Technical Report 1191 

Web-Enabled Training-Development Tool for PreDeployment and Deployed Training 

Anna T. Cianciolo

Global Information Systems Technology, Inc. 

 

November 2006 

 

 United States Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

 

 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
U.S. Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

A Directorate of the Department of the Army 

Deputy Chief of Staff, G1 

Authorized and approved for distribution: 

 STANLEY M. HALPIN MICHELLE SAMS 

Acting Technical Director Acting Director 

Research accomplished under contract 

for the Department of the Army 

Technical review by 

Scott Shadrick, U.S. Army Research Institute 

Peter S. Schaefer, U.S. Army Research Institute 

 

NOTICES 

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this Technical Report has been made by ARI. 

Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S. Army 

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Attn: DAPC-ARI-MS, 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926. 

 

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Technical Report may be destroyed when it is no longer 

needed. Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral 

and Social Sciences. 

 

NOTE: The findings in this Technical Report are not to be construed as an official 

Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents. 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy) 

November 2006 

2. REPORT TYPE

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to) 

August 2005 to February 2006 

5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER 

W74V8H-05-P-0667 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Web-Enabled Training-Development Tool for Pre-Deployment 

and Deployed Training 5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

622785 

5c. PROJECT NUMBER 

A790 

5d. TASK NUMBER 

211 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Anna T. Cianciolo (Global Information Systems Technology, Inc.) 

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Global Information Systems Technology (GIST), Inc. 

100 Trade Centre Dr., Suite 301 

Champaign, IL 61820

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 

 

10. MONITOR ACRONYM

ARI 

9 SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER 

Technical Report 1191 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and Subject Matter Expert: Scott B. Shadrick

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) 

Advanced training-development processes are required to enable the rapid generation of training activities that are 

responsive to immediate training need. The purpose of the present Phase I Small-Business Technology Transfer 

(STTR) effort was to explore the design and implementation of a web-enabled “training assistant” (TA) that supports 

the rapid generation of contextualized training activities. To conduct the Phase I research and development, GIST 

and Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO) researched the Army training process, identified methods 

for relieving the constraints on rapid, contextualized training development, and developed these methods into a 

prototype TA capability for feasibility analysis. The Phase II TA as envisioned has great potential for saving time, 

increasing productivity, and improving training. However, implementing the full-scale concept capability cannot 

feasibly be accomplished in the Phase II effort. The most feasible, influential, and immediately usable Phase II 

implementation of the TA concept should focus on supporting junior officers in the development of training activities 

not supported currently by doctrine, especially the decision-making exercise. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS 

training development, training authoring, exercise generation 

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 

16. REPORT

Unclassified 

17. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified 

18. THIS PAGE

Unclassified 

19. LIMITATION OF

ABSTRACT 

Unlimited

20. NUMBER 

OF PAGES

35 

21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

(Name and Telephone Number) 

Ellen Kinzer 

Technical Publication Specialist 

703-602-8047

US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

ATTN: DAPE-ARI-IK 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway

Arlington, VA 22202-3926

i 
ii 
Technical Report 1191 

Web-Enabled Training-Development Tool for Pre-Deployment 

and Deployed Training 

Anna T. Cianciolo

Global Information Systems Technology, Inc. 

 

Armored Forces Research Unit 

Barbara Black, Chief 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202-3926 

November 2006 

Army Project Number Personnel Performance and

622785A790 Training Technology

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 

iii 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

We gratefully acknowledge the support of the US Army National Training Center 

Broncos Team, especially Lieutenant Colonel Rock Marcone, Captain Michelle Letcher, and 

Major Jason Kuriowa. Without the generosity of these officers and their colleagues, we could 

not have designed the training-development tool described in this report. We also thank the 

other dedicated individuals who provided design insights, including Colonel Henry A. 

Kievenaar, Lieutenant Colonel Henry A. Arnold, Lieutenant Colonel Robert Price, and 

Lieutenant Colonel (Ret) George Hodge. We also gratefully acknowledge the interest and 

participation of the STRYKERNET staff, especially Lieutenant Colonel (Ret) Leonard 

McWherter and Dr. William S. Reeder. The insights of these individuals led to further 

refinements of the training-development tool and provided much appreciated encouragement 

along the way.

iv 
WEB-ENABLED TRAINING-DEVELOPMENT TOOL FOR PRE-DEPLOYMENT AND 

DEPLOYED TRAINING 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Research Requirement: 

Today’s US Army unit trainer must develop effective training in less time than ever 

before. In addition, Soldiers and leaders must acquire skill more quickly in order to react 

adaptively to constant change in their operating environment. Research and development to 

support training therefore must explore not only advanced learning environments and 

instructional strategies but also advanced training-development processes. Advanced trainingdevelopment processes are required to enable the rapid generation of training activities that are 

responsive to immediate training need. 

Enabling advanced training-development processes requires determining the methods 

necessary to make doctrine, operational digital products, and other training-support resources 

readily available to unit trainers. These methods must then be implemented in a tool that 

generates structured, doctrinally sound training activities. The purpose of the present Phase I 

Small-Business Technology Transfer (STTR) effort was to meet these requirements by exploring 

the design and implementation of a web-enabled “training assistant” (TA) that supports the rapid 

generation of contextualized training activities. 

Procedure: 

To conduct the Phase I research and development, Global Information Systems 

Technology, Inc. (GIST) and Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO) researched 

the Army training process, identified methods for relieving the constraints on rapid, 

contextualized training development, and developed these methods into a prototype TA 

capability for feasibility analysis. The feasibility of developing a full-scale, Phase II TA for use 

by unit trainers was then examined.

Findings: 

Subject matter experts have suggested that the Phase II TA as envisioned has great 

potential for saving time, increasing productivity, and improving training. A full-scale capability 

enabling the development of several collective exercises and individual, small-group training 

activities would have broad impact and would be doctrinally sound and easy to use. Even after 

effort to manage the scope of the TA concept, however, implementing the full-scale concept 

capability cannot feasibly be accomplished in the Phase II effort. 

Instead, the most feasible, influential, and immediately usable Phase II implementation of

the TA concept should focus on supporting junior officers, schoolhouse instructors, and mission 

support training facility (MSTF) and home station operations center (HSOC) trainers in the 

development of training activities not supported currently by doctrine, especially the decisionv 
making exercise (DMX). The DMX is intended to train flexible responding to rapidly changing 

enemy tactics or other unexpected events, a training objective not well addressed by other, 

doctrinal training activities but of greatest importance to junior officers. Because the DMX does 

not have a doctrinal structure, it is more subject to the lack of training experience most junior 

officers have. Providing a structured DMX-development process based on best practice would 

enhance the training quality of DMXs Army-wide through reduced individual differences in 

instructional-design savvy and increased average capability. The DMX also is relatively easy to 

generate and simple to conduct in the short timeframe available to train rapidly changing 

techniques and procedures. 

There are several different, feasible ways in which the Phase I prototype TA may be 

scaled up to an operational Phase II product such that it enables the rapid development of 

contextualized DMXs or other scenario-based individual, small-group exercises. Effective 

scaling up must enhance (a) the basic functionality of the tool to support modification of 

developed training; (b) the range of methods the unit trainer can use to create training exercises; 

(c) the instructional and technological sophistication of the TA output; and (d) the ease with 

which users can access resources from the operational environment. 

Utilization and Dissemination of Findings: 

The present Phase I research-and-development effort indicates that a web-enabled 

training-development tool to accelerate and better contextualize scenario-based decision-making 

training can be developed feasibly in a Phase II effort. If developed, the Phase II product would 

improve the instructional-design capability of junior officers, increase the likelihood that training 

activities currently not supported by doctrine are developed and conducted effectively, increase 

the frequency with which individual, small-group decision-making exercises are conducted prior 

to and during deployment, and enhance the training utility of operational database resources. 

The ultimate outcome of implementing the Phase II product would be leaders who demonstrate 

more agile responding to change in the operational environment. 

vi 
WEB-ENABLED TRAINING-DEVELOPMENT TOOL FOR PRE-DEPLOYMENT AND 

DEPLOYED TRAINING 

CONTENTS

 

 Page 

Introduction.............................................................................................................................1 

Training in the US Army ........................................................................................................2 

 Overview of Army Unit Training .......................................................................................2 

 Who are the Unit Trainers?.................................................................................................3 

 What Training Activities Should/Do Unit Trainers Generate?...........................................3 

 How is Training Conducted? ..............................................................................................5 

 What Doctrine and Other Resources Are Available for Generating Training Activities? .6 

 What Role Can/Do Resources from Operational Databases Play in Providing Context 

 for a Training Activity? ................................................................................................. 8 

Design of the TA Concept ....................................................................................................10 

 The TA Target Audience ...............................................................................................11 

 Training Development and Training Products Supported by the TA ............................11 

 Integrating Doctrinal Resources into TA-Supported Training Development................13 

 Retrieving Content from the Operational Database .......................................................14 

Description of the TA Phase I Prototype ..............................................................................15 

 Create New Training – DMX......................................................................................15 

 DMX Output – What Exactly Does the Unit Trainer Create? ....................................16 

 DMX Input – How Does the Unit Trainer Create a DMX? ........................................19 

 DMX Content – How Does Generic Content Work?..................................................24 

 DMX Content – How are Operational Database Resources Used? ............................25 

Feasibility Analysis...............................................................................................................26 

 Achieving Maximum Training Impact with the TA..........................................................27 

 Optimal Generic, Modifiable Content ...............................................................................28 

 Optimal Operational Database Content .............................................................................28 

 Implementing the Phase II TA...........................................................................................29 

Conclusions...........................................................................................................................30 

Future Directions ..................................................................................................................31 

 Requirements – Basic Functionality ...............................................................................31 

vii 
 

CONTENTS (continued) 

 Page 

 Requirements – Creating Exercises ................................................................................31 

 Requirements – Enhancing Instructional and Technological Sophistication..................32 

 Requirements – Accessing Operational Digital Products...............................................32 

 Phase II Research Questions...........................................................................................32 

References.............................................................................................................................33 

Appendix A List of Acronyms.............................................................................................A-1 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Common Individual, Collective, and Leader Training Activities ...........................4 

Table 2. Training-Development Resources (Doctrine-based) ...............................................6 

Table 3. Example Mission Task, Conditions, and Standards for an Infantry 

 Rifle Platoon ....................................................................................................... 10 

Table 4. Training Format by Activity..................................................................................13 

Table 5. DMX User Queries................................................................................................20 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Training Activities Supported in the TA Concept................................................12 

Figure 2. High-level Architecture of TA Concept System ..................................................14 

Figure 3a. DMX “Background” Tab....................................................................................17 

Figure 3b. DMX “Current Situation” Tab ...........................................................................17 

Figure 3c. DMX “Considerations” Tab ...............................................................................18 

Figure 3d. DMX “Feedback” Tab........................................................................................19 

Figure 4a. DMX Background Task Pull-Down Menu.........................................................21 

Figure 4b. Example Helpful Hints Box ...............................................................................22 

Figure 4c. DMX Progress Tracker.......................................................................................23 

Figure 4d. DMX Preview Capability...................................................................................24 

Figure 5. Example Generic, Modifiable Content.................................................................25 

Figure 6. Opportunities to Use Operational Database Resources........................................26 

viii 
Introduction 

We have engaged repeatedly in conditions of uncertainty and ambiguity... but 

always viewing such operations as the exception rather than the rule. That can no 

longer be the case. As elusive and adaptive enemies seek refuge in the far 

corners of the earth, the norm will be short-notice operations, extremely austere 

theaters of operation, and incomplete information... Soldiers with a joint and 

expeditionary mindset will be confident that they are organized, trained, and 

equipped to go anywhere in the world, at any time, in any environment, against 

any adversary, to accomplish the assigned mission. 

 Schoomaker & Brownlee, 2004 (p. 5) 

The above quote from Schoomaker and Brownlee’s strategic publication on joint and 

expeditionary capabilities illustrates why today’s US Army unit trainer must develop effective 

training in less time than ever before. In addition, Soldiers and leaders must acquire skill more 

quickly in order to react adaptively to constant change in their operating environment, 

particularly immediately prior to and following deployment. Research and development to 

support Soldier and leader training therefore must explore not only advanced learning 

environments and instructional strategies but also advanced training-development processes. 

Advanced training-development processes are required to enable the rapid generation of training 

activities that are responsive to immediate training need. 

The rapid development of effective, responsive training is difficult for a number of 

reasons. First, units are increasingly required to reach learning objectives with which trainers are 

unfamiliar. This unfamiliarity stems from changes to unit structure and tactics or from changes 

in the nature of operational missions (e.g., armor Soldiers and leaders must learn tasks that were 

traditionally the domain of infantry Soldiers and leaders). Some unit trainers may be unaware of

the existing doctrine and other resources (e.g., lessons learned, best practices, etc.) that are 

available to support training development and that require a great deal of time to sift through. 

Second, although doctrine [e.g., Army Training and Evaluation Programs (ARTEPs) and 

Training Circulars (TCs)] provides guidance for structuring training exercises, the design of 

training ultimately is up to unit trainers who differ in their effectiveness and creativity as 

instructors. Trainers with less experience in designing structured training require more time and 

effort to develop an effective, innovative training activity than trainers with more experience. 

Third, and finally, the materials that could be used to contextualize training and reduce time to 

competency, such as classified digital products from theater or even unclassified sample 

products, are widely dispersed, difficult to locate or access, and tedious or impossible to modify. 

Trainers with good intentions may not be able to create just-in-time training because it takes too 

long to locate and/or create accompanying materials. 

Enabling advanced training-development processes therefore requires determining the 

methods necessary to make doctrine, operational digital products, and other training-support 

resources readily available to unit trainers. These methods then must be implemented in a tool 

that generates structured, doctrinally sound training activities. The purpose of the present Phase 

I Small-Business Technology Transfer (STTR) effort was to meet these requirements by 

1
exploring the design and implementation of a web-enabled “training assistant” (TA) that 

supports the rapid generation of training activities that are contextualized using new tactics, 

techniques, and procedures and lessons learned from currently deployed units. To conduct this 

exploration, Global Information Systems Technology, Inc. (GIST) and Human Resources 

Research Organization (HumRRO) researched the Army training process, identified methods for 

relieving the constraints on rapid, contextualized training development, and developed these 

methods into a prototype TA capability for feasibility analysis. The goal of this project was to 

determine the feasibility of developing a full-scale, Phase II TA for use by unit trainers. In this 

report, we describe our effort and the results of our feasibility analysis and outline the objectives 

for Phase II work. 

Training in the US Army

We began our Phase I effort with an analysis of the Army training process in order to 

gain an understanding of the Army’s expectations for how training is developed and conducted. 

We also sought to determine how training is actually developed and conducted by unit trainers. 

Our intent was to design the TA to enable the development of doctrinally sound training, but also 

to allow unit trainers to tailor their training to meet specific needs. Ideally, enabling unit trainers 

to tailor their training using lessons learned and/or digital products from theater would reduce 

Soldier and leader time-to-competency to meet the demands of a rapidly changing operating 

environment (see Jean, 2005). Our analysis focused on the following general questions: 

1. Who are the unit trainers? 

2. What training activities should/do unit trainers generate?

3. How are these activities conducted (i.e., what materials does the unit trainer have to 

produce to conduct each activity)?

4. What doctrine and other resources are available for generating training activities?

5. What role can/do resources from operational databases play in providing context for a 

training activity? 

Our analysis consisted of a review of relevant doctrine [US Department of the Army

(DA), 1984, 2002; 2003b; US Army Training & Doctrine Command (TRADOC), 1999, 2004], 

interviews of a variety of unit trainers, observations of pre-deployment training, and the 

application of in-house subject matter expertise. Our interviewees included an infantry battalion 

commander recently returned from deployment, Army schoolhouse instructors located at Fort 

Leavenworth, Kansas, and observer/controllers at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, 

California. After a brief overview of training in the US Army, we discuss the general results of 

our analysis and their implications for the design of the TA concept. 

Overview of Army Unit Training 

Because the purpose of the Army is to defend the US, unit training by necessity begins

with the unit commander’s analysis of the mission(s) he or she expects the unit to undertake to 

protect national interests (DA, 2002). In peacetime, training addresses the general requirements 

units must meet to be combat ready against probable threats. In wartime, missions come from

higher headquarters approximately one year prior to deployment, giving units time to prepare 

through home-station certification and live exercises at combat training centers. Unit 

2
commanders analyze these missions to identify the tasks that are essential for success then select 

these mission-essential tasks for training emphasis. Training the mission-essential tasks may 

occur both prior to and during deployment, but the majority of training occurs pre-deployment 

when training resources are most readily available and so that Soldiers and leaders are combat 

ready when they reach theater. 

Who are the Unit Trainers? 

Although the unit commander is ultimately responsible for the mission readiness of 

his/her unit (DA, 2002), the label “unit trainer” refers to a variety of individuals including 

tactical unit commanders, operations staff officers, non-commissioned officers, schoolhouse 

instructors, and civilian contractors, among others. Generally speaking, tactical unit 

commanders identify training objectives, oversee training progress, and participate actively in 

leader training. Operations staff officers at the battalion and brigade level (and unit commanders 

at lower echelons) plan, execute, and assess collective and officer individual training. Noncommissioned officers direct the training of individuals, crews, and small teams. Civilian 

contractors--often retired unit trainers located on post in a mission support training facility 

(MSTF) or home station operations center (HSOC)--assist stateside commanders and staff by 

designing and implementing computer-based collective training exercises using the latest 

simulation technology and information from deployed units. Mission support training facilities 

and HSOCs also provide critical reachback capabilities to deployed units, enabling the 

development of structured just-in-time training and mission rehearsal for commanders with 

limited time and technical resources. The personnel at combat training centers assist in predeployment training by designing and implementing multi-echelon (brigade and below) live 

training exercises based on the brigade commanders’ mission-essential task list (METL). 

Civilian contractors also support unit training as instructors at Army schoolhouses or as 

distance-learning developers. These individuals generally are indirectly involved in unit 

readiness, but they must ensure that their course curricula are up-to-date, especially as more and 

more course instruction is delivered online (Abell, n.d.). Schoolhouse instructors provide the 

education for general individual and leader skills and competencies that apply across mission 

types and theaters. However, they use capstone exercises to prepare students to apply these 

skills and competencies in current operating situations. Schoolhouse instructors often find 

themselves pulled in two different directions as the operational Army demands theater-specific 

training and the institutional Army demands general education. If unit training is conceived as 

broadly as possible, doctrine writers and other policy developers also may be considered unit 

trainers. 

What Training Activities Should/Do Unit Trainers Generate? 

Generally speaking, unit trainers generate three types of training: individual, collective, 

and leader (DA, 2002). Common training activities of each training type are shown in Table 1 

below. 

Educated review of this table reveals that there is overlap of several training activities 

across the three training types. This overlap occurs in large part because leader training may 

3
focus either on individual leadership skills (e.g., decision-making capability) or on collective 

leadership skills (e.g., synchronization). Moreover, the training of individual skills (whether 

focused on Soldiers or leaders) may be conducted in a group setting, as in the case of 

seminars/lectures and demonstrations. Because we examined the Army training process for tool 

design implications, we did not attempt to force distinct categories of training activities, but 

rather to understand how the intended end users categorize training such that the tool would be as 

consistent as possible with the expectations of a variety of unit trainers. 

Table 1 

Common Individual, Collective, and Leader Training Activities 

Individual Collective Leader

- Soldier Training 

- Military Occupational 

 Specialty (MOS) Training 

- Seminar/Lecture 

- Demonstration 

- Regulations Training 

- Certification Training 

- Cultural/Language Training 

- Joint Training Exercise

- Combined Training Exercise

- Field Training Exercise

 (FTX) 

- Combined Arms Live Fire 

 Exercise

- Live Fire Exercise

- Fire Coordination Exercise 

- Situational Training Exercise 

 (STX) 

- Drills (battle, crew, or battle 

 staff) 

- Lane Training Exercise 

- Deployment Exercise 

- Sergeant’s Time/Team 

Training 

- Seminar/Lecture 

- Tactical Exercise without 

 Troops (TEWT) 

- Mission Rehearsal 

- Decision-Making Exercise 

 (DMX) 

- Military Decision-Making 

 Process (MDMP) Training 

- Command Field Exercise 

- Command Post Exercise 

 (CPX) 

- Targeting Training 

- Logistics Exercise 

- Map Exercise (MAPEX) 

- Staff Exercise (STAFFEX) 

The unit trainer’s selection of a particular training activity depends on who is being 

trained and the resources available to conduct training. For example, staff exercises are not 

conducted below battalion level, because echelons below battalion do not have a staff. A staff 

trainer (i.e., the staff executive officer) may choose to precede a staff exercise with a 

lecture/seminar on team communication or on digital command and control systems in order to 

maximize the degree to which collective activity, as opposed to individual staff knowledge, is 

trained in the staff exercise. Conducting training in this way is consistent with the Army’s crawl, 

walk, run progression of training difficulty, such that trainees are challenged at a level that 

optimizes the tradeoff between resource expenditure and training benefit. 

Many collective exercises, such as joint or combined training exercises are too resource 

intensive to develop on a regular basis and involve several unit trainers in the design process. 

Other, more cost effective training activities may be developed instead of these large-scale 

exercises, or as a prerequisite so that trainees will achieve the most benefit. These activities are 

more commonly developed by unit trainers. For example, schoolhouse instructors, MSTF 

trainers, and HSOC staff primary develop small-group collective exercises, either to facilitate the 

4
learning of students in a formal educational setting or to train the leader teams in a unit that is 

stateside or deployed. These collective exercises are enabled by networked, distributed computer 

systems that simulate mission situations from convoy operations to large-scale maneuver battles. 

Even so, our interviews with subject matter experts indicated that unit commanders and 

staff do not conduct enough smaller-scale collective training exercises, such as staff training or 

targeting training, which limits the benefit that pre-deployed units gain from field training 

exercises conducted at combat training centers. Scheduling and resource constraints are the most 

common limiting factors in conducting home-station collective training, but an additional 

limiting factor may be an all-or-none attitude toward training realism. Army training doctrine 

(e.g., DA, 2003b) emphasizes the importance of maximizing realism in training exercises, which 

may lead unit trainers who are resource constrained to also be idea constrained when it comes to 

designing collective training exercises. 

How is Training Conducted? 

Training may be conducted in a variety of ways, with differing implications for what unit 

trainers must develop to conduct a particular training activity. 

Individual training often is administered in the form of computer-based training 

packages, which can be delivered via the web or on a compact disc. Computer-based learning 

management systems are providing ever-increasing support for the monitoring of individual 

training progress. One noteworthy exception to the rule of individual training monitoring versus 

individual training generation is the seminar/lecture, which may need to be rapidly developed as 

a prerequisite for a larger training exercise or in rapid response to an identified shortfall in 

individual performance during collective exercises. Another exception includes individual 

training on practical skills, which is conducted by non-commissioned officers to ensure troop 

readiness. As sudden demands for individual skills in response to training or operational need 

become more frequent, so too do other exceptions to this rule. 

Collective training (groups of leaders or of multi-echelon trainees) may be conducted as 

live exercises (including live fire exercises), computer-simulated exercises, tabletop exercises 

(technology-enabled or otherwise), or as simple thought exercises. In any case, the unit trainer 

must develop background materials to set the conditions for the exercise and to situate the 

trainees. He or she also identifies the resource requirements for the exercise and handles the 

scheduling of the exercise. Exceptions to this rule include very large-scale exercises and some

computer-simulated exercises that involve multiple training developers. Smaller-scale exercises, 

such as tabletop exercises and thought exercises, require less detailed background materials and 

fewer resource requirements, but require greater involvement of the unit trainer in structuring 

and leading the exercise.

Conducting effective training requires that training be structured using instructional 

strategies that are aligned with the training objectives. To some degree, unit trainers have their 

instructional strategies already selected for them by the format of the training activity they have 

chosen to develop. For example, most collective training activities use a scenario-based/practical 

exercise approach with delayed feedback (i.e., after-action review). Freedom in implementing 

5
instructional strategies occurs when unit trainers tailor activities to meet specific training 

objectives they have identified or to address particular training problems. Trainers may wish to 

use immediate feedback, repetitive drills, cue highlighting, reflective practice, or other means for 

enhancing the effectiveness of a training activity, but use of these means requires that unit 

trainers have experience with instructional design. Many of these dedicated people do not. 

What Doctrine and Other Resources Are Available for Generating Training Activities? 

Unit trainers generally attempt to make their training as doctrinally sound as possible. 

The Army supports their efforts by providing numerous resources for planning, conducting, and 

assessing training activities. Table 2 below lists several doctrinal resources available to unit 

trainers, providing a description of each. 

Table 2 

Training-Development Resources (Doctrine-based) 

Resource Name Resource Description 

Combined Arms Training 

Strategies (CATS) 

“...provides Army units with a training strategy, linked to resources 

and readiness, to sustain unit operational readiness... describes how 

the Army will train the force to standard, and consists of unit, 

individual, and self-development training strategies... CATS further 

identifies, quantifies, and justifies training resources required to 

execute training” (TRADOC Pamphlet 350-70-1). 

Drill Books Contain small-group collective tasks (battle, crew, or battle staff) 

with associated conditions, standards, performance steps, and 

assessment criteria; Tasks focus on automatizing a trained response 

to a given stimulus. Drills may also be found in mission training 

plans. 

Field Manuals (FMs) Describe Army standards with regard to numerous topics, including 

general unit employment tactics, leadership, terms and symbols, and 

mission planning, among several others. 

Mission Training Plans 

(MTPs) 

List established collective mission tasks along with their associated 

conditions, standards, and assessment criteria; describe the process 

for structuring collective exercises that are aggregates of multiple 

mission tasks; provide sample collective exercise outlines and 

materials, to include exercise background and resourcing 

information; MTPs are based on the integration of numerous 

resources, including mission and task analysis products, Army

publications, and short-range CATS, among others. 

 (Table Continues)

6
Officer Foundation 

Standards Manuals 

List individual officer tasks along with associated conditions, 

standards, performance steps, and assessment criteria; Intent is to 

support leader self-development for all ranks of commissioned 

officer. 

Soldier Manuals and 

Trainer’s Guides 

List individual, MOS-specific Soldier tasks along with associated 

conditions, standards, performance steps, and assessment criteria. 

Soldier Training 

Publications (STPs) 

List individual Soldier mission tasks along with associated 

conditions, standards, performance steps, and assessment criteria. 

Soldier’s Manuals of 

Common Tasks 

List individual Soldier tasks (shared across branches at four levels 

of skill) along with associated conditions, standards, performance 

steps, and assessment criteria. 

Training Circulars (TCs) Provide training guidance on a wide variety of topics for leaders 

and Soldiers. 

Training Support Package 

(TSPs) 

“A complete, task-based, exportable package integrating training 

products, materials, and information necessary to train one or more 

critical collective tasks and supporting individual tasks” (TRADOC 

Pamphlet 350-70-1). 

The length and quantity of doctrinal training manuals slows down the trainingdevelopment process because substantial time is required to locate appropriate manuals and 

implement their guidance in training exercises. Moreover, many training developers may be 

unaware that doctrinal support exists and therefore do not seek it out. Currently, there is no 

simple way for unit trainers to locate segments of doctrine for relevant training guidance, 

although searching for entire manuals is relatively straightforward in Army Knowledge Online 

(AKO) and through the US Army Training & Doctrine Command (TRADOC) website. Many 

doctrinal manuals, including training publications, are well over 200 pages long, requiring nontrivial download times (especially for trainers using dial-up internet connections) and significant 

review time to locate topics of interest. Newer manuals, saved as portable document format files 

(.pdfs), however, are much easier to search, abbreviate, and print, than older manuals saved as 

other types of files and scanned into .pdfs. 

There appear to be differing opinions regarding the relevance of current doctrine to the 

development of training that will support mission readiness in the contemporary operating 

environment. These differences in opinion appear to stem from different conceptions of what the 

purpose of doctrine is and how quickly it should be updated. Ancker and Burke (2003) write: 

“In order to understand the role of doctrine, we must distinguish between 

doctrine, tactics, techniques, and procedures. When they use the term doctrine, 

most people are referring to the whole body of doctrine and fail to separate the 

specific role of each component... Each component... has a different ‘cyclic rate’ 

in terms of its development and useful life.” 

Quoting J.F.C. Fuller (1926), Ancker and Burke define doctrine in the narrow sense as: 

“Fundamental principles by which the military forces or elements thereof guide their actions in 

support of national objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgment in application.” 

Doctrine, by design, takes longer to develop and is intended to have a long life cycle. Tactics, 

7
the employment of units in combat, are similarly intended to have a longer life cycle (though not 

as long as doctrine), with tactics publications representing a set of possible ways to arrange and 

deploy forces in a given situation. Doctrine and tactics are designed to support mission readiness 

in an indirect fashion by imparting broad knowledge that is applied differently in different 

situations. Much more specialized and more rapidly changing are techniques and procedures, 

which capture unit-specific methods for using resources and performing tasks. These 

components of doctrine are the unit’s standard operating procedures, which must change as 

situations demand. The sharing of techniques and procedures across units increases 

organizational knowledge, and training on techniques and procedures is what facilitates mission 

readiness. 

In general, the subject matter experts we interviewed stated that current doctrine (using

the broad definition of the term) is relevant to setting training objectives, but that training 

objectives now are more common across the different branches than they were. Access to 

current doctrinal manuals may be more stovepiped than the effective training of general mission 

competencies will allow. Some subject matter experts also stated that much work must be done 

to establish employment tactics for new types of units and missions. 

In the absence of established tactics to address the transformed Army, unit commanders 

must use their best judgment for identifying mission-essential tasks, structuring collective 

training exercises, and defining assessment criteria. Unit commanders can inform their judgment 

by reviewing published lessons learned, military professional journals, and combat training 

center publications. All of these resources are available through web searching and AKO, but 

may take considerable time to locate and synthesize into meaningful implications for training. 

An additional concern is that techniques and procedures, necessary for setting training objectives 

that directly affect mission readiness, which are posted in these locations, may be dated by the 

time they appear (Baum, 2005). Unit trainers may need to access non-doctrinal resources, such 

as unit networks and other discussion forums, to capture the most up-to-date techniques and 

procedures their units must learn to be mission ready. Although this practice of horizontal 

knowledge sharing could permit the temporary dissemination of an ineffective tactic, technique, 

or procedure, it is generally recognized that facilitation, networking with experts, and selfpolicing during professional exchange help to prevent content mediocrity (e.g., Dixon, Allen, 

Burgess, Kilner, & Schweitzer, 2005; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). 

What Role Can/Do Resources from Operational Databases Play in Providing Context for a 

Training Activity? 

There is no single operational database but several, including deployed unit websites, unit 

networks, and structured professional forums. Elements in these operational databases include 

digital operational products, such as operations orders, intelligence reports, and after-action 

reviews, as well as text messages, lessons learned, emerging doctrine, training plans, and other 

resources. 

Understanding how resources from an operational database may be used to contextualize 

training involved first identifying how this contextualization occurs. Training objectives, based 

on the METL, consist of the task that must be executed, the conditions under which it must be 

8
executed, and the standards to which task performance must conform (DA, 2002). Mission tasks 

and their corresponding conditions and standards are either described in established doctrine or 

(in the absence of established doctrine) determined by unit commanders using “mission orders 

and guidance, lessons learned from similar operations, and their professional judgment” (DA, 

2002). Trainers contextualize their training by customizing the conditions and (to some extent) 

the standards they use to match a particular mission setting in which they expect their units will 

be situated. 

There are, therefore, two ways in which resources from operational databases can be used 

to provide context for training. First, elements in a database can be used to customize the 

established conditions and standards of mission tasks for a particular training activity; they can 

be directly embedded into the training activities themselves. Consider the example mission task, 

conditions, and standards from ARTEP 7-5-MTP (2003a), presented in Table 3. 

For the mission task described in the table, a unit trainer could use an operations order 

(OPORD), fragmentary order (FRAGO), or rules of engagement/rules of interaction (ROE/ROI) 

from a unit website to provide context. Alternatively (or in addition), the unit trainer could use 

building plans, photographs, or overlays to set the conditions, provided the training environment 

either replicates those buildings (e.g., through computer simulation) or the images themselves 

simulate the building, as in a DMX. Training developers at the Fort Lewis (Washington) Battle 

Command Training Center use this approach to integrate theater conditions and lessons learned 

directly into the training for units preparing to deploy (Jean, 2005). This approach provides predeployed units with a virtual “right-seat” ride, which trainers report reduces time-to-readiness 

when units arrive in theater (Jean, 2005). The unit trainer could also use existing tactical 

standing operating procedures (TSOPs) and ROE/ROI for assessing whether performance 

conforms to organizational standards. Operational database elements may also be used to 

contextualize training activities that are not directly associated with a mission task, such as 

seminars/lectures, demonstrations, and some types of leader or collective education (such as 

more generalized thinking, teamwork, or leadership skills). In these cases, database elements 

may be embedded for use as illustrative examples, bases for practical exercises, or background 

information, among other things. 

9
Table 3 

Example Mission Task, Conditions, and Standards for an Infantry Rifle Platoon 

Task Search a Building 

Condition The platoon is conducting operations as part of a larger force and has received an 

operation order (OPORD) or a fragmentary order (FRAGO) to search a building at 

the location and time specified. All necessary personnel and equipment are 

available. The platoon has communications with higher, adjacent, and subordinate 

elements. The area around the building is secure. The platoon has been provided 

guidance on the rules of engagement (ROE) and rules of interaction (ROI). 

Coalition forces and noncombatants may be present in the operational environment. 

Some iterations of this task should be conducted during limited visibility 

conditions. Some iterations of this task should be performed in mission-oriented 

protective posture, level 4 (MOPP4). 

Standard The platoon searches the building in accordance with (IAW) the tactical standing 

operating procedures (TSOP), the order, and or the commander's guidance. The 

platoon enters, searches, and exits the building while maintaining all around 

security. The platoon complies with the ROE and ROI. 

Second, multiple elements in an operational database, such as informal documents and 

text messages, can be reviewed and synthesized to inform the development of training conditions 

and standards for mission tasks that are not well established in doctrine (i.e., new techniques and 

procedures). Synthesized operational database material may also be used to customize the 

conditions for established mission tasks, but in a more indirect way. Using the example mission 

task above, text messages shared in a unit network may give the unit trainer insight into what 

(simulated) coalition forces and noncombatants should be present in the training environment--

and how they should behave--in order to maximize the realism of the exercise. Training 

developers at the National Training Center adopt this second approach. They use lessons learned 

from theater to determine opposing force tactics, civilian behaviors, and urban terrain 

characteristics that form the learning environment. 

An important caveat regarding the use of operational database resources involves the 

security classification of these resources. All elements present in unit networks and unit 

websites are classified and cannot be used as is for training unless the training exercise is itself 

classified. Moreover, unit trainers have limited opportunities to search classified websites 

because there are a relatively small number of computers connected to the classified internet. 

For these reasons, it is more likely that deployed unit trainers would use resources directly from

classified operational databases than unit trainers stateside. Stateside unit trainers may use declassified products if they are available or resources from databases that are not themselves 

classified, such as structured professional forums or lessons-learned websites. 

Design of the TA Concept 

In this section, we review the key findings of our Army training analysis and discuss their 

implications for the design of the TA concept (i.e., a full-scale, idealized capability). Our goal 

10
was to design a tool to support more rapid generation of more effective and more relevant predeployment and deployed training. 

The TA Target Audience 

Recall from the previously described training-process analysis that the label “unit trainer” 

is used to refer to a variety of individuals and that individuals can be more or less directly 

involved in unit training. Because the purpose of the TA is to support the rapid development of 

contextualized training activities, the initial scope of the TA concept design was limited to 

addressing the needs of individuals directly involved in small- to moderate-scale unit training: 

tactical unit commanders, operations and executive staff officers, non-commissioned officers, 

MSTF and HSOC trainers, and schoolhouse instructors. Emphasis was placed on mechanized 

infantry/dismounted armor trainers, as the effective functioning of these types of units is a 

critical determinant of success in the contemporary operating environment. 

That the TA must serve a variety of unit trainers--deployed or stateside--necessitates that 

the tool be accessible through a means that is easily accessed anytime from anywhere. For this 

reason, web-enabled implementation was the desired approach for TA development. Webenabled implementation does not require trainers to have specialized software to create or 

administer training. Moreover, implementation within the Army information technology 

infrastructure [i.e., using a .mil server accessible through AKO or the Battle Command 

Knowledge System (BCKS) and using AKO authentication] would ensure secure, uniform

access that is familiar to all unit trainers and their trainees. Recent updates to AKO reportedly 

have made AKO faster and easier to use, making it an ideal centralized source for training 

development and administration. In addition, unclassified operational databases, such as 

structured professional forums, the Army Center for Lessons Learned (CALL), and the Warrior 

Knowledge Base, are accessible through these portals. 

The subject matter experts we interviewed expressed wariness at the idea of a “new tool” 

and stated that the design and functionality of such a tool should be maximally consistent with 

existing technology, else it will not be used. This finding further supported our belief that TA 

implementation could occur within AKO and/or BCKS--Army-wide portals for information 

sharing--and that the look and feel of the TA should be as close as possible to that of AKO 

and/or BCKS. 

Training Development and Training Products Supported by the TA 

The TA concept enables the rapid development of training via two main functionalities. 

First, the TA enables unit trainers to create new training from scratch, assembling novel and 

existing materials to create a variety of training activities. This functionality is the heart of the 

TA and its core capability. Second, the TA enables unit trainers to modify existing training that 

has been developed by others who have used the TA to create their own new training. This 

second functionality helps trainers avoid reinventing the wheel by making the efforts of others 

easy to access and build upon (Kilner, 2002). Below we describe in detail the training 

development and products supported by the TA concept. 

11
Ideally, the TA could support the development of all of the training activities listed in 

Table 1 above. For large-scale training exercises, this capability would enable multiple trainers 

to develop the same exercise collaboratively. It could also enable trainers to modify directly 

simulation-based exercises, provided the TA and the exercise software were interoperable. For 

individual training activities, this capability would enable every Soldier and leader to be a “unit 

trainer” by designing his or her own self-training activities and even sharing these with others in 

Army structured professional forums. Decisions must be made to manage scope, however, so we 

prioritized the TA concept capabilities based on our assessment of what training is most 

frequently developed by unit trainers, what training development is most in need of embedded 

instructional strategies, and what training development is most feasible to support at this time. 

Figure 1 below depicts the training activities supported in the TA concept. This selection 

enables the development of individual, collective, and leader training activities that are not the 

primary responsibility of the institution. Rather, the TA concept places emphasis on collective 

and leader training activities, which are difficult to create but critically important to mission 

success. Figure 1 also depicts how training activities are linked to training type (individual, 

collective, and leader) and trainee type (e.g., crew, platoon, staff, etc.) in the TA concept. This 

linkage organizes training activities in a way that is meaningful to the unit trainer, and is 

intended to be flexible to address overlap among training activities and types. For example, a 

staff trainer may wish to develop a command post exercise (CPX) to train the staff on battle 

execution standing operating procedures (SOPs). The trainer may think of this as leader training 

or collective training, and in the TA concept he can access CPX by selecting either. 

Table 4 below depicts the form of training associated with each training activity such that 

once unit trainers select a training activity, they can also select a form of training consistent with 

a crawl, walk, run progression of training. For example, a unit trainer may wish ultimately to 

conduct a collective exercise, but also recognizes the need to conduct individual or leader 

training as a prerequisite. The TA concept would enable the trainer to develop each form of 

training associated with the crawl, walk, run progression using a single source. 

Individual

(may be individuals

in a group setting)

Collective Leader

Officer Soldier All Crew Sqd PL CO Staff-BN Staff-BDE PLs CO Cdrs Sqd PL CO Staff-BN Staff-BDE

Crew Drill

Sergeant’s Time/

Team Training

Dplymt Ex

Battle Drill

SOP Reh

Dplymt Ex

STX

LFX

MDMP Training

CPX

Targeting Training

Battle Staff Drill

MAPEX/STAFFEX

TEWT

Seminar/

Lecture

Msn Reh

DMX

MDMP Training

CPX

Targeting Training

Battle Staff Drill

MAPEX/STAFFEX

TEWT

Msn Reh

Seminar/

Lecture

Demonstration

Individual

(may be individuals

in a group setting)

Collective Leader

Officer Soldier All Crew Sqd PL CO Staff-BN Staff-BDE PLs CO Cdrs Sqd PL CO Staff-BN Staff-BDE

Crew Drill

Sergeant’s Time/

Team Training

Dplymt Ex

Battle Drill

SOP Reh

Dplymt Ex

STX

LFX

MDMP Training

CPX

Targeting Training

Battle Staff Drill

MAPEX/STAFFEX

TEWT

Seminar/

Lecture

Msn Reh

DMX

MDMP Training

CPX

Targeting Training

Battle Staff Drill

MAPEX/STAFFEX

TEWT

Msn Reh

Seminar/

Lecture

Demonstration

Figure 1. Training Activities Supported in the TA Concept. 

 

The TA concept produces different output, depending on the training activity and format 

selected. The output ranges from printable background materials to seminar/lecture 

presentations, to interactive computer-based exercises. For easy access, all output is in the form

12
of web pages. These can be printed, presented, shared, and viewed simultaneously (though not 

in a distributed/collaborative fashion) without specialized software available on the computer by 

which the training is accessed. The web-enabled format of the output allows trainers and 

trainees alike to access the TA from any computer that has internet access, whether deployed or 

stateside. For deployed units with limited access to the internet, stateside trainers could print and 

send training materials they have developed. 

Table 4 

Training Format by Activity 

Training Activity Training Format 

Demonstration Demonstration (when a stand-alone activity)

Seminar/Lecture Seminar/Lecture (when a stand-alone activity) 

Drill (Crew, Battle, 

Battle, Staff)

Seminar/Lecture, Demonstration, Practical Application, Drill 

Sergeant’s Time/Team

Training 

Seminar/Lecture, Demonstration, Collective Exercise 

Deployment Exercise Seminar/Lecture, Practical Application, Deployment Exercise 

SOP Rehearsal Seminar/Lecture, Practical Application, Collective Exercise 

STX Seminar/Lecture, MAPEX, TEWT, STX 

Live Fire Exercise (LFX) Seminar/Lecture, Demonstration, Practical Application, Collective 

Exercise

MDMP Training Seminar/Lecture, MAPEX, STAFFEX 

CPX Seminar/Lecture, Practical Application, CPX 

Targeting Training Seminar/Lecture, Practical Application, Targeting Training 

MAPEX/STAFFEX Seminar/Lecture, MAPEX, STAFFEX 

TEWT TEWT (activity is situation triggered) 

Mission Rehearsal Mission Rehearsal (activity is situation triggered)

DMX Think Like a Commander (TLAC) Exercise (activity is individual 

education, possibly in a group setting) 

The TA concept is also intended to support training development by providing space for 

an online training notebook. This space would enable the centralized storage of key materials 

involved in the training development process that are not themselves training, such as METLs, 

training schedules and plans, and readiness reports, among others. 

Integrating Doctrinal Resources into TA-Supported Training Development 

The results of our training analysis indicate that the TA can significantly enhance the 

training-development process by making doctrinal resources readily available via a centralized 

source and in a format that enables easy insertion into training activities. 

Figure 2 features the high-level architecture of the TA concept system. As shown in the 

figure, the selection of a training activity by the unit trainer determines the set of queries the TA 

presents to support the development of training materials for that activity. These queries enable 

13
the trainer to provide training content to the system for assembly into a completed set of training 

materials, including the content of the training activity itself as well as performance assessment 

criteria and feedback or after action review (AAR) materials, where applicable. The TA concept 

also provides content for the trainer. This content is based directly or indirectly on doctrinal 

resources and is relatively generic and modifiable to ease the training development process. 

Training Activity

STX DMX Seminar/

Lecture

Content

Activity Content Assessment Content

Generic

Content

Dbase

Generic

Content

Dbase

Digital

Products

Trainee Type

... etc.

Platoon

Leader

Company

Commander

Battalion

Staff ... etc.

Training Activity

STX DMX Seminar/

Lecture

Content

Activity Content Assessment Content

Generic

Content

Dbase

Generic

Content

Dbase

Digital

Products

Trainee Type

... etc.

Platoon

Leader

Company

Commander

Battalion

Staff ... etc.

Figure 2. High-level Architecture of TA Concept System. 

As shown in Figure 2, the TA concept stores generic modifiable content in a database 

whose fields are called up by the development queries associated with each type of training 

activity. In general, the content called up is jointly determined by the type of training activity 

and trainee type. Content that is directly based on doctrinal resources is taken verbatim from

doctrinal manuals. An example of this type of content includes the numbers assigned to drills as 

well as their associated performance procedures and assessment criteria, which can be located in 

ARTEPs. Content that is indirectly based on doctrine features material that is consistent with 

doctrine, but is not explicitly stated. An example of this type of content includes some

seminar/lecture content and background materials for collective, scenario-based training (e.g., 

STX or DMX). The integration of doctrinal resources through generic, modifiable content 

enables the trainer to develop rapidly training activities that are consistent with doctrine, but also 

enables the trainer to customize training to suit the immediate needs of his or her unit. 

Retrieving Content from the Operational Database 

As described previously, there currently is no single operational database that could 

support contextualization of the variety of training activities that unit trainers from across the 

Army might wish to generate. The lack of such a database, combined with extremely low 

14
interoperability among the extant databases, limits the degree to which a tool for supporting 

advanced training-development processes can enable contextualization without overcoming 

significant networking barriers. Tackling such networking issues was well beyond the scope of 

this research-and-development effort. At present, our TA concept design assumes a single 

operational database, in effect a tagged file repository, consistent with the vision that at some

future time all Army operational databases will be unified or interoperable. A TA concept 

capability therefore must be designed to communicate flexibly with different databases so that it 

can be implemented easily in a variety of locations (e.g., one TA “in” each structured 

professional forum). 

A major challenge to developing highly contextualized training is the constrained 

schedule of the unit trainer. Even if a training-development tool were to communicate with a 

single, universal operational database, it would still require a great deal more time than most 

trainers have to review and synthesize the resources available for determining trainingenvironment implications or informing mission task conditions and standards. A text-analysis 

tool that could automate the synthesis of operational database resources would be necessary to 

address this problem, but for reasons of scope and technical difficulty, this capability was not 

explored in the present effort. 

In order to support the development of contextualized training, therefore, the TA must

enable users to embed operational products within a training activity and must provide easy 

access to the other materials available in the operational database for review and synthesis. 

Figure 2 above shows how the TA concept integrates operational products into the trainingdevelopment process. As TA queries request content from the user, the user may provide 

content by uploading digital products that are then embedded into the output of the TA either as 

hyperlinks or (clickable) image thumbnails. 

Also, the TA must be designed such that it can be used on either the classified or the 

unclassified internet so that the full range of operational database resources may be used. Both 

the classified and unclassified internet use hypertext markup language (HTML) for displaying 

web pages and communicate using the Transfer Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP), so 

designing the TA for the unclassified internet will not require significant redesign for the 

classified internet. 

Description of the TA Phase I Prototype 

In this section, we describe the TA Phase I prototype. The Phase I prototype design was 

intended to feature a selection of the full-scale TA concept capabilities that best enabled the 

feasibility assessment of a Phase II effort. 

Create New Training – DMX 

Of the TA concept functions previously described, we focused Phase I effort on authoring 

new training activities from scratch because this functionality is the heart of the TA and its core 

capability. To manage the scope of the Phase I effort we designed the tool to support company 

commanders as trainers and platoon leaders as trainees. These leaders are likely to have the most 

15
rapidly changing training objectives and the least experience developing structured training. In 

addition, we focused our attention on developing the capability to author a DMX. 

A DMX is an “exercise used to brainstorm rough contingency courses of action in 

response to conditions which could arise during an operation. It is intended to improve dialog, 

understanding, and teamwork between commanders, subordinate commanders, and staffs”

(www.fas.org - military definitions). The DMX is not formally described in doctrine but 

evidently has emerged as useful technique for educating leaders’ ability to think adaptively in 

response to unexpected circumstances. In the face of an asymmetric, highly unpredictable 

enemy, leaders who can respond rapidly and decisively to deviations from the planned sequence 

of events (which are frequent) are best able to survive and accomplish the mission. Given the 

importance of educating adaptive thinking and the reduced likelihood that training not formally 

described in doctrine will be developed, we thought it especially critical to support unit trainers 

in creating a DMX. 

DMX Output – What Exactly Does the Unit Trainer Create?

We used the Think Like a Commander (TLAC) adaptive-thinking training methodology 

(Lussier, Shadrick, & Prevou, 2003) as the basis for designing the output of the prototype TA 

DMX authoring capability. That is, the DMX output is designed to present to trainees a brief 

scenario depicting an ongoing situation (e.g., a patrol operation), its associated context (e.g., 

higher mission and intent, status of friendly forces, general enemy tactics, etc.), and a set of 

unexpected events that occur during the ongoing situation. The DMX output requires trainees to 

indicate the factors they would consider in deciding how to handle the unexpected events and 

allows trainees to compare the factors they identified relative to those identified by an expert (or 

experts). Consistent with the TLAC methodology, the TA prototype organizes expert 

considerations using the eight expert-thinking themes described in Lussier et al. (2003). 

Figures 3a-3d below depict the output of the prototype TA DMX. The format of the 

DMX is a series of interactive web pages with which trainees review the situation, context, and 

unexpected events. This information is presented through a combination of text entered by the 

unit trainer and files uploaded by the unit trainer (i.e., operational database materials, personal 

files, etc.). Files uploaded by the trainer may appear as an embedded file or a link to file, 

depending on the format of the file. In the Phase I prototype, files that require an application to 

open (e.g., Microsoft Word) are made available through links whereas other files, such as .jpegs, 

are embedded into the output. 

16
Figure 3a. DMX “Background” Tab. 

Figure 3b. DMX “Current Situation” Tab. 

17
After reviewing these materials, trainees indicate their decision-making criteria using text 

entry. After they have completed their text entry, they may receive feedback on their responses 

by checking off the expert considerations they identified and reviewing the percentage of 

considerations in each expert-thinking theme they successfully identified. 

Figure 3c. DMX “Considerations” Tab. 

18
Figure 3d. DMX “Feedback” Tab. 

DMX Input – How Does the Unit Trainer Create a DMX? 

 

As described previously, and shown in Figure 2 earlier, the unit trainer creates a training

activity through a series of queries that are specific to that training activity. To create a DMX, 

the following queries are used and information provided by the user (in order, grayed out areas 

are optional): 

19
Table 5 

DMX User Queries 

Query Form of User Input 

Select Background Task Pull-down menu selection or text entry 

Select the Area of Operations (AO) File upload 

Specify Key Terrain Features Text entry 

Specify Higher Mission & Intent Text entry 

Specify Higher Task Organization Text entry 

Specify ROE/ROI Text entry or file upload 

Indicate Additional Context Text entry or file upload 

Specify Enemy General Tactics Text entry 

Specify Additional Enemy Intelligence Text entry or file upload 

Specify Recent Enemy Activity in the AO Text entry or file upload 

Specify Task Organization – Own Unit Text entry 

Specify Personnel/Equipment Status Text entry 

Specify Other Military Elements in the AO Text entry 

Specify Timing Text entry 

Specify Civilians Text entry 

Specify Unexpected events Text entry 

Specify Factors to consider – Keep a Focus 

on Mission/Higher’s Intent 

Text entry 

Specify Factors to consider – Model a 

Thinking Enemy 

Text entry 

Specify Factors to consider – Consider the 

Effects of Terrain 

Text entry 

Specify Factors to consider – Use all Assets 

Available 

Text entry 

Specify Factors to consider – Consider 

Timing 

Text entry 

Specify Factors to consider – See the 

Bigger Picture 

Text entry 

Specify Factors to consider – Visualize the 

Battlefield 

Text entry 

Specify Factors to consider – Consider 

Contingencies and Remain Flexible 

Text entry 

Figures 4a-4d below depict selected query screens. The user begins the query process by 

selecting a background task that is going on when unexpected events take place. The 

background tasks available for selection were pulled from training doctrine (Stryker infantry rifle 

company; DA, 2003b), chosen for the likelihood of their occurrence during stability and 

reconstruction operations. The Phase I prototype enables the selection of three of these tasks:

convoy escort, patrol operations, and re-supply operations. The selection of a background task 

triggers much of the generic, modifiable content that follows. The unit trainer may alternatively 

20
enter in a background task not listed on the pull-down menu, but this will limit the amount of 

generic, modifiable content present in the following queries. 

Figure 4a. DMX Background Task Pull-Down Menu. 

The trainer next provides text and files in response to the TA queries. Helpful hints 

boxes, which can be viewed by placing the cursor over designated areas of the display, 

accompany several of the queries listed in Table 5. Helpful hints explain what the query is 

asking for, and provide guidance for quickly providing sufficient information. 

21
Figure 4b. Example Helpful Hints Box. 

The unit trainer can track his progress via two methods. First, the trainer can use the 

progress tracker to get an idea of how far he is along in the training-development process. This 

feature helps the trainer gauge whether there is enough time to complete the DMX in one sitting 

or whether he will have to save the incomplete exercise, exit, and continue at a later time. 

22
Figure 4c. DMX Progress Tracker.

Second, the unit trainer can preview his DMX while it is in progress. This feature allows 

the trainer to review how the wording of his text will read to the trainee and make modifications 

if necessary. It also helps the trainer to visualize how the exercise will look to his trainees, a task 

which might otherwise be difficult for training activities that are not explicitly described in 

doctrine. 

 

23
Figure 4d. DMX Preview Capability. 

DMX Content – How Does Generic Content Work? 

A subject matter expert developed the generic content for the prototype TA, which is 

present in all of the required fields listed in Table 5 above (except the selection of the 

background task). In general, fields in the generic content database are called up depending on 

the background task and trainee type selected by the unit trainer. However, some fields (e.g., 

ROE/ROI, civilians, timing) are generic across all trainee types and background tasks. Generic 

content appears to the user as text already filled into a field, which may be modified or deleted, 

depending on the user’s preference. Figure 5 shows a screen capture of the prototype TA with 

generic content filled in. 

24
Figure 5. Example Generic, Modifiable Content. 

DMX Content – How are Operational Database Resources Used? 

There are several opportunities for the unit trainer to embed operational database 

resources into the DMX. These opportunities include uploading (a) depictions of a deployed 

unit’s AO (i.e., map files or map files with graphics, photographs, sketches, or other graphic 

files); (b) ROE/ROI used in theater; (c) additional contextualizing materials from an area of 

operations (AO) in theater (e.g., photographs, weather reports, incident reports, etc.); (d) 

additional enemy intelligence from deployed units’ reports (i.e., intelligence reports such as 

person files, pattern analyses, etc.); and (e) information on recent enemy activity (i.e., FRAGOs; 

text descriptions from unit networks or lessons learned sites could be pasted in the text entry 

field and modified as well). Figure 6 shows a screen capture of some operational database 

opportunities featured in the prototype TA. 

25
Figure 6. Opportunities to Use Operational Database Resources. 

In addition, the unit trainer may bypass the DMX background/situation specification 

altogether and upload an OPORD and other resources from a unit in theater. This trainer would 

begin authoring the DMX by specifying unexpected events and finish authoring the DMX by 

specifying the factors he would consider to handle these unexpected events. Building the DMX 

in this fashion would dramatically speed up the training-development process and allow trainees 

to practice reviewing the kinds of information resources they would use in the field. 

Feasibility Analysis 

Our discussions with subject matter experts indicate that the TA concept has great 

potential for saving time, increasing productivity, and improving training. A full-scale capability 

enabling the development of several collective exercises (up to STX in size and complexity) and 

individual, small-group training activities (e.g., leader training) would have broad impact and 

would be doctrinally sound and easy to use. Even after effort to manage the scope of the TA 

concept, however, implementing the full-scale concept capability cannot feasibly be 

accomplished in the Phase II effort. 

In this section, we present the results of the analysis we conducted to determine the 

design and development objectives for a feasible Phase II effort. We describe (a) how maximum 

training impact can be achieved with the Phase II TA through the selection of high-priority 

training activities and end users; (b) what generic, modifiable content and digital operational 

products should be used to maximize the tool’s flexibility and minimize administration 

requirements; and (c) how the Phase II TA should be implemented to reduce the demand on 

network administrators to prepare/maintain the tool for operational use. 

26
Achieving Maximum Training Impact with the TA

For the TA to have maximum training impact, it must either significantly shorten the time

required to create the most time-consuming training activities and/or enable the development of 

high-priority training activities that typically are neglected. Multi-echelon collective exercises 

are among the most time-consuming training activities to develop. However, the time it takes to 

generate the background materials for such exercises is only one component of this lengthy 

process. Scheduling and securing the personnel and resources required to conduct multi-echelon 

collective exercises is difficult at best and, according to the National Training Center 

observer/controllers we interviewed, generally precludes collective training at the home station. 

Collective exercises therefore are also the training activities typically neglected by unit 

commanders, who must not only accommodate scheduling and resource limitations, but who 

must also ensure that Soldiers and leaders are trained on prerequisite individual skills such that 

expensive collective training is justified. 

Unfortunately, the TA cannot solve problems of scheduling and resources, which stem

from factors outside of the training-development process. Therefore, there is some likelihood, at 

least in the immediate future, that the TA would not be used to develop several types of

collective exercise because they cannot be conducted. The TA may have greater training impact 

if applied to developing small-group individual and collective exercises, where increasing the 

speed of the training-development process can enable more frequent training in response to rapid 

changes in training need. Reducing the time required to generate small-group individual and 

collective exercises not only would facilitate the training effectiveness of unit commanders but 

also MSTF and HSOC trainers who are under heavy demand as the operating environment 

constantly changes. 

The TA also must reduce individual differences in the instructional-design savvy of unit 

trainers while simultaneously increasing their average capability. Reduction in individual 

differences is accomplished through the use of structured training-development procedures that, 

in effect, automate much of the training-development process. If the structure provided is based 

on sound instructional-design principles, average capability in training savvy concordantly will 

increase. Extensive training doctrine assists in the training-development process by 

standardizing the training materials, procedures, and outputs for a number of individual and 

collective training activities, such as MOS training, STXs, and drills. Where applicable, the TA 

concept maintains this standardization through its training-development queries. However, the 

TA concept also enables the development of training activities that are not already structured by 

doctrine, such as seminars and DMXs. The TA provides variance-reducing structure for 

developing such training activities by implementing recognized best practice (e.g., Lussier et al., 

2003) into the training-development queries. Because doctrine is already available to structure 

many training exercises, the TA would have the greatest impact on training quality by structuring 

the development of training activities not addressed by doctrine. 

Another method for reducing variance in instructional-design savvy is to ensure that 

structure is provided to those trainers in most need of it. Inexperienced leaders new to designing 

and implementing training would benefit the most from structured training-development queries. 

In a sense, these queries act as a mentor for maturing trainers who need guidance in determining 

27
the characteristics of a training activity necessary to exercise and enhance target skills. 

Moreover, junior officers are likely to develop (and require) training more frequently than more 

senior officers as they learn new techniques and procedures from their face-to-face encounters 

with threat forces. The TA therefore would have greater impact on training quality if was 

designed to support junior officers (i.e., platoon leaders and company commanders), than if it 

was focused on supporting more senior officers in the generation of background materials for 

complex collective exercises. 

Optimal Generic, Modifiable Content 

The content that is necessary for the TA to enhance the training-development process 

requires significant administration to make an effective contribution. For example, in order for 

the TA to supply generic, modifiable content drawn directly from doctrinal resources, the content 

must be in a format that is consistent with the fields present in the TA’s database. Doctrinal 

resources currently do not exist in this format, and so cannot readily be used to populate the 

tool’s database. Instead, doctrinal resources must be divided manually into smaller segments. In 

addition, as doctrine is updated, so too should the generic content database. Basing generic, 

modifiable content explicitly on doctrine would require significant, continuous involvement of 

TA administrators to prepare doctrinal materials for use by the tool. 

Where the TA does not present doctrine verbatim, generic, modifiable content must be 

generated manually through the educated interpretation of doctrine and best practice. Generation 

of this type of content requires the participation of subject matter experts and also is a timeconsuming process. To the extent that subject matter experts have experience with developing 

scenario-based training (the type of training most likely to use content that is not explicitly based 

on doctrine) and searching the internet for the latest lessons learned, generating generic, 

modifiable content that extends doctrine should be relatively straightforward. The most feasible 

implementation of the TA concept in Phase II should make maximum use of this type of generic 

content (while minimizing the overall need for generic content), which will provide greater 

return on the time invested because the content will represent the most recent information 

coming from theater. 

Optimal Operational Database Content 

The digital products the TA provides (through search and upload) to contextualize 

training are determined by the content available in the TA’s “working operational database.” 

The TA concept is not designed to communicate directly with an extant operational database 

because security and interoperability barriers make such communication infeasible. Rather, the 

TA working operational database provides an independent means to access digital products using 

the tool. This independent access not only circumvents communication barriers, but gives the 

organization implementing the TA some flexibility concerning any content they wish to restrict 

from the tool (e.g., for security reasons or concerns about information currency). The down side 

is that because there is no single Army-wide operational database, widespread adoption of the 

TA requires a network or database administrator to populate the TA working operational 

database each time the TA is newly implemented. 

28
The content in the TA’s working operational database must include file descriptions and 

path names that indicate where the digital products are located on the server, which enable the 

TA’s search functionality to work properly. Where an operational database exists formally, for 

example in a structured professional forum or a lessons-learned website, the administrator must 

migrate content from one database to the other. This is a fairly straightforward process if the 

versions of the extant operational database and the TA working operational database are 

compatible and file descriptions have already been created, but can become time consuming 

when these conditions are not met. Where an operational database does not exist formally, as in 

the case of unit websites, the TA working operational database must be populated manually, a 

process that becomes increasingly time consuming as the number of files represented in the 

database increases. 

Security classification is also an issue in implementing operational database content. 

Unit networks and unit websites require a security clearance to access, which limits the number 

of trainers who can access digital operational products. For those trainers who can access such 

products, there is the additional requirement either to hold a classified training event or to invest 

time in declassification. Fortunately, much content that can be useful for contextualizing 

training is not classified above For Official Use Only (FOUO). Given that much of the 

intelligence that Soldiers and leaders require for mission rehearsal and execution--especially 

maps and other ground truth data--often is not available (Erwin, 2006), FOUO content may be as 

useful as operational content for training. To ensure the most widespread adoption of the TA, 

the Phase II capability should be designed to produce effective training even if FOUO content is 

all that is available. 

Implementing the Phase II TA 

To state the obvious, the TA must be used as widely as possible to have maximum

impact. For the tool to be used as widely as possible, it must be easily located and must live up 

to its promise of being quick and easy to use. To be easy to locate, the TA should be accessible 

through the websites that unit trainers already visit, such as the “Important Distance Learning 

(DL) websites” section of the “My Training” website located in AKO. Other possibilities 

include Army training websites themselves, such as “Soldier’s Training Homepage.” To make 

the TA quick and easy to use, however, it should be able to communicate with an operational 

database that is densely populated with digital products whose search terms correspond to those 

that trainers would use. The websites just listed may not feature such databases. Instead, such 

databases might include the file repositories of lessons-learned websites (e.g., STRYKERNET) 

or active--and well-facilitated--structured professional forums. For the TA to be easily 

accessible and able to communicate with a useful operational database, the TA must be hosted on

a .mil server and protected with AKO authentication. Hosting on a .mil server with AKO 

authentication would not allow access to classified materials, but would enable trainers to build 

training content that is FOUO. 

Ideally, the Phase II capability would be built within the Army information technology 

infrastructure such that it is built using the actual .mil server on which it will be hosted for 

operational use. In the likely event that it is not, transition of the Phase II capability to

operational use will require the participation of the network administrators who maintain the 

29
websites into which the TA will be integrated. Specifically, the network administrator 

supporting the end user of the TA must do the following: 

1) Set up a server to host the web programming code used to create the TA. 

2) Set up a server to host the database software used to create the TA databases (separate 

generic content and working operational databases). 

3) Create the TA databases (generic, modifiable and operational) using a script provided by 

the TA developers (i.e., GIST). 

4) Populate each database with content (generic content from the TA developers, 

operational digital products from the network administrator’s own website). 

5) Create database connections to connect the TA code to the databases, such that the TA 

can pull up content from these databases to populate the user queries or enable searches 

of digital products. 

6) Set up security/access restrictions at the database- and web-level. 

To minimize the demands on the network administrator (which reduce the likelihood of 

implementation and operational use), the Phase II capability should be built using a coding 

language and database software that are already supported by the servers used to maintain the 

website into which the TA will be integrated. This consistency may eliminate the need for the 

network administrator to set up separate servers to host the TA. Servers hosting other Army

websites likely will support Microsoft SQL and the .NET framework, but it is best to identify 

and collaborate with the initial potential end users of the TA prior to making choices about how 

to develop the Phase II capability. 

Conclusions 

The findings of the above feasibility analysis suggest that the most feasible, influential, 

and immediately usable Phase II implementation of the TA concept will support junior officers, 

schoolhouse instructors, and MSTF and HSOC trainers in the development of training activities 

not supported currently by doctrine, especially the DMX. The DMX is intended to train flexible 

responding to rapidly changing enemy tactics or other unexpected events, a training objective not 

well addressed by other, doctrine-based training activities but of great importance to junior 

officers whose tactical decisions increasingly have strategic impact (McCausland & Martin, 

2001). Providing a structured DMX-development process based on best practice would enhance 

the training quality of DMXs Army-wide through reduced individual differences in instructionaldesign savvy and increased average capability. The DMX also is relatively easy to generate and 

simple to administer in the short timeframe available to train rapidly changing techniques and 

procedures. The MSTF and HSOC trainers especially would benefit from the rapid generation of 

the DMX in order to meet the great demand on them to support stateside and deployed units as 

they train in response to changes in the operational environment. Moreover, the small-group 

training provided by the DMX serves as a way to precede multi-echelon collective exercises, 

which may better prepare more senior trainers to conduct such exercises. Finally, because the 

DMX is not dependent on generic content that is explicitly based on doctrine, emphasizing the 

DMX in the Phase II capability reduces the demand on administrators to find, analyze, and 

convert doctrine into usable content. Generic content for a DMX is relatively straightforward to 

develop by subject matter experts or even other users of the TA. The DMX makes no greater 

30
demand for operational database content than any of the other training activities supported by the 

TA concept capability. 

Future Directions 

There are several feasible ways in which the Phase I prototype TA may be scaled up to an 

operational Phase II product such that it enables the rapid development of contextualized DMXs. 

The Phase I prototype currently enables only the creation of a DMX using the TLAC 

methodology and a limited range of scenario backgrounds and generic, modifiable content. In 

addition, access to operational digital products using the prototype is somewhat cumbersome and 

does not reduce the time required to locate appropriate resources. Finally, the instructional 

effectiveness of the exercise created by the prototype is constrained by limitations in the way the 

exercise is presented. Effective scaling up must expand (a) the basic functionality of the tool to 

support modification of developed training; (b) the range of methods the unit trainer can use to 

create training exercises; (c) the instructional and technological sophistication of the TA output; 

and (d) the ease with which users can access operational database content and embed it into 

training. In this section, we describe the specific requirements for Phase II TA design and 

development. We also identify the research questions for the Phase II effort. 

Requirements – Basic Functionality 

The basic functionality of the prototype TA should be expanded in Phase II in the 

following ways: 

• Enable the modification of existing training, either created by oneself or by another user 

of the TA (to include “seeding” the database with developed exercises). 

• Enable the nesting of existing training such that deliberate practice using multiple 

exercises with varying conditions can be accomplished. 

• Enable the browse or search of existing training for rapid identification of creative 

solutions, emerging best practices, and/or appropriate candidate materials. 

• Enable TA administrators to easily update generic, modifiable content through webenabled forms. 

• Enable rapid migration to the .mil server into which the TA will be integrated through use 

of consistent web-programming languages and database software. 

Requirements – Creating Exercises 

The exercise creation capability of the prototype TA should be expanded in Phase II in 

the following ways: 

• Enable the creation of dynamic multi-media exercises using input formats other than text 

entry, to include voice recording and graphics development. 

• Enable the creation of exercises using a more generic structure than is supported by the 

TLAC methodology such that simpler and more immediate training objectives can be 

addressed. 

• Present a wider range generic content formats, to include sample digital products. 

31
Requirements – Enhancing Instructional and Technological Sophistication 

The instructional and technological sophistication of the TA should be enhanced in Phase 

II in the following ways: 

• Enhance the presentation of the exercise materials to include multi-media presentation

and dynamic display of exercise events. 

• Enhance the interactivity of the trainee performance requirements beyond text entry (e.g., 

to include drag and drop and point and click). 

• Enable moderated group discussion of the exercise learning objectives/principles after

performance, but prior to feedback. 

• Provide a learning management system for tracking individual progress. 

Requirements – Accessing Operational Digital Products 

Access to operational digital products using the TA should be enhanced in Phase II in the 

following ways: 

• Enable trainer input to TA queries to automatically generate search requirements and 

results, such that information is pushed, rather than pulled from the operational database. 

• Enable search functionality to “learn” from the previous selections made by individual 

users such that search results are better targeted to user needs. 

Phase II Research Questions 

For the Phase II TA to meet the above-listed requirements, the following research 

questions must be answered: 

• What are the most rapidly changing characteristics of the operational environment and to 

what tasks/missions do these pertain? 

• How should the interface (to include a nested training functionality and individual 

learning management system) be designed to minimize system-learning/time

requirements on the users? 

• What instructional strategies (e.g., performance indicators, assessment criteria, and 

feedback) will be used for each type of training objective? 

• How should the enhanced search capability be designed to minimize search time, 

maximize search utility, and maximize search flexibility across databases? 

• How many separate DMX-development templates are required, and how should they be 

coded? 

• How should the search and DMX-development system be integrated to maximize 

efficiency? 

• What web-programming languages and database software do the servers used by the 

potential end users of the TA support?

• How will automatic database searching be triggered such that it pulls up maximally 

relevant materials, and information push is not an annoyance but an aid? 

32
References 

Abell, M. (n.d.). Soldiers as distance learners: What army trainers need to know. The 

Advanced Distributed Learning Program. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on March 

23, 2004. Available at: http://tadlp.monroe.army.mil/abell%20paper.htm 

Ancker, C. J., III, & Burke, M. D. (2003). Doctrine for asymmetric warfare. Military Review, 

July-August, 18-25. 

Baum, D. (2005, January 17). Battle lessons: What the generals don’t know. The New Yorker. 

Dixon, N. M., Allen, N., Burgess, T., Kilner, P., & Schweitzer, S. (2005). CompanyCommand: 

Unleashing the power of the Army profession. West Point, NY: Center for the 

Advancement of Leader Development and Organizational Learning. 

Erwin, S. I. (2006, January). Agency grapples with demand for detailed, timely intelligence. 

National Defense, 14-15. 

Fuller, J.F.C. (1926). The Foundations of the Science of War (Fort Leavenworth, KS: U.S. 

Army Command and General Staff College Press, 1993), 254. Reprinted from the 

original 1926 edition. 

Jean, G. (2005, October). Stryker brigades train for upcoming deployment. National Defense, 

36-37. 

Kilner, P. (2002). Transforming Army learning through communities of practice. Military

Review, 82(3), 21-17. 

Lussier, J. W., Shadrick, S., & Prevou, M. I. (2003). Think like a commander prototype: 

Instructor’s guide to adaptive thinking (Research Product 2003-02). Alexandria, VA: US 

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

McCausland, J. D., & Martin, G. F. (2001). Transforming strategic leader education for the 21st

Century Army. Parameters, Autumn, 17-33. 

Schoomaker, P. J., & Brownlee, R. L. (2004). Serving a nation at war: A campaign quality 

Army with joint and expeditionary capabilities. Washington, DC: Army Strategic 

Communications. 

US Department of the Army. (1984, September). FM 25-4: How to conduct training exercises. 

Washington, DC. 

US Department of the Army. (2002, October). FM 7-0: Training the force. Washington, DC. 

US Department of the Army. (2003a, May). ARTEP 7-5-MTP: Mission training plan for the 

Stryker brigade combat team infantry rifle platoon and squad. Washington, DC. 

33
US Department of the Army. (2003b, September). FM 7-1: Battle focused training. 

Washington, DC. 

US Army Training & Doctrine Command (1999, March). Systems approach to training 

management, processes, and products. Fort Monroe, VA. 

US Army Training & Doctrine Command (2004, May). Guide for developing collective training 

products. Fort Monroe, VA. 

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. 

Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. 

34
Appendix A 

List of Acronyms

AAR After Action Review 

AKO Army Knowledge Online 

AO Area of Operations 

ARTEP Army Training and Evaluation Program

 BCKS Battle Command Knowledge System

 CALL Center for Lessons Learned 

 CATS Combined Arms Training Strategies 

 CPX Command Post Exercise 

DA Department of the Army

 DL Distance Learning 

 DMX Decision-Making Exercise 

 

 FM Field Manual 

FOUO For Official Use Only 

FRAGO Fragmentary Order 

FTX Field Training Exercise 

GIST Global Information Systems Technology, Inc. 

HSOC Home Station Operations Center 

HTML Hypertext Markup Language 

HumRRO Human Resources Research Organization 

 IAW In Accordance With 

 LFX Live Fire Exercise 

 MAPEX Map Exercise 

MDMP Military Decision-Making Process 

 METL Mission-Essential Task List 

MOPP4 Mission-Oriented Protective Posture, Level 4 

MOS Military Occupational Specialty 

MSTF Mission Support Training Facility 

MTP Mission Training Plan 

OPORD Operations Order 

ROE Rules of Engagement 

ROI Rules of Interaction 

A-1
SOP Standing Operating Procedures 

STAFFEX Staff Exercise 

STP Soldier Training Publication 

STTR Small-Business Technology Transfer 

STX Situational Training Exercise 

TA Training Assistant 

TC Training Circular 

TCP/IP Transfer Control Protocol/Internet Protocol

TEWT Tactical Exercise without Troops 

TLAC Think Like a Commander 

TRADOC US Army Training and Doctrine Command 

TSOP Tactical Standing Operating Procedures 

TSP Training Support Package 

A-2