The HARDMAN Comparability Methodology was developed by the Navy to estimate human resource requirements during the early phases of weapon system development. The Army has modified the system to support its own needs in this area. Four real system applications in the Army and an evaluation by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory indicated that it is useful, useable, and reasonably credible, and provides a near-term solution to the Army s needs. An Army Guide is under development.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AFHRL, Assets User's Guide (Application), August 1982, AFHRL, Contractor, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Contract No.-F33615-79-C-0330.
2.
AndrewsWalter, Weapons maintenance seem costly, Washington Times, March 16, 1983.
3.
Army Science Board, Ad Hoc Study Group on Human Issues, Department of the Army, Assistant Secretary of the Army Research, Development and Acquisition, Washington, D.C., March 1980.
4.
BakerJames D.ShieldsJ., Personnel Affordability: The Army's odessey into the year 2000. Paper presented at ORSA/TIMS Meeting, Toronto, Canada, May 1981.
5.
Chief of Naval Operations, Application of the HARDMAN (Comparability) Methodology to VTXTS Flight Vehicle Maintenance Manpower Requirements, October 1979, Office of CNO, HARDMAN Project Office (0P-112C) Contractor-Dynamics Research Corporation, Contract No.-N61339-80-D005.
6.
Chief of Naval Operations, HARDMAN Methodology Handbook, Vol. II: User's Manual Preliminary Draft, November 1980, Office of CNO HARDMAN Project Office (0P-112C), Contractor-Dynamics Research Corporation, Contract No.-N61339-80-D005.
7.
ColemanHerbert J., Weapons Maintainability Guidance Sought by GAO, Aviation Week & Space Technology, Feb. 16, 1981.
8.
CushmanJack, Troublesome tank: GAO Still Unhappy with M-I Results Defense Week, July 27, 1981.
9.
DePuyWilliam E.BonderSeth, Integration of MPT Supply and demand and System Acquisition Process, U.S. Army Research Institute, Research Note 82–1, 1982.
10.
DoD Directive 5000.39, “Acquisition and Management of Integrated Logistic Support for Systems and Equipment.” Nov 17, 1983.
11.
DoD Directive 5000.2, “Major System Acquisition Procedures,” proposed revision, Oct. 30, 1982, March 8, 1983.
12.
DoD Directive 5000.1, “Major System Acquisition,” March 29, 1982.
13.
Department of Defense, MIL-STD-1388-IA, April 1983.
14.
EckstrandGordon A., Manpower Factors in System Acquisition Aerospace Industries Symposium, “Product Support - A Changing Challenge,” Seattle, Washington, 21–22 October 1980.
15.
EckstrandG., “Technology Projection: Manpower and Logistics factors in weapon system development,” August 1980, NTIS.
16.
KerwinGen. Walter T.BlanchardGeorge S., Man/Machine Interface - A Growing Crisis, August 1980, U.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity.
17.
KuhnGeorge W. S., Ending Defense Stagnation in A Mandate for Leadership Report-Agenda 1983, edited by HolwillRichard N., 1983, The Heritage Foundation.
18.
RitchieM., “Manpower implications in the design of Air Force equipment,” February 1974, NTIS.
19.
SmithCPT John, HARDMAN: New Asset for TRADOC Systems Managers, Soldier Support Journal, Mar/Apr 1984.
20.
ZimmermanW.ButlerR.GreyV.RosenbergL.RisserD., Evaluation of the HARDMAN Comparability Methodology, ARI Technical Report (Draft), July 1984.
