Page 111 - Journal of Special Operations Medicine - Spring 2017

return on investment (ROI) in terms of optimizing an Figure 3 Human performance optimization (HPO) today
individual’s performance begins to pale against the costs and what we can measure across the deployment cycle, and
and challenges of achieving ever greater precision? And the futuristic view of precision performance (P2) and what
because answering these questions will require further we should be able to measure and monitor in the future.
research, this also raises the issue of how to keep P2, What we measure at each phase (e.g., training, deployment)
will depend on identified differences, demands, and resources.
with its emphasis on what works for individuals, and
not necessarily entire groups of people, from becoming
either a matter of potentially expensive and lengthy pure
trial and error, or driven by anecdote, fads, and placebo.
Anyone who has spent even a brief time viewing various
online human performance articles or information from
companies selling particular supplements, equipment, or
programs will be familiar with the far-too-common use
of (often paid) testimonials to help fill the telling vacuum
of any convincing scientific research or support for their
product. So, the open question remains: If historical
approaches for tackling (or avoiding) the challenge of
individual differences have not proved sufficient, what
then are the best research methods to reliably and rigor-
ously establish which individual differences matter most
for P2? Given limited resources and limited time, how
can we avoid fooling ourselves and keep from mistak-
ing statistical artifacts, placebo effects, or commercially may be headed in the future. Given the relatively imma-
motivated marketing for meaningful data for identifying ture state of P2, we have limited recommendations at this
and leveraging individual differences to optimize differ- point to precise interventions or research to be adopted
ent kinds of performance? by specific groups or individuals. In many ways, that is
the point of this article—to draw attention to the nascent
Acknowledging these challenges is not meant to be taken state of P2 and encourage those involved with SOF human
as inherent limitations to P2 so much as a push toward performance programs to consider what infrastructures,
realizing its vision through rigorous, innovative ways to processes, and approaches are likely to be required to best
identify and characterize which factors matter most for identify and exploit emerging tools for ever greater and
optimizing any given individual’s performance at a given faster P2 data collection, analyses, sharing, and applica-
time and for a given purpose. Figure 3 depicts where we tions. How can SOF take advantage of new capabilities
are now and where we might be in terms of P2 and the cy- necessary to individualize HPO-relevant research or ad-
cles of SOF personnel. Indeed, as the technology enabling vances? What P2-relevant software, databases, and mod-
P2 continues to mature, our understanding of these fac- els might best enable SOF HP programs to learn quickly
tors themselves will also evolve, perhaps making today’s and accurately the best ways to incorporate individual dif-
immeasurable and uncontrollable factors (e.g., social ferences to better understand and predict what works, for
support, cohesion, and “heart” or “resilience”) more like whom, and when? Further, given the speed and diversity of
those that are at least measurable, if not controllable (e.g., quality in research and development across the multiple ar-
personality traits and genetics), and perhaps even lead eas that will enable a future SOF P2, what trusted sources
them to become both measurable and controllable (e.g., can SOF human performance programs use to help disen-
hydration levels and training load). This shift is also likely tangle the real signal from the ever-increasing noise?
to change how we tailor P2 for individuals based not just
on their biological, psychological, and social differences The science fiction writer William Gibson once cau-
but also for specific missions or points in a deployment tioned us, “The future is here—it’s just unevenly distrib-
cycle, always with a concern for ROI and for helping SOF uted.” As part of an effort to deal with this unevenly
70
operators to truly perform optimally at all times. distributed future, we welcome comments on the con-
ceptual idea of P2 and encourage anyone to reply with
feedback, ideas, caveats, and further data or references.
Conclusion
In summary, the objective of this article was to introduce Disclaimer
the reader to the concept of P2 and provide some context
for the debates, technological advances, and references The opinions or assertions contained herein are the pri-
that are likely to inform a future P2, based, in part, on vate views of the author and are not be construed as of-
where we find ourselves today and where we believe we ficial or as reflecting the views of the Uniformed Services

Precision Performance: What Does It Mean? 87