RD-i48642METHODOLOGIES (IIANPERS)(U) GENERAL RESEARCH CORP MCLEAN

VA C M KNERR ET AL. DEC 84 GRC-1299-@i-82-CR

UNCLASSIFIED RI-RN-84-36 MDA98382-C269 F/G 5/ NL

EhE EEE0h
i-.

11111L2 III-A

MR O RESO LU TS 2.

1.8

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART

NATIONAL BUOREAU OF 'STANADs Ft, A

. . - .,..........%,. .
Research Note 84-136

INTERIM REPORT FOR MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS

NDETERMINATION METHODOLOGIES (MANPERS)

00 C. Mazie Knerr, Elmo E. Miller, Lawrence B. Nadler

and Susan K. Dowell

THuman Resources Research Organization

Francis 0. Deppner, Gene P. Hill and Richard L. Somers I .General Research Corporation

Bruce W. Knerr, Contracting Officer's Representative

-4.

Submitted by

Bruce W. Knerr, Acting Chief

SYSTEMS MANNING TECHNICAL AREA

and

Jerrold M. Levine, Director

SYSTEMS RESEARCH LABORATORY

"- ':_: > DTIC rI -CTE D

, DEC 1 9 1984

,- R r U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

December 1984

Approved for Public release; distribution unlimited.8 4 12 0

This report, as submitted by the contractor, has been cleared for release to Defense Technical Information Center I:(DTIC) to comply with regulatory requirements. It has been given no primary distribution other than to DTIC

and will be available only through OTIC or other reference services such as the National Technical Information ! Service (NTIS). The views, opiniens, and/or findings contained in this report are those of the authorhst and

1should not be construed as an official epattment of the Army position, policy, or decision, unless so designated

- O_ by other official documentation.

-. .2 A
.* . - . . . . . . . . .

•• . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . 

, 

UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THiS PAGE (Wh'n Data Entered)

"REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS

R PBEFORE COMPLETING FORM

I. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

ARI Research Note 84-136

4. TITLE (and Subtit) Interi m Report for Manpower and s. TYPE OF REPORT A PERIOD COVERED

Personnel Requirements Determination Methodologies Interim Report

(MANPERS) 15 May - 15 Nov 1982 S. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

. R1299-01-82-CR

% 7. AUTHOR(s)C. Mazie Knerr, Elmo E. Miller, Lawrence a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(&)

B. Nadler, Susan K. Dowell, Francis 0. Deppner,

Gene P. Hill, Richard L. Somers MDA903-82-C-0269

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK

AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

General Research Corporation

7655 Old Springhouse Road 2Q263743A791

McLean, Virginia 22102 (Cont.)

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

US Army Research Institute December 1984

(ATTN: PERI-SM) (Cont.) 13. NUMBER OF PAGES

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME A ADDRESS(If different from Controlling Office) IS. SECURITY 3h36 CLASS. (of report)

UNCLASSIFIED

1Sa. DECLASSIFICATION'DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

6. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; unlimited distribution

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, if different from Report)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse side if necessary amd identify by block number)

"ehavioral, task descriptive data, task and skill analysis, aawpower, personnel,

requirements, manpower and personnel requirements, documentation of requirements,

Basis of Issue Plan, quantitative and qualitative personnel requirements, information, force structure, combat developer, materiel developer, trainer, inte-

". ,*~grated logistics support, logi-tics support analysis, -manpower requirements

20. ABSTRACT (Continue an reverse side It necoeay aid Identify by block number)

This-is an interim report of Manpower and Personnel Requirements Determination

Methodologies (MANPERS), Phase I of a three-phase project entitled "Development

of the Army Manpower and Personne. Requirements Process (ARMPREP)." This report

covers initial research into manp.wer and personnel requirements determination

* processesat-ilized by other services. It also covers information gleaned from

the subject matter experts who are employed by the Army Materiel and Combat

Developer. Inclt..d in tl*,report. is a statement of requirements for developing

an ideal baseline to generate Army manpower and personnel requirements. )(Cont)

::,DDIJAN DD;- FORM 1473 , EDITION OF I OV, 5 IS OBSOLETE 7S Unclassified

*_ -- i SEC'JRITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (len Data Entered)

V.L
'S UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Whui Data 201MOM

* Block 9

Human Resources Research Organization

300 North Washington Street

Alexandria, VA 22314

Block 10

5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22333

Block 19

analysis, life cycle system management model.

Block 20

-,To support the requirements determination process, an MOS and related task

oriented taxonomy/ias--beet developed along with algorithms and procedures

for use in developing the qualitative and quantitative personnel re ieetsi 

information associated with new weapon systems development. ~ +~I ~

Accessi1on For

NTT,~(F&

DDcT;.B

COPYtI

INDPECt

* ii UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION Of THIS PAGE(Wfte Date ItneetE)
I. _. J6* * .** .**

BRIEF

Objective:

- The overall ARMPREP objective is to develop procedural and systems

tools to aid and improve the determination of manpower and personnel requirements for new Army systems. The first four tasks of Phase I are

addressed in this interim report. These tasks call for establishment of

an "ideal baseline" for requirements development, design of a taxonomy

to support requirements determination, and development of algorithms and

- procedures for implementation of the recommended methodologies.

Procedures:

-4- Four major tasks have been addressed during this period of research. Task 1, Establishment of the Requirement for Manpower and Personnel Requirements Determination Methodologies (MANPERS), has involved

assessing the state-of-the-art in manpower and personnel requirements

determination for new systems through documentation review and interview

of subject matter experts. The type, quality, and flow of data input to

the process have been assessed and an "ideal baseline" for requirements

development has been postulated.

Task 2 required the development of a taxonomy for derivation of

behavioral requirements from new system task descriptive data. Existing

taxonomies were reviewed and two new taxonomies to aid in MOS determination were developed.

Tasks 3 and 4 require the development of algorithms and procedures

for implementation of new methodologies. This work is still in process.

Findings:

" Current processes for documenting manpower and personnel requirements are complex, incompletely understood, and imperfectly executed; as

a result, systems are being deployed with inadequate manpower. The

"ideal baseline" addressed in this report offers prescriptive solutions

to many of these problems and is attainable within the state-of-the-art.

The taxonomic procedures considered in this baseline offer the potential

for increased rigor and standardization in new system MOS determination.

Utilization of Findings:

Research results to date should be used as a basis for continuing

development, demonstration, and evaluation of supporting methods and

procedures. The two major foci of this effort should be continued

development of procedures and tools to aid in MOS definition and quantification, and the definition of specific procedures required to

. implement other "ideal baseline" systems and procedural improvements.

iii
CONTENTS

SSECTION PAGE

BRIEF iii

I INTRODUCTION 1-1

The ARMPREP PROJECT 1-1

Phase I - MANPERS 1-2

Remaining Phases/Components 1-3

Report Highlights 1-4

Conclusions 1-6

Recommendations 1-6

2 ESTABLISH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL

REQUIREMENTS DETERMINATION METHODOLOGIES (MANPERS) 2-1

Background 2-1

Current BOIP Process 2-3

Problems with Current Process 2-21

Ideal Baseline 2-32

Other Areas for Improvement 2-56

Summary 2-58

3 DEVELOPMENT OF TAXONOMIES TO DERIVE BEHAVIORAL REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW ARMY SYSTEMS 3-1

Background 3-1

Life Cycle and Personnel Planning Processes 3-2

Current Method for Determining MOS 3-6

Method in Task 2 3-13

4 DEVELOPMENT OF ALGORITHMS AND PROCEDURES TO TRANSLATE

BEHAVIORAL REQUIREMENTS INTO MOS 4-1

Objectives 4-1

Procedure for Determining MOS and Generating Task Lists 4-2

Identifying MOS for Direct Operators and Maintainers 4-2

Identifying MOS for QQPRI 4-5

Generating Task Lists and Confirming MOS 4-12

Identifying MOS of Support Personnel 4-16

Summary 4-19

v

.-.- ., #.. - -.-.- -i-,. ", .,-# ,-'. #-"4 .- . , "- ." yo ,.", ". ". e. -. " .-.-. ' .- .. •.'... .-. '.'..... "" . ". 
p ,

.'O

CONTENTS (Continued)

. SECTION PAGE

5 CONCLUSIONS 5-1

6 RECOMMENDATIONS 6-1

7 REFERENCES 7-1

APPENDICES PAGE

A REVIEW OF THE NAVY'S HARDMAN METHODOLOGY A-i

B REVIEW OF AIR FORCE METHODS FOR DETERMINING MANPOWER

REQUIREMENTS B-i

C LIST OF FIELD TRIPS C-i

D EXPLANATION OF TERMS D-i

E MANPOWER AUTHORIZATION CRITERIA (MACRIT) E-i

F REVIEW OF BEHAVIORAL TAXONOMIES F-i

vi

F: vi

"0 .

Vea .

e% ." * *. , .. -- ~ 9- - *
'! S

TABLES S NUMBER PAGE

*. 2.1 Ideal Baseline Manpower Information Requirements 2-35

3.1 MOS Structure Taxonomy 3-22

3.2 Task Structure Taxonomy 3-40

3.3 Supervisory Functions in Maintenance 3-58

4.1 Input/Output Functions of Taxonomic System 4-3

- 4.2 QQPRI Submission Requirements 4-4

4.3 Procedure for Using Task Structure Taxonomy 4-13

- 4.4 Common Support Chains of MOS 4-18

FIGURES

NUMBER PAGE

- 2.1 An Overview of the QQPRI-BOIP Process 2-6

2.2 The Principal Materiel Developer Players 2-9

2.3 The Principal Actions at Materiel Development and

Readiness Commands 2-10

2.4 The Principal Combat Developer Players 2-13

2.5 TRADOC Schools and Integrating Centers 2-16

2.6 Data Flow for Manpower and Personnel Supportability

Analysis 2-19

2.7 HQ Department of the Army BOIP Players and Flow 2-20

* 2.8 Essential Elements of Information Required by the NET

* Analyst 2-39

2.9 Information Requirements of the Proponent School 2-42

2.10 Identification of Potential Tasks Via System Attributes 2-43

-4 2.11 Maintenance Requirements - Ordnance School 2-46

*'i 2.12 Coordinating School - Artillery School 2-47

* 2.13 Maintenance Impact of New Systems 2-49

2.14 QQPRI-BOIP Impact Report Development 2-51

2.15 Phasing QQPRI-BOIP Requirements 2-53

S..

-. vii

-o
FIGURES (Continued)

NUMBER PAGE

2.16 Potential Sources of Information for QQPRI-BOIP 2-54

3.1 QQPRI Requirements and Data 3-5

4.1 Algorithms for Determining Tentative MOS (TMOS) 4-6

I I

.

viii
INTRODUCTION

This interim report addresses the initial 6 months of research

directed toward development of the Army Manpower and Personnel Requirements Process (ARMPREP). Covering accomplishments to date on Tasks I

* through 4 of the first phase, it details methods and results (procedures

and findings), suggests conclusions, and makes recommendations as to

utilization of findings in continuing research to meet project objectives. The introduction offers an overview of the ARMPREP project, as

well as highlighting major elements of the report which follows. Subsequent sections treat individual tasks, conclusions, and recommendations.

THE ARMPREP PROJECT

Other materials developed by the US Army Research Institute (ARI)

provide comprehensive details on the background, technical objectives,

and scope of ARMPREP research. This overview is provided as a convenience for relating the details which follow to the long-term direction

of the effort.

The ARMPREP project is part of an overall ARI thrust in the area

of systems manning technology. It is an element of the Man Integrated

System Technology (MIST) effort and is focused on the development of

procedural and systems tools to aid and improve the manpower and

personnel requirements determination processes associated with the

acquisition of new Army systems. Specific problems which ARMPREP

:% research is seeking to solve include:

* A lack of formal (standarized and replicable) methods for

determining manpower and personnel requirements for specific

systems tailored to each stage of the Life Cycle System

Management Model (LCSMM).

* A lack of procedures and techniques (tools) for aggregating

new system requirements to facilitate demand versus supply

and affordability determinations.

%I-I

V[ -

,% , - % ,, L X % =-',- -j,. . , . .. ,. .-.- # , - ,.,- . .. -,. ---
::::.:

-' Limited accountability and management capability for the

devel-opment and processing of new system manpower and personnel requirements information.

" The lack of adequate automated systems to support informa- a'" tion storage, retrieval, computational, and management aspects of the process.

To address these problems, ARMPREP research is divided into three

phases and four major components:

0 Phase I - Manpower and Personnel Requirements Determination

Methodologies (MANPERS)

. Phase II

* - Manpower Demand Aggregation Procedures (TOTAL MANPERS)

"" - Requirements for a Manpower Requirements Management

Information System (MARMIS)

. Phase III - A computer interactive system for determination

of manpower and personnel requirements (AUTO MANPERS)

". PHASE I - MANPERS

* ' The MANPERS component is focusing on the development of tools and

techniques to assist individuals responsible for determining new system

manpower and personnel requirements. Increased rigor and standardiza-

/. tion, and development of better estimates earlier in the LCSMM are major

goals. The first four tasks, which are the subject of this interim

* report, involve:

* Establishment of requirements for MANPERS.

" Development of a taxonomy for the derivation of behavioral

* requirements from new system task descriptive data (TDD).

-. Development of an algorithm for the translation of behavioral requirements into military occupational specialty

(MOS) and other related relationships.

1-2

%.a,. A

WI

V.~~ ~~~~~~~~~ -- ----- ~ % . * * * *~**' ~ ***~ ***,.
4',.

Development of procedures for implementing the MANPERS

methodologies.

The first two tasks have been completed, although findings, conclusions, and recommendations are expected to be augmented and modified

as research progresses. Tasks 3 and 4 are in process; while some significant opportunities for improved tools and processes supportive of

project goals have been identified, it is clear from initial research

that additional development and evaluation will be essential.

Remaining Phase I tasks involve test and application of methods

and procedures currently under development. Specific tasks call for:

0 Development of job aids and examples of manpower and personnel requirements determination processes using MANPERS methodologies.

* Demonstration and evaluation of MANPERS products.

i * Development of a MANPERS Manual.

* Conduct of user community reviews.

" Technical report preparation.

REMAINING PHASES/COMPONENTS

TOTAL MANPERS

"-" The TOTAL MANPERS component is intended as an expansion of MANPERS

methodologies to provide for extension and aggregation of new system

manpower and personnel data within and across systems. Its objective is 4

to provide an orderly and systematic basis for affordability determination and comparison with supply at strategic points in the LCSMM and

Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution System (PPBES) so that

this information can be used in support of critical design and development decisions.

1-3

.
.. . ..... . • .. . .... - -.-. . . , . %. -. . - . -. -. -, s

,r r .

-- 7.

HAMI

, -a

The focus of MARMIS is on controlling new system manpower and

.-.. personnel requirements information and improving the availability of

- associated documentation. Manual and automated procedures and their

. interfaces are to be explored, system requirements identified, and a

model developed.

AUTO MANPERS

The culmination of the ARMPREP project will be the development of

an implementation and test plan for previous ARMPREP technical products

to include requirements and specifications for a computer interactive

system (AUTO MANPERS) to integrate and support essential processes and a

projective test of ARMPREP technical products. Additional product re-

* finements and implementability will be a key focus of this phase.

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS

Task I - MANPERS Requirements

% .Manpower requirements determination processes of the Army and

other services were reviewed. The Navy HARDMAN proces is described in

Appendix A, while the Air Force processes are described in Appendix B.

Select groups of subject matter experts (SME) were interviewed. These

SME represented the Materiel and Combat Developers and the Trainer. In

addition, Army policy and procedural guidance literature was reviewed.

Based upon the SME interviews and literature review, an "ideal baseline"

for manpower and personnel requirements determination was formulated.

Baseline requirements are oriented to the LCSMM and identify a need for

"' systematic documentation and preservation of information which should be

developed during analyses conducted to secure project approval and for

* subsequent milestone reviews. There are adequate opportunities during

the system development life cycle to significantly improve the timeliness and quality of manpower and personnel requirements for new systems.

Recommended improvements are considered feasible within the current

state-of-the-art.

1-4

0N
t7

. .. Task 2 - Taxonomic Development

Development of a taxonomy for the derivation of behavioral re-

- quirementd from new system TDD draws from Task I input. Task I identified important documents [e.g., Quantitative and Qualitative Personnel

." Requirement Information (QQPRI) and Basis of Issue Plan (BOIP)] and

processes (e.g., LCSMM) related to manpower and personnel requirements

.q determination and addressed the information which is required at various

developmental phases for determining the manning of a new or improved

Army system. This information, when placed in the context of an

*organized framework, constitutes the basis for the ARMPREP taxonomic

system.

In developing the taxonomy for deriving behavioral requirements

-. from new weapon system TDD, existing behavioral taxonomies were reviewed

and assessed in terms of their utility for manpower and personnel requirements determination. The application of specific, formal cri-

-. teria for the ARMPREP taxonomy led to the determination that existing

taxonomies were not directly applicable. Army documents (e.g., AR

611-201), however, contain relevant information which has been adapted

to accomplish the Task 2 objectives by developing two taxonomies, one

".- for determining the MOS for a new system based upon equipment, and the

other to aid in formulating task dimensions. The model encompasses the

type and level of data required at each phase of the LCSMM.

Tasks 3 and 4 - Algorithms and Procedures

Task 3 is concerned with developing algorithms for translating

behavioral requirements into MOS and other related relationships by

2 applying the taxonomic system. A general description of this translation process, using taxonomic elements to make MOS determinations, is

provided. The algorithms, which are structured to an Army context, are

also linked, in terms of the quantity and quality of the data output

provided, to the phases of the LCSMM.

After generating the algorithms, the procedures for using them, as

well as the behavioral requirements and the taxonomic model, are described in Task 4. In the ensuing months, work on the Task 3 and 4

1-5
• .products will be oriented toward expanding the algorithms and procedures which will be compiled, with ill. .rations, -into the MANPERS

user's manual. Procedures to be developed will also encompass other

systems and procedural requirements addressed in the "ideal baseline."

CONCLUSIONS

7-* The process of documenting the manpower and personnel requirements

associated with new systems is complex; it involves many geographically

dispersed organizations and its details are not consistent nor consistently understood among participants. Essential information is being

lost because there is no systematic recording capability. Systems and

procedures improvements to deal with these and related problems are

feasible. In addition, objectivity in MOS determination can potentially

be improved through application of the taxonomic structures addressed in

this report, but additional research in this area is still required.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The remaining Phase I tasks, involving the demonstration and evaluation of methods and procedures currently being developed and preparation of a MANPERS manual, should continue. This effort would have two

major foci:

. Development of procedures and tools to aid in MOS definition

and quantification at each LCSMM stage.

- Definition of specific procedures required to implement

* other systems and procedural improvements incorporated in

the "ideal baseline."

1-6
ESTABLISH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL

-5 REQUIREMENTS DETERMINATION METHODOLOGIES (MANPERS)

BACKGROUND

* ' In order to establish the MANPERS component of ARMPREP, it is

first necessary to formulate requirements for techniques and methodolo- U

- gies to improve estimation of Army manpower and personnel for new systems. These MANPERS requirements are intended to be the basis for

.* standardizing manpower and personnel definition within the context of

the Army programs for force modernization or product improvement. The

following portions of this section address the current process, problems, the ideal MANPERS baseline, and areas for improvement.

Objectives

The objectives as listed in the contract statement of work are to:

0 Perform an assessment of the state-of-the-art in methodologies for determining manpower and personnel requirements to

field new systems.

. Review current documentation on the Army's manpower and personnel requirements determination process.

0 Determine the type and quality of data input to the manpower

and personnel requirements determination process.

* Review Air Force and Navy documentation relative to the

manpower and personnel requirements determination process.

0" Interview select groups of SME to include Army materiel and

combat developers as well as behavioral scientists familiar

with the personnel requirements issues.

. Determine the requirements for MANPERS in the manpower and

personnel requirements determination process.

* Describe the Army "ideal" baseline for manpower and personnel requirements development (specifically QQPRI) according to SME interviews, Army regulations, and other relevant

documentation.

'2-1

I -

A
. .

0 Specify the degree to which this "ideal" baseline is or is

not achievable, given the current state-of-the-art.

Data Collection

• -" This report synthesizes information collected from a review of

literature, interviews conducted in the Washington area with staff members of Headquarters, Department of the Army (HODA), Headquarters, US

* Army Materiel and Readiness Command (HO DARCOM), and US Army Soldier

' Support Center-National Capital Region (SSC-NCR), and interviews

conducted at DARCOM and US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC)

field agencies.

An extensive literature review was conducted during this period.

To preclude duplication of the "Materiel Modernization Reference Compendium" being prepared by the MIST contractor, the references listed here

are those that support a particular point. Synopses of other service

manpower and personnel requirements determination procedures or processes are attached as Appendices A and B. Although review of Navy and

Air Force approaches to this problem was useful, no specific procedures

or models were considered directly adaptable for ARMPREP application.

The objective of the field interviews was to learn the current

approaches and problems from the principal DARCOM and TRADOC agencies

that contribute to the QOPRI and BOIP development process. The schedule

of visits is in Appendix C.

Of particular importance to this project are the results of sever-

-. " al current and relevant studies:

- HODA Inspector General examination of the force modernization issues, procedures, and processes (classified For Official Use Only).

. Man-Machine Interface Study of TRADOC and DARCOM.

* The Coventry Report, developed by a staff officer of the

0 Army Force Modernization Coordinating Office (AFMCO).

2-2

... *-, .. *.*. *. .. , .-. . ., .** ."~ .** . .- , . - , , , - % - ", - - , -, , .* . . ,-, . . . . .
CURRENT BOIP PROCESS

Definition of Terms

A glossary is provided in Appendix D; however, several terms are

defined below to reduce the chance of misunderstanding. These essential

* terms are:

* Materiel Developer - The command or agency responsible for

research, development, and production validation of a system

which responds to HQDA approved materiel requirements.

DARCOM is the principal materiel developer and is so depicted in supporting figures and tables.

. Combat Developer - The command or agency responsible for

doctrine, concepts, requirements, and organizations. TRADOC

is the principal combat developer and is so depicted in

supporting tables and figures.

Basis of Issue Plan Feeder Data (BOIPFD) - The submission of othe materiel developer which describes the modernization

equipment.

- Qualitative and Quantitative Personnel Requirements Information (QQPRI) - The materiel developer submission which provides information about the personnel required to operate,

maintain, and repair one set or piece of equipment under

development.

* Basis of Issue Plan (BOIP) - The combat developer uses the

BOIPFD and QQPRI as references in conjunction with the

°- organizational and operational doctrine to develop another

document called the BOIP. The completed BOIP contains

equipment and personnel changes required to integrate the

modernization system into existing organizational requirements documents [i.e., Tables of Organization and Equipment

(TOE) ].

Automated Unit Reference Sheet (AURS) - The AURS is a precursor to a draft TOE. It is the combat developer's

expansion of the BOIPFD and QQPRI into a complete BOIP

2-3

'" . • .o .. .. .... $ 1 %.- . .- -.-. ..- A-. . , . % . A %
equipment and personnel requirement. It is used to establish a new organization when an existing TOE is not accept- "

able for new equipment and concepts. The combat developer

is responsible for the AURS and it includes the total

organizational needs identified by the BOIPFD and QOPRI for

all equipment and personnel necessary to operate and support

the modernization system in a new organizational structure.

The AURS has the format of and is used as a Table of Organization and Equipment (TOE) (e.g., the PATRIOT air defense

system required an AURS). (Note: Either a BOIP or AURS is

used to implement the developmental item into the force

structure but generally never both.)

LCSMM and QQPRI-Related Input

Despite the many events in the Life Cycle System Management Model

(LCSMM) chart in DA Pamphlet 11-25 which depict manpower data, there are

only two mandatory QOPRI submissions; the processing of either submission may contribute to losing information that will otherwise influence

the MOS decision:

" Tentative QOPRI (TQOPRI) must be sent to TRADOC through the

US Army Materiel Readiness Support Activity (MRSA) not later

than (NLT) 9 months before the completion of Milestone II.

0 The Final OOPRI (FQOPRI) must be sent to TRADOC through MRSA

NLT 33 months prior to the equipment availability date or 21

months prior to the estimated type-classification (TC) date,

whichever occurs first.

It is permissible to submit amendments to either TOOPRI or FOOPRI

at any time prior to the TC date. The use of such amendments was found

to be relatively limited (Deppner et al., 1980, Report on Input Data

Quantity), due largely to the cumbersome nature of document preparation -p

and processing flows.

2."

2-4 '

La
QQPRI Flow 5

Overview

The three principal organizations responsible for the research,

development, and deployment policy of a system under development are:

[] (I) DARCOM - the materiel developer, (2) TRADOC - the training and

" doctrine (i.e., combat) developer, and (3) HQDA - the force modernization planner.

Figure 2.1 depicts the essential elements of the roles played by

the three organizations. An explanation of the figure follows.

- Zone of Responsibility - This part of the matrix is intended

to emphasize the limits or boundaries of information

appropriate for each organization, e.g.:

- DARCOM is only responsible for describing the attributes and resource requirements of the system under

development. In this respect, the QQPRI represents

requirements for operating, maintaining, and support-

* :ing one new system only, even though two or more

identical new systems may be implemented in a unit.

*For example, the QQPRI for a tank would state requirements to operate, maintain, or support one tank;

whereas a tank battalion may be equipped with 54

tanks.

- TRADOC is responsible for expanding on the DARCOM data

and describing the resource requirements of system- I using and system-supporting )rganizations. TRADOC

utilizes the BOIPFD to ensure component items and

associated items of equipment (AS:OE) are included and

considered in developing the BOIP.

- HQDA is responsible for expanding on the TRADOC data

and evaluating the impact of the modernization system

upon the total force structure.

2-5

.7

..-. ,, - . .% ,. >. . . i . . . . . -. 'I:;.-:: - ... .. . . .. ,.....
AN OVERVIEW OF THE QQPRI-BOIP PROCESS 4

THE PRINCIPAL ORGANIZATIONAL PLAYERS

DARCOM " RDCHQDA

VANALYZE THE INPUTV

DEVELOP THE FOLLOWING:

" V V V

ZONE OF ONE SYSTEM SYSTEMS IN UNITS SYSTEMS IN THE

RESPON- + TOTAL FORCE

SIBILITY: SUPPORTING UNITS

DATA BOIPFD (equip) BOIP - equip Procurement and

DEVELOPED: QQPRI (manpower) - manpower distribution

., planning (units

Requirements to be equipped)

document

e-.: Equip/manpower

impact report

CONCEPTS Maintenance Organizational & -> DEVELOPED: Operational

"- MOS

ACTION: Recommendation Recommendation Decision

-S

.-

SYSTEM Training Affordability

IMPACT (spaces, force

* ANALYSES Feasibility structure)

PERFORMED: (rotation base,

career path,

SGA)

Supportability

*• (faces -

"I aitudespt

V V V

Forward to Forward to Return to

TRADOC HQDA TRADOC

-Figure 2.1. An Overview of the QQPRI-BOIP Process

2-6

;: * -.. - 9
* Data Developed

- DARCOM describes the single system requirements in

BOIPFD and 0QPRI.

- TRADOC develops the BOIP (or AURS) to indicate new or

changes in organizational requirements. Then TRADOC

computes the total system equipment and personnel requirement impacts on current TOE.

- HQDA uses the BOIP (or AURS) in the Logistics Structure and Composition System (LOGSACS) to compute the

Army Acquisition Objective (AAO) and the Total Army

Equipment Distribution Program (TAEDP). BOIP (or

AURS) are also applied in the Personnel Structure and

Composition System (PERSACS) to identify the impact

of new systems on personnel requirements by unit,

grade, and MOS.

. Concepts Developed

- DARCOM develops the maintenance concept which de0scribes the level of maintenance to which the system

is designed. For example, if maintenance is performed

in the Army vs. contract, different considerations

such as training, parts stockage, and level of

maintenance are involved. The level of maintenance

may be organizational, direct support (DS), general

support (GS), and depot or different considerations of

these levels combined with contract maintenance.

- TRADOC develops the detailed organizational and operational concept which describes the employment and support of the new system.

* MOS Action

- DARCOM recommends the MOS appropriate to operate,

maintain, and repair the new system.

- TRADOC (SSC-NCR) makes the final MOS recommendations.

HQDA (ODCSPER) makes the MOS decision.

2-7

. •~.A.
,.7.

0 System Impact Analyses Performed

- TRADOC (training developer) estimates the training impact of the new system.

- TRADOC (SSC-NCR) estimates the feasibility and supportability of the new system.

- HQDA (ODCSPER) estimates the personnel affordability

of the new system.

Agency-Level Actions

DARCOM. The three principal players in the DARCOM community (see

Figure 2.2) are: (1) the Materiel Development Commands and Materiel

Readiness Commands (MDC/MRC), (2) the Equipment Authorization Review

Agency (EARA), and (3) the MRSA.

--. If the system under development me ts specified dollar thresholds,

it will be managed by a project manager (PM), while the remainder are

under MDC management. The specific MDC/MRC actions are shown in Figure

2.3.

The Logistics Analyst or Materiel Systems Coordinator at the MDC/

4RC is responsible for pulling together the information to prepare the

BOIPFD and take the following actions:

S From the design engineer:

- Obtain the system hardware description and primary

.- " usage, to include:

-- Developmental Items.

.5. -- End-items used as components. The components

are end-items integral to the item under development, e.g., radios, air conditioners, and the

five-ton truck chassis.

"2'-

i)!i 2-8

* " '% .-... ... :. *:.*d.".,".% .- : .. . .. - J..;- 5.4¢*4 .'* . N. . . ; .'".-"-.. ...-..- '.'-.-. "." " "
I.J

- -4

CLu

2.'

9Lu

U..

IC U.

22'
• MATERELDARCOM

MAERELDEVELOPMENT/READINESS COMMANDS - ------- -

MDCR

DEVELOP BOIPFD DEVELOP QQPRI FORWARD

Log Analyst BOIPFD New Equip Tng QQPRI

Mat Ss Coord Analst

V

NEEDED SOURCE NEEDED

Hardware usage Design Operators: quantity per shift

and description Engineer descriptive titles

____._._list of tasks

SSN for Supporting DPAMMH for components not

components MRCs Itype-classified

LIN & SSN for

developmental Catalog Agency

system

Maintenance Maintenance concept

Engineer Maintainers: DPAMMH for dev item

- I list of tasks

DPAMMH for comparable items

-- MACRIT (if engineering estimates

_____,_ are not available)

MOS and duties

AR 611-201

. Figure 2.3. The Principal Actions at Materiel Development

and Readiness Commands

2-10

0'=
*1Y71

-- Associated support items of equipment (ASIOE)

The ASIOE are external end-items required to

make the set operate, e.g., portable AC

generators.

-- "Test, measurement, anc. diagnostic equipment

(TMDE).

Note: One of the primary contributors to understated

equipment requirements (which in turn understates funds and

maintenance man hours) is the lack of component and ASIOE

information.

. From supporting MDC/MRC:

- Obtain the SSN for components to be used within the

developmental item(s) assemblage.

r From the Comptroller, MDC/MRC:

- Obtain a line item number (LIN) which will identify

the system in Supply Bulletin (SB) 700-20.

- Obtain a standard study number (SSN) which provides a

mechanism for computing an AAO for Procurement

Appropriations (PA).

a Forward BOIPFD:

- Forward the completed BOIPFD to the new equipment

training (NET) team and to EARA.

The NET analyst is responsible for preparing the QQPRI based on

",.. information contained in the BOIPFD and takes the following actions:

. From the Design Engineer:

- Obtain information about the system direct operators:

-- Quantity per single shift

-- Descriptive titles

-- List of tasks

"0 From supporting MRCs:

- Obtain DPAMMH on components not type-classified.

*0 From the Maintenance Engineer:

- Obtain the latest maintenance concept.

2-11
Obtain information about the developmental item

maintainers.

-- DPAMMH at each maintenance level

-- List of tasks

a From MACRIT:

- Use comparable item DPAMMH if engineer estimates are

not available.

• From AR 611-201:

- Compare the system operator and maintainer tasks with

those in AR 611-201 to select the most appropriate

candidate MOSs.

. Forward QQPRI:

- Forward the QQPRI to MRSA

The MDC/MRC is responsible for obtaining DPAMMH on all items of

materiel for which they are proponents. These data are forwarded to

MRSA for entry into the MACRIT data base.

EARA performs an equipment relationship analysis to determine if

all of the components, ASIOE, and TMDC are (i.e., "seem to be") present

and compatible. The BOIPFD is then forwarded to MRSA.

MRSA reviews the BOIPFD and QQPRI together for compatibility, completeness, and accuracy. When these criteria are met, MRSA forwards the

two documents to HQ TRADOC.

TRADOC. Figure 2.4 indicates the potentially important players in

the BOIP process. The term "potential" is used because some of the

agencies shown are not in the document flow but do act on other force

modernization issues.

The Deputy Chief of Staff for Combat Development (DCS-CD) has four

directorates acting on force modernization issues, which are:

2-12

L L
HEADQUARTERS TRADOC

(FIGURE 2.2)

DCSoc

* A ~COMBAT TANN

DEVELOPMENT TANN

- -

SOLDIER ORGANIZATION FORCE j SYSTEMS

DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT MODERNIZATION MANAGEMENTI

DIR DIR DIR DIR

TSM TRAINING

REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS

BRANCH BRANCH

BRNC BANHRACHCEPONTENTSO

MASTE SSCNC FIGURE 2.5)

FIL

p. OTHER MACDMs

Figure 2.4. The Principal Combat Developer Players

2 -13

7--
0 Force Modernization Directorate -Newly created and does not

yet have a formal charter (according to telephonic interview).

- Soldier Development Directorate"- The HQ TRADOC Point of

Contact (POC) for all MOS recommendations, including those

not related to materiel development.

. Organization Development Directorate - (To be discussed separately).

0 Systems Management Directorate - The coordinator of the

TRADOC System Manager (TSM), who is the TRADOC counterpart

to the DARCOM PM.

The DCS for Training (i.e., Training Analysis Branch) reviews the

BOIP package returned from the integrating centers for: (1) training

impact and (2) the MOS recommendation.

The Training Support Center (at Fort Eustis, VA) reviews the

BOIPFD and QQPRI for potential training device impact.

The Organization Development Directorate is responsible for the

development of new TOE. Since the BOIP represents a planned change to

existing TOE or the basis for a new TOE, this agency is the HQ TRADOC

*BOIP proponent.

- The key player in this directorate for our purposes is the BOIP

S Branch, as Figure 2.4 shows. The actions taken are:

0 * Enter administrative data into the BOIP tracking system.

* Forward the BOIPFD, QQPRI, and requirements document to:

- The Training Support Center (information)

- SSC-NCR (information)

- System proponent school (action)

' Receive the completed BOIP from the integrating center and

forward to the Training Analysis Branch for comment.

0

* Enter the BOIP into the BOIP Master File.

2-14

-. -. . , 5. * .. .*. . . . S* * *. . . . . . . .. .
0 Forward to HQDA: P BOIP

QQPRI

- Requirements documents

- BOIP impact report

0 Receive the approved BOIP from HQDA and publish it to all

MACOMs for appropriate resource planning.

* . The BOIPFD/QQPRI/ROC package flow is shown in Figure 2.5.

Each branch (i.e., Armor or Field Artillery) service school has

two major subdivisions which participate in the document review:

, Training Development - Responsible for MOS level instruction

and preparation of the soldier qualification test materiel.

The training developer performs the training impact analysis

of the BOIP.

0 Combat Development - Responsible for developing the:

- Doctrine for the branch

- TOE of the branch

- BOIP (which will eventually change/replace the branch

TOE)

The school which is proponent for the system (e.g., Air Defense

Artillery School at Fort Bliss, Texas, for PATRIOT) will:

* Send copies of the package to coordinating schools if an MOS

or TOE of their proponency is affected by the new system.

0 Send a copy to LOGCEN for insertion of DPAMMR for all items

of equipment (components and ASIOE) which have been typeclassified. LOGCEN also enters the estimated DPAMMH for the

developmental items into their MACRIT file.

0 Expand upon the requirements document to develop the organizational and operational (O&O) concept.

2-15
z z wU w

cc~ cc~

w l w Ci

wC J

o Uj

06

UU 00

U) 0 4 I.-

0 0

00

00

(.4 ~u

IC -=

w P- c

I-i

2-16
* Based upon the O&O concept, determine which TOE will employ

5the new system.

* Determine the changes required (equipment and manpower) In

each TOE to integrate the new system.

* Develop the BOIP (which will become a change to the TOE when

-the new system is adopted as standard).

" Forward the completed BOIPs (proponent and coordinating

schools) to the appropriate integrating center.

Although interviews indicated this may be somewhat the ideal, the

coordinating school should:

. Review the organizational and operational (O&O) concept to

estimate (determine) the type of support each coordinating

school could be expected to provide.

- Determine the equipment and manpower changes required in

each TOE to support the new system.

* Enter the required changes into the BOIP.

0 Forward the completed BOIP to the proponent school.

The integrating centers:

0 Ensure the doctrine expressed in TOE is consistent and

mutually supporting and supportable across branches. (For

example, armor, mechanized infantry, and self-propelled

artillery units are frequently cross-attached to form

tactical task forces.) These integrating centers are:

- Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

- Logistics Center, Fort Lee, Virginia

- Soldier Support Center (SCC), Fort Benjamin Harrison,

Indiana

" Forward the BOIP and QQPRI to HQ TRADOC (DCS-CD).

2-17

C .* . , * - * *...* . * .. *. . * . ~ - *
The SCC-NCR plays a unique role in the BOIP process. It is a

TRADOC agency but performs supportability analyses for the ODCSPER. See

Figure 2.6. The actions to be taken include:

V. Coordinate with the Civilian Personnel Center (CIVPERCEN)

when the QQPRI contains civilian occupational series

changes. Coordinate with MILPERCEN when warrant or commissioned officer requirements may affect their occupational

series.

Compare the enlisted demand (i.e., BOIP impact) to the

projected supply (i.e., the personnel data contained in the

MILPERCEN data banks).

0 Perform feasibility [career path and standards of grade

authorizations (SGA)J and supportability (probability of

acquiring the required aptitudes) analyses.

* Submit a formal MOS recommendation through HQ TRADOC to the

DCSPER for decision.

HQDA. The primary Army Staff (ARSTAF) BOIP players are shown in

Figure 2.7. The agencies and actions taken within ODCSOPS include:

* Requirements Directorate:

- Is the BOIP coordinator for the ARSTAF.

- Has the Force Integration System Officer (FISO) who is

the ODCSOPS POC for the systems under development.

- Prepares the HQDA position on the BOIP.

0 Force Structure Directorate:

- Uses the BOIP (and AURS) in LOGSACS to develop equipment planning requirements.

-" Uses the BOIP (and AURS) in PERSACS to develop man-

-power planning requirements.

0 AFMCO [under HQDA Chief of Staff (CSA) administrative control and ODCSOPS operational control]:

- Reviews the BOIP impact in relation to the force

modernization master plan.

Monitors force modernization execution by MACOMs,

2-18
0,

L&1L

4 wAf

0 A

0 cc4

I--4

(AZ

0 - 4a C

0 UI 0.W t. 

00 U 0

4~ 4 . 4

0 ca

z 0

4c IC I g

0 0

z U, CH

2-19
wO

to

-4

a 0.

222
- Training Directorate:

5 - Reviews the BOIP for training policy implications.

* "The actions within ODCSRDA include:

0 Utilizing the LOGSACS in the automated Army Materiel Plan

(AMP) which develops the AAO for procurement appropriation

(PA) funded materiel.

' "Participation by the HQDA System Coordinator (DASC) in AMP

reviews at the MRCs to ensure the materiel requirements are

properly stated and funded. Prior to the 1974 ARSTAF reorganization, each new system was representd by a single

HQDA POC [the HQDA System Staff Officer (DASSO)], located

- "within the Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Force

Development (ACSFOR). Now the duties are split between

organizations, the DASC in ODCSRDA and the Force Integration

Staff Office (FISO) in ODCSOPS.

The actions within ODCSLOG are limited to using the BOIP (and

AURS) impacted LOGSACS in the TAEDP for equipment distribution planning.

The agencies and actions within the ODCSPER include:

* Manpower Programs and Budget Directorate - Reviews the estimated manpower impact (spaces) in relation to the force

ceiling and probable impact on the budget.

* Military Personnel Management Directorate:

- SGA

- Top six enlisted grade constraints

- Command grade objectives

PROBLEMS WITH CURRENT PROCESS

Information Dropout

A considerable amount of "information dropout" occurs during the

* ? developmental cycle. For example:

" 2-21
When the justification for major systems new start (JMSNS)

is prepared, much data and information are available that

are not captured and retained for later use. Therefore,

manpower and organizational information that could establish

the baseline information is lost.

* As stated in guidance documents and discussed at the 1982

QQPRI Symposium, TRADOC is the responsible MACOM in the

developmental cycle until Milestone I or when the decision

is made to designate a project manager; then responsibility

is transferred to DARCOM. The methods of collecting data to

that point have not been formalized; consequently, information passed to the PM is more a function of the PM's aggressiveness than that of the system.

0 As their names suggest, the two milestone reporting systems,

Force Modernization Milestone Reporting System and Integrated Logistics Support Milestone Reporting System (FMMRS

and ILSMRS), do not contain detailed information content.

These systems are progress reporting systems only. Various

coordination and planning meetings are held by the materiel

developer throughout the life cycle, but the logistics and

NET analysts are rarely invited.

S A senior representative at SSC-NCR schedules Materiel Systems Reviews (MSR) for major systems approaching the First

Unit Equipped (FUE) date. He stated a recent MSR uncovered

10 major planning discrepancies. However, there is no written checklist for the MSR, so a uniform replication across

systems is unlikely.

. The BOIP preparer at the Ordnance Center and School stated

most of his TDY trips (30-40 annually) involve seeking information about new systems which is not contained in the

BOIPFD or QQPRI.

* Materiel developer information can be lost early in the development cycle by not transmitting it to the combat developer or deleting information when the QQPRI is returned to

2-22

% %.
the materiel developer on revision. For example, information on early MOS selections could contribute to the MOS

decision process but usually is lost in document revision

and handling.

LCSMM Timing Versus Information Availability

The LCSMM has event-oriented milestones while Army resource management has time-oriented milestones. A further complication is related

to two new, high-level initiatives:

* "The Carlucci initiative to compress the life cycle of major

systems into a 5-year timespan.

.* The CSA initiative to use the 9thlnfantry Division as a

high-technology testbed and to expedite its BOIP feeder

inputs.

Other information contradictions are:

9 MILPERCEN requires a 24-month notification leadtime to support new systems which require additional numbers of current

MOS.

0 MILPERCEN requires a 36-month notification leadtime to support new systems which require a new MOS.

* Typically, the 36-month threshold has occurred before the

FBOIP/FQQPRI are submitted (see Figure 4-2, AR 71-2). Thus,

the TQQPRI would be the basis for a timely new MOS decision.

Historically, there has been little training information at

this point so the MOS decision must be based upon intuition

or experience with comparable systems.

Earlier MPT Information Is Required

* Various studies have shown that a significant- percentage of the

RDTE funds have been committed by Milestone II; yet, the TQQPRI is not

required at TRADOC until 9 months before that milestone; then TRADOC

2-23

..........................
•v' 

• " .. A .-

consumes about 7 months in preparing and coordinating the TBOIP. Therefore, the staffing of the BOIP impact report at HQDA and Milestone II

can occur simultaneously. In addition to being untimely, the TBOIP impact report has these deficiencies:

0 Historically, the total manpower requirements have only been

reflected in the final BOIP (FBOIP) or amendments to the

FBOIP.

The TRADOC BOIP system can develop the manpower impact of

one system but not the cumulative impact of all systems.

It is possible to have manpower estimates earlier in the life cycle if the notion of a conceptual BOIP 1 were accepted. It could be

developed prior to Milestone I and could constitute a change to the

baseline or the baseline against which subsequent input could be compared and evaluated. The details of the conceptual BOIP are in the

section entitled Idealized Baseline.

Late Problem Detection

A synthesis of (1) the Man-Machine Interface study, (2) the DAIG

investigation into the materiel modernization process, and (3) comments

collected during field trips indicates most of the modernization problems (and their eventual effect on the MOS recommendation) could have

been predicted (and thus prevented) by a structured method of high-level

data collection, transmission, and evaluation. Below are some examples

of problems undetected until late in the development cycle:

* The system attributes of the M1, M2, and M3 fighting vehicles and their subsequent effect on maintenance, and fuel

and ammunition supply vehicles throughout the field army

TOEs. The maintenance of the turbine engine presented

unusual maintenance requirements previously not encountered.

INot to be confused with a condensed BOIP.

2-24

• 7
The fuel consumption significantly exceeds that of predeces-

= sor models. The ammunition carrying capacity of these vehicles, especially the M1, was less than the predecessor

vehicle.

. In the two later problems, additional equipment and manpower

are required to cope with the requirements for increased

fuel and ammunition carrying capacity.

- The maintenance support equipment at DS/GS for the M2/M3

fighting vehicles.1

* The effect of the novel night vision devices and the unique

distribution of flying tasks between the pilot and copilot

of the AH-64 helicopter.

Our investigation revealed the development of manpower data must

follow a particular series of sequential steps which can have a signiS..ficant effect on the information quality:

1. Development by DARCOM of the BOIP feeder data sheet which

should:

- List all parts that comprise the system. These include the

developmental item, the components of the developmental

item, and the associated items of equipment (ASIOE) needed

to operate, maintain, and transport the developmental item.

" Describe the configuration of the developmental system to

include its cubic displacement, weight, and electric power

requirements.

. Describe the primary usage of the developmental system.

iThis problem was telephoned from TACOM to the Ordnance School BOIP

preparer during our September 1982 visit; yet the first vehicles will

be fielded in March 1983. The equipment will have to be funded by RDTE

Appropriations because it is too late for Procurement Appropriations.

- "2-25

*Il
0 List other items under development to which a single system

is related (e.g., the PATRIOT consists of approximately 27

developmental items). Therefore, each of 27 BOIP must be

considered together to assess the resource impact.

2. Development by DARCOM of the QQPRI (for the developmental

system only) which includes:

* Operator requirements (quantity and MOS) for each system.

* DPAMMH required at each echelon of maintenance for the developmental item, to include its components.

* LOGCEN added annual maintenance man hours (AMMH) for any required associated items of equipment.

* MOSs recommended to perform the maintenance, on the developmental item only, at each echelon of maintenance requirements.

3. Development by the TRADOC proponent school of the organizational and operational (O&O) concept which will describe the doctrinal

employment of the new system within the field army.

4. Development by the TRADOC proponent school of the equipment

and manpower changes required in the TOE and documentation of them on

the BOIP cover and continuation sheet to:

* Operate the total number of systems planned for each unit.

* Maintain all of the planned systems at the organizational

% level.

* Support the systems at the organizational level with system

related equipment (e.g., additional fuel and ammunition

trucks).

- Supervise the operators and the maintenance of the new systems and any additional support equipment.

2-2

I : ° ' " 2-26

0 _ -, ,, .. . . . . .. . . . ,, . ,•.,., .-.- ,
5. Development by the TRADOC coordinating schools of the equipment and manpower (documented on the BOIP cover and continuation sheets)

changes required in system-related support units TOEs throughout the

,. .field army. For example, to:

F • Repair the system at the DS/GS level.

• Operate additional equipment needed in support organizations

(e.g., the MI/M2/M3 cause both divisional and nondivisional

fuel and ammunition truck requirements to increase).

0 Calculate the AMMH to account for the increased equipment

*density to determine if additional maintenance manpower will

be needed in the support TOEs.

What Are the Primary Problems?

Research uncovered several facts which seem to be contradictions,

- .e.g.:

0 Pro

- The materiel modernization process is mature.

- The DARCOM and TRADOC participants in the BOIP documentation process are intelligent, motivated, and

conscientious about their work.

"- Con

- Equipment is being fielded for which there are no

- .qualified maintenance personnel.

- The MACOM commanders' and GAO's criticisms caused the

CSA to direct the Inspector General to investigate the

entire process.

-.•The listing of problems described in the 1979 QQPRI

Symposium was repeated in the 1982 QQPRI Symposium.

. These contradictions suggest that the process usually defeats the

efforts of the most diligent participants. Our research indicates the

following specific discrepancies:

2-27

6o
I. There is an Army-wide lack of understanding of:

0 The QQPRI development process.

. The required role of each player in the QQPRI.

0 The current utilization of the OQPRI.

0 The potential uses for the QQPRI. 1

2. There is no unbiased, objective, analytical method to develop

the MPT demand data needed to support the MOS recommendation process.

For example:

. 0 Timing - The QQPRI-related activity initiation points are

not well defined within the LCSMM, thereby causing a

* recurring, untimely response condition.

, Procedures - Are not sufficiently structured so as to lead

respondents through the development of their contribution to

the QQPRI.

- The Army guidance (AR 71-2) does not contain specific

": , instructions below the MACOM level.

- Neither DARCOM nor TRADOC has published supplemental

instructions to complement AR 71-2.

- Of the agencies visited, only one had an SOP--which

was due for revision.

- With no published criteria, reviewers use subjective

judgments to evaluate the submissions.

* * Responsibilities Not Defined - There are no prescribed

responsibilities or boundaries for each participant in the

BOIP process. Consequently, several agencies validate the . same elements of information. Conversely, some data (e.g.,

task lists) are usually omitted.

1A related new initiative is the Force Modernization Impact Analysis

System currently under procurement.

2-28

'- .b* ***,,*-v V',
. Tools

- Automation - Inadequately covers the information

requirement; has an inadequate report generation and

distribution scheme; and fails to support the analyst

across organization boundaries.

- [MACRIT - There is no unbiased, objective, analytical

method to both estimate and update the DPAMMH for all

appropriate items of equipment (see Appendix E).

- . Training - There is no formal training program for

participants in the QQPRI development process. This

deficiency includes the lack of any training for the

New Equipment Training (NET) analysts who initially

develop the QQPRI in addition to planning the NET.

- References - DA and subordinate agency publications

treat the QQPRI development as a minor part of the

materiel modernization requirement. Even the revised

AR 71-2 (BOIP and QQPRI) dedicates more space to the

development of equipment data than manpower data.

3. There is no centralized and automated source of MPT data.

There are many opportunities to generate detailed MPT data during the

materiel development cycle but there is no automated central repository

in which to store/access it. For example:

- . Before Milestone I - TRADOC is responsible for the collection of Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) information

related to the system under development. The collected data

are supposed to be transferred to DARCOM during the transfer

- of system responsibility but these data are not automated.

- Milestones I-III - The PM/MDC are appointed at or before

Milestone I and subsequently are required to use the ILSMRS

. and FMRS to record the achievement dates (but not the

supporting details) of specified milestones.

- Milestones Il-Ill - The TQQPRI are generated by NET analysts late in the demonstration and validation phase after

2-29

V

SV
OT-I, if one is held. All QQPRI are forwarded to MRSA in

hardcopy where they are given an administrative review and

forwarded to HQ TRADOC; MRSA updates the FMMRS with dates

and various codes but no MPT details.

0 HQ TRADOC (DCS-CD) has two automated MIS: (1) a withinTRADOC BOIP tracking system, and (2) the BOIP master files

which contain QQPRI-related data elements (e.g., MOS, quantities, and grade) but no more definitive data.

- HQ TRADOC (DCS-TNG) has an evolving MIS called the Task

Descriptive Information System (TDIS) which is intended to

be used by the service schools to record the task inventory

for each MOS. The purpose of TDIS is to be the central

source of tasks-within-MOS to support the development of

Soldiers' Manuals, Job Aids, and Soldiers' Qualification

Tests.

- TRADOC SSC-NCR has a task data bank to support the Comprehensive Occupational Data Analysis Program (CODAP) surveys.

(It is not known whether TDIS and the CODAP data banks will

eventually exchange information or perhaps be part of the

same overall system.) There is no indication that either

TDIS or CODAP will carry task priority and quantity by MOS.

Without this information, the data base does not present

task importance with respect to other tasks nor productive

time required to accomplish a task. Without task productive

-~ time, task overload cannot be easily determined. Without

task priority, task shred-out into two or more MOS (job)

cannot be easily done except on a judgmental basis.

. HQDA uses the TRADOC BOIP magnetic tapes which include the

QQPRI but does not insert additional MPT information.

- MILPERCEN has extensive personnel-related information in

their MIS but they focus on managing personnel assets, the

supply side, whereas the demand data come from the PERSACS

(without BOIP applied), or from manually developed force

modernization information. Even if the PERSACS reflected

the change in demand based on the BOIP, the TOTAL BOIP

$2-30

-.

SP"#
S".

6

personnel demand under current PPBES practices would not be

S recommended within overall manpower constraints. Hence,

there is no authority to provide assets based on BOIP

demand.

* The planned ODCSOPS FMIAS concept is to use data from existing MIS; therefore, it can only provide additional MPT details if they are incorporated in modified feeder systems.

4. There is no unbiased, objective, analytical method to make an

MOS recommendation by the SSC-NCR regardless of the MPT demand information developed during the QQPRI process. For example:

. There are four alternatives to each MOS recommendation:

- Retain the old MOS.

- Retain the old MOS and add an ASI.

- Shred out the old MOS (this action creates new MOSs in

the literal sense but does not mean that new, multiple

tasks will have to be performed).

S- Create an entirely new MOS.

But there are no formal rules to be followed which would

lead one to select a specific alternative from the four

*of listed above. Some of the people interviewed suggested

these informal rules:

S- Retain the old MOS if:

.-- There is no substantive change in the training

course length.

- Retain the old MOS and add an ASI if:

-- Only a few of the MOS holders will have to

perform the tasks (e.g., equipment that is unit

6 or MACOM specific).

- Shred out the old MOS if:

2-31

we..*. ' . . . . .... h ..... .. * . . . . .. . , . .. ....... ... ., . ... .
,. r

.0

-- There is job saturation (i.e., the number of

tasks to be performed exceeds the ability and/or

availability of the performer). There does not

seem to ever have been a research effort

conducted to systematically test this notion.

- Task clusters are being formed around particular

jobs. The clusters do not have to be mutually

exclusive and, in fact, should stem from a

common job core.

Create an entirely new MOS if:

- -- The course content will be significantly

changed.

IDEAL BASELINE

*.-. The purpose of the "ideal baseline" is to establish requirements

for MANPERS processes and methodologies. The discussion immediately

4e. following focuses on systems and procedural aspects of the baseline; the

development of a taxonomic tool to assist in MOS selection is detailed

- in the next section addressing Task 2. All of the recommendations

addressed in this section are considered feasible and within the current

state-of-the-art.

The preceding material addressed many problems related to the manpower and personnel requirements development process associated with

materiel modernization programs. Many of these same problems were identified as early as 1979; yet, effective solutions have not previously

been found. Some of the principal reasons are that:

- There is no overall manpower and personnel requirements de-

* -~ velopment guidance that transcends the materiel development

process from mission area analyses (M) to deployment so

5.- that cost comparison or manpower space trade-off analyses

are included in all research and development stages of the

acquisition process.

' 2-32

. N!* , a.•t. * ~ -*t*-
0 There is no single, comprehensive "how-to" manual which inN .tegrates the materiel developer and combat developer developmental efforts with MACOM-unique requirements.while simultaneously focusing on the principal objective--accurate

resource estimates.

" The development of effective prescriptions, such as the

aforementioned manual, requires an unbiased and analytical

approach by a multidisciplinary, cohesive team. Army task

forces and study groups rarely have the time and objectivity

to accomplish such an effort.

Ideal Baseline Detailed Requirements

The "ideal baseline" for developing manpower and personnel requirements information must begin with a comprehensive record based on

information developed during the MAA (i.e., analysis of threat, mission

analysis, and current versus needed capabilities analysis). The record

at this point in the life cycle would be data obtained from the manpower

analysis associated with analyses mentioned. It would identify the type

Army organizations that would be changed, augmented, or replaced by the

desired or needed capability being studied, to include maintenance and .4

support requirements. Since the type organizations involved include

manpower identification by grade, skill, and numbers, the corresponding

organizations in the Active Army, Reserves, National Guard, or unmanned

*units could be tagged as the trade-off baseline for this new capability.

In the afor:.entioned analyses, an assessment of change could include

the potential impact on the organizational structure (TOE) and such

.. detail as change in number of manpower spaces and the rationale for such

O change. The change in manpower spaces would be further assessed con-

- cerning anticipated change to grade structure regardless of standards of

grade authorization (SGA) constraints and skill. The assessment of skill

2-33

4.-p

4 °

....... : ,J" ......- 4.<-, -- •.""',"', € "' .L -1 ". ".\RX: P,<.\%4......d... t .. .
impact would include the perceived change in aptitude area. The aptitude area impact would be required in all cases; even if at this early

stage, perceptions are that there will be no change to the number of

spaces or to the grade structure. The manpower and personnel requirements information developed in the pre-milestone I period would be

automated immediately after the decision to proceed with the project.

Table 2.1 proposes LCSMM information requirements. The manpower and

personnel requirements information so established could be monitored and

associated with cost and affordability analyses at decision points

- through each life-cycle phase until the capability under development is

deployed. As changes occur to the information based upon more or improved knowledge of the emerging capability, the manpower and personnel requirements information could be appropriately updated. Such

*" updates should occur prior to LCSMM milestone decisions so that senior

managers and resource decision makers have available the most recent

change that impacts upon affordability issues. Such change information

- could be displayed to reflect information changes since last milestone

review and decision and change since the decision to proceed. Change

would always be presented by organization, grade, and aptitude and

skill.

The "ideal baseline" requirements for estimating manpower requirements would have attributes and capabilities as described below:-

.• Centralized data base

* * Input timing prompted by the system

. Structured data collection

- An automated report generation and distribution schema

" The use of abbreviated QQPRI during the conceptual phase of

*@ the life cycle

. A requirements document identification -schema keyed to the

LCSMM phases

*O Centralized Data Base

A centralized repository of information about each developmental

system should be established; howeyer, the structure of the data base is

" O2-34
TABLE 2.1

-IDEAL BASELINE MANPOWER INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS

Milestone Title Intormation Requirements

Mission Area Anal- Organizations (type and number)

ysis Grades (antitcipated or proposed

change)

Aptitude and skill (anticipated

change

- Pre-JMSNS Concept Exploration Conceptual QQPRI, BOIPFD, and O&O

concept to establish the BOIP or

AURS and update MAA information

I Demonstration and TQQPRI, BOIPFD, and O&O concept to

Validation establish the BOIP or AURS and update

Pre-JMSNS information

II Full-Scale Develop- FQQPRI, BOIPFD, and O&O concept to

ment establish the BOIP or AURS and update

I milestone information

III Production and De- AQQPRI, BOIPFD, and O&O concept to

ployment establish the BOIP or AURS and update

II milestone information

Note 1: Information concerning the organizations, grades, aptitudes,

and skills would be based on a capability in existence which

would establish the manpower requirements baseline for

trade-off purposes. Such baseline would be changed over the

life cycle of the emerging capability until such time as the

new system is type-classified and approved for deployment.

Note 2: In the event a capability is to be developed which does not

supersede an existing capability, an initial anticipated

force structure will be established for subsequent trade-off

comparison purposes.

Note 3: Subsequent to Milestone I, the initial operational test (OT)

and developmental test (DT) should take place. At this time

a draft TOE may or may not be available for organizing the

unit that will conduct the OT/DT. Such a draft TOE may or

may not be in the TOE file. However, the draft TOE should

supersede an AURS at the appropriate time, and such TOE will

be officially introduced to the force structure.

2-35

". .- , " , -' ", ''-' -' -'.,' ;-?' 'i-i-'" -" ".- .' - ' " ' '' '-' ' ''.L , i -> .;
critical to its usefulness. Most data bases are the products of an

aggressive distillation and transformation of information, so that

groups of words are represented by a single, abbreviated code. A more N.

appropriate design would be similar to text or word processing systems

with the capability of retrieval coupled with some electronic mail concepts. These techniques permit the system users to receive, send, and

extract information and to be informed of current changes. The objectives of such a data base would be to:

0 Improve the timeliness and accuracy of data being collected

for use by other participants in the BOIP preparation

9,, process.

• Make available to all BOIP players information, however unrelated it may seem, which can help them form a more distinct perception of the task. Examples are:

- Justification for Major System New Start (JMSNS)

- Letter of authority (LOA)

- Required operational capability (ROC)

- Maintenance concept

- Organizational and operational concepts

- QQPRI

- BOIPFD

Input Prompting by the System

-. The contradiction of the event-oriented LCSMM and time-paced QQPRI

submissions could be reduced by selecting proximate milestones in the

LCSMM and using them as "flags" for document initiation or revision.

The optimal milestones will be developed during the MARMIS analysis.

As an interim solution, the FMMRS or ILSMRS systems could be used

to generate reports with required activities and suspense dates.

The ultimate BOIP-oriented system will be AUTOMANPERS which should

incorporate the attributes of: (1) the DARCOM milestone systems and

2-36 1,5

IA!

* -1-
ViN

(2) the TRADOC BOIP tracking system. (Then those systems could be elimintated.) For maximum effectiveness, AUTOMANPERS would incorporate

electronic mail capabilities to prompt for and distribute required BOIP

r. inputs (e.g., QQPRI, BOIPFD, O&O, etc.).

Structured Data Collection

The multitude of previously described problems can be synthesized

into these generalized categories:

* Boundaries of responsibility

, Knowledge and skill appropriate to the task

* Tools to assist the analyst in task performance

The most effective compensatory device to minimize these problems

is a carefully conceived method of structured data collection, starting

at the pre-JMSNS milestone and continuing through the research and development phases of weapon system development. This notion -'s analagous

to having an experienced analyst lead the respondents through the BOIP

development processes. While the structured method can be demonstrated

in a manual mode (MANPERS), an automated procedure (AUTOMANPERS) should

be the objective. AUTOMANPERS could contain an extensive system of user

prompting, examples of appropriate input for different classes of

equipment, and validity checks. In either case, the MANPERS methodology

should recognize that the entire BOIP process needs to produce three

broad categories of information:

* System Information (via BOIPFD)

- System description (i.e., static characteristics)

- System intended purpose

- System performance characterics (not a current requirement)

0 Performer Information

- Tasks to be performed by operators, maintainers, and

(- supporters

2-37
- Time required to perform maintenance tasks and their

priority or importance

......- Recommended number and classification of task performers and supporting rationale/logic

* Organization Information [via BOIP Organization and Operational (0&0) and Maintenance Concepts]

"Number of systems per TOE

- Concept of system employment by type organization

.- Concept of maintenance

- Additional resources required to support the system

To extend the notion of establishing boundaries of responsibility

around participating agencies, and to depict the idealized baseline procedures, a series of figures has been developed. The purpose of developing the f igures was to reduce the apparent complexity of the BOIP

process by graphically depicting the essential elements of information

about each BOIP player. Supporting text will only be used to highlight

concepts which might be overlooked.

DARCOM

Figure 2.8 depicts the minimum essential elements of information

(shown in solid boxes) required by the NET analyst to produce the output

at the bottom of the figure.

The box at the top of the figure represents information which

should be contained in the BOIPFD about the developmental system. The

quality of the information in the BOIPFD is the foundation for all subsequent estimates. Historically, this information has not been accurate

or complete and the quality of the QQPRI has been degraded. In particular, the BOIPFD should contain:

_ A comprehensive description of the system and its intended

use.

a A complete and accurate listing of components and ASIOE, to

include test, measurement, and diagnostic equipment (TMDE).

2-38

0%
"- DARCOM --

SOLID BOXES DEPICT THE INFORMATION NEEDED BY NEW EQUIPMENT TRAINING

(NET) ANALYSTS TO ESTIMATE THE MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS

TO OPERATE/MAINTAIN/REPAIR A SINGLE MODERNIZATION SYSTEM

DEVELOPMENTAL SYSTEM

(Description of the following:)

Major Developmental End item Associated

Subassemblies: item components items

_ ___ I __ I _

Location on system: INTERNAL E XT E RN A L

TMD E) (TMDE) (TMDE)

Examples: 1 (FDC van) (radios) (generator) I

m%

v vI

V V

E MAINTENANCE CONCEPT

(location of performance)

, (NSN) (LIN)

VVV

Design Engr Maint Engr

estimate of estimate

operators of DPAMMH

& tasks & tasks V V S AMMH -

--(update file)--> Files

V

conversion

"" to

DP H

F. (sum for system total)->

USING UNIT I SUPPORT UNIT

V V V

ORG OPERATORS ORG MAINTAINERS DS/GS REPAIRERS

MOS X X X

QTY X

DPAMMH X X

TASKS X X X

Figure 2.8. Ideal Baseline Essential Elements of Information

for the NET Analyst

2-39

S ~S*,~ '~~ *~ ~ J.~v-/-w~.:~~ ~ ~ ~ k.
The labels "internal/external" are intended to eliminate the

recurring misunderstanding of the terms "components" and

"ASIOE."

The remaining boxes represent information that the NET analyst

must solicit as it is not provided automatically as is the BOIPFD.

Since there are no manuals or training programs to aid the analyst at

the present time, it is essential that sources of data and tools be specific to ensure consistent and quality results are produced in this

process.

. The maintenance concept describes the echelons of maintenance

I'. envisioned for the developmental item but not the entire system. The

*" removable components and ASIOE are normally maintained in accordance

-. with their Maintenance Allocation Chart (MAC) which is in the

appropriate technical manual for each end item.

The NET analyst must obtain from the system developing engineer

the task and skill information prepared as a result of the logistic

support analysis which includes the estimated number of operators per

shift, their descriptive title, and a listing of their tasks.

The NET analyst must obtain similar information from the maintenance engineer and will also request estimates of the DPAMMH for the

items shown on the BOIPFD.

* The MRSA or LOGCEN MACRIT files can be used for comparable item

maintenance man-hours if a reasonable engineering estimate is not

available.

0

The output of this process is shown at the bottom of the figure.

Those are the required manpower-related entries for the QQPRI. Note

that quantities of maintainers and repairers are not a QQPRI entry.

0" A

2-40
TRADOC-Proponent School

5Figure 2.9 depicts the primary input and output of the BOIP analysts at the school which is proponent for the system.

At the left of the figure are equipment examples to show how the

requirements increase as the process continues.

The proponent school automatically receives from DCS-CD three

documents: (1) the materiel developer's BOIPFD, (2) QQPRI, and (3) the

ROC or other requirements documents.

The combat developer must develop the 0&0 concept which will

document the comprehensive plan for employing the system in various TOE.

This process leads the analyst to the resource requirements to equip and

man the receiving TOE.

The box entitled "System Operating Characteristics" represents a

recommended addition to the process. It is obvious from reading the

DAIG and Soldier/Machine Interface reports that system performance

characteristics may significantly increase support requirements. Figure

2.10 shows an approach which would compare the new system with a predecessor (if one exists) to obtain system distinctions. The system distinctions have the potential of becoming implicit tasks, and it is task

information (e.g., difficulty) that affects the MOS recommendation.

The Organization Equipment Listing (OEL) is a relatively little

S" known TRADOC product available in microform. The OEL inputs are: (1)

TOE file, (2) BOIP file, and (3) TDA file from TAADS. The value of the

OEL to the BOIP analyst is to identify every TOE which contains an item

to be replaced. The product follows this sequence:

* Item of equipment

0 TOE in which item is a requirement and the quantity

2-41

- , ,. . a' ° . ". " a' ,. ". " " . , " ,* . °, - -.. -'-,*."% .- (. • -%b%*.-,.,. .% ' % ., - - - - -- 
--- - TRADOC - PROPONENT SCHOOL (e.g., ARMOR SCHOOL)

SOLID BOXES DEPICT THE INFORMATION NEEDED BY THE PROPONENT SCHOOL

COMBAT DEVELOPER TO ESTIMATE THE MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS TO OPERATE/

MAINTAIN/SUPERVISE ALL MODERNIZATION SYSTEMS WITHIN THE USING UNIT

. [ 1 tank ] MD estimated MD estimated

equip reqts manpower reqts

REQTS IDOC'T

ORGANIZATIONAL & OPERATIONAL CONCEPT

'(quantity per unit) & (mission profile)

V V

[54 tanks CD estimated CD estimated

,'- "-equip, reqts. crew reqts

V

sytmoperating

characteristics SGA

-(eg.,consumption)

-- ' VV V

BOIP will be

>1_integrated VI

[fuel & ammo CD estimated

trucks equip reqts

plus-up] (sys) & spt)

IAMMHI sys/spt equip

File maint workload

V

USING UNIT

V V V

' ORG OPERATORS ORG MAINTAINERS ORG SUPERVISORS

(system support) (Sys + spt )(Sys + spt)

MOS X X X X

.<7 QTY X X X X

GRADE X X X X

Figure 2.9. Ideal Baseline Information Requirements

of the Proponent School

4-4 .... 2-42
7-777 =717 177

IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL TASKS

CONTRASTING THE ATTRIBUTES OF THE NEW AND SIMILAR SYSTEMS

WILL PRODUCE NEW SYSTEM DISTINCTIONS

WHICH BECOME CANDIDATES FOR TASK STATUS j

Hypothetical example: A tank similar to the MI Abrams

SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES

HARDWARE CONFIGURATION OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS

p Same Unique Same Unique

Engine ....... ................ .High thermal

= turbine output

Fuel type ..... .............. . 40% higher

= aviation fuel use rate

(oil capacity) ........ .................... . Complex oil

changing =

procedures

(chassis) ......... ....................... .. Nose to nose

towing due to

high thermal

output

* (chassis) . . . Reduced ammo capacity

(turret) . . . . Fire control .... ............. .. Laser ranging

I -. >(Parenthetical entries would not be listed. They are

shown only for illustrative purposes)

- (Since there is no difference between the gun and its

operation, neither entry would be made)

V

(105mm gun) ..... ............... .. (gunnery)

Figure 2.10. Identification of Potential Tasks Via

System Attributes

2-43

............... Vp~p~Aze. p.,
* .-. " * . * . . .

'N

1%% • BOIP which will increase or decrease the same item of equipment (as a component or ASIOE) 4

- The TOE to be affected

- The quantitative change

0. The same data for TDA units

EXAMPLE

Item TOE/TDA Qty/Chg BOIP Avail. Date

truck 5-ton 07045 (mech inf bn) 24

+2 TOW missile 830630

-1 water purifier 840131

15th station hospital 30

+1 medical set 840731

The result of the analysis is a listing of system-specific and

supporting equipment requirements. These requirements must then be compared to the TOE in which the system will be integrated because the BOIP

is rarely an absolute statement of requirements. Rather, it is a record

of changes (+/-) to equipment and manpower requirements needed to integrate the new system into existing TOE. This fact is generally overlooked. The BOIP as a finished, usable set of data does not represent a

requirement. Rather, it represents a requirements change. If a new

weapon system establishes a totally new requirement, it would be recorded initially on AURS, then a draft TOE, followed by the approved TOE.

r ' The equipment changes have maintenance implications so the AMMH

file must be used to calculate maintainer requirements.

The standards of grade authorization (SGA) may have to be consulted to determine if supervisor changes are also required.

The product is the BOIP which contains changes to those TOE for

S which the school is proponent.

2-44

L . jg e.
7.7 T _7 -7

.,

TRADOC - Coordinating School (Ordnance School)

Figure 2.11 depicts the process for the Ordnance School which is

proponent for Ordnance TOEs. Since most developmental systems require

Ve DS/GS support, many must be submitted to the Ordnance School for analysis. For an accurate analysis, the Ordnance School BOIP analyst must

have as input the proponent school BOIP. The reason is that the system-specific organizational requirements (e.g., 54 tanks) and the indirect requirements (e.g., added fuel and ammunition trucks) both represent an additional workload to the supporting maintenance units. While

that conclusion seems obvious, the TRADOC BOIPFD/QQPRI distribution

scheme is for concurrent not sequential evaluation, which makes it a

MARMIS prescriptive candidate.

The maintenance concept is also needed by the Ordnance School combat development analyst to determine if maintenance doctrine will be

affected by the support requirements of the new system. To a lesser

degree, but for the same reason, the O&O concept would be a useful

5reference.

Again, the need for system characteristics was stated in field

interviews because they can have an effect on the tools, special

materiel handling equipment (MHE), and TMDE required in supporting

maintenance units. As an example, the DS repair unit for the new

hydraulic antenna mast (Magic Mast) will need a tool (similar to a

hydraulic press) capable of holding a 35-foot antenna in two places.

As the maintenance support unit's workload and their own equipment

requirements increase, there may be a need to increase operator, repairer, and supervisor manpower.

TRADOC - Coordinating School (Artillery School)

Figure 2.12 depicts the process for the other coordinatingschools. The principal difference between the Ordnance School and the

other schools is the emphasis on the O&O concept instead of the maintenance. The BOIP analyst must carefully analyze the O&O concept to

2-45
S.1

------ TRADOC- COORDINATING SCHOOL (e.g., ORDNANCE SCHOOL)

SOLID BOXES DEPICT THE INFORMATION NEEDED BY THE MAINTENANCE SCHOOL

COMBAT DEVELOPER TO ESTIMATE THE MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS TO REPAIR THE

SUPPORTED UNIT EQUIPMENT AND OPERATE THEIR OWN INCREASED EQUIPMENT

[54 tanks, Proponent school

org spt veh, estimated sys &

per sptd unit] spt equip reqts

V

MAINTENANCE CONCEPT

(location of performance)

V

ORGANIZATIONAL & OPERATIONAL CONCEPT

(relationship of supported - supporting units)

system Vstatic &

dynamic data - to SGA

toolsTMDE reqd

r n >[ TOE in which

OEL BOIP will be

rintegrated

V

[MHE,tools, estimated support

TMDE, wrecker equip,TMDE reqts

plus-up]

V

[AMMH I sptd/own unit

File maint workload

V

MAINTENANCE SUPPORT UNITS (DS/GS)

V V V

ORG OPERATORS ORG REPAIRERS ORG SUPERVISORS

(own equip) (sptd + own equip) (sptd + own equip)

MOS X X X

QTY X X X

GRADE X X X

Figure 2.11. Maintenance Requirements - Ordnance School

2-46

,. ... * *..'.. 4*.* .*** '.., - . -. *.......-- , .,,,- - ,,. . % - . - .
-- - TRADOC - COORDINATING SCHOOL (e.g., ARTILLERY SCHOOL)

SOLID BOXES DEPICT THE INFORMAION NEEDED BY OTHER COORDINATING SCHOOL

COMBAT DEVELOPERS TO ESTIMATE THE MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS TO OPERATE/

MAINTAIN/SUPERVISE THEIR OWN INCREASED MISSION-ESSENTIAL EQUIPMENT

ORGANIZATIONAL & OPERATIONAL CONCEPT

---------------- ----------------------------------------

(relationship of supported - supporting units)

*- (supported unit mission profile)

D3 liaison estimated support

officers with equip reqts SGA

trks/tlrs]

V V

* - 1 TOE iTn which I

OEL > BOIP will be

.-> integrated

File maint workload

"-

V

ARTILLERY SUPPORT UNIT

V V V

ORG OPERATORS ORG MAINTAINERS ORG SUPERVISORS

(own equip) (own equip) (own personnel)

MNIOS x x X

QTY x x X

GRADE X X X

b" Figure 2.12. Coordinating School - Artillery School

2-47

7.

9.', .". *%'-,_. : ... q. , , .*,.,,4% -" ; % -:.- . ,* ,-%--''',, .x ..-.. -. .. ' . .-. . ,, - - .. .,,- - ,
determine if there are implicit support requirements, especially in

divisional TOE. In the hypothetical requirements column on the left

margin of the figure, we see a need to increase a supporting artillery

TOE by three liaison officers (LNO) and their respective transportation.

The data at the bottom of the figure reflects the LNO as opera-

. tors, and the analysis would have considered the increased organizational maintenance workload (six vehicle equivalents), as well as the

possible change in supervisors.

Maintenance Impact

It does not seem evident to many of the personnel interviewed that

the true maintenance impact of a new system is far greater than the

QQPRI and maintenance concept imply. Figure 2.13 is provided as a

reconciliation of the previously presented charts but focuses only on

the maintenance implications. The accuracy of the maintenance man-hour

estimate will depend on these factors:

* The validity of the maintenance engineer's estimate of

DPAMMH for the developmental item.

" The validity of the man-hour data in the two MACRIT files

for type-classified components and ASIOE (Appendix E is

recommended reading).

. The accuracy with which each TRADOC proponent school analyst

perceives the indirect support requirements in user organizations based upon unique system-operating characteristics.

. The accuracy with which each TRADOC coordinating school

analyst perceives the supporting mission implied by the 0&0

concept.

TRADOC and HQDA

When the BOIP from all of the schools and the TDA requirements

from MACOMs have been assembled, the package is forwarded to HQ TRADOC

(DCS-CD) by the responsible integrating center.

2-48

,4._.
THE TRUE MAINTENANCE IMPACT OF NEW SYSTEMS

HAS THE POTENTIAL OF INCREASING SUBSTANTIALLY AS THE QQPRI

PROCEEDS FROM THE NET TEAM THROUGH THE TRADOC COMMUNITY

(The impactis both directly and indirectly caused by the new system)

PREPARING EQUIPMENT MECHANIC MAINTENANCE REQUIRED

AGENCY CHANGED INVOLVED ORG DS GS DEPOT

..................n DIRECT IMPACT . .. . . .hl

THE MATERIAL DEVELOPER DESCRIBES THE COMPOSITION AND MAINTENANCE

REQUIREMENTS FOR ONLY ONE SET OF SYSTEM-SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT

New Equipment I tank turret X X X

Tng team track X X X

radio X X X

small arms X X X

THE PROPONENT SCHOOL INCREASES THE SET QUANTITY (AND MAINTENANCE

Wv REQUIREMENTS) TO CREATE PLANNED MODIFICATIONS FOR EACH TOE

Proponent (per tank bn) turret x X X

School 54 tanks track X X X

radio X X X

small arms X X X

.......... .............. = IND*IRECT IMPACT ....... . .=-====s.

THE PROPONENT SCHOOL ALSO ADDS THE APPROPRIATE EOUIPMENT (AND ITS

MAINTENANCE) REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE PLANNED ORGANIZATIONAL SETS

Proponent (per tank bn)

School

4 fuel trks wheel X X X

3 ammo trks wheel X X X

I recov veh track X X X

THE COORDINATING SCHOOLS ADD THE APPROPRIATE EQUIPMENT (AND ITS

MAINTENANCE) REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE PLANNED ORGANIZATIONS

V

Coordinating (per arty bn)

Schools

3 1/4t trks wheel x X X

for 3 FOs: 3 1/4t tlrs wheel K X X

Figure 2.13. Maintenance Impact of New Systems

L 2-49
-. S-S

DCS-CD will merge all input into the BOIP Master file, forming a

single integrated BOIP. Thus, the BOIP becomes a listing of all TOEs A

and TDAs which will be changed when the new system becomes adopted by

.. the Army.

Figure 2.14 shows the process required to develop the BOIP impact

report. DCS-CD maintains a current copy of the HQDA force structure

which is a listing of all units (and all components) existing or planned

for activation/deactivation over time. The BOIP is applied to the force

structure which will produce the total equipment and manpower changes

.*'. which are reflected in the BOIP and required to integrate the new system into the force structure. At this time, however, no PPBES actions

have been taken to resource the BOIP requirements.

The boxes at the bottom of the figure are a reminder that the true

system impact is dependent upon each school analyst recognizing the need

to modify all TOE appropriate for the support of the new system.

As the text in the figure points out, the BOIP impact report is

the total resource implication, which is unphased.

The TRADOC and DA staffs review the BOIP, impact report, and requirements document as a package. It is either approved or returned for

change and resubmission.

TRADOC (SSC-NCR) and HQDA

The Army DCSPER and the SSC-NCR are responsible for affordability,

feasibility, and supportability analyses. The accuracy of these

". analyses is dependent upon being able to compare the manpower demand and

personnel supply over a time continuum. It is difficult to portray the

impact manually (i.e., spread sheets) because:

* .The force structure file contains the planned Army-90

(conversion to light-heavy divisions) changes.

2-50

" . "°

*" S .s "." '. t,,"" _ '. ..- ''"',-. --€":"" t"" ' ". ." ". ° - ". -.- - """""-" " %
.- -]

. TRADOC and HQDA -------------

SOLID BOXES DEPICT THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO ESTIMATE

THE TOTAL MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS TO OPERATE AND SUPPORT

EACH OF THE MODERNIZATION SYSTEMS

~~FORCE STRUCTURE .

(quantity of each type unit)'-

I I 

*" will be the multiplier for

each system BOIP

(there are 600+ systems under development)

4

EACH SYSTEM TOTAL BOIP

WILL CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING

I I

"-V V V

USING UNIT MAINT SPT UNITS OTHER SPT UNITS

(DS/GS)

BOIP BOIP BOIP

NOTE: The BOIP are not time-phased when this computation is

performed at HQ TRADOC. Each BOIP contains the date

the first system is available; and the BOIP impact

reports will reflect the total system impact on that

single date.

Figure 2.14. QQPRI-BOIP Impact Report Development

2-51
0 Many of the systems under development (more than 600) will

be fielded in the same time frames, and these intervals

coincide with Army-90 changes.

The Army Staff is currently developing the capability to apply the

BOIP to PERSACS with an estimated availability date of second quarter

FY1983. Phasing data are presently being developed by ODCSOPS, system

proponent for PERSACS. Figure 2.15 depicts the impact of phasing the

BOIP to support the required analyses.

Report Generation

The current DARCOM and TRADOC management information systems

(FMMRS, ILSMRS, and BOIP tracking) are not generating reports appropriate for use by the BOIP participants. In addition, the reports are not

distributed across MACOM organization lines.

The degree of success achieved by the ARMPREP initiatives will be

positively correlated with the timely and accurate transmission of information needed by each BOIP participant. In addition to recurring

reports produced by batch processing, the system should have a userfriendly, ad hoc report writing capability.

Figure 2.16 is provided to stimulate thoughts about feasible automated tools which could be incorporated into AUTOMANPERS.

All of the files shown could be controlled by a data base management system (DBMS) and, where data element redundancies are shown, the

DBMS would collapse the files for economies in processing.

Many of the interviewees stated a need for various kinds of reports which would be feasible with such a system configuration. Some

feasible combinations are: F. Merging the SSN (a generic or "family" of items file) and

MACRIT file would provide:

2-52

L"ll
S------------TRADOC (SSC-NCR) and HQDA - .-

SOLID BOXES DEPICT THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO ESTIMATE K THE TOTAL (TIME-PHASED) MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS TO OPERATE AND SUPPORT

EACH AND ALL OF THE MODERNIZATION SYSTEMS

•.4.

FORCE STRUCTURE

(quantity of each type unit)

V j

will be the multiplier for

each system BOIP

(there are 600+ systems under development) :

EACH SYSTEM TOTAL BOIP

WILL CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING

V vOT I

UIGUNIT 1111 MAINT SPT UNITS OHRSTUNITS (DS/GS)

BOIP BOIP BOIP

V

l EACH SYSTEM TOTAL BOIP WILL BE

TIME-PHASED BY ODCSOPS ANALYSTS VIA

AN ENHANCEMENT TO PERSACS

Fr. I (est avail date- 2nd qtr 83) I

V

PHASED SYSTEM

BOIP ~ss# 1

TOTAL

MODERNIZATION

BOIP

svs # 600

Figure 2.15. Phasing QQPRI-BOIP Requirements

2-53
ALL OF THE DATA BASES DEPICTED IN THIS CHART

COULD BE MERGED VIA TWO DATA ELEMENTS (LIN & MOS)

FILE DATA ELEMENTS

SB 700-20 Item name LIN MRC NS" NSN name

SSN X-REF Item name LIN SSN SSN name

OEL Item name LIN TOE TOE name

I BOIP BOIP name CHG

V

TOE Item name LIN MOS Psn name TOE TOE name QTY

MACRIT Item name LIN -> MOS AMm

AR 611-201 MOS Psn name Duttes

T

V

CODAP MOS Tasks

POSSIBLE PRODUCTS FROM THE MERGER

(Any combination of these categories)

EQUIPMENT WORK MANPOWER ORGN CHANGE

SSN MRC LIN NSN AMMH MOS Psn Duties Tasks TOE BOIP

Figure 2.16. Potential Sources of Information for QQPRI-BOIP

.. .2-54

* _ • -a *. * + -a . ,
I".

- ~9MMH for the 5-ton vehicle fleet (to include a

comparison with the planned 10-ton conversion)

- AMMH implications of the aviation unit conversion plan

-- AMMH for avionics versus ground communications

* Merging the OEL and MACRIT files would provide:

- The current AMMH by MOS (or total) for each TOE

- The change in AMMH for each (or all) TOE as each (or

all) BOIP item is integrated into the TOE

The individual and cumulative effect of BOIP on numbers required of an MOS

Other files (e.g., PERSACS) could be incorporated into the designs

* which would provide a very powerful analytical tool.

th

Use of Conceptual BOIP

It is feasible to obtain MPT information earlier in the system

life cycle via the use of a conceptual BOIP. It should have the same

general format so it can be machine processed with existing ADP programs

for impact analysis. However, its distinctions could be:

* Pceparing it with the Concept Formulation Package (CFP) or

immediately following the CFP.

* Omitting much of the administrative data, such as the system

scheduling dates (actually, that data should be eliminated

from the current requirement).

0 Using dummy MOSs whene-,r the selection of a current MOS is

closer to guessing than to analyst conviction. If a standardized format were used, the dummy MOS and descriptive

title could be entered into MOS work files for accountability. (Use valid developmental LIN and SSN as there is nothing to gain by using dummies.)

• Use of comparable item DPAMMH in lieu of the engineer estimate--but clearly identify the origin as a reminder.

The remainder of the BOIP contents would be unchanged.

2-55

.. . ........ ... 

slz 2
* The development of a conceptual BOIP is a cognitive challenge because the preparer is dealing with abstractions. To elicit system con-

*cepts from the developing engineer and provide them with a presence by

writing a system description and assigning them LIN and IIJSs will require a special analyst. If this notion is accepted, the idea of selecting and training a small team of analysts should also be considered.

Change of BOIP Identification Schemes

The current method of identifying BOIP documents (i.e., T and F)

does not connote the LCSMM phase of development. Phase information

would be useful because: (1) early documents can be expected to contain

less detail, and (2) later documents must be given a more rigorous

evaluation.

The various system tests (DT and OT), which are critical milestones, can also be expected to result in new information. If the QQPRI

and BOIP were keyed to the LCSMM phases, then passing a milestone could

* *require a mandatory submission from each participant. Naturally, "no

change" would be an acceptable submission and would provide an audit

trail.

Taxonomy

The use of structured procedures to assist in and standardize the

development of MOS recommendations is considered a key ,,.r of the

"ideal baseline." The taxonomnic structures addressed in the Task 2

discussion which follows have the potential for meeting this need although additional development, in conjunction with the completion of

Tasks 3 and 4, is required.

OTHER AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

MACRI T

The early assessment of the impact of a new system is usually

measured in terms of the total number of spaces involved and the

2-56
estimated maintenance workload (which will be translated into mainten- R ance spaces). Consequently, the NET analyst must have a timely,

accurate, and easy-to-use source of maintenance man-hours in order to

provide consistent quality QQPRI. The two separate (and different)

MACRIT files that presently exist do not fulfill this requirement.

There is an ongoing effort to improve the LOGCEN MACRIT file. At

this time, information pertaining to specific improvements is not

available. However, discussions with LOGCEN representatives indicate

that some of the problems described in Appendix E are candidates for

improvement.

MACRIT should be analyzed in relation to the observations listed

in Appendix E and the following prescriptions:

* Develop a MACRIT users' guide.

* Improve the current MRSA file and/or its interface with the

LOGCEN file.

9 Integrate the MACRIT file into AUTOMANPERS.

Training Program

There should be a formal training program for all contributory

participants in the QQPRI *and BOIP development process. It is obvious

that the task is too complex for the analyst to become proficient from a

manual alone. Well designed job aids can prompt recall, but they are not

a substitute for training.

Our interviews indicated the NET analyst spends less than 25% of

the time on QQPRI; therefore, refresher training may be required from

*- time to time.

TRADOC Process Management

The current distribution scheme of BOIPFD and QQPRI within TRADOC

is for all players to receive them simultaneously. The idealized

2-57
p. baseline method suggests an 0&O concept should precede the BOIP preparation.

Perhaps a more effective way to do it would be to convene the key

players at the system proponent school. There, the combat developer

element would brief the 0&0 concept to all the players, then hold working sessions to develop the concepts for support. When all participants

are conceptually in agreement, they would return to their home station

for the development of specific OQPRI and BOIPFD followed by the BOIP.

SUMARY

This section has covered the development of personnel requirements

information beginning with the preparation of the BOIPFD, followed by

the preparation of the OQPRI, and ending with the BOIP, which is a man-

.iz power and equipment change document. The elapsed time for this overall

process generally takes up to I year, but it is not unusual for the

elapsed time to extend to 2 years or more. The process (BOIPFD and

QOPRI) is initiated in DARCOM. TRADOC prepares organizational changes

(BOIP) based on information gathered in the process. The TRADOC product, which is a comprehensive organizational change statement, covers

both equipment by LIN and SRC (and UIC) and personnel by MOS, grade,

quantity, and SRC (and UIC). The BOIP must be approved by HQDA

(DAMO-ROR in conjunction with other ARSTAF) and published as a TOE

. change in the consolidated change table (CCT) before it is an accepted

,-. change to be input to documenting units by UIC.

In this overall personnel requirements information development

process, there is no recognized technique to establish an early manpower

baseline for subsequent comparison. If such a capability were estab-

* lished, manpower affordability and supportability change information

would be more easily discerned.

2-58

e
A complete conceptual OQPRI requirement should be established, and

such a requirement could be implemented immediately. It should be required as a part of the concept formulation package and serve as an

,j" early manpower requirements statement and to identify early training

problems.

Information that may aid in the decision processes at HODA and

perhaps at TRADOC can be lost in processing the BOIPFD and QPRI to

formulate the BOIP and MOS decision recommendation (and the MOS decision

itself). Candidate WS selections and the reasons therefore can be and

frequently are lost in the process of coordination, review, and revision in the overall BOIP preparation process. Requirements to perpetuate initial and all subsequent selections of candidate MOS should be established. When initial selections of candidate MOS are rejected in the

coordination and review process, the reasoning for such actions and the

I..i logic driving a subsequent candidate MOS selection should be included in

the OOPRI and BOIP documentation process. Procedures and job aids

should reflect these requirements.

The MACRIT data maintained at the LOGC and at MRSA represent

DPAMMH and AMMH. In addition to a conceptual difference, there are

other variations between these data because of frequency and method of

update. There should be one MACRIT data base, and all MACRIT users

should utilize the one source. While this would benefit the Army

overall, it would also reduce resource requirements to maintain MACRIT

data.

The development of manpower information is not given attention

similar to that given the development of equipment information. Establishing manpower information seems to be of secondary importance realizing that equipment operations, maintenance, and support is the workload

that establishes the need for manpower. The responsibility for QOPRI

preparation is vested in the NET Team Manager, who has a primary responsibility of training and prepares the OOPRI only as an additional duty.

2-59

r
This responsibility should be recognized as a part of the manpower development responsibilities, and it should be vested in a manpower per-

"' sonnel developer (which should be established).

The term basis of issue plan (BOIP) has been around for over 2

decades. The term BOIP lacks overall personnel, equipment, and organizational connotations. It should be replaced with a more relevant term.

Some suggestions are:

(a) Personnel and Equipment Change of Requirement (PAECR) (pronounced PACER).

(b) New Weapon Systems and Associated Equipment and Personnel

Requirements (NAEPR) (pronounced NAPER).

(c) Personnel and Equipment Requirements Change (PERC).

(d) Equipment and Personnel Requirements Information (EPRI).

(e) New Weapons Systems Fielding Requirements (NWSFR).

26

.N'

,. ,."2-60

0:
Zif- - - - -

DEVELOPM4ENT OF TAXONOMIES TO DERIVE BEHAVIORAL REQUIREMENTS FOR * NEW ARIKY SYSTEMS

BACKGROU;ND

This section presents the development of a taxonomy to derive

72 behavioral requirements from new weapon system task descriptive data

(TDD). Extant taxonomiic systems are reviewed and assessed as to their

utility for the manpower and personnel requirements determination process.

A taxonomic model tailored to an Army context was developed on the basis of

this literature review. The model contains two taxonomies, one for determining the MOS for a new equipment system and one based on tasks.

C Objectives

The objectives of Task 2, as listed in the Statement of Work, are to:

1. Review existing task and data taxonomies having potential utility for deriving manpower and personnel

requirements

2. Assess the utility of each taxonomy

3. Develop, use, or adapt a taxonomic model based upon requirements established in Task 1. The model should:

13 Define data input, processes in behavioral requirements derivation, and taxonomic output

* Use data congruent with that available at each

phase of the Life Cycle Systems Management Model

(LCSMM)

0 Address Army Military Occupational Specialty (MOS)

content

4. Identify and define the elements of the taxonomic model

7his section presents current methods for determining MOS for developmiental items and the developmaent of the taxonomies. A later section presents methods for using the taxonomies.

5*** 3-1

*-,.* % - -- - - - ,*
LIFE CYCLE AND PERSONNEL PLANNING PROCESSES

Life Cycle System Management Model

The Life Cycle System Management Model (LCSMM) is an event-oriented

sequence of specified phases of program activities and decisions which culinate in the development and fielding of equipment or weapon systems

described in detail in Task 1. This management process weighs mission

needs against capabilities, established priorities, and resources. Mission

Element Need Statements (MENS) are prepared for approval by the Secretary

of Defense to justify major new system acquisition. As Rhode et al. (1980)

report, this approval completes the Mission Area Analysis Phase and constitutes authority to proceed into Milestone 0 (program initiation) and subsequent LCSMM phases. These phases are identified and described below:

1. Concept Development - acquisition approaches, such as

the technical approach, economic approach, and

military usefulness are established and the program is formally initiated. The completion of

this stage is Milestone I.

.4.2. Demonstration and Validation - decision baselines are

J refined through the analysis and quantification of

alternative design concepts, and preferred solutions are established to reaffirm the need. The

completion of this phase is Milestone II.

%3. Full-Scale Development - design, fabrication, and testing of the total system (including support) are

* completed to establish the basis for the production decision and the use of production resources.

The completion of this stage is Milestone 1I1.

4. Production and Deployment - the total system (including

support) is production-engineered, fabricated with

* production tooling, and fully tested for operational worth. The operational system and its support are produced and delivered to inventory.

When inventory objectives are complete, the program is transferred to commodity management. Concurrent with full production, inventory items are

delivered to operating forces. User reports estab-

* lish modification and o)verall requirements, and

the svstem is operated and maintained unil classi-

% fied as obsolete. The completion of this stage is

% Milestone IV.

* 3-2
Qualitative and Quantitative Personnel Requirements Information (QQPRI) and

Basis of Issue Plan (BOIP) in the LCSMM

This section describes the Qualitative and Quantitative Personnel

.r

Requirements Information (QQPRI) and Basis of Issue Plan (OIP), depicts

their location within the LCSMM, and examines their relationsips to other

critical documents in the LCSMM. The data wihich serve as input to the

QQPRI and BOIP, the decision processes entailed, and the output which

results from their use are considered.

According to AR 71-2 ( 1982), the Basis of Issue Plan Feeder Data

(BOIPFD) is the first document the materiel developer Ci.e., DARCOM) prehpares that triggers the QQPRI and the BOIP process. Specifically, the

Logistics Analyst/Materiel Systems Coordinator (LAIMSC) of the Materiel

Development Command (XDC) generates the BOIPFD based upon input from the

developing engineer and supporting Hateriel Readiness Commands (HRCs). A

BOLPFD is prepared for each new or improved system and describes the

modernization equipment. The OIPFD, which is forwarded to the New Equipment Training (NET) team and the Equipment Authorization Review Agency

(EARA), is amended when major cost increases are identified, associated

3upport items of equipment (ASIsE) requirements change, or component items

change. EARA reviews the feeder data for validity, completeness, and accuracy; ensures that the BOIPFD and Standard Study Number cSSN) cross reference files are compatible; and sends information copies of DARCOM items or

systes feeder data to HQDA. No specific time-frame or point in the LCS 1M

is identified by AR 71-2 for submission of the BOIPFD.

The NET analyst prepares the QQPRI from the BOIPFD during the LCSMM

demonstration and validation phase. According to AR 71-2 (1982), the QQPRI

is a compilation of organizational, doctrinal, training, duty position, and

3-3

%~
personnel information. It determines the need to establish or revise an

MOS and to prepare plans to provide the training and personnel required by

the system. Figure 3-1 describes the seven QQPRI requirements and the data

in them.

According to AR 71-2, logistics support analysis (LSA) is applied to

the system to accommodate the data needed to support the QQPRI (AR 71-2,

.". 1982). The materiel developer provides task and skill information resulting from this LSA. Additionally, the NET analyst receives information from

the developing engineer, supporting Material Readiness Commands (MRCs), the

maintenance engineer, the Manpower Authorization Criteria (MACRIT) file,

and AR 611-201. After developing the tentative QQPRI (TQQPRI), the NET

analyst submits it to the Materiel Readiness Support Agency (MRSA). Similarly, EARA forwards the BOIPFD to MRSA, which reviews both documents for

compatibility, completeness, and accuracy. Upon meeting these criteria,

these documents are sent to HQ TRADOC at least 9 months prior to

Milestone II.

In reviewing the MOS recommendations, TRADOC analyzes the BOIPFD and

TQQPRI. Here, the proponent school develops the organizational and operational cincept (0 & 0 Concept), determines which table of organization and

equipment (TOE) will employ the new system, and develops the Basis of Issue

Plan (BOIP). The tentative BOIP (TBOIP) is developed from the BOIPFD and

TQQPRI and it contains equipment and personnel changes required to integrate the modernization system into existing TOE. For those systems

requiring the development of a new TOE, an Automated Unit Reference Sheet

(AURS) is prepared. This document is used to estimate materiel and person-

*' nel requirements in the Structure and Composition System (SACS) until TOE

are developed (AR 71-2, 1982, p. 4-3). Meanwhile, the Deputy Chief of

3-4

0.'

~oO
i..

Requirements Data and Descriftion

1. Statement of Requirement or - Identity of document and preparer

Procurement Directive

- New Equipment Training Plan (NETP) number

- Identity of action officer and date prepared

2. Description of Equipment to - Identification of special test equipment and

• be Generated and Maintained support requirements

- Description of equipment in terms of generic

nomenclature and Line Item Number (LIN)

3. Direct Productive Annual Number of hours required by MOS for each

Maintenance Manhours (DPAMH) category of maintenance (organizational,

direct support (DS) general support (GS) and

depot).

- Provided on the principal item, associated

ritems not type-classified, major components,

and support and test equipment.

- Statement of standard LIN and the generic

nomenclature

4. Number of Direct Operators - Operators needed to make up a crew or operate the system as a single shift

5. Duty Positions - Listing, by descriptive title, required for

operation and support of the equipment

- Suggested placement of duty position within

a current, revised, or new enlisted MOS

- Excludes skill levels, includes MOS that

support the maintenance levels of all

associated equipment

6. System Unique Duties and - Listing of duties and tasks to be performed

Tasks in positions requiring new, revised, or

current MOS

- Indication of whether current MOS are adequate for the new or improved system

7. Individual Training Plan (ITP) - Copy of the ITP

Note: Only relevant if contractor or New Equipment - If not shown in ITP, provide name of conTraining (NET) is used to tractor, title and length of course, duty

qualify personnel for test and positions for which the course trains, and

, evaluation prerequisites for attendance

FIGURE 3-1

QQPRI REQUIREMENTS AND DATA

3-5

V|
Staff for Combat Development (DCSCD) at HQ TRADOC prepares an impact report

S and' forwards the TQQPRI, TBOIP, and requirements documents, which contain

the 0 & 0 Concept, to the Soldier Support Center (SSC) for incorporation of

MOS information. The SSC submits a formal MOS recommendation through

HQ TRADOC to HQDA Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER) for review.

At this point, a TRADOC review board is convened to determine whether the

TQQPRI, TBOIP, and Required Operating Capability (ROC) are mutually supportive and to ensure that minimum mission essential resource requirements are

stated. This process consumes approximately seven months. The QQPRI and

BOIP can be modified through an iterative procedure when changes are

warranted, although the final QQPRI (FQQPRI) must be completed at least 21

months prior to Milestone III and 33 months before the equipment availability date (EAD). TRADOC forwards these materials to the Office of the Deputy

. Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans (ODCSOPS) Requirements Directorate

(DAMO-RQR) within Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA). Ultimately,

",'2- HQDA makes the MOS action decision.

;-.

CURRENT NETHOD FOR DETERMINING HOS

MOS nust be determined for direct operators and maintainers and for

support personnel; the divisions of this section correspond to those two

• kinds of Zl0S determination.

Direct Operators and tintainers

0 MOS determination has several stages starting with MOS for maintenance

personnel at the time of "ilesti.- . This MOS estimate serves as a constraint in the Logistic Support Analysis Record (LSAR) to discourage developers from designing equipment that no one can maintain. The method is

similar to the one used for QQPRI but is more rudimentary.

*_ 3-6
. ....

The process of determining MOS of direct operators and maintainers

U and support personnel in the QQPRI has four steps:

1. Initial MOS recommendation by the New Equipment

Training (NET) analyst, accompanied by a task list or

2. Processing by affected agencies, particularly TRADOC

Fand the TRADOC school that eventually conducts training

3. Revised MOS recommendation by Soldier Support Center

National Capitol Region (SSC-NCR), resolving conflicts such as personnel supply and requirements, and

constraints on personnel assignments

4. Final approval of the MOS by DCSPER

The products of ARMPREP are designed to facilitate the initial and

revised MOS recommendations.

Initial MOS recommendation

The initial MOS recommendation is the responsibility of the materiel

developer, with input from the contractor who develops the materiel system. New Equipment Training (NET) analysts often are former military instructors, but they are not colocated with design engineers nor with the

analysts at SSC-NCR who reconcile requirements and constraints in MOS

recommendations. The NET analysts use information from engineering specifications, LSAR, and AR 611-201.

The NET Analyst may use AR 611-201 to identify all plausible MOS for

each position. A comprehensive list of possible MOS may be identified in

the index, which lists all MOS by Career Management Fields (CMF). Some of

these MOS may be eliminated by consulting CMF diagrams, which are presented

on the first page of each section. Finally, the specification for each

3-7

-4.Z * 4 a . . . . . . . . * * . , . - . - * , . - - - -
remaining MOS may be read to determine appropriateness. Each MOS specification has two sections: first is a -taeral description that d ifferentiates the MO0S from other MOS, and second are detailed descriptions of the

job duties and tasks, equipment, qualifications, and grade structure.

Sometimes more than one reasonable MOS can be identified for each position;

often a single MOS is identified, but occasionally no existing MOS is a

reasonable match for the requirements. This method of using AR 611-201 is

logical and comprehensive, but in practice it is subject to shortcuts,

depending upon the skill and thoroughness of the NET analyst.

MOS are either system-specific or generic. System-specific MOS ide

tify one particular materiel system in their title (e.g., Improved HAWK

Pulse Radar Repairer is MOS 243). Generic MOS identify a functional class

of equipment (e.g., Defense Acquisition Radar Operator is 16J) or more than

one system. If a new weapon were aided to a system-specific MOS the title

and definition would have to be extended; a new MOS seems a likely alternative. System-specific MOS are concentrated in missile and armor systems

where there are few generic MOS.

Other considerations in MOS selection are the complexity of the new

Army system and the impact on training time. Complexity of performance includes the ways that the job functions are allocated and executed (e.g.,

maintenance functions). Technological complexity increases training time,

and may exceed the amo-int that will be allowed in the revised MOS recommendat ion process.

Examples of system-specific MOS are provided by the PATRIOT and TOW

systems. PATRIOT is a complex kir Defense (AD) missile system, and all

such systems have system-specific MIOS. Combining the PATRIOT with an

3-8
existing missile system in a single MOS would have created a job with too

many duties and tasks, and with more required training time than is feasi ble.

The Tube-launched, optically tracked, wire-command link guided missile

(TOW), unlike PATRIOT, is an infantry anti-tank weapon, and such infantry

weapons are usually within the responsibility of the generic MOS, 1IB,

Rifleman. The TOW, however, differs in deployment from other inkantry weapons and is more technologically complex and expensive. High performance

* standards were needed to use its capabilities and a dedicated operator was

required. The TOW operator, therefore, has an MOS (11H) separate from the

other infantry MOS.

Not all complex weapon systems with long training requirements have

* -system-specific operator or maintainer MOS. For example, all aviation MOS

are generic, but helicopter maintenance could hardly be considered a simple

skill by any criterion. Servicing and limited repair of helicopters is

based on class; e.g., Attack Helicopter Repairer. More extensive maintenance problems are referred to component specialists; e.g., Aircraft Power

train Repairer. Experience with a kind of component apparently transfers

*across systems. The current pattern of specialization encompasses all of

helicopter maintenance.

A new MOS Is likely to be needed if the most similar existing MOS is

system-specific. If MOS for similar, existing jobs are generic, then they

are likely to cover operation and maintenance of the new system.

-- Problems arise in initial MOS identification because of the lack of

information, lack of experience of the NET analysts, and volume of

AR 611-201. The NET analysts have MOS determination as an extra duty that

they perform infrequently, and they have limited sources of information.

3-9
AR 611-201 is so voluminous that the analyst is likely to fail to find

relevant MOS or narrow the selection to the best one. The process has no

standards or written procedures. Documenting the process and developing an

organized method for use of AR 611-201 are, therefore, two solutions that

are likely to benefit initial MOS identification.

The QQPRI requires a task list or exceptions to an existing list for

each new position. Without task lists, it is hard to tell whether an MOS

selection is correct or not. The QQPRI is also supposed to have estimates

of DPAMMH. Often the QQPRI is late, not accompanied by task lists, or is

otherwise incomplete; even when TQQPRI and FQQPRI are submitted by the

required deadline, much of the value of the information is already lost

(e.g., for TASA and design of training).

Processing of initial MOS recommendations

The QQPRI, including MOS recommendations, is processed through various

agencies, particularly TRADOC and its schools, as diagrammed in Task 1. It

is eventually forwarded to SSC-NCR, where final MOS recommendations are

made.

* Final MOS recommendation

The final MOS determination has four alternatives in cases where there

was a current MOS to select:

1. Confirm the MOS without change.

2. Add an Additional Skill Indicator (ASI) to specify

skill on the new equipment.

3. Shredout a new MOS from the old one. ("Shredout" is

the creation of two MOS to replace an existing one).

4. Create an entirely new MOS. (This generally amounts to

confirming a need that was recognized much earlier,

,. during the conceptual phase of development.)

ih

_ 3-10

~% %
SSC-NCR relies on training estimates and data from TILADOC and Army

U service schools in making final MOS determinations. SSC analysts weigh

other factors, many of which are statutory or administrative; e.g., career

advancement paths and overseas assignments. The training or skill factors,

p however, are the ones relevant to behavioral processes.

SSC-NCR accepts as much as 40 percent increase in original training,

or six months of training on the job, to bring MOS incumbents to an acceptable level of performance on the new system (as a general rule). That magnitude of increase is likely only when the old MOS is responsible for only

one system, which is almost always a system-specific MOS.

The absolute length of training is also held to a minimum. MOS for

complex systems may be system-specific in order to reduce total training

time. There is a required minimum of twelve weeks of training, including

pboth basic and advanced individual training (AIT) which overlap in onestation unit training (OSUT). Soldiers therefore receive a minimum of six

or seven weeks of AIT.

An ASI to indicate capability with the new equipment within the old

MOS is the second option. An ASI is appropriate when the new equipment requires most of the skills of the old MOS, but also some substantially different ones. Current ?ractice allows as many as six ASI connected to an

40S. An ASI is not intended as a temporary solution, so it is not supposed

to be used if the old system is replaced over a short period of time.

-/. Similarly, ASI are not supposed to be used with courses that prepare people

for one-time assignments, because the ASI is an administrative device to

identify people for reassignment to a particular 'kind of duty.

3-11
If an MOS is identified, incumbents are given 'Iew Eqiipment Training

(NET) to man the new system during testing and when it is fielded. If the

. MOS is not considered sufficiently similar to the requirements of the new

system, there is a shredout into separate MOS. Shredout of generic MOS may

occur even when the new system imposes only a small increase in equipment

for the MOS if it increases the total training tasks over the threshold of

what is desirable. Then, the systems associated with the old MOS are likely

to be divided between the newly created MOS. The time for shredout to take

effect depends on whether the old MOS is satisfactory for an interim period.

* Subsequent training requirements related to MOS determination

Data in the QQPRI related to MOS determination are used subsequently

. for the systems analysis of training, incluiding Task and Skill Analysis

(TASA) and instructional system development (ISD). These developments

- .begin with a listing of tasks for each MOS; such listing is facilitated by

a task taxonomy (Matlick, Berger, Knerr, and Chiorini, 1980). The taxonomic

system needs to structure task lists so that training can be designed for

categories of tasks, rather than piecemeal. This approach enables training

to be designed for a category of tasks even when the listing is incomplete.

.upport MOS

The QQPRI is required to list support MOS as well as operators and

maintainers of the system being developed; the majority of MOS listed in

the sample in AR 71-2 (pp. B-3 and B-4) are support MOS. Identification of

support MOS requires generating a complete list of all the services needed

for the developmental item and the MOS for these services. A related

re-quirement in AR 71-2 (p. B-I) is a list of all components and associated

3-12

: sL I AL. 2U .
equipment; input data for it are provided in BOIPFD. These requirements

3 may be much more important for predicting total manpower impact of a new

system than the few MOS of direct operators and maintainers.

METHOD IN TASK 2

* Methods for achieving the Task 2 objectives included interviews,

*analysis and assessment of taxonomic literature, and development of new

taxonomies. Project staff interviewed Army personnel who are responsible

-. for manpower and personnel projections and MOS determination. The interviews were conducted at two levels in SSC-NCR. First was an overview of

SSC-NCR responsibility and the Comprehensive Occupational Data Analysis

Program (CODAP) system, and second were detailed discussions with personnel

* in the MOS structure division.

* In conducting the literature review, we compiled a list of selected

references which span a variety of taxonomic approaches, system development

*methodologies, and other classification schemes. The primary data sources

include Natinal Technical Information System (NTIS), Defense Technical

Information Center (DTIC), Research and Development Information System

(RDIS) searches, published bibliographies, professional journals, and other

literature dealing with taxonomic and classification approaches.

Documents identified in these searches were examined to determine key

characteristics of taxonomies, methods for generating taxonomic units, and

uses and constraints of taxonomic systems. Analysis of the literature

first focused on general criteria for evaluating taxonomies. The specific

purposes of ARMPREP were identified and formal criteria for assessing the

utility of extant behavioral taxonomies were delineated in terms of their

ability to assist in making manpower and personnel requirements decisions.

3-13
These formal criteria are listed below:

I. Behavioral Focus

2. Objective

3. Not Requiring Observation

4. Discriminate Among MOS

Wpp

5. Descriptive of MOS

6. Familiar Terms for Subject Matter Expert (SME)

7. Consistent with Army Practices

8. Facilitates Decisions

These ARMPREP taxonomic criteria were applied to historical approaches to

task classification and behavioral taxonomies. Matrices that depict the

interface between these taxonomic systems and the formal ARMPREP criteria

were constructed. Generally, each classification system fails to meet some

of the formal criteria for the development of an ARMPREP taxonomy; specifically, many taxonomies do not satisfy the four following requirements (of

the eight listed above):

1. Description of Army MOS - most taxonomies are 3elineated at a too molecular content level and do not contain common Army concepts

2. Objective - many taxonomic systems rely upon subjective

judgments and possess limited reliability

3. Behavioral Focus - many systems lack this focus,

instead emphasizing behavior description or ability

requirements

4. Consistent with Army Practices - many taxonomies are

t.o general to be technically adequate

The assessment determined that AR 611-201 best fulfills the formal criteria

f Eor the ARLMPREP taxonomy. While AR 61t-201 was not designed as a taxonomy,

• the MOS information it contaiis f,)rms an implicit, underlying taxonomic

.3,14
base. The detailed review of taxonomic systems and assessment of their

utility for ARMPREP is contained in Appendix F. The following sections

describe the method for generating the APMPREP taxonomy from the

MOS-related material in AR 611-201.

DEVELOPMENT OF MOS STRUCTURE AND TASK STRUCTURE TAXONOMIES

The taxonomic system was developed by content analysis of MOS titles

and specifications from AR 611-201, according to the requirements of

* -. ARMPREP specified in the Statement of Work (SOW), and elaborated under

Task I of the project. The system has two taxonomies:

1. The MOS structure taxonomy which is oriented along

lines of equipment, CMF and organizational structure

of the Army

2. The task structure taxonomy, which classifies

behavior requirements.

MOS Structure Taxonomy

The objective was a taxonomy to guide initial MOS selection by providing a way to narrow the possible MOS to a few alternatives, while retaining

MOS that qualify. The information for the taxonomy is contained in

AR 611-201, particularly the table of contents, the CMF structure diagram

at the beginning of each section, and the delineation of job duties in MOS

specifications. This taxonomy is valuable as a guide for using relevant

cues in MOS selection, by organizing the large volume of detail in

AR 611-201.

The MOS titles for direct operators and maintainers were sorted into

clusters that satisfied the requirements of ALMPREP, and each cluster was

named. The first cue used in the sorting was the MOS title (e.g., Aircraft

Powerplant Repairer) which placed the MOS within a major area (e.g.,

3-15

[. . '- -•" .- •.. - .---...-.- . .. ."-, - - • . ". .- ". .-". . . " '.'-' -'-'--' ".. v v ,,'-,",. . ,,. ,'.,'-vV. V,'
k.,

-' Aviation) and a minor cluster within that area (e.g., Aircraft Component

Repairer). - When that cue was not sufficient, cues were sought from the CMF

structure and the MOS specifications. Track Vehicle Mechanic (63Y) and

Track Vehicle Repairer (63H), for instance, are both designated "Machinery

Maintenance," as opposed to "Weapon System Maintenance" which is used to

designate maintenance MOS for tanks and armored personnel carriers. The

specification of Track Vehicle Mechanic specifically excludes duty in

"self-propelled field artillery, armored, mechanized infantry, and armored

cavalry units;" therefore, these MOS were classified as Engineering MOS.

The same cues placed each MOS in the Army organizational structure, so

that the taxonomy represents kinds of equipment and units to which the incumbents are assigned. Unit affiliation and kind of system, along with

operator-maintainer distinctions, are defining characteristics of MOS in

virtually every case. Types of performance required (e.g., driving vehicles, or using test equipment) are less important, and less relevant in

determining MOS.

Table 3-1 presents the MOS Structure Taxonomy.* Maj)r systems are

covered irt sections numbered 1.1 through 1.7 of Part 1, and secondary systems in sections numbered 1.8 through 1.11. Sequencing of sections is

* arranged so that adjacent sections cover related functions to highlight

areas of possible contention between the various Army centers and sch'ools

(e.g., Armor, Infantry, etc.).

The taxonomy is hierarchical, so the meaning of any particular category is predicated )n the major divisions of which it is a part; for

example, the location of Track Vehicle Mechanic 1,63Y) and Tr3ck Vehicle

* The tables are locate d at the end of this section.

3-16

% %726** *.-.- .V. ,,.* 9
..- 7

Repairer (63H) in the engineering equipment section (1.8) means that the

user might overlook the stipulation that 63Y does not serve in combat

units, or the designation .of both 63Y and 63H for mechanical systems,

rather than for combat systems. The subordination in Table 3-1 distinguishes it as a taxonomy, rather than an arbitrary classification. The

hierarchy, and procedures for its use, are designed to facilitate the use

of AR 611-201 to determine MOS and task lists for developmental items.

MOS in Part I of the MOS Structure Taxonomy are open to soldiers at

the entry level, except for three specifically-defined MOS (in IHAWK and

NIKE systems under AD Missile Systems, section 1.5.4 in the taxonomy). MOS

for a particular kind of system are listed together, regardless of whether

they are for operators or maintainiers; however, the operator status and the

level of maintenance for each MOS are indicate, in the columns at the right

3 side of the table. Operators and maintainers are grouped together to highlight MOS associated with a particular kind of equipment, especially those

that both "operate" and "maintain."

Operators and maintainers are occasionally in separate but adjacent

" categories within a class of systems, when they involve different subclasses. More than one category of MOS may need to be considered for a developmental item especially when MOS are responsible for maintenance in two

areas; such cases have footnotes. For instance, fire control computers and

fire control instrume1ts for both armor and artillery are maintained by the

same MOS (34Y and 41C, respectively).

3-17
Connections between categories are rare, indicating that MOS are

divided according to equipment characteristics. The kind of equipment is

Z the dominant consideration in selecting MOS for direct operators and main-

--. tainers, and the kinds of tasks performed with that equipment are of secondary interest.

Part 2 of the MOS Structure Taxonomy includes supervisory and other

MOS that are associated with equipment functions that correspond with sections of Part 1. A coimmon numbering system is used for both parts of the

Table to facilitate finding all MOS associated with a particular system.

Part 2 of Table 3-1 also identifies related MOS for requirement 5 of " QQPRI, so that the BOIP reflects the organizational impact of the new systern. Identification of MOS in "support chains," which consist of MOS

affected by broad classes of syste'ms is a related endeavor. Weapon systems

depend on ammunition specialist and transportation personnel as well as

combat soldiers, for instance. Support chains of MOS will be required for

Manpower and Personnel Requirements Determination Methodologies (MANPERS),

and Parts 1 and 2 of the MOS Structure Taxonomy apply to that requirement.

Part 3 is :,>.cluded to ensure exhaustive consideration of all MOS; however, the characteristics of these MOS (e.g., band members) have no particular application for MANPERS. This part also includes MOS for reserve

• .,. forces. Although some of them are direct operators or maintainers, they

are primarily applicable to emergency or wartime needs associated with

skills found in the private sector. Thus, they are distinguished from

operators and mairitainers who are Part I of the MOS Structure Taxonomy.

The MOS Structure Taxonomy and its application were discussed with

personnel at the MOS Structure Branch, SSC-NCR, to zonfirm that the method

is congurent with curr--t practice.

3-18

.6.

I.-...
Task Structure Taxonomy

-The Task Structure Taxonomy classifies performance elements in MOS

specifications in AR 611-201. It is used *to confirm the MOS of direct

N' operators and maintainers and to generate organized tasks lists for those

MOS. The categories can be linked to training strategies that are useful

in development of training.

The first step in development of the task structure was to select

widely varied maintenance MOS, and obtain from AR 611-201 the narrative

description of entry level duties for those MOS. These descriptions were

cut up into individual statements, and sorted into clusters on the basis of

similarity of performance required. Duplicate statements were eliminated.

The clusters were organized into functions at higher levels than tasks.

Fewer and fewer novel statements were encountered as functions were added.

Based on these clusters, a taxonomy was formulated that classifies performance statements from AR 611-201.

Entry level narrative descriptions were extracted from AR 611-201 for

seven MOS selected as representative of maintenance MOS (23T, 26K, 26L,

* -27F, 31J, 45L, and 63C). This sample was different from the one used in

generating the taxonomy. Three raters (project staff) independently

classified the narrative statements for each MOS specification, by making a

check mark in each category represented. The raters were encouraged to

check either general or specific categories or both, as appropriate.

The raters agreed most: of the time, and discussed reasons for discrepancies; however, there was no formal scoring because the ratings were for

formative evaluation. The maintenance taxonomy was revised to resolve

ambiguities and to clarify the structure so that subsequent users could

remember and readily locate categories for each statement.

3-19
Higher level categories reflected the form of statement in the MOS

narrative. The most common form had an actian verb and a direct object

that designated equipment. Three kinds of modifiers were applied to the

action verbs:

1 . Enabling techniques, including tools, test equipI- ment, printed job aids, and theory 1 I'2. Constraints, including safety practices and regulat ions

3. Performance level, specified as "assists,""performs," or "supervises"

The designation of "assists" at the entry level was not reflected in the

taxonomy, because the soldier eventually is required to perform the

action. The enabling techniques and constraints were often stated separately (e.g., "reads and understands technical manuals"). The occasion on

which the action is performed was indicated in some cases.

The equipment was specified in three ways: generic (e.g., electronic

equipment), components, or whole systems. The generic specification was

used in the taxonomy to indicate type of equipment, but is insufficient to

describe the role of equipment in task performance. The MOS Structure Taxonomy therefore, is needed in conjunction with the Task Structure Taxonomy.

Other forms of statements in AR 611-201 were:

1% 1 . Administrative tasks, including filling out standard .

forms and maintaining files

2. Supervisory tasks, such as scheduling of work

assignments

The supervisory functions were confusing in the formative evaluation

ratings, because the Task Structure Taxonomy was intended to cover only

direct operation and maintenance. Statements from MOS specifications

3-20
regarding supervisory functions were clustered by the content analysis

U N method used for the MOS Structure Taxotiomy and the resulting taxonomy is

presented in Table 3-3. it is used with the MOS Structure Taxonomy

S.5- (Table 3-1, Part 2) to identify related MOS.

* An operator performance taxonomy, similar to the one for maintenance,

was developed by the same process of content analysis, based upon

specifications from AR 611-201 for the following MOS: 05B, 05C, 05D, 05K,

liB, IIH, 12F, 13B, 13C, 13E, 15D, LD, 16E, 16F, 16P, 16S, 16T, 17B, 19D,

19K, 26Q, 26R, 31M, 31N, 31V, 32D, 36C, 36K, 72E, 72G, 72H, 74D, 93J, 98G,

and 98J. This operator taxonomy was more elaborate than the one for

maintainers. Two judges classified statements from the following MOS:

*.: 05H, iB, 13B, 15E, 16R, 16T, 17K, 19E, 54C, 62E, 64C, and 93J. Their

judgments were compared and discussed and the taxonomy was revised. The

0 taxonomic categories were compared with those tasks listed in CODAP

questionnaires for the following MOS: 16J, 15D, 93J, 16P, 15E, and 16D.

Minor adjustments were made as a result. The operator and maintainer

taxonomies were combined, resulting in the Task Structure Taxonomy shown in

Table 3-2.

-

3-21

• .-." '..,,.,,. ,,, ;,€, . *.. .~d .- ,: . ¢, ,.'.,. .. ... ..-- *; . . ... .....-.-.. ,. ........ ,.... ,. ..
-. 4 X >4 >4 x >9 x x 4. . .

*~ CL ~

0% m- N - Cur 

0o -o101

Ogg IU

z' E- * 9

1 Cu1 LA W61 T 0

.44 61 LOd 4~ e E 4 Cu 

C j1 1w -4 &W I P06 11 :r CII' AJ M. ?m. M " as~~ ~ cc tov Cu Cu0 =11 togg -Wr-Z g4 

w64 41"J~CI

L-a dw du U4 -

C vI C -4Q 4- 02 2J 14 -W I 4C -0000 A

-4 j . )4

L. 04 LA- =-4'1A A

lw M4 -4 4u~ wu=

q. -- !) .61 m 4> w u u u

U CC

e~ 0 3-Cu
RD-A148 642 MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL REQUIREMIENTS DETERMINATION 2/4 METHODOLOGIES (MANPERS)(U) GENERAL RESEARCH CORP MCLEAN VA C M KNERR ET AL. DEC 84 GRC-1299-Bi-82-CR UNLASIIE AI-N-4C3 M9 838-0269 F/6 5/i N

EhhEE~EEEEEE
LL

111.5 11111_1.4 1.6

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART

NATIONAL BUREAU OF S1tANDAR[), 19b A

*% %

S%
Pr 15-w:7 -. 1 --. 7 Va Y - 76

-Ip

I-pd

x x

-wLI1 CI 6 I1 01 I.1 ...d 

%0 C2 C14 Y - 4CSA 0N 

LI"

N~~ ~ M ~ r" ~ C4V% cnC 

1~~4 W 0 

* ~.) G1' w ccO 0 0 *

lwL -o

LI 6Q 0 4C

0~t 'atLLI.

W 0j - .1.6 16 . - -

M. w L to t. f

L. > LI04 

c.44)0 C-I 1i.4 s

VI 0 L.4 7I LI4 -40 -. 6Eu .41U.-

CZ~U 4) LI A 06 '

-4~ C4 4 i ~L~-i ~ toL 

A1 4 )4 4 4~~-41) C2L0 

3-24
x o .6J

' . i ...

, x x - ..,

CO U2C

-. I -- C ..

CIS~CI CLmf"0

SII I I I I I I U .

x" -u - C

-, C .4 m m m m c" m en m e,. na' f C) 0.., C !0.J~C ' ,,.. j I.. Q

-. --

• -" "+" "T ,-I.. .. . -

.: C- r- .r Ln en InuI~ C- 

:- Cc~

LL 0 r& L. L

"... -u i . e . - r u, X .. ) < "

?? ... m S . 0 ., M ' 41 g ,. o cc.,.,m

t. - ~ r.~ Q) 1) E-C a.0 t -4 - W V4jS

U 0 .2 0.C ) CA 1*) (

, ~ 1) " U)L - C ;, 0 L. 0' " . L

, 0CL- " - * 0 -- T* S w) 3) .0 - 0~. 0-w w

..c I . S I. T . w .) . - C u, r-.- U L- U 

0 .- Iv Lw0L 0.~ 

Uw L L- =-,-I L >-4 0 

&j U AC0 2) = m 6 A.;

01 I CL c> C .0 J)0. 4)m-'L

S- . .Z.

-cc .- -f C - 0- 0)00 Cu <.~" D61 6.

-,. *+ -&i"-+ "+ P" ,.. 1) . Cu .. L .LL' i * ,.- .. 0. W),U z 0 -c 0Z0) Cu)U wu.( M 4

W. M(1 0U Wj U) .- M *'- 1) --- _ ,, C . j.- - "="v. -' " ," a "Cu - c

cc Cu U C. .... .. < s . L >=

0..'ci" Cu U0 Z U U . -4I.C *.'U

-.. .L. CCCuN

," 3-24,_

;,%-', ,.€ . ,.- , i " ",', ,. , " e,", Ca.JZL , +" r. ,% U .U %j~100)~ '."," ,--u- 0 . +I,
- - . * ~ -p* -*~. - . p

- CA 

x xx

'D No 04

t0 10 T3

rii

0.0 6 iu~ u IT Li 1- w

Li s

o 4. c -4 UJ CL MPC6 Li O

CL~ > v 

-~E C IC i E- Z 2i S

- 0 - 'o~C.1 61~jJ 'a L

U.0 %w

su LiLi 'l.J . L 2

- ~ C 1I2 ~ ~ 0 L

4J~iM~~ U..C U 'I.

'a ~-2 5uu~'
-. 12

.6J 41

E-4 =2

41

w 2w

10 41 4 = =-- S

--

E-% E-4 to41 - A '0 0 ~ e jN 'J 4 0j

2 ~ ~ A 'A- >~~-ci'a

2> >

3-2

-! cc
-I.

cf M. t_4 Z4

-0 s

LiL 4) v 4)

A-a = LAl - se

..i sC 4 V'N ZI 4w

Li d

0,z fa 6 -,

~ ~~~~3 6.~eJ.J .

(A~ A m 

Li Lao ~l*~

.3 0 CW

~~~ C to..~i 

3-2

* Z) it* i-
40V

4 x. x 4

-o

r mar~~ C% Lnf c" M ifn%

1 41 1010,1 1 iA i lit In 1111A1A

Li

co to lw -t

00

p.--

F. - 4* ccj 

6i E0~ ~ 2 G 0 de c u

% ZLi i 0 -40 O -4 m 00 _ 0 w 0 0 u r-- sLwid w s 04jO.O C.Li~L~z~~W si U. AjrjZ i0 IIjcj!~!~ gN dtdU 6 dumuwt

M--ZZ 0j) co0 40 4r_

v u aI VMWa V 9t

> .w ZZ 00. -

CL ini = te tl dt

-C - .6D.

4.

3-2%
*~~~ ~ x x-% ' . * - --

- c x

Bx

m~~~~~ - LMr VVi 

- -CLd

lz ~ S.I *,4a U -

z~ c U

-Z =

4) 4

> C4 7-z>0

ow Ta - C 

M Z - - -- -

Aj &J -jL

'-I~~~~ C C C U CUC 

V~~~~t IL.U-'. -

3-2-
cc I

.44.J

I..a0. m 41 w 

T4 C3 >60r

4.)) W 0

ai 0

-4- 0 c-4s

U~-Ntf -j 0% LA~'J w

--- C - - -- -CL 

M. a P- A," 0 c

C w. -d ci L 10. 1) "o IVV u ih =c tU u Li

hi l 00 co 0.. 0w 04 Li (I - aW v 2 i t w t

L. v. Li U) C L

4Ji hi 0 0 "a 

-4 a.i.. Oi4 sw 21 0 w 

0 0 o> 0 go a 0 1! Cfl 6

p L. 0 & fj Ai T - V . s0 c C 0 -1 V or % Li L- L -441 6 4 0

4j G 6 jU V d )1 U M4 ( U T -0 9L~ J! 4j 0 &Jto0 

64 9 0 t 0. z U0 a I- U c. .Q6

0. . 00

Li OOw4 0L0

V %a0r,V 
-~~~ X 

.. x 

'. V. -

Sx Xe x xx x> X>4 XX x xx x

-4c > 4 X 4 X x x 4 x s

0 4 x> 4x>

0f

4 03 -, t"' e n ., e

0) 1 >4

J.J Li 0 00),4

LW. !5 C- WI fi I I I 1 1 1 1 1 C.) 0)% -, (1 0

>Ld -4-'

I... L.

(D 0 .4 M)0 r_. 00 E- 0 0cc m ~ aI

0)W

&W .s0 0 0.- Q00 00 ~.J L=~))ia . >,0 U 0.1

.0a0. - b u %/C .) 0LZ w e -,4 -,4

.14* -,-1 0. Q- cc Q

-F -40.C.0- 4( -40c-O -0~ - 0) Q) >a40 0U tc0) L4 -. C

S. -1 ) L $W e J0)W 1) >,. ~ . 0.bOUa-40)o g 0)to0W 

0) C0)''C a0 A..)0)..m to UC

5.t 1.4 4t

LA~~~~C 0.ur ) Nwc

U)~~- U -C

14 1

3-31
x x.

X xx

16J

go C-4 I.

06 .10 w

L0 -d

&J (

*t0 jrA 2 I -4 3

-. 4.o C L =W : -

L. 0 -I j 3) :

usC ACl J v9t 6'- L .~IUI & 23

0 II >- lil I I cn " Tll

C.w TI' LA(4 AJ 4 C~% () %ID0 ej1~ (U '0a

d A3 6- - - 12

(U = -d = U 0 -S

Z. 41 sCwo0r dC

13 C 0 (U 0d 23 - La 23 0

*~~~7 4 -323 > -T 

*~~~6 -. ' .i-4L

-~ - (U- -~ j

0j n- Aj E-0.

X ...~ 3-3230
;I

C,

Mn 42 L

Cr ncn C 4 1

Va1 - el 'T41 1 C4mmen 1 1 11

29 .

.61

w 4 1.

'4 .%% sI w. -A U

-tjCJ~IJ i~- ~ %t'

to~V 1)- ' c$

0 go 0Qr

=- cc a. IdIV- v- E- u0 u0

ci -CTz- u v iA '4z 

ti-. ~2v -C M x

~- 0 U >cc

z -~ 3--3
P 771:

TABLE 3-1

MOS STRUCTURE TAXONOMY

Part 2: Associated Functions (MOS) [/

Category Title MOS Page in

AR 611-201

2.1 Aviation h/

2.1.1 AIRCRAFT

2.1.1.2 Maintenance

Aircraft Maintenance Senior Sergeant 67Z 3-67-13

Aircraft Quality Supervisor 67W 3-67-13

2.1.1.2.1 By Type

2.1.1.2.2 By Component

Aircraft Components Repair Supervisor 68K 3-67-33

2.1.2.1 Ground Control Equipment

Air Traffic Control (ATC) Tower Operator 93H 3-64-45

Meteorological Observer 93E 3-64-9

Flight Operations Coordinator 71P 3-64-43

• 2.1.2.2 On Board Equipment

Parachute Rigger 43E 3-76-27

2.1.2.2.1 Sensors

2.1.2.2.2 Avionics

Avionic Equipment Maintenance Supervisor 35P 3-28-29

.- 2.2 Artillery

Field Artillery Senior Sergeant 13Z 3-13-13

2.2.1 Specific Systems

Cannon/Missile Senior Sergeant 13Y 3-13-11

2.2.2 FA Target Acquisition

Field Artillery Target Acquisition Senior 13W 3-13-9

Sergeant

Fire Support Specialist 13F 3-13-33

Field Artillery Surveyor 82C 3-13-29

2.2.3 Cannon

2.2.3.1 Weapon System

Armament/Fire Control Maintenance Super- 45Z 3-63-52

visor

2.2.3.2 Vehicle Maintenance

* 2.3 Armor

.rmor Senior Sergeant 19Z 3-19-11

2.4 Infantry

2.4.1 Fighting Vehicle

2.4.2 No Vehicle

2.5 Air Defense

" Ballistic/Land Combat/Light Air Defense 27Z 3-27-29

Systems Maintenance Chief

Air Defense Artilery Senior Sergeant 16Z 3-16-5

ADA Operations and Intelligence Assistant 16H 3-16-21

./ Nucbering of sections corresponds with Part 1.

SS

h/ Air Transport functions are coordinated by transportation personnel.

.-S 3-34

,-..-: '-":'-,.'::',:., ---- --,::.-: .,;. -, -. -: '.-':-,: '."-.'-'".!v -. ': "..- "-;-. '-:* :.':.'. .-- .. - -- ."--.- ... . -.'.
'.4.

TABLE 3-1

"S MOS STRUCTURE TAXONOMY

Part 2: Associated Functions (MOS) (Continued)

Category Title MOS Page in

AR 611-201

2.5.1 Light AD Systems

2.5.2 AD Radar (separate from systems) 2.5.3 AD Command and Control Systems

2.6 Electronic Sensors (excluding AD)

2.6.1 Radar

2.6.2 EW/SIGINT

EW/SIGINT Chief 98Z 3-98-25

EW/SIGINT Analyst 98C 3-98-17

2.6.3 Other Sensors

z.7 Communication

Communications-Electronics Operations 31Z 3-31-29

Chief

2.7.1 Operator/ Installer

Signal Security Specialist 05G 3-98-13

2.7.2 Maintenance

2.8 Engineering C.

2.8.1 Combat Engineering

Atomic Demolition Munitions Specialist 12E 3-12-17 e

Combat Engineer 12B 3-12-5

Bridge Crewman 12C 3-12-11

Combat Engineering Senior Sergeant 12X 3-12-21

2.8.2 General Engineering

General Engineering Supervisor 51Z 3-51-23

2.8.2.1 Construction Engineering

Construction Engineering Supervisor 51H 3-51-31

Construction Equipment Supervisor 62N 3-51-43

Plumber 51K 3-51-51

Electrician 51R 3-51-15

Construction Surveyor 82B 3-51-7

Carpentry and Masonry Specialist 51B 3-51-29

Structures Specialist 51C 3-51-33

2.8.2.2 Technical Engineering

Technical Engineering Supervisor 51T 3-51-9

Material Quality Specialist 51G 3-51-5

Technical Drafting Specialist 81B 3-51-11

Construction Supervisor 82B

2.8.2.3 Power Engineering

Transmission and Distribution Specialist 52G 3-51-53

Prime Power Production Specialist 52E 3-51-13

2.8.2.4 Specialty Engineering

Water Treatment and Plumbing Systems 51N 3-51-19

Specialist

Firefighter 5114 3-51-25

Diver 52E

-.

3-35
TABLE 3-1

MOS STRUCTURE TAXONOMY

Part 2: Associated Functions (MOS) (Continued)

Category Title MOS Page in

UR 611-201

2.8.3 Topographic Engineering

Photo and Layout Specialist 83E 3-81-21

Photolithographer 83F 3-81-17

Topographic Engineering Supervisor 81Z 3-81-15

Topographic Surveyor 82D 3-81-7

Cartographer 81C 3-81-11

2.9 Transportation h/

. Cargo Specialist 57H 3-64-9

2.9.1 Surface Operations

Transportation Senior Sergeant 64Z 3-64-11

Traffic Management Coordinator 71N 3-64-7

2.9.2 Marine Operations

Marine Senior Sergeant 61Z 3-64-23

2.10 Special Support Factors

2.10.1 Utilities

2.10.2 Power Generation

2.10.3 Instrument Maintenance

2.10.4 Ammunition

Ammunition Supervisor 55Z 3-66-17

2.10.4.1 Nuclear

Nuclear Weapons Maintenance Specialist 55G 3-55-13

Nuclear Weapons Electronics Specialist 35F 3-55-19

2.10.4.2 Conventional

2.10.4.2.1 Disposal

Explosive Ordinance Disposal Specialist 55D 3-55-9

2.10.4.2.2 Supply and Accounting

Ammunition Inspector 55X 3-55-15

Ammunition Stock Control & Accounting 55R 3-55-21

Specialist

Ammunition Specialist 55B 3-55-5

2.10.5 Fuel (petroleum)

Petroleum Laboratory Specialist 92C 3-92-11

Petroleum Supply Specialist 76W 3-92-5

2.10.6 Data Processing, Computer, and Office Machines

Data Processing NCO 74Z 3-74-15

Programmer/Analyst 74F 3-74-11

2.10.6.1 Operators

2.10.6.2 Maintenance

ADP Maintenance Supervisor 34Z 3-74-17

2.10.7 Chemical

Chemical Senior Sergeant 54Z 3-54-13

Chemical Laborat3ry Specialist 92D 3-54-11

2.10.8 Miscellaneous Maintenance

h/ Air transport functions are coordinated by transporation personnel.

Li33

,i.. .3-36 L[•_.~ .~x
 .  .  ..  . .  .  . % . ,, ... , 

4-.

TABLE 3-1

MOS STRUCTURE TAXONOMY

Part 2: Associated Functions (MOS) (Continued)

Category Title MOS Page in "

- AR 611-201

2.10.9 Material Logistics

Material Control and Accounting Specialist 76P 3-76-13

2. 10. 10 Intelligence

Counterintelligence Agent 97B 3-96-5

Interrogator 96C 3-96-9

Image Interpreter 96D 3-96-17

Area Intelligence Specialist 97C 3-96-37

Intelligence Analyst 96B 3-96-13

Intelligence Senior Sergeant 96Z 3-96-21

2.11 General Supervisors

Communications-Electronics Maintenance 32Z 3-29-51

Chief

C Mechanical Maintenance Supervisor 63Z 3-63-39

Senior Supply Sergeant 76Z 3-76-26.3

-.

i

p ,

-4

3-37
TABLE 3-1

MOS STRUCTURE TAXONOMY

Part 3: Not Related to Categories of Equipment and Reserve Forces

Category Title MOS Page in

AR 611-201

3.1 A4ministrative

3.1.1 General Purpose

Secretary 71C 3-71-7

3.1.2 Specific Functions

3.1.2.1 Finance

Finance Senior Sergeant 73Z 3-71-37

Finance Specialist 73C 3-71-31

Accounting Specialist 73D 3-71-35

3.1.2.2 Legal

Legal Clerk 71D 3-71-39

Court Reporter 73C 3-71-43

3.1.2.3 Other

Equal Opportunity NCO OOU 3-71-47

Chapel Activities Specialist 71M 3-71-15

Administrative Specialist 71L 3-71-9

Physical Activity Specialist 03C 3-71-5

Correctional Specialist 95C 3-95-11

Graves Registratio Specialist 57F 3-76-35

3.2 Personnel

Personnel Actions Specialist 75E 3-71-25

Personnel Administration Specialist 75B 3-71-19

Personnel Information System Management 75F 3-71-49

Specialist

Personnel Management Specialist 75C 3-71-21

Personnel Records Specialist 75D 3-71-23

Personnel Sergeant 75Z 3-71-27

3.3 Service

Food Service Specialist 94B 3-94-5

"ilitary Police 95B 3-95-5

.-. Club Manager OOJ 3-71-45

Fabric Repair Specialist 43M 3-76-31

Laundry and Bath Specialist 57E 3-76-33

Unit Supply Specialist 7bY 3-76-25

Subsistence Supply Specialist 76X 3-76-21

3.4 Special Status

Command Sergeant Major OOZ 1-10

" Commissioned Officer Candidate 09S 14-1

Warrant Officer Candidate 09W 14-1

College Trainee 09C 14-1

Recruiter OOE 3-79-5

Reenlistment NCO 79D 3-95-9

Special Duty Assignment OOD 14-1

Special Agent 95D 3-95-15

.:.. .3-38
TABLE 3-1

MOS STRUCTURE TAXONOMY

Part 3: Not Related to Categories to !1tipnent and Reserve Forces

. Category Title MOS Page in

AR 611-201

3.5 Medical

Psychiatric Speialist 91F 3-19-19

Environmental Health Specialist 91S 3-91-53

Operating Room Specialist 911) 3-91-15

Cardiac Specialist 91N 3-91-35

Optical Laboratory Specialist 42E 3-91-61

Clinical Specialist 91C 3-91-11

ENT Specialist 91U 3-91-37

Nuclear Medicine Specialist 91W 3-91-43

Animal Care Specialist 91T 3-91-56.2

Orthopedic Spezialist 91H 3-91-23

V Eye Specialist 91Y 3-91-39

Dental Laboratory Specialist .4'0 3-91-5

Dental Specialist 91E 3-91-7

Occupational Therapy Specialist 91L 3-91-33

Patient Administration Specialist 71G 3-91-63

Veterinary Specialist 91R 3-91-57

Behavioral Sciences Specialist 91G 3-91-21

Biological Sciences Assistant O1H 3-91-79

Biomedical Equipment Specialist, Basic 35G 3-91-67

Biomedical Equipment Speialist, Advanced 35U 3-91-77

X-Ray Specialist 91P 3-91-45

Physical Therapy Specialist 91F 3-91-31

Cytology Specialist 92E 3-91-81

Orthopedic Specialist 42C 3-91-25

Respiratory Specialist 91V 3-91-41

Pharmacy Specialist 91Q 3-91-47

Hospital Food Service Specialist 94F 3-91-9

Medical Laboratory Specialist 92B 3-91-49

Medical Specialist 91B 3-91-27

Practical Nurse 91C 3-91-11

Medical Supply Specialist 76J 3-76-5

3.6 Public Affairs and Audio Visual

Audio TV Specialist 84F 3-84-19

Audio-Visual Equipment Repairer 41K 3-84-7

Journalist 71Q 3-84-9

Broadcast Journalist 71R 3-84-11

Public Affairs/Audiovisual Chief 84Z 3-34-23

Radio/Television Systems Speciali~t 26T 3-84-5

Motion Picture Specialist 84C 3-84-17

Illustrator 81E 3-84-13

TV/Radio Broadcast Operations Chief 84T 3-84-21

Still Photographic Specialist 84B 3-84-15

r. 3-39
V-7 v-.- -'. W

%" p '

TABLE -I

MOS STRUCTURE TAXONOMY

Part 3: Not Related ti Categories to Equipment and Reserve Forces

Categ rv Title MOS Page in

AR 611-201

3.7 Band

Woodwind Group Leader 02Q 3-97-15

Percussion Player 02M 3-97-7

Oboe Player 02H 3-97-7

Trombone Player 02E 3-97-7

Tuba Player 02F 3-97-9

Saxophone Player 02L 3-97-7

Enlisted Band Leader 02Z 3-97-17

Special Bandperson 02S 3-47-19

French Horn Player 02D 3-97-7

Cornet or Trumpet Player 02B 3-97-7

Percussion Group Leader 02R 3-97-15

Clarinet Player 02J 3-97-7

Piano Player 02N 3-97-11

Guitar Player 02T 3-97-13

Baritone or Euphonium Player 02C 3-97-7

.. TRasson Player 02K 3-97-7

Brass Group Leader 02P 3-97-15

Flute or Piccolo Player 02G 3-97-7

3.8 Reserve Forces MOS

Railway Car Repairer (RESERVE FORCES) 65D 3-64-29

Railway Movement Coordinator (RESERVE 65K 3-64-39

FORCES)

Locomotive Electrician (RESERVE FORCES) 65F 3-64-27

Locomotive Operator (RESERVE FORCES) 65H 3-64-35

LocomoaiVe Repairer (RESERVE FORCES) 65B 3-64-25

Aerial Sensor Specialist (OV-IB/C/RESERVE 17L 3-96-27

FJRCES)

Aerial Surveillance Photographic Equip- 41G 3-28-33

ment Repairer (RESERVE FORCES)

Railway Senior Sergeant (RESERVE FORCES) 65Z 3-64-41

Aerial Surveillance Infrared Repairer 26N 3-28-21

(RESERVE FORCES)

.- UNIVAC 1004-1005, DCT 9000 System 34J 3-74-25

Repairer

Railway Section Repairer (RESERVE FORCES) 65G 3-64-33

Industri.il !as Production Specialist 53B 3-51-49

(RESERVE FORCES)

-. . Card and Tap;, Writer (RESERVE FORCES) 74B 3-74-5

Light Air Defernse Artillery Crewman 16F 3-16-17

(RESERVE FORCES)

Train Crew Member (RESERVE FORCES) b5J 3-64-37

Airbrake Repairer (RESERVE FORCES) 65E 3-64-31

Aerial Surveillance Radar Repairer 25M 3-28-7

(RESERVE FORCES)

[.o* '.-."~ - ih i 4....; * *, 3-40
C tI

;j C

30 00 7

0 0v1j-0.

0~~ 61- -

cc 0 0

-, -.- 00

w 0. 50 ~

0 *- ~ 00 - O GL. wJ x z ~ .

*-0 0 W to~ 

0 *- 0 ~o 2

U ~ ' UIJ *-.00 0 J'2 ~ .J

3-410 ~ 0Co 0
S ' . oo.;b-•'' . .o-. .• ' ' - ' - . . . . .. ' ' .-.-. ' ' . .:..,' .. . - :; ,. '

'- _- 

o ---

U3j . .- ,

Co * C

- a - C 0. a

o ° . , JW 0

-e - -, % .°o".'o '' j' °,.. - 'o ao",,,C"V~ -

".,.o - % * o . " - " -' -. ,. - % ° ' % q
* 21 Ajj

40 C cc m %bA 6. 1.t C L

-- 6C cc 9LC@2

j CL :o C.-0

z5 .v@ aO

Aj 3) N

OZV @2

a 00 .- @20

a,.a

7Z '3.. c mC 2 *?2

Cr CL r- (v . - -

3-43-@2 C.
-aa)

M 1)

L.....

ot

v~ v A4 )-

-~

w ,< 0 a.

>.jC m .-6J

in Q c.

CLC.

V V°C.a >,., C •2

m~ Q)

toso*- 6. 0. 9 44

UJC

UZ-

:% C % 

V .- 3-...C L.

• " '- ." < ."" "- ; " .>, '--- j- C" .-;" .C.' C.'""". ",.C'. *-. . ."-.- - -•*.-- " , ,' .".. ,, ,.'." ., ; , , :" " .,- 
c-c

m C

C-4-

teV

1, F, -V

La- C
'I-.

= L

Li -..

c CL t

C -

X1 Z M CL al C> tLl 

o o> CCi

m0

cl. L.Aj

J I

cr~- C 

.bCU C

3-46 C
CL

V Co

C-4

cu u a)J a; .- w~ LiJ

.r 41J~Cu 

CuLC u~ Nt c..

a)~U 0 0-*

V ~.J L

C a) -'~C am

&u u

~~rn ;76*

P. C . Cu crC.)

V - * j~3-47

-ft) '.PI
* A

I

0~- 1~

~ C U-

-0.

C

C

0. *

0 - 0U2 3 U- -

I.- -

-J C U- -Jo -

V V '.~ U. a - V - I- -

3 c V C - * U. U. C C .J C

V .- j.j'U 0

- - ~ -~ -. V ~.j C~0 ~0 U. C C C -~ C **~

* U- V ~ 0.

2 -V C ~J *C~ ~0 u~ - V - ZC* *~0. >~ *- -~ V )- J-J C~C ~*-'U- -~ - -. 7. ~fl U- - V C - *- *.:0

2 ~ *- Z c -~

)~ U- U. U. C V - C ~-J-. - TI ~ V CV0~ ~C V U.~ V -

C C U. ~-.0 c~ .U- .j .~ C 0 V

~ c~.. Li.- V E- Z

C ~ */, ~.., -- U. -- C V

<= , - 0. U. * ~i2 >~ -C - - f. '.s'j ~ U. U C U- - rJ2 - C C .CC C f. ~N CC C C C C V 5 0. U. U- >3 ~ 2 U.

U. -J V - *-w -o - 3 C 3 C C CV C V C - - - A-I .- - - U. U.

C W C .CC. CC CC -: V ~a C -~ *-~j ~c ~ 0:

U. - U. C -~3 ~E C - - *-. C V 2 ~ - C U- ~2 V C V V CC C . *~ ~.j ..~ U. .j * - .- - C C C C

- .~ VO ~C C

V CO. = = 2 -~ ~ - OC.. C ~-. ~ - - CN 2 VC C A-JV U-- - .- V> ~

A-A

C

- -

C - b

- .~ U C U. C

*

*

-A3~43

% % % % * w ~ ~\~-:~%v--.vv'.. VV~.U. ~ ~ ~
* .J .... ~ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ * *

L.

L. 3

1~. C 2

L. CL. - - -

~* ~-

I- CE - C 00 -~ ~j:

>E *-~ *

C* ~-j --

~ > *-~

'-I - .-

~: -~ o * c

~c. -c ~ *~L. ~J- >~U

- O~CCn .

00 C.- ~) ~J 0~ C'- ~ '-C 1~ ~C L. '~ -G ~ *-'~

U2L. .~ (~ ~J7.. -~ -'*J 2~I = J*J -~ ',J C C 0200 CC '- ~ ~jL. 7. -~ - - 02

z 'AL. '02.) ~0~- .- ~.- ~2'0~ VZ C3.J 02 Cu.. * ,'~ ~ C-C Z Cfl JC ~#2 '~-D 2'451 C~~J 2J2C 02C 'A - C- ) *- *-L..L. C02 ~J C'-

C~V C ~C 0202 0 0 .. J~ - CL

* C-C

&~

-C

~

- .' - -

C C 02 * -, .- -~ to

'AC 00 CV 2J 0 ~r. -- C 0Ju C 02 - ~J

CC 02 CC - *-C C C CL. 7. L. 0CC U C C CC- ~ 02 CC .. ~ oo~-. c~ 00 -

- C 02 - '..) 2.J C-'j A 'J C' 7 CC

02 -J ~-c0 -- .c oj V 3.) C-L.

1.. V 02 'V 2'4 C *-

- - " -' % '~ 7 ~' -. ,% L - -~ C .C (*22.) '0 -' ' (U

0) ~' -'

a. I -L:I

t 

'p.

-* :

I..

A'-

-A'
• ... %

cc* w4 >. C

cc -- .- >

G-.- .- 0,-

" . . 0. J -

9 02 2 4.j 0 0 >- 

T.k -, - Q2 0 w W C.g oc o

,3 "4)

tn &J 0. - . 020(

w C- .0 mA

- C.U 4 0v L

x2 - 2 2. go - vS-4 W0 OZ 4)~ .. 0 .0w.0

Ng 00 L.0 . ~ -r 004- . ) 0 *

E~ 02 0 *~~~~~~~~ ~ 0* w 0 .3L I 0

z c/2 n ~ 0o *- 002

- 00 2s 0~~-51) N .2h,
4..

C cc ~ w

4. Cca C.

Cjj C 

Aii

W L. M. - C~~~r 

&jc w iU * ). .0 Cw wJ ~ 2. 41 2A ccI oj 

-' 3t a c. .J u

0' c C. 0 t - 0U "-a >-i 

0-4 '' L.4O co 0 4.Jrp - 20) '.4

.4 ~ ~ E CL) 4 -

tri ~ I0 C.- 1

-3 u

ci -o

-j 44 -4 

U Aj 

'-4 C. Ui Li

0 .- to C'0-4-

a)CC ) 0l 

C-4o c ~ U. e .

4-3-51

A, L&U ) U' CC 01 )c
M6.6

L. C

-90

:00 0

co 0. (U. cr m0. 0. =A vJ 0

4) L m0 0

60 M. to -

csV *'n zc -

W - . * a. C- OQ . CL

6- 0. cis.Z ~ a - 0 L > .. 0 Laa0 a ~ 0

~~~~L %20 to. LAI.- s O L

~ Is.C

00C. :r_ 
*t -4

1~ .. 4 a 013 .Li c

to) 0 0 .( 0 -A C

0 ~~ Li0 ~0 ~ * * C 

0W 0j ~ S. IV 4.j *.- 0 ) 1) 0a)) 0C

. i E .- I sw -6

I CL 0j wL 0C

21 cc VItL 0 m

m .AiA 00 41 U.C 0- CC, q) 6.' 0Ai L.) 004 0' a) 0 tvC

CL w' - 0 Cu *- & 

0~ La. 13 .. 4 1)*- L'AU4 

3z Li M -. 4 30

(V 00 C. 0 0 Aj 0L d) w u~ toJ

., (130o 0 i CcO .

Li 13w C i 0 2w LA v 13) C7u 0 m-* w13 wi c0 Aicc

*4o V .. Uci m LiL &L. .,1.-

4.4 lCQ) u 30 * 1) U-' LCC 0.

%w 0) J). C~ -4 C 0V.4 L

-3 4) 03 .,f = ou

wi Li M0 W0 A -4 =C O6

0J 0O 0 t &WC A.' 03. w 0 1A.

t Z .,w 00 10 lw c ) 0... -- 1) gLi, M .) imw ne m- *L L.C v.13 Lu En.' 0-

cc c-. 0 0..).d 0

0). 0 .4J.L 30 C

CiF . .. 3L1) 0.J 1)0- .

E~ 0 -

0,,

a 0a

'0~- -4 3

cc CL >1 . I.., 0j Ai ..z 0

0w .0. -4 S- J

0L 0 2 0

AJ -IV3Ju00 2 -- i c -3 w 0.C1) 0C u ~ Li L .. I)L0 C 0 *

'130 00 V ~ 0.-.' ..

Li * C 00LiCO>~3C-53

% 3C - . 3 * 00 ~ 0 0 *U ~ u00 . 0
4F.

-46

00

z Aj

CC

w 0 zj 6

C . .0 M - ? 1 1 6

3-5
.0 0 Q

-'0 0 m

.0 u &j

4.4 00 44 A 0 0

1.4 0 i ca 0-4 %&JI4 to0j c

mJ~ 0 '-4 U4 .. d

Aj.J 4 0 -4 41

A C1C - cc 4)c

L..-e C4 fC 0. 0 CL

0" W-00 0 4- C0 04 00 00-s - 0. A* A Qu~ 0. 4UC -4

0. 4) cc to . .4 0 . 0 c 004 ID J .=0 .. cc1 m.

LJ to 0cc,- Z C COc -4

0 - Li *- Q0 03 go uc.

= -C CL3- 4) 10)L 0 0 cc~ o~ cc-C 2)' 0 C. * ~ 0

C

CL

t3 cc 00

CL

(31 040 >

0 C

1.Ai C U414 ~ c)4 30

(.~ c c ~ 0 .

0 ) '..J.i 30

C C C 3- 055
tA..

L.. L. -a 

to g

m 00

0 C)M9

to" u 0

0 £'a to 00 -C. m 6w

S .6J -- 9 0

~CL

ca t"o ~

0d CO 0 L '

0. 0 L - U 0)

IA 0)U 11 .. .0.0 "a

<I0 M-0L 0O

0j .- 10 00 CL 0 hi

0 ozi cc ca c

cc CL L. to

.6. 00 

'Iu (i *~~C ci;t: L

0) '

'aC- en 0 .a. 1"

3-56

9%.%
.i

ccc

ct cc Al c ..

. U. .- ..

C CL

,* . L 03 "C , 0.0 ~0

.- c* .. 0"

1 4 4 . -

-cc) " CU

3-5 .0 4w

a 0*-

L.h >U.

cc. ~ .C

03;U

3-57 . .
L CL

.0 C7

-~t 4.441 .

E, cc CLU

C~A CL 0 . o

en J.j C U4 

0'CL 60 ) C0 .0U 0=0

WOC 0) V w0 TN 0 m

En m 0 Co t U) 0

It M 0 .- 1 (U >

V~~L L L1 >.W 

oOU CL 0 ) 4) 1

000 tv0- 1 =-.

0 C4)

tie C 00 0o4.

U)1 0 . 1. U

L0 j. .. -.

> ~ J.Z0"ClU0 0 .

4-I4

u -j Cw 4o c CL5 M. . 00 .. A

Aj to - j 0 di U C =.4 0. - C . U) (L) Ls (

w. 04 0 o .0 to0 t o w

0r U)~o C CL 0 U 4.)L. EP) 6 

0 U) 3-58 0 
ft.,... - --. - 77.

Se

Jr

4.4 go 

C-C ~ UUo~ 

- C c ZO 00C- f

U-) -- 4 U)

-0 .- C

'1)~ C ~ Q v.1'3AJ

cc m. 1-'J 0 01- L.c j o

w0 Q 41w C 3 *-

0. )) 00 -'- ' i 

Z 4- 1-C '30 - ~aj - I -03 -Ce -4- ' U)

U~ ~ 0-13 "

cc.1 3 . .U 4 0. f

CU)C AjC U> > OC 1- 

'3-5
L'. 0 2 ., .€ d ( .

fj v Co

m* -" 0 " 0.-- '0, ,, -- ' C 02,- -,

go c w cc w0

I-"0 00 0..,

r . . J=0. I- 0 .- 0 0' =

In- m to w -

I 0. .. • mC 

M 0 c •v 0.

%w- C.4d u - 0 9:6 *.4)

cc 1 V 000

1.:0: " 0.= C" c." 0 " - (1 !-0 2 0 0• •

'"p c"c0 0 4). L. .61i w..

''V 2 A' C 0 0 0

;A >j~ m - w >0 O 6. >c 1. U

w- 00 C~~ CL CC vC- 0) 

0 CL MC 0j - 9L 0 i. r- 0v

-z =0 w 

"--,L

000C w2 2 1 ~ a .

:n w 0 C0* CN 2 r0^000. 0

C1-C~0 0 CC 20 C 1- 0'- 00
Oo -. - . , . ,

.o -

t °., -

,.. .L *-C -

• I U ,, C 0- C

-- - °C

0 C -

_ 3-61

, , % " % - - . % .' - C" % % . *. ' ", j% j "U' U . " % . . - . . . - % . - % . % " . - , • . % " . - ,
REFERENCES

Department of the Army, Enlisted Career Management Fields and Military

Occupational Specialities, AR 611-201, September 1982.

Department of the Army, Qualitative and Quantitative Personnel Requirements.

Information (QQPRI), AR 71-2, July 1982.

Matlick, R.F., Berger, D.C., Knerr C.M., and Chiorini, J.C. Cost and

training effectiveness analysis in the Army life cycle systems management model (Technical Report 503), U.S. Army Research Institute for

the Behavioral and Social Sciences, September 1980.

Rhode, A.S., Skinner, B.B., Mullin, J.L., Friedman, F.L., and Franco, M.M.

Manpower, personnel, and training requirements for materiel system

acquisition (Research Product 80-27), U.S. Army Research Institute for

the Behavioral and Social Sciences, October 1980.

i3-.b

'.-"

_° . *' .
a. 2

DEVELOPMENT OF ALGORITHMS AND PROCEDURES TO TRANSLATE BEHAVIORAL

REQUIREMENTS INTO MOS

The Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) Structure Taxonomy and Task

Structure Taxonomy need procedures and guides for the Army users to apply

them in determining MOS for developmental items. Application of the taxonomies varies with the data available at each phase of the Life Cycle System

., Management Model (LCSMM) and the MOS decision required. The logic and procedures for use of the taxonomies, described in Tasks 3 and 4 of the Statement of Work (SOW), therefore, take those factors into account.

Objectives

ib' The objectives of Tasks 3 and 4 are to:

1. Develop an algorithm to translate the behavioral

requirements (derived from Task Descriptive Data (TDD)

using the taxonomy developed in Task 2) into MOS and

other relationships

2. Define the translation process

3. Specify parameters and relationships resulting from

implementation of the algorithm

4. Identify and define the elements of the algorithm to

distinguish output quality and quantity throughout the

phases of the LCSMM

5. Provide detailed procedures for using the behavioral

requirements, algorithm, and taxonomy

6. Indicate use of these procedures to provide a smooth

transition from TDD to behavioral requirements and then

to MOS and other relationships

7. Tailor the procedures, where appropriate, to accept

various levels of data specificity based upon location

in the LCSMM

The algorithms for MOS determination using the taxonomies and progress to

date on the procedures are presented in this section.

4-1

•I
PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING MOS AND GENERATING tASK LISTS

The process of determining MOS and related matters is outlined in

Table 4-1 which lists the determinations made, the part of the taxonomy

that is used, the required input information, the agency that makes the

determination and the document for which the determination is required

(usually QQPRI). Table 4-2 specifies when the various Qualitative and

Quantitative Personnel Requirements Informatioi (QQPRI) must be submitted,

and the level of data specificity involved in each submission.

" . Table 4-1 shows that the MOS Structure Taxonomy must be applied first

% -to determine a Tentative MOS (TMOS), or to ascertain that no current MOS is

suitable for the new equipment. Then the user applies the Task Stricture

Taxonomy to analyze the kind of action performed with the equipment. This

two-step process corresponds with current use of AR 611-201, Enlisted

Career Management Fields and Military Occupational Specialties.

"* IDENTIFYING MOS FOR DIRECT OPERATORS AND MAINTAINERS

-Constraints for LSAR

.. The MOS Structure Taxonomy is first applied early in the conceptual

-phase to determine constraints on c'~tcactors as to the maintenance MOS

they can assume in design of the new system. This constraint prevents

design of systems that only exceptionally capable people can maintain.

Engineering design data subsequently confirm or disprove the TMOS as the

logical choice. The method used in determining these MOS is the same as

for QQPRT, d,-scribed below.

II" 4-2

4%,'
m. I.n. . C.0.L. o0 02 0 0 0

-4 4 ~ -4 -4

> -4

w) 4.1 Es-4 E-4 A E-4 -4

Z w w w

0 -4 to

- -4 1-4 0-4

100 11 1, 0 0 ~ 11 -4 Cu1 0

gm (n0

o, m c . eA C= 

2 C

0) ~ J -) -1

tO0 O"'I e,- C 0 I 

0-4 fl E4- Zc w 14

C- (3)0-~ CC

'A~~L 5.*4I& ) . w C 0 4 

C$ v" )0

iC4 u z40-

41 P- u2 C

H-0 Ad 0. 4 E-

'-C r0 "

F-4. Q) CL2 0

coa Ito u. - 0 4-10'

-L. . ***% . .. i* .* A .A '. . . . '..

-Li -4.. W .. *A.
Table 4-2

QQPRI SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

TQQPRI FQQPRI

Submission Deadline* 9 months before DCP II 21 months before DCP III

(end of Phase II) or

33 months before EAD

Data Specificity:

input intermediate functions detailed performance

fun c tions

output task categories, complete task lists,

incomplete lists or exceptions

0

* Submission deadlines are specified in AR 71-2, 15 June 1982, pp. 3-1 and

I. 3-2.

.1

S. 4-4

.- V

0

'V ' ' .4 %V...~ ' ~ q~i w.w~ \.~
Identifying MOS for QQPRI

K QQPRI, submitted at various phases in the LCSMM., require a list of MOS

to operate, maintain, and support the system. Increasingly precise reporting is required during Phase II (a tentative version, TQQPRI) and during

Phase III (a final version, FQQPRI). If maintenance MOS were determined as

constraints in LSAR, then they need to be confirmed, and other MOS determined.

The first step is to determine, if possible, a TMOS for each direct

operator and maintainer position in the new system. This step applies the

MOS Structure Taxonomy (Part I of Table 3-I), which includes all such MOS

in the Army, except for Reserve Forces MOS, which are listed in Part 3 of

Table 3-1. An algorithm for this determination is presented in Figure 4-I.

The range of possible MOS is narrowed by finding a category that corresponds to the kind of new equipment and the functions for its operation.

The category includes all MOS, both operator and maintainer, for one kind

0' of system, except when they are not associated with a common set of equipS ment items; then they are in adjacent categories.

Categories I through 7 contain primary military systems, including

aviation, weapon systems, combat vehicles, electronic sensors and communication systems. Categories 8 through 11 contain support systems, including

engineering equipment and transportation systems. First the user chooses

between these two major sections because they contain different sets of MOS

even when the HOS titles and job skills appear similar. The support systems involve no system-specific MOS, except for certain computer repairers

(MOS 34E and 34K). Next, within the primary military systems, the categories are divided according to whether or not there are any system-specific MOS. The first two branches (on the first page of Figure 4-1) contain

4-5

V
Figure 4-1

Algorithms for Determining Tentative MOS (TMOS)

Required input:

1. System type

2. One position, direct operators or maintainers

3. Classification of position functions as

a. operator

b. organizational maintenance

c. support maintenance

4. General information about duties involved (e.g., maintenance

concept)

Does system relate to primary

military functions? (Aviation, no

communication, weapon systems,

combat vehicles, electronic

sensors)

yes

Is system function in a category

* where all MOS are generic?

(1.1 Aviation, 1.2.3 Arty Cannon, yes

1.5.2 AD Radar, 1.6 Electronic sensors, 2

1.7 Communication)

no

3

4-6

V

A"L
Figure 4-1 (Continued)

Is there an no

app ropriate ______________

specific level

category (1.8 through 1.10)?

yes

new

Is there an no MOS

appropriate (XXX)

MOS?

yes

Does new system involve

exceptional systemspecific skills, comparable to repair of IBM yes

360 or NCR 500 new

compute rs? MOS

(XXX)

systemspecific

no

TMOS

5

4-7
Figure 4-1 (Continued)

2

Is there an appropriate no

specific level category?

yes

Is there an appropriate no

.1 MOS within category?

a .

yes

Will concentration of

training on new system

appreciably shift yes

,/- balance of duties, so

that a dedicated

operator or maintainer

is needed?

-'A; no

0

JJ.L'1-.J new

MOS

6 '

4-8

SN

, << 6

'i

T 

-

|'o
Figure 4-1 (Continued)

3

"r. yes

Are most MOS in category systemspecific? (1.5.4 AD Missile

Systems, 1.2 Arty Missiles,

1.3 Armor,

no

yes

Does system involve command

and control?

r

no

Is there an appropriate no new no Is there an

specific category? MOS appropriate

(XXX) specific

category

yes

no

yes

.'

Is there an appropriate no Is there an MOS

generic MOS in that category

performing the

same functions

yes (duties)?

TMO S yes

.5 4-9
Figure 4-1 (Continued)

4

Will adding the new

system result in an

appreciable increase yes (on the order of 40%) new MOS in training that is (XXX)

already long? -- --

no

If MOS is system-specific

can it be redefined to no

cover new system?

yes

TMO

5 ,_..__5 Does new system add

p appreciably to task no 6 _=_'___ list, without

reducing current

task requirements?

yes

AS 11-1

-4--0

C %% * %"•%-. " " . -• o.-... . *.
contain those instances where generic MOS for new equipment are probable.

Similar considerations apply in subsequent determinations. No match for

the functions required for the new system may be found, of course, and the

corresponding branches are shown along the right margin of the second and

go third pages of the flow chart.

The remaining branch (which is continued on the fourth and fifth

pages) covers the more complex cases where many MOS are system-specific,

and have long training. In these categories a new MOS is likely.

The most appropriate MOS is selected after narrowing the field of consideration to one category at the most specific level. First the MOS for

the appropriate level of maintenance or operation is indicated in columns

of X's. The user reduces the number of MOS under consideration by eliminating those that, from their titles, are clearly inappropriate.

Next, the user considers whether the remaining MOS are generically

defined, or defined in terms of a specific system. Generic MOS are checked

by consulting the KOS specifications in AR 611-201, especially the general

descriptions of the MOS, which refer to major subsystems and differentiate

the duties from other MOS. A single MOS is usually a clear candidate, but

if more than one is reasonable, relative merit should be indicated in writing in the QQPRI. A single MOS choice is needed during development, but it

may be changed as better information becomes available. It may also be

changed because of gradual accretion of equipment items and total training

time.

No current MO0S will be appropriate in perhaps 10 percent of the new

systems. When the new system departs sharply from its predecessors, a very

different kind of training is required. Two examples are TOW and PATRIOT,

4-1.1
which were discussed in the previous chapter. With the TOW system, the

logical choice would have been 11B (Infantryman), but the TOW system was

considered so important that a new MOS, 11H (Heavy Anti-Armor Weapons

Infantryman) was created to accommodate this kind of weapon. In the case

of PATRIOT (an AD missile system) all other systems of this kind have

system-specific MOS, so it seemed likely that PATRIOT would follow the same

pattern, providing the same kinds of considerations were involved. Choice

of a system-specific KOS lowers the probability of another system being

* .added to its responsibility. Adding the new system would require changing

the name and definition of the KOS and increasing the length of training to

an unacceptable level.

The user should consider whether the other MOS in the category are defined in system-specific terms; since system-specific KOS are concentrated

in certain categories, it seems likely that new systems in those categories

will also receive new, specific MOS. Conversely, those categories that

* - contain no system-specific MOS seem unlikely to get any for future systems. These factors are reflected in Figure 4-1.

If there is a system-specific MOS that seems appropriate for a new

system, the user should consult the general description of duties for the

MOS in AR 611-201. This description may reveal differences in kinds of

components (e.g., a shift to built-in test equipment), in methods of operation, or a shift in responsibilities at each duty position.

GENERATING TASK LISTS AND CONFIRMING MOS

The procedure for generating task lists begins with noting which task

categories in the Task Structure Taxonomy are used in each position with

the new equipment. This procedure is summarized in Table 4-3.

4-12
Table 4-3

Procedure for Using Task Structure Taxonomy

Purpose: To generate task lists (or exceptions) for operator or maintainer position on new equipment, and to confirm TMOS (identified with HOS Structure Taxonomy) when there is one.

Necessary Familiarity with duties and tasks required for new system.

Input: TMOS if there is one, and task lists if available.

Procedure: 1. Circle numbers or letters of categories in Table 3-2 where

duties or tasks are required of person on new system.

Circle specific categories when possible, but circle more

general categories as applicable when more specific categories cannot be determined. Circle categories as appropriate

* in each of the following Parts or Sections of Table 3-2:

a. Common Soldier Tasks in Part 1.

. _61b. Primary functions for operator in Part 2, Section A

(vehicle operation, target engagement, and communication).

c. Secondary functions in Part 2, Section B. (Power generation, safety, computer operations).

d. Administration, job guidance and constraints in Part 3.

e. Maintenance functions in Part 4.

V, 2. If there is no TMOS, generate list of tasks under each category circled. Use task lists from any similar MOS to

suggest ones that should be listed for new system. Enter

task lists in QQPRI in accordance with Sixth Requirement.

3. If there is a THOS, obtain task lists and categorize each

task using the Task Structure Taxonomy (Table 3-2).

a. Put a minus sign (-) beside those tasks that will not be

required with new equipment.

b. Add any new tasks required by the new equipment, and

designate these with a plus ()

c. Of the remaining tasks (no + or -) check (/l) those that

are changed appreciably. Briefly explain in writing the

nature of each change.

d. Enter lists of exceptions (task designated +-,or/ in

QOPRI in accordance with the Sixth Requirement.

4-13

. N 
Table 4-3

Procedure for Using Task Structure Taxonomy (Continued)

* .4. To verify or disprove THOS (if there was one) review task

list, paying special attention to changes (tasks designated

-,-,or ~/. Put a check by any category where the task

requirements for the groups as a whole have changed -. appreciably. Then decide whether the magnitude of change

over all categories warrants changing 1105, or adding a skill

designator (ASO). An ASI is indicated when there are many

added (+) tasks, but few deleted (-) tasks, and when changed

(V/) tasks do not require contradictory techniques.

.4114
After applying the MOS Stricture Taxonomy to determine TMOS !.zr each

posiLion in the new system, either a current TMOS is identified or it is

. not; these cases are discussed separately below. In either case, the Task

Structure Taxonomy is used to generate current task lists which are subsequently used in design of training. When the new system is so different

that there is no current matching TMOS, then there will be no available

task list, and a framework is especially important for generating one.

When there is a TMOS, the Task Structure Taxonomy is used to update the

task list associated with MOS and to confirm that selection.

Generating a task list

The QQPRI requires the MOS recommendation to be accompanied by a list

of system-unique tasks. This requires obtaining a task list for the old

MOS, "hicih may be used to identify the unique tasks. For each category

where the new system differs significantly from the TMOS, tasks are added,

deleted, or modified. The Task Structure Taxonomy provides a structured

method for identifying differences.

Confirmation of TMOS

The last step in the procedure assesses the appropriateness of an

MOS. The Task Structure Taxonomy is used to examine similarities and differences, without requiring detailed facts and task lists which are gen-

-.. erally unavailable in early development. The taxonomy also provides a systematic means of limiting consideration of well known, and therefore trivial areas (e.g., common soldier tasks), thus focusing attention on the more

significant areas.

C'z5

*" 4-15

V%" .- " .- " , , - % % " ,% ' "% % Z "% ' "" ' "% . "-''. % = '''. ""' ."" " . % '"""% ' .% , ""%
.. .. . . .. ...

.. 0 a- 2-

'When a great number of discrepancies or significant differences in

task categories are found, the TMOS may be rejected and another one consi-

- dered. Where only moderate differences are found, the TMOS may be retained

as a working assumption, but the differences should be noted by task cate-

* -4 gory in the QQPRI, in qualifying the answer to the sixth requirement (task

lists or exceptions).

IDENTIFYING MOS OF SUPPORT PERSONNEL

Requirement 5 of QQPRI requires identification of MOS for support personnel, in addition to MOS for direct operators and maintainers (Figure

3-1). The support personnel MOS are identified on the basis of type of

equipment using Table 3-1. Some of these MOS may also be identified on the

basis of support equipment identified in Basis of Issue Plan Feeder Data

(BOIPFD), and listed in the QQPRI in fulfilling Requirement 2. Supervisory

and related MOS in the units using the equipment are identified using

Part 2 of the MOS Structure Taxonomy.

- -Procedure

The first step is to identify support equipment in the current inventory that is required by the new system (e.g., generators, test stations,

-.- and trucks). Some of these MOS may be identified on the basis of associ-

" ated equipment and component equipment from BOIPFD: identifying these

support items is also required as an entry in QQPRI (Requirement 2). The

necessary data input are provided in BOIPFD. MOS associated with these

items are identified in the MOS Structure Taxonomy (Table 3-1, Parts 1 and

2) by the job duties.

S

4-16

V'. V
"I j

Additional MOS are needed for support that are not identified with

P support equipment; for instance, a Ma iinist (44E) may be needed who is not

* directly associated with support equipment but who provides a service.

Each kind of service requires a support chain of KOS; for example, providing fuel requires fuel specialists to manage distribution, truck drivers to

transport the fuel, and mechanics to maintain the trucks that transport the

*fuel. Identifying the support chains assists in generating a long and

exhaustive list of MOS, as indicated by the sample on pp. B-3 and B-4 of

* AR 71-2.

Prominent support chains are listed in Table 4-4. The user identifies

each required support chain then finds the corresponding MOS in the 1405

Structure Taxonomy (Parts 1 and 2 of Table 3-1). The support chain MOS are

combined with those for support equipment, described above. Additional

.1support chains may be identified for new systems. One likely source is

Engineering (MOS Structure Taxonomy categories 1.8 and 2.8), especially

* that involved in construction.

MOS for supervisory and other personnel who are associated with direct

operators arnd maintainers in their units must also be identified, 'although

this is done as part of the Basis of Issue Plan (BOIP), rather than in the

QQPRI. These associated MOS are identified by noting -il categories for

* direct operators and maintainers in Part 1 of the 1405 Structure Taxonomy,

and then locating the corresponding categories in Part 2. The supervisory

* functions are checked in Table 3-3 to identify required supervisory

personnel.

4-17
- - - -" .- -"

TABLE 4-4

COMMON SUPPORT CHAINS OF MOS

Prominent support chains are identified in the following list, which

is to be used in conjunction with Table 3-1 (MOS Structure Taxonomy) to

determine the MOS involved:

1. Fuel. Fuel specialist MOS are listed in Section 2.10.5 of Part 2

of Table 3-1. This chain would also involve transportation for the fuel

(Section 1.9), including truck drivers, maintainers, and related personnel.

2. Transportation (Section 1.9). Heavy combat equipment, including

vehicles, generally must be driven to the battle zone. A somewhat

'.,-X different transportation factor is involved with systems that are regularly

mounted on a standard truck, because this requires a dedicated vehicle.

3. Ammunition (Section 2.10.4). This section lists several MOS, which are peculiar to certain kinds of systems. This chain would also

involve transportation, as did fuel.

4. Power generation (Section 1.9.1). Personnel for operating generators come from particular systems using power, but maintenance is combined

with vehicle maintenance.

5. Utilities (Section 1.10.1). Certain systems require air conditioning or special heating.

6. Instrument maintenance (Section 1.10.3). Some kinds of systems

are particularly dependent on this kind of maintenance specialist.

7. Miscellaneous maintenance (Section 1.10.8). Certain kinds of , systems are dependent upon Machinists (44E) and Metal Workers (44B).

0

4-18

d.

, -C ' Uf-* ~ - ~ U WU
_- - %;

Application of Support chains

rn Support chains of MOS are used to generate lists needed for QQPRI to

determine the organizational impact of the new system. Support chains have

potential application in the current BOIP process and in AUTOMANPERS. The

* rational structure associated with support chains of MO0S is particularly

important for a Computer Interactive System for Determination of Manpower

and Personnel Requirements (AUTOMANPERS) model, where each chain would

correspond with a subroutine in the model. With fuel, for instance, the

total personnel resources devoted to fuel transport, storage, and accounting would be allocated among systems that use fuel, probably on the basis

of mileage and utilization. The parameters would be adjusted when fuel

consumption estimates are updated, without having to adjust other aspects

of the model. Thus one could project personnel requirements while making

on-line adjustments.

SUMMARY

A taxonomic method is presented for determining MOS for direct operatars and maintainers of new systems, and for generating tasks lists for

veach MOS. The method also generates lists of MOS for support personnel.

Tentative MOS of direct operators or maintainers are determined by

application of the MOS Structure Taxonomy, which reflects relations among

MOS as specified in AR 611-201. A flow chart is provided to aid in these

selections. The tentative MOS are confirmed, and task lists are generated

by application of the Task Structure Taxonomy, which classifies tasks and

duties within MOS. MOS of support personnel are identified by application

of the MOS Structure Taxonomy, to provide input to the BOIP and to a

4-19
MANPERS model. These support MOS are linked together in rational chains

which provide particular kinds of service (e.g., fuel). In an AUTOMANPERS

system, each chain would have a corresponding subroutine.

The above determinations are required for QQPRI, which must be submitted in tentative form (TQQPRI) during Phase II of LCSMM, and in a final

'S form (FQQPRI) during Phase III. Task I findings indicate that these submission dates are too late for many purposes, and that a much earlier

submission, a conceptual QQPRI, would be desirable. The taxonomic method

4.-

presented here is an aid in making many of the determinations on the basis

of data available in the conceptual phase.

* The task lists developed for QQPRI are the basis for estimating impact

on training, and for developing training. Task and Skill Analysis (TASA)

and Instructional System Development (ISD), for instance, require as a

first step the generation of task lists. The categories of the Task Structure Taxonomy are associated with training strategies that have been evalu-

., ated with many Army systems; thus, the structured tasks lists also suggest

training methods. For example, using electronic test instruments is commonly taught in a special lab, where the novice can concentrate on the

.. basic operations until these are mastered. Training strategies are associ-

- ated with the terms used in the taxonomy (e.g., in the ISD model). A Taxonomy provides a tool for analyzing tasks in groups, rather than one at a

:ime, in isolation.

-0

4-20

r%.
REFERENCES

Department of the Army, Enlisted Career Management Fields and Military

Occupational Specialties, AR 611-201, September 1982.

Department of the Army, Qualitative and Quantitative Personnel Requirements

Information (QQPRI), AR 71-2, July 1982.

4

i4-2
CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions are subject to revision based upon additional information obtained during the continuation of Phase I research.

It is concluded that the overall Army manpower and personnel requirements determination process within the context of Army Programs for

Force Modernization is started too late in :he system development cycle

and is complex, confusing, not well understood and, in instances, not

well coordinated.

It is concluded further that:

1. The manpower and personnel requirements information available

early in the processes, prior to LCSMM milestone 0, is lost because of

the absence of a formalized recording capability. i

2. The procedures articulated in AR 71-2 relative to preparing

QQPRI cover HQDA policy, primary responsibilities, and overall QQPRI

flow and do not include "how-to" procedures applicable to internal major

3 command information developmental procedures.

3. During the QQPRI flow between the materiel developer, combat

developer, and trainer, the question of whether or not a new or revised

MOS or ASI is required must currently be resolved without adequate

ground rules for what constitutes a basis for departing from the Career

Management Fields (CMF) and associated MOS and ASI published in the AR

611-series regulations.

4. The LCSMM point where FQQPRI must be submitted to TRADOC is

frequently too late in the development cycle to provide adequate lead

time for personnel acquisition, training, and deployment. Response time

5-1

o .** -.. M.~~*:
provided the personnel cummunity is frequently inadequate and, as a result, extraordinary measures are required or deployment schedules are

slipped.

5. The fact that QQPRI content and purpose are to provide data

pertaining to only one set or piece of developmental equipment is generally not understood. For example, the OQPRI for the Abrahms Tank

- would be prepared for a quantity of one. The BOIPFD and QQPRI are incomplete without organizational and operational, and maintenance

conceptual information; therefore, this information must be available to

-A formulate the BOIP. The BOIP includes personnel change information from

the QOPRI and BOIPFD applied at the TOE, TDA, MOS, grade, and quantity

level of detail. Therefore, this information can be completely different from the QQPRI information originally prepared by the NET Analyst

because it has become an organizational OQPRI when reflected in the

BOIP.

6. MACRIT data are difficult to use and frequently incorrectly

used.

7. The idealized baseline for estimating manpower and personnel

requirements is achievable within state-of-the-art procedures.

-- 8. In selecting appropriate MOS for direct operators or maintainers of new equipment, the dominant consideration is how that equipment relates to the functional structure among MOS in the Army. This

MOS structure reflects organization of Army units and kinds of equipment. It also involves classification of duty positions in operations,

organizational maintenance, or support maintenance. This selection

process is not completely clear because of the absence of specific rules

or criteria to support the MOS decision process that relates degree of

.5" job content change to a need for a revised or new MOS or even a new ASI.

9. A secondary consideration in determining MOS is the kinds of

behavior required (e.g., troubleshooting, driving, or engaging targets).

* .-." 5-2

o_.

,. 1 s - . . . - , . ,' . - , . - ,, .,' ' '. ' .. ' . . -. -, . - . . - . - , ,- ,,. . -.. . ,- ,. . . % % -, , %
10. An objective method of determining MOS was devised, applying

an MOS Struct-are Taxonomy for a tentative determination, which is confirmed by application of a Task Structure Taxonomy that classifies

-duties and tasks as an aid in determining an Army MOS.

11. The Task Structure Taxonomy may also be used to generate

organized task lists which are necessary for development of training.

. 12. Selected additional research is still required and ongoing

concerning QQPRI preparation, MOS decision processes, and usable job

-. aids and procedures that will improve the overall QQPRI and BOIP

development process.

t5

I.

.. ? 5-3

° - V V~. %
RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are subject to revision based upon

-" additional information obtained during the Phase I research.

It is recommended that specific procedures and job aids be developed to support implementation of the systems and procedures aspects of

the "ideal baseline" concept addressed in the discussion of Task 1.

This would involve definition of data bases, data and document flows,

timing considerations, distributed processing requirements, and interfaces with existing and developing automated systems. It would also encompass proposed revision to and expansion of existing guidance relating

to new system manpower and personnel requirements definition and the

QQPRI and BOIP process and lead logically to TOTAL MANPERS, MARMIS, and

-, AUTOMANPERS research and development activities during Phases II and

III. Substantive changes to be considered in the development of procedures would include:

* Provision for tracking of manpower estimates and trade-off

resources commencing with the concepc formulation prior to

milestone I and continuing until the project is either

i discontinued or successfully completed.

m Preparation of a conceptual BOIP early in the development

process (in addition to tentative and final BOIP).

. Supporting systems capabilities to record data, track progress, and facilitate interface to the "official" Army force

structure systems.

This work would complement and be fully integrated with the continuing

development of MOS definition procedures and tools addressed in the next

paragraph.

It is also recommended that development and evaluation of the al0* gorithms and procedures for application of the MOS Structure Taxonomy

and the Task Structure Taxonomy be continued. Evaluations to date have

". 6-1

;i
* - been performed by personnel most directly involved within the project

team; the next evaluations need to be made or performed by personnel who

have not been directly involved with the taxonomic development (other

people in HumRRO, GRC, or ARI). The algorithms for applying the taxonomies should be refined and the procedures clarified and expanded.

Preparation for evaluation outside the ARMPREP team can be conducted

concurrently with the revisions of the products and the execution of

subsequent Phase I tasks. These algorithms should be incorporated into

their appropriate position in procedures and job aids for BOIPFD, QQPRI,

and BOIP preparation.

Implementation of these research recommendations will require

Kadditional Interviews and analysis of the QQPRI process. The current

analysis, presented in this report, is thorough at the level of document

flow but requires some additional detail at the level of data within the

documents. This continued analysis should involve review of the data

flow, interview with additional cognizant Army personnel, and complete

documentation of behavioral details. Some of the interviews may be with

the same personnel or agencies contacted earlier but will be at a more

detailed level.

In summary, the remaining Phase I tasks, involving the demonstration and evaluation of methods and procedures currently being developed,

and preparation of a MANPERS manual, should continue. The principal

continuing effort should be toward the development of procedures and

* tools to aid in MOS selection and the definition of specific procedures,

flows, and job aids required to implement other systems and procedural

improvements incorporated because of the "ideal baseline." The specific

procedures, flows, and job aids are:

* MOS Selection and Decision Process

* Manpower Authorization Criteria (MACRIT) Use

0 Basis of Issue Plan Feeder Document Preparation

6-2
* Quantitative and Qualitative Requirements Information I (QQPRI) Preparation

*Basis of Issue Plan Preparation

6-3

* I I.
REFERENCES

1. AFHRL, Expert Estimate Method of Generating Maintenance and Manpower Data for Proposed Air Force Systems: Users Guide, Evaluation, Report AFHRL-7R-79-79, Mar. 1980.

2. Charest, Geoffrey B., "A Young Turks View of Improving Army Acquisition of Nonmajor Programs," Army R, D & A Magazine, Mar.-Apr.

1982, p.6 .

3. Department of the Army, Concept Paper, Prospects for Shortening

Army Weapons Acquisition Intervals, (author unknown), Undated.

4. Department of the Army, Army Materiel Acquisition, AR 70-1 (with

change 1), 1 May 1975.

5. Department of the Army, Product Improvement of Materiel, AR 70-15

(with change 1), 15 Jun. 1980.

6. Department of the Army, Outline Development Plan/Development Plan/

Army Program Memorandum/Defense Program Memorandum/Decision

Coordinating Paper, AR 70-27, 17 Mar. 1975.

7. Department of the Army, Type Classification of Army Materiel, AR

70-61, 1 Aug. 1978.

8. Department of the Army, Force Development, Basis of Issue Plans

(BOIP), Quantitative and Qualitative Personnel Requirements

Information (QQPRI), AR 71-2, Jun. 1982.

9. Department of the Army, Materiel Objectives and Requirements, AR

*71-9, 7 Feb. 1975.

10. Department of the Army, Management System for Tables of Organization and Equipment (The TOE System) (with change 1), AR 310-31,

2 Sep. 1974.

11. Department of the Army, Equipment Authorization and Utilization

Policies and Criteria and Common Tables of Allowances, AR 310-34

(with changes thru 5), 24 Feb. 1975.

12. Department of the Army, The Army Authorization Documents System

(TAADS), AR 310-49, 15 Dec. 1980.

13. Department of the Army, New Equipment Training, AR 350-35, 15 Dec.

1970.

14. Department of the Army, Logistic Policies and Procedures (U), AR

381-143, 25 Mar. 1977.

7-1

, ,-. . .!. -* . **** ,.
- °. -. -!.% ' % \2 .I.% ~ ~ . . , . -

15. Department of the Army, Military Occupational Classification

Structure Development and Implementation, AR 611-1, 27 Apr. 1976.

. 16. Department of the Army, Commissioned Officer Specialty Classifica-

-- tion System (with changes thru 10), AR 611-101, 15 Nov. 1975.

17. Department of the Army, Manual of Warrant Officer Military Occupational Specialties, (with changes thru 4), AR 611-112, 15 Nov.

-' ' 1977.

18. Department of the Army, Enlisted Career Management Fields and

Military Occupational Specialties, AR 611-201 (with changes thru

19), AR 611-201, 1 Oct. 1973.

19. Department of the Army, Cataloging and Supply Management Data, AR

708-1, 1 Apr. 1981.

20. Department of the Army, Standard Study Number System and Replacement Factors, AR 710-60, 9 Jan. 1979.

21. Department of the Army, Test, Measurement, and Diagnostic Equipment (with change 1), AR 750-43, 24 Jul. 1975.

22. Department of the Army, Integrated Logistic Support Management

Model (ILSMM) and Glossary, DA Pam 700-127, 15 Apr. 1975.

23. Department of the Army, Army Adapted/Other Items Selected for

Authorization/List of Reportable Items, SB 700-20, 1 Mar. 1982.

24. Department of the Army, Standard Study Number System and Replacement Factors, SB 710-1-1, 1 Apr. 1982.

25. Department of the Army, Management Plan for the Implementation of

A.tions Developed by Integrated Review of Problems Associated with

the Fielding of Modernization Systems/Major Items of Equipment,

Letter 5-80-5, 29 Sept. 1980.

'26. Department of the Army, Integrated Logistic Support, AR 700-127,

Apr. 1975.

27. Department of the Army, Integrated Personnel Support (IPS), TRADOC

REG 600-4, June 1978.

28. Department of the Army, Life Cycle System Management Model for

S. Army Systems, DA PAM 11-25, May 1975.

• 7. 

)? 7-2

,,

.d .

-.. .. ..-.. Y,, ' ',"- , ., *,."- ."-, :-" ";" '." "". :--.-.'..'- . ..''':'*.,...' .. ' ,,.. '- V ,,k NN
29. Department of the Army, Test and Evaluation During Development and

Acquisition of Materiel, AR 70-10, Aug. 1975.

30. Department of the Army, Basic Policies for Systems Acquisition, AR

1000-1, May 1981.

-~*31. Department of Defense (DOD), "Improving the Acquisition Process,"

Memorandum, 30 Apr. 1981.

U 32. DOD, Major System Acquisition, Directive No. 5000.1, Mar. 1980.

33. DOD, Major System Acquisition Procedures, Directive No. 5000.2,

Mar. 1980.

34. DOD, Test and Evaluation, Directive No. 5000.3, Dec. 1979.

35. DOD, Specification Practices, MIL-STD-490, Oct. 1968.

36. DOD, Manpower Requirements Report for Fiscal Year 1980, Feb. 1979.

37. Deppner, Francis 0., et al., Report of Input Data Quality, Identification of Manpower Requirements for New Weapon Systems and In

corporation of the Requirements into the Personnel Structure and

Composition System (PERSACS), General Research Corporation,

1161-02-80-CR, McLean, VA, July 1980.

38. Deppner, Francis 0., et al., Report of Task B, System and Procedures Documentation, Analysis to Determine Functional and Systems

Requirements for an On-Line Structure and Composition System

-' (SACS), General Research Corporation, 1070-01-79-CR, McLean, VA,

pJan. 1979.

39. Office of Management and Budget, Major Systems Acquisitions Application of OMB Circular #A-109, OFPP Pamphlet #1, Aug. 1976.

40. Office of Management and Budget, Major System Acquisitions, Circular #A-109, 5 Apr. 1976.

41. SECNAV, System Acquisition in the Department of the Navy, Instruc-

* tion 5000.1A, 17 Nov. 1978.

42. U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) Study, Guidelines f& Assessing Whether Human Factors Were Considered in the Weapon Systems Acquisition Process, FPCD-82-5, 8 Dec. 1981.

43. U.S. GAO, "Major System Acquisition Management in the Department

of the Treasury" (GGD-82-16), Letter, 29 Jan. 1982.

44. U.S. GAO, The Army Continues to Have Serious Problems Identifying

Its Resource Requirements, GAO LCD-80-67, 30 Jun. 1980.

k 45. U.S. GAO, Effectiveness of U.S. Forces Can Be Increased Through

Improved Weapon System Design, GAO PSAD-81-17, 19 Jan. 1981.

7-3 r"
APPENDIX A*

K Review of the Navy's HARDMAN Methodology

Contents

SECTION PAGE

INTRODUCTION A - 1

ROLE IN THE ACQUISITION PROCESS A - 2

STEPS IN HARDMAN A - 4

Step 1. Establish a Consolidated Data Base A - 4

Step 2. Determine Manpower Requirements A - 11

rStep 3. Determine Training Resource Requirements A - 24

Step 4. Determine Personnel Requirements A - 33

Step 5. Conduct Impact Analysis A - 37

Step 6. Perform Trade-off Analysis A - 37

APPLICATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION A - 37

REFERENCES A - 39

*We are grateful to Mr. Michael J. Hillelsohn for conducting the HARDMAN

-. interviews and preparing initial drafts of this Appendix.

A-i
REVIEW OF THE NAVY'S HARDMAN METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

The high cost of human resources has led the military services to

adopt models for estimating them during the development and acquisition of

new developmental items. The Navy's methodology for estimating manpower,

personnel, and training requirements is HARDMAN (Military Manpower and

Hardware Procurement). The goal of HARDMAN is "to facilitate the

determination of manpower, personnel and training requirements during the

early phases of the weapon system acquisition process" (Dynamics Research

I. Corporation (DRC), 1980d, p.1). HARDMAN has four main objectives, as

follows:

1. Institute procedures to address manpower, personnel and training

requirements consistent with Navy and Department of Defense directives.

2. Provide the means for compliance with policy and acquisition procedures.

3. Develop tools and methods to assist program managers in considering the impact of system design on manpower, Personnel and training.

L 4. Provide the Chief of Naval Operations with an assessment of manpower, personnel and training supportability before design decisions and

resources allocations are made.

HARDMAN is reviewed to identify portions that can be used or adapted

for AR0MPREP.

A-I
S

 .., , S,...  S     . + . .   .4 .Y..  L  .5 . . 

. ROLE IN THE ACQUISITION PROCESS

", HARDMAN is applied while the system is in a design phase and continues throughout the weapon system acquisition process (WSAP) to evaluate

man-machine trade-offs, maintenance concepts and training. HARDMAN deter- j

mines human resources requirements; identifies high resource drivers, operational and support concepts, and policies that generate human resource

demands; and provides the information for determining human resource/

equipment design trade-offs during the early phases of the WSAP.

Figure I shows the relation of HARDMAN to DSARC milestones. The

first goal is fr'nt-end analysis, defined as the evaluation of requirements for manpower, personnel and training (MPT) during the early stages

of the military system acquistion cycle.

Examples of HARDMAN contributions ,to DSARC/NSARC reports are:

5* Report Contribution

Mission Element Needs Determine logistics constraints and resource

Statement (MENS) estimates to satisfy the MENS

Decision Coordinating Summarize system and program alternatives and

Paper (DCP) state reasons for selection of preferred alternatives

" Integrated Program Satisfy data/information required

Logistics Support Contribute to detailed LSA/LSAR during fullAnalysis (LSA) scale development phase

Navy Training Plan (NTP) Contribute to the NTP during full-scale development

Preliminary Ship/Squadron/ Contribute to the SMD/SQMD during full-scale

Shore Manpower Document development 0 (SMD/SQMD)

Initial HARDMAN analyses, at Milestone 0, emphasize large components

of the system and are based on large distinctions between existing and 1

proposed systems. Finer distinctions can be made at Milestone I, when

" A- 2

li.5.,- - , - o . . ° ,. * ° * ' , ° %' °- ' % % %% %
UL

*z -J

00

z CLa D0

0 0 CL

00

-JL COL'

A Ju

wUJ LU o

4>> 00uw

0.

a. L -i 

0 0.

a. LUC

wi- U.0 ko

0 C) o LLL

CL

z ~z

0U

CL tL

U t

z ~LU z o 0 OL- 00

s co 

uj 4=

U) wo W

0 o < L

< ui mA-3

ujA-*.
the prototypes are being developed (e.g., the accessibility of a particular part for maintenance). Most of the analysis is performed at milestone

.* one or later, although HARDMAN has been applied before Milestone I.

STEPS IN HARDMAN

HARDMAN has six steps, of which the first four collect, generate, and

format data, and the last two evaluate the data (Figure 2).

1. Establish a consolidated data base (CDB)

2. Determine manpower requirements

3. Determine training resource requirements

4. Determine personnel requirements

5. Conduct impact analysis

6. Perform trade-off analysis

The following paragraphs describe the steps and their strengths and

weaknesses as they relate to the present research. Full discussions of

HARDMAN methodology and applications are available in the references cited

at the end of this appendix.

Step I. Establish a Consolidated Data Base. CDB establishment

requires six functions:

1. Determine CDB requirements by collection and review of relevant

data, identification of weapon system mission requirements, identification

of the acquisition program requirements, and specification of analysis

requirements.

2. Identify and select data sources by conducting data source

-reviews and developing a data source index. An overall data source index

is provided in the HARDMAN methodology (DRC, 1980d) and a sample of the

listed sources is shown in Figure 3. fl A-

"?" 0
x -- 9

LU _j _ _ __ _

z C

j - r. 

- U CCL 'I' -.

cr. cr

0) X: 4-

C',=

=0

I--

0~ 

i.

LU
3. Establish CDB structure and format by developing data base management structure and producing analysis worksheets and other CDB

materials.

-'4. Perform systems analysis, including the identification of functional requirements of the system and determining the reference system,

baseline system and design differences (e.g., equipment improvements, new

technologies).

- 5. Establish and update manpower, personnel, and training (MPT) por-

* tions of the CDB.

6. Establish an audit trail of the analyses.

4. The reference system consists of components and equipment from existing systems that are configured to satisfy the operational and support

requirements of the projected system. If an existing predecessor system

is performing the missions of the projected system, its subsystems are

* . prime candidates for the reference system. Data from the reference system

are modified to reflect the design differences between the reference systern and a notional system called the baseline system. The baseline system

incorporates low risk technological advances, some of which may exist only

in a design stage but are likely to be available before the initial operational capability of the new system. The baseline system, then, consists

0 of real and notional subsystems.

Data are extrapolated from the reference system to form the CDB.

Initial CDB input data are derived from documents in the WSAP (as shown in

5the examples of data sources, Figure 3). The CDB contains data on the

reference system, gleaned from historical records such as the maintenance

data collection system, maintenance requirement cards, training course

0 outlines, technical manuals, and contractor data. Thus, the method

A- 6

e .I

.0 r. .1.. . %~. *,' ~ .~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ .4%%,%. ~ ~ ~ . ~ . * .%h. ~ ~ ~ N t* 
x

X X X C X X x -

, 4

LU0

< LLL - < 

m a-. > V

0 0 .

Z LL

LL. Iu< E 0- cn fn

> 44

ZZ<

z- 0

& 0 ~ ~ o -4

0 _ -

442 C5 A - -

a

,~~~~~~,a~~~~L ~ zj. .! *~~~%* . . . ~
77S

depends on assumptions made about the reference system; if these assumptions are accurate then the method will be accurate in predicting MPT requirements, especially in the maintenance area. Retaining the accuracy

depends on updating as design changes occur. HARDMAN~ is presently a

* . manual system but appears to be amenable to automation, thus facilitating

updating and estimations.

Audit trails for the CDB are maintained on several vorksheets, including the design analysis worksheet (Figure 4) and the reliability,

maintainability prediction worksheet (Figure 5). Separate worksheets are

recommended for each subsystem in the new system.

Step 1 determines the reference and baseline systems, evaluates the

impact of their design differences, and establishes the CDB. CDB data

include operation and support specifications for the new system, systems

engineering information; and manpower, personnel, training, and cost

data. The CDB is critical to the HARDMAN methodology and appears to be

difficult to establish. For example, the person conducting the work may

encounter classified or proprietary data. Performance of the systems

analysis (Step 1.4) requires searches of the DoD and NATO inventories that

C are not in a consolidated form; therefore, the searches are time-consuming

and prone to errors of omission. Establishment and update of the MPT portions of the CDB use the same design team as those who design the system.

-They may not be MPT analysts and thus may discount its importance. The

weapon system and MPT data are maintained in separate data bases so that

-. there is a potential problem of the data base interface as well as the

engineer and manpower analyst interface. The audit trail (Step 1.6) is

one of the strengths of the methodology and will be enhanced if HARDMAN is

automated. F A-
DESIGN ANALYSIS 4WORKSHEET CATALOG NO.;:_________ Sheet __ f

1. Project Function Group

System: Predecauolr Reference ID No.

2. Iteis) Analyzed :csrcial: Naiyes(Nomencietura JiUC.EIC Manufacturer

Sv stemi Subsystem: ______ ___________________ Iss_____

* ~~~~~~~Suosystem/Unut:_________________ .. q UnstiAillomblies Iia es .nsAiN117.. I

No. Units: _ Weght: lb. Volume. f-,3 Inout Power: Cast.

4. RtiiablityMeintinabiliTY: Actuat/Prodictod Data Source __________________

Subsyrioem 1. Uilits ~.... *ItAel 2. 3. 4. 5.

MTflFaiiure (Remosvell:/ _____

In Place Repair Probability'

Mean Dooer. Tsme Betvieon Main ____ ___

Scheduled Maintenanics:._____

Mean Timeo To Repair Obn Equipil: Iho ____ _______

Sucort ~uigentReouired: /_________

S. Configuration chsange and oescuiotion: _ Subvtltute - Now Design -ZNew Functioni 2 Modifiation te

Source of Information:______________

ilitt terns effected including WUCs to the lowest am-noisees affected and aescribe theo chonqeh we artecried

6. Effects on Reijubsirty:

sees attached

7. Effects on Maintainability: Maintenance Tak Networks CoznpletvSee attached- --- ---------------------------------------------------

8. Effects in Manoower/Pirsonnel:

Mooataned .

wee attched-

'0. aict n Integrated toqit'ca Support! Mioenance P-1110osoohy: Suoport__________

.00 atmched-

% :)a Oall: Date

11. A..aivsIs P-t-,,msid by: Reviewed b% Valslaterl by:

Figure 4. Design Anlysis Worksheet*

*froml ORG. 1980b, p. 41

A 9

~ ~ .~** a ~ ~%~fa .~ 
P ELIABIL!TY/MAINTAINABILiTY PREDICTION

WORk SH EET

EQUIPMENT !D NO.

NAME CHANGE 10 I

-" Record predicted influences on R&M parameters and rationcle for the se!ected factors.

Pcrameters of interest include frequency of occurrence( number of maintencnce cctions)

-4-. elapsed rnaintencnce time (i.e, MTTR) and MMH (i.e.. number techs. per task).

Orcarizational Level

TYPE ACTION NARRATIVE F A CTO,.-,

. (01) CND

;" (0') T3L

(. 7 R&R

(33) RIP,7"

(W4) Cond. R&R : ,,

- --- -----------------------------------------------

(05) Cond. R.I.P.

*(C9 9 '. scecifiedi

a z ~ -- -- -- - -C2~ -n~ - - - - - - - -- ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I 101"! C.:nibiiazction ,

tO'. !j 2eiect

,'n szned. ;nsnecTion

2) Corrosion

.. ,.

I.en erc!

i ure 5. elabitbiity Production '.'orksleet*

7rcm :PC, 0230t, p. 12
*Step 2. Determine Manpower Requirements. The second HARDMAN step

develops descriptions of the tasks and events f or reference system operaStion and maintenance personnel. The task and event networks are based on

the CDB data, mission scenarios, standards on workload categories, and

reliability and maintainability data. The HARDMAN user answers a set of

0 questions concerning the maintenance concept for the reference system,

operational requirements, specialized support equipment, repair concept,

new technology impacts, metrics for system analysis and manpower estimation (e.g., maintenance manhours, cost of operators, billet costs), appro-

- priate models to determine the manpower, and input requirements of the

S.model (Figure 6). The manpower mode.-b include the Manpower Determination

Model (MDM) and f our models in the Navy Manpower Requirements System.

Examples of the input requirements include operational requirements, maintenance data, rating and rate, and policy criteria. HARDMAN, therefore,

£ assists the user in providing the input data for a manpower model rather

V than being a manpower model in itself.

Reliability and maintainability data for the manpower analysis are

U recorded on worksheets for the reference and baseline systems (Figure 7).

Maintenance data are obtained from the maintenance and material management

(3M) system where they are found in the maintenance index pages or maintenance required cards. Planned maintenance data are accumulated using ope rat ional/maintenance task event networks (Figure 8). The data cover the

- number of actions and hours for daily, weekly, conditional, and other

maintenance schedules. Data to complete the network are obtained frot

documents such as the organizational or intermediate level maintenance

parameters reports (Figure 9). Accumulating the data over the entire task

event network produces the workload data for the reference system.

A -11
Category Questions

Maintenance concept for the 1. What are the various maintenance echelons?

reference system 2. What are the maintenance tasks performed

at each echelon?

3. What are the task sequences?

4. What are the task times?

5. What are the task frequencies?

Specialized support equipment 1. Type?

2. Quantity?

3. Echelon?

4. Used for which tasks?

Repair concept per system/ 1. Repair levels of various

subsystem subsystem/removable components?

2. What items are repairable/non-repairable?

3. Failure frequency?

4. Times to repair? Elapsed time? Direct

Maintenance Manhours?

5. Maintenance skill and skill level

" required?

6. Training required (NEC)?

Operation requirement 1. Watch conditions the equipment is operated

p, in? Special conditions?

2. Number of operators required per

condition?

3. Skills and skill level required of

operators?

4. Training required (NEC)?

5. Number of manhours required for operation?

6. Are operators also maintainers?

What are the impacts of new 1. Changes in the maintenance concept?

technology on the 2. Changes in the number of maintenance

'- reference system actions per subsystem?

3. Changes in the mean time to repair?

* 4. Changes in task times?

5. Changes in skill and skill level

*requirements of operators? Maintainers?

Supe rvi s ors ?

6. Changes in training requirements (NECs)?

Figure 6. Manpower Data Collection Questions*

*from DRC, 1980b, pp 52-56

A- 12

% %
L *Ii -.---- r. -F-. . ? -. . 

. ST

* Category Questions

Equipment metrics for system 1. Operational availability? (Ao) . analysis 2. Inherent availability? (Ai)

3. Achieved availability? (Aa)

4. Mean Time Between Maintenance? (MTBM)

5. Mean Time Between Failure? (MTBF)

6. Mean Time to Repair? (MTTR)

7. Troubleshooting Time?

8. Maintenance Down Time? (MDT)

9. Average Delay in Maintenance?

Manpower metrics for system I. Maintenance manhours per equipment operating

analysis hour? (MMH/OH)

2. Maintenance manhours per flight hours?

(MH/FH)

3. Cost of Operators per operating hour (flight

hour)?

-' 4. Cost of maintenance manpower per operating

hour (flight hour)?

5. Maintenance manpower cost per maintenance

action?

6. Billet costs?

Model to determine manpower 1. Manpower Determination Model (MDM)

• document values 2. Navy Manpower Requirements System (NMRS)? o Ship Manpower Document (SMD)

o Squadron Manpower Document (SQMD)

o Shore Manpower Document (SHMD) o Shore

3. Interactive Manpower Alternatives Processor

(IMAP)

4. SMAS

Input requirements of the 1. Operational requirements (watch requirements)?

2. Maintenance data?

0 Planned maintenance times per week? (PM)

P 0 Corrective maintenance times per week?

(CM)

Facility maintenance times per week? (FM)

" Own Unit Support times per week? (OUS)

9 Rating, Rate, NEC data?

3. Policy Criteria o Productivity Allowance (PA)?

" Total hours of work and watch allowed per

week?

0 Service Diversion (SD) allowance?

o Training allowance?

o umber of watch sections per ship type?

o Length of flight day?

0 Conditional watches?

Figure 6. Manpower Data Collection Questions (Continued)

A- 13

p.-'
System: Reference Date:

or Baseline

Subsystem- Nomenclature: EIC:

Data Element Unit or Mode Available Potenitial Sources

* *Operating hours hou rs

* Operator Rating(s)

Operator Rate(s)

No. of Opprziom No.

- ~ NEC~s) 4 digit code

Preventive Maintenance

0 Mips Page

a MRCs v Cards

* Other

Organiz3tianal Level Data

-Set up time hr's/resources

-Verity time hrs

-Cro%

* -Put away time hrs/resource

- -Close out time his/resource

- -Trouble~shooting time hrs/resource

-Probability of deferred%

a Asst, required%

e Parts%

s Other%

-Pobabiliir of completed action %/hrs

-RMOVe 3nd replace actions %/hrs/resource

-Disposition of item removed

- P~pair time %flhri/resources

S - .:ndc:nnztion rate $

Figure 7. Reliability and Maintainability Worksheet*

*fromn ORC, 1980b, p. 57

A -14

V %%
MANPOWER ANALYSIS DATA COLLECTION PLAN

PART I -RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY DATA

Intermediate Maintenance Level

- Set up time his/resources

K,- Verify time hrs

- CND

- Put away time hrs/resource

- Close out time his/resource

- Troubleshooting time his/resource

- Probability of deferred%

9 Asst. required%

j 9 eParts

a Othier%

-Probability of completed action hs

-Remove and replace actions %/hr%/re3ource

-Disposition of item removed

-Repair time %/hrs/resources

-Condemnation rate $

Deoot Level

- Set up time hriresources

*- Verify time hrs

- CND

- Put away time hrsiresource

- Close out time hri/resource

- Troubleshooting time hrslresource

r ~ - Probability of deferred%

e Asst. required%

* Parts%

* Other%

- Probability of completed action %lhrs

- memov-9 and replace actions %ihrs/resource

O isposition of item removed

- Repair time %T/hrs/resoures

- C.,ndemnetion rate£

Fi gure 7. Reliability and M',aintainability ;:-,'rksheet

(continued)

A -15
S%

DAILYQ

No. of Actions

% No. Man-H-ours/RazzingiRate

No. of Ac.ions

No. Man-HourniRzting/Raig

M~ONTHLY

No. of Actions p No. Man- HoursP atnS/Rate

SEMI1-ANNUAL

No. of Acions

No. tMan-Hour-./Rztinq/*Pas

ANN UAL

PREVENTIVE INo. of Acions (

,\MAINTNANCE ,-

A* No. Mlan-HourziRatingi~au

CYLI C

No. of Actions

No. Man -Hours/ Rat'nS/Ratea

PSR SORTIE

No. of Actions

No. Man.Hour/;tainngi ae

PER FLT HOUR

No. of Actions p r. ~No. Man-Hours/Ratin/R ate

COND ITI ONA L

No. o cin

No. of Acnons

N.Man-HoursiRating/Rate

Plne Maneac paa

*from DR', 1980b, p. 67

A 16

% %
.

AVERAGE ELAPSED MAINTENANCE TIME

****TA4J AIRCRAFT (0111±2_.,31_RECS) 1/76-12/78 - FLIGHT LINE WDCS -

UNSCHEDULED REPAIR

TRBLE COND COND UNNAME SHOOT CND R&R R&R RIP RIP SPEC TOTAL

INSPECT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.4 0.4

CORROSI 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

AIRFRAM 3.1 0.8 2.0 0.4 0.4 2.9 2.8 0.6

FUSELAG 1.0 0.8 1.6 0.9 0.7 2.8 0. 0.9

LANDING 3.4 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 3.0 1.1 0.6

FLIGHT 9.5 1.0 2.8 0.3 0.4 6.L 3.0 1.2

TURBOJE 6.0 1.6 9.6 0.4 0.5 13.1 6.4 2.8

POWER P 1.9 1.1 2.5 0.4 1.1 3.2 1.0 1.1

AIR CON 2.1 1.1 3.2 1.9 1.0 3.3 0. 1.8

ELECTRI 7.9 1.2 3.1 0.5 0.5 4.2 8.0 1.3

LIGHT S 6.1 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.8 1.2 1.0 0.5

HYDRAUL 1.8 1.2 5.1 0.5 0.8 4.5 0. 1.1

FUEL SY 9.4 1.3 2.1 0.6 1.0 4.7 0. 1.4

OXYGEN 1.1 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.1 0.8 1.0

MISCELL 0. 0.8 0. 1.2 0.9 4.0 0. 1.3

EMERGEN 0.5 0.5 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.1 1.0 0.9

PERSONN 0.8 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.5 0. 1.0

EXPLOSI 1.0 0.9 1.7 2.1 1.0 1.3 0. 1.8

- UNKNOWN 0. 1.0 0.9 1.5 0.9 2.4 0. 1.3

FLIGHT 3.8 1.1 1.8 0.3 1.4 2.0 0. 1.2

ENGINE 4.6 1.4 2.4 1.4 1.0 3.1 0. 2.2

NAVIGAT 0.4 0.9 0. 1.1 0.9 2.0 0. 1.2

C-8 COM 0. 1.2 0. 2.3 0.5 3.2 0. 2.0

Figure 9. Sample Organizational Level Maintenance Parameters Report*

*from DRC, 1980b, p. 75

A - 17

4-
The next process is analysis of the difference between the reference

and baseline systems. A set of guidelines is used to determine the impact 6

of technological improvements and design differences (Figure 10). The

questions pertain to the physical features, design features, system concepts (e.g., inte rf ace/ inte rcommunicat ions, maintenance and operations

concepts.) Answers to the questions produce estimates of the human

resources for the baseline system. Perturbacions of the values are determined and applied to the task and event network for the reference system.

For example, if the use of composite materials for corrosion control generates a 25 percent reduction in manhours, this factor is used to correct

the parameters for the baseline system.

Measures used in HARDMAN as the equipment and manpower metrics are

shown in Figures 11 and 12. Manpower metrics can be computed from data in

the CDB. Manpower requirements for the new system are determined by

application of one of the manpower models listed above.

In summary, the activities in Step 2 are to establish the manpower

portion of the CDB, model operation and support actions; determine the

system metrics, and select and run a manpower model. These activites are

inherently vague and subjective. For example, estimates are made of time

devoted by operators and maintainers; however, an operator may have an

0 hour of continuous work with the system while the maintainer devotes an

hour over a period of days or weeks. They spend the same amount of time

on the equipment, but the MPT implications differ. The determination of

* workload categories (Step 2.1.1) is influenced by differences in time

estimation terminology and the procedure for it is being modified to allow

for discrepancies in time estimates.

A -18

%
A. Technological Concepts and Equipment Characteristics

Category Characteristics Questions

Physical features Size, weight, volume, What are the changes made in this

number of units area?

Location Where are the subsystem units

physically located (personnel

required may be affected if the

units are spread out)?

Design features: Electronic design New devices/components: What is

the electronic state-of-art proposed for the baseline subsystem? What is the level of internal functional integration?

Digital/analog: What functions

are digital or analog? What are

the interfaces?

Modularity: What is the level of

modular constructions? What percentage of the sub-system is modular? To what extent is the modularity standarized (SEM)?

Mechanical design Accessibility: How long does it

take operational/maintenance

(O/M) personnel to open inspec- 41 tion ports or to get into a unit?

Complexity of moving major assemblies: What types of SE are required to move units? How easy

is SE to set up? To use?

Tolerances? How many procedures

require alignment/ adjustment to

a given tolerance? How critical

are the tolerances? How easy is

it to achieve the given tolerance

specifications?

Figure 10. Guidelines for Technological Improvements and Design Differences"

*from DRC, 1981c, pp. 79-87

A - 19
A. Technological Concepts and Equipment Characteristics (Continued)

Category Characteristics Questions

General design Special tools: What special

characteristics tools are required? How complex

are they to use?

Special purpose test equipment

(SPTE): What SPTE is required?

How complex is it to use? What

are its capabilities?

Built in test equipment (BITE):

What BITE exists? What are its

capabilites? How long to test?

I-e How effective?

Modularity: What is the level of

modular construction? What percentage of the subsystem is modular? To what extent is the modularity standardized (SEM)?

Interface Software How compatible is software

between the subsystems?

System hardware To what extent do various subsysintegration tems share hardware functions

such as controls and displays?

Central integrated To what extend does CITS exist?

test system (CITS) What are its capabilities?

Computer-aided To what extent does CAM/I exist?

instruction (CAM/I)

* Bussing What type of bus system exists?

Maintenance Organizational What is the maintenance concept

at the organizational level?

-,-S..

Figure 10.

Guidelines for Technological Improvements and Design Differences* (Continued)

A 20

...-.
j.-11.

B. System-Related Concepts

Category Characteristics Questions

Intermediate What is the maintenance philosophy for the given subsystem at

this level?

wDepot What functions does the depot

activity provide in support of

the subsystem?

Are Navy personnel involved?

Civil Serv.ice? Contractor?

What support (spares, etc.) does

the depot provide for the subsystem and what are the resultant

manpower needs?

Operational concept Does the subsystem require operational manning?

What is the manning frequency!

period?

What are the operational tasks

required? What are the opera-

* tional checks required?

Where is the subsystem operated

from? Remote? Local? More than

one location simultaneously?

What is the operator task loading? Human engineering factors?

Figure 10.

Guidelines for Technological Improvements and Design Differences* (Continued)

A - 21
EQUIPMENT METRICS TERM REMARKS

MTBM 1. Operational Availability Ao Ao MTBM + MDT

- .d MTBF -. 2. Inherent Availability Al A i MTF + MTTR

'.'-MTBM

3. Achieved Availability Aa A MTM

a MTBM+ M

4. Mean Time Between Maintenance MTBM

5. Mean Time Between Failure MTBF

6. Mean Time To Repair MTTR CM Time Only

7. Troubleshooting Time

8. Maintenance Down Time MDT

9. Average Delay in Maintenance Deferred Actions

10. Mean Active Maintenance Time M CM + PM Times

." ..%

S,.¢

* Figure 1l. Equipment 1.1etrics*

*from DRC, 1980b, pp 90-91

A -22
MANPOWER METRIC TERM T

1. Maintenance Manhours peT MMH/OH

Equipment Operating Hour

2. Maintenance Manhour per MMH/FH

Flight Hours

3. Cost of Operators Cost O

4. Cost of Maintainers Cost m

S. Maintenance Manpower Cos- per

Maintenance Action

6. Billet Cost Cortb

*Figu re 12 . '.arpo.wer Metrics*

*from DRC, 1980b, p. 93

A-23

-i

* %V%.% - . * . . . .%, .- . . . . . %
67

* Establishment of the reference system task network relies on two data

sources. One is the Navy Occupational Task Analysis Program (NOTAP) which

contains data on personnel and task analytic factors; these data appear to

be acceptable to those working in the area. The second source is field

data stored at the Navy facility at Mechanicsburg, PA. These data relate

to system maintenance and the people working in the MIPT area do not seem

to consider them to be accurate.

Selection of the manpower model (Step 2.4.1) currently depends on

.7where the analyst is located. Navy departments (NAVIMACLAND, NAVAIR,

NAVSEA) have their own models and so apply the one available to them. The

* implementation of HARDMAN across the Navy will help standardize the selec-

* '*tion of the model. Also, implementation may result in running the models

early in the acquisition cycle where the results may have more impact on

design than they do now.

Step 3. Determine Training Resource Requirements. Training Resource

Requirements Analysis (TRRA) provides estimates of the resources and costs

of training the operational and maintenance personnel for the predecessor,

reference, and baseline system within the following limits:

~ 1. Estimates are based on available data and are iterated during the

WSAP.

2. Resources and costs are estimated for average or steady-state

conditions.

3. Training not estimated includes that in operational tests of the

* system, factory training, and new equipment training.

-4. Formal school training resources and costs are estimated but not

on-the-job (OJT) training.

5. Civilian and officer training is not estimated.

A -24
6. Training estimates are made only for those who directly operate

S and maintain the subsystems related to baseline design impacts.

7. The need for new construction is identified but the resources are

not estimated.

In general, TRRA provides estimates of training resources and costs

for use in early design trade-offs (e.g., pre-milestone 0 and the conceptual phase) and estimates for the training developer to use to design the

training (as the concepts are defined late in the conceptual phase and onward). The intent is to focus on the former; i.e., the early estimation

for design trade-offs.

The earliest TRRA application is at a general level in which very

general task and skill data are used, baseline media are determined by

analyzing existing courses, and the process produces quick results. It is

not appropriate for detailed training development information such as the

Army's Instructional Systems Development (ISD) model.

The three major activities in this step are to establish the training

portion of the CDB, document training programs for the predecessor,

reference, and baseline systems and determine additional training requirements. In the first activity block diagrams are produced that depict the

reference, predecessor, and baseline equipment systems. The baseline diaL W, grams focus on the new and modified equipment; i.e., those that differ

from the reference and predecessor systems. Existing training courses are

identified for the reference and predecessor systems, and the most closely

reltedtraning is identified for the new or modified components. The

latter are analyzed in more detail in subsequent steps.

A -25

- -- * ; ;' - -N - '* ' . - . .-. bN
"'AD-Al148 642 MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS DETERMINATION 34 ~METHODOLOGIES (MANPERS)(U) GENERAL RESEARCH CORP MCLEAN

I VA C M KNERR ET AL. DEC 84 GRC-1299-@i-82-CR

UNCLRSSIFIED ARI-RN-84- MDA93-2-C-0269F/G 36 5/ N

E7hMhEE 0h EhhhohEEEmhhiE mhhhhEEE~on EhhhhhhohhohhI

smmhhmhEEEEmhE

EhhhhhEEEEEEEI
%

.13

4140

,118 1--1 .- 12

20

,- IIIIIN I- * l -

1 1.8 11111 12511 .4II16

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART

NATIONAL BUREAU ()I >TANDARDS 196 A

-4

.

S.- ..:.,;. ,. .--------. ;..:::, -P.' ,- ' ;.:€ i, .. .:-;.a,- ,..:.''-.,:..-,'- -...-..:.
Tasks in the relevant existing training programs are analyzed in the

second part of this step, particularly the tasks in the reference system.

, training. The tasks are categorized according to their action verbs; the

verb lists for corrective maintenance, planned maintenance, and operator

tasks are shown in Figure 13. The task action verbs are further analyzed

according to the Army's ISD, using the eleven (11) task categories from

Braby, Henry, Parrish and Swope (1975). Other input data include:

1. Reference and Baseline Equipment Lists

2. Baseline Design Differences

3. Baseline Operator and Maintainer Task Event Descriptions

4. Baseline Skills and Knowledge List

5. List of Reference Tasks Trained

6. Reference Training Setting Information

7. Reference Training Methods Information

8. Reference Training Media Information

9. Task Characteristic Ratings

o Difficulty

o Importance

Frequency

0 Visual Cues Importance

* °Auditory Cues Importance

o Coordinated Kinesthetic Cues Importance

0 External Scenario Cues Importance -P.

'O 0 Importance of Sequential Relationships

o Simulation Capability of Actual Equipment

Direct Equipment Interface

° Integrated Performance with Other Operators

.
Category Questions

Corrective Maintenance Set up (support equipment)

Verify/test

Remove and replace

Troubleshoot

Adjust/align

Repair (bench check and repair)

Planned Maintenance Inspect

Remove and replace (minor parts)

Adjust/align

Lubricate

Ope rate Activate/deactivate

Monitor

Track

Steer

Pilot

Drive

Load

Aim/fire

Communication

Assess/decide S

Corrective Maintenance,

Figure 13. Action Verbs for Planned Maintenance, and Operation*

*from DRC, 1980d, pp. C4, 5, and 6

. -2

A - 27
oLikelihood of Injury to Operator1

8Likelihood of Harm to Equipment

-. 0Physical Restrictions of Actual Equipment

oExpensiveness of Actual Equipment

oPart Task/Whole Task

0Number of Decision Rules

0Simulation Capability of Actual Equipment

0Learning Categories

TRRA determines general media types; for example, it distinguishes print,

-. part task trainers, whole task trainers, weapon system trainer, and actual

equipment trainers (Figure 14). It does not analyze the details of characteristics or features within these general types of media. Improvements

for TRRA are in progress and may provide methods in more detail.

-~One activity in this Step has implications for qualitative personnel

estimates as well as training estimates. The procedures for determining

baseline impacts on tasks use the difference between the predecessor!

reference system tasks and the baseline tasks to estimate the magnitude of

design changes on corrective maintenance, planned maintenance, and operator tasks (Figures 15, 16 and 17). Examples of the data estimated are

* mean time between failures (.MTBF), test equipment accuracy and useability,

0percent of time performing, and number of operators. These differential

impacts are used to structure tasks within a billet, determine the need

for a new billet and determine changes required in training.

A -28
EA X

>i

LI'

i~at

K ~ ~ E E K E_ C-

* Mc

-o o

x. c

E LMa

-aL

E E

CL.

K~~ E Eu

29C-
Scdn

- d~~odg- e~~ldoad )O 'ON . I I 

.dA.j iuawd!nb;

jjoddnS>

I A4!!, odn

S S

Tj C

i.'oddI IT-

-~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ N ~~ ' I Tioi5 ' . '

4c

-' (A1i.I~qeqOja) -

g ~~~ uositena ( f[ - - I-adAl iuuwdenb3 0E a 

ijoddnS >I ~-

*I 8

d O 04 ON > O

vi_ _ A41 -C 4..

_____H __ _ _ _ ! I _ _ -s! 3

T S- u

3 0

- eL

______~ci = oIn ii~__ a 

___ ULLLk!]L...

*~~U UI -, c t

*1~~ z ~~t' I

.5.

-'

03

% %r,

- .. 

L:
oldoad ;0 +O_~~ __ T

(A:)uanbaii)1

C c

l-dn > >.

I4-)

1a.-

uj _ _ _ _ _ _( +i cm I adA.j uswidinb~ >> g~.i d ~- ~ poddnS >_ >0

z ajdo~d ;0*ON [U~j _

(Azuenbati1) +-~..

z Azijiqeqo)Jd It m

woxen 1u 2 s-~ D

-- _ _ _ _ _ 45 , a, 

Lw adA.Lj awdnb3 c

'p~~ A 3 > I> aea :+ olda. ;0 E ,'O *..
Major Factors Providing Parameter Changes

Task Parameter Non-Design Factors Design-Related Factors

INPUT PARAMETERS

Number System Mission Degree of Partial Task Automation

System Scenario

[ Type System Mission Partial Task Automation

System Scenario Medium Direct Design Option

* Frequency System Mission Degree of Partial Task Automation;

System Scenario Adequacy of Human Factors Design

CONTROL PARAMETERS

- Number System Mission Degree of Partial Task Automation

--- System Scenario

T 'pe System Mission Partial Task Automation

System Scenario

• lMedium Direct Design Option1

I Frequency System Mission Control Medium; Adequacy of

.., System Scenario Human Factors Design

CO:,IMUNICATION

PARAMETERS

* Number System Mission Degree of Partial Task Automation

I.System Scenario

- Type System Mission Degree of Partial Task Automation

System Scenario

* Medium System Scenario Direct Design Option

Frequency System Mission Communication Medium; Adequacy

System Scenario of Human Factors Design

DECISION-MA KING

PARAMETERS

. Number of Problems Svstem MIission Degree of Partial Task Automation

System Scenario

. Types System Mission Partial Task Automation

System o- Scenario

• Frequency System Mission Degree of Partial Task Automation;

System Scenario Adequacy of Human Factors Design

STANDARD PARAMETERS

. % of Time Performing M,'anning Policy Degree of Partial Task Automation

System MIission., M',aintenance TRsk Requirements

System Scenario

*.No. of Operators 7.Mannini Policy Degree of Partial Task Automation

* .Adequacy of Human Factors Design

M'aintenance Task -Requirements

Figure 17. Guidelines for Determining the Impact of Design

Parameters on Operator Task Parameters* -O

*from ORC, 1980d, p. C-16

A- 32

V

n-, %
Step 4. Determine Personnel Requirements. Personnel requirements

analysis builds on the task analysis for qualitative personnel estimates

in TRRA, interacts with the CDB-building in Step 1, and determines the

qualitative and quantitative characteristics of personnel to sustain the

manpower requirements determined in Step 2. Three activities in personnel

requirements analysis are establishment of the personnel portion of the

CDB, personnel pipeline flow characteristics, and final personnel requirements.

The first activity, establishment of the personnel portion of the

CDH, includes identification of data requirements and sources, collection

1% and formatting of the data, and setting up an audit trail. The audit

trail is manual and worksheets are provided. Some examples of data

requirements and supporting data elements are shown in Figure 18. Major

sources of data are the TRPA (e.g., the task analysis) and Navy's Enlisted

Master Records (MIR); the latter provide data on individual social security number, sex, rate/rating, time in pay grade, active duty service date,

enlistment information, sea and shore duty commencement dates, and other

demographic information.

The second activity, establishment of personnel pipeline flow characteristics, uses a tracking procedure that follows each individual from

one data period to the next to determine: active/inactive status, rating/

rate, and sea/shore location.

These data are summarized to represent: advancement/attrition probI, abilities for each career path within each rate, average times-in-rate for

each career path within each rate, and sea/shore rotation and tour lengths

- for each rating by sex.

A -33

*'.'~~~_A - ,* 'elkI... is .. A
=' "* to 4 .

" >,.t A.4 a. Aij ij

tj4 w* Q4 Z~ *

41 10

C Cj w00) toi 0. w0 CA. Li .CA to. ai ci c 4cCLi

00

-. 1 i -4 Lj 0

=.~ 4. co

0.

031 LAL Ct C

u -J

Ind) eJ 0

0 0))-

0 ~0. 0~4 q) J.

4.41

00 .-.. L

00-n 0

60 O0U) 

>00- 0003) r=1 co 2) > Q) > 4

cLw 0 C
F- *4 w~ w~~

rz 41 t Cu 0~.

~ -~4 Ji A'. 0 41a 0 WSa, M M Ld

>~j 4.)1~ C A C < ~ U.0 ~ JJ.u c ' LU 4-4 .c 0 >Nc zLi WuC.u 0 10

W = to'.-S to 0 U2J . .Ju V Cu 

10 ~ wu O 0 .1 C c .J - 0. LiSw .,4 = 0 ~ si.

E. %oa b- 0 W 0 W- ai w. >. 0

o4 CuJ ~ 4j0 0 0 0C > -4 " -ijA

0' &j -48 La44 ) uu QO0V .. M0- 4 J 0 U w 9 CLa.- Cc Z.0 n eC 00 0 

~ O~lu~ui..4~ UJ ClU Cnu~ 0

0 W 0

0 1

aj 0 0) ra aoj

411 cc r. 00 u 00L

J0 0)44b 4. -4 4 0

0 .0 e -0. 0i

n M Cw 5.1 ="-4 0 O >- CL~. W0 4.JA>J

p iw Q.0 . .0 ti.:2 to

u00C -4l Ai00- . M) ccO o w

T0o0J. 4). to~ 0&J -4 I-4CuW "4 E O -.. u.' 

-4 0 ) .0

* 4 .0 0 ,-4to

'.' Li =. *0 e "

-4 A C) CL u., Cj 

CI CAiL. C j0 u- 0 JJ-.4 0 c m

w- Cu4 ca0 0 0 ,

Li~a O.- 02

-4 (L). A00 ) 

-.4.

4.4 4 1

4.A 35 6- 
The first pipeline flow characteristics are determined for the reference system and thus represent the current personnel system (career paths,

advancement and attrition probabilities, average times-in-rate, and seal

shore rotations). Second, the reference system career paths are modified

-to reflect differences between the reference and baseline systems. The

* differences are largely in the manning requirements, career paths and

*training course lengths and kinds. The present user's manual does not

provide detailed questions for,this discrepancy analysis.

The final activity in this step is determination of perso-1

requirements. HARDMAN applies a minumum flow solution model to thr peline data and a cost model.

In summary, personnel requirements are determined by identifying and

collecting data for the 'CDB, analyzing the personnel pipelines for the

reference and baseline systems, and computing minimum flow solutions and

personnel costs. Determination of personnel characteristics requires projections from historical data. The projections are difficult if a new

rating is needed (e.g., task inventories do not exist for the new

rating). The problem is compounded in establishment of the pipeline flow

* . (Step 4.2.1) where coordination is needed among commands responible for

the personnel flow. Thus, it is easier to project personnel for existing

ratings than to establish new ones.

HARDMAN, if applied early in the WSAP, can help with a current problem in personnel pipeline determination. Given the unique nature of miliS tary, especially combat, jobs the military must develop rather than recruit, or "hire" senior enlisted personnel (NCOs). For example, to prepare one E6 for a unique military system, the military must recruit 100

* new personnel six years earlier, train them, and move them through the

A- 36

9-N N
personnel pipeline. The extent of planning has increased as more personnel are needed at senior levels to operate and maintain high-technology

weaponry. These senior personnel will not be available unless they are

projected, procured, trained and advanced. HARDMAN personnel projections,

which are made for all levels of personnel, can provide the planning to

enable these personnel to be ready.

Step 5. Conduct Impact Analysis. This step is presented in outline

form in the user's manual since it has not yet been validated. It determines the Navy's supply of training and manpower resources required by a

proposed system, determines the M1PT demand of the proposed system, and

rcompares them to the projected supply. The goal is to highlight new

requirements for skills, training, and training resources; design and

other drivers of high human resource demands; need for scarce assets, and

high cost components of the MPT system.

Step 6. Perform Trade-off Analysis. Like Step 5, this step has not

been validated and is presented in outline form. The activities are consolidation of critical requirements and sources, identification of potential solutions, and iteration of the procedures to analyze proposed solutions.

APPLICATIONS AND IMPLEM4ENTATION

The HARDMAN development office in the Office of the Chief of Naval

Operations (OP-112C) manages the development, application, and implementation of {1ARD1IAN. Applications have been performed by the developer,

Dynamics Research Corporation, and by Pacer Systems. Personnel who apply

IIARDMAN typically have had military experience, have engineering backgrounds and have performed task analysis in the past. They hold positions

A -37
. .

equivalent to government service grades 9 and 11 and are supervised by

personnel who hold positions equivalent to grades 12 to 14. They identify

reference and baseline systems based on their experience; the process

appears to be somewhat of an art form.

* ". The method has subjective validity since it has been applied to

several systems with apparent success, but it has not been empirically

validated. The Navy and Army systems to which HARDMAN has been applied

- are the following:

1. Shipboard Intermediate Range Combat System (SIRCS)

2. Landing Ship Dock (LSD-4) propulsion system

3. Advanced Light Weight Torpedo

4. A new destroyer class (DDGX)

5. Undergraduate Jet Flight Training System (VTXTS)

6. Corps Support Weapon System (CSWS)

7. Division Support Weapon System (DSWS, in progress)

8. Single Channel Ground-Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS)

9. Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV, in progress)

HARDMAN is the predominant method used by the Navy for MPT estimation. Other models are used (e.g., the manpower estimation models cited

in Step 2 of HARDMAN) but they are piecemeal approaches for projecting

5 manpower requirements. The Navy plans to make HARDMAN the official Navy

method for MPT analysis in the acquisition process in Fiscal Year 1985.

'---The HARDMAN development office has planned the implementation so that the

method will be used throughout the Navy by that time.

A -38

_ .°
REFERENCES%

Braby, R., Henry, 3. M., Parrish, W. F., c., & Swope, W. M. A technique

choosing cost-effective instructional delivery systems (TAEG report

No. 16). Orlando, FL: Department of the Navy, Training Analysis and

Evaluation. Group, 1975.

Dynamics Research Corporation. HARDMAN methodology handbook volume I:

Executive summary. Wilmington, Mass: Author, 1980 (a)

Dynamics Research Corporation. HARDMAN methodology handbook volume 11: 4

Users' manual preliminary draft. Wilmington, Mass., Auithor, 1980(b).

Dynamics Research Corporation. HARDMAN methodology handbook volume III:

Summary diagrams. Wilmington, Mass: Author, 1980 (c).

Dynamics Research Corporation. HARDMAN methodology handbook volume

IV: Appendixes. Wilmington, Mass: Author, 1980 (d).

Dynamics Research Corporation. Application of the HARDMAN methodology to

the Undergraduate Jet Flight Training System (VTXTS) Volume I:

Technical Report. Wilmington, Mass: Author, 1981 (a). 4

Dynamics Research Corporation. Application of the HARDMAN methodology to

the Undergraduate Jet Flight Training System (VTXTS) Volume II: 3 Appendixes. Wilmington, Mass: Author, 1981 (b).

Dynamics Research Corporation. Application of the HARDMAN methodology to

the Undergraduate Jet. Flight Training System (VTXTS) Volume III:

HARDMAN methodology handbook -- Users' manual (preliminary draft).

Wilmington, Mass: Author, 1981 (c).

A 39
APPENDIX B

Russel E. Schulz

REVIEW OF AIR FORCE METHODS FOR DETERMINING MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS

Contents

SECTION PAGE

INTRODUCTION B - 1

AIR FORCE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR NEW WEAPON SYSTEM

ACQUISITION B - 1

Air Force Systems Command B - 1

Other Major Participants B- 2

MANPOWER DETERMINATIONS FOR NEW WEAPON SYSTEM ACQUISITION B -3

Qualitative Manpower Requirements B-3

Quantitative Manpower Requirements B-4

ACQUISITION OF SUPPORTABLE SYSTEMS EVALUATION TECHNOLOGY (ASSET) B -13

Consolidated Data Base B 14

Procedures B -16

Analytic Techniques B -18

j.SUMMARY B -20

-. REFERENCES 8- 21

B-i
REVIEW OF AIR FORCE METHODS FOR DETERMINING MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS

IN~TRODUCT ION

The Air Force's methods for determining the qualitative and

quantitative manpower requirements for operator and maintenance personnel

were reviewed to determine relevance for ARMPREP. The review covered the

methods in current use, the agencies involved, and a recent development

effort, the Acquisition of Supportable Systems Evaluation Technology

(ASSET). While these methods were found promising for Air Force systems,

they would require considerable adaptation to be appiicable for ARMPREP

requirements. Such adaptation is not recommended as a part of ARMPREP.

AIR FORCE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR NEW WEAPON SYSTEM ACQUISITION

Air Force Systems Command

The Air Force Systems Command commander at Andrews AFB, MD, has

ultimate responsibility for weapon system acquisition. The actual

* acquisition takes place at one of the five product divisions:

1. Space and Missile Systems Organization, Los Angeles AFB, CA

2. Aeronautical Systems Division, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH

3. Electronic Systems Division, Hanscom AFB, MA

4. Aerospace Medical Division, Brooks AFB, TX

5. Armament Development and Test Center, Eglin AFB, FL

A System Program Office (SPO) is established at the product division

designated for weapon system acquistion. The SPO is the of fice of the

program manager and is the single point of contact with industry,

government agencies, and other activities participating in the system

acquisition process.

B-I
Other Major Participants

Other major participants in the acquisition process are the operating

command, Air Force Logistics Command (AFLC), Air Training Command (ATC),

and Air Force Test and Evaluation Center (AFTEC). The roles of each of

* these are briefly described below:

Operating Command. The major command (e.g., Strategic Air Command,

SAC) which will operate the system, subsystem, or item of equipment being

acquired has responsibilities which include mission area analysis, need

identification, Statement of Operational Need (SON) preparation, and operational testing. In terms of manpower and personnel requirements, the operating command establishes the maintenance concept for the proposed system;

. this describes maintenance requirements and is a basic part of the framework upon which system logistics planning is based.

. Air Force Logistics Command (AFLC). One of the key organizations

within AFLC is the Air Force Acquistion Logistics Division (AFALD). AFALD,

under AFLC direction, assumes total management responsibility from the Air

5'*" Force Systems Command for identifying logistics requirements; participating

in source selection; developing the maintenance concept; assisting in the

management of the design, development, and testing; spares provisioning;

and ensuring reliability, maintainability, and support considerations. The

Deputy Program Manger, Logistics (DPML) is the AFLC representative in the

System Program Office.

Air Training Command (ATC). ATC participates in the total acquisition

S process. It provides inputs to the SON and ensures that training is con4. sidered in the design and development of the system and in the system operation concept and plans. ATC also develops the training concept, including

0 proposed contractor training, AF training, training facilities, and training aids.

B- 2

A* A •% %
It is responsible for maintenance training support from initial

Wimplementation through the life cycle of the system. Contract flight

training or simulator aircrew training may also be an ATC responsibility.

MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW WEAPON SYSTEM ACQUISITIONj

Air Force and civilian personnel at Air Force Systems Command

Headquarters, the Aeronautical Systems Division, and Electronic Systems

Division were informally surveyed concerning methods used by the Air Force

for determining the qualitative and quantitative manpower requirements for

new systems being acquired by the Air Force.

In general, it was f ound that the QQPRI as employed by the Army is

seldom or never used in the Air Force. Rather, the Air Force tends to

rely on a "beefed-up" version of the LSAR for their QQPRI inputs.

However, in the acquisition of some smaller Air Force systems, contractorsI

are required to provide QQPRI-type data as part of their proposal. These

data, which are usually estimates, are one basis for contract award. They

are probably not sufficiently accurate for other uses.

However, in acquiring most Air Force weapon systems, and especially

large aircraft weapon systems, a more systematic approach is taken to

determine the qualitative and quantitative manpower requirements of the

new system. Information gained from the survey relevant to the

qualitative requirements and the quantitative requirements is summarized

below.

Qualitative Manpower Requirements

The first information provided as to the type of personnel required

to operate and maintain a new weapon system is provided by theI

I.contractor. Under normal circumstances the contractor is charged with

performing an operational and maintenance task analysis. Even though the

major emphasis in this analysis is the determination of quantitativeI
S,'. requirements, part of the task analysis relates to identification of

suggested Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSC) for maintenance and operator

personnel of the new weapon system (qualitative requirements). The contractor must recommend AFSCs on a task-by-task basis for primary and

assisting maintenance or operator personnel. This recommendation is based

on a review of the task descriptions contained in AFR 33-1 and AFR 36-1.

In almost all cases the contractor recommends an existing AFSC. It should

be noted, however, that the contractor is not required to provide the

skill level of the AFSC recommended. This is later provided by the

procuring agency.

*The contractor's recommendations are reviewed by a Human Factors

Working Group which is composed of a representative f ron the SPO and using

command. This group makes the final decision concerning AFSCs and skill

level requirements. In some situations they may recommend a new AFSC or

cross-training of two AFSCs. In general, qualitative manpower requirements are not determined before the full scale development phase of weapon

acquisition.

Quantitative Manpower Requirements

There are currently two major data sources which are used singly or

in combination for determining the numbers of individuals required for

-. operation and maintenance of a new weapon system. They are: data resulting from a contractor-provided operational/maintenance task analysis, and

data resulting from the application of a Logistics Composite Model

(LCOM). It should be noted that data from the LCOM may feed into the contractor's task analysis, and vice versa. However, for the sake of clarity, they are discussed separately in the paragraphs below.

B- 4

6O_

;'_...,..
Contractor-Provided Operation and Maintenance Task Analysis Data. In

acquiring most Air Force weapon systems the Request for Proposal requires

bidders to provide estimates of operational and maintenance requirements

for the proposed weapon system. After contract award, and during full

scale development, the contractor is required to perform a detailed task

analysis, providing in-depth data on the operational and maintenance

requirements of the weapon system. In some instances these data are

obtained from engineering and testing information available to the con -

tractor, and/or from historical data on comparable systems which is available through AER 66-1. These data may then be used directly to provide

quantitative manpower requirements, or will be used as input data for

updating the LCOM. Data are collected on a task-by-task basis. Some of

the more relevant data collected as a result of the tasl. analysis are:

(a) Identification of the assisting AFSC: The AFSC of maintenance

or operator personnel assisting in performing the task.

(b) Contingent Task Interval: Per unit interval between task performances.

(c) Contingent Variable Occurrence: Estimated frequency per sortie A of the contingent variable. For example, 25 operating hours!

sorties. For each task the estimated frequency is determined

for four types of missions (air-to-air combat, air-to-ground

combat, peacetime training, and proficiency flying missions.)

*(d) Estimated Job Elapsed Time: Estimated time required to perform

a primary task and all associated secondary tasks.

(e) Level of Repair: indication of whether an item is to be repaired at organizational, intermediate, or depot level.

()Types of Maintenance Actions: Types of maintenance actions

identified are:

(1) Equipment preparation (on-equipment): Work required to

5- obtain and hook up support equipment , and prepare the aircraft for maintenance (for example, jacking, draining

.5 fuel).

(2) Bench Check (off-equipment): Checkout and fault isolation

of equipment in the field shop.

8 5
(3) Condemnation (off -equipment): Work necessary to process

equipment for condemnation.

p(4) Assembly/ Disassembly (off -equipment): Teardown, buildup,

disassembly, reassembly of equipment removed from the aircraft as a complete unit for checkout and repniir in shop.

(5) Repair (off-equipment): Any corrective maintenance action

performed off-equipment, including replacement of defective

shop replaceable units (SRUS).

(6) Handling, Towing, Washing (on-equipment): Work required in

moving aircraft to facilitate operations and maintenance,

aircraft washing, and similar organizational maintenance

tasks.

(7) Inspect (on-equipment): Preventive maintenance inspection

not performed as part of a phased or periodic aircraft

(8) Launch and Recover (on-equipment): Includes engine start,

strapping in pilot, chocking, etc.

(9) Repair in Place Con-equipment): Any corrective maintenance

action on-equipment that does not involve replacement of an

LRU (line replaceable unit) or repair of an LRU in shop.

(10) Processing of Equipment for Shipment to Another Station:

Work required to process and prepare equipment for shipment

* ~. to another station.

(11) Phase Inspection (on-equipment): Inspection and preventive

maintenance performed as part of a periodic or phased aircraft inspection.

(12) Remove/Replace (on-equipment): Removal of an apparently

defective LRU, and replacement with an LRU that has been

drawn from supply or repaired in shop.

(13) Service (on-equipment): Includes POL, oxygen, nitrogen

V -. service.

(14) Troubleshoot (an-equipment): Fault isolation at system or

subsystem level to determine the corrective action

necessary to clear an apparent malfunction.

(15) Verify (on-equipment): Functional check at system or subsystem level performed after completion of a corrective

* action to verify that the malfunction has been cleared.

(16) WeapoIs Load (on-equipment): Work to unload, record, and

safe ordinance, and associated mission profile changes.

3-6
(g) Maintenance Frequency Type: Indication of whether the task is a

preventive or corrective action, and the extent to which it can

be scheduled and/or deferred. Each task is coded as follows:

D -Delayed Unscheduled: Used to identify tasks which would

* normally be postponed until a phased inspection

F - Postflight Inspection

H -Phased Inspection

'p 1 - Special Inspection

L - Retirement Life

P = Preflight Inspection

RDepot Rework

SScheduled Replacement

Th N umbrnoaronnesitn: Tetta ubro esne

U - Unscheduled Maintenance (.-#Lher than Code D)

required, whether full or part-time, to aid the primary AFSC in

doing a given task.

Ci) Number of Men Primary: The total number of personnel required

for each task, whether full or part-time, of the primary AFSC

needed to do the task.

(J) Primary AFSC: The Air Force Specialty Code of the primary maintenance or operator personnel performing the task.

(k) Quantity per Frequency: Quantity of like items represented by

the specific work unit code, task resource data, and task frequency information. This number is used to multiply the reciprocal of contingent task interval in the computation of task

frequency.

(1) Removed Item Processing: Applies to Line Replaceable Units

CLRU) removed from the aircraft, and Shop Replaceable Units

CSRU), removed in field shops. It also includes the percent of

removed items that bench check serviceable; the percent of

removed items repaired in the field, or at the depot, and the

percent of removed items condemned.

(m) SERD Nomenclature: Nomenclature of Support Equipment required

to do the tasks.

B7
(n) SERD Quantity: A sequential numbering of all steps (activities)

that are required to do the task, including preparation, cleanup, obtaining resources, and positioning equipment, as applicable.

(0) Task Frequency: Rate of task occurrence.

(p) Task Interval: Identification of the most relevant causal variable for use as the basis for specifying maintenance task frequency of corrective maintenance tasks, and the measurement base

for scheduled preventive maintenance tasks.

(q) Task/Step Condition: The specification of any abnormal conditions the workers encounter that are not explicit in the task

step identification; must accomplish by feel, in total darkness,

etc.

(r) Task/Step Criteria: Specification of any unusual constraints/

criteria imposed on the maintenance mechanic doing the steps and

task; for example, time limitation, error limitation, etc.

Cs) Task/Step Criticality: A designation of the criticality of

satisfactory completion of the task or step.

(t) Task/Step Identification: A narrative description of the overall task the maintenance mechanic must perform and each step

required to do the task. The description must include tools!

support equipment required to do each step.

(u) Task Title: Title of task being done.

(v) Tech Order Reference: The number of the applicable AF technical

order providing instructions for task performance.

Cw) Training Level: A code defining the level of training given to

Air Force personnel on the accomplishment of the task.

* Obviously, much of the data described above would be useful for

determining operator and maintenance personnel requirements for Army

weapon system acquisition.

Logistics Composite Model (LCOM). LCOM is another major data source

for determining quantitative manpower requirements. As previously noted,

it may use data from the contractor-provided operational and maintenance

task analysis or it may feed data into that task analysis.

B-
As stated in AFR 25-8, LCOM is a large-scale model that simulates

aircraft operation and the main supporting functions that are represented

by a mix of sortie types, flight line and shop repair processes for both

aircraft and components, and supply functions. The Modeling and Analysis

Branch (ASD/ENESA), under the Aeronautical Systems Division Deputy for

UEngineering, has responsibility for the assembly, analysis, integration,

and processing of information for LCOM.

V LCOM is a dynamic simulation program, which is used to produce maintenance manpower and support equipment requirements. At the present time

it does not deal with operator manpower requirements. It is a "Monte

Carlo" model and thus is sensitive to the dynamics of the operational

C

scenario. The output, therefore, may be used to identify peak and minimum

requirement periods. Source data for LCOM are available in MIL-STDs-470,

499, 721, and 1388. The detailed scenarios used in LCOM for projecting

* manpower requirements are fully coordinated with the operating command

(TAC, SAC and MAC) and Headquarters USAF. To build the scenario, it is

necessary to have the user's operations and maintenance concepts. Contractor data, when available, are consolidated into the source data file.

LCOM scenario requirements are shown in Figure 1.

LCOM is used several times during the weapon system acquisition pro-

.k7 cess. Typically its initial use is subsequent to contract award during

full scale development. However, for the now defunct Advanced Medium STOL

Transport (AMST) program, LCOM was used prior to contractor award. LCO

was also used for demonstration purposes, with substantial modification,

to assist in determining maintenance manpower requirements for the Army

B-9

V d" . " % 9 . -" % % • %' % % % " % " "' % *"%,,-'j .- ",.' '. "% ,-% .•"%
-' 1. General Requirements:

a. Organization level and Unit Equipage CUE) by aircraft type.

b. Manpower availability (manhours a month).

c. Indirect work determinant.

d. Standard manning for Chief of Maintenance overhead and for any

work centers that are not simulated. . e. Manpower Cross Utilization Tasks (CUTs) and Assist Task Qualified (ATQ) assumptions to be usesA in study development.

2. Facilities and Deployment:

% a. Number of locations and UE size at each site.

b. Supply concept: for example, deploy with WRSK, resupply engines

on Day 10, and full resupply on Day 80.

c. Resupply time.

d. Allocation of equipment, such as support equipment, at each

site.

e. Extent of maintenance capability required at each site.

f. Maintenance concept: for example, remove and replace or remove,

repair and and replace

g. Shelters and facilites at each site.

3. Mission Requirements. Identify mission types. Specify the followeach mission that involves en route stops:

a. Percent of total sorties.

b. Aircraft types.

c. Initial configuration (for example, numbers and types of external tanks, electronic counter-measure pods, cameras, guns,

missiles, bombs, cargo handling and passenger conform equipment,

etc.)

d. Probability of and quantity of load expended (for example, tank

jettison, air-to-air missile firing, etc.).

e. Ending configuration and disposition.

f. Substitution rules for using alternate configurations.

g. Mission priority.

h. Flight sizes (maximum, minimum) and policy on sympathetic ground

abort.

i. Sortie rate or mean sortie length and variation.

J. Recovery and en route point (if not returning to same base) .

k. Probability and conditions of air refueling.

1. Proportion of sorties or missions flown at night.

in. Weather limitations by mission type (for example, bomb delivery,

air refuel, air engagement, etc.).

n. Length of delays that can be tolerated before mission cancellation (for example, for weather, maintenance, etc.).

o. Extent of operation of mission-peculiar equipment (for example,

TV monitor if mission calls for AGM1 65).

Figure 1. LCOH Scenario Requirements*

*from AFR 25-8, Attachment I

3 B-l

AU6
4. Operations and Scheduling Policy:j

a. Base weather minimums for launch and recovery.

b. Conditions for air abort (including sympathetic).

c. Policy for ground or airborne spare aircraft.

d. Desired percent of available aircraft that will be turned toI

fly again the same day if possible.

e. Requirements for complementary missions or mission legs within

* a restricted time frame.

f. Requirements for massed launch within a restricted time frame.-

5. Ground Alert:

a. Number of aircraft or alert per UE deployed location.I S..b. Which missions flown from alert as identified in 4C.

c. Frequency of alert missions, as identified in paragrah 3a.

d. Replacement policy (for example, replacement when lauched or

same aircraft return to alert).

e. Duration of alert cycle.

f. Disposition at end of alert cycle.

g. Aircraft acceptance of alert quick turn policy and procedures.

h. Policy for dedicating personnel and equipment to alert.

b. Limitations of FCF (for example, daylight only).

c. FCF duration and probable range of variation.

7. Maintenance Concepts and Organization:

a. Organization structure (for example, per AFM 66-1).

b. AFSC structure (for example, integrated avionics versus

functional avionics specialties).

c. Quick turn conditions and procedures, including criteria for

deferred maintenance.%

e. Policy for launch support. Vf. Conditions requiring down load.

a. Repair level concept by subsystem.

8. Combat Damage:

a. Identify the threat to be used in estimating attrition and

battle damage.

b. Extent of Reliability, Affordability, Maintainability (RM) team e

or reserve augmentation for combat damage repair.

c. Policy for allocating combat damage repair to base, team, or

depot.

Figure 1. LCOM Scenario Requirements (continued)

B- 11
9. Other Study Assumptions:

a. identify by mission types:

(1) The time before scheduled take-off that briefing should

begin.

(2) The time after landing when debriefing is scheduled to be

completed.

(3) Any reduction in briefing or debriefing time when missions

are flown in succession.

b. Describe aircrew scheduling rules:

(1) Formed crews.

(2) Multiple seat qualification.

(3) Flight lead or special qualification.

(4) Squadron integrity.

(5) Additional duty requirements (identify duties that must be

scheduled and completed on a daily basis such as supervisor ";

of flying and mobile control (average hours per duty day

for each crew member).

(6) Maximium flight duty period.

(7) Miiimum. crew rest periods.

(8) Days off policy.

re Fgure1. COM cenaio equiemens (ontiued

B - 12
t.

.-

M-I Tank. In addition, the Air Force Test and Evaluation Center (AFTEC)

frequently uses LCOM data in their evaluation of new weapon systems (e.g.,

A-9 and A-1O aircraft programs).

LCOM is a powerful model for determining maintenance manpower requirements within major aircraft weapon systems. It would be difficult to

apply LCOM to weapon systems acquired by other Air Force product divisions

because it is greatly oriented to aircraft systems; also, source data for

major aircraft are more likely to be available than for other weapon

systems. The application of LCOM to an Army weapon system, or to any

acquistion other than an aircraft system, requires considerable modification of the model (e.g., development of new scenarios). Application to

the MI tank, for example, was more dfficult than would be practical to

repeat for other applications (the missions, scenarios, and variables had

to be changed, etc.).

ACQUISITION OF SUPPORTABLE SYSTEMS EVALUATION TECHNOLOGY (ASSET)

% The data provided by LCOM and especially the contractor task analysis

are usually made available during the full scale development phase of

weapon systems development. The Air Force recognizes the need for obtaining these data at an earlier weapon system development phase, and the need

for using several human resource technologies in the weapon system acqui- e_:

sition process.

ASSET is a systematic, proceduralized methodology that can be used

to:

o Provide assessments of cost, human resources, and

logistics resources that are required for support and

operation of weapon systems.

o Coordinate the development of training programs and

technical manuals.

B 13
o Ensure that supportability considerations and human

resource impacts are explicitly considered in the

design of the weapon system.

ASSET can be employed during early conceptual phases through production and deployment of the weapon system.

As described in the ASSET User's Guide, the three basic elements of

ASSET are a consolidated data base, eight analysis procedures, and eight

analytical computer models (Figure 2). A brief description of the basic

elements has been extracted from the User's Guide (Liberati, 1982) and are

as follows:

Consolidated Data Base

ASSET is supported by a Consolidated Data Base (CDB) which is prepared for the weapon system under consideration. The data base contains,

at a single location, all information required to analyze the human resource and support impacts during the weapon system acquisition process.

It is initially developed from historical and comparative data available

through AFR 66-1. It can then be updated with current acquisition information as it becomes available. As the system acquisition proceeds from

design through development, the CDB is improved in accuracy and detail by

replacing planning and historical information with information acquired on

the actual system.

Procedures

There are eight procedures as described below:

o Program Definition Analysis Procedure. Program requirements,

"S - including a key event and operational readiness schedule, and a

detailed phased schedule are identified. The support plans, a

S series of basic statements describing the Integrated Logistics

-~ -~ -~ - ~ B - 14 ~?~ S
I,.-

ASSET

ANALYTIC CONSOLIDATED IPROCEDUE

TECHNIQUES DATA BASE

RELIABILITY AND PROGRAM

MAINTAINABILITY - DEFINITION

MODEL ANALYSIS

TRAINING C OMPARABILITY

REQUIREMENTS " ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS MODEL

PERSONNEL INTEGRATED

-AVAI LABILITY -

MODEL TASKANALYSIS

RELIABILITY LOGISTICS

- MAINTAINABILITY - RESOURCE

COST MODEL ASSESSMENT

,TRAINING/AIDING LIFE CYCLE

MATRIX COST ASSESSMENT

PAGE DESIGN OPTION

ESTIMATING -DECISION TREES

MODEL

MAINTENANCE

LCOM - ACTION

NETW ORKS

EXPECTED CONSO LI DATED

VALOEL DATA BASE

MODEL

Figure 2. Elements of ASSET Methodology*

*From We=tinghouse Electric Corp, 1982, p 1-1-3.

B 15
, .% .- ... • . - .. - - . . . . %% .. 

 . . .. . . ... 2. - . '..-. * o * ...-.. ' -.-.

Support (ILS) elements and reflecting the latest ILS decisions,

are also identified. In summary, the program definition analysis

procedure identifies the applicable weapon system design and

support requirements.

o Cor.dolidated Data Base Procedure. The establishment of the Consolidated Data Base has been described above.

o Integrated Task Analysis Procedure. The Integrated Task Analysis

Procedure in ASSET outlines a systematic study of the tasks which

-ust be performed to operate and maintain a weapon system. Results of the task analysis help in the determination of training

objectives and of the behaviors and tasks a technical manual must

support.

o Maintenance Action Network Procedure. The Maintenance Action Network Procedure depicts the maintenance flow of a system and defines the input data used in the application of ASSET as an

assessment methodology. With the exception of subsystem failure,

each event in the Maintenance Action Network is annotated to indicate the probability that the event will occur, the time to complete the event, the maintenance personnel characteristics

(skills, level, and quantity) to support the event, and the

support equipment (type and quantity) required to support the

event. Subsystem failure is annotated only with the probability

of occurrence.

o Logistic Resources Assessment Procedure. This procedure is used

to identify, evaluate and challenge the logistic resources

requirements posed by a weapon system. Logistic resources include

.B

, ' B- 16

S,
such items as manpower, skills, tools, support equipment, spares,

facilities, training and technical manuals, and impact on the

total support of the weapon system.

o Comparability Analysis Procedure. This procedure is the overall

F4 process in ASSET used to develop data on newly proposed or

designed weapon systems by (a) selecting operational equipment

*similar to that of the proposed weapon system and (b) adjusting%

the resource data associated with operational equipment to reflect

the unique characteristics of the proposed equipment.

o Life Cycle Cost Assessment Procedure. This procedure provides the

user with several tools for life cycle cost analysis.

o Design Option Decision Tree Procedure. The design option decision

tree (DODT) provides a means of accounting for the many trade-off s

that are perforned during the course of a system design effort and

identifying the critical decision points during design. Some fac-

* tors which influence the decision options are the performance

requirements of the system, logistics, weight, cost, reliability,

10 and development risk. Human resources data related to personnel,

1% training, and maintenance impacts can be added as a system

requirement. As design options, these data can include quantity

of personnel required to perform maintenance troubleshoot ing on

the equipment, job specialty of the maintenance personnel, time to

t_: troubleshoot a failure in the equipment, ease of maintaining the

equipment, and complexity of tools required to perform maintenance

work on the equipment.

3 17
Analytic Techniques

There are eight computerized models which support the ASSET decisionmaking processes. These models are described below:

o Reliability and Maintainability (RM) Model. The RM Model focuses

on calculating estimates of mean-time-to-repair (MTTR), maintenance manhours, and system and subsystem availability based on the

underlying system and support concept. The model considers maintenance functions such as adjust, align, calibrate, trouble-shoot,

inspect, operate, remove/install, repair, service, etc. Three

measures are calculated by the model. These are (a) meantime to

0l

repair ((MTTR) per 1000 flight hours, (b) maintenance manhours

(MH) per 1000 flight hours, and (c) flightline system availability. The RM model is an average value model and is therefore most

appropriate for use in initial studies and trade-off analyses in

the conceptual acquisition phase.

o Reliability, Maintainability, and Cost Model (RMCM). The RHICM

estimates life cycle costs of weapon systems. The interactive -.

RMCM program performs four major functions: R&M computation, cost

computation, R&M perturbation, and cost perturbation.

o Training/Aiding Matrix (TAM) Model. TA14 presents an assessment of

training and technical manual information relevant to the acquisition of a weapon system or subsystem. TAM provides information on

content requirements in terms of the degree of coverage required

in training and/or technical manuals for flightline, troubleshooting and non-troubleehooting, plus shop repair tasks.

B - 18

:L.P , ' ..~; ',' .', . ..rb ,, u ' k ,,',, % e A ,, -.-,.' .e..P .-.' --r -; . .,.W-% r, • - " .. ,., .. - t -. .i . '. e. .. .. , .m- - , . ,, . . .- .' -,. -.-. ._ ,.. ,- -. .t J ..' ,. -', .. , ." M . ,,
o Page Estimating (PAGES) Model. PAGES is used to determine the

quantity and types of pages that will be required for both flightline and shop technical manuals. Inputs to the model are type of

system and number of composite subsystems, line replaceable units

and shop replaceable units. Output results are estimates of the

total page requirements and are qualified as troubleshooting or

non-trouble-shooting. The types of pages that can be identified

are narrative, half-tone art, half-tone explosion, electronic line

art, exploded line art, fault isolation chart, fault isolation

schematic block, access line art, fault isolation schematic flow,

fault isolation schematic mechanical and hydraulic, job guide

narrative, and job guide illustrations.

o Training Requirements Model (TRAMOD). TRAMOD can facilitate the

rapid estimation of training requirements and the consequences of

alternative approaches to fulfilling them. The model aids weapon

system designers and planners in considering the training implications of design. TRAMOD requires input data relating to the task

to be performed, with each task assigned a user-defined value for

each of five characteristics denoting frequency, criticality,

learning difficulty, and psychomotor and cognitive levels. The

model provides potential training plans and scenarios.

o Personnel Availability Model (PAM). The PA14 is a predictive model

that estimates the numbers of personnel in 12 selected maintenance

AFSCs at user-specified future dates. These AFSCs are defined

internally in the program and cannot be altered by the user.

B- 19

" ' " " " . . .
o Logistics Composite Model (LCOM). This dynamic simulation model

which is used to assess maintenance manpower and support equipment

* requirements has been previously described. LCOM is an important

model within ASSET.

o Expected Value Model (EXPVAL). The EXPVAL model is an average

value model usually exercised in conjunction with the LCOM

simulation model to assess logistic resources such as maintenance

manpower and support equipment requirements. EXPVAL output yields

the "expected" total mantenance time for each AFSC and use time

for each item of support equipment per task.

SUMMARY

The ASSET methodology is currently undergoing evaluation. A seminar

was given to potential users in late September 1982 by personnel from the

Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

Review of ASSET indicated that it should prove to be a very useful

methodology when applied to acquisition of aeronautical weapon systems.

It would probably be of lesser value for use with non-aeronautical weapon

J, systems because of extensive scenario revision required, such as that for~ i

the 1l tank. While many of the models with ASSET seem to have value for

Army use they require considerable adaptation and therefore are not practical for AR11PREP. j

B -20

.~~
REFERENCES

Air Force Regulation 33-1, United States Air Force Recruiter Helper

Program, November 28, 1980.

Air Force Regulation 36-1, Officer Classification Regulation, March 1,

1977.

Air Force Regulation 66-1, Maintenance Management (5 volumes), August 15,

1979 - January 2, 1980.

Department of the Air Force Regulation 25-8, Management engineering:

Logistics composite model (LCOM), November 3, 1978.

f Department of Defense Military Standard 499A, Engineering Management, May

1, 1974

Department of Defense Military Standard 721C, Definition of Terms for

Reliability and Maintainability, June 12, 1981.

Department of Defense Military Standard 470, Maintainability Program for

b~. Requirements for Systems and Equipment, March 21, 1966.

Department of Defense Military Standard 1388/1 [N-3], Logistics Support

Analysis, October 15, 1973.

Department of Defense Military Standard 1388/2 [N-21, Logistics Support

Analysis Data Element Definition, October 15, 1973.

Liberati, G. L., Test and evaluation of technology for acquiring

supportable systems; user's guide (Draft). Hunt Valley, MD:

Westinghouse Electric Corporation, May 1982.

B -21

1~%
9... APPENDIX C

P. LIST OF FIELD TRIPS

°. ,

4..

A.

9'..

9,.

" ' ±;*-* . . %- 
LIST OF FIELD TRIPS

JUNE

15 US Navy HARDMAN Office. Briefed on HARDMAN methodology as

applied by the Navy. Interviewed Lt Cdr Luengen.

S JULY

14 Soldier Support Center, National Capital Region (SSC-NCR) at

Alexandria, Virginia. Briefing on SSC-NCR responsibilities

and CODAP.

AUGUST

4-6 Materiel Readiness Support Agency (MRSA) at Bluegrass Army

Depot Lexington, Kentucky. Responsible for:

j- * Reviewing BOIP feeder data (BOIPFD) received from the

Equipment Authorization Review Activity (EARA).

a Reviewing QQPRI received from the New Equipment Train-

" ing (NET) team of the Materiel Readiness Commands

(MRC).

, • Proponent for the DARCOM maintenance manpower authorizations criteria (MACRIT) file. This file is the

primary tool used by NET team members to develop the

Direct Productive Annual Maintenance Manhours (DPAMMKH)

required at each echelon of maintenance for the development item.

-• Assembling the BOIPFD and QQPRI and forwarding them to

HQ TRADOC.

- Maintaining two automated MIS related to materiel

development:

- Integrated Logistic Support Milestone Reporting

System (ILSMRS)

- Force Modernization Milestone Reporting System

(FMMRS)

13 Air Force Systems Command, Aeronautical Systems Division, modeling and Analysis Branch. Discussed LCOM and points of

' contact in the A.F.

C-I
AUGUST

, 16-20 Communications - Electronics Command (CECOM) at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, Interviewed:

. Logistics specialists who prepare the BOIPFD for

communications equipment.

• NET analysts who prepare the QQPRI for communications

(ground and avionics) and electronic intelligence

gathering/processing equipment.

* 18-20 Wright-Patterson AFB, Human Research Lab. Discussed ASSET.

22-23 HQ TRADOC at Fort Monroe, Virginia. Interviewed:

* Combat developers who:

- Maintain the automated BOIP system.

- Distribute the BOIP to the proponent school for

coordination and integration of recommended input.

* Training developers who review the proponent school .

submission for validity of the MOS recommendations.

24 US Navy HARDMAN Office. Discussed operational limitations

and field experience with HARDMAN methods. Interviewed Lt

Cdr Luengen.

24-27 Missile Command (MICOM) and the Missile Maintenance Center

and School, at Redstone Army Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama.

Interviewed:

-. Materiel system coordinators who prepare the BOIPFD.

* Analysts who acquire the materiel line item number

* (LIN) and standard study number (SSN) for each developmental item.

.* * Net analysts who prepare the QQPPRI.

" Combat developers who assess the doctrinal impact of

the modernization system.

*'.Training developers who assess the BOIP for training

impact, to include the Soldiers Manuals.

C-2

- .... -...-.. '.....-. .S * * * * . 5

... 5.- -- *-,-
t

SEPTEMBER

9 LogistIcs Center and Quartermaster Center and School at Fort

Lee, Virginia. Interviewed:

0 Proponents for the TRADOC MACRIT file. This file is

intended for use by TOE developers because it contains

the AMMH (i.e., the DPAMMH increased by the nonavaili ability of maintenance performers). In actuality,

many NET analysts use this MACRIT file (vice the MRSA

version) because it is considered to be more current.

0 Coordinator of the BOIP for the QM School who evaluates and integrates combat and training developers

input. I.

23 Ordnance Center and School at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Interviewed:

- Reviewer of all BOIPFD and BOIP which affect maintenance unit TOEs. Prepares BOIP for all maintenance

TOE-related modernization equipment.

- Reviewer of all QQPRI and BOIP which affect maintenance MOSs.

0 Maintenance MOS proponent for policy and doctrinal implications.

OCTOBER

6 SSC-NCR, MOS Structure Division. Responsible for AR 611-201

pand final MOS recommendation. Reviewed ARMPREP taxonomies.

NOVEMBER

1 SSC-NCR, MOS Structure Division. Responsible for AR 611-201

and final MOS recommendation. Reviewed ARMPREP taxonomies.

Reviewed revised MOS structure and Task Structure Taxonomies.

C-3
APPENDIX D

EXPLANATION OF TERMS

1*D
Army Acquisition Objective The quantity of an item of equipment

(AAO) or ammunition needed to equip the approved US Army Force and sustain that

force, together with specified allies.

This applies in wartime from D-Day

through the period prescribed and at

the support level directed in the latest OSD Consolidated Guidance.

'....

Associated Support Items Items of equipment needed to operate

of Equipment (ASIOE) and maintain the BOIP item. They are

authorized separately in TOE and TAADS

documents.

Automated Unit Reference A document which, generally, proposes

Sheet (AURS) or portrays certain basic data for organizational development. It provides

information for use in developing BOIP

and Draft Plan TOE to support concepts

and doctrine studies and computer assisted war game simulations.

Availability Date Estimated date on which the production

items can be available for initial issue

to an organization after type classification Standard LCC A.

Basis of Issue Plan (BOIP) A planning document that lists certain

TOE, TDA, CTA, JTA, and AOP in which

a new item will be placed; the number

of items to be included in each organi- 4. zation element; and other equipment

* and personnel changes needed because

of the new item. BOIP is not an authorization document.

Catalog of Approved A DA catalog of approved requirements

Requirement Documents which provides current information to

(CARDS) combat developers and the research and

development communities.

D- i

17o
N.-. -. .-.-.-.-.- . . ". . ... . ,7

Combat Developer The command or agency responsible for

doctrine, concepts, requirements, and

organizations. This includes systems

for retail level logistics support, primarily for Army forces in a theater of

operations.

Combat Development Item A new item of equipment developed or

procured in response to a DA approved

materiel requirement document. It is

intended mainly to be used in a theater

of operations or to control civil disturbances.

Component Items Major end items of equipment identified,

authorized, cataloged, and issued as

part of the BOIP item configuration.

Materiel Developer The command or agency responsible for

research, development, and production

validation of a system (including the

system for its wholesale level logistics

support) which responds to HQDA approved

materiel requirements.

Nondevelopmental Items Items available for procurement with no

expenditure of Army Research, Development and Evaluation (RDTE) funds. These

items are:

a. Items commercially available.

b. Items developed and accepted by

other military Services. (This includes cryptologic items developed

by the National Security Agency.)

c. Items of other governmental agencies

or countries.

Principal Item The item for which the BOIP is devel-

*oped.

titative Personnel personnel data developed by the materiel

Requirements Informa- developer, in coordination with TRADOC,

tion (QQPRI) for new or modified materiel items.

D- 2

.. %

. ' "-'.%-".e vi * " ' '- . . .. . . . .•. . .•- - -
Requirements Documents a. Materiel requirements documents.

Documents which require preparation

of and are supported by a BOIP unless exempted by AR 21-2. Examples

are: Required Operational Capabilities (ROC), Letter Requirements

(LR), Training Device Requirements

(TDR), Training Device Letter Requirements (TDLR), and Letters of

Agreement (LOA).

b. Tables of Organization and Equipment (TOE). A table which prescribes the normal mission, organizational structure, and personnel

and equipment requirements for a

military unit. It is the basis for

an authorization document.

Structure and Composition A system which relates Force Accounting

System (SACS) System (FAS), The Army Authorization

Documents System (TAADS), Basis of Issue

Plan (BOIP) System, and Table of Organizational Equipment (TOE) System data

bases into one computation.

Standard Study Number (SSN) An 11-position alpha numeric code assigned by an MRC. It indicates either

a single LIN or Department of Defense

Ammunition Code (DODAC) or group of LIN

or DODAC that require computations on

Army Materiel Plan (AMP) and Total Army

Equipment Distribution Program (TAEDP).

Training Device Items which simulate or demonstrate the

function of equipment or systems such as

three dimensional models, mockups, or

exhibits. They are designed, developed,

or procured solely for training support.

Type Classification or Items of Army materiel entering the inReclassification ventory or items procured to fulfill

operational needs normally required to

be type classified before procurement.

D- 3

h. ..
~2

Z Line Item Number (LIN) A temporary number assigned by DARCOM,

for planning purposes, to a developmental or nondevelopmental item before the

TC Standard (LCC A) (AR 708-1).

S4.

J.j

a.-.

,.. -
APPENDIX E

MANPOWER AUTHORIZATION CRITERIA (MACRIT)

Contents

SECTION PAGE

INTRODUCTION E- 1

M CRIT COMPLICATIONS E- 1

ACCURATE ESTIMATES OF MAINTENANCE WORKLOAD E-3

MULTIPLE MACRIT SOURCES E 3

ESTIMATING ANNUAL WORKLOAD E - 6

POTENTIAL FOR UNDERSTATING WORKLOAD E - 6

SUMMARY E- 9

°-.

E--
MANPOWER AUTHORIZATION CRITERIA (MACRIT)

INTRODUCTION

IN The field interviews and QQPRI symposia notes indicate that

generating reasonably accurate Direct Productive Annual Maintenance

Man-Hours (DPAMMH) for the developmental system is the most difficult

part of QQPRI preparation. In fact, the LOGCEN recently sponsored a

study by Northrop Corporation to recommend improvements to the MACRIT

-system. It is the NET analyst who must develop the DPAMMH and put them

into the QQPRI. At this point in the LCSMM, the ILS, LSA, and LSAR

should include maintenance information. However, information may be in

the hands of a contractor and the NET analyst must dig to obtain the

maintenance information required for the initial QOPRI submission.

MACRIT COMPLICATIONS

Why should the development of DPAMMH be perceived as such a

difficult task? Some of the performance-inhibiting factors are:

a. The NET analyst is primarily a training specialist, while

the task of developing DPAMMH is more appropriate for the

preparer of the BOIPFD--the logistics analyst.

b. There is no formal program to train the NET analyst in developing DPAMMH and preparation of OOPRI. Most NET Analysts

interviewed were former military repairmen or instructors,

which partially offset the lack of formal training. Interviewees without the military experience fel they were at a

disadvantage.

c. Regardless of background, no single publication clearly explains the MACRIT system. To write this appendix required

analysis of these official sources which only contribute

pieces to the MACRIT puzzle.

0 AR 71-2, BOIP and QPRI

AR 570-2, MACRIT

' DARCOM Supplement I to AR 570-2, MACRIT

E- 1

*.L. %I *.S7 - %!o %,*V
, .. _- ,.. -**- . ,7,,.,~ 

X 4 --

,-.--

DARCOM Pamphlet 750-16, guide to logistic support

analysis

. 1982 QOPRI Symposium notes and vugraphs

" Computer printouts, MRSA data base

V. Interview with MRSA MACRIT representatives

* Computer printouts, LOGCEN data base

- Interviews with LOGCEN MACRIT representatives

d. Some examples of confusion within the publications are:

0 The BOIP-QQPRI regulation (AR 71-2) requires the

submission of DPAMMH but cites no MACRIT data source

(e.g., DARCOM Supplement to AR 570-2).

0 AR 570-2 uses the term Direct Productive Time (DPT)

instead of DPAMMH. However, DPT is not listed in the

index and is defined within the paragraph entitled

"indirect productive time."

* DARCOM Supplement to AR 570- states (page 6,

paragraph 2-6)..."Further, DPAMMH data should be

arrived at using the LSA/LSAR system."

- Our interviews indicated LSA (if performed at

all) is usually performed during Full-Scale Engineering Development and the results are published near Milestone III (too late for initial

QQPRI development).

- The TQQPRI are scheduled for submission to

TRADOC through MRSA 9 months before the completion of Milestone II (reference AR 71-2).

0 There are three sources of MACRIT data; and with

different file maintenance schedules, the contents

tend to differ. The MACRIT sources are:

- AR 570-2 (once published, represents a static

S reference)

- MRSA MACRIT File (the source of AR 570-2; but

after publication, this automated file continues

to be updated with changes)

- LOGCEN MACRIT File

• ., E-2

S:
ACCURATE ESTIMATES OF MAINTENANCE WORKLOAD

The differences in the MACRIT files and the confusing guidance in

AR 71-2 combine to inhibit accurate estimates of the maintenance workload. For example:

0 A major limitation to the DARCOM MACRIT file is that it only

contains equipment which is separately authorized, i.e., has

a LIN. This is a logical constraint for the TRADOC file

V. because it is used to develop TOE and unit authorizations

(which require LIN). It is not logical for the DARCOM file

because they manage items at the National Stock Number (NSN)

level of detail. There are many maintenance-significant

items of equipment which are "hidden" in sets and assemblages, and it is difficult to acquire their DPAMMH. Examples are: (1) two-and- one-half and five-ton truck chassis

which are components of shop sets, (2) trailers used with AC

generators to form mobile power units, and (3) storage tanks

and water pumps which form water purification sets. To acquire the component item DPAMMH, the NET analyst must (somehow) know to use a comparable item DPAMMH or query the MRC

which is proponent for the component. MRSA (proponent for

the DARCOM MACRIT file) could maintain an NSN level file and

use the NSN-LIN cross-reference file to build a LIN file for

LOGCEN and AR 570-2.

' The AR 570-2 data are published biannually from the MRSA

data base; however, an indirect productive factor (to be

explained) is added so that each DPAMMH is increased by 40%.

-• The LOGCEN MACRIT file also contains factored man hours

data.

MULTIPLE MACRIT SOURCES

A graphic representation of the multiple sources required to obtain DPAMMI is shown in Table E.1. At the top of the table are the

three general categories of equipment comprising the developmental

E-3

. .. . . . . . . .
TABLE E.1j

* POTENTIAL SOURCES OF DPAMMH FOR ITEMS OF EQUIPM4ENT WITHIN THE NEW SYSTEM

41SOURCE DEVELOPMENTAL SYSTEM

4Developmental Components ASIOE

Item

_______ Not TC TC Not TC TC

Engineering

DT/OTresults x IC

Supporting X

MRCs

MACRIT - MRSA

[data base]

(comparable item) 2 C IC X IC I

(preferred item) 3 X IC

NOTE - FILES BELOW CONTAIN ONLY AI4MH; DPANHH ARRIVED AT INDIRECTLY4

MACRIT - AR 570-2

[hardcopy]

(comparable item) IC x x IC I

(preferred item) X X

MACRIT - LOGCEN

[data base]

(comparable item) X IC X X I

*(preferred item) X IC

1. When ASIOE are also under development

2. When using DPANMH of comparable item instead of engineer estimate

3. When using DPAMMH of the preferred item (with LIN) from MACRIT

4. The AMMH should be divided by 1.4 (assuming non-depot units, else

E- 4

S%
t

system. The other alternatives are whether or not an item is typeclassified (TC). Along the left margin are the possible sources of

DPAMMH. An explanation follows:

a. Developmental item (to include ASIOE under development)

0 The best estimate of DPAMMH would be provided by the

developing engineer, especially when LSA data are

available. When unavailable, comparable item MACRIT

data are used.

0 The results of developmental and operational tests

(DT/OT) should be evaluated to determine if the

earlier DPAMMH estimates should be updated. The M1

tank's AMMH are still M60-series duplicates according

r- to LOGCEN representatives.

* An early estimate could be acquired by using the

DPAMMH of a comparable item (e.g., the M1 tank PM used

the DPAMMH of the M60).

b. Components (not TC)

• The engineering estimate can come from the system

developer or the manufacturer of the component.

" The DT/OT results may provide a good estimate of the

UDPAMMH, especially since they would represent a developmental item and component interaction.

0 The proponent MRC may have the DPAMMH in hardcopy.

0 An alternative would be the substitution of a comparable (TC) item from the MACRIT files (e.g., using a

five-ton cargo truck for the five-ton truck chassis.)

c. Components and ASIOE (TC)

' DT/OT results may provide an accurate estimate of the

DPAMMH in that specific application.

. The preferred estimate would be in the MACRIT files

and copied directly into QQPRI.

* If the DPAMMH are missing or suspect, a comparable

item can be used.

E-5
.. 77

ESTIMATING ANNUAL WORKLOAD

Table E.2 is intended to present on a single chart all of the

terms relevant to the process of calculating the number of repairmen

required for an estimated annual workload. The partitioning of the

chart into three sections is intended to cluster the terms under the

appropriate concept. For example:

a. Time Required to Repair - The workload represented by one or

more items of equipment. The related terms are:

0 Direct (wrench-turning) time

- Indirect (mostly travel to job site) time

. AMMH are the measures of annual work represented by

each item of equipment with a LIN

b. Time Available to Repair - The number of annual man hours

each repairman is expected to be available under sustained

operating conditions (e.g., wartime).

0 This formula understates the military repairmen requirements during peacetime (i.e., 40-hour week).

* The terms are self-explanatory except perhaps the unit

movement term, which refers to the tactical displacement of the supporting unit.

c. Number of Repairers Required - In this formula, the annual

organizational maintenance workload is divided by the annual

a.5.. available man hours of one repairman to develop the total

number of required repairmen.

POTENTIAL FOR UNDERSTATING WORKLOAD

A peculiar requirement in AR 71-2 may be causing the maintenance

man hours to be understated in the MRSA MACRIT files. In preparing the

OQPRI, the NET analyst is required to list all items of equipment in the

system but not provide DPAMMH for type-classified items. (Though this

isthe result of a TRADOC initiative, it is now subject to change based

on revised recommendations being formulated at SSC-NCR.) The result

would be as depicted in the following example.

E-6
TABLE E.2

41 TIME REQUIRED TO REPAIR

0 DPAMMH - Direct Productive Annual Maintenance Man Hours: the

estimated wrench-turning time required to repair a component or

* assembly.

DPAHMH - Equipment Usage Rate X Mean Time To Repair

Mean Time Between Repair

0 IPAMMH - Indirect Productive Annual Maintenance Man Hours: the

estimated time related to job performance but not in the

"hands-on" mode. Examples are: parts chasing, tool cleaning,

*- and travel to and from the maintenance job.

IPAMMH + 40% at Organizational level

+ 40% at DS/GS level

+ 22% at Depot level.

* AMMH - Annual Maintenance Man Hours: the sum of the direct and

indirect productive times (required to repair an item).

AMMH - DPAMMH + IPAMMH

TIME AVAILABLE TO REPAIR

* TTA - Total Time Available: Man Day (single shift) 12 hours

Man Year (365 days) x 365

4380 hours

minus these hours---------------

% hours

0 NPT -Nonproductive Time

Security 5.33 234

Kitchen police 2.00 88

Work details 3.33 146

Messing 6.24 273

Casualties/R&R 3.00 130

Personal needs 4.10 180

24.00 1051 -1051 hours

* % of time unit on the move

Category I TOE 25.00 830 - 830 hours

II TOE 19.00 630 +

III TOE 7.00 230

0 AAMMH - Annual Available Maintenance Man Hours

(e.g., Category I TOE (rounded)] 2500 hours

-NUMBER OF REPAIRERS REQUIRED

* Repairers required equip density X AMMH

AAMMH

E-7

VN IN
"'O

EXAMPLE

(An Air Defense Fire Control Center (FCC) installed in a large van;

-.-. i.e., an S-280 shelter mounted on a flatbed trailer)

Who Provides

DARCOM/ TRADOC/

Developmental Item TC DPAMMH AMMH

FCC (NA)

Components

Shelter S-280 No 5 7

Entrance, CBR No 2 3

Radios (3) Yes 171

.- Air Conditioners (2) Yes 448

12-Ton Semi-Trailer Yes 400

,+ +

DPAMMH 7

ANH 1,029

.-

Probable man-hours for FCC LIN in MACRIT Files:

MRSA (no TRADOC feedback) 7 DPAIMMH

LOGCEN (summed) 1,029 AMMH

In the example, the NET analysts would only provide the DPAMMH for

those components not type-classified. At this point, the FCC in the

DARCOM MACRIT file would only reflect a 7-hour DPAMMH.

At TRADOC, the Ordnance School analyst would: (1) convert the

. DPAMMH to AMMH, and (2) use the LOGCEN MACRIT file to obtain the AMMH

for the type-classified components. When the LOGCEN MACRIT file is

updated, the FCC would reflect a 1,029-hour AMMH.

-i A few subtleties occur at this point:

.5 The TRADOC analyst is developing a BOIP, not updating the

information provided by the QQPRI (which still reflects a

7-hour DPAMMH). The difference between DARCOM (DPAMMH) and

. .

E-8

O

5.:S,-'
TRADOC (AMMH) is required to develop a proper organizational

QQPRI.

0 The calculation of AMMH is an intermediate step towards

determining the number of repairman positions. Therefore,

2-. the AMMH will not be inserted into the BOIP either, and the

manpower staffing basis is not available for subsequent

review processes.

0 The only way the MRSA MACRIT file could reflect the appropriate (i.e., 735) DPAMMH for the FCC LIN would be:

- For a DARCOM analyst to replicate the TRADOC analyst's

actions.

- Communicate with the TRADOC analyst.

- Await publication of the LOGCEN MACRIT file and

r" convert the AMMH to DPAMMH.

SUMMARY

Table E.3 depicts a graphic summary of the information discussed

in this appendix. The intent is to convey the cognitive complexity

faced by the participants in the BOIP process.

Note the difference in maintenance man hours among the files:

SQOQPRI only contains DPAMMH for non-type-classified items.

* The MRSA DPAMMH for the FCC would be the sum of these

calculations:

Item Total

Quantity Item DPAMMH DPAMMH Mechanic

3 Radio 41 - 123 Radio

2 Air Conditioner 160 = 320 Refrig.

1 Shelter 5 = 5

I Entrance 2 - 2

I Semi-Trailer 286 = 286

293 Wheel Veh.

E-9

". ". .

• ••-.". "." ••. - 4=. .' " % . .- ".•. °, r ' . =- . _x, ', ,_, _. _ _ " , . . """. ,, "t ", "" ',,.,, "s". •"or
TABLE E.3

MOST BOIP PROCESS PARTICIPANTS HAVE NOT MASTERED

THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG THESE FOUR FILES: a

BOIPFD - QQPRI - MACRIT (MRSA) - MACRIT (LOGCEN)

Example: An air defense fire control center (FCC) installed in a large

van (e.g., an S-280 shelter mounted on a flatbed trailer),

pulled by a 5 ton tractor, and electrified by a 25 KW trailer

mounted power unit.

ORG LEVEL

EQUIPMENT CATEGORY LIN QQPRI MRSA LOGCEN

Item name DPAMMH DPAMMH AMMH Mechanic

=i I -'-°" j<"=' == BOIPFD ------ >

<-- nni -- MACRIT m imnnm mnnnwimnmm>1I

DEVELOPMENTAL ITEM

Fire Control Center Z12345 1 123 172 radio

- 320 448 refrig

293 410 wheel veh

COMPONENTS OF FCC

I shelter S-280 NA 5 ITEMS WITHOUT LIN wheel veh

I entrance CBR NA 2 ARE NOT IN MACRIT wheel veh

3 radios AN/VRC-12 R23456 41 57 radio

2 air conditioners A34567 160 224 refrig "1-' 12 ton semi-tlr S45678 286 400 wheel veh

ASIOE

Power Unit (PU) P56789 622 pwr gen

128 wheel veh

Truck, tractor, 5 ton T89012 254 356 wheel veh

-O NOT LISTED IN QQPRI BUT LISTED IN MACRIT FILES

COMPONENTS OF PU

2 12.5 KW generators G67890 222 311 pwr gen

1 2.5 ton trailer T78901 91 128 wheel veh

01

1. Not entered because it's entirely composed of separate components

E -10

4 .
* The LOGCEN file AMMH are the product of multiplying DPAMMH

by 1.4.

0 All TC component items will be in MACRIT files as independent items under their own LIN and summed under the

developmental LIN.

0 ASIOE are not summed under the developmental LIN.

--.

E--
APPENDIX F

g REVIEW OF BEHAVIORAL TAXONOMIES

CONTENTS

PAGE

INTRODUCTION F - 1

NATURE OF TAXONOMIC SYSTEMS F - 1

Definitions and Characteristics of Taxonomies F - I

Development and Refinement of Taxonomies F - 2

Methodological Approaches F - 5

Uses and Purposes of Taxonomies F - 10

Constraints and Limits on Taxonomies F - 13

General Criteria for Evaluating Taxonomies F - 14

EXAMPLES OF TAXONOMIES F - 17

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ARMY MOS-RELATED TAXONOMY F - 23

FORMAL, SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR THE ARM4PREP TAXONOMY F - 23

METHOD FOR EXAMINING EXISTING TAXONOMIES F - 30

APPROACHES TO TAXONOMIC SYSTEMS IN THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES F - 32

UIDENTIFICATION OF APPROACHES F - 32

Task Characteristics F - 32

VBehavioral Requirements F - 34

Behavioral Description F - 34

Abilities Requirements F - 35

Information Theory F -37

Phenomenologi cal F -38

*ANALYSIS OF APPLICABILITY OF THESE TAXONOMIC APPROACHES F -39

F-i

%S
APPENDIX F

REVIEW OF BEHAVIORAL TAXONOMIES

CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE f

SPECIFIC TAXONOMY REVIEW F - 42

GENERAL BEHAVIORAL TAXONOMIES F - 42

TAXONOMIES AS PART OF METHODOLOGIES F - 61

SPECIFIC TAXONOMIES F - 69

CONCLUSIONS F - 79

REFERENCES F - 82

Fii
REVIEW OF BEHAVIORAL TAXONOMIES

INTRODUCT ION

Definitions and characteristics of taxonomies, particularly those in

A the behavioral sciences, are needed to clarify the application of taxonomic

techniques to ARM4PREP. These definitions are described in this section,

followed by procedures for developing taxonomies, methodological approaches, uses, and constraints of taxonomies. The section ends with a discussion of general criteria for evaluating taxonomies.

The next section presents requirements for the development of an Army

MOS-related taxonomy, including specific criteria and identification of

existing taxonomies. The third section identifies taxonomic approaches in

the behavioral sciences and the following one presents a detailed discussion of how well specific behavioral taxonomies apply to ARMPREP requirements. The final section summarizes the conclusions. In general, Army

personnel documentation meets AEMPREP needs better than behavioral taxonomies in the psychological and behavioral literature.

NATURE OF TAXONOMIC SYSTEMS

Definitions and Characteristics of Taxonomies

Definitions of taxonomies emphasize their classification of content

and their uses. Some definitions in the literature are:

1. A taxonomy is a "set of theoretical principles,

procedures, and rules that serve as the basis for

classification" (Ramsey-Klee, 1979, p. 6)

2. A taxonomy is a means of classifying objects or

phenomena in a way that establishes useful relationships (Miller, 1967)

F-I
SZ

3. "A taxonomy involves the systematic differentiation, ordering, relating, and naming of the groups

within a subject field" (Silverman, 1967, p.2)

4. A "taxonomy is a prerequisite for classification...the organization of tasks, or of any subject matter, into groups requires the previous

development of a sound logic and rationale for the

organization" (Theologus, 1969, p.25)

5. "A taxonomy must be so constructed that the order

of the terms must correspond to some "real" order

*-. among the phenomena represented in the terms"

(Bloom, 1956, p. 17) 'S

In the biological sciences, for example, taxonomies order plants and

animals according to their underlying dimensions. This stratification

(i.e., family, genus, species) is based on the subordination of elements

.. into an unambiguous system in which each element has an exact location. It

assumes an ordered and static relationship of subgroups in a hierarchy.

.- The hierarchy serves as an organizing scheme for a user community. The

hierarchical nature of the taxonomy enhances understanding of location of

taxonomic elements in relation to other elements.

Taxonomies consist of the class names, definitions of the relationships among the classes, and the instructions for use. A taxonomy highlights essential properties of the phenomena and their relationships.

Applied to ARMPREP, the taxonomy must organize and clarify information used

in estimation of manpower and personnel requirements for the Army. J

Development and Refinement of Taxonomies

0 A major task in creating a taxonomic system entails selecting appropriate symbols, defining them, and securing consensus regarding their mean- e..

ing in the user community. This task is a prerequisite for assigning ele-

*ments to the taxonomic categories, and the assignment process is predicated

-. upon detecting similarities and differences between taxonomic elements.

SF- 2

'%
In analysis of variance terms, the taxonomy minimizes within-cell (cluster)

Svariance and maximizes between-cell variance. Sneath (1957) estimates the

degree of similarity between objects as follows:

Where:f

S SSimilarity

N

s number of positive features possessed by both objects

N N N f= s + d

N d -number of features possessed by first, but not second

object, and number of features possessed by second, but

not first object.

Sneath concludes that overall similarity is the basic concept of an

*ideal classification system. Sneath, however, worked in microbiology, and

quantifying similarity in a behavioral taxonomy may not be as simple. Some

I classification function which measures the similarity among elements is

required for the taxonomy. According to Mathis (1970), this similarity

* function allows the development of a classification procedure. He asserts

that the following conditions are necessary for taxonomic procedures:

1. The classification must be well-defined: application

of the algorithm must supply a single result

2. The classification must be stable: the

classification must not be grossly affected by small

changes in the data

3. The classification must be independent of the labeling of the objects: the classification must be

unaffected by a permutation of the names of the

objects

4. The classification must be independent of scale: the

classification must be unaffected by multiplication

of the similarity function by a positive non-zero

constant

F- 3
% Taxonomic development requires configurations of variables, relation-

-ships, and behavioral phenomena in a coherent, logical, and usefulF

fashion. Class boundaries must be determined for the inclusion or exclusion of specific elements. Silverman (1967) recommends the following

developmental steps:

1. Collect samples of phenomena in the realm of interest

2. Describe essential features of the elements

3. Compare the phenomena for similarities and differences

4. Develop a set of principles governing the choice and

relative importance of the elements

5. Group the phenomena on the basis of essential elements

into increasingly exclusive (:ategories, and name the

categories

6. Develop keys and devices as a means of recognizing and

identifying phenomena

* Another taxonomic problem is the extent to which the classification

system design incorporates additional information, since a taxonomy must

be expandable to be of continuing benefit. A good taxonomic system identifies knowledge gaps and contradictory information. Users should be able to

ref ine the taxonomy to accommodate new information. If a differential

effect is obtained for two elements in the same category, for example, the

taxonomic system should allow refinement to create sub-categories.

Chambers (1969) provides the following guidelines for the development

of a behavioral taxonomy:

1. Determine the use of the taxonomy; e.g., information retrieval or scientific prediction. The pu r-

* 'N.pose determines which classes of variables need to [ be analyzed in detail.

behavioral sciences this may involve responses,

task requirements, and human functions.

F-4

N.- &k. L'.*V. %
3. S.:c up a provisional, qualitative taxonomy based on

available concepts and systems.

4. After identifying the relevant variables, determine

the variables operating in different situations,

the values of the variables, the relations between

the variables (especially the quantitative relations) and the interactions between complex sets of

p variables.

5. Test the reliability and utility of the system.

Methodological Approaches

Approaches to taxonomic design include content analysis, cluster

analysis, behavior observation, and factor analysis. These approaches vary

along a qualitative to quantitative continuum in regard to the generation

of specific taxonomic units.

Content Analysis. Problems of classification in the behavioral

sciences stem from the relationships among behaviors, situational vaniables, and antecedent conditions. Content analysis codifies behavior,

therefore providing a methodology for deriving more complex behavioral

classifications. The content analytic method has been used predominantly

to generate data regarding communications. Content analysis is also

important for organizing research information in the behavioral sciences.

Detailed description and discussion of the logic and methods of content

analysis are given by Berelson (1952), Pool (1959), Auld and Murray (1955)

and Marsden (1965). Marsden (1965) describes three content analysis

methods: classical, pragmatic, and non-quantitative.

Classical: stresses quantitative methods applied to content of communications with minimal inferences about communicators

Pragmatic: less restrictive and permits inferences about communicator

implications

Nonquantitative: avoids sole use of frequency tabulations as an indicator of intensity and salience and uses alternative

metrics to assess communication content.

F-
The content analyst and the classification researcher share parallel

tasks: a fundamental star.ting point for both is the definition of parameters or boundaries (size) of the behavior unit to be classified. Antecedent and consequent boundaries are defined within which behavior is classified. Relevant criteria for defining the occurrence of an event are determined and operationally defined along some measurable dimension (frequency,

intensity, etc.).

An example of a content analytic approach to a military taxonomic goal

V., was completed by D. Ramsey-Klee (1979), who performed a content analysis of

tasks performed by job incumbents in five Navy enlisted ratings. She

analyzed task statements in the Navy Occupational Task Analysis Program and

linked functional duty categories to them. The descriptive results of the

content analysis formed a data base for a taxonomic comparison across occupational ratings, since the analysis related the functional duty categories

to occupational standards. Other development and application of the content analytic methodology has been documented by Ramsey-Klee; for example,

the behavior indexing of performance evaluations for senior enlisted personnel (Ramsey-Klee and Richman, 1973, 1975).

E. E. Miller (1969) used a technique in the development of a taxonomy

of response prrncesses called "connotative clustering." His objective was

to provide a classification system that related training methods to types

*of job requirements. He collected a large body of task descriptions from

experimental literature and observation, and examined their connotative

*~-1relatedness. (Connotation includes the associations or implications of

words in addition to the denotation, or what the word literally means.)

ZJI:F- 6

.0 . .
The effectiveness of the approach increased as larger numbers of descriptions were examined and clustered. By listing the term separately and then

grouping them according to their connotative similarities, he formed clusters and from the clusters derived definitions of the taxonomic classes.

Behavior Observation. Behavior observation methods share some similarities with the content analytic approach. The most evident similarity is

* that within both systems, data are generated and coded according to descriptive dimensions applied to behavior of an individual. The central focus

concerns dependent variables (behavior) without consideration of situational

variables and other types of antecedents (environment); like content analysis, this approach is not interactive. Classification properties such as

exhaustiveness, size of unit to be studied, etc., vary over a wide range of

possibilities as does the strength of the theoretical base supporting the

logic of a particular system.

Altman (1966) identifies and reviews a number of behavior observation

systems for coding small group behavior, the best known being Bales's Interaction Process Analysis (1950). The behavior description approach categorizes tasks based on observations and descriptions of overt behavior. A wide

variety of types and levels of description are possible. While empirically

oriented, subjective descriptions are also included (e.g., inferred cognitive behaviors such as problem7-solving, analyzing, and comprehending).

Cluster Analysis. Cluster analysis and taxonomies partition variables

*along some predetermined dimension; however, they differ in respect to level

and breadth of detail. Cluster analysis is a useful tool to classify a set

of variables to develop a taxonomy from those variables. The cluster ana4 lytic method reduces variances within groups, by clustering objects

F-
according to similarity. Differences within groups discerned from multivariate information can be minimized through,~ the use of cluster analytic

methods. "Three components for the empirical solution of any clustering or

taxonomnic problem are, (1) multivariate data which are appropriate for a

particular grouping problem, (2) a measure of similarity between each possible pair of objects or variables which are to be clustered; that is, a measure of profile similarity, and finally (3) some method of cluster analysis

for grouping the objects" (Ramsey-Klee, 1979, p. A-4 ).Cluster analysis

techniques share some properties with other statistical techniques designed

to analyze ordinal data (e.g., decisions regarding transformation of rawA

data). Cluster approaches can be hierarchical or non-hierarchical. "The

non-hierarchical approaches represent the effort to group a set of objects

into groups of maximum similarity. The hierarchical cluster methods permit

the grouping of clusters into 'superclusters' or clusters of clusters in

much the same way as the factor analysis of factors yields second order factars" (Bergin and Weiss, 1971, p. 584). The hierarchical viewpoint focuses

on the relationships among the clusters. For taxonomic development, knowledge of hierarchical structure may be useful for identifying rules and

principles f::r classification. Cluster analysis techniques are used in much

* of the taxonomic literature; f or instance, DeNisi and McCormick (1974) use

two cluster analysis procedures in the clustering of jobs on the basis of

data from the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ). One program (Tryon and

* Bailey, 1970) identified 33 job clusters with 14 general job dimensions in a

sample of 3,700 jobs. DeNisi and McCormick also used a hierarchical

clustering procedure to analyze and identify occupational clusters.

.4 8

-4
.*. . - . - . - . - . -. . . . , . ' x - . - .......- .. - .. .. ---.. .. . . . - -- ..

Sneath and Sokal (1963), in their discussion of numerical taxonomies,

3describe a wide range of clustering techniques for identifying similarity

coefficients. Clustering and discrimination differ in that di&icriinant

*. analysis identifies dimensions that maximize variation between categories

while cluster analysis is oriented toward common denominators or determinants within the data set.

Clustering algorithms enjoy wide use in sorting heterogeneous data

9-

into homogeneous blocks. A principal advantage of clustering is the structure provided for interpretation and evaluation.

Factor Analysis. Factor analysis, the most quantitative of the analytic methodologies, imposes statistical rigor on previously abstracted

• .. behavioral events to identify commonalities. It is an alternative to an

observation method. This method treats the prescribed data in a comprehensive fashion, encompassing the relevant classification dimensions. Beyond

the boundaries of the given data few inferences can be drawn, let alone any

formalized extension or extrapolation of principles; thus, the taxonomic

criterion of generalizability cannot be met. The classification researcher

must provide guidelines with respect to the degree of taxonomic exhaustiveness and comprehensiveness expected. Factor analysis contributes empirical

support to a priori approaches, lending an inductive check to relevant

dimensions, and it can identify new classification dimensions. Several

successful factor analytic studies have been conducted in the small group

field (Cattell, 1948, 1953; Hemphill, 1950, 1956; Borgatta, 1955, 1956; and

SCarter 1954). In spite of differences in measurement method and procedures, dimensions identified share surprising communality, indicating some

possibility for generality and utility. As Stogdill (1959) points out,

while generality of a single factor analysis is questionable, overlapping

F - 9
studies tapping into the same area from different perspectives can minimize

the problem. The abilities requirements methods have often based their

development on factor analysis. Experimental factor analytic studies of

individual differences in task performance provide information through

categorizing quantitatively specialized individual abilities. Tasks

% requiring an identifiable group of similar abilities can then be

categorized accordingly. A variety of classification schemes in the

abilities requirements method provide a conceptual understanding of what

types and levels of factors can be derived. The classification schemes of

Fleishman (1972), Cattell (1971) and Guilford (1967) indicate the diversity

of factors in human performance areas. The factor analytic method is

-.- especially suited to the abilities requirements approach because of the

assumption that- abilities are relatively enduring, complex, and

unobservable attributes of individuals.

Uses and Purposes of Taxonomies

The uses and purposes of taxonomies must be considered in order to

assess the utility of specific taxonomies for ARMPREP. While a virtually

unlimited number of such purposes could be delineated, a small number

emerge as recurrent themes.

* A central function of taxonomic systems is their ability to provide a

common focus and language; thus a taxonomy can facilitate communication in

a user community (Bloom, 1956). In the behavioral sciences, Cotterman

* (1959) stresses use of systems language to achieve a common communication

base across several related disciplines.

F °.
A taxonomy imposes a conceptual frame of reference and thus organizes

the subject matter systematically. Bloom (1956), working in the educational objectives area, states that his taxonomy imparts an organizational

scheme, leading to an understanding of the interrelationships of its various components. This organizing frame of reference can assist the manpower

or personnel planner in the analysis of Army system requirements through

identification and derivation of behaviors, tasks, and the behavior-task

interface.

A taxonomy is used for a specific purpose; f or example, the taxonomy

allows the behavioral researcher to make predictions (i.e., generate

experimental hypotheses) and the policy analyst to make decisions based

upon the content and structure of the taxonomy. R. B. Miller (1967) con-

* cludes that a taxonomy should assist in decision-making and predicting,

rather than being an end in itself. Fleishman (1975) emphasizes the importance of the taxonomy for permitting predictions. He maintains that it is

necessary to consider the relationship between that which is classified and

relevant variables to achieve prediction. Fleishman explores the relationy ship between a weapon system component and its manpower and personnel

requirements. He examines the ability of the taxonomic system to generate

predictions regarding the number and type of operators and ir.-intainers for

an internal combustion engine of an Army tank. The taxonomic system guides

the user down an increasingly narrow path to optimize decision-making.

The taxonomic purposes discussed to this point are fairly general and

can be applied to a wide range of subject areas. At this point, it is

necessary to look at specific uses of behaviorally-oriented taxonomies.

According to Fleishman (1982), a human performance taxonomy is needed to

link the basic and applied realms of psychological research. He identifies

F -11
J.1 

TZV C 

W iyw.

six major areas for which a performance or task taxonomy would be useful.

In job analysis, for instance, a taxonomy could establish the similarity

between new and different jobs by generating job families which have similar personnel requirements. A taxonomic system could facilitate allocating

functions to people and machines in the man-machine systems design

process. For personnel selection, a taxonomy could promote an accurate

match of people to jobs. As Fleishman (1982) asserts, "a useful taxonomic

system would include concepts linking the characteristics of job tasks,

their performance requirements, P-d the capacities measured by selection

'Stests" (p. 823). The other three areas identified by Fleishman are training, performance measurement, and the development of retrieval systems and

data bases. An important implication is that multiple taxonomies can be

created for the same subject area because they have different purposes;

"Thus, there is no single criterion for classifying in any field, and

* - psychologists need not be so sensitive about this regarding the field of

human behavior" (Fleishman, 1982, p. 824).

Constraints and Limits on Taxonomies

A distinction can be made between the nature of a taxonomy and its

application. While the content and structure of the taxonomy might be

unassailable, it is likely to be limited in its applicability. Most taxo-

- nomic systems are developed for particular purposes and they may therefore

have little value outside their initial application. For example, Colson

et al. ( 1974) report that many well-developed taxonomies are inappropriate

f or classifying visual displays. They indicate that some taxonomic systems

are too restrictive or narrow, while others are overly broad. This

* characteristic limits the applicability of extant classification systems

for generating an Army MOS-related taxonomy.

F - 12
'JR

other constraints on taxonomiic systems warrant attention, such as the

3absence of validation. Methodological and quantitative problems and lack

of financial support often prevent the taxonomy developer from empirically

validating the classification system. The absence of validation data

limits the usefulness of extant taxonomies.

Another set of constraints has been identified by Farina (1969), who

reviewed classification schemes describing human behavior in the performance of tasks. Focusing upon taxonomic systems using conceptual units such

as functions, abilites and overt behaviors, Farina concludes that available

taxonomies are hampered by one or more of the following factors:

1. Imprecise terms

2. Little measurement capability

3. Lack of developm~ent of a scheme to the point where it

may be readily applied to real-world tasks

Colson et al. (1974) concur with this last point, maintaining that

K. there are few classification systems which are sufficiently developed to be

applied. This discussion is not intended to create the impression that

extant taxonomies are wholly inapplicable to current developmental efforts;

*instead, it is provided to impart a balanced perspective. As stated

earlier, it is expected that existing taxonomic systems, while not being

* entirely transferable to the present system, possess useful features which

- can be applied to the development of the Army MOS-related taxonomy. Generally, however, the ARMPREP taxonomy, oriented toward manpower and personnel

requirements, has to satisfy several stringent conditions. Before

examining these specific, formal criteria, though, it seems instructive to

consider general taxonomic criteria to provide a better understanding of

the basis for evaluating taxonomies.

F.F

F - 13 %
General Criteria for Evaluating Taxonomies

A fundamental problem in evaluating a taxonomy is addressing the

question of "adequacy" and determining the acceptable threshold, in terms

of established criteria, that a taxonomy must attain. Altman (1968) con- :

cludes that there is no well-defined method for determining the elusive

issue and compares the evaluative process of a classification system to

that of evaluating a scientific theory, observing that the problems faced

by both are the same in many respects. The question of identifying cri-

* * teria from which a theory or taxonomic system can be assessed reduces to

the problem of validation. Behavioral scientists lack agreement on where

to draw the line on criterion specification. In Frank's (1957) view, only

two criteria emerged as generally acceptable: a system must be logically

correct, and conclusions should agree with observable facts. Kaplan (1964)

believed that more extensive criteria for the validation of theories should

be considered, including norms of correspondence, norms of coherence, and

pragmatic norms. Kaplan defined norms of correspondence as the degree to

* which a theory agrees with known facts or can be verified by observations.

Norms of coherence refer, first, to the fit of the theory within the larger

body of established knowledge. Second, Kaplan identified the aspect of

simplicity and distinguished it into descriptive simplicity and inductive

simplicity. Descriptive simplicity refers to the description itself which

has implications for the criterion of acceptability; however, inductive

sipiiyi-osdrdmoesgiiatbcueitdaswt0h aae

ability of the theory. The pragmatic norm considers a theory acceptable to

the extent it serves the scientific purpose for which it was designed.

F -14
Shaw and Costanzo (1970) adopted two levels of criteria for their

extensive evaluation of theories in social psychology. Their first category consisted of three characteristics considered necessary if the theory

is to be acceptable. Two of these are internal consistency (rejection of

incompatible predictions from the same theory) and predictions from the

theory must agree with known facts as well as observations made subsequent

*to the formulation of the theory. If the theory fits only the data upon

which it is designed and lacks predictive power, it is considered to have

"low antecedent probability" of being true (valid). These two criteria

agree with those prescibed by Frank (1957). The thi rd and last necessary

criterion is testability. This requirement was added to account for the

possibility that all known data are congruent with the theory, but the

theory is untestable. For example, the psychoanalytic notion of repression

defies validation although it agrees with observations. Simply, if one

does not recall a traumatic experience, one is repressing it; if one does

recall it, one is not repressing it. Therefore, no matter how a person

responds, the behavior cannot refute the theory. While no theory in an

absolute sense can be proved, a testable theory can be disproved. However,

it is rare that a theory can be unequivically disproved or invalidated.

* The usual procedure is revision either of procedures or theoretical

* structure.

Shaw and Costanzo (1970) further specified five desirable (but not

necessary) characteristics of an adequate theory: (1) simplicity in

description and deduction, (2) economical in having few underlying principles to explain phenomena, (3) consistent with related theories that have a

high probability of being true, (4) interpretable in terms of relating to

real-world observable phenomena and (5) serves a useful purpose for the

F - 15

IV.

% %.
advancement of science. with these criteria, Shaw and Costanzo performed a comparative appraisal of social psychology theories which they

*grouped into six sub-areas based on subject matter. They further

classified the theories according to form (coast ructive/principal) and

content (molar/molecular). They intend such comparisons to aid theory

building through identification of inconsistencies, expansion to encompass new conditions, and the identification and expulsion of less viable

theories.

Deutsch (1966) proposed 13 evaluation characteristics for

K describing theories or taxonomnies, all of which align very closely or

exactly with those expounded above but in addition address taxonomies as

well as theories directly. Altman (1968) has reduced the literature on

evaluation criteria to six key questions to be addressed by designers

and users of taxonomies:

1. Reliability. Can variables, relationships and phenomena be

reliably located in the classification space? Most researchers

unequivocally agree that without reliability the system is in a

state of chaos. Regardless of the amount and differential

characteristics of the dimensions, there is an undeniable

requirement that users agree on location of items in a

taxonomy.

2. Comprehensiveness. Can the classification system describe all

-known facts? This requirement has been most closely realized

in the natural and library science schemes, due to their maturity and long institutional history. This criterion also infers

mutual exclusiveness. That is, a variable or relationship is

uniquely located in a classification space.

3. Elasticity. Can new facts be incorporated into the classification system? As with a theory, a taxonomy should be able to

incorporate data that are generated subsequent to formulation

of the system. As it becomes difficult to do so, revision is

indicated. Deutsch (1966) calls this performance capability.

4. Prediction Power. Can the system predict new facts, phenomena,

or relationships? What is the potential for systematic future

expansion? A predictive system stimulates research through

uncovering contradictions and gaps in knowledge. Altman (1966)

suggests that an underlying ordering principle is necessary for

F -16
predictive capability. For instance, one must go beyond specifying

classification dimensions and indicate how dimensional characteristics are combined.

Another aspect of prediction relates to differential weighting of

dimensions. Due to the unwieldy number of dimensions that could be

employed (no matter what the subject matter), distinctions among

dimensions must be made (i.e., through some form of cluster analysis) in relation to variance accountability. This is related to

the systems' functional and structural parsimony (Deutsch, 1966).

One further point to be made with regard to predictive capability

is the emerging transition in the behavioral sciences from the use

of bivariate to multivariate analysis methods for observing complex

relationships and sequential chains of relationships.

5. User Acceptance. Is the system used and accepted by the scientific

community? If a taxonomy is intended to have widespread use and

application, but goes unused, then it has failed, even if it is

judged to be theoretically valuable. Many reasons exist for low

f use of a taxonomy ranging from lack of understanding to inappropriate rejection. Deutsch ([966) augments this criterion with his

concept of cost-effectiveness in such factors as training time and

margin of advantage over predecessor systems.

6. Self -Transcendence (Deutsch, 1966). Does the system reproduce

itself and lead to new distinctions? The system should expose

intern~al inconsistencies and be flexible in terms of selfcorrection and adjustment as the nature of taxonomic unit configurations changes. Altman (1968) refers to a degree of internal

creativity inherent in the system.

With these general criteria in mind, both the researcher and the user

are better able to assess the overall value of classification systems.

EXAMPLES OF TAXONOMIES

The preceding sections have described the nature, development, purposes, constraints, and criteria for evaluation regarding taxonomnies. At

this juncture, an examination of representative classification systems is

provided to illustrate the manner in which they are generated and employed.

Biological, physical science, and behavioral taxonomies depict the historical development of these systems and demonstrate the manner in which advances in the science of taxonomy can enhance the generation of new ones.

J

F - 17
According to Altman (1966, p. 48), "the behavioral sciences have not

even remotely achieved the level of classification offered by Mendeleev in

chemistry, Linnaeus in zoology, or Dewey in library science." Further, he

N acknowledges that the tremendous amount of work which preceded such systems

has not yet been accomplished in the behavioral sciences. For instance,

Altman notes that beginning with Aristotle's grouping of animals into families, natural scientists have labored diligently to organize vast accumulaclassifies animal life according to structural characteristics, which in

turn are related to key life functions. This taxonomy is not simply a

catalog or listing of information; rather it seeks to represent a family

tree and to identify evolutionary linkages among biological organisms. As

Altman (1958) observes:

By proposing an underlying orderly principle, that

is, evolutionary development, the Linneaus taxonomy

enables some degree of prediction as well as

description. Organizing specimens in terms of how

structural characteristics fall in evolutionary

lines can lead to hypotheses about missing or lost

species, which can then be subject to empirical

verification. Such a characteristic is important to

consider in any classification (p. 54).

Mendeleev proposed the periodic law of chemistry in 1869, which wasI

0 based on the assumption that properties of chemical elements are not arbitrary, but depend upon atomic structure and vary systematically with atomic

number. Using atomic wegtand atmcnumber, Medlevsoe that ele

ments could be arranged in a "row by column" table. The periodic table has

flaws (e.g., inconsistency in column arrangement), but is open to new

information and has permitted the prediction of the likely existence of

undiscovered elements.

F- 18
p.* Turning from taxonomic systems in the biological and physical sciences

to the behavioral sciences, some differences are readily apparent. The

(1968) says that despite the existence of a wealth of information concernt. ing behavioral features, scientists lack consensus on relevant units and

their structural and functional properties. Another important difference

involves 

biologicail 

the 

and 

data 

physical 

upon which 

sciences, 

the taxonomic 

the behavioral 

structure 

sciences 

is based. 

are characterized

Unlike the I

by large errors of measurement and lack of confidence regarding the reliability and validity of research findings. Any classification system constructed on the basis of empirical data in the behavioral sciences has more

reliability and validity problems than systems in the physical sciences.

Having contrasted biological and physical science with behavioral taxonomnies, a few illustrations of the latter systems can be provided. Taxonormies concerning the cognitive, affective, and physical or psychomotor

domains of performance have been created and applied. For instance,

Bloom's (1956) taxonomy of cognitive-based educational objectives is camposed of knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and

evaluation. This hierarchical ordering is predicated on the notion that

simple behaviors can be integrated with each other to form more complex

4.,.behavior. Similarly, Sorenson's (1971) task behavior taxonomy includes

structuring, generating, elaborating, evaluating, and requesting. In a

Naval context, Powers (1971) has designed the following taxonomy based upon

hypothetical job tasks:

1. Basic-nomenclature, jargon, fundamental facts related to components of equipment, hardware, and

technical symbols

2. Conjoint-operating principles, functions, relationships of components of equipment/hardware system

F - 19

'4 %
3. Operational-operating steps for hand tools/testing

equipment and primary equipment/hardware

4. Procedural-rules and procedures for assembling,

dissassembling, troubleshooting, aligning, etc.

5. Multifactual-lists, tables containing specific technical data, including descriptive information on

calibrations, settings, etc.

- 6. Configurative-visual representations of functional/

operational processes

According to Powers, movement from basic to configurative tasks involves

less memorization and greater reliance on abstract processes of recognition.

In the affective domain Krathwohl et al. (1964) focused on internalization processes to develop a taxonomy which incorporates receiving (i.e.,

attending to phenomena), responding, valuing, organizing, and characterizing. They posit that each affective dimension has a behavioral counterpart.

The physical or psychomotor domain has received considerable attention

by Fleishman (1967), who has created the following taxonomies.

Psychomotor Performances Factors - control precision,

multi-limb coordination, response orientation, reaction

time, speed of arm movement, rate control, manual

dexterity, arm-hand steadiness, wrist-finger speed,

finger dexterity, and aiming.

e Physical Proficiency - extent flexibility, dynamic

flexibility, static strength, dynamic strength, explosive strength, trunk strength, gross body equilibrium,

gross body coordination, and stamina.

In addition to cognitive, affective and physical or psychomotor

"[ systems, taxonomic structures have been developed in the area of team U-..

" performance. For instance, Naylor and Dickinson's (1969) taxonomy assumes

* that team performance is a function of task structure, work structure, and

communication structure. Task structure includes complexity, organization,

* F - 20

F~ ZO

% - %. - *. - "... . r,-'. -*.. .
and redundancy components. Work structure refers to the manner in which

£ task components are distributed among team members and incorporates the

definition of operations to be performed, the sequence in which the operations must occur, and the manner in which interactions among members m-ust

proceed. Communication structure reflects the communication interrelationships existing between team members and is determined by the task structure

and work structure.

A more recent team performance taxomony has been created by Nadler and

Berger (1981), who developed a classification system which identifies the

following components of Navy team performance: members to coordinate,

nature of task demands, team structure, leadership, and communication

patterns. Within each major taxonomic category, several elements are identified to promote the differentiation of Navy teams. For example, the team

member category includes experience level, proficiency level, member criticality, member motivation level, member personality attributes, and team

size (an aggregation of members by various readiness conditions). Team

task demands include task type, content, emergence, difficulty, and machine

interface considerations. Team structure variables incorporate sequentialparallel interaction networks, interaction mode (i.e., face-to-face, audio,

C and machine), decision-making locus and informal structure. The team leadership function entails leader identification, leadership style, and

leader-member relations. Finally, communication patterns are delineated in

terms of interaction processes, task versus social communication behavior,

and team cohesiveness.

Nadler (1982) has modified this Navy team taxonomy to create a taxonomy for assessing team readiness. The major components of this taxonomy

are team attributes (e.g., team size, team experience), individual

F -2

1%%
attributes (e.g., amount of formal training and OJT, rate, rating, and

NEC/NOBC, experience in teams (general), qualifications, length of service,

number of deployments, length of time on current deployment, and length of

time since last deployment), operational systems (e.g., team criticality,

team-equipment interface). The team readiness assessment taxonomy may

contribute to the Army MOS-related taxonomy, although the focus on Navy

teams and readiness and training issues rather than manpower and personnel

issues may limit the applicability of this taxonomy for the ARUMPREP

taxonomic system. Still, the readiness assessment system appears to have I

utility for ARMPREP.

The preceding description of the nature, development, and evaluation

of taxonomies provided an introduction to the creation of the ARMPREP taxonomy. The following sections examine the formal, specific criteria for

the AR MPREP taxonomy and determine the relevance and applicability of

*existing classification systems to the development of this taxonomy.

F 2

,°°.

?: [F - 22

_,S
4 

t

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ARMY MOS-RELATED TAXONOMY

FORMAL, SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR THE ARMPREP TAXONOMY

The general criceria for the development and evaluation of taxonomies

provided the basis for assessing them. Certain criteria are applicable to

all classification systems, while others are unique to any given one. All,

taxonomies should be reliable, comprehensive and predictive; however, more

specific criteria are needed to evaluate existing taxonomies for ARMPREP

uses. Specific criteria for evaluating taxonomies in the literature review

and for developing the ARMPREP tax:-omy are thus derived from a consideration of ARMPREP requirements. Examples are discrimination among Army jobs,

operationally defined elements and procedures, and utility to Army subject

matter experts. These and other AMRPREP specific criteria are discussed in

this section.

The ALMPREP taxonomy must discriminate among Army jobs or Military

Occupational Specialties (MOS). It must be useful for indicating manpower

and personnel requirements for extant and emerging weapon systems, and

delineate training requirements and related issues. One problem involves

the desirability of having the taxonomy serve many functions that must be

considered during the development of a weapon system; it is difficult to

delimit the set of purposes which the taxonomy must achieve. Thus, as a

practical rule, we shall focus on behaviors that characterize Army MOS,

adding other considerations when they appear to be required. Eight

specific criteria are proposed for the ARMPREP taxonomy.

i Z

"

F- 23
"-S .

Behavior Focus

The first formal criterion for the ARMPREP taxonomy is that it must be

a classification of job behaviors. Each class of behaviors will be defined

in terms of task descriptive data (TDD). Fleishman (1982) offers support

for this criterion, maintaining that behavioral (response) requirements are

* extremely useful for classifying human task performance. The total

classification system should allow for the clustering of Army MOS; that is,

by identifying the behavioral requirements of a given task or set of tasks,

the taxonomy should eliminate most MOS. The taxonomy should delineate a

subset of MOS from the entire set of MOS which involves a match with the

behavioral requirements of a position. It is desirable to make unique MOS

determinations for each position, but that requirement is too stringent

because frequently more than one MOS is more or less appropriate in terms

of the required behaviors. Other considerations (e.g., rotation in

overseas assignments) also must be included, necessitating the development

of behavioral criteria which are not unduly restrictive. These considerations are often 'in conflict and the taxonomic system cannot be expected

to completely resolve such conflicts. Finally, the TDD must be

determinable during system development. This stringent requirement

eliminates many extant taxonomic systems.

In focusing more specifically on this first formal criterion, it

should be noted that the TDD must help to define an action (e.g., drive a

truck) or class of actions (e.g., maintain a truck). The TDD cannot be

merely derivative features, such as task difficulty. This assertion does

not necessarily mean that task difficulty is unimportant; rather, it cannot

serve as a defining characteristic of the classes of behavioral

requi rements.

F- 24

-%a.'
Objectivity and Reliability

The second formal criterion regarding TDD is that they must be objective. Wheaton (1968) stresses the importance of this criterion and argues

for the generation of clear operational definitions. As Ramsey-Klee (1979)

notes, "the reliability with which distinctions among attributes can be

2% made is largely a function of the extent to which they have been operationally defined" (p. A-47). other taxonomic researchers (e.g., Christensen

and Mills, 1967; Fleishman, 1982) also emphasize the important role of

operational definitions in increasing objectivity. Fleishman (1982 p. 830)

cites the significance of this criterion as follows:

One of the striking findings in our review of the factor

analytic literature was the difficulty in moving from

the factor analyst's definition to a more operational

definition that could be used reliably by observers in

e, estimating the ability requirements of a new task.

The objective base provided by clear operational definitions is

reflected in the reliability of results (i.e., different raters largely

agree in their sorting of elements). As Altman ( 1968 p. 63) notes,

"Regardless of number and character of dimensions, there is an undeniable

requirement that users agree on location of items in the taxonomy. Without

such reliability, the system is chaotic."

* Observation Not Required

A third related criterion is that the TDD must be readily determined

C without direct observation; for example, a new kind of truck is known to

require a driver without actually observing the truck in action. This

determination is based upon knowledge acquired from past experience and the

perceived similarity of the projected equipment to existing equipment.

This process involves making explicit a set of categorizations and saves

F -25

5%
time and effort without degrading the TDD output. Further, early in

development the equipment does not exist, so it is impossible to determine

experimentally which '40S are most appropriate for the system. Even when

New Epitpment Training (NET) is begun, it is not feasible to try out incumbents of numerous MOS and the empirical data relate to how much transfer of

training seems to exist. On that basis, a decision is made whether to

'shred out" a new MOS.

Various kinds of aptitude measures are eliminated on the basis of

these first three criteria. "Aptitudes" or "abilities" are quantitative

abstractions which are difficult for subject matter experts (SME) to apply

precisely. For instance, mechanical aptitude is mentioned in AR 611-201 as4

-. a requirement for both truck drivers and mechanics, but no discrimination

* in the amount of this aptitude needed for each job is made. Thus, various

kinds of ability taxonomies are inappropriate for this project's purposes.

Discriminate among MOS

The fourth formal taxonomic criterion entails the ability of the TDD

to discriminate among MOS. Thus, "follow safety practices" would be4

inappropriate, but "follow safety practices when working with high voltages" would qualify. The TDD should be sufficient in number to discriminate among MOS. As Altman (1968 p. 62) observes, the number of dimensions

employed is a critical choice for the taxonomy developer, and

Use of too few dimensions can result in underdifferentiation of the phenomena, with too many

things labeled as similar. Use of too many dimensions can lead to an extraordinarily complex system (especially if all dimensions are weighted

equally, with the resultant amount of information

% likely to overtax the absorption ability of

users). Furthermore, the more dimensions the

greater the likelihood that overly trivial distinctions will be present.

F -26
' )-.. T ...

In this project, a classification of 20 or 30 categories will not

suffice, because there are more MOS than that. In practice, the TDD are

not apt to be completely efficient determiners of the MOS, so more than the

minimum number are likely to be needed. Here the TDD must allow for the

clustering of entities that are similar and the differentiation of a

cluster from all other clusters.

Describe Army MOS Content

A fifth criterion for the ARMPREP taxonomy is that the TDD should be

descriptive of Army MOS in content, level of generality, and elasticity

(i.e., expandability to incorporate new elements.) For instance, the maintenance of aircraft engines uniquely defines one MOS at the support level.

Many otherwise promising taxonomies fail in this respect. For example,

McCormick's Position Analysis Questionnaire is useful for civilian jobs,

but there are not enough TDD to relate it to Army jobs. In fact, all of

the most useful models are taxonomies developed for a rather well defined

purpose, even though their application may be somewhat broader than origin-

%." ally intended. As Sneath (1957) has suggested, the ideal classification

system should possess the greatest content of information.

According to Mann (1943), an effective taxonomic system should be

W detailed at all levels of generality. In addressing the problem of

developing a classification system of human performance, Fleishman (1982)

argues that the majority of categories in common use (e.g., cognitive,

motor, perceptual, etc.) are too general, whereas derivatives of factor

analysis (e.g., rotates knob control) are too specific. The level of

generality for the ARMPREP taxonomy should be at the MOS level (or perhaps

F - 27

I-

* * * ***° ~ * ( *
somewhat below), but generally not down to the *switch-turning" level. The

description of MOS in AR 611-201 is a fruitful starting point, although it

may be supplemented with TDD based upon classes of tasks (but rarely down

to the task level). For example, if several items of equipment are maintained by one MOS, another item of the same class is apt to be maintained

by the same MOS, unless it is drastically different in some way from other

membe rs of the class. In this case, it might be necessary to determine

what characteristics define the boundaries of that class of equipment.

Another way of obtaining that information involves asking SMEs whether the

new equipment differs appreciably from members of the class, as well as ti~e

nature and importance of these differences.

The third aspect of describing Army MOS entails the requirements of

elasticity, where elasticity refers to the ability to incorporate new

items. A general system development taxonomy with modular components that

are organized for a given developmental item has been proposed for this

reason. This approach not only permits any developmental item to be

addressed, but is sufficiently flexible to allow for personnel requirements

which cannot be envisioned. The capacity for expansion is characteristic

of an ideal classification system, and a taxonomy has limited potential

without it. A viable taxonomy reproduces itself and leads to new distinctions (Altman, 1968; Mann, 1943); thus, the ARMPREP taxonomy should be

elastic.

Familiar Terms

The sixth taxonomic criterion is that the TDD should be expressed in

familiar terms for SMEs who are analysts for developing systems. Taxonomic

units must be readily comprehensible and acceptable to the users. For

F - 28

L
example, R. B. Miller (1971) proposes a user-oriented approach for developing new ways of describing and analyzing tasks and duties. A user orientation also requires acceptance of the taxonomic model by the workers in the

field if it is to be regarded as a useful and effective tool (Bloom,I

1956). In developing his classification system of educational objectives,

Bloom believed that distinctions between taxonomic classes should reflect

those which teachers make among student behaviors. Wheaton (1968) and

Altman (1968) also identify degree of user acceptance as a salient

criterion.

Consistent with Army Regulations and Practices

The seventh criterion is an outgrowth of the preceding evaluation factor. Specifically, the TDD should be technically defensible in terms of

hardware systems, regulations, and Army practices. The TDD should be consistent with the MOS structure as enacted by Army systems planners and

analysts. This requirement does not preclude taking exception to those

conventions when it appears necessary, but this action would require justification and approval.

Facilitate Decisions

The final taxonomic criterion is that the taxonomy should facilitate

decisions that otherwise would be inaccurate or omitted. The classif ication system should accomplish an objective that would not be possible or

likely without it. Each task descriptive datum should contribute to the

system by allowing more precise categorization. For example, the defining

characteristics of Army MOS may appear trivial when considered in isola- I

tion, but so many must be considered that they exceed human memory,

F -29
necessitating systematic procedures. For instance, during development of a

new kind of vehicle, an analyst may anticipate the number of truck drivers

needed to transport the fuel, but if the total manpower requirements are

put into a computer, the analyst may forget to adjust the number of truck

drivers when fuel consumption turns out to be greater than anticipated.

When this element is considered in the context of the overall system, its

implications for manpower and personnel requirements clearly emerge. All

of the taxonomies reviewed met the criterion of facilitating decisions.

While these criteria may eliminate most or all existing taxonomies in

terms of their transferability to the ARMPREP system, they do provide the

necessary focus for examining these taxonomies. Although extant taxonomic

systems are not wholly applicable for this project's purpose, they might

contain useful distinctions and methods. Thus, the literature review

explored existing taxonomic systems for their utility in the development of

a" the ARMPREP system. The method employed for identifying, grouping, and

analyzing existing taxonomies is described in the next section.

METHOD FOR EXAMINING EXISTING TAXONOMIES

Literature sources include published bibliographies, human factors

journals, NTIS, DTIC and RDIS searches, and others dealing with taxonomy

and classification approaches and issues. The taxonomies or taxonomy- j

related literature reviewed fell into three broad areas: Those taxonomies

that contribute to the refinement of taxonomic theory and process, but are

peripheral to ARMPREP; those exemplifying the approaches identified as

significant in the literature (i.e., the four historical approaches

F- 30

* * ~:~:~: ~-*: Y>.Y~P:KK>-~%
described by Altman, 1966 and McGrath and Altman, 1966); and those from the

social sciences that contribute a conceptual approach. This literature was

reviewed to assess the state of the art in classification systems or taxonomy approaches and guide the development of a system-centered, selfgenerating taxonomy of processes (behavorial requirements) intrinsic to

Army weapons systems and leading to the isolation of certain crucial human

resource requirements. With this in mind, we reviewed taxonomic systems

and compared stated goals and the degree to which those goals were achieved

in terms of end-products, approach, types of taxonomic units generated, interim steps, and correlation with appropriate variables. Most classification systems demonstrate a mixed qualitative and quantitative approach to

classification based on the presence or absence of critical attributes or

according to the degree of intercorrelation of units with selected variables. A second purpose of this review is to extract and incorporate elements useful for ARMPREP.

The survey of existing classification systems was conducted in two

parts. First was an examination and evaluation of approaches which have

been used historically, and second was exploration of specific taxonomic

systems, organizing them according to categories which reflect the taxonomic literatute. The results are presented in the next two chapters.

?V F -31

:-- vZ'
APPROACHES TO TAXONOMIC SYSTEMS IN THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

IDENTIFICATION OF APPROACHES

The first section of this review identified the following six major

approaches to classification: task characteristics, behavior requirements,

behavior description, ability requirements, information theory, and

phenomenological methods (Altman, 1966, Hays, 1981; McGrath and Altman,

1966). This section describes each approach and the next section assesses

the utility of each for ARMPREP.

Task Cheracteristics

The task characteristics approach is unique in that it classifies

tasks using descriptions which are independent of human traits. A task is

* * defined as a set of conditions which elicit performance, and is described

in terms of objective properties. As Fleishman (1982, p. 829) suggests,

"the model characterizes tasks in terms of general components of goals,

procedures, stimuli, responses and their relations." These general

components are categories for task characteristics or descriptions (e.g.,

number of output units, number of procedural steps, degree of operator

control). Using Farina's (1969) equation for determining task performance,

- this approach stresses the task while acknowledging the importance of

operator and environmental features. For example, different tasks evoke

different activities, place demands on various configurations of abilities,

and require different types and sequences of processing. This approach

posits the existence of task characteristics wholly independent of the

human activities they trigger or the abilities they require.

F -32

.%4%
... : _7-

The task characteristics approach is widely used by behavioral scientists (e.g., Cotterman, 1959; Fitts, 1962, Stolurow, 1964; Wheaton and

Mirabella, 1972; and Farina and Wheaton, 1973). As Fleishman (1982) notes,

this aproach has proceeded to the measurement stage, with some empirical

evaluation. Task characteristics have been cast into a rating-scale format

with reliable scales. Validation studies show that ratings of the task

characteristics correlate with task performance; subtle differences among

task characteristics can be described and related systematically to variations in task performance. The task characteristics approach describes

features which influence task performance and suggests how these features

can be modified to enhance such performance.

Behavioral Requirements

The behavior requirements approach is closely related to the task

characteristics approach, and in some respects is derived from it. This

approach catalogues behaviors needed to achieve criterion levels of performance, such as the rapidity, force, and duration for which a lever has to

be pulled to adjust pressure to its desired level. It assumes that the

human operator has a large repertoire of processes that intervene between

stimulus events and output events (the input and output configurations require certain intervening processes or functions). Like the task characteristics approach, the behavior requirements approach uses Farina's (1969)

performance algorithm and stresses task demands.

Many task descriptive taxonomies are based upon the behavior requirements approach (e.g., Gagne, 1962; R. B. Miller, 1962; Annett and Duncan,

1967). Considerable interest has emerged in codifying the intervening processes (functions, behavior, etc.), cataloging tasks as to the types of

F -33

~~%
processes required, and relating the types of tasks to particular training

methods. These systems generate lists of the behavioral processes in task

performance, consider techniques for their detection, and specify additional factors (e.g., sequencing of behaviors, time constraints, etc.) which

should be considered for a complete description of tasks in behavioral

terms.

Unlike the task characteristics approach, this system is attractive because of the economy of description it affords. Like the task characteristics approach, the behavior requirements approach does not require

R% direct observation for the development of a valid and reliable classification system. Both approaches are analytical in nature; thus, they are compatible with analyses of systems into subsystems and lesser components.

Whereas the task characteristics approach deals with objective task dimensions, the behavior requirements approach focuses on intervening behavioral

processes. Generally, both approaches contribute to the developing of a

taxonomic system which derives behavioral requirements from task descriptive data.

Behavior Description

The behavior description approach is based on observations and descriptions of what operators do while performing a task. Most of the behavior descriptive schemes result f rom "attempts to relate task behaviors

to the conditions of training, to select optimal methods and measures of

job performance, to specify interactions between people and machines, or

determine occupationally-related education" (Fleishman, 1982, p. 829).

Examples of a behavior descriptive approach include Berliner et al. (1964),

Chambers (1969), Alliusi (1967), Mecham and McCormick (1969), and Fine

F -34
(1964). The operator is the primary focus of the behavior description

5 approach. Overt behaviors in response- to the task are analyzed rather than

what is required to reach some specified criterion level. The possible

variations are almost infinite because of the variety of levels that lend

themselves to description (dial setting, decision-making, etc.). Questions

which arise include: How detailed should the description be? How are

determinations made regarding the parameters of criticality or representativeness of activities involved in task performance?

One drawback of this approach is the requirement for direct obseration, an unwieldy task if the body of data is large. As the level of data

addressed goes beyond the m~alecular (task), the possibility for an orderly,

systematic description decreases. Many behavior descriptive systems lack

rigor and are highly qualitative and general, thereby lacking generalizag bility in applying principles across tasks (Meister, 1976; Teichner &

Whitehead, 1971). The behavior description approach arose from scientific

attempts to quantify differences in human ability. In that respect, this

approach lays the groundwork for many of the other approaches. Behavior

description provides inferences with regard to ability requirements,

behavior requirements, task characteristics, or any other behavior-related

aspect of the person-task-environment interaction. The behavior description approach is germinal in the development of the other approaches but is

not directly applicable for the purposes of the present project.

Abilities Requirements

A% The abilities requirements approach develops a taxonomy by describing

the abilities which a task requires of the individual performer. Abilities

are assumed to be enduring traits of the individual and certain tasks are

F - 35
assumed to require certain abilities; thus, tasks are analyzed to determine

ability requirements along quantitative and qualitative dimensions (i.e.,

type and amount of ability required). Descriptive labels are derived from

factor analytic studies and the resulting taxonomic units are considered to

be more basic than the functions and processes posited in other taxonomic

approaches (e.g., the behavior requirements approach). The classification

schemes of Fleishman (1967), Guilford (1967), Thurstone (1944) and Harrow

(1972) generated lists of abilities within the perceptual motor, psychomotor, cognitive and perceptuUt domains. Factor analysis and some other

forms of componential analysis are used in generating and clustering units

of behavior according to the abilities required for performance. Similar

to the behavior description approach, the problem emerges of choosing critical or representative parameters. A complex task may require a number of

abilities of varying degrees from which the researcher is supposed to

determine a hierarchy. This approach, like the behavior description

approach, focuses on abilities of the operator.

Abilities are inferred from factors, and semantic distinctions are

achieved by a "labeling" process. This process begins with the researcher

analyzing patterns of response consistencies associated with a particular

factor and then developing a set of hypotheses with regard to the common

denominator indicated by factor loadings. This "commonality" is labeled

semantically in a way that the researcher believes is representative of the

commonality indicated in the factor. This inferential leap from the

empirical-mathematic analysis to the labeling process must be clearly

understood in evaluating this approach for an application focused on a task

or system classification continuum. Task analysts may have difficulty in

associating the abilities required with the task elements which demand

F -36
them. In a two-part study by Theologus et al. (1970, 1971), task- analysts

had difficulty during the first study reaching agreement as to the extent

abilities (indicated by factor loadings) were associated with task

pe rf ormance. During this exploratory phase, ability definitions were

* revised and the rating technique improved to the point that reliable,

ability-based scales were demonstrated. The second part of the study

(Theologus et al., 1971) confirmed the earlier reliability and demonstrated

construct and predictive validity. These investigators and others involved

in the linking of human abilities to work performance have paved the way

for closing the gap between two very distinct taxonomic worlds. The

ability requirements approach has been found applicable to a variety of

problems in both civilian and military life.

Information Theory

The information-theoretic approach treats tasks in terms of the

transfer of information between system components (e.g., man-machine,

man-man, or machine-machine). As R. B. Miller (1971) notes, this approach

views the individual as an information processor capable of coding one

class of information into other classes of information. Levine and

Teichner (1971) postulate that classes of tasks are cha-acterized by

classes of constraints, which are divided into those acting upon the source

(input) and upon the receiver (output) of the information. Tasks are

* categorized by the amount of redundancy in information transmission and by

the relationship between input and output certainty. Using Farina's (1969)

model of task performance, the information-theoretic approach emphasizes

the interaction of task and environmental features.

F - 37
METHODOLOGIES (MANPERS)(U) GENERAL RESEARCH CORP MCLEAN

' S VA C M KNERR ET AL. DEC 84 GRC-1299-8i-82-CR

UNCLASSIFIED RI-RN-84- 936A8 82C8269 F/G 5/ NL

EMhhh 0hh
1.0 . - ' 118 112-

S2.

,.

-% 1111IA AIO E2.0 1111W

:IIIL2 I

--

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART

NATIONAL BUR AU O ,TANDARDA 1%9 A

%%

-'-.

"%

S -r %..' l 1.

% ** *5 °5 . CS S
Levine and Teichner (1971) present a two-step, iterative procedure for

evaluating an information-theoretic model. First, computer simulations are

performed to ascertain the relationship between redundancy and transmitted

information under a variety of constraint combinations. Next, they advocate empirical investigations using tasks which allow the experimenter to

manipulate input constraints and require the subject to provide output constraints.

As Ramsey-Klee (1979, p. A-25) observes, "This information processing

model for task classification has the potential of predicting performance

on tasks which have not yet been researched and for hardware that is not

* yet built," and that the integration and generalization of human perforw -1

mance research results can be facilitated by this classification scheme.

Phenomenol ogi cal

The phenomenological approach to task classification focuses upon the

manner in which the task is experienced by the individual. The application

of Farina's (1969) task performance algorithm reveals that this approach

* emphasizes the human operator while treating task and environmental factors

as elements which impact upon the person's experiential field. Klein

(1917) identifies the following two components of this approach: wholistic

understanding of the task and shifts in perspective. The first component

refers to the attainment of an overall awareness of task character (i.e., a

system-oriented viewpoint rather than one entailing the compartmentaliza-

* tion of task components), while the second component involves acquiring the

* perspective needed to accomplish a task effectively. As Klein (1977, p. 8)

notes, "It is assumed that by having the trainee learn to experience a task

in a similar way to the expert, the trainee's performance will take on some

F- 38
of the performance characteristics of the expert; e.g., smooth and integrated performiance." This attribute entails the ability to assume other

crew members' perspectives to enhance crew coordination performance.

Klein's identification of motor analogies might serve well as a basis for

grouping tasks. Klein suggests that a phenomenological approach is beneficial for tasks which are characterized as non-procedural, complex, and not

easily depicted by a linear sequence of required actions.

ANALYSIS OF APPLICABILITY OF THESE TAXONOMIC APPROACHES

Having described these major approaches to the classification of

I., tasks, it is possible to examine their utility for the ARMPREP taxonomy.

In this regard, it should be realized that the taxonomy of taxonomic systems, as discussed earlier, will serve as the organizing framework for the

literature review, which in turn will provide significant input to the

development of an Army 1105-related taxonomy. Therefore, this section

R~. explores the adequacy of the six approaches to task classification.

At the outset, it must be acknowledged that the evaluation of these

S approaches, rather than focusing upon their intrinsic value, will be based

on their capacity to make substantive contributions to this project's

purposes. While these approaches vary in regard to the type and level of

data they address, this diversity is beneficial in that many different

methods for describing and classifying tasks are represented. Another

consideration in assessing the utility of these task classification systems

for the development of the ARMPREP taxonomy involves the methodological

focus they provide. Although these approaches may lack explanatory power

when viewed as analytic systems, they do offer insight regarding the

F - 39
:'61:

treatment of taxonomic data. Given this overview of the potential contributions which these approaches can make to the ARMPREP taxonomy, we now

turn to factors which might limit their applicability in the context of

this project's requirements.

A major drawback of the six task classification approaches is their

inability to address the system level (i.e., MOS) which must be described

in developing the ARMPREP taxonomic system. For example, the behavior description approach is far too general for ARMPREP, whereas the abilities

requirements approach does not correspond to the MOS level of task description. The phenomenological approach does not provide performance criteria

for complex tasks, but relies upon subjective judgments and ratings (Klein,

1977). A similar analysis reveals shortcomings of the other approaches,

too, thereby rendering them inapplicable for generating the ARMPREP

taxonomy. This finding is not surprising because, as Hays (1981, p. 8)

notes, "Each has a different goal and produces a different form of output."

Another critical factor in determining the utility of these approaches

involves their major focus. They stress one or more elements of human

performance and downplay the role of other important elements. Here, Hays

(1981) indicates that "the distinctions between the approaches are

important because by choosing one approach over the others, we are likely

to obtain different results. These various results are due to the

different criteria each approach applies to the analysis of the task" (p.

8). Using Farina's (1969) paradigm, it is evident that each of the six

task classification approaches emphasizes one or more of the elements of [Ihuman performance, while de-emphasizing some other elements. The behavior

requirements and task characteristics approaches stress task elements,

while the phenomenological, behavior description, and abilities

F -40
requirements approaches emphasize the human operator. Finally, the

information-theoretic approach emphasizes the task and environmental

features. Each approach gives inadequate consideration to other elements.

This criticism is not intended to devalue the inherent worth of these

approaches, but to indicate that no single approach is entirely transferable to the ARMPREP taxonomy. A broader, more flexible organizing framework is required to ensure maximum utility of the literature review for the

generation of the ARNPREP taxonomy. The follwing section provides that

structure and evaluates specific taxonomies.

F -41
-'

SPECIFIC TAXONOMY REVIEW

This section organizes taxonomies into the following three categories:

general behavioral taxonomies, taxonomies which serve as part of a methodology, and specifically applied taxonomies. General behavioral taxonomies

* focus upon broad principles (e.g., learning) and are intended to have a

wide range of application. They are not single-purpose, but instead apply

to many subject matter areas. The second category contains taxonomies that

serve as methodological tools. They facilitate the analysis of a phenomenon by assisting in operational definition and measurement (e.g., task and

training analysis). Finally, some taxonomies apply to a specific problem,

problem area, or narrow issue. The following pages identify and describe

some representative taxonomies within each of the three categories in terms

of their applicability to the development of the ARMPREP taxonomy.

GENERAL BEHAVIORAL TAXONOMIES

Fleishman 's Taxonomies

The work of Fleishman and his associates at the American Institutes

for Research is representative of the first category, general behavioral

taxonomies. Their research identified human abilities via correlational!

factor analytic research, to develop and verify taxonomic systems for the

classification of human task performance. Factor analytic techniques were

employed to determine the set of abilities underlying successful task performance. The primary goal was to obtain the fewest independent ability

categories which described performance in the widest variety of tasks.

-~F- 42
K

7 

 7 .Vk3 7 7 

A 1

Their work enhanced the ability to relate performance observed in one task

3 to that observed in other tasks. Ramsey-Klee (1979, p. A-16) summarizes

this research in the following manner.

The purpose of the taxonomy project conducted by American

Institutes for Research is to develop and evaluate systems

for describing and classifying tasks which can improve generalization of research results about human performance and

to develop a common language for communication between

researchers and individuals who need to apply research to

* personnel problems.

Fleishman and his associates investigated more than 200 different

* tasks administered to thousands of subjects, and identified eleven psycho-

*motor performance factors and nine physical proficiency dimensions. A list

and description of these 20 factors is provided in Tables F-i and F-2.

This performance taxonomy represents a significant accomplishment*

because of its actual and potential contributions to the enhancement of

systems performance. It has achieved success in linking human abilities

with the diverse tasks performed in a variety of settings. This achievement has direct relevance for considering the personnel selection and

assignment processes required in fielding a new weapon system, since determination of the ability requirements for operating and maintaining the

*weapon system can facilitate the process. Specifically, the abilities

identified as required for a particular task can be matched with

o task characteristics - to identify early, based on

groupings of task-ability relationships, what the

abilities are

o data on soldiers' capability levels to make selection

decisions.

The applicability of Fleishman's system for the development of the

ARMPREP taxonomy, however, is limited for various reasons. First, it

focuses at a too molecular level upon the specific abilities required

F - 43

2 T *IN- . * A~ -0d % %
. W~.77

by a given task. Instead, an emphasis on task descriptive data is required

to make IMOS-level decisions. Although the abilities requirements approach

*typically necessitates behavior observation activities, Fleishman' s

approach requires only expert knowledge of the task, Still, the lack of a

behavioral focus is a limitation for ARMPREP's purposes. Finally, the

- ability requirements approach, which is predicated upon factor analytic

techniques, can lack an objective base as evidenced by the semantic difficulties involved in labeling the factors. Although a cluster of elements

may have several common properties, it is inevitably summarized using a

single label. While subsequent investigators may be able to reproduce the

cluster or clusters, it is unlikely, given a variety of commonalities among

elements, that these investigators will attach the same category label to

these elements. Also, it should be acknowledged that, in a tautological

manner, the operational definition of a factor hinges upon the label

attached to that factor. Thus, the semantic problem involving the labeling

of factors may negatively impact upon the reliability of the taxonomic systemi. Still, it must be noted that the ability requirements approach has

yielded sizeable reliabilities. For example, Mallamad et al. (1980)

obtained interrater coefficients of approximately .80.

Although this ability-based taxonomy is not directly transferable to

ARMPREP, it can be useful in guiding the development of the ARMPREP systemi. In liJnking human abilities and task demands, Fleishman's taxonomy

provides a useful structure for considering task performance. Specifically, it can help establish a relationship between the behavioral requirements of tasks and the capabilities of available manpower and personnel

resources. In this manner, tt can serve a guiding function for making man0 power and personnel-related decisions. While the behavior requirements and

F-4
Table F-I

p PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE FACTORS*

1. Control Precision - finely controlled muscular adjustments, such

as moving a lever to a precise setting.

2. M4ulti-limb Coordination -ability to coordinate the movements of the

limbs simultaneously, such as packing a box

with both hands.

3. Response Orientation - ability to make quick and accurate movements

in relation to a stimulus, such as reaching

out and flicking a switch when a warning horn

sounds.

4. Reaction Time - elapsed time between the appearance of a

stimulus and a response, such as pressing a

key in response to a bell.

5. Speed of Arm Movement - speed of gross arm movements, not requiring

accuracy, such as gathering trash and

throwing it into a large pile.

6. Rate Control - ability to make continuous motor adjustments

in response to a moving target changing in

speed and direction, such as holding a rod on

a moving rotor.

7. Manual Dexterity -skillful arm and hand movements in handling

fairly large objects under speeded

conditions, such as placing blocks rapidly

into a form board.

8. Finger Dexterity -skillful manipulations of small objects, such

as nuts and bolts, with the fingers.

9. Arm-Hand Steadiness - ability to make accurate arm-hand positioning

movements not requiring strength or speed,

such as threading a needle.

10. Wrist-Finger Speed - wrist-flexing and finger-tapping movements,

such as transmitting a continuous signal with

a telegraphic key.

11. Aiming -an ability defined by a test to place dots in

* circles as rapidly as possible.

*Adapted from Dunnette, 1976, p. 484

F -45
Table F-2

PHYSICAL PROFICIENCY FACTORS*

1. Extent Flexibility - ability to flex or stretch trunk and back

muscles.

2. Dynamic Flexibility - ability to make repeated, rapid, flexing

trunk movements.

3. Static Strength - ability to exert force against objects for

a brief period of time.

4. Dynamic Strength - ability of muscular endurance in exerting

force continuously or repeatedly.

5. Trunk Strength - ability to resist fatigue, involving the

trunk and abdominal muscles.

6. Explosive Strength - ability to mobilize energy effectively for

bursts of muscular effort.

7. Gross Body Coordination -ability to coordinate action of several

body parts while body is in motion.

8. Gross Body Equilibrium - ability to maintain balance with non-visual

cues.

9. Stamina - ability to sustain maximum effort requiring

cardiovascular exertion.

*Adapted from Fleishman, 1972, p. 1020

F- 46

S%
777,77

ability requirements approaches are oriented differently, it should be

realized that they have similar ends. Also, as Dunnette (1976) reports,

this approach highlights the fact that the acquisition of motor abilities

for job performance involves different skills at different stages of practice. Here, Fleishman's work suggests certain patterns of relationships

among human abilities. For example, a typical finding is that proficiency

in early phases of learning a new task is related most closely to non-motor

factors, with motor factors increasing in performance as practice decreases. Obviously, this research finding has significance for the development and administration of training programs. Another important contrir bution of Fleishman's research entails casting human performance as a dependent variable and examining the impact of certain independent variables

upon performance. Specifically, Fleishman (1967) asserts the need to

develop principles of kinds of treatments, environmental factors, and procedures that affect human performance. Fleishman's taxonomic system is

viewed beneficially as a general behavioral taxonomy because of its potentially broad range of application and utility.

Job Assessment Software System

Fleishman's taxonomic work regarding human abilities has recently been

extended and applied by Rossmeissl et al. (1982 a). They examined the perceptual and psychomotor aptitudes discussed above, as well as the cognitive

aptitudes generated by Ekstrom et al. (1976) of the Educational Testing

Service. Overall, 40 basic human abilities were identified and explored in

terms of their relationship to performance on a wide range of tasks. This

taxonomy served as the basis for developing a flexible and easily implementable technique which allows weapon system designers and planners to

F -47
specify the abilities required to perform system operation and maintenance

tasks. These ability requirements can then be used to determine whether

the human resource pool can supply sufficient personnel for system operation. Drawing upn- Mallamad et al.'s (1980) development of a binary decision flow structure for identifying the ability requirements for tasks on

!!'jobs, Rossmeissl et al. (1982 a) computerized the taxonomic system. They

created the Job Assessment Software System (JASS), rwhich consists of the

following three elements:

1. Binary decision flow branching network for ability

specification

2. Capability to produce and display a variety of rating scales and task examples for ability rating

3. Data aggregation, processing, reduction, and analysis routines to summarize system aptitude requi rements

This automatic system thus supplements the binary decision structure with

rating scales which quantify the relative level of a particular ability

required to perform the job or task being analyzed. These scales permit

the rater to select a score ranging from 0 to 17, with sample task descriptions (i.e., anchor points) provided to assist the rater in assessing a

specific job. Rossmeissl et al. (1982a) modified Fleishman's anchor points

to be more suitable for widespread Army use.

JASS is composed of the following programs: Job assessment, job

assessment review by the rater, job assessment review tally, job assessment

-. revision, anchor point development, and anchor point development scores.

Further, JASS is divided into career field packages, such as automotive

• .mechanic and helicopter crewman (Rossmeissl et al., 1982b). JASS is inS tended as a technique for use during the early stages of weapon system

F - 48

SO
development to facilitate the assessment of ability requirements associated

with the operation, maintenance, -and support tasks inherent in new equipment design. In this regard, Rossmeissl et al. (1982) indicated that the

primary evaluation criteria for JASS are ease of operation (i.e., user

acceptance) and demonstrated validity of results. They gathered data on

user acceptance at two weapon system production companies, obtaining some

support for this criterion. While JASS has not undergone validity testing,

the two corporations mentioned above did question the capability of JASS's

40 abilities to define the requirements of a wide variety of military

jobs. Based upon this preliminary testing, Rossmeissl et al. (1982a)

recommended these modifications to JASS:

0 Improve user acceptance

0 Improve validity and reliability

o Improve programming efficiency

o Determine the most appropriate types of anchor

* points

o Develop the capability for the software to "learn'*

about weapon systems through accumulated user in-

* puts.

This system offers promise for determining manpower/personnel requirements

from human abilities, and the researchers have created a user's guide for

N implementing the JASS procedures.

* Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives

Another general behavioral taxonomy has been developed by Bloom and

his associates in the area of educational objectives. This taxonomy is

applicable to a wide variety of learning-oriented purposes (e.g., generating behavioral objectives, determining course curricula and method of

F -49
7.-,.

presentatijon, and assessing student performance/progress). Bloom (1956)

contended that a behavioral base, which represents an important taxonomic

requirement, could be achieved by stating educational objectives in a behavioral form. He maintained, therefore, that these behaviorally-oriented

objectives have their counterparts in the behavior of individuals, which

can be observed and described. "This taxonomy is designed to be a classification of the student behaviors which represent the intended outcomes of

the educational process" (Bloom, (1956, p. 12). Neither detailed observation nor experimental data is needed to generate the educational objectives. Instead, Bloom's taxonomic system is based upon the classification

of descriptive statements regarding three parts: cognitive, affective, and

psychomotor domains. This discussion focuses on the first of these three

domains.

The cognitive domain entails recall or recognition of knowledge and

the development of intellectual abilities and skills. Focusing upon educational, logical, and psychological considerations, a hierarchical taxonomic

structure was created to enable the user to understand more clearly the

place of a particular objective in relation to other objectives. The

cognitively-based taxonomy of educational objectives is displayed in Table

F-3.

Bloom's taxonomic system satisfies several of the formal criteria for

the ARMPREP taxonomy. It identifies behavioral requirements, does not

necessitate observation, is non-trivial, and appears to be objective. lIC

serves as a useful model for developing the ARMPREP taxonomic system. Of

course, its focus upon educational objectives has little relevance for the

purpose of making personnel decisions concerning emerging weapon systems.

It does not address Army MOS, is unfamiliar to most Army planners, and is

F- 50
Table F-3

TAXONOMY OF EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES*

1.00 KNOWLEDGE -recall of specifics and universals, methods and processes, or of a patterh, structure, or setting.

1.10 Knowledge of Specifics

1.11 Knowledge of Terminology

1.12 Knowledge of Specific Facts

1.20 Knowledge of Ways and Means of Dealing with Specifics

1.21 Knowledge of Conventions

1.22 Knowledge of Trends and Sequences

1.23 Knowledge of Classifications and Categories

1.24 Knowledge of Criteria

1.25 Knowledge of Methodology

1.30 Knowledge of the Universals and Abstractions in a Field

1.31 Knowledge of Principles and Generalizations

1.32 Knowledge of Theories and Structures

2.00 COMPREHENSION - understanding or apprehension in which the individual

knows what is being communicated and can use it

without relating it to other material or seeing its

fuller implications.

2. 10 Translation

2.20 Interpretation

2.30 Extrapolation

3.00 APPLICATION - use of abstractions in particular and concrete situat ions.

4.00 ANALYSIS - breakdown of a communication into constituent elements so P that the relative hierarchy of ideas is made clear and/or

the relations between the ideas expressed are made

explicit.

4.10 Analysis of Elements

4.20 Analysis of Relationships

4.30 Analysis of Organizational Principles

5.00 SYNTHESIS - forming elements and parts into a whole.

5.10 Production of a Unique Communication

5.20 Production of a Plan, or Proposed Set of Operations

5.30 Derivation of a Set of Abstract Relations

6.00 EVALUATION - judgments about the value of material and methods for

given purposes.

6.10 Judgments in Terms of Internal Evidence

6.20 Judgments in Terms of External Criteria

*Adapted from Bloom, 1956, pp. 201-207

F -51
not technically defensible in terms of hardware systems, regulations, and

Army practices. Therefore, the major contributions of Bloom's taxonomy are

the process of deriving taxonomic elements and the elegant structure which

depicts the complex interrelationships among the elements.

Gagne 's Human Learning Categories

A third general behavioral taxonomy is Gagne's system of human learning principles. Gagne (1962) asserts that an individual behaves in a systern "as a data transmission and processing link inserted between the displays and controls of a machine" (p. 37). Thus each human function can be

described in terms of input-output transformations. According to RamseyKlee (1979), this scheme conceptualizes all human functions as combinations

of the following three basic functions:

Sensing - the presence or absence of a difference in

physical energies.

Identifying - an operator makes a number of different

responses to various classes of stimulation.

Interpreting - the identification of meaning of inputs

and the generation of outputs based upon those meanings.

As Hays (1981) notes, "The description of one or more of these three functions can provide a basic definition of the tasks which any simulator is

4'designed to train" (p. 13). The link of these basic functions to task

definitions is important. Hays contends that the description of these functions should detail tenecessary inputs and the required outputs o

responses for a particular activity. While inputs usually involve displays

and/or other informational cues, the description of outputs is more diffi- 5

cult because of their greater diversity. Outputs can be classified as

F- 52

% .- * * ** *
* -unitary responses, autonomous sequences, and flexible sequences (Gagne

1962). In this context of training simulators, Gagne (1965) has formulated

his taxonomy of cumulative learning sequences. The six taxonomic categories are listed below.

o Stimulus-Response Connections

o Chain of Relationships (motor or verbal)

o Multiple Discriminations

o Concepts

S o Simple Procedures or Rules

*. o Complex Principles or Rules

. This taxonomic system is hierarchically arranged in the sense that learning

at any given level subsumes learning at all lower levels. As McCormick (in

Dunnette, 1976) observes, this scheme assumes that any given task can be

classified in terms of one of these categories. Gagne's taxonomy has been

applied in designing simulators for the following types of tasks: proceadures, motor skills, identification, conceptual tasks, and team functions.

Gagne's taxonomy is useful for ARMPREP for two major reasons. First,

" .•his categories of learning can be operationally defined in action statements. This congruence with the behavior requirements approach is beneficial for developing the categories of the APPREP taxonomy. These requirements can be determined without detailed observational activities. Second,

as Gagne's work has focused largely upon military training simulators, it

is probably reasonably familiar to Army planners. Gagne's taxonomy is not

entirely transferable to the ARMPREP system, however, since it has a much

-. broader view than the MOS level of description required for the ARMPREP

* taxonomy. Thus, it could not be used to discriminate successfully among

A rmy 110S.

. -Cotterman (1959), Fitts (1962), and Stolurow (1964) exemplify the

concern of many of the early learning theorists in attempting to devise

classification schemes which rationally organize and structure learning

, F- 53
)'O

principles in a way that directly relates to human task performance. It

was their objective to use such a system to improve training, both in terms

of deriving more efficient methods and the discovery of underlying principles. To generate these schemes, these three theorists used the task characteristics approach concentrating on the processes and functions evoked by

the task.

Cotterman's (1959) model had three sets of independent variables: input, output and intervening relationships. These sets of variables were

divided into basic, task, and subject variables. Basic variables were

directly related to learning and had a constant presence, but in varying

degree (e.g., motivation.) Task variables distinguished differences among

tasks. Subject variables represented ways in which individual subjects

differ, consequently displaying differences in learning behavior.

Cotterman hypothesized an interaction between basic and task variables.

This systematic expansion was limited to the extent that the three categories of variables were not mutually exclusive. Cotterman strongly encouraged the use of systems language and stressed the importance of a common

base of communication across disciplines. It is this emphasis on a common

systems language as well as the general usefulness of harnessing the principles available in the vast learning literature for application to problems of human performance which gives this effort particular historical

significance.

Fitts (1962, p. 178) proposed a broadly applicable classification

system for skilled tasks: "A taxonomy should identify important correlates

of learning rate, performance level and individual differences. It should

be equally applicable to laboratory tasks and to the tasks encountered in

K F -54

0OL .
industry and in military service." He stressed the dynamic character of

task classification and suggested a taxonomy for "processes and activities,

rather than for static elements." He viewed task performance as an everchanging interaction of man, machine and environment, and described skilled

performance according to the following three characteristics:

0 spatial, temporal patterning,

o continuous interaction of response process including

input and feedback processes, and

o learning.

Fitts's task characteristics approach grew out of experimental research

literature and the experiences of instructors. The task taxonomy introduced by Fitts deals with skilled tasks and their performance in a twophase system. In the first phase, features of skilled tasks are classified

t:the degree of gross body involvement, and

the degree of observable dynamics characterized by the

activity.

These two factors underlie skill "constancies" which pervade behavior

patterns producing skilled behavior. The hierarchy of description moves

from simple to complex in three stages.

0 The individual initiates a behavior pattern from a

resting position in a relation to a relatively fixed or

stable set of environmental objects; e.g., threading a

needle, picking up an object. In this stage behavior

is relatively easy to observe and measure.

o In the next more complex situation, behavior is initiated while either the body or the external objects are

in motion, e.g., batting at a thrown ball. Uniformities of the behavior patterns shown by the individual

become more difficult to observe.

o The most complex level of skill constancy involves both

the individual and the external environmental objects

in motion prior to initiating the skilled behavior

sequence; e.g., a football quarterback throwing a running pass. From this kind of activity, it would be

F -55

~%
extremely difficult to identify and record temporal

spatial patterns of motion or extract constancies

underlying such actvities.

From this gross skilled task classification, Fitts sets the stage for

the more detailed system considering man, machine and interacting environment in an ever-changing closed loop system. Within this system, inputs,

outputs and feedback loops represent the major interactions in skilled performance, from the proprioceptive cues to the man-machine interactions.

Within this scheme, Fitts emphasized the potential for specifying major

characteristics and the extent of their involvement in dynamic patterns of

skill-directed activities. A comprehensive application was envisioned

going beyond training research to engineering psychology and individual

differences.

Stolurow ( 1964) addressed learning principles in a taxonomy which

reaffirmed the need for a systems language. The goal was to express all

learning situations and learning data in one precise and consistent

language. lie developed a tentative taxonomy of learning tasks from data in

the literature. Sets of task variables were isolated, defined and used to

formulate hypotheses. As the hypotheses were tested, the structure and

definition of the selected variables were revised. His systems-oriented

0 learning paradigm consisted of four behavioral categories and a "perfor-

* mance standards" or criterion component for a proposed general training

system. A limited study of the reliability was conducted and helped to

*clarify the meaning and application of the task categories. In this phase

of the study eight psychologists were assigned a coding task. These subjects had all worked directly in training research or were familiar with

* the principles involved and were considered to be potential users of the

taxonomy. The task consisted of two subtasks:

F- 56
 . . 

. . . . ,.. . . . . .. 

.. . ..  ... . . . k i

   , , i    

i to code task descriptions contained in the literature, and

o to decode a set of coded tasks which were prepared for

the purpose of the study.

Through these coding and decoding trials, a final revision of categorical

task definitions resulted. The proposed taxonomic model consisted of a

provisional set of critical learning task characteristics represented in

three major components in the systems analysis mode: input, output, and

relationship. Task descriptions arising from relevant system-related characteristics specify the following about a learning situation: critical

8 cue, response, and cue response relationships that will provide the performance standards for decisions about reinforcement. In support of his

. "functional classification" approach, Stolurow emphasizes the mutual exclusion capabilities of his categories, a criterion more rypically met in the

physical sciences than the behavioral. A possible use for the resultant

taxonomy suggested by the author was the development of a manual providing

guidance on training decisions.

Guilford's Structure of Intellect

Guilford (1967; Guilford and Hoepfner, 1971) developed a systematic

schema of intellectual functions based on 20 years of factor analytic

research known as the Aptitudes Research Project. He called this threedimensional cube-like schema the structure of intellect model. Guilford

attempted to simplify the configuration of trait relationships by organizing traits into three cognitive dimensions:

o Operations - the things a person can do; i.e., cognition, memory, divergent and convergent production and

evaluation.

o Contents - the nature of the materials or information

* .? on which operations can be performed, i.e., figural,

symbolic, semantic, and behavioral; and

F 57
o Products - outcome or results of content processed by

respondent. These products are classified into units,

classes, relations, systems, transformations and implications.

Within these three dimensions of 5 x 4 x 6 categories, 120 cells

emerge, each cell expected to contain at least one factor (ability). Each

factor is described in terms of all three dimensions. Therefore, the model

posits a maximum of 120 aptitudes, 98 of which were identified in the final

report (Guilford and Hoepfner, 1971).

Meeker (1969) applied the structure of intellect model to classify

items of the Stanford-Binet and Wechsler scales; however no similar application t. actual work performance has been identified in the literature.

"The structure :f intellect model has been internally oriented making

4. little or no contact with the real world of human work p, rformance"

(Dunnette, 1976 p. 480). The structure of intellect model has little use

.. for understanding actual work performance since no empirical linkage has

been established.

Berliner, Alliusi, and Chambers

Other general behavioral taxonomies can be briefly described. For

-d example, Berliner et al. (1964) developed a three-tier task classification

system using perceptual/psychomotor descriptions. As Siegel et al. (1980

p. 4) observe, this system "classifies tasks in terms of intervening human

processes or functions as related to general work activities and specific

behaviors or tasks". The initial level, Processes, describes the gross

function (e.g., perceptual processes), whereas the next category, Activities, depicts a more detailed function (e.g., searching for and receiving

information). The third category, Behaviors, involves task description

F 5

F-58

0_

. ",,-
(e.g., detects, inspects, observes, etc.). While this taxonomy provided a

useful structure for detailing elements of task performance, it has limited

utility for the development of the ARMPREP taxonomy. As Siegal et al.

(1980) indicate, Berliner's system is predicated on behavior description,

as detailed definitions of the processes are not provided. Also, Meister

(1976) states that the taxonomic elements are not mutually exclusive.

Similar taxonomic systems have been developed by Alliusi (1967) and

Chambers (1969). Alliusi isolated the following seven basic functions

found in perceptual/psychomotor tasks: watchkeeping, sensory-perceptual,

memory, communication, intellectual, perceptual-motor and procedural.

Chambers omits Berliner's intermediate level (i.e., activities) and proceeds directly from the gross function to task behaviors. In Chambers's

taxonomy, superordinate functions are used only to cluster subordinate

task categories, ensuring that only the detailed categories are much used

(and are useful)" (Meister, 1976, p. 106). Satisfactory definitions of the

categories are not given. These three taxonomic systems all have limited .

usefulness for ARMPREP for similar reasons. Siegel et al. (1980, p. 4)

cogently describe these shortcomings in the following manner:

Such taxonomic systems suggest the perceptual/psychomotor

abilities required to perform tasks. However, the taxonomies are too broad or vague to identify the amount or type

of perceptual/psychomotor ability required. Taken together,

the three systems appear to be descriptive, nonrigorous,

qualitative, and general types of taxonomies. They were

subjectively developed and depend heavily on verbal descriptions, with somewhat overlapping functions and behaviors.

Summary

Figure F-I summarizes the applicability of the major taxonomies

reviewed in this section to the ARMPREP system. The matrix depicts application of the formal criteria to the particular taxonomies. The cell

F- 59
V lS:)7VU

U x

-- 4 0

-.4 r_-

* 0 ci x

-4.. 4..

0~ -

>-6-.-

.p.44

C4

F 60

V- V N,
entries represent criteria which the taxonomies clearly fail to satisfy.

These are not inherent shortcomings, but are limits on the applicability of

these systems to ARMPREP. The entries are intended to be representative,

rather than exhaustive, of the taxonomic systems' limitations.

p TAXONOMIES AS PART OF METHODOLOGIES

Some taxonomies are part of methodologies for analyzing behavioral

phenomena, including task characteristics, training situations, and job analysis, in military settings. This section examines representative taxonomic systems which serve these purposes.

R. B. Miller's Task Analysis

R. B. Miller generated taxonomies for task analysis. A task taxonomy

classifies the behaviors involved in task performance. According to Miller

(in Glaser, 1962) "It should be emphasized that task description is an

instrument, not an end in itself" (p. 32). A task taxonomy is an information-getting and decision-making tool which must be evaluated on the basis

S of utilitarian criteria (Miller, 1971), and it should describe tasks to

facilitate the identification and utilization of psychological information

for making system design and personnel subsystem decisions. 'Miller's interest was the applicability of task taxonomies to the design of effective

training. It appears worthwhile to explore the manner in which Miller

employs task analytic procedures to promote training program design.

In describing tasks, Miller (1962) asserts that each task activity

consists of the following:

3 An indicator (source) on which the activi ty- relevant

indication appears

o The indication or cue which calls for a response

F - 61
.'.~ o. F J*

o The control object to be activated

o An indication of response adequacy (i.e., feedback)

* Miller's task analytic method provides a behavioral understanding of

the task requirements. It emphasizes the human performance requirements,

skills, and knowledges that need to be de,-eloped to perform a task. Miller le, '.

identifies the following three functional requirements of tasks:

o The kinds and amount of output required

0 Input variables, conditions, and situations

o The work objects which the operator is to use in

transforming task inputs to task outputs

Miller's task analytic technique also derives gross specification of

the training devices which are needed and the grouping of tasks for

* training. He begins with mission analysis and generates a task time chart

.. that groups tasks as a function of time and kind (i.e., similarity of skill

or equipment needed). The method includes a time diagram showing

continuity among tasks and time-sharing considerations.

The tasks and subtasks are linked to types of trainers and stages of

training. The subtasks are grouped according to training phases and

devices on the basis of the analyst's expertise. As Smith (1965) observes,

-. this method involves "a classification of training devices (on) a kind of

habit or skill provided the trainee, rather than the subject matter taught"

(p. 20). Within this matrix of trainer types and task lists, Miller

5, considers the utility of familiarization trainers, instructed-response

trainers, and automated skill. Miller (in Glaser, 1962, p. 57) summarizes

the desired output of this process: "Ideally, a classification structure

* for tasks would be closely related to methodology and decision structure

%eF -62 4'_ _ J
for the design of training." He has applied this procedure to the analysis

of many tasks, including bookkeeping, inspection, starting engine and

rotor, flight, hover and rescue, precautions and emergencies, and the operation of subsystems.

Miller's task analysis method has limited utility for the development

of the ARMPREP taxonomy. Its applicability for manpower and personnel

decisions has not been demonstrated. Wheaton et al. (1976) note that

Hiller's descriptions are not adequately defined and his procedures are not

systematic. Smith (1965) maintains that Miller's method is largely intuitive in nature. These criticisms regarding the reliability of Miller's

task analytic method lead to the conclusion that it is not transferable, to

any large extent, to the ARMPREP taxonomic system.

Demaree's Learning Categories

Other behavioral researchers have developed task analytic methodologies. For example, Demaree (1961) has delineated the following four training functions, or categories of learning: learning of knowledge, skills and

task components, whole-task performance, and integrated task performance.

These training functions are crossed in matrix form with training device,

training aid, etc. As Smith (1965) suggests, "from the point of view of

task analysis methodology, the core of Demaree's method differs little from

R. B. Miller" (p. 58). Here, a list of tasks is grouped first by stage and

behavioral content, then it is coded by likely type of equipment. Willis

(1961) also employs a task analytic method for prescribing training for

skill acquisition. Willis's approach is unique in that it devotes attention to the derivation of learning principle categories. He has develped a

matrix of 19 task or behavior categories and 13 learning principles. Tasks

F - 63
are placed in the categories according to their critical activities. The

training design principles are organized into a training strategy. It

should be noted that this step requires substantial expertise; again, reli-

- ability problems can plague this complex task analytic method.

Folley's Task Analysis

Folley (1964) developed a method for conducting task analysis in the

training realm. His approach uses a system of interrelated definitions,

constructs, and hypotheses linking task attributes to training require-

* * ments. This task analytic method (TAM), together with Van Alberti et al.'s

* (1964) training analysis procedure (TAP), comprises an overall training

situation analysis (TSA). TAM has several stages that increase in detail.

The user prepares task-time charts to show each task in a bl3ck, the operator, the time for event and task, coordination requirements, and adverse

*conditions. Then the user makes a functional task description to provide

more detail as to typical time and maximum completion time. Each task is

then analyzed using the following behavioral categories: procedure following, continuous perceptual-motor activity, monitoring, communicating,

.>decision-making or problem-solving, and non-task-related activity.

Finally, a behavioral details description identifies the psychological

characteristics of task-related activities. Information from these TAM I. stages is translated into a set of functional training requirements on the

basis of expert judgment.

V The goal of TAP is to rank tasks as to the training benefit expected

per dollar expended. The expected training benefit is defined by the anticipated improvement in performance and is obtained by estimating speed and

FlF -64
accuracy for trained and untrained operators. Here, the ratio of improvement divided by cost is used to select tasks for training. While TAP

offers explicit detail in these procedures, it typically encounters the

following difficulties:

o Obtaining reliable information on untrained performance time and accuracy;

o impracticality of applying it to complex systems

because of decision ambiguity;

o its possible insensitivity to task criticality,

amount of training time required, use of part-task

training, and the relationship of part-tasks to

system performance.

Training situation analysis is especially strong in the task analytic

method, which pinpoints critical information needed by the training analyst

and requires less detailed raw task description than other methods.

K Training Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness Prediction

While the preceding task analytic approaches are closely related to

training decisions, more recent methods focus more explicitly on the determination of training and cost effectiveness. An excellent illustration is

Braby et al.'s (1975) Training Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness Prediction (TECEP) model. In generating TECEP, Braby (1973) examined the task

classification, learning and instructional media work by Ellis (1972),

Gagne (1965), Miller (1967), Willis and Peterson (1961), and others. This

technique represents the synthesis of several methods for choosing instructional media and has been designed to prescribe training programs during

A the conceptual phase of the system development and acquisition cycle.

pTECEP, which begins with a list of training objectives, classifies

, these objectives according to the following twelve types of tasks:

F - 65
1. Recalling Bodies of Knowledge

2. Using Verbal Information

3. Rule Learning and Using

4. Making Decisions

5. Detecting

6. Classifying

7. Identifying Symbols

8. Voice Communicating

9. Recalling Procedures-Positioning Movement

10. Steering and Guiding-Continuous Movement

11. Performing Gross Motor Skills

12. Attitude Learning

The training objective is categorized by comparing the task verb and

description with the verbs and description of the task categories. A

learning algorithm is provided for each task category. Defined by Braby et

I°° .

al. (1975 p. 14) it is "a step-by-step prescription for a student to follow

learning any specific task in a class of learning tasks... a general

sequence for use with all similar training objectives."

After generating these learning algorithms, it is possible to select

alternative media systems to support the algorithms. In identifying

instructional delivery systems, the primary TECEP criteria are that the

system be capable of providing the essential stimulus characteristics,

0NO allow the trainee to respond to them and provide feedback and reinforcement. A stimulus-response-feedback analysis for the particular tasks is

performed, with each task category having a chart for instructional delivery system selection. The chart represents the interface of potential

media and special selection criteria. The user marks the criteria that

F- 66

Ii . VI,%
must be satisfied by the media and the cells in the table where the media

£meet the criteria. The delivery systems must also meet the following criteria of practicality: marginal technical solutions, state-of-the-art,

size of system, interface with existing program, time to produce system,

budget cycle constraints, adoption of innovations, courseware development,

high cost alternatives, learning style of trainees, and other constraints

(e.g., command policy). In this manner, alternative delivery systems can

be compared in terms of their capability for effective training on a given

task set.

It should be mentioned that TECEP offers an alternative method for

selecting media for special training needs. This method consists of these

three steps:

o Refine the learning algorithm to suit the special need

o Select media characteristics from a list of 55 generic

media characteristics

o Using a list of 89 media, identify all of the media

which meet the special need, devise combinations of

them, and reject those media which fail the practicality test

Braby et al. (1975) note, however, that this alternative method is highly

creative and requires expert knowledge of the training content, algorithms, media, and special needs.

After determining suitable instructional systems for the delivery of

training content, TECEP derives dollar costs for the alternative training

delivery systems. Rather than a metric for effectiveness, it considers all

systems that meet the training need, according to the learning principles

stated in the learning algorithms and guidelines.

F- 67
Position Analysis Questionnaire

Another well known task or job analytic method is the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ) generated by McCormick et al. (1972). It consists

of 189 job elements of a worker-oriented nature and is intended to characterize human behavior. McCormick identified the following six job divisions

of behavioral areas, in which the 189 job elements are located: information input, mediation processes, work output, interpersonal activities,

work situation and job context, and miscellaneous aspects. According to

McCormick (in Dunnette, 1976), these six categories reflect the organization of human job behaviors. In other words, they represent the extent to

which job behaviors tend to group themselves together in the world of

work. Further, McCormick observes that these job elements vary in terms of

*, their presence or absence and degree of importance across different jobs.

During the last several years, McCormick and his associates have utilized

the PAQ to describe over 500 different jobs. This factor analytic work has

yielded the following job dimensions:

o decision/communication/social

o skilled activities

o physical activites/related context conditions

o equipment/vehicle operation

o information processing activities

McCormick's job analytic research, unlike previously described trainingrelated work, has been directed toward resolving manpower and perscnnel

issues, such as recruitment and job placement. As such it possesses relevance for this project's purposes. However, the emphasis upon behavior

description, rather than behavior requirements, limits its utility for the

O development of the ARMPREP taxonomy.

F - 68
Libbey's Technical Information Structure

Occasionally, a taxonomy serves as a specific methodological tool.

The best example of this taxonomic function is the generation of vocabulary

lists to establish standard meanings for the elements of interest. In this

lexicon approach, types of information are classified in terms of a

hierarchical structure of information descriptions. Libbey (1971)

developed a faceted classification procedure to support the identification

of technical information problems and policies relating to Army, DoD, and

other federal libraries and services. Each facet, or topic, was structured

according to the most effective way of representing reality. Some facets

were structured hierarchically, while others were structured with sub- r

facets or some combination of these principles. Libbey concluded that an

important function of this classification scheme involves providing a

common language for diverse and disparate individuals.

K

Summary

Figure F-2 summarizes the applicability of the taxonomies reviewed in

this section for the ARMPREP system. Again, the cell entries are intended

to be representative of the shortcomings of these systems in meeting the

formal criteria for ARMPREP.

V.

*" SPECIFIC TAXONOMIES

Many taxonomies are designed with a particular purpose in mind and in

that situation are useful in an immediate and concrete sense. Mleister

(1976) states that "taxonomies of greatest use to the system development

specialist are those that are most specific and descriptive of tasks as

observed." There are many examples of specific taxonomies from the human

F - 69
23 -4 x

0 -4

00

.441

cz.

0 0

0 -

0 Ai 0)

-41

Z 0 La

coo.. -40

CA~~ 70- - -
factors literature. Krumm and Farina (1962), using a content analytic

methodology, derived a set of communication categories for a four-man aircraf t crew. Siegel and Federman (1973) devised a complex communications

taxonomy using factor analysis, and Siegel, Federman and Welsand (1980)

developed a taxonomy of perceptual/psychomotor requirements for performance

in 35 Air Force specialties.

Such specifically oriented taxonomies may be limited for application

beyond their assigned purpose. Certain taxonomies are especially useful

due to their applied orientations, even though they arise from highly

diverse objectives.

Functional Job Analysis

Fine's (1972) Functiordal Job Analysis scheme, developed to standardize

jobs, categorizes tasks according to their emphasis on the characteristic

Vdistinctions among people, data, and things. Task statement goals were

devised to meet the criterion of communicating the task reliability, that

is, the task statement should be highly congruent with the task performer's

perception. Task statements should be similar to the task itself and compatible .iith all other task statements. "A task is an action or action

sequence grouped through time and designed to contribute a specified end

result to the accomplishment of an objective for which functional levels

and orientation can be reliably assigned. The task action or action

sequence may be primarily physical such as operating an electric typewriter; or primarily mental, such as analyzing data; and/or primarily

interpersonal, such as consulting with another person" (Fine and Wiley,

1971). A consersus can be reached on task goals and qualifications

necessary to attain those goals. A model sentence worksheet reduces the

F -71
task to components based on the distinction of people/data/things and

behavior/end results. These task statement components include: subject

(worker), action verbs (performs), object of verb (to whom or what), phrase

(upon what instructions), phrase (using what tools, equipment, work aids,

etc.) and in order to (expected output). Standardized questions were then

developed regarding the interaction of the components and their relation to

organizational goals. These questions were used for testing reliability

' and validity of task statements. Fine (1971) explains a technique for

< "writing task statements to improve reliability.

The systematic clustering of task statements into assignments has

facilitated personnel decisions and resulted in predictable outcomes. Such

results have implications for the use of Fine's methodology across a variety of manpower and personnel areas such as job restructuring, development

.of career ladders, and manpower utilization studies, to name a few.

Another specifically applied taxonomic system involves Ramsey-Klee's

(1979) analysis of Navy enlisted occupational classifications. She

g7athered task inventory data for the following five Navy enlisted ratings;

Aviation Boatswain's Mate (AB), Aviation iachinist's Mate (AA), Electronics

Technician (ET), Torpedoman's Mate (TM), and Yeoman (YN). There were two

purposes for examining these task data. First, it was necessary to define

the taxonomy structure underlying the design of the Navy Occupational Task

.q Analysis Program's (NOTAP) task inventory booklets. Second, this effort

.- aided the development of alternative taxonomic structures which would exI'sqs. tend the usefulness of the task inventory data and shorten the task inven-

.J. tories. Here, a reduction of time demand on operational units in terms of

their administrative activities would result.

[0

F- 72

V
Ramsey-Klee's content analysis methodology began with an examination

of over 2000 task statements in NOTAP. These statements were delineated

into 21 categories at the first, gross level, and were further broken into

76 additional categories at the second, more specific level. This procedure was deemed useful for comparing Navy ratings, relating task analysis

data to occupational standards, and systematically generating task statements. In addition, a clustering approach, which used job titles and determined cluster membership by the Group clustering program in CODAP (Comprehensive Occupational Data Analysis Programs), was applied to the same

data. According to Ramsey-Klee (1979),

This approach had its genesis in the notion that if the

members of a cluster could be characterized by a single

job title or by a homogeneous set of job titles, then one

could conclude that job titles, although often cryptic and

* general, do have a common interpretation to the job incumbents who selected them. Conversely, if a particular job

title is not concentrated in one of a few clusters, then

one might conclude either that it is a heterogeneous job

or that the job title is ambiguous and means different * 4things to different people. This conclusion would cast

suspicion on the usefulness of the job title (p. 33).

Ramsey-Klee reported that while some of the informal job titles requested

in the inventories corresponded to well-defined clusters derived from task

statements, other job titles did not appear to be universally understood.

As a result, she suggested that the job title section be dropped from the

task inventory booklets.

McKnight's Transportation Analysis

McKnight and Adams (1971, 1972) conducted a large project for the

Department of Transportation which included:

0 Development of a methodology to evaluate and analyze

the criticality of driver behaviors, and

F - 73
0 The development of driver education objectives and a

national standard of evaluation for such programs

Our focus will be on the comprehensive methodology that was developed. Initially, to assume a comprehensive identification of driving

behaviors, an analysis was conducted of the total highway transportation

system including the driver, vehicle, roadway traffic and natural environmental conditions. From the perspective of each system component and the

tions were identified as well as the appropriate operator response or response sequence. Groups of related behaviors were clustered together and

comprised the tasks that would undergo further analysis, associating cues

with driving responses. A large group of experts was convened representing

every aspect of highway-related traffic safety for the purpose of evaluating the criticality of more than 1500 behaviors identified during analysis relating to safety and efficiency of the highway transportation systemn. From the resulting criticality indices and substantive information

gained though a literature review, the driving behaviors were then incorporated into a set of driving task descriptions. The behaviors identified

during the analysis of driving tasks varied considerably in their criticality to the safe and efficient operation of the highway traffic system.

S The importance of criticality as a dimension was due to the objective of an

efficient driver education program in which it would be virtually impossible to include every possible traffic behavior. Yet it was important to

identify those behaviors most critical to safe and efficient driver practices. From such a wide range of possible behaviors only such a broadly

conceived systematic approach could produce the desired results. In addition to criticality data, the literature review provided information

F -74
concerning a) characteristic levels as well as upper and lower limits of

driver performance, and b) related knowledges and skills. Task descriptions which arose as a result of a thorough task analysis and criticality

evaluation were included as part of the skill category, the last step of

M1cKnight's analytic process. Along with knowledge they were used to

support the development of driver education objectives which took place

during a subsequent phase of the study. The process used can be summarized

as follows:

1. Goals of the transportation system were determined.

2. From each goal, behavioral requirements were determined.

3. The scope of the systems analysis included the identification of those characteristics of the transportar. tion system which impose behavioral requirements upon

drivers in fulfilling two levels of goals, individual*

and system-level.

4. System characteristics, as generated from an extensive U literature survey, were used to comprise a logically

organized hierarchy. They combined and grouped characteristics within certain logical and well-defined

categories.

5. From a list of more than 1000, system characteristics

were identified. System characteristics spawned more

than 1500 specific behaviors required in driving.

6. Behaviors were organized according to the situations

giving rise to them. (The could have been orgainzed

in a number of other ways; e.g., to reflect the inherent structure of driving behavior, the responses

evoked, or according to mediating processes).

7. Behaviors were further categorized and grouped into

tasks. In this context, a task is a group of related

£ behaviors directed toward a specific outcome.

"As with most systems of classification, individual

entries often warranted inclusion under more than one

category... In this study, behaviors were entered

under that one task that seemed to characterize them

best and cross-reference was made when tasks were

related.

F - 75
8. Behaviors were analyzed to reach the appropriate level

of detail necessary to achieve project goals.

9. Behavior criticality was evaluated. For the purpose of

instructional objectives, it would not be feasible to

include the full range of behaviors involved in vehicle

operation in a course for beginning drivers.

10. The task analysis and the criticality evaluation were

used to develop a set of task descriptions oriented to

the driving public (a highly diversified audience).

These task descriptions would form the basis for deriving instructional material and could be used by SHE's

in rating and assessing behaviors on a variety of system dimensions.

McKnight and Adams's methodology used a multi-tiered task analysis focusing

on behavior requirements addressed to the appropriate system level. The

appropriate system level is determined according to the specific project

goal and identified through a comprehensive analysis of behaviorallyrelevant system characteristics including (1) driver characteristics, (2)

vehicle characteristics, (3) roadway characteristics, (4) traffic charact-

*eristics, and (5) environmental conditions. These investigators were able

- . to combine a detailed, well specified methodology with a behaviorally complex conceptual goal that resulted in a widely applied tool.

Comprehensive Occupational Data Analysis Program

From a personnel orientation, The Air Force's Comprehensive Occupational Data Analysis Program (Christal, 1974; Christal and Weismuller,

1976) is a highly interactive and efficient system of computer routines for

*organizing, analyzing and reportin,7 occupational information. It is a

sophisticated example of the use of cluster analysis for grouping jobs

along a variety of dimensions. Though the use of Ward and Hook's

hierarchical grouping procedure (Ward, 1963, Ward end Hook, 1963), an

F -76

6%
iterative clustering method, Air Force jobs are analyzed according to the

incumbent's task inventory response. This method has been used to form

clerical job families on the basis of both worker-oriented activities and

attribute requirements (Brush and Owens, 1979), and develop families of

exempt occupations in a power utility firm on the basis of a job-oriented

checklist (Krzystofia et al. 1979). The original CODAP package has been

augmented to fill in gaps for addressing new problem areas (Christal and

Weismuller, 1976). For instance, the researchers demonstrate how the more

recent programs can be used to develop and apply an equation which assigns

training priorities to tasks in an occupational area based upon °.,

consideration of relevant task factor information.

Summary

Figure F-3 summarizes the applicability of the taxonomies reviewed in

this section for the ARMPREP system. As with the previous sections, cell

entries are intended to represent the shortcomings of these systems in

meeting the formal criteria for ARMPREP.

F

F- 77
* 44

V.d

0) -4

0

0 E

C4 = -I-

'00

.50 U)U2

4* >4> -4:

'4~~~ - 0~.- 

.578
7777777

CONCLUSIONS

As the literature review indicates, many taxonomies have been

developed and applied in the behavioral sciences. These systems have

addressed several psychological concerns, including cognitive processes,

learning principles, and human abilities. Furthermore, taxonomic systems

have been used as part of a methodology for conducting task, training, and

cost analyses. Also, these taxonomies have been applied to solving specif ic problems in military (e.g. , Ramsey-Klee, 1979; Christal, 1974) and

non-military (e.g., McKnight, 1972; Fine et al., 1974) settings. Unfortunately, these classification systems fail to meet the specific criteria for

the development of the ARMPREP taxonomy. Specifically, most of these

taxonomies do not fulfill the following requirements:

0 Description of Army HOS - most taxonomies are delineated at a too molecular content level

o Technical Defensibility - many systems are too general

in nature to be technically adequate

o Objective - many taxonomic systems rely upon subjective

judgments and possess limited reliability

In addition, many taxonomies focus upon behavior description or

ability requirements, rather than emphasizing behavior requirements. In

* this regard, some systems depend upon behavior observation for the determination of task descriptive data. Clearly, these formal criteria for the

development of the ARMPREP taxonomy prevent the direct transfer of any

existing system to ARMPREP.

While no extant taxonomy is wholly applicable to AL'4PREP, some can

assist in the development of the Army MOS-related taxonomy (e.g.,

Fleishman, 1967). Many taxonomies offer a useful structure for considering

F -79
* -task performance. Further, those which focus on behavior requirements

(e.g., Bloom, 1956; Gagne, 1962) direct attention to intended versus actual

behaviors, and they may help to make personnel decisions based upon system

*requirements without behavior observation. While several taxonomies are

oriented toward training program design and evaluation, others are specifically directed towards the manpower and personnel areas (e.g., McCormick et

al. , 1972). The research on job clusters or job families can be applied to

an Army MOS-related taxonomy. Finally, several task-oriented taxonomnic

-'S.-.systems (e.g. Braby et al. , 1975; Folley, 1964; Willis, 1961; and Miller,

1962) demonstrate that a classification system can serve as a methodological tool. These potential contributions are quite general in terms of

- their guidance without actually providing specific elements to the ARMPREP

taxonomy. As Dunnette (1976, pp. 514, 516) observes,

So far, no one has derived a behavioral taxonomy midway

- between the world of work and the world of human attributes measured via standardized tests and inventories. * - Such a taxonomy could serve a useful purpose as a common

reference frame for evaluating and assigning both the

Y. important behavioral elements necessary for adequately

performing different jobs and the reasonable human

attributes shown to be necessary for carrying them out

(p. 514, 516).

-~ A large discrepancy exists between the taxonomic requirements and

available classification systems; thus, it is necessary to transcend these

systems, adapting their strengths and overcoming their weaknesses using

supplemental materials. The ARMPREP taxonomy must derive behavioral

* requirements from task descriptive data to make manpower and personnel

decisions for emerging weapon systems. Based upon the literature review of

taxonomic systems, it appears that AR 611-201 best satisfies the formal

*criteria for the generation of the ARMPREP taxonomy. As a result, this

F - 80

SA.
.°

taxonomic system will be developed from the MOS descriptions contained in

a. AR 611-201. While AR 611-201 is not an explicitly stated taxonomy, the MOS

information it contains forms an implicit, underlying taxonomic base and

will be extracted and made explicit in developing the ARMPREP taxonomy.

The following sections provide a detailed description of the methodology

employed for the generation of the ARMPREP taxonomy from the MOS-related

material contained in AR 611-201.

F 81

.:.-
REFERENCES

=Asgard, J. A. and Braby, R. Learning guidelines and algorithms for types

of training objectives (TAEG Report No. 23). Orlando, FL.:

Training Analysis and Evaluation Group, March 1976.

Alluisi, E. A. Methodology in the use of synthetic tasks to assess " complex performance. Human Factors, 1967, 9, 375-384.

Altman, I. Aspects of the criterion problem in small group research. II.

The analysis of group tasks. Acta Psychologica, 1966, 25, 199-221.

Altman, I. Choicepoints in the classification of scientific knowledge.

In B. P. Indek and F. K. Berrien (Eds.), People, Groups and

Organizations. New York: Columbia University Teacher's College

Press, 1968.

Annett, J., & Duncan, K. D. Task analysis and training design.

.--. Occupational Psycoholgy, 1967, 41, 211-22.

Auld, F. and Murray, E. J. Content analysis studies of psychotherapy.

Psychological Bulletin, 1955, 52, 377-395.

Bales, R. F. Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of

small groups. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1950.

Berelson, B. Content analysis in communications research.

Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1952.

Bergen, F. H. and Weiss, D. J. Cluster analysis and counseling

research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1971, 18, 503-591.

Berliner, D. C., Angell, D., and Shearer, J. Behaviors, measures, and

instruments for performance evaluation in simulated environments.

Paper presented at Symposium and workshop on the Quantification of

Human Performance, Albuquerque, New Mexico, August 17-19, 1964.

Bloom, B. S. (ed.). Taxonomy of educational objectives. The classification of educational goals, Handbook 1: Cognitive domain.

New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., Inc., 1956.

.Z Borgatta, E. F. and Cottrell, L. S. On the classification of groups.

Sociometry, 1955, 18, 665-678.

* Borgatta, E. F. and Meyer, H. J. On the dimensions of group behavior.

Sociometry, 1956, 19, 223-240.

Braby, R., Henry, J. M., Parris, W. F., Jr. and Swope, W. M. A technique for choosing cost-effective instructional delivery systems (TAEG

' Rep. #16). Orlando, FL.: Training Analysis and Evaluation Group,

1''" April 1975.

Brush, D. H. and Owens, W. A. Implementation and evaluation of an assess-

" ment classification model for manpower utilization. Personnel

Psychology, 1979, 32, 369-383.

q4

4: F - 82 (-
REFERENCES (Continued)

Carter, L. F. Recording and evaluating the performance of individuals

as members of small groups. Personnel Psychology, 1954, 7, 477-484.

Cattell, R. B. Concepts and methods in the measurement of group syntality. Psychological Review, 1948, 55, 48-63.

Cattell, R. B. and Stice, G. P. The psychodynamics of small groups.

Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois, 1953.

Cattell, R. B. Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston:

Houghton Itifflin, 1971.

Chambers, A. N. Development of a taxonomy of human performance: A

heuristic model for the development of classification systems (AIR

Tech. Rep. 726-TR4A). Silver Spring, MD: American Institutes for

Research, July 1969.

Chiles, W. D. Methodology in the assessment of complex performance:

Disscussion and conclusions. Human Factors, 1967, 9, 385-392.

Christal, R. E. The United States Air Force occupational research project. Lackland AFB, Texas. Air Force Human Resources Laboratory,

1974.

Christal, R. E. and Weissmuller, J. J. New CODAP programs for analyzing

task factor information (AFHRL-TR-76-3). San Antonio, Texas: Air

Force Human Resources Laboratory, Brooks AFB, May 1976.

Christensen, J. M. and Mills, R. G. What does the operator do in complex

systems? Human Factors, 1967, 9, 329-340.

Colson, K. R., Freeman, F. S., Mathews, L. P., and Stettler, J. A.

Development of an informational taxonomy of visual displays for Army

tactical data systems (Research memo 74-4.). Alexandria, VA: U.S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences,

February 1974.

Cotterman, T. E. Task classification: an approach to partially ordering

information on human learning (WADC TN58-374). Wright-Patterson Air

Force Base, Ohio, January 1959.

Demaree, R. G. Development of training equipment planning information

(ASD Tech. Rep. 61-533), Air Force, October 1961.

Denisi, A. S. and McCormick, E. J. The cluster analysis of jobs based

on data from the PAQ (Rep. No. 7). West Lafayette, Indiana. Purdue

"* University, September, 1974.

Deutsch, K. W. Communication codes for organizing information.

Behavioral Science, 1966, 11, 1-18.

F - 83

M V.--. . . ,. . . .. .*
REFERENCES (Continued)

Dunnette, M. D., Aptitudes, abilities and skills. In Dunnette, M. D.

Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago:

Rand McNally, 1976.

Ekstrom, R. B., French, Harmon, and Dermen. Manual for Kit of FactorsReferenced Cognitive Tests. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational

Testing Service, 1976

Ellis, H. C. Fundamentals of human learning and cognition.

Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Co., 1972.

Farina, A. 3. Development of a taxonomy of human performance: a review

of descriptive schemes for human task behavior (AIR Tech. Rep.

726-TR2). Silver Spring, MD.: American Institutes for Research,

1969.

Farina, A. J., Jr. and Wheaton, G. R. Development of a taxonomy of

human performance: The task characteristics approach to performance

prediction. JSAS catalog of selected documents in psychology, 1973,

3, 26-27.

Farina, A. J. and Wheaton, G. R. Development of a taxonomy of human

performance: the task-characteristics approach to performance

prediction (AIR Tech. Rep. 726-TR7). Silver Spring, MD.: American

Institutes for Research, 1971.

*Fine, S., Holt, A., and Hutchinson, M. Functional job analysis: How to

standardize task statements. Kalamazoo, Michigan: The W. E. Upjohn

* Institute for Employment Research, October, 1974.

Fine, S. A. and Wiley, W. W. An introduction to functional job analysis:

A scaling of selected jobs from the social welfare field. Methods

for Manpower Analysis, 4, September, 1971.

Fitts, P. M. Factors in complex skill training. In R. Glaser (Ed.),

Training research and education. Pittsburgh, PA.: University of

Pittsburgh Press, 1962.

Fleishman, E. A. Development of a behavior taxonomy for describing

human tasks: A correlation-experimental approach. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 1967, 51, 1-10.

FlihaE .O h rlto ewe bltis erig n ua

performance. American Psychologist, 1972, 27, 1017-1032.

Fleishman, Edwin A. Toward a taxonomy of humian performance. American

Psychologist, December 1975, 1127-1149.

Fleishman, E. A. Systems for describing human tasks. American Psycho-

* logist, 1982, 37, 821-834.

F - 84

A-
t

REFERENCES (Continued)

Folley, J. D., Jr. Development of an improved method of task analysis

and beginnings of a theory of training. (NAVTRADEVCEN 1218-1),

U. S. Naval Training Device Center, Port Washington, New York,

June 1964.

Frank, P. Philosophy of science. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:

Prentice-Hall, 1957.

Gagne, R. 'i. (Ed.). Psychological principles in system development.

New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1962.

Gagne, R. M. The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart

and Winston, Inc., 1965.

Glaser, R. (Ed.). Training research and education. Pittsburgh:

University of Pittsburgh Press, 1962.

Guilford, J. P. Nature of human intelligence, New York: McGraw Hill,

1967.

Guilford, J. P. and Hoepfner, R. The analysis of intelligence.

New York: McGraw Hill, 1971.

Harrow, A. J. A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain. New York:

David McKay, 1972.

Hays, R. T. Training simulator fidelity guidance: The iterative

data base approach (Technical Report 545). Alexandria, VA: U.S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences,

September 1981.

Hemphill, J. K. Group dimensions: A manual for their measurement.

Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1956.

Hemphill, J. K. and Westie, C. M. The measurement of group dimensions.

Journal of Psychology, 1950, 29, 325-342.

Kaplan, A. The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science.

San Francisco: Chandler, 1964.

Klein, F. A. Phenomenological approach to training (AFHRL Technical

Report 77-42). Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: Air Force Human

Resources Laboratory, August 1977.

Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., and 1lasie, B. B. Taxonomy of educational objectives. The classification of education goals. Handbook

II: Affective domain. New York: David McKay Co., 1964.

Krumm, R. C. and Farina, A. J. Effectiveness of integrated flight simulator training in promoting B-52 crew coordination (Report

AMRL-TR-62-1.) Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright

Patterson AFB, Ohio, February, 1962.

F - 85

,V-.
.1

REFERENCES (Continued)

Krzystofiak, F., Newman, J. M. and Anderson, G. A quantified approach

to measurement of job content: Procedures and payoffs. Personnel

Psychology, 1979, 32, 341-357.

Levine, J. M. and Teichner, W. H. Development of a taxonomy of human

%S performance: an information-theoretic approach (AIR Tech. Rep.

726-TR9). Silver Spring, MD.: American Institutes for Research,

1971.

Libbey, M. A. A data base of research affecting military technical

information services. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University,

December 1971.

Mallamad, S. M., Levine, J. M., and Fleishman, E. A., Identifying

Ability Requirements by Decision Flow Diagrams. Human Factors,

1980, 22, 57-68.

Mann, M. Introduction to cataloging and classification of books.

Chicago, Illinois: American Library Association, 1943.

Marsden, G. Content analysis studies of therapeutic interviews:

1954 to 1964. Psychological Bulletin, 1965, 63, (5), 298-321.

Mathis, B. A. Stability analysis of term similarities for information

- - classification theory. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University,

1970.

McCormick, E. J., Jeanneret, P. R., and Mecham, R. C. A study of job

characteristics and job dimensions as based on the position

analylsis questionnaire (PAQ). Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972,

56, 347-368.

McGrath, J. E. and Altman, I. Small group research: Synthesis and critique of the field. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1966.

McKnight, J. A. and Adams, B. B. The development of driver education

objectives through an analysis of the driving task (HumRRO

Professional Paper p. 4-71). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources

Research Organization, April 1971.

.. McKnight, J. A. and Adams, B. B. Driver education task analysis:

task analysis methods (HumRRO Technical Report 72-13). Alexandria,

VA: Human Resources Research Organization, April 1972.

Mecham, R. C. and McCormick, E. J. The rated attribute requirements

of job elements in the position analysis questionnaire.

Layfette, Indiana: Purdue University, 1969.

Meeker, H. N. The structure of intellect: Its interpretation and

S uses. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1969.

.Meister, D. Behavioral foundations of system development. New York:

John Wiley and Sons, 1976.

F -86

V I.%

'k i a-.. * a.-
L

REFERENCES (Continued)

Miller, R. B. Task description and analysis. In R. M. Gagne (Ed.)

Psychological principles in system development. New York: Holt,

Rinehart, and Winston, 1962.

Miller, R. B. Task taxonomy: Science or technology. Ergonomics,

1967, 10, 167-176.

Miller, R. B. Development of a taxonomy of human performance: Design

of a systems task vocabulary (AIR Tech. Rep. 726-TRIl).

Silver Spring, MD.: American Institutes for Research, 1971.

Nadler, L. B. Navy team readiness assessment. Unpublished paper.

Washington, D. C.: Litton Mellonics System Development,

February 1982.

Nadler, L. B. and Berger, L. E. A classification system for Navy teams.

Arlington, VA: Litton Mellonics System Development, September 1981.

Naylor, J. C. and Dickinson, T. L., Task structure, work structure,

and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1969, 53 (3),

167-177.

Pearlman, K. Job families: A review and discussion of their implicaticns for personnel selection. Psychological Bulletin, 1980, 87

(1), 1-28.

UPool, I. (Ed.). Trends in content analysis. Urbana, Illinois:

University of Illinois Press, 1959.

Powers, T. P. Selecting presentation modes according to personnel

characteristics and the nature of job tasks - Pa t I. Job Tasks.

Baltimore, MD: University of Maryland, Baltimore County,

January 1977.

Ramsey-Klee, D. M. Taxonomic approaches to enlisted occupational

classification. Vol. I (NPRDC-TR-80-7). Halibu, CA: R-K Research

and System Design, December 1979.

Ramsey-Klee, D. M. Taxonomic approaches to enlisted occupational

classification. Vol. 2 (NPRDC-TR-80-7). Malibu, CA: R-K Research

and System Design, December 1979.

*Ramsey-Klee, D. M. and Richman, V. Cross validation and generalization of a content analysis of the narrative sections of Navy

performance evaluations for senior enlisted personnel. Malibu, CA:

R-K Research and System Design, April 1973.

Ramsey-Klee, D. 1. and ichman, V. Further investigations of content

analytic techniques for extracting the differentiating information

contained in the narrative sections of performance evaluations for

Navy enlisted personnel. Malibu, CA: R-K Research and System

Design, October 1975.

F - 87

E_
REFERENCES (Continued)

Rossmeissl, P. G., Tillman, B. W., and Rigg, K. E., Job Assessments of

Software System (JASS) for Analysis of Weapon Systems Personnel

Requirements - User's Guide. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, October 1982b.

Rossmeissl, P. G., Tillman, B. W., Rigg, K. E., and Best, P. R.,

Job Assessment Software System (JASS) for Analysis of Weapon Systems

Personnel Requirements: Technical Report, Alexandria, Virginia;

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavior and Social Sciences,

October 1982a.

Shaw, M. E. and Costanzo, P. Theories of social psychology.

New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970.

Siegel, A. I. and Federman, P. J. Communication content training as an

ingredient in effective team performance. Ergonomics, 1973, 16,

403-416.

Siegel, A. I. and Federman, P. J. and Welsand, E. H. Perceptual/

psychomotor requirements basic to performance in 35 Air Force

specialties (Report AFHRL-TR-80-26) Brooks Air Force Base, Texas:

Air Force Human Resources Laboratories, December, 1980.

Silverman, J. New techniques in task analysis. (SRM-68-12).

San Diego, CA: U. S. Naval Personnel Research Activity,

November 1967.

Smith, B. J. Task analysis methods compared for application to

training equipment development (NAVTRADEVCEN 1218-5). Orlando, FL:

U.S. Naval Training and Development Center, 1965.

Sneath, P. H. A. The application of computers to taxonomy. The Journal

of General Microbiology, 1957, 17, 201-226.

Sneath, P. H. A. and Sokal, R. R. Numerical taxonomy: The principles

and practice of numerical classification. San Francisco, CA:

W. H. Freeman and Co., 1963.

Sorenson, J. R. Task demands, group interaction and group performance.

Sociometry, 1971, 34, (4), 483-495.

Stogdill, R. M. Individual behavior and group achievement. New York:

Oxford University Press, 1959.

Stolurow, L. M. A taxonomy of learning task characteristics

(AMlRL-TDR-64-2). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio: Aerospace

Medical Research Laboratories, January, 1964.

Teichner, W. H. and Whitehead, J. Development of a taxonomy of

human performance: Evaluation of a task classification system for eneralizing research findings from a data base (Technical Report

No. 8). Silver Spring, MD. American Institutes for Research,

%April 1971.

F 88

5J.
S 

_ 

REFERENCES (Continued)

Theologus, G. C. Development of a taxonomy of human performance: A

review of biological taxonomy and classification (Technical Report

No. 3). Silver Spring Maryland: American Institutes for Research,

December, 1969.

Theologus, G. C. and Fleishman, E. A. Development of a taxonomy of

human performance: Validation study of ability scales for

classifying human tasks. (Technical Report No. 10).

Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research, February 1971.

Theologus, G. C., Romashko, T. and Fleishman, E. A. Development of a

taxonomy of human performance: A feasibility study of ability

dimensions for classifying human tasks (Technical Report No. 5).

Silver Spring, R1D: American Institutes for Research, January, 1970.

Thurstone, L. L. A factor analysis study of perception.

Psychometric Monograph, No. 4, 1944.

Tryon, R. C. and Bailey, D. G. Cluster analysis. New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1970.

Van Alberti, C. E., Jeanthea, G. G., Gorby, J. T., and Parrish, J. A.

Training Analysis Procedure (TAP), Volume II. Handbook for

application. Darien, Connecticut: Dunlap and Associates, Inc.,

1964.

Ward, J. H. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function.

Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1963, 58, 236-244.

Ward, J. H. and Hook, M. E. Application of an hierarchical grouping

* ,procedure to a problem of grouping profiles. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 1963, 23, 69-81.

% Wheaton, G. W. Development of a taxonomy of human performance: A

review of classificatory systems relating to tasks and perforiance

(AIR Tech. Rep. 726-TR-1). Silver Spring, Maryland: American

-. Institutes for Research, 1968.

Wheaton, G. W., Eisner, E. J., Mirabella, A., and Fleishman, E. A.

Ability requirements as a function of changes in the characteristics

of an auditory signal identification task. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 1976, 6, 663-767.

Wheaton, G. W. and Mirabella, A. Effects of task index variations on

training effectiveness criteria. Orlando, FL: Naval Training

Equipment Center, 1972.

Willis, M. P. Deriving training device implications from learning theory

principles (NAVTRADEVSEN 784-1). Orlando, FL: U.S. Naval Training

Development Center, July 1961.

F - 89

'__
REFERENCES (Continued)

Willis, M. P. and Peterson, R. 0. Deriving training device implications

from learning theory principles. Volume II: Methodology.

Port Washington, New York: U. S. Naval Training Device Center,

1961.

.

F -90

"e P 1
* FILMED

1-85

DTIC