Managing the Human Weapon System: a Vision for an Air Force Human-Performance Doctrine
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive DSpace Repository Faculty and Researchers Faculty and Researchers Collection 2009 Managing the Human Weapon System: A Vision for an Air Force Human-Performance Doctrine Tvaryanas, A.P. Tvaryanas, A.P., Brown, L., and Miller, N.L. "Managing the Human Weapon System: A Vision for an Air Force Human-Performance Doctrine", Air & Space Power Journal, pp. 34-41, Summer 2009. http://hdl.handle.net/10945/36508 Downloaded from NPS Archive: Calhoun In air combat, “the merge” occurs when opposing aircraft meet and pass each other. Then they usually “mix it up.” In a similar spirit, Air and Space Power Journal’s “Merge” articles present contending ideas. Readers are free to join the intellectual battlespace. Please send comments to [email protected] or [email protected]. Managing the Human Weapon System A Vision for an Air Force Human-Performance Doctrine LT COL ANTHONY P. TVARYANAS, USAF, MC, SFS COL LEX BROWN, USAF, MC, SFS NITA L. MILLER, PHD* The basic planning, development, organization and training of the Air Force must be well rounded, covering every modern means of waging air war. The Air Force doctrines likewise must be !exible at all times and entirely uninhibited by tradition. —Gen Henry H. “Hap” Arnold N A RECENT paper on America’s Air special operations forces’ declaration that Force, Gen T. Michael Moseley asserted “humans are more important than hardware” that we are at a strategic crossroads as a in asymmetric warfare.2 Consistent with this consequence of global dynamics and view, in January 2004, the deputy secretary of Ishifts in the character of future warfare; he defense directed the Joint Staff to “develop also noted that “today’s con!uence of global the next generation of . programs designed trends already foreshadows signi"cant chal- to optimize human performance and maxi- lenges to our organization, systems, concepts, mize "ghting strength.”3 In response, US Joint and doctrine. We are at an historic turning Forces Command began a transformation of point demanding an equally comprehensive force health protection (FHP) by addressing revolution.” Furthermore, to revolutionize the human-performance standards, metrics, ca- twenty-"rst-century Air Force, according to pabilities, and gaps via a new Joint Human General Moseley, we must start with our Air- Performance Enhancement Joint Capabilities men since “any organizational renaissance be- Document.4 In 2005 the director of the Of"ce gins with people. We must prepare our Air- of Net Assessment sparked wider interest by men for a future fraught with challenges, publishing Human Performance Optimization and fostering their intellectual curiosity and ability Military Missions, which prompted the Depart- to learn, anticipate and adapt.”1 ment of Defense (DOD)/Health Affairs to An evolving recognition of “the human as sponsor a conference on human-performance the most important weapon system in the optimization in June 2006.5 The conference Global War on Terrorism” is evident in the report advocated such optimization at all DOD *Lieutenant Colonel Tvaryanas is a PhD candidate at the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California. Colonel Brown is director, Human Performance Integration, 711th Human Performance Wing, Brooks City-Base, Texas. Dr. Miller teaches human systems integration and human factors engineering at the Naval Postgraduate School. 34 01-Merge-Tvaryanas et al.indd 34 4/28/09 1:20:51 PM THE MERGE 35 levels, but as yet, no overarching implementa- and physical well-being of Service members tion strategy has appeared.6 across the range of military operations,” char- In the Air Force, human-performance pro- acterizes every service member as a human grams are generally more product oriented weapon system requiring total life-cycle support than human-centric, and relevant strategy and and maintenance.11 It speci"cally describes this doctrine are limited to health services.7 As support in terms of three interrelated pillars: General Moseley reminds us, “History is re- “healthy and "t force,” “prevention and pro- plete with examples of militaries that failed tection,” and “medical and rehabilitative care.”12 due to their inability to transform organiza- With this framework in mind, FHP catalyzed tions and culture, adopt new operational con- the genesis of our model for human perfor- 8 cepts, or leverage breakthrough technologies.” mance as providing capabilities of human The Air Force cannot leverage breakthroughs weapon systems to the joint force commander. in human performance unless it is organiza- We departed from the health focus of FHP tionally and culturally ready. Similarly, the and embraced a large scope of application by 2008 Air Force Medical Service (AFMS) Capa- accepting two transformational tenets. The "rst bilities Review and Risk Assessment concluded involves managing Airmen consistent with other that we must make the most of human capital military weapon systems. This necessitates the in terms of recruitment, selection, training, op- creation of capability-based requirements with erational performance, cross training, reten- associated performance thresholds and objec- tion, and postretirement health and well-being.9 tives derived directly from needs identi"ed by The assessment recommended a coordinated the combatant commander to drive Airman program to operationalize human performance 13 for all Airmen by developing an overarching acquisition and sustainment programs. These human-performance doctrine, organizationally programs should be managed by a program rede"ning human performance as a line re- executive of"cer (with associated program man- sponsibility with health-services input, and de- agers using integrated process and product veloping ethical and legal frameworks for Air development) who provides a single organiza- Force human performance. tional focus for the total life-cycle manage- In rising to Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s ment of Airmen and remains accountable for 14 challenge to “think out of the box” in continu- life-cycle costs, schedule, and performance. ous pursuit of better ways to support the joint The second tenet requires health-service force, we believe it is high time to address the support to focus on human performance in addi- shortfall in Air Force human-performance tion to health care as the primary means of support- doctrine.10 We propose a holistic doctrine that ing the joint force commander. Although this may incorporates a capabilities-based, total life-cycle seem at odds with the historical objectives of approach to managing Airmen—a performance- health-service support, it actually expands based force-projection model that concentrates upon them, once we understand that health is on human performance while continuing to a prerequisite for performance but that the provide health care and casualty prevention presence of health does not guarantee perfor- to joint force commanders. mance.15 Given the prerequisite need for health, addressing performance satis"es the FHP pillars of “healthy and "t force” and “pre- Transforming from Force vention and protection” (which we can equate Health Protection to with primary and secondary preventive medi- cine). In fact, superior performance itself is a Human-Performance Doctrine means of prevention and protection. For ex- Doctrine for FHP, de"ned as “all measures ample, victorious forces historically suffer taken by commanders, leaders, individual Ser- lower casualty rates than defeated forces, and vice members, and the Military Health System improving situational awareness decreases the to promote, improve, or conserve the mental risk of fratricide. 01-Merge-Tvaryanas et al.indd 35 4/28/09 1:20:51 PM 36 AIR & SPACE POWER JOURNAL SUMMER 2009 Managing Airmen’s capabilities through of maintaining target performance levels through- human performance erects a new doctrinal out a career while minimizing total life-cycle costs. It edi"ce with three foundational pillars: perfor- also embraces the FHP pillars of “healthy and mance sustainment, performance optimization, "t force” and “prevention and protection.” and performance enhancement ("g. 1). Since Preventive medicine is a major contributor to no universally accepted human-performance performance sustainment because physical and de"nitions exist, the names chosen for the pil- mental health remains a necessary, but not lars serve as placeholders for major enterprise suf"cient, precursor for performance. Perfor- areas rather than speci"c de"nitions.16 Figure mance sustainment contains most health- 1 also depicts the pillars resting on an organi- service support functions with the exception zational foundation that embodies attributes of of consequence management.19 The objective the university model: dissemination of knowl- calls for sustaining performance in the face of edge, research, and teaching.17 Doctrine, organi- enemy actions, full-spectrum (natural and tech- zations, and weapon systems are interrelated— nological) environmental threats and stressors, history demonstrates that advances in one and advancing age. area without corresponding advances in the If we accept the paradigm of the human others limit the overall effectiveness of weapon weapon system, then the breadth of perfor- systems.18 Thus, the university model repre- mance sustainment "ts comfortably within the sents the organizational change needed to larger framework of the DOD acquisitions life support the human-performance doctrinal vi- cycle ("g. 2), speci"cally including the use of sion for the human weapon system.