Page 105 - JSOM Fall 2019

FIGURE 1 A depiction of HPO Tenet 2 highlighting the difference FIGURE 2 A depiction of HPO Tenet 3 and the anchoring of unit
between performance and health and accompanying metrics. METL and Operator CT across the HPO Capability Spectrum of
Performance Enhancement and Health Sustainment.

the accomplishment of a given task measured against preset health sustainment spectrum, METLs/CTs help identify and
14
known standards.” In contrast, health, as defined by the mitigate career field and/or mission-specific health risks result-
World Health Organization, is “a state of complete physical, ing from CT-related exposures. Population health trends in
mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of this instance would be better represented by career field and/
disease or infirmity.” 15,16 As mentioned in Tenet 1, perfor- or under conditions in which CTs are performed. Health sus-
mance enhancement and health sustainment are driven by tainment also uses METLs/CTs to realign health restoration
SOF unit METL and Operator CTs, and although interdepen- efforts, clinical practice guidelines, and return to duty deter-
dent, health and performance efforts target different aspects minations that move beyond getting a SOF Operator back to
of the SOF Operator. While health is important for sustaining a state of health to performing optimally at their CTs and unit
performance, being healthy is not synonymous with being a METL.
high performer. Performance enhancement is important to en-
suring a SOF Operator can perform critical tasks at the level Tenet 4: TFF and Systems-Based Approach Serves
required for mission success, whereas health efforts are targeted as the Foundation for Precision and Operational Metrics
at ensuring that SOF Operator’s performance is sustainable The TFF framework proposed in 2010, and now a requirement
over a career life span. Performance enhancement seeks to iden- across the DoD coupled with a systems-based approach, of-
tify and leverage those human factors essential to successfully fers structure and precision in optimizing and operationalizing
performing Operator CT, whereas health sustainment seeks to unit and Operator lethality. For the SOF community, TFF is
8
understand and mitigate occupational exposures and risk fac- a holistic and adaptable framework comprised of human per-
tors unique to the conditions associated with CT performance. formance and health domains that capture mission and SOF-
Health provides a solid foundation for sustainable performance specific health sustainment and performance enhancement
and is an important precursor to, and foundational for, optimal priorities. Within and across each domain, a systems-based
performance. approach provides elements and various structures organized
around the Joint Capabilities Integrated Development System
Because of the delineation in what health versus performance (JCIDS), a process that defines DoD’s acquisition requirements
“services” are and how they should be targeted, health and and evaluation criteria for future defense weapon systems. 8,9,17–19
performance outcomes must also be assessed with different When properly adapted, elements of these models provide a
metrics. By separating performance enhancement and health bridge that can be used to validate SOF capability require-
sustainment, identifying sensible operational measures of ments and applied to realign service delivery for full spectrum
impact can be achieved. Performance enhancement will be (Tenet 3: Performance Enhancement and Health Sustainment)
tracked through improvements in CT performance (CT Perfor- total life-cycle support. It is through this adaptation that SOF
mance Parameters are further discussed in Tenet 4), whereas units and their Operators are maintained. A hallmark of these
health sustainment will be tracked through CT related-health models is that task demands are reviewed and compared
trends and return to duty metrics. against the availability of human performance and health
resources. 8,9,17–19
Tenet 3: Unit METL/Operator CT:
Focal Point Across the HPO Capability Spectrum For this article, the demands-resources model (DRM) origi-
In contrast to the current MHS service delivery model, we nally described in 2014 is now presented in Figure 3 with
6
must continue to build on the principles introduced in Te- the operationally integrated aspects of TFF and JCIDS and
nets 1 and 2. Tenet 3 focuses on unit METLs and Operator’s anchored to SOF unit METL and Operator’s CTs. In Figure
CTs to inform the priorities and targeting of resources and 3, Demands refer to the type and amount of performance
service delivery across the full HPO Capability Spectrum of and health resources needed based on the CT and Key Per-
performance enhancement and health sustainment (Figure 2). formance Parameters (KPP) (performance standards, derived
As noted in Tenet 2, performance enhancement efforts help performance metrics, and risk exposures, e.g., strength =
identify those human factors that could be leveraged to op- CT require lifting 50 lb). Resources in relation to the DRM
timize the performance of SOF unit METLs and/or Operator refers to those internal performance and health needs (e.g.,
CTs specific to their unique mission requirements. Across the strength, speed, critical thinking, motivation, etc.) available to

Operational and Operator-Centric Approach to HPO | 103