A tailored Top-Down Functional Analysis (TDFA) for AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense (ABMD)

Abstract

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

A TDFA is often cited as a major analysis needed when developing a new system. However, designing new components for pre-existing U.S. Navy systems presents a unique challenge. This paper describes the application of a modified TDFA to an existing system with new capabilities and functionality. New technologies introduced in the ABMD Baseline 5.1 include the Standard Missile (SM)-3 Block (Blk) IIA, which will provide superior speed, range, and discrimination capabilities relative to earlier SM-3 missile variants. This will lead to better performance against existing threats as well as entirely new mission capabilities. However, the areas impacted by this technology comprise a small subset of the overall AEGIS Weapon System functionality. As a result, a hybrid methodology for the TDFA was developed collaboratively by industry and government teams to ensure that outputs fit into the systems engineering process and ultimately the display design process. The hybrid TDFA methodology was developed as a means to help identify the information considered necessary to support warfighter decision making during mission planning and the ability to achieve the mission goal of successful ballistic missile threat kills during mission execution. An example is provided that shows how the hybrid methodology has impacted the development of prototype displays to date. It is concluded that this hybrid TDFA approach has demonstrated utility in the development of lower level requirements for these displays and is recommended for use when the system is already well-known and only a portion of the system in design will be considered new or changed functionality.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Annett

(2005). Hierarchical task analysis (HTA). In Stanton

Hedge

Brookhuis

Salas

Hendrick

(Eds), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods (pp. 33/1-33/7). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Bisantz

A. M.

Vicente

K. J.

(1994). Making the abstraction hierarchy concrete. Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 83-117.

Crandall

Klein

Hoffman

R. R.

(2006). Working Minds. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Defense Acquisition University. (2009). Defense Acquisition Guidebook. Retrieved 27 July, 2011, from: https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=289207&lang=en-US

Endsley

M. R.

Bolte

Jones

D. G.

(2003). Designing for Situation Awareness. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Kossiakoff

Sweet

W. N.

(2003). Systems Engineering: Principles and Practice. New Delhi: John Wiley and Sons.

Lickel

Mulvehill

Shute

S.J.

(2009). Mission Planner-ADS integration focus group discussions. Lockheed Martin Technical Report.

Naval Sea Systems Command Instruction 3900.8A (2005). Policy for incorporating human systems integration (HSI) in acquisition and modernization.

Shute

S.J.

Goldrick

Bartram

Valiant

(2006). Usability assessment of the mission planner user interface: analysis report. AEGIS BMD Program Technical Report, File 6110-678-008.

10.

Shute

S.J.

Goldrick

Bartram

(2007). Mission planner 4.0.1 usability assessment report (heuristic evaluation) for AEGIS BMD 4.0.1 combat system. AEGIS BMD Program Technical Report, File 6110-690-015.

11.

Shute

S.J.

Goldrick

Lusterman

Bartram

Perris

E.E.

(2008). Mission Planner 4.0.1 usability testing report for AEGIS BMD 4.0.1 combat system. AEGIS BMD Program Technical Report, File 6110-690-070.

12.

U.S. Department of Defense (1999). Department of Defense Handbook: Human Engineering Program Process and Procedures (MIL-HDBK-46855A).