Client:
U.S. Army
UX Designer & UX Researcher
View Capstone Website

Automating the Parachute Pack Process

Client

Aerial Delivery & Field Services Department of the U.S. Army

Solution

Tablet Interface & Physical Prototype

Direct Contribution

UI Design, User Research, Physical Prototyping, Website Development

Year

2024

Scope of Work

8 Months

Location

Fort Gregg-Adams, VA

The Aerial Delivery and Field Services Department (ADFSD) is one of five major training departments at the US Army Quartermaster School, Fort Gregg-Adams, VA. They train the 92R Riggers who are in charge of folding all of the T-11 Parachutes for the U.S. military. The method and tools for folding T-11 Parachutes is a manually intense process that has not changed since the 1950’s.

My team was tasked to increase the efficiency of packing T-11 parachutes. We accomplished this by creating an ecosystem of emerging technologies that automate the currently manual process of packing personnel parachutes. Our intervention is projected to improve efficiency by 33%

Problem Statement

ADFSD is currently facing low recruitment and injured Parachute Riggers from the manual pack process.

How might we leverage current ADFSD technologies to minimize injuries incurred from the Parachute Pack Process while increasing pack efficiency by streamlining menial tasks?

The Solution

An ecosystem that addresses injuries and error in the Parachute Packing process by leveraging AI as well as existing information systems to augment Rigger Capabilities. All of which is controlled on a central “hub” where inspectors can track metrics on parachute packing efficiency.

When a player first starts their game, they are prompted to pick 3 values they wish to grow in and reflect on why. This is an example of self-awareness theory which suggests that paying attention to ourselves plays a major role in self-control and how we regulate our behavior. By forcing players to reflect on the value they’ve chosen, it promotes self-reflection which reinforces the value that player has chosen.

While waiting for the match to start, the loading screen displays every player’s values above their avatar.

This is an example of priming which is the idea that something you encounter subconsciously influences how you react in the future. Within the context of our intervention, seeing these values will subtly nudge your subconscious towards those chosen values. Primed with these values, it will lead to value-driven behavior during the match.

During gameplay, each player has their values displayed on screen next to their avatar. In addition, players can see their teammates’ values displayed near their avatars throughout the game.

By placing each player’s values next to their avatar, it encourages social proof as each player will try to act in accordance to their values due to it being publicly displayed in association with their identity. In addition, a player acting against their values would create cognitive dissonance as a deterrent. Lastly, all players are constantly primed with their values on display during the game.

When the game ends, players are given the option to endorse their teammates on their values. Through our research and testing, we found it was best to allow players only the option of positive endorsement and no negative feedback.

Implementation of this feature causes self-reflection among players. Through our research and testing we found that evaluation aligned in a positive framework causes players to find at least one positive trait. This encourages social proof as all players know that they will be evaluated for their game play as well as forces acknowledgement that other players are behaving well and they should reciprocate that. In addition, this primes players for their next game as they see other players’ values and reflect on their own.

Once players have received all of their endorsements, those ratings are aggregated and converted into points that contribute towards an extrinsic reward system. As players collect points from endorsements, they reach tiers in which they unlock small non-performance-enhancing rewards like skins or hats. Once a player reached the third tier for their value, they are allowed to pick a new value to work on and restart the process.

Project Background

The process for packing the T-11 is physically and mentally demanding task. This is exacerbated by the fact that they system has not changed since the 1950’s. That, in combination with low recruitment rates has led to a lack of manpower when it comes to packing T-11 parachutes. This affects ADRST’s ability to accurately predict mission readiness for the U.S. Army.

Riggers

These are 92R Riggers who are in charge of packing the T-11 Parachute. Their job is to pack 15 parachutes every day.

Inspector

These are former 92R Riggers who have been promoted to E-4 or above. They are differentiated with their Red Baseball Caps. Their job is to quality check parachutes at each Rigger Check. They oversee 4 riggers and conduct 8 checks per parachute.

The entire packing process involves Eight Rigger Checks. At each of these checkpoints, the packer must pause their work, request a formal inspection by a Rigger, obtain approval, and then resume packing.

120

Rigger Checks per day for Riggers

480

Rigger Checks performed per day by Inspectors

Research

Our Team conducted secondary research as well as performed  contextual inquiry on-site with 92R Riggers at Fort Gregg-Adams in Virginia.

Our team kicked off the research phase of this project by taking a trip down to Fort Gregg-Adams, VA to visit the 92R Riggers in their natural habitat. We spent three days in total on-base performing Contextual Inquiry to simply absorb the process of packing T-11 Parachutes. The first day was spent just observing 92R Riggers packing parachutes and just taking notes. We went back to the hotel that night to perform Affinity Clustering with our observations to identify overarching themes that we could develop questions about.

The “Pack Shed” Where 92R Riggers pack their parachutes

Affinity Clustering our Observations from Day 1 to develop Questions for Riggers on Day 2

Day two was spend on-base, interviewing a class of Sergeants attaining recertification for packing the T-11 Main Parachute so they can become Warrant Officers at their home bases. They all had years of prior experience as 92R Riggers as well as Inspectors who packed the T-11 Main Parachute.Armed with questions gleaned from our observations the previous day, we were ready to conduct semi-structured interviews on the pack process.

Interviewing an Inspector on the Parachute Pack Process

Lunch in the Mess Hall with ADFSD Director Jason Hanifin and Sergeant Feliciano

We repeated this process several times over the course of the following days:

Make Observations, Form Questions, Interview 92R Riggers
‍
This started to build out a broader picture of the parachute packing process and allowed our team to develop general insights on the pack process that could be turned into Areas of Opportunity that could accomplish ADFSD’s goal to improve the efficiency of the pack process.

Areas of Opportunity

Now that we had finished conducting Contextual Inquiry at Fort Gregg-Adams, we had an in-depth understanding of the challenges that 92R Riggers face that affect their output. With this in mind, we were able to synthesize our findings into Areas of Opportunity for our solution to address.

Improve Rigger Ergonomics

From our interviews, our team found that every single rigger gets injured at some point in their career.

This is due to the physically demanding nature of packing a T-11 Parachute. It's a huge, heavy piece of fabric that's difficult to manipulate. The most common issues are lower back issues from bending over the table, rotator cuff injuries in the shoulder from pulling the parachute, and wrist injuries from folding the parachute and stowing the parachute lines in the deployment bag.

Streamline General Tasks

The process of packing a T-11 main parachute have not changed since the 1950's.

This means that a lot of the small, menial tasks in the parachute packing process have never been updated to include modern technology that would increase efficiency and decrease challenges.

Eliminating Bottlenecks

Since the process of packing a T-11 Parachute is manual with little technological intervention, there are a lot of bottlenecks that occur due to human error.

Examples of this are Inspectors failing to notice Rigger Checks, 92R Riggers having to stop packing to fill out the DA 3912 Form, and performing tool accountability for missing equipment.

Fostering Healthy Competition

Packing T-11 Main Parachutes day in and day out is monotonous work for both riggers and inspectors.

The way that Riggers and Inspectors find ways to have fun throughout the day is by racing each other during stages of the Pack Process and talking trash throughout the day.

The military as a whole thrives off of Healthy Competition. Our team aimed to find a way to implement a system to foster this in the Parachute Pack Process.

Design Thinking

Our Team spent the following months mulling over the problem space and our Areas of Opportunities. We developed artifacts to interpret our thoughts and began brainstorming solutions to the problems we identified.

From our research, we learned that Rigger Injuries posed a huge risk to ADFSD. Every time a Rigger gets injured, they’re pulled off the Pack Floor for months to undergo rehab to get back to full health. The inspectors on base emphasize the importance of form when training 92R Riggers, but this gets often overlooked by the young and rebellious attitude of recruits.

Our team took a step back and modified the traditional “Customer Journey Map” to better reflect the pain points of 92R Riggers that lead to prevalent injuries. This is what our team most aptly named the “Rigger Journey Map”.

The “Pack Shed” Where 92R Riggers pack their parachutes

The Y axis of this chart just represents a general increase/decrease in the chart and the X axis of this chart lays our all 8 Rigger Checks of the pack process for reference. Then, we charted four main challenges that were based on the interviews we conducted at Fort Gregg-Adams:

‍Physical effort for Tall People

Physical Effort for Short People

Repetitive Parts of the Process

Number of Tools Necessary

‍We noticed three particular areas in which physical effort increased for both Tall and Short riggers which often coincided with repetitive points in the pack process. In addition, in those areas there were less tools used. This makes sense because the tools are used to minimize effort in the pack process; in their absence, more strain will be placed on the rigger’s body.

With that in mind, our team realized that we needed to leverage technology to be the buffer between strain in the pack process and the Rigger’s Body.

Our team developing the “Rigger Journey Map” with annotations and early prototypes

With this “Rigger Journey Map” laid out our team could easily visualize the main pain points that have the greatest impact on Riggers. With this in mind, our team began the process of “Crazy 200’s”.

Similar to the traditional design exercise of “Crazy 8’s” our process focused on the Four Areas of Opportunity Identified in reference to this chart. For each Area of Opportunity, each team member needed to come up with at least 15 solutions that would address that Area of Opportunity at one of the three main pain points in the “Rigger Journey Map”. At the end of this we had well over 200 ideas in total to draw inspiration from.

Results from “Crazy 200’s”

From this “Crazy 200’s” we had a few great ideas and an abundance of bad ideas. But that was the point! This exercise is aimed at getting out all the boring and obvious solutions to a problem, forcing us to think creatively to solve a problem.

One of my favorite “bad” ideas was “Zumba Pack”. Imagine the pack floor turned into a fun dance club with music blasting at 140 BPM with an instructor at the front shouting out instructions for a pack: “Flake the Canopy! Flake the Canopy!”.

While seemingly ridiculous, you have to first understand what this idea is accomplishing and why we all assume this is a “bad idea”. At its core, this concept is primarily addressing the monotony of the parachute pack process. Furthermore, we could ensure specific parachute packing outputs if all Riggers are moving at the same pace. Now there are obvious concerns with this idea. For example, how desirable is “Zumba Pack” for a 92R Riggers? Could forcing Riggers to pack at one pace actually increase monotony? Could packing at a faster BPM increase injuries? All of which are valid factors to consider; we want to solve the problems ADFSD in a desirable way without causing more problems.

These small take-aways served as guiding principles while sifting through all these ideas to find solutions that were actually desirable and efficient.

After coming up with all these solutions, we slimmed them all down using this four dimension matrix called “Spider Charts”. Each axis of this chart represents a singular “Area of Opportunity”. Our team spent hours discussing the most salient ideas and narrowed them all down to about 10. From there, we charted each idea on these “Spider Charts” to figure out how each idea addressed each "Area of Opportunity”.

These broad concepts are what informed the prototypes that we developed to be tested on Riggers down at Fort Gregg-Adams on our second visit on-base!

Prototyping

With our Areas of Opportunity being seemingly related yet disjointed, our team realized that our ideas could not be a singular solution but an entire ecosystem to overall improve the Parachute Packing Process for ADFSD.

In our first prototype, each Rigger is issued an identification band that contains an RFID chip. At the beginning of each shift, they’ll tap their RFID band at their “Smart Table” to clock in. The “Smart Table” they’re packing at will automatically adjust to the calculated height best for packing for that Rigger. From there, the Rigger may manually adjust the height of the table using physical controls on the table. After properly adjusting the table, they’ll grab a parachute with RFID tags from under the table and scan that parachute to log it into the system.

That Rigger will then call for a Rigger Check by tapping that RFID band on the “Smart Table” which trigger a light at the apex of the table. From there, the Inspector will perform their Rigger Check and approve the pack by tapping their own RFID band. This process will repeat 8 times until the last Rigger Check where both the Inspector and Rigger sign off on the pack like in the DA 3912 form.

Early “Smart Table” Prototype built at Carnegie Mellon University

After finishing all their packs for the day, the Rigger can then use the screen built into their table to check their stats for the day, month, and year. They can also compare their stats to other Riggers on the pack floor as well as their own base’s output compared to other bases; thus fostering that healthy competition on the pack floor and between bases in the Army.

Interface Prototype tested on Riggers at Fort Gregg-Adams

Before going to Fort Gregg-Adams, we had to figure out what parts of our prototype were the most important to test. We did not need to construct a fully functional prototype to get feedback, we only needed to test specific parts of the prototype that were built upon assumptions. To narrow down what our team was going to test, we put together hypothesis of how our solutions will address the “Areas of Opportunity” we laid out. Then, we came up assumptions our team made when making these hypothesis. This could be things related to the needs of the Riggers, the capabilities of technologies, and functionality of our solutions in the context of packing parachutes.

Hypothesis about our Solution and their Assumptions

With all these assumptions in place, we could then plot them on an “Importance-Evidence Matrix”.

The X-Axis representing the amount of readily available evidence an assumption might have to support it (for example, literature on RFID capabilities is more available than evidence to prove that Riggers want an RFID wristband).

The Y-Axis representing the importance of testing this assumption (for example, testing the desirability of an RFID wristband is more important than testing the functionality because if the wristband is not desirable it defeats the purpose of testing functionality).

Importance-Evidence Matrix

The most important assumptions to test are the ones that have less evidence available and are the most important. That’s because they’re the most integral assumptions that question the possibility of the solutions. And when we prototype our solution for testing, we need to specialize our testing protocol to specifically prove/disprove the assumptions made about our solution. When it came time to go down to Fort Gregg-Adams, VA our prototypes were greatly condensed to paper prototypes with realistic content and functionality but overall low visual fidelity.

Usability Testing

Our Team went back down to Fort Gregg-Adams in Virginia to conduct usability testing with 92R Riggers and Inspectors. Over the course of a week, we conducted usability testing, interviews, task analysis, and  co-design sessions with Riggers.

Once on base, we set up an updated version of our “Smart Table” prototype in the main “Pack Shed” on base. We first introduced an Inspector to the prototype by showing them a blender video of the whole process. Then, we walked them physically through using the “Smart Table” by having them tap their RFID band and changing the colors of the lights on the table. Once they were familiar with the prototype, they served as the Inspector in the process of packing a T-11 with all the other Riggers we would test.

Testing the “Smart Table” Prototype at Fort Gregg-Adams

Blendr Rendering of the Screen next to the RFID Scanner

We had all the Riggers isolated in a separate room before exposing them to our prototype. We brought them in and introduced the prototype to them with the same Blender Video. Then, we had them pack a T-11 Parachute on this new “Smart Table” and had them call for Rigger Checks using the new system of tapping their RFID bracelet on the scanner.After finishing packing their parachute, we had them explore the Interface by prompting them with specific tasks. We followed up these tasks with semi-structured interviews to understand their experience with the “Smart Table” as well as the leadership board on the screen.

A Rigger testing the Leaderboard Interface

This testing went on for multiple days as each testing session with a Rigger lasted about an hour each. After completing our first round of testing, we redesigned parts of our prototype like the layout of the Leadership Screen and the placement of the RFID scanner to retest in the following days. Towards the end of our testing we conducted a collaborative design session with all the Riggers and Inspectors on base. This was where we worked with Riggers to meet their needs and desires with functional solutions. This session allowed our team to walk away with even more insights that informed our final solution for ADFSD.

Leading the Collaborative Design Session with 92R Riggers & Inspectors

Final Prototype

Now that we had validated our ideas, we needed to bring the idea to life with High Visual Fidelity prototypes so our clients at ADFSD could experience our solution first-hand at our Summer Presentation.

This provided a valuable opportunity to revisit my building experience through hands-on prototyping.

There were some pretty drastic changes in this final version of our prototype compared to the original one built in the Sprint. Most notably:

‍Ergonomic Rigger Check

Capacitive Strip

Height Adjusting Adjustable Table Legs

Rigger Check Hub

Computer Vision Enabled Tools

RFID Tool Accountability

Computer Vision Posture Correction

Biometric Rigger Check Approval

LED Progress Indicator

RFID Parachute Scanner

MATAPM Efficiency Data

Early “Smart Table” Prototype built at Carnegie Mellon University

This early “Smart Table” prototype was a great first run, but had several flaws. First and foremost, it was made completely out of Cardboard, which was cheap but also too heavy. This weight made it difficult to transport and it would buckle under its own weight. In addition, it wasn’t visually realistic. The cardboard was great for getting the idea across but we needed something more polished for our client to see. Lastly, we needed to add in more functionality into this final prototype. The previous prototype relied too much on “Wizard of Oz” presentation tactics with people manipulating the prototype in-time to make it all appear automated. How can we get the lights to happen on demand and the tools to move like there’s mechanisms driving it?

Mid-Progress through the “Smart Table” Prototype

The main improvement on our prototype was in the material used to make it. I chose to use foam insulation board. This is normally used in the walls of homes to keep them warm during the winter but more importantly, its lightweight. This would make it easier to transport the prototype on the day of our presentation. Furthermore, I could easily carve out the foam with a utility knife to make space for arduinos to drive the lights and the embedded tools in the table. Above you can see that the foam was sandwiched between two cardboard pieces for structure. In addition, I make the “glass LED shell” out of plexiglass that I glued with silicone glue.

Arduinos and the embedded tools housed inside the table

As you can see above, the Arduinos were housed inside the table, beneath what would be the RFID scanner. I cut a channel to route the wires to the two “Biometric Fingerprint Scanners” on both sides of the table (one for the Rigger, one for the Inspector). When either of these were pushed, it would change the state of the light from Red to Green to indicate that a Rigger check was completed. Under the table, was a capacitive strip that when tapped twice would change the state of the LED from none to Red to indicate that a Rigger Check was needed.

The embedded tool used a simple mechanism of a ramp that would emerge the Loop Tension Device from the table. When it would be time to demo this feature, the presenter would simply have to pull the end of the tool and the device would pop out of the table.

Testing Out the Prototype before the Client Presentation

Reflection

Director of ADFSD, Jason Hanifin, and Deputy Director of ADRSD, Frank Badalucco, both loved the idea. They presented the prototypes and research to high ranking officers and Generals at Fort Greg Adams who supported the idea. From here, Jason and Frank plan to take the idea to the Pentagon to secure funding for the project. They’ve already successfully secured funding for their equipment dropping system so attaining funding for the personnel parachute packing should be successful. From there, they’ll put a bid out to contractors to pick up this project with specific qualifications that were determined from our work in this project.

Jason and Frank showing off our Prototype!

This project posed some really unique challenges. This problem space was really unique, from our secondary research we quickly found out that there was not any analgous domains to reference. Therefore, we had to really pave our own way towards a solution. This required a lot of patience and faith in the design process. As you can tell, that process drove us in the right direction and birthed a solution that was highly effective for the team at ADFSD.

Next Project:

ARgo Dyslexia Assistant