Maximizing Return on Investment: Assessing the Value of Military Human Performance Programs.

Contemporary human performance (HP) programs that support the warfighter are more prevalent than ever. Today’s programs support everything from special operators to line infantry units, 5th generation fighter pilots to helicopter aircrews, crash/fire/rescue teams, cyber operators, and basic training. As these programs continue to grow in scope and scale, the cost keeps rising. As leaders struggle to prioritize their limited funding across a growing list of requirements, it’s more important than ever that HP programs demonstrate a clear return on investment. Every dollar spent on HP takes away from seemingly more important obligations like preparing for Great Power Competition, addressing all-time low recruiting numbers, or modernizing an aging military. But how should we evaluate the return on investment from DoD HP programs?

To answer this question, it may be helpful to first describe what the typical DoD HP program entails. Nearly every program includes a diverse roster of embedded HP practitioners - usually biased toward strength & conditioning coaches but often includes soft tissue therapists, athletic trainers, and physical therapists as well. There are also cognitive performance specialists - sometimes clinical psychologists or licensed clinical social workers, but more often they are non-clinical mental or sports performance experts. There are also dietitians, researchers, and wearable technology & software specialists. Combined, these different HP specialties typically deliver services aimed at increasing operational readiness and elevating job-specific performance, extending career longevity, and preserving post-service quality of life.

‍

‍

Even with the most experienced team of practitioners, HP programs can’t deliver increased readiness, longevity, or post-service quality of life without strong buy-in and utilization – not just from the service member, but also, perhaps more importantly, from leadership. For the sake of discussion, let’s assume buy-in and high utilization have been established. Now that the program is up and running, how do we measure increased operational readiness or elevated job-specific performance, never mind longevity and post-service quality of life? Maybe more importantly, what should we measure? Should we measure a common set of HP outcomes – similar to Mission Essential Task Lists (METL)? Categorical outcomes might include physical durability, physical capacity, decision-making speed and effectiveness, recall ability, and stress & emotional resilience, etc. Or should outcomes be more tailored to individual units and occupational specialties? Regardless, once we settle on what will be measured, what rubric will be used? Will measurements be strictly quantitative or will they include qualitative elements? What is the longitudinal component between test and retest? What about baselining? And who decides the how, what, and when? Should it be centrally directed, or should it be decided by local leadership? Finally, how do we translate measurements into actual dollar-based return on investment (ROI)? From there, assuming the measurements have yielded a defendable ROI, what’s the threshold that justifies the cost of these programs? Regardless of where the answers to these questions land, as DoD HP programs continue to grow, providing irrefutable evidence of their value will be more important than ever.