nussbaum Doron Carleton University66 ONeill Laurence General Dynamics Canada67 Parolin T.E.(Ernie) DND68 Pawliw Carmen KERMEL69 Playfoot Bruce Agile Manufacturing70 Quinlan Kevin Apption Corporation71 Rancourt Etienne Canada Economic Development for the Quebec Regions72 Regush Murray DND73 Reilly Tara DGPFSS74 Sayeur Mathieu DND75 Shewchenko Nicholas Biokinetics and Associates Ltd76 Smith Fern DND77 Srinivas Vijay SRCTec, Inc78 Stroup Adam US Army RDECOM International Technology Center Page 74 of 122
    • Last Name First Name Title Company79 Tchagang Alain NRC80 Tchaplia Ilya ITS Electronics81 Trask Brett MDA82 Tremblay Roger DND83 Valeri Hon. Tony Special Advisor, McMaster University Research Partnerships & Internationalization84 Van Den Arnold NGRAIN - Vancouver Hoeven85 Van Ham Claude L-3 Electronic Systems86 Vandeweerd Helena Tulmar Safety Systems INC87 Webb James NRC88 Webster Bill C4N Divn - Sierra Nevada Corporation89 Wheat-Bain Becky General Dynamics Canada90 Winship John GENTEX91 Zavarella Jordan First UPS92 Zhang Chris University of Saskatchewan Page 75 of 122
    • C. Breakaway Session 1 Participant Input: Key Challenges by Theme This appendix contains the detailed participant input from Breakaway Session 1, described in Chapter 1 Exploring Operational Space: Challenges, Deficiencies, and Priorities, including: 1. Flipchart content from the workshop participants 2. Stickies content from the workshop participants The input themes and challenges are:Theme 1—Physical Integration1. Improving system characterization (physical) 13. Improving socio/psychological readiness2. Improving tools & processes (physical) 14. Enhancing/augmenting soldier perception3. Reducing physical soldier burden 15. Reducing cognitive burden (information load) (weight overload)4. Improving physical usability 16. Improving situation awareness/understanding5. Improving modularity/configurability 17. Improving decision making6. Improving fit, form, anthropometry 18. Enhancing displays/GUI7. Improving interfaces compatibility 19. Improving human computer interaction8. Improving body-worn equipment/sensors integration Theme 3—External Integration9. Improving display/control hardware design 20. Improving integration with weaponsTheme 2—Psychological/Cognitive Integration 21. Improving integration with C4I systems10. Improving system characterization (psychological) 22. Improving integration with combat vehicles 23. Improving integration with autonomous11. Improving tools & processes (psychological) vehicle/sensors12. Reducing the effects of stressors 24. Enabling future capability growth Page 76 of 122
    • 1. Flipchart Content from Workshop ParticipantsWhat follows is a compilation of the contents of the workshop participants flipcharts fromBreakaway Session 1, organized by table. Due to the consolidation of many tables intofewer tables before Breakaway Session 1, the table numbers are not sequential from 1-20. Flipchart Content from Workshop Participants (Breakaway Session 1) Table 3, Theme 1—Physical Integration Issue Problems SolutionSoldier Burden and Fit  Varying Soldier Sizes  Mission ―fit‖ of personnel  Capacity to carry  Vehicles can accommodate  Equipment does not ―scale‖ person for mission(s)  Each soldier trade/duty  Commercial-off-the-shelf maintains different solutions requirements  Better requirement(s) definition  Proper metrics (i.e. when is (for ex: technology insertion, equipment ‗on‘) gating delivery, interactive capability enhancement)  Procurement cycle is not ―flexible‖ (i.e. now vs. tomorrow  R&D partnership incentives for is obsolete) industry/PWGSC/end-users  In-theatre supply and support  Evolutionary procurement process (i.e. user trials to be conducted in system development) to save money  Exploit tools which we already have (for ex: anthro of ‗naked‘ body vs. person with different types of army kit on  Access to timely and recent intelligence/feedback from users Page 77 of 122
    • Flipchart Content from Workshop Participants (Breakaway Session 1) Table 6, Theme 2—Psychological/Cognitive Integration Issue Problems SolutionWeight Burden (weight, inertia,  Orders of magnitude are too  50% weight reduction (2020)balance) high  32% weight reduction (2025)  Reduced mobility  Improved balance by 50%  Reduces operational (2020) effectiveness  Improved inertia by 50%  Psychological tolerance to (2020) carry (homeostasis)Thermal Burden (retained heat,  Physiologically limiting for  Improve thermal managementventilation, hydration/ core performance and safety by passive means (2025)temperature/skin temperature)  Psychological effects (i.e.  Improved thermal management decrease in perception, by active means (2020) cognition, focussing)  Increased need to carry water weightEncumbrance Burden (Rom  Decreased mobility and range  Increased Range of Motion bymeasures, accessibility time, task of motion 50% (2020)completion time, total soldier  Decreased accessibility to  Decreased bulk / volume bysystem bulk/volume) pockets, areas of the body, 50% (2020) pouches  Increased Range of Motion by  Increased energy used for 75% (2025) motion(s)  Decreased bulk / volume by  Inelastic to human motion 75% (2025)  Increased dependence on others  Increased soldier bulk Page 78 of 122
    • Flipchart Content from Workshop Participants (Breakaway Session 1) Table 7, Theme 3—External Integration Issue Problems SolutionHuman Systems Integration in  Lack of expertise  ADM MAT Human SystemDND acquisition and system  No legislated mandate Integration section (2020)engineering  Consortia of Human System  DRDC expertise by insufficient capacity Integration contracts available) (2020)  Human Systems Integration targets in Canada  Canadian military standard 1472 (2020)  DRDC developed tools (2020)  Government legislation to implement change in DND acquisition practices (2025)Adaptability of system  Acquisition process is slow  Open architecture (hardwarearchitecture  Requirements change / evolve and software) (2020)  Technology evolves / changes  Spiral development (2020) quickly  Give financial incentives to  Customer thinks they always industry (2020) know what they want  Exploit CAPDEM – evolving  Requirement for legacy requirements capturing system compatibility (2020)  Systems of systems architectureVehicle integration  We do not know the  Increased fit anthropometry / clothes of  Advancement in electronic and current soldier population communications systems  Vehicle and soldier equipment  Power charging capabilities procured separately  Maintaining SA with inside  Vehicle – Commercial-off-the- shelf (limited design influence)  Politically – one cannot select soldiers based on size  Extra blast protection Page 79 of 122
    • Flipchart Content from Workshop Participants (Breakaway Session 1) Table 8, Theme 1—Physical Integration Issue Problems SolutionClothing  Weight; not garments  Look outside the box for new themselves but add-ons are and meaningful ways to bring the problem about improvements  Fire retardant  Self-cleaning and long lasting  Longevity / replacement levels fabrics / cleaning of material  Cooling / Heating wearable fabrics for extreme weatherPersonal Protective Equipment ‗Rat‘ and not ‗Panda‘ (i.e. generic  Garment recharge batteries, and multi-use not the hope for a health monitors, camouflage ‗perfect‘ tool for a single job)  Technology to negate heat Compressibility signatures  Passive / Active identity in garments (i.e. determining friend vs. foe)  Self assembling personal protective equipment  Built-in protection garments (i.e. Velcro adjustments) that allow replacement as well.  Fabric intended for multi-task use and provides more than basic cover (2020)(2025)N/A N/A N/A Page 80 of 122
    • Flipchart Content from Workshop Participants (Breakaway Session 1) Table 10, Theme 3—External Integration Issue Problems SolutionSystem architecture and  Users need to understand  Make equipment performanceintegration : Integration with design features and design limitations more obvious – lessprocesses – Targets and trade off decisions trainingProcurement  Percieved equipment  Earlier and better integration of performance training and acquisition  Understand equipment processes limitation during procurement  Qualitative data for to feed training commanders to make better  Return of lesions learned into trade-off decisions. training and procurement processes including long term impactsSystems architecture  The degree of modifications/  Common power and database configuration/ adaptability will interface standards remain limited / sub-optimal until such time as there is a basic infrastructure/backbone on the soldierN/A N/A N/A Page 81 of 122
    • Flipchart Content from Workshop Participants (Breakaway Session 1) Table 16, Theme 1—Physical Integration Issue Problems SolutionTools and processes  Too many choices  Entrench Human Factors  Trade-offs exist and a need to design standards in acquisition prioritize (risks, cost, safety, process (i.e. embed Human usability, complexity) Factors experts to work with industry in the creation of  Client needs to understand SOR) decision processes/rationale  Develop Human Factors tools, models surveys, decision aids, best practices, lessons learned.Personal weapons  Integration of sensors (e.g.  Understand human laser / flash) with reduced performance and design weight guidelines  Added weight equates to a  Minimize change in mass change in range of motion through integration  Added weight raises fatigue  Adjustable and decreases accuracy  Handedness  Eye relief  Laser collimation  Accidental ejection of magazine  Personal Protective Equipment and its effect on reach  Cold weather and need for added padding/warmth needed on/for hands  Potential issues of changing one area while creating a new problem in anotherN/A N/A N/A Page 82 of 122
    • Flipchart Content from Workshop Participants (Breakaway Session 1) Table 18, Theme 2—Psychological/Cognitive Integration Issue Problems SolutionDevice and displays Need for greater human  Providing the right information consideration in Human Factors at the right time  More studies needed to define the information at the right time  Soldier should receive ‗formatted/filtered‘ data  Information must be available to the soldier when he/she requires it (2015)N/A N/A N/AN/A N/A N/A Table 20, Theme 1—Physical Integration Issue Problems SolutionTools and processes used in  Lack of standards /  Follow TRM processacquisitions specifications  Retool the procurement  Lack of collaboration process with DND  Poor specifications  Overall CADSI engagement  Collaboration between DND / with DND / PWGSC PSGSC / IndustryN/A N/A N/AN/A N/A N/A Page 83 of 122
    • 2. Stickies Content from Workshop ParticipantsTheme 1—Physical Integration 1. Improving system characterization (physical) Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersRequirements maturation Actual soldier systems will have to be tried for 5-10 years in all 2015 5  End customer the field before we see convergence of requirements  user  industryStructural applications of Capability of current composite materials has almost reached  advanced composite 2020 4  NRCadvanced composite materials its limit. Nanotechnology provides a promising approach for materials with CNT  DRDC materials with improved properties. Explore the application of  enhancements of 5  Universities this technology in two-scales: constituents level and lamina composite with CNT level of composites to reduce stress concentrationsDevelop lightweight flexible Fabrics and components would have to be FR, with stand  develop fabric/FR 2015  scientistsfabrics to be used in PPE wear and tear from soldier, adaptable helmet and vest. fabric  fabric designerscomponents face/arm Should disperse blow from stop metal must be comfortable,  develop print process  plastic suppliers, mouldedprotection as well, have the ―cool‖ factor of FR fabric products  develop and design new fastening system that can take the dustEquipment standards that are Determine and clearly present why such standards are R&D helmet 2015  industryunrealistic (i.e. helmet impact necessary and the research behind them. Recognize that development  governmentrequirements of 14 feet/sec) technology might take a while to catch up , be open to interim solutions  military Page 84 of 122
    • 2. Improving tools and processes (physical) Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersTools and processes , Short term, TRM. Long term, overhaul procurement ICee 0-5 9  governmentacquisition and collaboration process, increase collaboration 10-15  industrybetween stakeholdersPhysical ergonomics Exploit boss data sets and collect more to update/expand  compile Boss data set 2015+ 9  DSSPM 97 anthro survey. Generate standard set of CAD models of  acquire/develop  DRDC range of sizes of soldiers and of soldier borne equipment to support integration/dev. studies appropriate tools to use 6  NRC data to separate CAD of  Academia soldier and equipment 6   generate CAD data set and distributeImprove tool and process Acquire biodynamics/biomechanics tool to support product  acquire tool 2011 8  DRDC development  develop necessary 6  industry models and apply toolReduce size and mass of Incorporate fuel cells and energy harvesting on conjunction  battery 2020 2 soldier system power with lithium secondary batteries and smart power  fuel cell management eliminate double a batteries  power electronicsSoldier data and power Develop and intergraded power and data management  power management 2020 7  DRDCsystem is pushed to devices system which centralizes power source on soldier and software  Industry which distributes power to devices (example: weapon  power distribution via sights) via connectors  academia soldier clothing 3   centralized weapon sources to 4 change/power external systems Page 85 of 122
    • 3. Reducing physical soldier burden (weight overload) Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersReducing Encumbrance Provide phase-change materials that are flexible at rest  shear thickening fluid 2020 7 and then stiffen when impacted  materials integration 8Reduce physical burden Treat the soldier and the section as a system  doctrine and SOP 2010  DND (similar paradigm to the marine corps where the squad is  exoskeleton/endoskeleton 2015 7  DRDC treated as a system)  Mule(big dog)  BDI 6-7Balancing the needs for Finding a middle where the power requirements, (battery,  energy efficiency  industrypower with weight constraints weight, charging) are not over-weighting the soldier and  advanced power  academia that technology is used vice left in place generation/storageReduce the weight Integrate multiple functions into single item – e.g. ballistic  integrated efforts 2015- 9 plate batteries 2020Soldier burden/fit: Evolutionary procurement process  info systems 2015-  PWGSCprocurement process does 2020  Industrynot allow for easy intro of new  DNDup to date technologyLoad carriage Human augmentation system called exoskeleton with  Hulc Exo 2015 7  Lockheed Martin attachments to lift and move loads. Powered by mini fuel cells that will have integrated body temperature controls and medical information, military information data linked.Ballistic Protection Weight  Nano 2015 6  industry  Textile 5  scientists  fibre 6  yarn industry Page 86 of 122
    • 3. Reducing physical soldier burden (weight overload) (continued) Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersBallistic Protection Next generation nano based body armour that is flexible  nano technology 2020 3 Lockheed Martin and light. Classified performanceEncumbrance Burden Reduce weight, snags and improve soldier flexibility, range  smart vest 2015 7  Mystery Ranch of motion, adaptability with intelligent vest  textile black plane 6  intelligent textiles  subsystem inductive 5 coupled charging and dataWeight burden Reduce battery weight load with fuel cell recharger and  20 watt fuel cell 2015 2  Lilliputian hybrid power mgm and system to  integrated power 5  Raytheon management system  intelligent textiles  integrated intelligent vest 6Load reduction/limiting Education on risk assessment to improve kit selection for  providing risk data linked 2015 ops with metabolic and mobility costs included in risk to choices assessment  decision hierarchy and rules of exclusion  providing decision making assistance in usable form to section commanderReduction of weight Reduce weights of fibre and coatings, hardware and  high tenacity fires (Next 2020 6  DuPont components by 25% generation)  3m  liquid proof 6  Stedfast nanotechnology  smart polymer coatings 5 Page 87 of 122
    • 3. Reducing physical soldier burden (weight overload) (continued) Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersWeight burden Psychological weight mentality will always carry more no  leadership and training 2015 matter how much redesign to reduce actually weight,  education about weight human will carry and pack as much are they are willing to management , safety and increasing efficiency without adding more weight  reduce outside pressure to carry more Break everything into main groups to be integrated. Should  what can go on the 2015  DND be three main parts, weapons, PPE and uniform weapon?  industry  what can go on the plate, chest rig/helmet  what can go on the clothingPhysical integration soldier Decrease protection level conduct trade off study.  Smart textiles (integration 2015 8  Asha and Davidburden reduction Integration of design/components of design/components)  Raytheon  doctrine and SOP (less  DND protection)  Infantry school  distributed power, inductive power 9Soldier Burden Combine components. Consider developing products too  product design and 2015  scientists specific jobs, rather than one for all. development  DND  logistics (how to get the right product to the soldier) Page 88 of 122
    • 3. Reducing physical soldier burden (weight overload) (continued) Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersReduce physical burden Improve understanding of trade off of mass, bulk, etc. On  biomechanics tools, 2015 5-6  Queens Univ. soldier performance as a function of role. instrumentation  DRDC  performance  HSI comprehensive study  define impact on soldier system requirements 4. Improving physical usability Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersKnowing what dimensional Undertake a more comprehensive study of clothing delta  blast iteration seats 2011  industryallowances to use for clothing factors for existing soldier clothing/equipment based on the  military vehicles  DRDC Torontowhen applying CK work that was done in 2009 by the Land Forces Trials and  DNDanthropometrics data to Evaluation Unitequipment, platform and  NRCsystems designReduction of clothing and Eliminate redundant layers and webbings  clothing systems 2015 7  Mustang survivalequipment bulk integration  DRDC Toronto  smart fabrics 5  Pacific Safety  HSI  W.L. Gore  Univ. Of Alberta  Dupont Page 89 of 122
    • 4. Improving physical usability (continued) Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersC4I situation, too fast growing New procurement process with more holistic approach  Field specific  industry for too slow decision encouraging collaboration between all stakeholders  DND makingSYS does not support human Additional support and technology support to conduct  soldier availability and  DND modelling of soldier modelling and data , and gathering relevant and up available kit  industry with kit on to date information  time and information systems  anthro databasesMaking all components Massive integration on a large scale  size of devices 2015  DND (weapon, lights, lazar,  mindset of soldier  industry dazzler etc.) a single self contained unit  a lot of powerPhysical compatibility of Determine best methods of attaching equipment to vests,  equipment 2020  DND interfaces helmets, etc. Let industry know how this should be developers  industry done so that more commonality exists between equipment from different suppliersLearning solutions Educate soldiers on the engineering science, development  marketing strategists , and effort that went into kit. Provide reasons for the learning design solutions consultantsHead and face protection: Modular/flexible  plastic 2018 5  thermoforming/moulding visibility  fasteners/anchors 4 industry  adhesives 5 Page 90 of 122
    • 4. Improving physical usability (continued) Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersThermal burden Active cooling to keep body temperature down and support  active cooling system 4 longer hydrationImproved usability and utility of Produce an interactive data base using the network data, as  clothing design and 2012  industry the existing per that produced for the data for the UK manufacture  DRDC Toronto CF/Anthropometric Anthropometrics survey of 2007  equipment design survey data  NRC  platform design  DNDNon intrusive way to monitor Intelligent clothing. Integrate a computer into the clothing, no  bio-physical sensors: 2010 9 the soldier. Physical, additional weight. Collect information on the soldier EEG, EMG, cognitive and EOG emotional state  intelligent, smart 8 clothingHelmet needs more ―stuff‖ on it Soldiers need a helmet that feels as light as if they were not  helmet weight wearing one. transferred to another body part  motion of soldier is not met with resistance. Helmet grips soldiers heads with perfect amount of pressure Page 91 of 122
    • 5. Improving modularity/configurability Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersPower/Data connector Magnetically guided snap connector,  connector, smart textiles, power 2015 2 integrated with smart textiles management 6. Improving fit, form anthropometry Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersImproving integration on the Adjustable materials (helmets, gloves etc.)  shape memory materials 2020 5  IMIsoldier  Reaction with skin temperature, to stick  lamination and coating of specific  CTT Group less or more to the skin wearer materials 7  Stedfast  textile modeling (building models)  Queens Univ.  Royal Military College 5Integration of hardware Create consortium of industry, end user,  radio, scopes, guns etc. 2015  industrycomponents legislation to build together the required  hardware, system integrators  General Dynamics solution  IP network design  DRDC  CISCO and SME‘s Page 92 of 122
    • 6. Improving fit, form anthropometry (continued) Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersPhysical Ergonomics Detailed real-time anthro data used in  integration of boss into acquisitions 2020 8  DRDC equipment development  models of relation between anthro and  academia performance  industry 4Human factors of wearing Load carriage to be worn specialized for  HF studies 4  industryarctic or cold weather clothing climate consideration  promotion 4  DRDC Torontounder combat loadSoldier dexterity is limited by Soldier gear that allows soldiers to be  textiles that adapt to soldiers needs 2015  textile industrygear requirements flexible, effective and safe  integrated communications  DND  balance bit modularity and standardization Page 93 of 122
    • 6. Improving fit, form anthropometry (continued) Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersPhysical ergonomics and Use tools that are currently available  Boss XX1 scanner 2015  DSSPMphysical integration on the  compile anthropometric data on all  DRDCsoldier (fit, form, face personal to help with  Univ. of Torontoanthropometry, human requirements, fit, form, human factors,machine interface) layer of kit  Develop a system to scan soldiers in full equipment to assist with work in their trade and equipment fit/vehicle interfaceImproving body worn sensors Wireless connectivity of all soldier worn  Wimax 2015 8integration sensors (visual, IR, acoustic, geolocation)  Bluetooth 9PPE – textiles currently only Develop a multi-tasking textile that  ballistics 2020meet 2 or 3 requirements incorporates: FR, moisture management,  textiles anti-microbial, CB protection, ballistic  electronics protection, camouflage, etc. Page 94 of 122
    • 7. Improving interfaces compatibility Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key Playersinterfaces compatibility Data-centric – use metadata to express interfaces in terms of 2015 ―objects‖ to be exchanged and allow ―clients‖ to have ―renditions‖ of their dataTo integrate the CBRN  siltration (CBRN) 2020 3  Revisionprotection on the existing/new  composite materials  Airboss defencehelmet  ergonomicsIntegration of all Need for an industry integrator for the soldier platform  project/program 2015 9components/functionalities on managementthe soldier platformUp to date anthropometric data Have the tools to build that data and make it available to  computers 2015 9  DRDC procurement people and industry  models + 7  academiaInternal physical integration Comprehensive anthropometry data representative of  3D scanning 2011  DNDform, fit, anthropometry, Canada‘s military tough to come by. (military could make 3Dhuman interface scans available to developers of all military equipment, need more scan data)Soldiers on three different Radio interoperability options (example: new radio)  Radio systems 2015  MotorolaComm. Nets  radio patching  Harris  ROIP solutions  Raytheon  JPS  Inter-op CanadaSoldier system components Establish open standard interfaces (HW, SW and MEC)  technology is 2020 7  industryinteroperability available (no commercial incentive)Weigh load carriage Integrated system  textiles 2015 5  yarn/fibre Industry  nano 6  industry  knitting 5 Page 95 of 122
    • 8. Improving body-worn equipment/sensors integration Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersPhysical integration on the Soft connections and textile non invasive sensor  electronic printing 2020 5  Annabel Canadasoldier PPE integration  soft conductive 5  Stedfast materials  CTT group  Lincoln fabric  IMIUbiquitous audio display Audio display that provides hearing protection good speech  in-ear materials 2015 6  DRDC intelligibility, sound localisation and discrimination, but is also  active and passive + 6  academia comfortable and easy to fit. Must also reduce cognitive load technologies for when man and radio nets are involved sound reproduction  trainingPower soldier (integration) Soldier wearable power via mew mini fuel cell operating off  mini fuel cell (the size 2015 5  Lockheed Martin JP-8/diesel fuel offering 300 watts of a book)Protection and Mobility and Exoskeleton personal protective ergonomic equipment  Exosketeton 2015 6  Lockheed MartinLoad (EPPE) integration  Mawashi technology  Bionic Power  mechanical levers 6 integrationPhysical integration on the One uniform capable of adapting his environment level of  phase changing 2025 5  CTT Groupsoldier PPE Thermo regulation insulation materials  Bermatix  non invasive and non  IMI toxic microencapsulation Page 96 of 122
    • 8. Improving body-worn equipment/sensors integration (continued) Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersProvide heat/cold resistant Clothing that adapts to the temperature. The fibre will be  smart clothing 2020 9clothing. able to become cool or hot, depending on the environmentPsychology of Change Trust! Rely on computer/robots in a soldier environment the  AKE individualized 2015 way we trust and rely on them computers today in work/play drones to accompany individuals into battle  rifle aim also aims drone. Riffle accepts fingerprint signature  only trustworthy back up will eventually lead to lighter loads  ballistics from further back could give coordinatesData transport Short range secure RF-optic link with encryption (apply via  near field RF link 2015- 7-9 HW, or SW due to time dependent nature  logistics optic link 2020 4-6 optionSensor type and placement Compact contact-worn sensor set  sensor set 2015 7-9  Zephyr  Hidalgo Page 97 of 122
    • 9. Improving display/control hardware design (no stickies)Theme 2—Psychological/Cognitive Integration 10. Improving system characterization (psychological (no stickies) 11. Improving tools and processes (psychological) Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersUser perceived vs. real Training, simulator exercise simulator 3D 2010 ―the cave‖ –Valcartierperformance -interactive system Page 98 of 122
    • 12. Reducing the effects of stressors Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersDecrease stressors caused by Reduce information displayed during peak stress by focusingexcess extraneous information only on data such as blue, red, white force positionsduring times of peak stresssuch as a fire fightCognitive ergonomics Social networking – An operationally centred social  CF platform 2015 6  DRDC networking system has the potential to help operators better  security framework 5  industry to share expertise  CF work culture  CF 2Thermal burden Active/passive cooling and/or heating systems  passive cooling 2010 8  Mawashi system 8  Pacific Safety Clothing  active microclimate  Med-eng systems cooling systemReducing the thermal burden Active cooling system capable of removing 100w for 12 hours  air fans/blowers 2025 8  Micronelin the heat  light weight power 5  NRC supply/battery  DND  compression (higher)  Mueller resistant 3D spacers 8  HeathcoatDetect soldier stress level In order to provide tailored information to the soldier we need  medical sensors, 2025 3  DRDC to determine the stress level of the soldier pulse, temperature,  medical/pharmaceutical firms respiration rate Page 99 of 122
    • 13. Improving socio/psychological readiness Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersReducing the effects of Use Augmented Cognition to adjust/tailor displayed Augmented Cognition 2020 2-3  Univ. Central Floridastressors information to the must task relevant  Darpa 14. Enhancing/augmenting soldier perception Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersUnderstanding what the soldier Research and development programs done with the army  clothingreally requires and civilian industry side by side  rifle scope  PPEInformation management Balance the needs of the soldier (i.e. what info is needed vs.  display technology  industry everything available) and presenting it in a useful and easy  augmented reality  government manner. Avoid info overload  user interfacesThere is a disconnect between Need to conduct more research on user acceptance with a  NVG  DRDCwhat the academia is focus on educating the end user  Fusedsuggesting and what thetroops are perceiving  Thermal Page 100 of 122
    • 15. Reducing cognitive burden (information load) Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersInformation overload Provide the soldier with the means to filter information being  IT 2015 8  Thales presented.  DBMS  DRDC  ValcartierCognitive overload Multi-model interface (audio, visual, tactile)  audio I/F (spatial 3D, 2015 7  Audiox VOX command)  SRI Dynaspeak  visual I/F  RCI  tactile I/F 7  Retina Point 7  Microvision Page 101 of 122
    • 16. Improving situation awareness/understanding Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersImproving Situational 3-D aural localization of gunfire (sensors on 1) Gunshot detection and classification 2015 7 DRDC/ARL/DSO NDAAwareness/understanding soldier detect gunshot and send aural signal algorithms TRL 7, players into soldiers headset identifying direction from DRDC/ARL/DSO NDA which shot was fired. Enhanced systems 2) Miniaturized acoustic sensors (low analyses sound to determine calibre, estimate 8 Ultra Electronics power) TRL 8 Ultra Electronics distance.Effects of stressors on Soldiers Study effects of stress on soldiers on ops. 1) stress Simulation/stress 2015 5 DRDC Valcartiercognition Correlate levels of stress to cognitive measurement DRDC- Ottawa levels/cognitive tunnelling 2) Develop multifunction displays 6 Industry 3) Correlate information levels to stress 4 DRDCComplete but not overloaded Tran missive visor/eye wear display allowingSA Example Blue, Red,, Whiteforce ID and TrackingImproving Situational Manage data supporting SA by context (e.g. 5 yrsAwareness/understanding personal space, section, platoon, FOB, NGO etc.) to allow simpler filtering of content delivered to soldier base on immediate needs.Improving tools and Processes 1) Simulation in 3D pour ameliorer la nowfor psychological. Fear factor reaction ainsi que dure de la concentration du soldat. Concentration = meilleur analyse de situation Page 102 of 122
    • 17. Improving decision making Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersCannot offer just in time Have an expert system, sensors that can detect user-task- 1) Expert System, 2015 Currentinformation for specific roles environ and then offer only the info the user needs. The info knowledge baseand situations – Currently give would be presented in the visor. And not raw data, but 2)High performance 6all information which leads to integrated, analyzed comprehensive info. visor, easy to read, nocognitive workload bad effectPsychological data collected Standard communication systems appropriate bandwidth 1) Soldier worn systems 2020on soldiers does not transferdirectly to decision making – 2) Communications datacannot provide customized interpretationsolutionsProcurement Timelines Involve powerful procurement folks in the roadmap process – they need to help us come up with creative procurement solutionsCollaboration between A business ecosystem with a keystone company to lead 1) Masters of 2015 9 Carleton Universitycompanies is limited due to IP standards, integration is necessary to create space where Technology Innovation Tony Bailettiprotection companies can communicate on common items. Ottawa is Management graduates world leader in creating business ecosystems; IE CoralCEA, to lead business masters in technology innovation management, Big Blue 2) Business ecosystem Button keystone company (open source based) leads ecosystem Ottawa University, Carleton 8 University Page 103 of 122
    • 18. Enhancing displays/GUI Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersTheme 3 Night Operations Have a display that does not reduce local SA, emits little light 1) Long luminance, 2015 7 Academia, Industry, DRDCDisplay and usable in bright daylight and night image polarity screens for dismounts 2) Specialized mission 5 low luminance modes i.e. arrow for navigation Academia, Industry, DRDC 3)Augmented reality 3 HMP that does not affect local SA Academia, Industry, DRDCProvide secure lightweight, Multiple vendors offer I.E. over radio nets with meshing 1)SPR radios Harrissimultaneous voice and data technology for voice, data, video etc. and include AES-256networking to enable SA at the encryption 2)Wave relay radios 9 Persistent Systemssoldier 3)Breadcrumbs 9 RajentDevices which display soldier Instead of one device, have 2 or 3 left side. Right side, 1) GPS technology 2015position only show the soldiers centre, this will let the soldiers position be represented by aposition, not the direction chevron instead of . dot. This will allow for better information 2) Body positioningthey‘re facing on what a soldier is looking at for purposes of threat detection systems co-ordination with other squads. Integrate with weapons?Crunch information so soldiers Develop ―Expert systems‖ that pre analyze data from various Expert System software 2020 7 Software writers, lawyersdon‘t have to analyze too sensors and information sources which reduce soldiermuch decision for action to simplest form i.e. red light: no go, green light: go Reliable detectors 8 Comers; UAV; microphones etc. Page 104 of 122
    • 19. Improving human computer interaction Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key Players Create ―app store‖ style suite of man interfaces for 1) Develop/adopt 5-6 iPhone/droid style platform with information (visual, audio, etc) operations on a standard open development platform web connections (Industry, source platform. Evolution of capability (software) + hardware academia, DRDC) is less accepted. 2) Develop app suite Dev. tools exist but requirements with user input/validation for soldiers do not exist (source players) 3) User evaluation and 3-4 demos Industry TBD DRDC HSITheme 2 Cognitive Process Improvement: the fundamental solution for human 1) Appropriate 2020 Industry OperatorsErgonomics factors/cognitive ergonomics is not a technology, but an procurement process improved procurement process (for the crown) and development process is (for industry) that properly integrate 2)Appropriate HF design elements. development processData filtering to prevent info Advanced system monitoring and warning system including Advanced Warning 2015 Innovative systemsonly when needed and in a operator guidance and prognostic (i.e. pattern tracking and System Academiamanner appropriate for the extrapolation) capabilityoperator to take action Tacton Systems Tactile feedback MIT, DRDC-TorontoIdentification of intuitive ID target population demographics and likely familiar Windows style GUI 2015 Microsoftinterfaces interfaces (e.g. soldier & Young & Garter & Social HTML Web based stds authority OMG networking) Texting, Twitter RIM, Twitter, Motorola Page 105 of 122
    • Theme 3—External Integration 20. Improving integration with weapons (no stickies) 21. Improving integration with C4I sensors Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersCommunications technology Improve the communications network throughout in order to  modulation 2020 3  Thales improve the SA/COP provided to the soldier  CMC  Harris  Rockwell-CollinsOvercoming timeline/timeframe Data-centric Systems (a vendor independent, technology  electronic health 2015 6-7  Mainsource software Corp.pressures for agnostic cloud infrastructure) uses metadata to de-couple recordsintegration/interoperability – content from technology allowing it to keep up with the pacesystem architectures of change without forcing/waiting for standardsPhysical usability of soldier Integrate systems together (example: GPS and C4I  communications  industrycomponents package)  GPS  government  SA technologies  academiaSystem of systems architecture Capability based planning as a tool for force development  Cap D.E.M 2015 6  DRDC  spiral development 8  modular architecture 8 Page 106 of 122
    • 22. Improving integration with combat vehicles Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersSecure communication Wireless radio contact between one or two members of the  engineering to 2015 8  industrybetween dismounted infantry infantry , use existing radios DRR but allow LAV to be part of integrate existing  DNDand vehicle communication that communication system (no additional weight on the radios into LAV infantry)Vehicle/soldier system develop modular digital vehicle architectures. Standardize  internal vehicle 2020 6  DRDCintegration internal vehicle communications systems with soldier architecture  DDSPM systems. Example: USB style recharging and  standardized soldier 5 communications PDA/communications datalinks  vehicle power generation/hybrid architecture 5Provide end to end Northrop Grumman mission systems Europe offer products  wolf (handheld SA) 2011 3  Northrop Grumman missioncommunications for tactical that meet this integration challenge  C2PC Tactical 9 systems Europedata (from soldier, to vehicle to (vehicle system)FOB, to headquarters) and  ICS server 9interoperable with alliesSystem architecture Capability based planning  system of systems 2015 6  DRDC engineer  capability design 6 engineering and management  spiral development 8 Page 107 of 122
    • 22. Improving integration with combat vehicles (continued) Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersCommunications between Policy standard and technology have to be accepted in order  wireless 2015 9  Software industrysoldier and vehicle is to have information sent to soldier by vehicle communication  PWGSCchallenged by policies for  policy managementsecure communication 3  DND  tempest requirements 8Standardizing power Study to decide the type of system early in the project phase;  rechargeable 2013 7  battery manufacturersmanagement and system of battery vs. wired. Is soldier plugged into vehicle with batteries: small pack  electronic hardwaresoldier equipment power/database or is info transmitted wireless and batteries + main powerpack, manufacturers rechargeable? standardized  rugged manufacturer  recharging station: 6 vehicle mount, stand alone, excess rechargeable batteries  umbilical cord to connect in vehicle, 2 standardize connectors Page 108 of 122
    • 23. Improving integration with autonomous vehicle sensors Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersApplication of advanced Composite and hybrid materials will provide a solution to  Impact testing of 6  NRCcomposite and hybrid reduce the weight of various components of a soldier‘s composite/hybrid  DRDCmaterials against ballistic/blast equipment. Engineering optimization of structural element structural elementsloads  industry under ballist/blast will support the design/application of the  numerical simulation advanced materials of structural elements 5 under intensive dynamic loadingIntegration Human and system integration methodologies  system engineering 2015 9  academia institutionalization  HF engineering  service oriented 8 architecture 8 Page 109 of 122
    • 24. Enabling future capability growth Time TRL Technical Challenge Solution description Related Technologies Frame (1-9) Key PlayersProcurement system does not implementation of systems that reward/encourage  online Wiki 2015  industryallow for collaboration collaboration between all stakeholders  online select  governmentIdentification of necessary Leverage existing standards (USB, 1394, Stanag 4586, Juas,  Stanag 4586 2013  Innuvatze systemsinterfaces to support customer etc.) where possible and supportable define standards where  Jaus  SAEmodularity at system level needed (mechanical fitting of helmet to rifle butt to vest, etc.)  Jpeg/Mpeg  Nato WGenabling future capability Implement incremental acquisition process to allow better 2010growth integration. Allows all components to evolve rather than being stuck with 10+ year old legacy items which constrain optionsSystem Architecture Quantify operational trade-off decisions  field data gathering 2020 tools  models of performanceSystem Architecture and HSI integral part of acquisition program  Canadian educationprocesses programs in HSI  Industry incorporation of HSI into system engineering  legislation requirement for HSI in acquisition Page 110 of 122
    • D. Breakaway Session 2 Participant Input: System Optimization Solution: Enabling Technologies, Processes and ToolsThis appendix contains the detailed workshop participant input from Breakaway Session2. Breakaway Session 2 Participant Input: System Optimization Technical/Functional Related Technologies Description Challenges (S&T) Participant Table 1 1 Difficulty in gathering and Immediate, small group Technology a) 20 applying field feedback qualitative debriefs of soldiers returning from deployment or modifications, and a self- Technology b) 21 powered kit  Infantry  Engineers Technology c) 22  Armour  Gunner 2 Wearable Power Enables use of new Technology a) 8 technologies by allowing recharge at platform level and Technology b) 2 recharge all devices Technology c) 5 3 Device Proliferation To look at how to militarize Technology a) 3 existing integrated consumer applications Technology b) 5 Technology c) 16 Page 111 of 122
    • Breakaway Session 2 Participant Input: System Optimization Technical/Functional Related Technologies Description Challenges (S&T)Participant Table 21  Reducing soldier physical  Need to standardize Technology a) burden connectors for power, Compatible with USB,  Improving fit, form, GUIs, etc… Ethernet or other anthropometry  If standardized, this can standardized connector  Improving interfaces interchange technology Technology b) capability  Need user involvement to 100 pin connector that‘s  Enabling future capability determine need (current and future, unlimited small and lightweight growth connectivity, cost Technology c) dependency) Magnetic connectors that  Specify requirements for are easier to use industry2  Reducing soldier physical  Minimize power that must Technology a) burden be carried in additional to Textiles that generate solar  Enabling future capability other equipment power growth  Incorporate power generation and storage Technology b) into clothing (for ex: energy Energy from the weapon, from solar or movement) movement, wind  Locations of storage on Technology c) body must be moveable Light fuel cells  Need multiple sources, wind, gun, energy  Energy storage must be lightweight3 Sensor Integration Create industry and Technology a) N/A government standards responsible for defining standards and minimum Technology b) N/A interoperability requirements Technology c) N/A Page 112 of 122
    • Breakaway Session 2 Participant Input: System Optimization Technical/Functional Related Technologies Description Challenges (S&T)Participant Table 31 Improving body-worm The ‗Skin‘ will have to provide Technology a) equipment/sensors the physical backbone for Systems Engineering integration connectivity Technology b) Smart Materials (functional materials) Technology c) Nanotechnologies2 Reducing the effects of The ‗Skin‘ will have to meet Technology a) stressors hot/cold/neutralization/camou Physiology flage requirements Technology b) Textile Technology Technology c) Biomedical Engineering3 Improving integration with C4I The ‗Skin‘ will have to be Technology a) systems ‗wired‘ to provide a ‗Personal Communications Area Network‘ Engineering Technology b) Human Systems Engineering Technology c) Network Sciences and local cloud computing Page 113 of 122
    • Breakaway Session 2 Participant Input: System Optimization Technical/Functional Related Technologies Description Challenges (S&T)Participant Table 41 Improve Modularity /  Vest and accessories Technology a) Configurability  Weapon and accessories Clothing, weapon and  Radio and sensor access sensors Technology b) N/A Technology c) N/A2 Improving Interfaces  Mission specific pre- Technology a) Compatibility selection software Software ‗expert‘ system Technology b) N/A Technology c) N/A3 N/A N/A Technology a) N/A Technology b) N/A Technology c) N/A Page 114 of 122
    • Breakaway Session 2 Participant Input: System Optimization Technical/Functional Related Technologies Description Challenges (S&T)Participant Table 51 All Mandated requirement for an Technology a) N/A HIS program and process in all acquisition projects Technology b) N/A Technology c) N/A2  Physical Burden Multi-functional materials and Technology a) N/A  Interface Compatibility devices  Single displays (field Technology b) N/A  Body-worn sensor integration display) Technology c) N/A  C4I integration  Intelligent textiles  Phase-change materials3 Near all Common tailored optimized Technology a) N/A soldier HMI cross platform Technology b) N/A Technology c) N/A Page 115 of 122
    • Breakaway Session 2 Participant Input: System Optimization Technical/Functional Related Technologies Description Challenges (S&T)Participant Table 61  Improving Integration with Immediate, small group Technology a) Weapons qualitative debriefs for Incorporate into Systems  Improving Integration with soldiers Engineering Processes C4I Systems Technology b)  Improving Integration with Combat Vehicles Develop an Integration Test-bed with Troops  Improving Integration with Autonomous Technology c) vehicle/sensors Boundaries (physiological) and other2  Improving tools and Integrating HIS into Technology a) processes (physical) acquisition process DRDC led soldier system  Improving tools and lab processes (psychological) Technology b)  Enabling future capability growth HIS value case for industry/government Technology c) Collaborate with universities to develop programs3 N/A N/A Technology a) N/A Technology b) N/A Technology c) N/A Page 116 of 122
    • Breakaway Session 2 Participant Input: System Optimization Technical/Functional Related Technologies Description Challenges (S&T)Participant Table 71  Improving System  Artificial intelligence (AI) Technology a) N/A Characterization collecting / filtering / (Psychological) feeding critical information Technology b) N/A  Improving Tools and / data to the warfighter Technology c) N/A Processes (Psychological)  Programming of rule for  Reducing the Effects of harvesting / analysing / Stressors presenting situational awareness information to  Improving the soldier Socio/Psychological Readiness  Visor see-through heads- up display and intuitive  Enhancing / Augmenting graphic and icon display Soldier Perception  User friendly PDA usable  Reducing Cognitive with one hand with Burden (Information Load) ergonomic motor-response  -Improving Situation of the hand Awareness /  Holograms technology to Understanding display maps / blue-red  Improving Decision Making force / terrain in 3D Continued ... Page 117 of 122
    • Breakaway Session 2 Participant Input: System Optimization Technical/Functional Related Technologies Description Challenges (S&T)Participant Table 7 (continued)2  Reducing Physical Soldier  Smart textiles Technology a) N/A Burden (Weight Overload)  O.L.E.D. (Organic Light Technology b) N/A  Improving Interfaces Emitting Display) Compatibility  Highly Breathable Active Technology c) N/A  Improving Body-Worn Textiles (enhanced Equipment / Sensors thermo-regulation) Integration  Drug Dispensing Textiles  Improving System (Biocide Enhanced Characterization Healing) (Psychological)  Self-Cleaning Textiles  Improving Tools and  Conductive Fibres Processes (Psychological) (Electrical Connections)  Improving Situation  Energy Harvesting Textiles Awareness / (Thermal energy Understanding absorption and/or  Improving Decision Making redistribution)  Enhancing Displays / GUI  Water Harvesting / Filtering / Dispensing textiles / suit from perspiration and urine for personal cooling or hydration3 N/A N/A Technology a) N/A Technology b) N/A Technology c) N/A Page 118 of 122
    • Breakaway Session 2 Participant Input: System Optimization Technical/Functional Related Technologies Description Challenges (S&T)Participant Table 81 Improving Interfaces Battle space SA between top Technology a) Compatibility and front line Communications Research focusing on information Ability to use a visual cams collection and distribution ability for situational awareness Technology b) N/A Technology c) N/A2 Improving Situation Dynamic communications Technology a) Awareness / Understanding system with filters capability Computer / Communication Integration Technology b) N/A Technology c) N/A3 Improved Integration with C4I Audio visual, text, symbols Technology a) Systems considerations or bio- Display interaction GUI constraints / stress Technology b) N/A Technology c) N/A Page 119 of 122
    • Breakaway Session 2 Participant Input: System Optimization Technical/Functional Related Technologies Description Challenges (S&T)Participant Table 91 N/A Use of anthropomorphic data Technology a) N/A availability – distribution standard set of bodies and Technology b) N/A equipment Technology c) N/A  compile information  enhance capability  create 3D CAD program to use to develop PPE integrated system2 N/A Comprehensive study on the Technology a) N/A effects of mass and bulk (for example: PPE) on soldier Technology b) N/A performance and survivability Technology c) N/A3 Improving interfaces  High impact technologies Technology a) N/A compatibility available Technology b) N/A  Low light emissions for dismounted soldier Technology c) N/A  One interactive display – simple  Follow intuitive cultural civilian knowledge  Allow users to adapt display to his /her required applications  Integration with weapon  Not needed for every soldier Page 120 of 122
    • Breakaway Session 2 Participant Input: System Optimization Technical/Functional Related Technologies Description Challenges (S&T)Participant Table 101 Improving fit, form, SkeletBone Skin that does Technology a) 3 anthropometry not loose user capabilities Technology b) 6 Technology c) 112 Improving system Change the mentality of Technology a) N/A characterization training. Combat centres to (psychological) test readiness Technology b) N/A Technology c) N/A Enhanced reliability of testing tools3 Reducing physical soldier Save weight by: Technology a) N/A burden (weight overload)  Smart textiles lining in garments Technology b) N/A  Integration of systems (i.e. Technology c) N/A GPS, USB, baseline systems)  Development of models  Logistic distinction (i.e. learning, management, movement, education, life- cycle)  Overall management of applications of solution, education of soldiers Page 121 of 122
    • Breakaway Session 2 Participant Input: System Optimization Technical/Functional Related Technologies Description Challenges (S&T)Participant Table 111 Sensor Integration Create industry and Technology a) N/A government standards responsible for defining standards and minimum Technology b) N/A interoperability requirements Technology c) N/A Page 122 of 122