Downloaded from https://www.everyspec.com Appendix C Management Control Evaluation Checklist for the Manpower and Personnel Integration (MANPRINT) Program C–1. Function The function covered by this checklist is the conduct of the Manpower and Personnel Integration Program by MANPRINT managers and other functional specialists supporting the MANPRINT Program. C–2. Purpose The purpose of this checklist is to assist the senior acquisition MANPRINT personnel within the MANPRINT community in evaluating the application of MANPRINT principles during the acquisition and fielding process. C–3.
Instructions Answers must be based upon the actual testing of control (for example, document analysis, direct observation, interviewing, sampling, simulation, and/or others). Answers that indicate deficiencies must be explained, and the corrective action taken must be indicated in the supporting documentation. These management controls must be evaluated at least once every five years and then certified on DA Form 11–2–R (Management Control Evaluation Certification Statement). A copy of DA Form 11–2–R is available on the Army electronic library CD–ROM (EM0001) and on the USAPA Web site (www.usapa.army.mil). C–4. Test questions a. System acquisition planning.
(1) Are resource constraints considered in development of requirements documents (such as mission needs statement (MNS), CAPSTONE requirements document (CRD), and ORD? (2) Are MANPRINT requirements and constraints considered in program documents and reviews? (3) Is MANPRINT considered in source selection to ensure reduction in resource requirements? b. MANPRINT considerations for Army systems before fielding. (1) Were relevant and justifiable MANPRINT thresholds and objectives developed during concept development? (2) Did performance parameters (including key performance parameters (PPS)) consider the soldier in parameter development?
(3) Was a target audience description developed so that acquisition and design personnel are aware of the typical operators, maintainers, and supporters available for the system? (4) Can the proposed system be operated and maintained by the quantity and skills of people that will be available? (5) Is MANPRINT represented on all appropriate Integrated Concept Teams (ICTs) and Integrated Product Teams (IPTs)? (6) Has ARL–HRED been designated as the focal point for MANPRINT support on systems? (7) Is there a process to manage the MANPRINT Program and track issues on all systems? (8) Are MANPRINT issues being incorporated in appropriate testing and evaluation plans?
(9) Is sufficient funding programmed to perform the MANPRINT actions planned? c. MANPRINT after fielding. (1) Is the requirement for post-fielding MANPRINT analyses identified and resourced? ( 2 ) A r e M A N P R I N T u n r e s o l v e d i s s u e s b e i n g a d d r e s s e d i n p l a n n e d s y s t e m m o d i f i c a t i o n s a n d / o r p r o d u c t improvements? C–5. Comments Help make this a better review tool. Submit comments to HQDA (DAPE–MR), 300 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310–0300. 25 AR 602–2 • 1 June 2001