1

Operational Test and Evaluation in Support

of International Swimming Competitions

Steve Pendry
1

Defence Science and Technology Organisation,

Michael B. Harris
University of South Australia

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the operational evaluation of the venue and the systems
required for the conduct of international-level swimming competitions such as the
Olympic Games and various world championships. Major international sporting
events are complex undertakings involving the use of venues not necessarily
purpose-designed for the activity and thus requiring significant temporary
infrastructure and facilities to be brought in. Management of the event is
complicated by the large number of people involved in its planning and execution.
These range from professional staff and contractors through to volunteer officials
and the competitors. An additional layer of complexity is added by the extensive
media involvement, particularly live television broadcast. Operational evaluation of
the venue, its facilities and, importantly, the management structure and
procedures is essential because national image and reputation are at stake when
running major international events Through a rigorous review of the swimming
test event activity prior to the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, in the light of modern
test and evaluation theory and practice, a framework has been developed to
assist in the design of test plans for future OT&E activities in support of major,
competitive swimming events.

Keywords: operational, test and evaluation, swimming, competition, venue


1. INTRODUCTION

Major international sporting events, such as the Olympic Games and the assorted world
championships, are an extremely complex undertaking involving a wide range of people, from
professional staff and contractors to volunteers. Conduct of these events involves
complicated logistics problems. Setting up the venue to meet the requirements of the
controlling bodies; such as the International Olympic Committee (IOC), FINA (the international
controlling body for the aquatic sports of swimming, diving, water polo,
synchronised swimming and open-water swimming), and national authorities like the Sydney
Olympic Games Organising Committee (SOCOG); is complex and demanding. These
events also require additional external equipment and supplies to serve a large number of
people, ranging from competitors and officials to spectators. Significant, and increasing,
levels of media involvement, particularly television, add an additional layer of complexity both
in terms of the venue set-up and the need to align the competition program with rigid
television-broadcast schedules.

In the case of competitive swimming, facilities used for major international competitions are
usually designed and constructed to satisfy a wide variety of requirements, ranging from
major competitive events through to public recreation and community fitness activities.
Because of the multi-purpose nature of the facility, its design will, of necessity, involve a
number of trade-offs. Thus, its ability to meet the requirements of any specific application will

1
This paper forms part of the research work conducted as a post-graduate student of the
University of South Australia.
2
potentially be compromised. Further, most venues need some form of temporary
supplementation to provide sufficient spectator seating, specialist facilities to support the
media, facilities for VIPs and office space for drug-and-doping control and general event
management. Compromises in the venue design and layout, and the event-specific venue
supplementation, are further sources of potential problems in conduct of competitive events,
particularly in regard to the flow of people, equipment and information during the event.

Because of the complexity introduced by the need to involve a wide range of people and
temporary equipment, the potential for unforseen problems is high. The impact of the
problems can be significant and damaging to national reputation, therefore the need for
operational test and evaluation of the venue in its competitive-event configuration and the
management procedures is self-evident. In recognition of the potential for operational
problems to emerge, it has become common practice for test events to be conducted prior to
the use of facilities for major competitive events. These test events are in effect operational
test and evaluation (OT&E), however they are not necessarily planned and conducted in
accordance with accepted test and evaluation principles and practices.

While test events were conducted by the various bodies responsible for the 1996 Atlanta
Olympics, the 2000 Sydney Olympics and the 2004 Athens Olympics, no formal record of the
test plans, or the test reports, appears to have been maintained for ready access in planning
future test events. It appears that most of the information is destroyed or discarded after the
competition or, at best, is held in the personal records of those involved in the process.

A comprehensive literature search failed to yield any documentation such as test plans or test
reports in the official records for the past three Olympic Games; however, there were a
significant number of media and other reports that mentioned the conduct and scheduling of
test events without providing any details. Discussion with people responsible for the
swimming test events prior to the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, and a review of the test plan
developed, revealed that while the plans for the conduct of the test events were very
comprehensive, they were largely procedural manuals devoted to defining how the test meet
would be run rather than specifically focussing on test activities per se. Therefore it was
recognised that test plans were not developed in accordance with the accepted test and
evaluation (T&E) practices, rather they were derived largely from the swimming competition
management experience of the individuals involved.

Given the high potential for major operational problems to emerge, particularly when using a
new or poorly-designed venue for an international swimming competition, the development of
a well-designed, operational test plan and the conduct of an operational evaluation is central
to the ultimate success of the major event. The purpose of this paper is to critique, not
criticise, the practices employed in the conduct of test events prior to the 2000 Sydney
Olympic Games, with a view to drawing on the experiences to develop a framework, based
on currently accepted T&E practice, for the creation of test plans for the operational
evaluation of swimming facilities. Such a framework will provide a common baseline, and a
level of traceability and rigour, not currently evident in the conduct of such swimming test
events.


2. OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

Although OT&E practice and principles are largely derived from the defence sector (Reynolds
1996; Stevens 1986) they may be applied with equal validity and success to other areas. This
paper examines how OT&E may be, and has been, applied in the evaluation of aquatic
facilities for the conduct of major, international, competitive swimming events, such as the
Olympic Games.

2.1 Operational T&E

3
Reynolds (1996) defined test and evaluation (T&E) simply as the measurement of the
performance of a system, and the assessment of the results for one or more purposes,
admitting that, in many respects, T&E is more an art than a science. The Australian
Department of Defence (Department of Defence 2005) defined T&E more specifically, as a
scientific, systematic process to obtain information in order to support the evaluation of the
quality of a system (or product) with known confidence. Thus, T&E parallels the scientific
method (viz. define the hypothesis, conduct research to disprove the hypothesis, analyse and
report results) and provides a structured, objective and planned approach to address three
key issues (Harris 2004):

What is the system required to do? That is, what is the desired operational outcome or
output of the system? Another slant may be to determine the users needs.
How will we know when the system fulfils these needs? Measures, particularly
measures of effectiveness, will be needed in order to know when this occurs.
Who carries responsibility for the T&E? Master planning
2
of the T&E program is
needed to clearly identify the expected effort, scheduling, resources, and funding
aspects of the T&E activities.

The Defence Materiel Organisation (2004) defined operational test and evaluation (OT&E) as
T&E conducted under realistic operational conditions. OT&E is conducted with
representative users of the system, in the expected operational context, for the purpose of
determining a systems operational effectiveness and suitability to carry out the role and fulfil
the requirement that it was intended to satisfy.

This definition aligns with perspectives offered by other sources that describe OT&E variously
as:

testing conducted by representative users in real world, operational scenarios that
duplicate actual use of the system or product, including realistic field conditions, and a
full range of climatic conditions ... (Technical Support Working Group 2003) or,

testing to demonstrate that a new system is operationally effective and operationally
suitable for use (Federal Aviation Administration 1999), or

OT&E attempts to determine the performance of a system under the most current
operational conditions. (Stevens 1986)

All these definitions are a perfect fit with the overall concept of test events employed with
respect to major swimming competitions, particularly since OT&E includes the evaluation of
socio-technical systems and whether they suit the people and their in-service needs and,
importantly, produce the desired operational effect. This is a crucial aspect concerning
competitive swimming events, because they involve large numbers of people that interact in a
complex social web.

Major competitive sporting events are relatively short-lived compared to the operational life of
the facility, with transitory use of additional temporary infrastructure that naturally changes the
operational environment. Therefore, the OT&E of aquatic facilities specifically for high-level
competition does not need to address operational suitability aspects related to long-term
issues such as maintainability, availability or through-life support; but should focus on the
systems operational effectiveness and the short-term operational suitability aspects such as
the human factors, safety and reliability. The primary focus on operational effectiveness will
be to determine whether the system, as configured, can be used for its intended use.


2
Master planning is the process to determine the overall structure, major elements, and
objectives of a T&E program. Planning, however, is the lower-level process to determine the
detailed preparations and actions needed for an individual T&E activity.
4
In developing the methodology for conduct of test events, the classic OT&E approach
presented by Harris (2004) provides a useful framework. This model, depicted in figure 1,
will be used as a basis for analysing the plan for the test event for swimming that was
conducted prior to the 2000 Sydney Olympics.


Figure 1: Operational Test & Evaluation Approach (after Harris, 2004)

Fundamental to successful OT&E is the identification of the critical operational issues (COIs)
and the development of the associated measures of effectiveness (MOEs) where the COIs
are potential show stoppers. To identify the COIs and determine appropriate MOEs for a
major competitive swimming event, the test event plan for the Sydney Olympics was critically
analysed. Because the venue layout and infrastructure are key factors in the ability to deliver
an effective competitive event it is necessary to review the fundamental specification of
swimming venues, as it was based upon the users needs definition.


3. VENUE SPECIFICATION

3.1 As A Users Need Statement

Most venues suitable for the conduct of major international swimming competitions are built
either directly by government bodies, or increasingly by private bodies under some form of
private-public partnership (PPP) arrangement, to satisfy a number of perceived community
needs ranging from high-level competitive swimming events to fitness and recreational
activities. Thus, compromises in the design of a venue must be made if it is to satisfy all
potential uses.

Output-requirements currently used by governments do not generally provide detailed
specifications of the facility, but focus on defining the nature of the services to be provided,
allowing the PPP developer (or designer) maximum flexibility in the facilitys design and
construction. Thus, a series of broad statements such as to meet the swimming and
aquatic needs and experiences of the regional community as they relate to four categories of
activities: recreation/leisure; sports; fitness; and events (Office for Recreation and Sport
2003) will be found rather than detailed requirements defining the physical layout or other
technical aspects of the facility.

This approach offers considerable scope for the basic requirements to be satisfied while
leading to a facility with significant functional and operational shortfalls for specific
applications. For example, an early draft of the output specification for a new, state aquatic
facility for South Australia (Office for Recreation and Sport 2003) defined functional
requirements simply in terms of being compliant with the FINA Facilities Rules (FINA 2005).
These rules provide clear guidance in regard to the dimensional aspects of a pool and its

5
ancillary equipment, but are silent in regard to the functional layout of the facility. Table 1
illustrates the minimalist nature the draft specifications for the proposed new South Australian
state aquatic facility.

Table 1: Pool Specification (Office for Recreation and Sport 2003)

Permanent Facilities:

50-m Indoor Pool
A 50-m indoor pool complying with the Olympic and world
championship FINA requirements.

Second 50-m Warm-Up/Cool-Down Pool
A 50-m indoor pool complying with the requirements for event warm
up and cool-downs.

Diving Pool
A diving pool, and associated dive tower and equipment, to Olympic
and world championship standards.

Polo Pool
A polo pool and associated equipment to Olympic and world
championship standard.

Issues critical to the operational effectiveness of a swimming competition; such as the
physical relationship between the various functional areas, and specialist facilities that impact
the flow of people, materials and information around the venue during a competition; are
largely ignored in the specification with the overall layout left to the architect to determine,
often in the absence of specialist users input. Further, the layout for competitive purposes is
often compromised by the available funding, the perceived needs of other uses of the facility
such as recreational use, or architectural aesthetics.

Therefore, given the multi-purpose nature of the facility, and the lack of specific layout and
other key functional requirements in the specification, the need for OT&E of the facility for
particular applications (such as international competitions) is essential if the event is not to be
compromised by shortfalls in the venue layout or facilities.


4. FINAS FACILITIES RULES

FINA, as the international controlling body of swimming, diving, water polo, synchronised
swimming and open-water swimming; sets the rules for the conduct of competitions and
plays a lead role in the management of international events for these aquatic sports,
especially the Olympic Games and related world championships. All the rules pertaining to
the conduct of these aquatic sports, at national and international level, are contained in the
FINA Handbook 2002-2005. In addition, FINA also provides rules that define the requirements
for the field of play, which are known as the facilities rules (FR). A review of the facilities rules
reveals that they largely provide quantitative requirements for the defining parameters of the
facilities. For example, FR2 and FR3 are quantitative in nature and provide all the physical
dimensions and their tolerances of swimming pools and ancillary equipment used in
international competition. FR4 provides the detailed functional requirements of the automatic
timing equipment, the electronic score board and starting equipment. FR13 provides
functional requirements of the audio equipment, but only in qualitative terms no quantitative
values for sound levels or distortion are given. Finally, FR14 provides detailed quantitative
requirements in respect to pool sanitation and general temperatures in the pool area.

6
Most of the requirements defined in the facilities rules are quantitative values of fixed physical
parameters that can be readily measured and remain fixed once the pool is constructed.
These are measured during the acceptance test and evaluation for handover from the
developer to the owner of the facility, and are not considered as part of the OT&E.

For planning OT&E, it is important to note what the FINA facilities rules do not address. It is
these factors, such as the physical layout and operational procedures, which are largely
subject to local variation and thus impact upon the operation of the facility during the conduct
of competitions. The layout of the aquatic facility, and the physical relationship between the
various functional areas, will have a significant impact on the operational effectiveness of the
event. The critical operational issues (COIs) will be primarily related to the effects caused by
these operating procedures, flow of people, equipment and information and the interfaces
between functional areas, all of which are dependent on the particular aquatic venue layout.


5. TEST EVENTS

As part of the Olympic bid commitments, SOCOG was required to conduct a test event, i.e. a
meet or competition during which the venues procedures would be assessed, in every
discipline of each Olympic sport (SOCOG 2001). By late 1997, a dedicated test event
program team had been established and an extensive test event schedule finalised. Test
events allowed SOCOG to meet three major objectives:

Test the field of play - and all elements involved with the competition and various
aspects of the venue
Test all technology systems - including specific scoring, timing and results systems
and communications
Train staff, contractors and volunteers - in an event environment and develop teams for
Olympic Games-time.

Test event tasks, content and schedules varied from sport to sport, but overall, fitted into two
broad categories:

Existing events: events already on the sporting calendar, such as the Australian
championships.
Created events: events specifically created by SOCOG and the national controlling
bodies to test Olympic operations.

A detailed literature search failed to yield any information on the test plans for the test events
in any sport, thus recourse was made to Swimming Australia Ltd. (SAL), the national
controlling body for swimming. Enquiries revealed that nothing relating to the test events,
either test plans or the test report, had been retained in the formal published records.
Fortunately, the Operations Manager for the Sydney International Aquatic Centre at the time of
the test event, was able to provide a personal copy of the test plans. These test plans were in
fact, only the procedures for the conduct of nominated test events. The prime test event
was the 2000 Telstra Australian Open Championships Selection Trials, an existing event, run
by SAL with SOCOG involved as a key stakeholder. To ensure that the test event was
representative of the Olympic event, the competition program and operating procedures
employed were identical to the Olympic program, and included significant media and
television participation. This approach enabled assessment of the interaction between the
media, particularly the television crews and their equipment, including interfaces to the
electronic timing, and scoreboard systems, and the conduct of the competition.

The test-event plan is reviewed in the following section, in the light of accepted practices in
the preparation of OT&E plans to identify COIs and MOEs.

7
5.1 Sydneys Olympic Parks Test Event Plan

The Sydney International Aquatic Centres test-event plan was a very detailed and well-
structured document, comprising in excess of 100 pages with some 90 or more pages of
appendices. Before examining the detail of the test event plan, it is crucial to identify the
overall users objective, as it is the fundamental yardstick used in assessing the operational
effectiveness and operational suitability of the systems and facilities. From the test event plan
(SOCOG 2000), the overall mission was to host a high standard [sic] swimming tournament
at the Sydney International Aquatic Centre site for the swimming competition of the 2000
Olympic Games.

The test event plan stated that the objective of the test event was for SOCOG to test certain
key elements critical to the success of the swimming discipline during the Olympic Games.
Six key elements were identified:

The venue (Sydney International Aquatic Centre SIAC) - management
Field of play (FOP) - competition pool to meet FINA requirements.
Technology - including data networks, electronic timing and scoring, meet management
systems, results compilation and doping control.
Venue expansion - which focussed on crowd control and flows in the temporary,
expanded spectator-seating facilities.
Officials
Paid staff and volunteers

SOCOGs safety policy stated that, in the design and operation of venues, the priority for
allocation of resources was:

Number 1 life safety
Number 2 sport competition
Number 3 television broadcast

Television broadcast. From this priority hierarchy, television broadcast was clearly
considered important due to the resources needed and the effect on the mass audience not
present at the venue. However the real issue was not the technology aspect (which was
relatively straightforward and remains something that the TV network staff do all the time), the
real concern was the interaction of the TV crew, and their equipment, with the officials and
other pool deck activities and, importantly, synchronising the running of the meet with the TV
timetable / schedule. At a normal swim meet, the referee runs the meet and manages a
schedule that is not linked to, or dictated by, international TV broadcasts and their tight timing.
Thus, television broadcast was a management/coordination issue, not just a technology
issue, that needed to be tested; and should therefore be explicitly identified as the seventh key
element.

Assessment approach. However, the test event plan was primarily a detailed set of
operating procedures that addressed every aspect of the test event management which,
while being very comprehensive and necessary for such a complex undertaking, were in
many respects not directly germane to an OT&E activity. Each functional area was provided
with a standard reporting sheet titled event objectives and deliverables. It was required that
each area report its outcomes on these sheets along with any recommendations for
improvement after each competition session (Abernethy, 2004). These sheets formed the
basis of test data collection and offer the best insight into the test structure and test
objectives. A post-test event debrief was conducted and a basic test event report was
prepared however attempts to locate copies were fruitless. Daily briefings were conducted
during the test event ensuring that issues were resolved on the spot and adjustments made in
time for the next session. From an analysis of the event objectives and deliverables sheets
the relationship between functional areas and activities was developed and is shown in table
2.
8

Table 2: Functional Areas and Associated Activities

Functional areas
Venue & venue
management
Site
management
House
management
Operations
management
Competition mgt. Signage Brand protection Accreditation /
passes
IOC relations /
protocol
Olympic
Coordination
Authority liaison
Catering Cleaning / waste
management
Key agencies
liaison
Risk
management
Medical support Communications
operations
Press operations - Merchandising Doping control
Sydney Olympics
Broadcasting
Authority (SOBO)
- Spectator services Environment
Sponsor liaison - Ticketing Language services
Venue operator
liaison
- Transport services Logistics
Security - - Medal ceremony





A
C
T
I
V
I
T
I
E
S
Staffing - - Technology

Weakness in the assessment approach. Since test event plan was primarily the detailed
operational procedures, the actual test activities were often obscured. The lack of any
explicitly defined COIs or MOEs makes it difficult to determine exactly what was being tested
and how it was to be evaluated. Indeed, the assessment process was to run the event in
accordance with the draft procedures, and amend the procedures at the end of each session
as agreed in a meeting of functional managers, notably without the use of pre-determined
measures to evaluate the outcomes. Thus, the test event was a highly subjective and
qualitative assessment, done in an evolutionary manner, with the outcome (the final version of
the procedures) unique to the specific venue (the Sydney International Aquatic Centre.)


6. OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT

Drawing on the six key elements originally identified in the test event plan, with the authors
addition of television broadcast as the seventh element (as discussed above), and in
combination with the functional area activities shown in table 2, the following COIs and related
MOEs have been developed. These are proposed by the authors as the basis of an
operational evaluation of a venue and the associated management processes, for the
conduct of an international swimming competition.

COI-1 Is this venue successfully managed?
MOE 1 : Number of tardy corrective actions to venue and event management
procedures.

COI-2 Is the field of play suitable for a major international swimming competition?
MOE-2-1: Number of corrective actions needed to meet FINAs facilities rules.
MOE-2-2: Mean rating of the competition pool by elite competitors.

COI-3 Is the technology capable of supporting this competition?
MOE-3: Percentage of results correctly promulgated.

COI-4 Is this venues surge-expansion effective?
MOE-4: Mean queuing time to enter the facility.
9

COI-5 Will the competition be officiated successfully?
MOE-5: Percentage of competitors lodging a protest.

COI-6 Are the paid-staff and volunteers able to perform effectively?
MOE-6: Mean lag to formally release events results.

COI-7 Will the media be able to cover the competition successfully?
MOE-7: Ordinal place of the television rating for televised events.

COI-8 Will the safety of lives be maintained?
MOE-8-1: Number of deaths at the venue.
MOE-8-2: Percentage of attendees suffering a reportable injury.

6.1 Measures Of Performance

Measures of performance (MOPs) are generally measures that are developed for noting the
internal efficiency of a particular solution system, thus are highly dependant on the
characteristics of the system. Which, and how many, MOPs are used is therefore likely to
vary from one solution system (swimming competition) to another, thus a set list of MOPs
cannot be provided. As an example however, consider the case of the table-2 activity,
spectator services. Useful MOPs might include:

Number of seats.
Seating set-up time.
Number of ushers available.
Training time (ushers).
Number of female toilets.
Number of male toilets.
Number of canteens customer service points.
People flow rate entering the stand.
People flow rate exiting the stand to the toilets.
People flow rate entering female toilets.
People flow rate entering male toilets.
Canteen customer servicing rate.


7. CONCLUSION

It has been shown that the conduct of international swimming competitions is a highly
complex undertaking that involves a number of separate groups, with significant logistical
issues. Involvement of the media adds an additional layer of complexity. Further, the need to
conduct the competition in venues that are not specifically, or at least not solely, designed for
the activity increases the potential for operational difficulties.

Given the high public profile, and the potential damage to the national image and reputation if
the event does not proceed according to plan, some form of operational evaluation of the
venue, the facilities, and event management procedures and logistical support arrangements
is essential. As in all operational test and evaluation, planning is the key to success. A prime
factor in the development of test plans is the identification of COIs and their associated
MOEs. While the test event plan used prior to the Sydney 2000 Olympics was a very
comprehensive document, it was more of an operating procedure manual than a test plan, in
that it did not specifically identify COIs or MOEs and did not define actual test procedures.

In this paper, the test event plans were reviewed in the light of current operational test and
evaluation practice, to tease out the key elements for achieving the overall mission statement
of an international swimming competition. These elements, within the context of the
10
functional areas identified for the conduct of the competition, were used to formulate a set of
COIs and MOEs. The COIs and MOEs which were presented, and the framework within
which they are presented, provide a sound basis for the development of future operational test
plans. In this respect, this offers a more rigorous approach to venue test event planning than
has been obvious in the past.


8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Mr Glen Tasker, Chief Executive Officer, Swimming Australia
Limited, for his support in identifying sources of documentation related to the Sydney 2000
test events. Thanks are also due to Mr Robert Abernethy, for providing his personal copy of
the 2000 Telstra Australian Open Championships Selection Trials, Sydney Olympic Park Test
Event Plans 2000.


9. REFERENCES

Defence Materiel Organisation 2004, DMO Verification and Validation Manual, Final Draft
edn, ed. M Polya, Department of Defence, Canberra, ACT.

Department of Defence 2005, Defence Test & Evaluation Procedures, ed. Director of Trials,
Capability Development Group, Canberra, A.C.T.

Federal Aviation Administration, US 1999, T&E during the acquisition management phases,
http://fast.faa.gov/archive/v0501/test_evaluation/pg5.html>.

FINA 2005, FINA Facilities Rules, vol. Part IX, Federation Internationale De Natation (FINA)
Handbook, Constitution and Rules 2002-2005, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Harris, MB 2004, Course notes for EEET 5046 Operational Test and Evaluation, v. 5, Course
Code EEET 5046, University of South Australia, Adelaide, S.A., Australia.

Office for Recreation and Sport 2003, State Swimming Centre Output Specification,
Reference F028.01, Revision 3, S.A. Government, Adelaide, S.A.

Reynolds, MT 1996, Test and Evaluation of Complex Systems, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.,
Chichester, England.

SOCOG 2000, Sydney Olympic Park Test Event Plans, unpublished plan, Sydney, NSW,
Australia.

SOCOG 2001, Venues and Sport: Competing at the Games, Volume 1, State Library of
NSW.

Stevens, RT 1986, Operational Test and Evaluation: A Systems Engineering Process,
Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company Inc., Malabar, Florida.

Technical Support Working Group 2003, Test and evaluation planning guide for combating
terrorism and public safety systems and products, US Government.
11
AUTHORS

Steve Pendry,
Information Sciences Laboratory,
Defence Science and Technology Organisation,
Edinburgh, S.A., 5111.
Phone: +61 8 8259 5168
e-mail: steve.pendry@dsto.defence.gov.au

Steve completed an engineering cadetship in private industry before moving to the SA Institute
of Technology. After 18 years in academia, he joined the South Australian Centre for
Manufacturing, before moving to the Department of Defence to manage the electro-optics
area in the defence industry development program. He later took up a position in the South
Australian government as senior investment manager for defence and advanced engineering.
Steve moved to DSTO in 1998, and is currently the Executive Officer to the Director,
Information Sciences Laboratory. His other interests include refereeing competitive
swimming meets and pistol shooting.


Michael Harris,
Systems Engineering & Evaluation Centre,
University of South Australia,
Mawson Lakes Campus,
Mawson Lakes, S.A., 5095.
Phone: +61 8 8302 5274
e-mail: michael.harris@unisa.edu.au

Michael is a senior research fellow with the Systems Engineering and Evaluation Centre at
the University of South Australia. His qualifications include a BSc (Hons) in physics and an
MSc in military vehicle technology. Prior to joining the University in 1998, Michael was a
project manager with CEA Technologies Pty Ltd, (an Australian electronics research and
development firm), following 14-years service in the Australian Army. Michaels other
interests include umpiring Australian football, distance running and volunteering at the Animal
Welfare League.