Research Product 2006-13 

Training Support Package Determination Methodology 

Roy A. Krueger 

David W. Olson 

Dynamics Research Corporation 

 

 

 

September 2006 

Armored Forces Research Unit 

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 

Dynamics Research Corporation 

Technical review by 

James D. Brewer, Unit of Action Maneuver Battle Lab, Fort Knox, KY 

Robert K. Bauer, Directorate of Training, Doctrine, and Combat Development, 

 Fort Knox, KY 

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this Research Product 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: DAPE-ARI-MS, 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926 

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Research Product 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 Research Product 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) 

 September 2006 

2. REPORT TYPE 

 Final 

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to) 

 January 2006 - August 2006 

 

5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER 

 W74V8H-04-D-0048 DO#03 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Training Support Package Determination Methodology 5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

 633007 

5c. PROJECT NUMBER 

 A792 

5d. TASK NUMBER 

 275 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Roy A. Krueger and David W. Olson (Dynamics Research 

Corporation)

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

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

Dynamics Research Corporation 

60 Frontage Road 

Andover, MA 01810 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 

10. MONITOR ACRONYM 

 ARI 

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

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

Sciences

ATTN: DAPE-ARI-IK 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway 

Arlington, VA 22202-3926

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER 

 Research Product 2006-13 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

 Contracting Officer’s Representative and Subject Matter POC: Billy L. Burnside 

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): 

This Research Product describes a methodology for specifying needs for future training support packages. It 

includes a series of templates and associated questions to be completed and answered by training developers. 

Application of the methodology results in a list of training support packages, described in terms of the echelons and 

tasks to be trained. The methodology also results in prioritization of the training support packages to be produced. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS 

Training Support Packages Future Force Training Training Management 

Training Requirements Training Design 

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 

16. REPORT 

 Unclassified 

17. ABSTRACT 

 Unclassified 

18. THIS PAGE

 Unclassified

19. LIMITATION OF

 ABSTRACT 

 Unlimited

20. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

 

49 

21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

 

Ellen Kinzer

Technical Publications 

Specialist 

(703) 602-8047

i 

 
ii 

 
Research Product 2006-13 

Training Support Package Determination Methodology 

Roy A. Krueger 

David W. Olson 

Dynamics Research Corporation 

 

 

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

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926 

September 2006 

633007A792 Personnel Performance 

 and Training 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

iii 
iv 
TRAINING SUPPORT PACKAGE DETERMINATION METHODOLOGY 

CONTENTS 

Page 

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

Training Support Package Determination Methodology Overview ............................................. 1

Methodology Execution................................................................................................................ 3 

Phase I: Identify the Potential Tasks...................................................................................... 3

Phase II: Organize the Selected Tasks into TSPs .................................................................. 5 

Phase III: Prioritize the TSPs.................................................................................................11 

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................11 

Appendix A. Blank Templates.................................................................................................. A-1 

Appendix B. Completed Example Templates........................................................................... B-1 

Appendix C. Collective Task Identification ............................................................................. C-1 

 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. TSP determination methodology flowchart.................................................................. 2

v 
vi 
TRAINING SUPPORT PACKAGE DETERMINATION METHODOLOGY 

Introduction 

The purpose of this project was to assist the Unit of Action Maneuver Battle Lab 

(UAMBL) at Fort Knox with developing an objective means of determining required future 

collective training support packages (TSPs), along with a means to prioritize the TSPs. The 

initial application of this methodology was a proof of principle for the Future Combat Systems 

(FCS) Spin Out 1 (SO1) technologies to be fielded to the Evaluation Brigade Combat Team

(EBCT) in 2008. Since this methodology can be used by institutions and training development 

organizations as well as operational units, a procedure tailorable to user needs was required. 

These needs range from a quick guide to assist in identifying commonly known supporting tasks 

and TSP requirements to the detailed analysis necessary for evolving tasks and unclear training 

requirements. As a result, the TSP determination methodology includes procedures designed to 

focus on both known tasks and immature or evolving tasks. The methodology described in this 

product walks the training developer through a logical thought process that considers all areas 

that could impact TSP development requirements. The methodology does not provide a solution 

to what specific contents should be placed into a TSP, but it does provide for focus on the 

developer’s specific needs. 

Training Support Package Determination Methodology Overview 

The TSP determination methodology provides training developers and/or decisionmakers a set of tools to consistently consider and analyze key training variables required to 

produce optimally tailored/resourced collective TSPs for any echelon. The methodology is 

divided into three distinct phases which are initiated upon receipt of a training mission and/or 

training guidance. These phases are: 

Phase I. Identify the potential tasks 

Phase II. Organize the selected tasks into TSPs 

Phase III. Prioritize the TSPs 

A series of 11 baseline questions and 8 templates are provided as part of the methology to 

facilitate training variable consideration, analysis, decision-making and uniform data collection 

for each phase. The 11 questions are spread throughout the first two phases and are designed to 

ensure continuity of thought and consistency of variable consideration and analysis for the most 

prevelant training variables requisite to sound training design and development. The templates 

further facilitate this process by organizing and recording pertinent data and decisions into 

definable products. 

Figure 1 is the TSP determination methodology flowchart. It represents a simplified view 

of the methodology using a “yes or no” process. For instance, after producing Template 1 the 

developer determines if a Combined Arms Training Strategy (CATS) is available. If it is, 

analysis is simplified and production flows into Templates 2 and 4. If no CATS is available, the 

developer must do more detailed analysis to produce Template 3 before work begins on 

Template 4. Templates 2, 3, 5, and 6 are marked with dashed lines which signify that they may 

1 
or may not be needed. Templates 2 and 3 are used based on information availability while 

Templates 5 and 6 are used based on training requirements and user needs. 

It is highly recommended that first time users of this methodlogy review these questions 

and templates (appendices A-C) before beginning Phase I of the methodology. Examples of 

completed templates (using the FCS SO1 technologies) can be found in Appendix B, while the 

complete SO1 proof of principle can be found on the attached CD. 

Figure 1. TSP determination methodology flowchart. 

2 
This methodology uses several symbols to highlight information. Critical information, 

such as methodology concepts and product summaries, is highlighted in a box to focus the user’s 

attention on a key issue. Questions that are designed to assist the user with mission analysis are 

labeled “Q1” through “Q11.” Answers to the questions do not need to be written out on a 

template. They are intended to stimulate and focus the developer’s thoughts. Sections of this 

document that introduce a required product are annotated by a small box . Templates 1-8 are 

in bold to highlight references to products developed from this methodology. Blank templates 

are shown in Appendix A. Electronic versions are included on the attached CD for training 

developers’ use. 

Although the methodology is intended to be executed sequentially, the inextricable linkages that 

exist between the planning consideration variables and decisions made within each phase will 

cause the developer to move forward and backward between steps in order to ensure complete 

analysis and continuity of thought throughout the process. An example of this is the continued 

referral to data on Templates 1, 2, and 3 throughout Phases I and II. 

Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) is the Army proponent for TSPs. This 

headquarters has produced TRADOC Regulation 350-70, “Systems Approach to Training 

Management, Process, and Products.” Part V, Chapter V-7 (url: http://www.tradoc.army.mil 

/tpubs/regs/r350-70/350_70_v_7.htm#V-7) specifically discusses TSPs. Paragraph V-7-3 a. 

defines a TSP as, “... a complete, exportable package integrating training products, materials, 

and information necessary to train one or more critical tasks. Its contents will vary depending on 

the training site and user.” 

Methodology Execution 

Phase I: Identify the Potential Tasks

Overview. This phase requires the developer to research existing training literature and 

doctrine for the appropriate tasks required to meet the training objectives. Tasks for Phase I 

products can be drawn from these sources: 

• Combined Arms Training Strategy (CATS) 

• Army Universal Task List (AUTL) 

• Universal Joint Task List (UJTL) 

• Army Doctrinal Manuals 

• Mission Essential Task List (METL), which is unit/organization specific and normally 

based on: 

o Wartime operations plans (OPLANS) 

o Enduring combat capabilities (the unique contributions a type of unit makes to 

ensure the Army successfully accomplishes any mission, anytime, anywhere) 

o Operational environment 

o Directed missions 

o External guidance 

• Operational concepts 

• Requirements documents 

• Databases from the proponent or development organizations that are overseeing new 

equipment or capabilities being fielded to the Army. 

3 
Q1: What decisions impacting on TSP development have already been made?

• What decisions have been made concerning TSP development and production? 

• What is the decision-maker’s training guidance? 

• Have long-term TSP requirements been developed and approved? Where does this set of 

TSPs fall into the master plan? 

• What is the master TSP development timeline?

• When does the training audience require the TSPs, in which sequence?

• For new equipment/technology, what is the Basis of Issue Plan (BOIP) (Template 1, 

Distribution Matrix)?

• When will new systems be fielded to units ready to train?

 Do Distribution Matrix (Appendix A, Template 1). 

Identify what echelons (e.g., infantry platoon or engineer company) have new equipment 

and/or training capability gaps. Capability gaps are defined as the difference between a unit’s 

current training level and desired training level. Completion of the distribution matrix will focus 

the developer on the echelons requiring one or more TSPs. This list gives an echelon focus for 

task selection with the Collective Task List (Template 2) or Task by Echelon Matrix (Template 

3), resulting in an Initial TSP Requirements List (Template 4) at the start of Phase II.

 Do Collective Task List (Appendix A, Template 2). This spreadsheet is used when a CATS 

or METL is available (if not, go to Template 3). 

 Develop Template 2 for tasks required at each of the echelons indicated by completion 

of the distribution matrix (Template 1). Each task group (consisting of one critical and several 

supporting tasks) taken from the CATS will already be associated with an echelon; METL tasks 

will require identification of supporting tasks. Ensure that all tasks appropriate to the identified 

Template 1 echelons and overall training objectives are consolidated on Template 2. Appendix 

C, Collective Task Identification, discusses task selection in greater detail. 

 Do Task By Echelon Matrix (Appendix A, Template 3). This spreadsheet is only used when 

a CATS or METL is unavailable to the user. 

Template 3 has utility if a new capability is quickly fielded to the Army before 

TRADOC can develop a CATS or other training literature. The proponent or developer of the 

capability will most likely be able to provide draft tasks to the user. A review of the Army

Universal Task List (AUTL) will also assist in selecting appropriate tasks. The source of these 

collective tasks might not separate them into primary and supporting tasks nor specify what 

echelons must execute them. Consolidate the tasks appropriate to each of the levels indicated by 

completion of the distribution matrix (Template 1). Template 3 provides a means to allocate 

these tasks to the echelons requiring TSPs, including those echelons that command and control 

(C2) units executing the tasks. Appendix C discusses task selection in greater detail. 

At the completion of this phase, the developer will have the following products for continued 

analysis: 

• A distribution matrix (Template 1) identifying echelons. 

• A collective task list (Template 2), used when a CATS is available, or

• A task by echelon matrix (Template 3), used when CATS is not available. 

4 
Phase II: Organize the Selected Tasks into TSPs

Overview. After identifying echelons requiring one or more TSPs (Template 1) and the 

potential tasks (Templates 2 or 3), the user will conduct an initial refinement of tasks and TSPs 

on Template 4. Templates 5 and 6 are optional, as discussed later in this section. This Phase 

will conclude when the final TSP requirement list (Template 7), which includes a refined task 

breakdown per TSP, is completed. The user will consider the questions in Phase II in order to: 

a. Refine knowledge and understanding of the training environment in which the TSPs 

will be used.

b. Determine specific unit or training event peculiarities that may impact on TSP 

contents. 

c. Specify TSP requirements needed to meet the commander/decision-maker’s guidance. 

Analysis gained from Phases I and II will prove beneficial during actual TSP development. 

 Develop the Initial TSP Requirements List (Appendix A, Template 4): 

The initial TSP requirements list either refines the collective task list (Template 2) or 

facilitates the organization and refinement of the task by echelon matrix (Template 3) into 

Template 4. Tasks will be associated with each potential Template 1 echelon based on training 

objectives and training guidance. 

The user can conduct a great deal of refinement on the tasks and TSPs when initially developing 

Template 4. These refinements will continue as questions 2-11 are considered, and can be 

impacted by the results of the task training matrix (Template 5) and the task analysis matrix 

(Template 6). An experienced trainer could develop an initial TSP requirements list that needs 

little refinement before the decision maker judges it as final. Inexperienced personnel may find 

that after considering all the questions in Phase II much additional sorting of tasks is required. 

The initial TSP requirements list will evolve into the final TSP requirements list by the 

conclusion of Phase II. 

When organizing tasks into TSPs, the developer will be faced with two basic options for 

Template 4: either a CATS and/or METL are available, or they are not. General considerations 

for the two options are listed below. Specific discussion on task selection for TSPs follows the 

two options described below. 

For CATS/METL based collective task lists: 

• CATS task groups are designed as starting points for selection of related tasks. The 

developer will go to the CATS applicable to the echelons identified in Template 1 and 

find the task groups for those echelons. He will make an initial assessment in changing 

specific supporting tasks to better complement the critical tasks, based on the desired

training focus of each TSP. 

• Separation of tasks into more than one TSP per echelon may be required for the 

following reasons: 

o Some task groups may contain too many tasks to feasibly train during a training event 

and require separation into two or more TSPs. 

o Some task groups may not contain all supporting tasks needed to meet specific 

training objectives. 

5 
For non-CATS based collective task lists (usually for newly emerging capabilities): 

• The developer may be required to designate critical tasks with likely supporting tasks 

(use the CATS framework as a guideline for the task groups). Critical tasks will be based 

on the most important missions the capability will be used for, in conjunction with attack, 

defend, security, stability, and civil support operations. Existing doctrine, training 

literature, and/or concept papers on the capability will assist in selecting supporting tasks 

that would normally occur with the critical task. This effort results in the initial TSP 

requirements list (Template 4). 

• The developer must now carefully analyze the questions in Phase II in order to fully 

consider the applicability of the initial TSP requirements list (Template 4). Many of the 

tasks associated with the capability may be the same as current force tasks, only with 

additional or modified performance measures and steps. A review of the CATS for a 

similar type capability may assist in refining task groups with echelon requirements. 

• From this point, the sequence of effort described in the first option (CATS/METL based) 

applies to this option.

Developers must determine how many tasks will be included in a given TSP. There is no 

correct answer, as the scope of the TSP will vary based on training circumstances and 

commander/decision maker desires. As a rule of thumb, 4 to 7 collective tasks in a company or 

below TSP is adequate for short duration situational training exercise (STX) lanes, while an 

extended field training exercise may include more. When organizing groups of tasks into 

potential TSPs, the developer will consider: 

• Commander/decision-maker guidance. 

• What tasks placed together create a natural sequence of events? 

• Does execution of the tasks call for near simultaneous events or are the tasks spaced out 

in time? Multiple near simultaneous events are normally done only for units at the “run” 

stage of training. 

• Is the TSP being developed for a specific training event only? This would generally call 

for a smaller number of focused tasks. 

• Is the TSP being developed for long term use and re-use, as an “archival” TSP? This 

may allow for a greater number of tasks to be included, if the TSP is designed as a large 

scenario encompassing multiple types of operations over time. Often this type of TSP 

allows a user to pick and choose selected tasks/scenarios for focused training events as 

well as providing a training scenario for a higher level organization over an extended 

training event. 

• Based on training requirements, what are the likely “After Action Review (AAR) points” 

where training is halted for AARs or evaluation? How will the AARs and retraining time

impact on the number of tasks in TSPs developed solely for specific training events? 

Limited time for specific events will generally call for fewer tasks in the TSP. 

If the developer knows overall training exercise time constraints and has a general 

concept of the training event flow from the commander/decision-maker, he can make some

rough estimates. He will determine: 

• Available training time for the duration of the exercise. 

• The number of tasks in a given training event e.g., a STX lane, live fire exercise, 

constructive/virtual simulation, etc.). 

6 
• Length of time required to execute the training events (e.g., 1 1⁄2 hour). 

• The training event time must include the approximate duration of time required for both 

the AAR and associated movement time (e.g., 30 min). 

• Time set aside for retraining. 

• The developer will subtract time set aside for retraining from total available training time. 

• The developer will divide the event plus AAR time (ex: 2 hours) into the remaining 

available training time (ex: 12 hours), providing an estimate of how many training events 

can be conducted in the available time (12 hours divided by 2 hours equals 6 training 

events). 

• Multiply the average number of tasks in a given training event with the number of

training events to get an estimate of how many tasks should be in the TSP. Consider that 

a number of supporting tasks, such as “support by fire,” may be in multiple training 

events. 

Consider command and control training requirements when identifying potential TSPs. 

Tasks executed at company, battery, troop, and below may cause significant additions to staff 

planning and preparation, creating a need for one or more TSPs at the staff level. Conversely, 

company, battery, troop, or below TSPs may require a component section of that unit’s TSP to 

integrate a higher headquarters multi-echelon training requirement into the same TSP. 

Continued mission analysis will refine the initial TSP requirements and associated tasks. As 

discussed, the following questions are designed to cause the developer to consider factors 

impacting on the training events conducted using the TSPs. Small numbers of TSPs with wellknown tasks are likely to require simple “consideration by exception.” This means the TSP 

developer is very familiar with the tasks and circumstances surrounding the unit who will use the 

TSP, and he is looking for standout issues affecting TSP development and execution. Complex, 

new, or large numbers of TSP requirements will create a need for expanded analysis. An 

example of how answers to the questions could impact on the TSPs follows: 

• What tasks to select for a TSP: questions 2, 7, 10, and 11. 

• Unit training level proficiency: questions 3, 8 and 9. 

• The scenario/environment in which to conduct the tasks: question 4. 

• Constraints on training requiring fewer tasks or tasks that do not compete for the same

resources: questions 5 and 6. 

Q2: How are TSPs to be ultimately nested with different echelons throughout a BCT (or higher/ 

other echelon if required)?

• How many higher levels of headquarters (HQs) are involved, and which of their 

Command Posts and/or cells are needed to train this TSP?

• Does the TSP require vertical and/or horizontal linking with other echelons to accomplish 

all the training objectives? 

• Is the TSP designed to be used with a master TSP common scenario (mission, enemy, 

troops, terrain, time, and civil [METT-TC] commonality with past and future TSPs for 

use within the Brigade Combat Team (BCT) or other parent organization)?

• Is the training unit expected to conduct the TSP tasks as an integral part of a higher level 

collective task or are the tasks stand alone and applicable in a broad array of mission 

sets?

7 
Q3: Does doctrine exist for the TSP tasks?

• Is the doctrine comprehensive and well-understood?

• Is there an operational need requiring specific training, even if doctrine is lacking or old?

• Is the TSP usable by schoolhouses and other institutional organizations as well as 

operational units?

Q4: Is the TSP being designed for a specific environment or the full spectrum of operations 

(FSO)?

• Can the TSP be used in multiple live, virtual, and constructive (LVC) environments or is 

it designed for a specific training environment?

• Can the tasks within the TSP be used in multiple geographic environments or is it for a 

specific environment? 

Q5: What are the unit/Army training requirements?

• Will the TSP require units to have reach back capability to access data such as threat, 

weather, and terrain data? 

• Will the TSP allow for increasing unit level of proficiency (the event can be made easier 

or more difficult)?

• What are the means by which higher HQ sends information to, and receives information 

from, its subordinates? Does the TSP integrate this?

• Will the information exchanges be established within the TSP and is the tactical scenario 

established that will take advantage of this better situational awareness and 

understanding?

• Can the training unit replicate the threat required for the tasks in the TSP?

• Is the TSP designed to be used with the unit’s operational deployment equipment?

Q6: What are the resource constraints the training audience will train under? 

• How much time is needed to train the tasks? Does training time available constrain TSP 

requirements? 

• What resource constraints does the unit work under (Class III, V, VII, IX, ranges, training 

areas, etc.)? 

• Will Joint, Interagency, and or Multinational assets be a necessary part of the TSP 

training requirements? 

• Does the unit have the required personnel and unit equipment to use the TSP?

• How will the TSP be presented to the training audience (desktop, paper, embedded, etc.)? 

• (If applicable) Will the training media development timeline support the operational 

training timelines?

• What will be the geographical spread of the training audience and supporting 

agencies/organizations? 

• Are appropriate facilities available? 

• What are the training aids, devices, simulators, and simulations (TADSS)/live, virtual, 

and constructive (LVC) requirements, and are they available to the unit? 

Q7: What are the administrative constraints? 

• What is the security classification of the TSP and will it hinder training? 

8 
• Are there any higher headquarters directives dictating TSP requirements?

• What are the basic guidelines and procedures for the use of combat, combat support, and 

combat service support systems? Will this adequately meet TSP requirements?

Q8: What are the impacts of new individual tasks on collective tasks?

• How much train up time is required for the operators/executors to learn their new tasks? 

• How much training time is required for Soldiers to master their role within the new 

collective tasks?

• How much train up time is required for leaders on new tasks and leadership 

requirements?

• Will this train up be complete before executing the collective TSPs? 

• Do any current force behaviors/attitudes/way of thinking change due to the new 

capabilities?

Q9: What are the impacts of new collective tasks on current mission sets?

• How difficult or complex are the new tasks? 

• Are the new tasks performed often during an operation or mission?

• Have any changes to current standards or tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) been 

identified? 

• How important are the new capabilities to mission success? 

• Do any current force behaviors/attitudes/way of thinking change due to the new 

capabilities?

Q10: Should the TSPs be structured by echelon (i.e., one specific size unit is the primary 

training audience) or multi-echelon? 

• Review training objectives and guidance, the distribution matrix, and the initial TSP 

requirements list. 

• Are the core tasks defined by echelon or by function (two or more echelons can use the 

same TSP)? 

• How will the required collective tasks be trained? 

o Will they be executed together? 

o Do they require different training events to adequately train?

• Will the TSP be small and focused on a specific training event? 

• Will the TSP be extensive, covering multiple types of operations in an overall scenario 

(ex: a mix of offense, defense, and surveillance, reconnaissance, and observation 

[SRO]), and including many component pieces?

• What are the consequences if a given TSP or group of TSPs is not available during 

training?

Q11: What component sections are required in the TSP and how will it be updated and or 

modified?

• What topics must be included in the TSP to replicate expected operational environments?

• Is it supportive of repetitive commander, staff, and or leader training (can be performed 

in a variety of ways)?

9 
• What process will be used to provide the TSP developer with pertinent TTPs developed 

as a result of combat, on-going operations, field training, or testing exercises?

• Can modifications be standardized, controlled, and managed for use across the range of

intended users of this TSP?

• If a TSP is updated, who is the central approving authority?

• What critical events would cause an adjustment to, or reprioritization of, TSP 

development?

• Are there any additional considerations, such as capabilities evaluation requirements or 

equipment tests?

 Do Task Training Matrix (Appendix A, Template 5). This matrix is only needed when 

dealing with long term training strategies, comprehensive TSPs, or newly fielded, complex 

systems. 

This template is designed to facilitate the development of a detailed, progressive training 

plan. The developer will identify task training requirements: crawl, walk, run; live, virtual, or 

constructive (LVC). This matrix is most useful for development organizations and institutions

when dealing with complex systems or when developing a training strategy for Army-wide use. 

The information from this matrix will assist in the development of a TSP and overall training 

strategy. (For example, the task training matrix may identify a series of tasks best performed in a 

virtual environment during the “walk” stage. The developer will build a TSP with those specific 

tasks as the critical and supporting tasks. Other “walk” tasks might not be trained until the unit 

is in a live environment.) 

 Do Task Analysis Matrix (Appendix A, Template 6). This matrix is only used for tasks with 

which the developer is experienced because it requires a subjective assessment based on 

experience. 

This template is designed to conduct task analysis to determine the difficulty, importance, 

and frequency of tasks. The results assist in prioritization of tasks for inclusion in TSPs and 

assist the commander in determining what tasks should be trained first. This analysis requires 

trainers experienced with the equipment, capabilities, and/or tasks to make subjective 

assessments. The matrix incorporates the METL assessment of the tasks as an aid to focus 

training during periods of limited available time. Analysis may also identify critical tasks that 

should be included in more than one TSP. 

 

 Finalize the TSP Requirements List (Appendix A, Template 7). 

Based on mission analysis refinement, adjust the supporting tasks with critical tasks, 

identify if there are additional TSPs required, and then match the tasks with the TSPs (Appendix 

B provides examples of this). General steps to follow:

• Place the (approximately) four to seven most important supporting tasks with the critical 

tasks associated with each TSP. The other supporting tasks are considered “below the 

line,” where the unit will not be able to train them with the given TSP.

• Review the remaining supporting tasks to find logical groupings of similar tasks that 

could become a separate TSP. If the task groups potentially fall within the training 

objectives, identify them as a new TSP. The developer will pick an appropriate name to 

describe the new task group. 

• Do this for all identified task groups until complete.

10 
At the completion of this phase, the developer will have the following products for continued 

analysis: 

• A task training matrix to guide long term planning (optional). 

• A task analysis matrix useful for prioritizing tasks for specific event TSPs and to 

prioritize which tasks get trained first (optional-only use when the developer is very 

experienced with the tasks). 

• A final TSP requirements list, refined from the initial TSP list. 

Phase III: Prioritize the TSPs

Overview. This phase is the culmination of all previous analysis. The final TSP 

requirements list (Template 7) resulted in a series of TSPs with associated tasks. This phase 

takes those TSPs and assesses them based on a series of decision matrix questions, which in turn 

were built based on the questions and analysis conducted throughout the methodology. Each 

TSP will then be compared to the other TSPs to create a rank ordered set of TSPs. Once the 

commander or decision-maker has approved the list, development resources are allocated to 

production based on the priority. 

Review the TSP training objectives, completed analysis and the matrices to ensure 

mission analysis and TSP development have considered all pertinent information to objectively 

develop the prioritization plan. 

 Do Prioritization Matrix (Appendix A, Template 8). 

Use the prioritization matrix for the baseline TSP priority. Answer the “yes or no” 

questions, which are based on the questions and analysis conducted prior to this step. Determine 

what, if any, criteria the approving authority considers more important than other factors 

(weighting considerations) and apply them to the matrix. The user may choose to include 

additional criteria (questions) to add to this decision matrix. Rank order the TSPs based on the 

score results shown in the priority matrix (Template 8). 

The list of TSPs to be prioritized will be developed in a manner where the unweighted 

and weighted scores provided by Template 8 can be listed as an aid in prioritization. An 

example of how to display this information follows: 

Echelon/TSP Unweighted Weighted 

 

Reconnaissance Squadron (RS) 

 Scout Platoon (SCT PLT): Dismounted Recon/Surveillance 

 

Infantry (IN) PLT: Plan and Prepare for Operations 

Conclusion 

Upon completion of these steps, the user will have a prioritized list of TSPs, to include 

associated tasks, covering all identified echelons requiring this support. When the decisionmaker approves the list, developmental resources should be dedicated in the TSP sequence listed. 

11 
This will ensure that the most critical training requirements, based on specific user need, will be 

completed first. An example of the completed methodology for the Future Combat System Spin 

Out 1 capabilities can be found on the attached CD. The results of using this methodology for 

the SO1 technologies were provided to the Unit of Action Maneuver Battle Lab in June 2006. 

 

12 
Appendix A 

Blank Templates 

A-1 
Template 1. Distribution Matrix 

Purpose: This template is designed to identify all echelons impacted by new capabilities, requirements, or

equipment (units on this template are tailored to Heavy Brigade Combat Team & EBCT, other units will need to tailor

this template to their organization).

Steps:

1. Identify the new capability, requirement or equipment in numbered columns, on the "New capabilities" row

2. Mark echelons gaining the item with an "x." For equipment, place the total number of systems at each echelon 

3. Identify where there are C2 impacts and mark appropriate echelons with "C2."

4. Boxes with an "x" and/or "C2" show initial (potential) TSP requirements.

5. Use this completed template with the collective task list (Template 2) to do the initial TSP requirements list. This

matrix provides the list of potential TSPs (based on boxes marked with an "x" or "C2") used to focus task selection 

from the CATS or METL. If a CATS or METL is not available to make a collective task list, use this completed matrix 

to provide the potential TSPs for use with the task by echelon matrix (Template 3).

1 2 3 4 5 6

New capability,

requirement or

basis of issue 

plan item

HBCT totals

BCT

CDR and Staff

HHC

BSTB

CDR and Staff

HHC

MP PLT

CBRN Recon PLT

Network SPT CO

MI CO

Analysis & 

Integration PLt

TUAV PLT

Grd Coll PLT

2 CABs CAB

are in the CDR and Staff

BCTs; HHC

double IN CO(x2)

these IN PLT(x6)

numbers Tank CO(x2)

for BCT Tank PLT(x6)

CAB Scout PLT

totals ENG CO

ENG PLT(x2)

ENG OBS SEC

Mortar PLT

Medical PLT

Sniper Sec

A-2 
Recon SQD

CDR and Staff

HHT

Recon TRP(x3)

Recon PLT(x6)

Mortar SECx3

Fires BN

CDR and Staff

HHB

Fires Battery x2

TA PLT x1

NLOS-LS PLT

BSB

CDR and Staff

HHC

Sup & Distro CO

Trans PLT

Fuel & Water PLT

Supply PLT

Field Maint CO

Maint PLT

 Medical CO

Treatment PLT

Evac PLT

FCS x4

Distro PLT

Maint PLT

A-3 
Template 2. Collective Task List 

After the developer has completed Template 1 (the distribution matrix) he will gather

associated tasks for each of the identified echelons. The template used for identifying the list of 

collective tasks (Template 2) is designed to evolve into Template 4 (the initial TSP requirements 

list) and ultimately into Template 7 (the final TSP requirements list). Template 2 is based on 

data gathering with limited initial analysis. The tasks are listed in related groups of tasks, called 

“task groups.” Each identified task group is potentially a separate TSP. The outline for this 

template is shown below, along with instructions for filling it out. 

 Task: 

 Source: 

 Supporting Tasks: 

Instructions: 

Task. Annotate the overall name of the task group, such as “Conduct Area/Zone 

Reconnaissance.” Include the impacted echelon and task number (RS Scout Platoon, 17-TS3116). 

Source. Label as CATS, METL, or other source as appropriate. 

Supporting Tasks. List all collective tasks that contribute to accomplishing the task group. If 

using the CATS, the Army has provided an initial breakdown of tasks with supporting tasks. If 

the CATS are unavailable, the developer will be required to identify the task group name and 

supporting tasks from other sources. 

 

 

A-4 
Template 3. Task by Echelon 

Purpose: This template is designed to identify all tasks associated with a given echelon requirement for a TSP. It is optional and

will be used only when CATS is unavailable (units on this template are tailored to HBCT & EBCT, other units will need to tailor unit breakdown

to their organization). Sources for these tasks may be immature, causing the developer to determine what echelons execute a given task.

Steps:

1. Identify task number and task title for all tasks associated with new requirements or capabilities

2. Mark each echelon that directly executes the task with an "x."

3. Mark each echelon that incorporates the task into their planning (usually next higher HQs or supported HQs) with "C2."

4. Use this completed template with template 1 "distribution" to determine an initial list of required TSPs (template 1 identifies what echelons

are likely to need TSPs) and then place groups of tasks from this matrix against the tentative TSP echelons. Using these two templates allows

the developer to double check that all levels with new equipment or capabilities have tasks assigned against them.

I

N

C

o

m

p

a

n

y

I

N

P

L

T

A

R

C

o

m

p

a

n

y

A

R

P

L

T

S

c

o

u

t

P

L

T

E

N

G

C

o

m

p

a

n

y

E

N

G

O

b

s

t

a

c

l

e

S

e

c

t

i

o

n

M

o

r

t

a

r

P

l

a

t

o

o

n

M

e

d

i

c

a

l

P

l

a

t

o

o

n

S

n

i

p

e

r

S

e

c

t

i

o

n

R

e

c

o

n

s

q

u

a

d

r

o

n

R

e

c

o

n

C

D

R

a

n

d

S

t

a

f

f

H

H

T

R

e

c

o

n

T

r

o

o

p

R

e

c

o

n

P

L

T

M

o

r

t

a

r

S

e

c

t

i

o

n

F

i

r

e

s

B

a

t

t

a

l

i

o

n

F

i

r

e

s

C

D

R

a

n

d

S

t

a

f

f

H

H

B

F

i

r

e

s

B

a

t

t

e

r

y

T

a

r

g

e

t

A

c

q

u

i

s

i

t

i

o

n

P

L

T

N

L

O

S

-

L

S

P

L

T

B

D

E

S

u

p

p

o

r

t

B

a

t

t

a

l

i

o

n

B

S

B

C

D

R

a

n

d

S

t

a

f

f

Task Number Task Title

B

C

T

B

C

T

C

D

R

a

n

d

S

t

a

f

f

B

C

t

H

H

C

B

S

T

B

B

S

T

B

C

D

R

a

n

d

S

t

a

f

f

B

S

T

B

H

H

C

M

P

P

L

T

C

B

R

N

R

e

c

o

n

P

L

T

N

e

t

w

o

r

k

S

P

T

C

o

M

I

C

O

A

n

a

l

y

s

i

s

a

n

d

I

n

t

e

g

r

a

t

i

o

n

P

L

T

T

U

A

V

P

L

T

G

i

r

o

u

n

d

C

o C

l

l

o

e

m

c

t

o

n

P

L

T

b

i

C

A

B

n

e

B

a

d

A l

r

m

s

t C

t D

R

C

a

i

o

n

a

n

d

S

t

A

a

B

f

H

f

H

C

A-5 
H

H

C

S

u

p

p

l

y

a

n

d

D

i

s

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

C

O

T

r

a

n

s

p

o

r

t

a

t

i

o

n

P

L

T

F

u

r

l

a

n

d

W

a

t

e

r

P

L

T

S

u

p

p

l

y

P

L

T

F

i

e

l

d

M

a

i

n

t

e

n

a

n

c

e

C

O

M

a

i

n

t

e

n

a

n

c

e

P

L

T

M

e

d

i

c

a

l

C

o

m

p

a

n

y

T

r

e

a

t

m

e

n

t

P

L

T

E

v

a

c

u

a

t

i

o

n

P

L

T

F

o

r

w

a

r

d

S

u

p

p

o

r

t

C

o

m

p

a

n

y

D

i

t

r

i

b

u

t

i

o

n

P

L

T

M

a

i

n

t

e

n

a

n

c

e

P

L

T

A-6 
A-7 

Template 4. Initial TSP Requirements List 

The information in Template 4 uses the same basic template as for Template 2. The

difference is that this information is refined with analysis. The developer will determine an 

“above the line” and “below the line” cut. “Above the line” means that the selected supporting 

tasks must be included in a TSP. “Below the line” supporting tasks are those that the developer 

thinks do not need to be in this TSP for a given training event, or which he feels may be better

placed within a different task group.

The task groups listed with Template 2 may not meet the specific training requirements 

of the user. The developer conducts an initial assessment, determining necessary “above the 

line” supporting tasks for each task group and all other supporting tasks “below the line.” At this 

time, the developer could select appropriate supporting tasks and place them in one or more new 

task groups he has defined as a training requirement (and which are not listed as a separate task

group in the CATS).

Task:

Source:

Supporting Tasks:

Tasks listed here are “above the line,” meaning the developer considers them

critical for achieving the overall training objectives of this task group

_____________

Tasks listed here (“below the line”) are all related supporting tasks 

When a developer is using the METL as the basis for task groups, he will need to use

available doctrine and training literature, as well as operational requirements, as a guide in

selecting supporting tasks.

Task: Conduct Engineer Operations in Urban Terrain (EN CO) 

Source: METL

Supporting Tasks: 

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx
Template 5. Task Training 

Purpose: This template is designed to determine what means of training is most suitable for a given task or group of tasks; it identifies what groups of personnel are beand is only needed when developing long term training strategies or comprehensive TSPs. It is intended as a tool to tailor TSP development and to assist leaders in deSteps:1. Identify task number and task title for the tasks2. Provide a brief decription of key components of the task3. Working through the crawl, walk, run sequence, determine what personnel are required to train the task then assign numbers 1-3 to the Live, Virtual, Constructive col

rank order Live, Virtual, Constructive with a 1-3

(3 is best) "crawl" "walk" 

Task Number Task Title DESCRIPTION

P

E

R

S

O

NNE

L

I

N

T

R

A

I

N

I

N

G

L

I

VE

V

I

R

T

UA

L

CO

NS

T

R

U

C

T

I

VE

P

E

R

S

O

NNE

L

I

N

T

R

A

I

N

I

N

G

L

I

VE

V

I

R

T

UA

L

CO

NS

T

R

U

C

T

I

VE

P

E

R

S

O

NNE

L

I

N

T

R

A

I

N

I

N

G

TS=Task Standard, TN=Task Note,PS=Performance Step, PM=Performance Measure

type of live

(select

pulldown)

type of live

(select

pulldown)

type of liv

(select

pulldown

staff and leadership staff and leadership staff and leadersstaff and leadership staff and leadership staff and leadersstaff and leadership staff and leadership staff and leadersstaff and leadership staff and leadership staff and leadersstaff and leadership staff and leadership staff and leadersstaff and leadership staff and leadership staff and leadersstaff and leadership staff and leadership staff and leaders

A-8 
A-9 

Template 6. Task Analysis 

Purpose: This template is designed only for TSP developers experienced with the assessed tasks. It draws on the user's practical experience and 

knowledge to determine the difficulty, importance, and frequency required for training of all tasks. It assists the decision maker in prioritizing what tasksshould be included in a TSP, and can also be used to determine what tasks should be trained first.Steps:1. Identify task number and task title for tasks2. Select one value for each of the 3 categories. Use the accompanying descriptions on the second sheet to help determine the values for the task.4. Total values for each of the three categories and place in "Total" column.5. Rank order the tasks, with the highest numbers most important for training.6. Place METL assessment (T, P, U) against the task in the last column to assist the decision maker in determining which tasks to include in the TSP or to train.

Task Number Task Title Not difficult

(1)

Moderately

difficult

(2)

Very 

Difficult

(3)

Not

Important

(1)

Moderately

Important 

(2)

Very 

Important

(3)

Very

Frequent

(1)

Moderately 

Frequent

(2)

Infrequen

(3) 

How Difficult is Task to Learn

How Important is Task to

Mission Performance

How Frequently is Task 

Performed

Difficulty Importance Frequency
Template 7. Final TSP Requirements List 

Template 7 maintains the same basic design as Templates 2 and 4. The task groups listed 

as a completed Template 7 are the result of all training analysis conducted by the developer to 

determine the best mix of tasks associated with a given echelon’s TSP or group of TSPs. For 

instance, the developer may be analyzing the infantry platoon “Protect the Force” task group. He 

can select similar supporting tasks from the “below the line” supporting tasks (the yyyyy tasks 

shown below) and make them a separate task group for a TSP. If the new task group is not listed 

in the CATS, the developer must assign a descriptive name, such as “Conduct Nuclear, 

Biological and Chemical (NBC) Operations.” 

 Task: Protect the Force (IN PLT, 71-TS-3872) 

Source: CATS 

 Supporting Tasks: 

 xxxxx 

xxxxx (above the line tasks) 

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

yyyyy (below the line tasks) 

 yyyyy 

 zzzzz 

 zzzzz 

 Task Group: Conduct NBC Operations 

 Source: CATS derivative 

 Supporting Tasks: 

 yyyyy 

 yyyyy 

The developer may take other supporting tasks from the “below the line” supporting tasks 

and include them into another CATS task group. These supporting tasks may be already in that 

CATS task group, or the developer can add them in if they are appropriate for operational 

training requirements. In the example below the developer removes the zzzzz tasks from “Protect 

the Force” because they are already in the “Defend” task group and he feels they best support the 

training requirement when used in that context. 

A-10 
A-11 

Task Group: Defend (Infantry Platoon, 71-TS-3876) 

Source: CATS

Supporting Tasks: 

xxxxx

xxxxx

zzzzz

zzzzz

The quantity of task groups could range from two to dozens, depending on the size and

scope of the operational training requirements. The source of the task and the task number are 

irrelevant for prioritization, but will be useful when assessing task groups and developing the 

TSPs. The task groups should be sorted by specific echelon (ex: infantry platoon, engineer 

company, etc.) then listed by echelon name and task group name (see page 11). This list, 

coupled with analysis from the methodology, provides the information needed to prioritize with

Template 8.
A-12 

Template 8. Prioritization Matrix 

Purpose: This template is designed to be used as a prioritization tool for each TSP or TSP group under consideration. The higher the "(Yes times Weight) answer, the higher the TSP will be in the baseline prioritization. Use a copy of this template for each TSP or TSPgrouping under consideration.Steps:1. Review analysis from the questions, referenced below as Q1 through Q11, the completed template models, and the final TSP require2. Assign a weight in the W column for each question, based on METT-TC considerations. Weight questions as 1-3; 1 least important, most important3. Using methodology analysis, answer yes or no to the matrix questions # 1 through 164. Multiply "Yes" answers by the weight, then place this total in the YxW column5. The blank rows at the bottom of the matrix marked 17 and 18 are provided for additional specific unit prioritization criteria6. Some questions may need to be reworded to fit situation specific requirements

MQ: Matrix question (MQ) number, for use as common reference. Matrix questions have been grouped by subject, and are not in the same order as the framework questions

Qx: Second column Q (question) numbers refer to the framework primary questions that provide the background analysis to support the matrix question.

MQ Qx PRIORITIZATION MATRIX ON TSP(S) FOR___________________________________ No Yes 

1 Q1 Has there been Commander/decision maker guidance that makes this TSP a high priority?

2 Q1 Does this TSP include tasks that are pre-requisite to tasks in other TSP supported events?3 Q1 Are TSPs available for the tasks that are pre-requisite to this TSP?4 Q4 Are the tasks to be trained in the TSP applicable to the full spectrum of operations in all or most geographic environments?5 Q5 Does the TSP address unit METL related tasks under operational deployment conditions?6 Q8 Will individual skills training be completed when the TSP is ready for execution?7 Q9 Do the new capabilities or new enabling tasks significantly change current tasks, conditions, standards and or TTPs?8 Q3 Is doctrine mature and available?9 Q3 Is there an immediate operational requirement for executing the tasks associated with the TSP?

10 Q11 Is the TSP tailorable by the user for varied conditions and environments?11 Q10 Does the TSP facilitate multi-echelon training?12 Q2 Can this TSP be integrated into a higher HQs TSP with minimal effort, and will it add benefit to the higher TSP?13 Q6 Are adequate unit resources available to conduct the training as defined by the TSP?14 Q6 Do adequate training media exist and are they available for the unit training the TSP tasks?15 Q7 Is the TSP administratively supportable?16 Q11 Can the TSP developer easily update or modify the TSP?1718

Total yes score 

Total YxW sco
Appendix B 

Completed Example Templates 

B-1
Template 1. Distribution Matrix 

In this example, there were five basic systems for Spin Out 1 distribution:

• The Non-Line of Sight launch System (NLOS-LS). 

• The Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Unattended Ground Sensors (ISRUGS). 

• The Urban/Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain (MOUT) Advanced Sensor System

(U/MASS-UGS). 

• The Intelligent Munitions System. 

• The B-Kit is an interim appliqué configuration that interfaces with the Force XXI Battle 

Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) system, composed of hardware software 

components. The B-Kit equipped vehicles can interface with UGS and the Intelligent 

Munitions System (IMS) to enhance the commander’s situational awareness (SA). 

1 2 345

New capability,

requirement or basis 

of issue plan item NLOS-LS ISR-UGS U/MASS IMS B-Kit

HBCT totals 6 64 48 52 75

BCT

CDR and Staff C2 C2 C2 C2 C2

x1 BSTB 0 0 000

CDR and Staff C2 C2

MI CO

x2 CAB 0 15 (30) 15 (30) 17 (34) 29 (58)

CDR and Staff C2 C2 C2 4-C2

IN CO(x2) 3ea 6ea 2ea 2ea

IN PLT(x6) 1ea

Tank CO(x2) 3ea 2ea 2ea

Tank PLT(x6) 1ea

Scout PLT 3 332

ENG CO 6 1

ENG PLT(x2) 1ea

x1 Recon SQD 0 18 18 18 16

CDR and Staff C2 C2 C2 4-C2

Recon TRP(x3) 6ea 6ea 6ea 2ea

Recon PLT(x6) 1ea

x1 Fires BN 6 0 001

CDR and Staff C2

NLOS-LS PLT 6 1

x1 BSB 0 16 000

CDR and Staff C2

HHC 2?

Sup & Distro CO 2

Field Maint CO 2

 Medical CO 2

FCS x4 2ea

B-2
x1 Recon SQD 0 18 18 18 16

CDR and Staff C2 C2 C2 4-C2

HHT

Recon TRP(x3) 6ea 6ea 6ea 2ea

Recon PLT(x6) 1ea

Mortar SECx3

x1 Fires BN 6 0001

CDR and Staff C2

HHB

NLOS-LS PLT 6 1

Fires Battery x2

TA PLT x1

x1 BSB 0 16 000

CDR and Staff C2

HHC 2?

Sup & Distro CO 2

Trans PLT

Fuel & Water PLT

Supply PLT

Field Maint CO 2

Maint PLT

 Medical CO 2

Treatment PLT

Evac PLT

FCS x4 2ea

Distro PLT

Maint PLT

B-3
Template 2. Collective Task List 

This template lists all associated supporting tasks with the task group subject. The data 

shown below is from the Reconnaissance Squadron Combined Arms Training Strategy. If a 

Mission Essential Task List task were chosen, and no CATS was available to define the 

supporting tasks, the developer would need to research existing training literature and doctrine to 

determine what the appropriate supporting tasks would be. 

 Task: Conduct Area/Zone Reconnaissance (Reconnaissance Squadron Scout 

 Platoon, 17-TS-3116) 

 Source: CATS 

 Supporting Tasks: 

 07-3-1134.17-RECP Conduct Tactical Movement (Dismounted) 

 07-0020.34-0001 Perform Helicopter Insertion 

 17-3-0065.17-RECP Conduct Troop Leading Procedures 

 17-3-0320.17-RECP Infiltrate/Exfiltrate 

 17-3-1014.17-RECP Conduct a Passage of Lines as Passing Unit 

 17-3-1016.17-RECP Conduct Tactical Movement 

17-3-1021.17-RECP Execute Actions on Contact 

 17-3-1039.17-RECP Establish an Observation Post 

 17-3-1110.17-RECP Search a Building 

 17-3-2420.17-RECP Bypass Threat Contact 

 17-3-4010.17-RECP Conduct an Area/Zone Reconnaissance 

 17-3-4012.17-RECP Reconnoiter an Obstacle/Restriction 

 17-3-4015.17-RECP Conduct Urban Area Reconnaissance 

 17-3-4017.17-RECP Conduct Target Acquisition 

 17-3-4025.17-RECP Conduct Reconnaissance Handover 

 17-3-4040.17-RECP Conduct an NBC Reconnaissance 

17-3-4130.17-RECP Conduct a Dismounted Patrol 

Templates 2, 4, and 7 flow naturally together and can be written in any media that best 

suits the decision-maker’s needs, with tools ranging from pen and paper to digital means, such as 

PowerPoint slides. Note that many supporting tasks are redundant within various CATS task 

groups. The developer may only need to determine which task group to keep the redundant 

supporting task. Exclusion of a task does not mean it will not get trained in a training event, it 

merely means that the focus of a given TSP is on other tasks. 

B-4
Template 3. Task by Echelon 

In this example of a task by echelon matrix, the developer used FCS NLOS tasks (a few 

of which are Spin Out 1 tasks). Only those echelons impacted by the tasks are shown on the 

matrix. When dealing with new and immature tasks that are not yet accepted throughout the 

training community, the developer must apply judgment to what echelons are impacted by a task. 

Actual training will most likely modify this assessment, and this sheet should be updated so that 

future training developers have a more mature set of training data to analyze. 

Task

Number Task Title

B

C

T

B

C

T

C

D

R

a

n

d

S

t

a

f

f

B

S

T

B

B

S

T

B

C

D

R

a

n

d

S

t

a

f

f

N

e

t

w

o

r

k

S

P

T

C

o

C

o

m

b

i

n

e

d

A

r

m

s

B

a

t

t

a

l

i

o

n

C

A

B

C

D

R

a

n

d

S

t

a

f

f

R

e

c

o

n

S

q

u

a

d

r

o

n

R

e

c

o

n

C

D

R

a

n

d

S

t

a

f

f

F

i

r

e

s

B

a

t

t

a

l

i

o

n

F

i

r

e

s

C

D

R

a

n

d

S

t

a

f

f

H

H

B

F

i

r

e

s

B

a

t

t

e

r

y

L

S

O

S

-

L

S

S

e

c

t

i

o

n

B

D

E

S

u

p

p

o

r

t

B

a

t

t

a

l

i

o

n

B

S

B

C

D

R

a

n

d

S

t

a

f

f

F

o

r

w

a

r

d

S

u

p

p

o

r

t

C

o

m

p

a

n

y

NLOS-LS

FCS6-4-U6011

Conduct NLOS-LS Reload

Operations X

FCS6-4-U6044

Perform NLOS-LS Hangfire

Procedures X

FCS6-4-U6049

Prepare the NLOS-LS for

Operation X

FCS6-4-U6060

Prepare the NLOS-LS Container

Launch Unit (CLU) for Sling Load

Operations X

FCS6-3-U6050

Process NLOS-Cannon and

NLOS-LS Ammunition C2 X

FCS6-3-U6016

Control NLOS-LS PLT

Operations C2 C2

FCS6-2-U6009 Control HHB Operations X

FCS6-2-U6022 Defend Against an Ambush X

FCS6-2-U6039 Occupy a Position Area C2 X

FCS6-2-U6059 Control NLOS Battery Operations X

FCS6-2-U6041

Perform NLOS Bn Consolidation

and Reorganization C2 C2 X

FCS6-1-U6010

Conduct NLOS Bn Tactical

Maneuver X

FCS6-1-U6012

Control NLOS Bn Tactical

Maneuver C2 X

FCS6-1-U6013 Control NLOS Bn Operations C2 X

FCS6-1-U6018

Coordinate NLOS Bn Defense

and Security Operations C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 X

FCS6-1-U6021

Coordinate NLOS Bn

Sustainment Operations C2 X X X

FCS6-1-U6025

Develop the NLOS Bn

Communications Plan C2 C2 X

FCS6-1-U6026 Direct CSS for the NLOS Bn C2 X

FCS6-1-U6028

Direct NLOS Bn Communications 

Operations C2 X

FCS6-1-U6036

Establish the NLOS Bn

Command Integration Cell (CIC) X

FCS71-6-S2002 Maintain Running Estimates X

B-5
B-6

Template 4. Initial TSP Requirements List 

The task list below demonstrates the use of a dashed line to separate “above the line” and

“below the line” tasks. In this example, the supporting tasks have been initially refined to four 

core supporting tasks which the developer has assessed as essential for the unit’s operational 

requirements. Also, based on this initial assessment, those 4 supporting tasks are all that can be 

feasibly trained in one training event. They are shown as “above the line,” while the other 

supporting tasks are listed as “below the line.” Many of the “below the line” will move to other

TSPs (other task groups) based on continued analysis.

Task: Protect the Force (Infantry Platoon, 71-TS-3872) 

Source: CATS

Supporting Tasks: 

07-3-1396 React to a Civil Disturbance 

07-3-1423 Secure a Route

07-3-1324 Establish a Checkpoint

07-3-4036 Secure Civilians during Operations

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

07-3-1153 Conduct a Security Patrol

07-3-1225 Conduct Convoy Escort

07-3-1315 Employ Protective Obstacle(s)

07-3-2018 Establish an Observation Post (OP)

07-3-2027 Operate in an Electronic Warfare Environment 

07-3-4009 Handle Enemy Prisoners of War

07-3-4018 Perform Resupply Operations

07-3-4045 Treat and Evacuate Casualties

07-3-5009 Conduct Consolidation and Reorganization

07-3-6000 Conduct Active Air Defense (AD) Measures Against Hostile Aircraft 

07-3-6009 Conduct Passive Air Defense Measures

07-3-6018 Cross an NBC Contaminated Area

07-3-6027 Maintain Operations Security

07-3-6036 Prepare for a Chemical Attack

07-3-6045 Prepare for a Nuclear Attack

07-3-6054 React to a Chemical Attack

07-3-6063 Respond to the Initial Effects of a Nuclear Attack 
Template 5. Task Training 

rank order LVC 1-3, 3 is best "crawl" "walk" 

Task Number Task Title DESCRIPTION

P

E

R

S

O

NNE

L

I

N

T

R

A

I

N

I

N

G

L

I

VE

V

I

R

T

UA

L

CO

NS

T

R

U

C

T

I

VE

P

E

R

S

O

NNE

L

I

N

T

R

A

I

N

I

N

G

L

I

VE

V

I

R

T

UA

L

CO

NS

T

R

U

C

T

I

VE

P

E

R

S

O

NNE

L

I

N

TS=Task Standard, TN=Task Note, PS=Performance Step, PM=Performance Measure

type of live 

(select 

pulldown)

type of live 

(select 

pulldown)

type o

(sele

pulldo

17-3-0220.17-KPLT

ASSAULT AN ENEMYPOSITION crew 3 2 1 squad/section 3 2 1 entire 

17-3-0221.17-KPLT

EXECUTE ACTIONS ONCONTACT crew 3 2 1 squad/section 3 2 1 entire 

17-3-0406.17-KPLT

RESPOND TO A CIVILDISTURBANCE crew 3 1 2 squad/section 3 1 2 entire 

17-3-1016.17-KPLT

CONDUCT TACTICALMOVEMENT crew 3 2 1 squad/section 3 2 1 entire 

17-3-2010.17-KPLT

CONDUCTCONSOLIDATION /REORGANIZATION crew 3 1 2 squad/section 3 1 2 entire 

17-3-2269.17-KPLT FOLLOW AND SUPPORT crew 3 2 1 squad/section 3 2 1 entire 17-3-2601.17-KPLT

CONDUCT HASTYOCCUPATION OF A PLTBP crew 3 2 1 squad/section 3 2 1 entire 

17-3-DRL4.17-KPLT

REACT TO INDIRECTFIRE DRILL crew 3 2 1 squad/section 3 2 1 entire 

B-7
B-8

Template 6. Task Analysis 

Task Number Task Title Not difficult

(1)

Moderately

difficult

(2)

Very

Difficult

(3)

Not

Important

(1)

Moderately

Important

(2)

Very

Important 

(3)

Very

Frequent

(1)

Moderately

Frequent

(2)

Infrequ

(3) 

17-3-0220.17-KPLT

ASSAULT AN ENEMY POSITION 2 3 2 

17-3-0221.17-KPLT

EXECUTE ACTIONS ON CONTACT 2 3 2 

17-3-0406.17-KPLT

RESPOND TO ACIVIL DISTURBANCE 3 3 2 

17-3-1016.17-KPLT

CONDUCTTACTICALMOVEMENT 1 3 1 

17-2010.17-KPLT

CONDUCTCONSOLIDATION /REORGANIZATION 3 3 2 

17-3-2010.17-KPLT

FOLLOW ANDSUPPORT 2 2 2 

17-3-2601.17-KPLT

CONDUCT HASTY OCCUPATION OF A PLT BP 2 2 2 

17-3-DRL4.17-KPLT

REACT TO INDIRECT FIREDRILL 1 2 2 

How Difficult is Task to Learn

How Important is Task to

Mission Performance

How Frequently is Task

Performed

Difficulty Importance Frequency
Template 7. Final TSP Requirements List 

The first task list shows a refined “Protect the Force” from the initial TSP requirements 

list shown in Template 4. The developer made a number of refinements to potential task groups, 

each designed to be a stand alone TSP. In this example, the developer selected all of the NBC 

related supporting tasks from the infantry platoon “Protect the Force” task group and made them

a separate TSP task group. This task group was not listed in the CATS, so he assigned a 

descriptive name, “Conduct NBC Operations.” He also took four other supporting tasks from

“Protect the Force” and placed them (shown in bold) into the infantry platoon “Defend” TSP, as 

he felt they were better suited to be trained in that TSP. Other “Protect the Force” supporting 

tasks were selected for various TSPs (not shown). At this level, both these three and the other 

(notional) infantry platoon TSPs become part of the overall group of TSPs requiring 

prioritization in Template 8. 

 Task: Protect the Force (IN PLT) (71-TS-3872) 

 Supporting Tasks: 

07-3-1396 React to a Civil Disturbance 

 07-3-1423 Secure a Route 

 07-3-1324 Establish a Checkpoint 

 07-3-4036 Secure Civilians during Operations 

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

 07-3-1225 Conduct Convoy Escort 

 07-3-2027 Operate in an Electronic Warfare Environment 

07-3-4009 Handle Enemy Prisoners of War 

 07-3-4018 Perform Resupply Operations 

07-3-4045 Treat and Evacuate Casualties 

 07-3-5009 Conduct Consolidation and Reorganization 

07-3-6000 Conduct Active AD Measures Against Hostile Aircraft 

07-3-6009 Conduct Passive Air Defense Measures 

 TSP Task Group: Conduct NBC Operations 

 Supporting Tasks: 

07-3-6018 Cross an NBC Contaminated Area 

07-3-6036 Prepare for a Chemical Attack 

07-3-6045 Prepare for a Nuclear Attack 

07-3-6054 React to a Chemical Attack 

07-3-6063 Respond to the Initial Effects of a Nuclear Attack 

B-9
 Task: Defend (Infantry Platoon, 71-TS-3876) 

 Supporting Tasks: 

 07-3-1054 Conduct a Defense 

 07-3-1252 Conduct Overwatch and or Support by Fire 

 07-3-2054 Report Tactical Information

 07-3-6027 Maintain Operations Security

 07-3-1315 Employ Protective Obstacle(s) 

07-3-2018 Establish an Observation Post (OP)

07-3-1153 Conduct a Security Patrol 

B-10
B-11

Template 8. Prioritization Matrix 

 One matrix will be completed for each potential TSP. 127 potential TSPs were 

considered, based on task groups from the CATS and from FCS NLOS-LS tasks for the NLOSLS platoon. Of these, 41 were analyzed as being appropriate to the upcoming major training 

events the Evaluation Brigade Combat Team would be conducting. Those 41 task groups were 

prioritized to assist UAMBL in determining what TSPs to develop. Note that for the Spin Out 1 

prioritization matrix effort, additional criteria specific to the Spin Out 1 training events were 

added to assist in defining the prioritization of TSPs. 
B-12

MQ Qx PRIORITIZATION MATRIX ON TSP(S) FOR_________IN PLT protect the force N

1 Q1 Has there been Commander/decision maker guidance that makes this TSP a high priority? 

2 Q1 Does this TSP include tasks that are pre-requisite to tasks in other TSP supported events? 3 Q1 Are TSPs available for the tasks that are pre-requisite to this TSP? 4 Q4 Are the tasks to be trained in the TSP applicable to the FSO in all or most geographic environments? 5 Q5 Does the TSP address unit METL related tasks under operational deployment conditions? 6 Q8 Will individual skills training be completed when the TSP is ready for execution? 7 Q9 Do the new capabilities or new enabling tasks significantly change current tasks, conditions, standards and or TTPs? 8 Q3 Is doctrine mature and available? 9 Q3 Is there an immediate IMS UGS and or NLOS-LS operational requirement for executing the tasks associated with the TSP? 

10 Q11 Is the TSP tailorable by the user for varied conditions and environments? 11 Q10 Does the TSP facilitate multi-echelon training? for UGS, IMS, and or NLOS-LS 12 Q2 Can this TSP be integrated into a higher HQs TSP with minimal effort, and will it add benefit to the higher TSP? 13 Q6 Are adequate unit resources available to conduct the training as defined by the TSP? 14 Q6 Do adequate training media exist and are they available for the unit training the TSP tasks? 15 Q7 Is the TSP administratively supportable? 16 Q11 Can the TSP developer easily update or modify the TSP? 17 Will this TSP be used to train for FDTE missions? (weight is # of FDTE missions the TSP trains) 18

Total yes score 

Total Y
Appendix C 

Collective Task Identification 

C-1 
Collective Task Identification Considerations 

Commanders/decision-makers will normally give the TSP developer training guidance. 

This guidance may be very focused or very broad in nature. The developer must determine what 

the primary collective tasks are to achieve the overall training objectives and what types of 

operations to focus TSPs on, such as offense, defense, security operations, etc. Training 

developers will have access to the Combined Arms Training Strategies (CATS) as a guide to 

their training strategy. The CATS contains task groupings, each consisting of a critical collective 

task and a number of supporting tasks, which greatly eases research into related tasks that may 

be placed together in one TSP. It also includes a great amount of information involved with 

training each of these task groupings. Developers should also be familiar with FMs 7-0, 

Training the Force, and 7-1, Battle-Focused Training. Of key note, FM 7-0 describes the 

training planning process shown below, and FM 7-1 describes task selection from the Mission 

Essential Task List (METL) down to individual task selection. 

The TSP developers must consider the capability gap they are trying to fix by training. 

To improve METL assessments, the commander should determine exactly what it is that has 

prevented his unit from achieving a higher assessment—the capability gap. For organizations or 

units fielding new equipment, the combat development community will have assessed a 

capability gap that the new equipment is designed to address. Using this information, plus any 

specific requirements of a given operational unit, the gap should be analyzed, then compared to 

available tasks associated with the METL deficiency or new equipment. Following is a general 

thought process that considers this and leads the training developer to a more focused set of tasks 

applicable for a given TSP. The developer should identify: 

• The capabilities gap between current capabilities or state of training and required 

capabilities or state of training. 

• The task or tasks which allow the unit to most effectively train to fill the gap. Those 

unfamiliar with the tasks should study the performance measures and performance steps 

of the task to determine its usefulness in meeting the required gap or need. 

• Echelons expected to execute the tasks and the desired state of training proficiency. 

o If a high level of proficiency is desired (i.e., a “T” in the METL assessment) 

fewer tasks can be trained in the available time. 

o A lower desired level of proficiency is likely to increase the number of tasks 

trainable in the available time. 

C-2 
• The supporting collective tasks required to reach proficiency in each critical collective 

task. 

o Critical tasks are identified in the CATS as shown in the “TASK: Attack” on the 

next page. 

o Suitable supporting tasks are tasks that support the unit in accomplishing the 

standards of the overall critical collective task. They vary depending on the type 

of operation the unit is training for as well as the training objectives of the 

commander. For instance, if a unit expects to conduct offensive operations in an 

environment where the overall operation is stability operations, their train up may 

include a critical task such as “Attack by Fire.” Associated supporting tasks could 

include, “Execute Actions on Contact” and “Conduct Tactical Movement” as well 

as “Support Roadblock/Checkpoint Operations” and “Respond to a Civil 

Disturbance.” 

• The level of commander (and staff) involvement required to command and control units 

executing the tasks. 

• The sequence or priority in which these tasks should be trained. 

o If the commander/decision maker is developing a long-term TSP for use over and 

over, the “T, P, U” METL assessment is unlikely to be important. Those 

assessments may vary over time, but the task and associated TSP details remain a 

constant to be trained again and again. 

o If a commander is developing a TSP specific to a given training event, his METL 

evaluation will play a large role in the selection of which mission essential tasks 

his unit trains. The tasks the commander is likely to select are those with a “U” or 

“P” rating. 

o The supporting tasks for the critical tasks will be selected based upon the type of 

tactical scenario the commander/decision-maker desires to portray, and will 

generally be based upon operational deployment expectations. These tasks must 

be selected with care so that the unit can execute them before, during, or after 

mission essential task execution in a manner they are expected to execute if 

operationally deployed. 

If an operational unit is developing a TSP for a specific training event, such as ramp up 

training for a deployment, they must know the current and desired assessments for their METL 

tasks. Normally the commander or subordinate commanders will provide this assessment. An 

example of the training strategy process and task/supporting task information that can be gained 

from reviewing the CATS is shown below. When coupled with the thought process in paragraph 

2, the CATS example shown (“Attack,” for an infantry company) represents a start point for the 

developer to refine the collective tasks to be trained. The unit can easily add the METL 

assessment after the CATS task list (an example assessment is placed with the CATS list). Note 

that just because the supporting tasks are shown in the CATS list does not mean the unit has to 

train all of them. The Commander must prioritize tasks to train based on METL and his 

expected operational deployment missions. 

 

C-3 
Task: Attack (IN CO) (07-TS-2473) 

Source: CATS 

Supporting Task(s): Example METL Assessment (optional) 

07-2-1000 Conduct an Attack P 

07-2-1027 Conduct a Cordon and Search in a Built-up Area P 

07-2-1090 Conduct a Movement to Contact T 

07-2-1135 Conduct a Raid P 

07-2-1243 Conduct an Ambush T 

07-2-1256 Conduct an Attack by Fire T 

07-2-1261 Conduct an Attack of a Built-up Area P 

07-2-1315 Conduct Patrol Operations T 

07-2-1324 Conduct Area Security Operations P 

07-2-1342 Conduct Tactical Movement T 

07-2-1387 Employ a Reserve Force P 

07-2-1405 Establish a Base Camp U 

07-2-1432 React to Snipers P 

07-2-1468 Take Action on Contact T 

07-2-1477 Breach an Obstacle P 

07-2-2072 Report Tactical Information P 

07-2-3000 Conduct Overwatch and or Support by Fire P 

07-2-3027 Integrate Direct Fires P 

07-2-3036 Integrate Indirect Fire Support P 

07-2-4027 Handle Enemy Prisoners of War T 

07-2-4045 Process Captured Documents and Equipment T 

07-2-4054 Secure Civilians During Operations U 

07-2-4063 Treat and Evacuate Casualties T 

07-2-5027 Conduct Consolidation and Reorganization T 

07-2-5036 Conduct Coordination T 

07-2-5135 Operate a Command Post P 

Institutions and/or development organizations will not normally use METL, but they do 

have the Combined Arms Training Strategy as a reference, and have access to the Army 

Universal Task List to assist in developing TSPs usable across the Army. They will use the same

general process as shown above, minus the METL assessment. They will have additional factors 

other than operational deployment missions that drive the content of their TSPs. Examples 

include developing a TSP that can be used by any appropriate type unit in the Army or a need for 

specific evaluation and test requirements. 

Summary 

The TSPs will rarely include all possible collective tasks that a given echelon could 

execute. The training developer must consider the training objectives and guidance plus 

available resources to determine the right amount of content for the TSP. 

C-4