i 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy)

September 2000 

2. REPORT TYPE

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to)

July 1999 - September 2000 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Refinement of Prototype Staff Training Methods for Future Forces

5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER

DASW01-99-D-0012 DO# 2 

5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

0602785A

6. AUTHOR(S) 5c. PROJECT NUMBER

A790

Richard C. Deatz, Katrina A. Greene, William T. Holden, Jr., May H. 

Throne (HumRRO) 

5d. TASK NUMBER

2228

Carl W. Lickteig (ARI) 5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER

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

Human Resource Research Organization (HumRRO) 

66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 400 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. MONITOR ACRONYM 

 ARI

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER 

Research Report 1763 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

Carl W. Lickteig, Contracting Officer’s Representative 

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): 

This report documents the design, development, and implementation of refinements to a prototype staff training package for 

future forces. These training refinements were made to a prototype staff training package described in the report Prototype Staff 

Training and Evaluation Methods for Future Forces, Throne et al., 1999. The training refinements were implemented in a 

simulation-based experiment examining the impact of digital systems on Future Battle Command at the battalion and brigade 

level. This report focuses on the training support package designed to improve performance of staffs using advanced command, 

control, communications, computer, and intelligence (C4

I) systems. Documentation is provided on the analysis, design and 

development of four staff training products developed under this effort: a Surrogate Command, Control, Communications, and 

Computers (SC4

) System Demonstration, Digital Staff Drills, Team Training Sessions (TTSs) and TTSs Trainer Guide, and 

refinements to Tactical Decision-Making Exercises (TDXs). The formative evaluation is described for those products with 

survey results and project team observations reported by product type. Lessons learned on future staff training are documented

and may help direct the Army’s effort to develop command and staff training support packages (TSPs) for future forces.

15. SUBJECT TERMS 

Battle Command Reengineering Mounted Maneuver Battlespace Laboratory C4I Staff Training Demonstration 

Team Training Sessions Tactical Decision-Making Exercise Vignettes Trainer Guide

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 19. LIMITATION OF 20. NUMBER 21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

16. REPORT 

Unclassified

17. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified

18. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified

ABSTRACT 

Unlimited

OF PAGES 

 

(Name and Telephone Number) 

Dr. Carl W. Lickteig 

DSN: 464-2613
Research Report 1763 

Refinement of Prototype Staff 

Training Methods for Future Forces 

Richard C. Deatz, Katrina A. Greene, William T. Holden, Jr., and May H. Throne 

Human Resources Research Organization 

Carl W. Lickteig 

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

Armored Forces Research Unit 

Barbara A. Black, Chief

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

September 2000 

Army Project Number Personnel Performance and 

20262785A790 Training Technology

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

iii 
FOREWORD

The Future Battlefield Conditions (FBC) Team of the Armored Forces Research Unit, U.S. 

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) has a Science and 

Technology Objective (STO) entitled “Force XXI Training Strategies.” This STO is also 

reflected in the FBC work package (2228) FASTRAIN: Force XXI Training Methods and 

Strategies. Recent work under this work package has involved research and development 

concerning training for digital staffs. In order to continue this work, a contract entitled 

“Refinement of Methods for the Training and Assessment of Digital Staffs” was issued. The 

major purpose of this effort was to refine the prototype training and assessment techniques for 

future forces that had been developed during a prior research effort. 

This report concerns refinement of training methods for future battle staffs equipped with 

digital command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4

I) systems that had 

been developed during a previous research project. The report documents the design and 

development of three new prototype staff training products, including a surrogate Command, 

Control, Communications, and Computers (SC4

) System Demonstration, Digital Staff Drills, and 

Team Training Sessions (TTS). It also documents the refinement of previously developed 

Tactical Decision-Making Exercises (TDXs). The report examines implementation of the 

prototype products in a battalion-level Battle Command Reengineering (BCR) IV experiment, 

conducted by the Mounted Maneuver Battlespace Lab (MMBL) located at Fort Knox, Kentucky. 

Lessons learned from both the design and implementation of these methods of team training are 

also discussed. 

At least two major audiences may be interested in this report. Researchers interested in the

area of training for future forces will find an examination of a specific set of prototype team

training sessions, fully developed during this project, that may be applicable to future staff

training programs. Also, the report may be of interest to training developers, in that it describes 

an effort to implement digital staff training in a specific context (BCR IV). Thus this report may

prove useful in future research and development efforts for training of future forces. 

The prototype products developed under this effort are documented in a six-volume set of 

materials entitled Training and Measurement Support Package, Battle Command Reengineering 

IV, Mounted Maneuver Battlespace Lab (U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and 

Social Sciences, 2000), available from the MMBL. Evaluation findings from this effort are 

included in the MMBL’s Battle Lab Experiment Final Report (BLEFR) for Battle Command 

Reengineering, Phase IV (in preparation). 

The research reflected in this report was briefed to sponsors in a final In Progress Review, 

held at Armored Forces Research Unit, Fort Knox, Kentucky, on 13 July 2000. 

ZITA M. SIMUTIS

 Technical Director

v 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report represents the efforts of a highly skilled and integrated team of research

scientists, military experts, training developers, simulation technology experts, and 

administrative support personnel. Other than the authors, team members directly supporting the 

project included Mr. Neff Jenkins of Litton PRC and Mr. Mike Cobb of Human Resources 

Research Organization (HumRRO), who provided military subject matter expertise, and Ms. 

Kathleen Horn, who provided administrative support. Ms. Charlotte Campbell (HumRRO) was 

the Program Manager for this project. Her contributions went far beyond project supervision. 

She was involved in all project decisions, contributed her expertise as a Research Psychologist, 

and was a reviewer of this report. 

Additionally, we had support and guidance from a variety of individuals and government 

organizations, including: 

Mounted Maneuver Battlespace Lab (MMBL), Fort Knox, Kentucky

Colonel Richard Savage, Chief 

Major Joe Burns, Chief, Advanced Concepts Research 

Captain Dan Ray, Concept Integration Officer

IITRI/AB Technologies 

Mr. Pat Ritter, Program Director for Research

Mr. Jim Lewis, Senior Systems Analyst 

Mr. Toby Hale, Senior Systems Analyst 

Mr. Phil Frazier, Senior Operations Analyst 

Lockheed Martin-Marietta

Mr. Don Appler, Site Manager 

Mr. Dan Schultz, Battle Master

Mr. Charles West, Assistant Battle Master

Mr. Paul Monday, Analyst 

Mr. Paul Colonna, Analyst 

Test and Evaluation Coordination Office (TECO), Fort Knox, Kentucky 

Mr. Gary Elliott, Deputy Director

Sergeant First Class Charles Talbort, TECO Non-Commissioned Officer in

Charge 

2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Polk, Louisiana 

vi 
REFINEMENT OF PROTOTYPE STAFF TRAINING METHODS FOR FUTURE FORCES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Research Requirement:

The U.S. Army is currently developing and fielding information systems for the digital 

battlefield of the future. In support of this effort, the U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI), Armored Forces Research Unit, Future Battlefield 

Conditions Team is engaged in the design and development of prototype training. As a followon project to the initial Prototype Staff Training and Evaluation Methods for Future Forces, 

ARI’s objective was to refine the staff training strategies for staff operations in the future digital 

tactical operations center at brigade and below. To accomplish this objective, the Project Team

designed and developed three training products: Surrogate Command, Control, 

Communications, and Computers (SC4

) System Demonstration, Digital Staff Drills, and Team 

Training Sessions Trainer Guide. A fourth product, Tactical Decision-Making Exercises (TDXs) 

developed under the previous project, was also refined. 

The prototype products were implemented during the Battle Command Reengineering

(BCR) IV Concept Experimentation Program (CEP) experiment, led by the Mounted Maneuver 

Battlespace Lab (MMBL) team, at the Mounted Warfare Test Bed (MWTB) in Fort Knox, 

Kentucky. The ARI’s purpose for participating in this experiment was to support the MMBL,

gather feedback for improvements to the prototype training package, and support the Army’s 

need to gain additional information on future staff training requirements. 

Procedure: 

The work conducted during the original project, Prototype Staff Training and Evaluation 

Methods for Future Forces, provided the foundation for the training design. In addition, the 

work on other ARI-developed structured training programs provided models for collective 

training support packages (TSPs). The Project Team also reviewed available literature regarding

“soft-skills” (e.g., decision-making) training delivery methods. This review included study of 

the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Digital Learning Strategy

(Department of the Army, 1998) and other training and education publications. 

The analysis for each of the four training products began by adapting training methods 

derived from the literature and lessons learned from the original project to meet the unique

requirements of the BCR environment. These requirements included the need for the staff to be 

prepared to conduct futuristic missions using unique equipment within a new staff organization. 

Based upon the analysis, the training products were designed and developed following

established training development methods. 

The complete prototype training program, with the new and refined products, was 

implemented during the BCR IV experiment from April 3 through April 21, 2000. The 

vii 
experiment was conducted in the MMBL test bed at Fort Knox with the 2nd Armored Cavalry

Regiment from Fort Polk participating. 

The formative evaluation approach consisted of a formal aspect which included interviews 

and unit surveys administered at the end of the training week and BCR experiment. This was 

supplemented by an informal element of Project Team observations throughout the design, 

development, and implementation phases. The focus of the evaluations was on the 

implementation process and perceived benefits of the four new or revised training products. 

Findings: 

One finding from the implementation of the four training products during BCR IV is that a 

scenario-based structured training exercise is an effective and efficient training method. Though

this finding is not new, it is one that was reinforced with the implementation of the Digital Staff

Drills and the TDXs. A finding was made that a multi-media demonstration is a good method to 

present a concise overview of the key aspects of a complex digital command, control, 

communications, computers, and intelligence (C4

I) system, although it should be able to be 

displayed at the soldier’s duty station. Another finding supports the concern that the full benefit 

of conducting team training sessions may be compromised when they are conducted in 

conjunction with learning to operate an advanced C4

I system and establishing a new staff 

structure in a compressed training schedule. Other findings regarding Team Training Sessions 

include: a) ensuring the training component is fully developed prior to developing a Team 

Training Sessions Trainer Guide, and b) training the Commander in advance of the unit to better 

customize the training for the unit members. 

Utilization of Findings: 

These findings provide insights into prototype staff training methods and products for future

forces. The specific audience who may find the information contained in this report beneficial 

includes: a) training program designers, developers, and implementers; b) simulation system

developers (hardware and software); and c) training unit and training site personnel. 

The prototype staff training products and package were used to support the BCR IV and the 

findings were provided to the MMBL for inclusion in the Battle Lab Experiment Final Report 

(BLEFR) for Battle Command Reengineering, Phase IV (in preparation). 

The complete prototype staff training package was provided to the MMBL for use in future 

BCR experiments, or for other related efforts, that includes the four training products discussed 

in this report. That six-volume set of materials is entitled Training and Measurement Support 

Package, Battle Command Reengineering IV, Mounted Maneuver Battlespace Lab (U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 2000). 

This report documents this effort, including the lessons learned, that may help in the Army’s 

development of TSPs for future staffs, including Brigade Combat Teams. 

viii 
REFINEMENT OF PROTOTYPE STAFF TRAINING METHODS FOR FUTURE FORCES

CONTENTS 

Page

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 

Organization of Report....................................................................................................... 2 

 Background........................................................................................................................ 3 

 Training Literature ...................................................................................................... 3 

 Prototype Staff Training Program............................................................................... 5 

Selected Lessons Learned from Battle Command Reengineering III......................... 5 

TRAINING PRODUCTS FOR BATTLE COMMAND REENGINEERING IV .................... 6 

Training Environment for Battle Command Reengineering IV......................................... 6 

 Participants.................................................................................................................. 6

 Materials...................................................................................................................... 7 

Overview of the Training Products .................................................................................... 10 

Formative Evaluation Strategy........................................................................................... 12 

 Training Product Information............................................................................................. 13 

 SC4

 System Demonstration......................................................................................... 13 

 Digital Staff Drills....................................................................................................... 18 

Team Training Sessions and Team Training Sessions Trainer Guide ........................ 27 

 Refined Tactical Decision-Making Exercises............................................................. 37 

BATTLE COMMAND REENGINEERING IV TRAINING LESSONS LEARNED............. 40 

 SC4

 System Demonstration ................................................................................................ 41 

Digital Staff Drills.............................................................................................................. 41 

Team Training Sessions and Team Training Sessions Trainer Guide ............................... 42 

Refined Tactical Decision-Making Exercises.................................................................... 43 

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT .................................... 43 

SUMMARY............................................................................................................................... 46 

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 49 

APPENDIX A. List of Acronyms............................................................................................. A-1 

ix
CONTENTS (Continued) 

Page

 B. Sample Materials of the SC4

 System Demonstration.......................................... B-1 

 C. Sample Materials of Digital Staff Drills.............................................................. C-1 

 D. Sample Materials of Team Training Sessions Trainer Guide ............................. D-1 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Organization of the Report ..................................................................................... 2 

2. Battle Command Reengineering (BCR) III Selected Lessons Learned Applicable 

 to Current Project............................................................................................. 6 

 3. Training Level and Attribute Matrix ...................................................................... 11 

4. Key Aspects of SC4

 System Addressed in Demonstration..................................... 15 

5. Candidate Staff Tasks and Functions..................................................................... 19 

 6. Drill Events............................................................................................................. 21 

7. Team Training Sessions Training Objectives......................................................... 29 

8. Summary of Team Training Sessions (TTSs) Implementation Procedures........... 30 

9. Team Training Sessions (TTSs) Trainer Guide Sections....................................... 32 

10. Tactical Decision-Making Exercise (TDX) Descriptions ...................................... 39 

11. Summary of SC4

 System Demonstration Lessons Learned ................................... 41 

12. Summary of Digital Staff Drills Lessons Learned ................................................. 42 

13. Summary of Team Training Sessions (TTSs) and Trainer Guide 

Lessons Learned ............................................................................................... 42 

14. Summary of Refined Tactical Decision-Making Exercises (TDXs) 

Lessons Learned ............................................................................................... 43 

15. Future Directions for Command and Staff Training .............................................. 44 

x 
CONTENTS (Continued) 

Page

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Training levels for first project and Battle Command Reengineering III .............. 5 

2. Battle Command Reengineering IV unit and staff structure .................................. 7 

3. Surrogate Command, Control, Communications, and Computers system setup ... 8 

4. Sample Plan View Display screen.......................................................................... 9 

5. Staff training schedule for Battle Command Reengineering (BCR) IV................. 10 

6. Revised training levels for current project and Battle Command 

Reengineering IV ............................................................................................. 10 

7. Participant ratings of SC4

 System Demonstration results ...................................... 17 

8. Node groupings by event for Conduct a Whiteboard Conference Drill................. 20 

9. Example of the drill guidelines for Conduct a Whiteboard Conference

Digital Staff Drill.............................................................................................. 22 

10. Example of a job aid for Conduct a Whiteboard Conference Digital Staff Drill... 23 

11. Example of the event guide for Conduct a Whiteboard Conference Digital 

Staff Drill.......................................................................................................... 23 

12. Example of an after action review checklist for the Conduct a Whiteboard 

Conference Digital Staff Drill .......................................................................... 24 

13. Participant Ratings of Conduct a Whiteboard Conference Digital Staff Drill ....... 25 

14. Participant Ratings of Select Battle Position Digital Staff Drill ............................ 26 

15. Team Training Sessions’ sequence during a tactical training event....................... 31 

16. Participant ratings of Roles and Functions session ................................................ 34 

17. Participant ratings of Information Management session........................................ 35 

18. Participant ratings of Tactical Decision-Making Exercises (TDXs)...................... 40 

xi
REFINEMENT OF PROTOTYPE STAFF TRAINING METHODS FOR FUTURE FORCES

INTRODUCTION

This report documents the design, development, and implementation of refinements to a 

prototype staff training package for future forces. These training refinements were made to a 

prototype staff training package described in the report Prototype Staff training and Evaluation 

Methods for Future Forces (Throne et al., 1999). Both the first and current projects were to 

provide training and evaluation support to the U.S. Army for the digital battlefield of the future. 

The success of the digital information systems is based on the provision of networked digital 

information systems to all soldiers in the areas of combat, combat support, and combat service 

support (Decker, 1996). As digital systems, referred to as Command, Control, Communications, 

Computers, and Intelligence (C4

I), evolve, there are changes in the complexity level of the skills 

the soldiers and leaders must possess. 

The operation of a brigade or battalion staff is based upon information. Currently, the staff 

processes information by using several individuals to monitor and analyze data from a myriad of 

sources to form a common picture of the current battlefield situation. In the future, C4

I systems 

will provide much of that information more quickly, fuse it from multiple sources, and make it 

universally accessible. One by-product of the future C4

I systems may be the reduction in the 

number of staff needed to operate within this environment, though the amount of information 

and pace of operation will increase.

There is a tendency to think digital systems will provide most of the staff’s situational 

awareness (SA). Endsley (1998) defines SA as “the perception of the elements in the 

environment within a volume of space and time, the comprehension of their meaning, and the

projection of their status in the near future” (p. 97). Therefore, SA is not likely something that 

C4

I systems will directly provide, leaving commanders to rely on staff members to provide this 

level of information analysis. The difficulty then lies with training fewer staff members to 

effectively process, interpret, and use more information faster. 

Both the current and original Project Team efforts were based on experimentation and 

observation. A trial implementation of the earlier work occurred during an Army experiment, 

Battle Command Reengineering (BCR) III. The experiment was led by the Mounted Maneuver 

Battlespace Lab (MMBL) team and took place in April 1999 at the Mounted Warfare Test Bed 

(MWTB) in Fort Knox, Kentucky. The current Project Team also conducted a trial 

implementation of the recent work during BCR IV in April 2000. 

This report focuses on the Project Team’s efforts to expand and refine a prototype staff 

training package. Expansion efforts included the design and development of a C4

I system

demonstration, Digital Staff Drills, and a trainer guide for Team Training Sessions (TTSs). 

Refinement efforts included revising the Tactical Decision-Making Exercises (TDXs) that were

designed during the first project. 

A complimentary report documents the team’s effort on the evaluation strategy, or staff

performance assessment portion of the project, Refinement of Prototype Staff Evaluation 

1 
Methods for Future Forces: A Focus on Automated Measures (Throne, Holden, & Lickteig, in 

preparation). 

The work reported here was performed by the U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) staff and two contracted research and development 

organizations: Human Resources Research Organization and Litton PRC. 

Organization of the Report 

This report contains information regarding four innovative training products that were 

developed or refined during this project. The products are discussed in detail regarding their

design, development, and implementation. There is also discussion of the products from a 

macro-perspective as to how they may influence current and future training needs for the Army. 

The organization of this report is presented in Table 1. 

Table 1 

Organization of the Report 

Section Description

Introduction Summary of the first project’s effort in addition to previous 

research and relevant literature on training designs 

Training Products for BCR IV:

SC4

 System Demonstration Description of the analysis, design, development, and results 

of the formative evaluation for the SC4

 demonstration 

Digital Staff Drills Description of the analysis, design, development, and results 

of the formative evaluation for the drills

TTSs and TTSs Trainer Guide Description of the analysis, design, development, and results 

of the formative evaluation for the TTSs and TTSs Trainer 

Guide

Refined TDXs Description of the analysis, design, development, and results 

of the formative evaluation for the refined TDXs

Summary of the BCR IV Lessons

Learned

Review of the current project’s lessons learned 

Directions for Future Research and 

Development

Description of the recommended future directions for 

command and staff training

Note. BCR = Battle Command Reengineering; SC4 = Surrogate Command, Control, Communications, and 

Computers; TDX = tactical decision making exercise; TTS = Team Training Session.

Appendix A contains a list of the acronyms and abbreviations used in this report. Samples 

of training products developed for the Surrogate Command, Control, Communications, and 

Computer (SC4

) System Demonstration, Digital Staff Drills, and the TTSs and TTSs Trainer 

Guide are contained in Appendixes B, C, and D, respectively. In addition, the complete 

prototype staff training package developed during the previous and current project is available 

from the MMBL. This six-volume set of materials is entitled Training and Measurement 

Support Package, Battle Command Reengineering IV, Mounted Maneuver Battlespace Lab (U.S. 

2 
Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 2000). The Training and 

Measurement Support Package (TMSP) volumes and their contents are: 

Volume 1. Overview and Front-End Analysis for Training and Measurement. 

Documents all of the front-end analysis efforts and products from the previous and 

current project. 

Volume 2. Initial Orientation and Train-Up. Documents materials which include: the

initial BCR IV briefing slides, the SC4

 System Demonstration, Training Plan Outlines 

(TPOs) for initial and advanced digital system training, copies of the performance

assessments developed by the MMBL team, and the Digital Staff Drills. 

Volume 3. Advanced Training. Contains the staff training package materials for the 

scenario-based, structured training exercises developed as a prototype for use in BCR IV. 

Volume 4. Team Training Sessions Trainer Guide. Contains the revised TTSs 

descriptions, revised TPOs and support materials for conducting familiarization briefings, 

and execution materials for conducting the TTSs. 

Volume 5. Measures. Includes copies of all surveys and structured interview forms, 

descriptions and screen copies from the observer data collection instrument used in BCR 

III, and copies of surveys and specifications for the automated measures used in BCR IV. 

Volume 6. Data Codebook. Contains basic descriptions and analyses of the variables in

the data sets resulting from the data collection in BCR IV. 

Background 

To better understand the requirement and purpose for the four training products discussed in 

this report, a summary of the previous project follows. This includes a brief discussion of the 

literature reviewed, the prototype staff training program, and lessons learned that were

documented during the first project. As noted, more complete documentation is provided in the 

report entitled Prototype Staff Training and Evaluation Methods for Future Forces (Throne et 

al., 1999). 

Training Literature

Based on the literature review for the first project, four key methods of effective training

were identified and selected: use of advance organizing techniques, part-task training, deliberate 

practice, and context-based training (Throne et al., 1999). A description of these four methods 

follows with a brief note on how they were employed in the first project. These training methods 

were also used for the current project. 

Advance Organizers 

An advance organizer is a tool used to facilitate long-term recall and transfer of general 

concepts by organizing new material by relating it to known concepts and prior knowledge of the 

learner (Smith, Ford, & Kozlowski, 1997). When presented prior to the new training, the 

advance organizer serves as a bridge, helping the learners recall what they know about a topic 

3 
and transfer that knowledge to new topics. Cannon-Bowers, Rhodenizer, Salas, and Bowers 

(1998) define advance organizers as “...a category of activities such as outlines, text, aural 

descriptions, diagrams, and graphic organizers that provide the trainee with a structure for the 

information that will be provided in the practice environment” (p. 298). 

An advance organizer used in the first project was a briefing that compared the training

unit’s current organization to what they could expect to see in BCR III. This briefing was 

provided to the unit at its home station and repeated during the initial orientation of the BCR 

experiment. 

Part-Task Training

Another method of effective training is part-task training. Tasks are divided into smaller 

parts (subtasks) and are trained individually. This allows the learner to practice each subtask 

individually before practicing the task as a whole. 

In BCR III, the part-task training method is used throughout the prototype staff training

program by first teaching parts of tasks during the individual SC4

 system training. Gradually, the 

tasks are grouped into more complete sets as more complex elements are added. This process 

continues until the learner is practicing the whole task as it would be performed in collective

tactical exercises. 

Deliberate Practice

While part-task training is valuable to the learner’s retention of the training, deliberate 

practice is important because it is the means by which training is reinforced. Deliberate practice

incorporates the concept of part-task training described above, with observer guidance and 

feedback while practicing, until the criterion is reached. Although essential, practice alone does

not assure a task will be performed well. 

Deliberate practice was incorporated in the C4

I system training during BCR III by providing

structured practice exercises to reinforce the training received after each segment of C4I system

training. 

Context-Based Training

Each of the previously described training techniques contributes to performance 

improvement; however, their influence will be even stronger if training is provided in a jobrelated context. According to Means, Salas, Crandall, and Jacobs (1993), training should be 

conducted “...within a meaningful (but not necessarily whole) task context...” (p. 316). By

allowing learners to practice interacting with a system without any guidance or context, they will 

not develop an acceptable understanding of the material (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Converse, 

1992). Therefore, specific instructional guidance should be provided, and training should relate 

to the job context, to ensure accurate understanding among team members (Throne et al., 1999). 

Context-based training was used in BCR III for the task training that provided practice 

opportunities for system operational skills in a mission scenario using small groups. It was also 

4 
used in the subsequent collective tactical exercises focused on using those C4

I system skills to 

accomplish collective battle staff tasks. 

Prototype Staff Training Program

An overview of the complete prototype staff training program developed for BCR III is 

shown in Figure 1. Again, the key training methods included in this program were: a) advance 

organizer, b) part-task training, c), deliberate practice, and d) context-based training. The 

content of this program addressed three major training needs: system operations, tactical skills, 

and team process skills, as discussed in Throne et al. (1999). The three staff training needs might 

be categorized as: knowing how to “push the buttons” of the SC4

 system, found in the Levels 1 

through 3, individual skills; applying “button pushing” to accomplish small parts of their jobs in 

a tactical setting, Level 4, small group skills; processing the information provided by the system 

and other team members during a tactical mission exercise, Level 5, team decision-making skills. 

ENTRY L ENTRY LEVEL -- Tactical Knowledge and Staff Skills

Level 1: Orientation to

Organization and Processes

Level 2: Fundamental Skills

Level 3: Functional Skills

Level 4: Individual and

Collective Tasks

Level 5: TDXs on Staff Processes

and Cognitive Skills

TACTICAL, PROCEDURAL,

AND STAFF PROCESS

PROFICIENCY PRIOR TO

TRIALS

Figure 1. Training levels for first project and Battle Command Reengineering III.

The formative evaluation for the prototype staff training program took two forms: informal 

and formal. The informal evaluation included iterative design and development reviews by the 

previous project’s team members and subject matter experts (SMEs). The formal evaluation 

consisted of a series of surveys and interviews with the training participants, MMBL staff

members, and military Observer/Controllers (O/Cs). 

Selected Lessons Learned from Battle Command Reengineering III

The first project’s team used the results of the evaluation to generate lessons learned 

(Throne et al., 1999). Some of those lessons learned were applied to the product development 

5 
and refinements described in this report. Table 2 relates lessons learned to the training products 

developed and refined during the current project. 

Table 2 

Battle Command Reengineering (BCR) III Selected Lessons Learned Applicable to Current 

Project

Lessons Learned from BCR III Current Project Products

Provide the training audience a general understanding of C4I 

system capabilities and train-up expectations during the initial 

orientation

SC4 System Demonstration

Provide more practice exercises to help bridge the individual and 

collective training gap between the functions and task training

found in Levels 3 and 4 

Digital Staff Drills

Create a trainer guide for the TTSs TTSs and TTSs Trainer 

Guide

Increase the pace of training during the TDXs Revised TDXs

Note. C4I = command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence; SC4 = Surrogate Command, Control,

Communications, and Computers; TDX = tactical decision making exercise; TTS = Team Training Session.

TRAINING PRODUCTS FOR BATTLE COMMAND REENGINEERING IV

This section of the report begins with a description of the BCR IV training environment, 

followed by a general overview of the training products, and discussion of the evaluation 

strategy. That is followed by a description of the analysis, design, development, implementation, 

results, and discussion for each product. Those products are: 

SC4 System Demonstration 

Digital Staff Drills 

TTSs and TTSs Trainer Guide 

Refined TDXs 

Training Environment for Battle Command Reengineering IV

Descriptions of the BCR IV participants; the unit’s organization, particularly staff roles; and 

the equipment used are provided below. This training environment was challenging in that it 

required the unit to acquire new roles in a new organization as well as new digital equipment 

skills, during a one-week training period. 

Participants

The unit participating in the experiment was an active Army cavalry squadron staff with its 

subordinate company commanders. One company brought drivers and gunners to man several 

6 
Future Combat Vehicle simulators. As shown in Figure 2, the squadron staff, which operated in 

a virtual simulation, included the commander and 13 staff officers and non-commissioned 

officers (NCOs). The commander and staff were reconfigured into two battle command vehicles 

(BCVs) and two staff operations vehicles (SOVs), or nodes. The battle command reengineering

aspect of the BCR IV experiment was focused on this group of 14 soldiers referred to as the 

primary training audience in this report. The node functions and job responsibilities for each 

staff member were left to the discretion of the squadron commander, who was allowed to 

reorganize the staff as he gained experience operating a C4

I system. The extended training

audience included company commanders, deputy company commanders, scout platoon leader, 

scout platoon sergeants, and combat vehicle personnel. 

COMMAND 1

(Command Group)

Commander (LTC)

Effects Ops (CPT)

Enemy Ops (CPT)

CONTROL 1

Battle Captain (CPT)

Friendly Ops (MSG)

Enemy Ops (SFC)

Sensor NCO (SFC)

COMMAND 2

(Deputy Commander)

Deputy Commander (MAJ)

Ops Officer (CPT)

Ops NCO (SFC)

CONTROL 2

Battle Captain (CPT)

Friendly Ops (CPT)

Enemy Ops (SFC)

Sensor NCO (SFC)

Battery Commander

Node

Mortar

Maneuver

Combat Vehicles

(one company)

Scout Platoon Nodes

PLT LDR PSG

Forward Support

Commander Node

VIRTUAL

SIMULATION

CONSTRUCTIVE

SIMULATION

Maneuver Company

Commander Nodes

Figure 2. Battle Command Reengineering IV unit and staff structure.

Materials

The BCR IV used emulation as well as constructive and virtual simulators. Figure 3 shows 

the layout of the SC4

 system in the BCVs and SOVs. The primary user interface, and a key SC4

component, was the Plan View Display (PVD) which is depicted in Figure 4. The overall SC4

system included the following capabilities: 

Command and Control PVD, represented by the Modular Semi-Automated Forces 

(ModSAF) two-dimensional PVD. On the PVD, the commander and the staff are able to

view movements of all of their own systems, as well as any opposing forces (OPFOR) 

units detected by satellite or other sensors. Overlays can be drawn on the PVD, users can 

add labels or other notes, and there are tools that show past events and project future 

movements. 

7 
Stealth display, providing a 3-dimensional representation of the battlefield with all of the

systems that are visible on the PVD (i.e., friendly and detected OPFOR). 

Video teleconference (VTC) capability linking the commander and the staff.

Collaborative Whiteboard capability, to allow the commander to present his intent and 

guidance to the staff visually and quickly. Users who are part of the Whiteboard session 

can show snapshots from their PVDs, draw in different colors on those images, add 

clipart-style labels and icons, and type words onto the Whiteboard. 

Large screen display, providing a three-dimensional representation of the battlefield with 

all of the systems that are visible on the PVD, Stealth, Whiteboard, or Unmanned Aerial 

Vehicle (UAV) screens. 

Digitized modified combined obstacle overlay (MCOO), produced automatically for the 

large screen display, rather than as a manually produced intelligence overlay.

Satellite imagery, acting as the electro-optic satellite sensor to deliver a direct downlink 

imagery feed. 

Sensor

Window

Commander’s Station:

PVD (Dynamic Map) / Stealth

View (360°) including BLUFOR

and sensed OPFOR

Large Screen Display

PVD / Stealth View

AA

ROOK

Friendly Ops

PVD

Enemy Ops

PVD

VTC / Whiteboard

(Internode)

Figure 3. Surrogate Command, Control, Communications, and Computers system setup. 

8 
Figure 4. Sample Plan View Display screen. 

Vehicles and weapon systems were represented in either constructive or virtual simulation. 

Constructive simulation (ModSAF) was used to generate and control the OPFOR, friendly forces 

below the company level, and unmanned vehicles replicating both aerial and ground sensors 

(referred to as UAVs and Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs), respectively). Constructive 

simulation workstations were used by the mortar battery commander, forward support company

commander, four maneuver company commanders, and six deputy company commanders. The 

remainder of the extended training audience was in virtual simulation. 

In the virtual environment, simulators were used to represent several vehicles. These 

included the battalion commander and deputy commander vehicles which were represented by

the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) Reconfigurable Simulator Initiative (ARSI)

simulator and an ARSI mockup, respectively; and BCVs and SOVs which were represented by

command and control vehicle (C2

V) mockups. Scout vehicles and the manned platoon vehicles 

of one maneuver company were represented by Future Combat Vehicle mockups. The virtual 

and constructive environments were linked by means of distributed interactive simulation (DIS) 

to form the seamless battlefield environment for the participants. 

The BCR IV experiment missions were based on tactical operations that an Army battalion, 

equipped with an advanced digital C4

I system, might be expected to conduct in the year 2010 

and beyond. The virtual terrain chosen for the experiment was northeastern BosniaHerzegovina, centered around the city of Tuzla. This terrain is extremely mountainous with 

limited ground mobility corridors. 

Finally, the timeline for BCR IV, as shown in Figure 5, provided only one week to train 

primary and extended training audiences. During this one week of training, participants were

required to learn: how to operate the SC4

 system, a new staff organization, new roles and 

9 
functions, new orders of battle and weapon system capabilities, and to operate in relatively new 

terrain. This training environment is important to note since it impacted the design of the 

training products. There was a great deal of information to be covered in a compressed time

frame. 

Train-up on SC4

systems and

processes

BCR IV

Trials and

Data

Collection

BCR IV Trials

and Data

Collection

Pilot

Test

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3

Figure 5. Staff training schedule for Battle Command Reengineering (BCR) IV. 

Overview of the Training Products 

Prior to discussing the current project’s products (new and refined), it is important to 

understand how they fit within the prototype staff training program described in the background 

section. The revised training level hierarchy, Figure 6, shows where each new training product 

fits in the overall training strategy. The SC4

 System Demonstration was incorporated in Level 1, 

Initial Orientation. The Digital Staff Drills are a bridge between functional and task training, and 

therefore, were inserted after Level 3, creating the new level in the hierarchy. Additionally, as

the figure indicates, TTS exercises are introduced in Level 5 Task Training and are part of the 

Level 6, Revised TDXs, as well. 

ENTRY LEVEL -- Tactical Knowledge and Staff Skills

Initial Orientation

Level 1 SC4 System Demonstration

Fundamental Skills

Level 2

Functional Skills

Level 3

Digital Staff Drills

Level 5

Level 6

Revised TDXs (Collective Staff Processes

and TTS Exercises)

Tactical, Procedural, and

Staff Process Proficiency 

Prior to BCR Experiment

TTS Exercises (Trainer Guide)

Task Training

Level 4

Figure 6. Revised training levels for current project and Battle Command Reengineering IV. 

10 
The training development approach used during this project is based on the Army’s Systems 

Approach to Training (SAT) as documented in Department of the Army (1999). The process 

begins with a front-end analysis, followed by design and development phases. Throughout the 

process, products are reviewed, evaluated, and revised as necessary. It should be noted that SAT 

is not a lock-step process and often the lines between analysis, design, and development can 

overlap. This report attempts to categorize the efforts based on SAT, but concedes that some 

efforts overlap more than one phase. 

All of the training materials developed for the four products are documented in Volumes 2, 

3, and 4 (U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 2000). Key

aspects and examples of selected materials are provided within the body of this report. Extended 

examples of some materials are provided in the appendixes, as indicated in the text. 

The Project Team, as part of its overall analysis, identified the primary training attributes for

each level of training. Table 3 shows the matrix that was used to define the levels. The left

column identifies attributes of training that are primary training characteristics. The matrix

provided a simple way to highlight the distinctions between the training levels. 

Table 3 

Training Level and Attribute Matrix

Attributes 

Level 1 

Initial 

Orientation 

Level 2 

Fundamental 

Skills 

Level 3 

Functional 

Skills 

Level 4 

Digital Staff 

Drills 

Level 5 

Task Training

and TTSs 

Level 6 

TDXs (with

TTSs)

Training

Focus System System System System Staff Processes Staff Processes

Audience Individual Individual Individual Small Group Small Group Collective 

Context-Based Very Limited Very Limited Limited Moderate High

(Scenario-based) 

Very High

(Missionbased) 

Topic

SC4 System

Capabilities 

Basic SC4

Skills 

Advanced

SC4

 Skills 

System Skills 

Practice 

Abbreviated 

MDMP

Collective 

Tasks and

Team Training

Method Demonstration Training Training Exercise Exercise Exercise

Reinforce 

Training

None

Individual

Practice and 

Performance 

Assessment 

by RA

Individual

Practice and 

Performance 

Assessment 

by RA

Small Group

Practice an

Performance 

Assessment 

by RA

Small Group

Practice 

Collective 

Practice 

Led By Training 

Director RA RA RA Training 

Director 

Training 

Director 

Note. MDMP = military decision-making process; RA = research assistant; SC4 = Surrogate Command, Control, 

Communications, and Computers; TDX = Tactical Decision-Making Exercise; TTS = Team Training Session.

11 
The training level and attribute matrix was used to develop the definitions for the six

distinct, progressive training stages. Brief descriptions are as follows: 

Level 1, Initial Orientation. An advance organizer containing an introduction, 

orientation, and system demonstration for the BCR Experiment. 

Level 2, Fundamental Skills. Individual training focused on basic SC4 system tools 

conducted in a very limited contextual setting. The training is led by a Research 

Assistant (RA), with time allotted for deliberate practice followed by a go/no go

performance assessment by the RA. 

Level 3, Functional Skills. Individual training, in a limited contextual setting, focused on 

more advanced SC4

 system tools that are grouped by functional usage. The training is led 

by an RA, with time allotted for deliberate practice followed by a go/no go performance

assessment by the RA. 

Level 4, Digital Staff Drills. Staff drills in the form of vignettes for practicing selected

SC4

 system tools in a moderately difficult tactical context. The exercises are led by an 

RA followed by a go/no go performance assessment by the RA. 

Level 5, Task Training and TTS. Staff and team exercises focused on combining newly

acquired SC4

 system skills with staff processes in a highly contextual, scenario-based

setting. The exercises are led by the Training Director. Two TTSs are introduced that 

focus on identifying team roles and functions in addition to information management 

issues. 

Level 6, TDXs (with TTSs). Collective structured training exercises that provide practice 

using SC4

 system skills and staff processes in a mission-based setting. The TDXs are

tactical exercises that are led by the Training Director and contain three embedded TTSs 

focusing on improving teamwork, SA, and decision-making. 

Formative Evaluation Strategy

The formative evaluation was established as a twofold process: informal and formal. 

Informal formative evaluation consisted of repeated reviews of the training products throughout 

the design and development phases and is consistent with the SAT and structured training

approaches. The reviews, process walkthroughs, and trials were conducted by an internal 

network of SMEs and training professionals. They were supplemented by input provided by

ARI and MMBL staff. 

The formal evaluation consisted of surveys that training participants completed at the end of

the training week and at the end of the experiment. The surveys contained separate sections for 

each of the training products: SC4 System Demonstration, Digital Staff Drills, TTSs, and TDXs. 

In each section, participants were asked to rate each item on a scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 

(Strongly Agree). Additionally, for each section, participants were provided with space to 

comment on what could be added, dropped, or changed to improve that particular product. 

The survey administered at the end of the experiment was similar to the one presented at the

end of the training week to allow participants a chance to rate the training again after completion 

12 
of the experiment. This gave the Project Team the opportunity to discover whether participants 

had changed their minds about how well the training week prepared them for the experiment, 

after they had finished with the experiment. A major difference between the two surveys was 

that the survey presented at the end of the training week was paper-based, while the survey

presented at the end of the experiment was computer-based at the staff member’s duty station. 

This difference was due to the lack of time available to pretest computer-based administration of

the first survey. Notably, the MMBL staff anticipates that all participant surveys in future BCR 

experiments will be computer-based. 

The survey results examined in this report address only the results from the end of

experiment survey, since there were no significant differences between the two training surveys. 

Although, surveys were administered to the entire training audience, the results being reported 

only include the 14 members of the primary training audience who were the focus of the staff 

training products. The results from all training audience members who completed the surveys 

can be found in Volume 6: Data Codebook (U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and 

Social Sciences, 2000). 

Training Product Information 

This section addresses each of the four training products developed and implemented: SC4

System Demonstration, Digital Staff Drills, TTSs and TTSs Trainer Guide, and refined TDXs. 

Each product section will contain information regarding product development, implementation, 

and results. Within the separate discussion sections, the specific lessons learned for each product 

are presented. Those lessons learned are consolidated in the “Summary of Battle Command 

Reengineering IV Training Lessons Learned” section. 

SC4 System Demonstration

The training product referred to as the SC4

 System Demonstration was designed and 

developed as part of the initial orientation program. Overall, this orientation was to provide the

training audience with introductory information prior to the BCR train-up and experiments. The 

SC4 System Demonstration is an overview of key SC4

 system capabilities within a scenariobased context. 

Method

The Method section will cover the analysis, design, development, and implementation of the 

SC4 System Demonstration. Results and discussion follow that section. 

Analysis. For this project, the Demonstration was a preview that showed how the SC4

system might be used during mission exercises. Prior to the start of training, a demonstration 

helps the training audience understand how the training program will be conducted (Koger et al., 

1998). As a means to present a preview, research has suggested that demonstration videotapes 

(or similar multimedia presentation) could provide a standard of performance and familiarity

with the training situation (Shlechter & Anthony, 1996). 

13 
The advance organizer training method discussed earlier recommends the training audience

be provided a framework, such as key system aspects, for the information being addressed in the

training, (Cannon-Bowers, Rhodenizer, et al., 1998). Additionally, the training should be 

conducted within a meaningful task context (Means et al., 1993). By including a demonstration 

of the SC4

 system, the training audience could develop a general understanding of how key

aspects of the SC4

 system would be utilized during mission exercises similar to what they would 

experience during the BCR experiment. 

In addition to the literature, a primary basis for initiating the design and development of the

SC4 System Demonstration was found in the lessons learned from BCR III, Initial Orientation. 

One of the lessons learned was that participant soldiers thought the amount of time allocated to 

the Initial Orientation was excessive, and that more time should be spent on SC4

 system practice. 

The RAs indicated that information on operating the SC4

 system should be included into the 

information provided to the unit before it arrived at the training site (Throne et al., 1999). The 

relevant lessons learned from BCR III include: 

Establish the end-state or unit performance expectations for using the SC4 system. 

Reduce the length of time for orientation. 

Include all training participants (primary and extended training audience). 

In order to reduce the amount of time the training audience spent in the initial orientation, 

the demonstration would have to reach the maximum number of people, in a compressed time

frame, and still hit some essential aspects of the SC4

 system capabilities. The approach selected

was to run the demonstration in a classroom setting, projecting the system screens on a wall so 

that the entire training audience can see the screen displays. This would allow all members of 

the training audience to receive the same demonstration, and greatly reduce the technical and 

trainer coordination effort required to execute the demonstration. 

Design of the SC4

 System Demonstration. Basic structural and content parameters were 

established by the Project Team as a design framework before actual design of the demonstration 

began. These parameters addressed training objectives and environment, including the overall 

training schedule. First, the demonstration could be no more than 60 minutes: up to 15 minutes 

could be used for an introduction; the actual demonstration should last for 30 minutes or less; 

and 15 minutes should be allocated for a review and answering questions. Second, the 

demonstration would be focused on key aspects of the SC4

 system so that both the primary and 

extended training audience would gain an understanding of the more common tasks they would 

need to learn during their training. Table 4 describes the key aspects of the SC4 system upon 

which the Project Team decided to base the demonstration. Third, MMBL active duty personnel 

versus civilian contractors would be the demonstrators. Fourth, the demonstration would have a

tactical context to mirror conditions similar to those the experimental unit could experience

during BCR IV. Finally, the demonstration, while showing specific SC4

 capabilities, had to be

flexible enough to allow the introduction of new software that might be developed up to the time 

the BCR Experiment began. 

14 
There were several limitations related to the SC4

 system itself that had to be considered in 

the design of the demonstration. The operating system has no capability to record the actions of 

an operator manipulating SC4 tools. However, the Project Team could capture individual screen 

dumps which could then be linked together to show the series of actions required to manipulate 

the tool and obtain the desired result. Another limitation was the operating system could not 

remotely display or “emulate” an SC4

 system operator’s manipulation on another SC4 system. 

However, another monitor could be attached to an SC4

 display so that someone else in close 

proximity to the operator could view the display.

Table 4 

Key Aspects of SC4

 System Addressed in Demonstration 

Key Aspect Description 

Information Fusion The ability of the SC4

 system to take information from multiple

sources, process and aggregate the information, and display it 

pictorially (refer to Figure 4). The specific capabilities to be shown 

were SITREPs, SPOTREPs, Unit Status Reports, and Battle Damage

Assessment. 

Collaborative Planning The capability of the SC4

 system that allows two or more soldiers to

conduct collaborative planning on an electronic file from

geographically dispersed locations. The specific capabilities of the 

SunForum Whiteboard and the PVD Conference Tool were to be 

demonstrated in terms of creating a tactical operations order. 

Electronic Reference 

“Footlocker” 

The capability of soldiers to use web-browser technology to find, 

review, download, and/or print reference (and eventually training) 

information without having to actually maintain a paper copy at their 

duty workstation. 

Situation Awareness The ability of the SC4

 system to enhance situational awareness through 

automatic display of friendly unit and vehicle locations and status, and 

OPFOR unit or vehicle locations. All friendly location and status data

is updated every 30 seconds. The OPFOR location and status data is

updated every 30 - 90 seconds. 

Note. OPFOR = opposing forces; PVD = Plan View Display; SC4 = Surrogate Command, Control,

Communications, and Computers; SITREP = situation reports; SPOTREP = spot reports. 

Development of the SC4

 System Demonstration. The first step in the development process 

was to create a list of events that would generate the visual cues to illustrate the key aspects of

the system. As the event list was being generated, consideration was given to the tactical

situation and timeline which would provide a context for the events. The Project Team decided 

upon a scenario in which the experimental unit would be in dispersal areas around an airfield. 

Presentation formatting options and tradeoffs were also analyzed. For example, to avoid 

cluttering the SC4

 screen displays with unnecessary vegetation and contour lines, the terrain 

selected was relatively free of vegetation and flat. 

15 
To provide the stimulus for the demonstration, a ModSAF exercise was created by the 

Project Team in conjunction with MWTB personnel. A series of trial runs, following the event 

list, was conducted to ascertain if the visual cues were being generated. The initial trial run 

required approximately 85 minutes. Significant periods of time in which the visual display to the

audience would change only slightly or not at all were eliminated. The result was a

demonstration that was approximately 23 minutes in length. This was well within the window of 

30 minutes for the actual demonstration which had been established during the design phase. 

As the development progressed, the Project Team also identified the need for ancillary

visual displays to support portions of the narration. A series of overhead slides based on SC4

displays was created to augment the projected SC4

 image (for samples, see Appendix B). The 

overhead slides were projected on the wall alongside the SC4

 image so that the demonstration 

audience could view the two displays as the scripted narration was delivered. 

Implementation. The demonstration was presented to the training audience on Training

Day 1, after an initial orientation which included an introduction to the BCR Concept 

Experimentation Program (CEP) and the training facility. The demonstration was presented in a

classroom setting and began with introductory comments addressing the purpose and objectives 

of the demonstration. The SC4

 screen displays were projected on the wall with the scripted

narration provided by a soldier assigned to the MMBL. The workstation used to demonstrate the 

capabilities of the SC4

 system was operated by a member of the Project Team. Another Project 

Team member operated a remote SC4

 workstation so that the interactive Whiteboard capabilities 

of the system could be demonstrated. The actual demonstration, including questions from the 

training audience, took approximately 45 minutes. 

Results

The survey results reported in this section focus on the 14 primary training audience 

members: the squadron commander and his staff located in the four nodes (depicted in Figure 

2). The frequency ratings for their responses are presented in Figure 7. Overall, the respondents 

provided mixed ratings about the demonstration. The primary training audience tended to agree 

that the demonstration was a useful introduction to some of the SC4

 capabilities they used during

the experiment as indicated by ratings on Questions 1 (Q1). However, only a minority agreed 

that the demonstration helped prepare them for the experiment (Q2) or that it was a worthwhile

use of training time (Q3). An interpretation of these ratings is provided in the Discussion 

section. 

From the survey comments, it appeared that some of the participants thought the 

demonstration was fine and provided them a general idea of what they needed to know. For 

example, the commander said “It was a good one over look at the system.” Others said they

would have preferred a more intensive demonstration (e.g., “do a hands on demo,” “allow some 

participants in the demo”). Finally, some of the people who did not think the demonstration was 

a worthwhile use of training time commented that they would have preferred to move directly

into hands-on training and skipped the demonstration entirely. Examples of comments included: 

“Let the soldiers play with the system for a while” and “Let us get in and start learning the 

system.” 

16 
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Q1 Q2 Q3

Question

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither D/A

Agree

Strongly Agree

Note. N = 14. Q1 = The demonstration was a useful introduction to some key SC4 tools and 

capabilities that I used during the experiment. Q2 = The demonstration helped prepare me for some

of the things I did later during the experiment. Q3 = The demonstration was a worthwhile use of

training time.

Figure 7. Participant ratings of SC4 System Demonstration results. 

Discussion

The demonstration, at least partially, met the objective of providing a concise overview of

key aspects of a complex system which had been missing from previous BCR training efforts. 

However, participant comments and suggestions, along with Project Team observations, for 

demonstration improvement are provided. 

From a training delivery perspective, the MWTB classroom setting for the demonstration 

was less than ideal. The MWTB is housed in a temporary metal frame building with an open 

floor plan that can accommodate rapid changes in configuration. The lighting system in the 

spaces that were used for the demonstration is an industrial design that provided little flexibility

in adjusting intensity without turning off individual lights. The ambient noise level in the 

MWTB is high due to the concrete floor, metal walls and roofing, and the continuous air handler 

noise necessary to keep the large numbers of computers cool. Perhaps a better approach would 

be to design a demonstration that could be delivered and viewed at a soldier’s duty workstation. 

This would improve aural and visual delivery. In addition, the training audience can benefit 

from watching how the system is manipulated in addition to viewing the results of the

manipulations on the screen displays. An exportable, outside of the MWTB, version could also 

be developed and made part of a unit’s advance preparation before arriving at the BCR site. 

From a training requirement perspective, the focus needs to remain on demonstrating key

aspects of the digital C4

I system. Not all capabilities of such a system can or should be included 

in a demonstration. Finding the right balance between the full capabilities of the system and the 

ability of an audience to comprehend what is being demonstrated needs to be carefully worked

out to maintain interest in the system. In structuring the demonstration, a main consideration is 

17 
to determine whether to include all echelons of unit leadership in the audience or to tailor a

demonstration to each level. While it may take greater resources to create tailored 

demonstrations, the payback in improved understanding and training performance may be worth 

the investment. 

Digital Staff Drills

The Digital Staff Drills were designed to bridge individual SC4

 systems training (Levels 

1 - 3) and small group staff process training (Level 5). The Digital Staff Drills provide an 

opportunity to practice and assess staff skills at a group level by focusing on key procedures 

required to successfully operate the SC4

 system during tactical operations. Each drill is set 

within a short, simulation-based tactical vignette that provides the context and cues needed to 

stimulate performance of a specific aspect of the SC4

 system. 

Method

The Method section will cover the analysis, design, development, and implementation of the 

Digital Staff Drills. Results and discussions follow that section. 

Analysis. A review of training literature indicated that scenario-based training benefits the

training audience by providing cues similar to those which will be experienced in the actual

environment (Cannon-Bowers, Burns, Salas, & Pruitt, 1998). An important component of 

scenario-based training is the need to provide feedback during and immediately following the

training. Deliberate practice is a training technique applicable to drills with regard to the

repetitive tasks and immediate feedback from the RA. 

Another aspect of the analysis was a review of the lessons learned from the BCR III

experiment. The lessons learned, reported in Throne et al. (1999), were based upon participant 

comments and observation by SMEs. A recurring comment and observation was the need to 

include more practice time with the guidance and feedback from knowledgeable RAs. The 

relevant lessons learned from BCR III include: 

Provide additional practice for SC4 system skills. 

Conduct some type of assessment of SC4 system skills. 

Provide system checklists and/or job aids. 

The final step in the analysis was to determine the key SC4

 system procedures required 

during tactical operations. It should be noted the selection of tools to cover during the drills was 

based on the results of tool usage measures developed for BCR III which showed which tools 

were most likely to be used. Using the first project team’s observations in combination with data

from the BCR III regarding SC4

 system usage, several candidate tasks and functions were 

identified, as indicated in Table 5. 

18 
Table 5 

Candidate Staff Tasks and Functions 

Candidate Staff Tasks and Functions 

Conduct intranode whiteboard conference Create a tactical overlay

Conduct internode whiteboard conference Submit reports 

Conduct mission analysis Produce and order 

Refine (analyze) course of action Target enemy forces 

Develop a course of action Manage electronic files 

Develop a reconnaissance and surveillance plan Select battle position 

Conduct CSS operations Execute surveillance 

Engage enemy forces 

Note. CSS = combat service support.

After reviewing the candidate staff tasks and functions list, Whiteboard conferencing was 

selected as the most critical task. This decision was based on the results of BCR III when the 

training unit took approximately four hours to conduct the first battalion-level Whiteboard 

conference (Throne et al., 1999). The Project Team, therefore, first developed a Digital Staff 

Drill based on conducting Whiteboard conferences. Then, as time and resources permitted, the 

Project Team would develop additional Digital Staff Drills that focused on: 

Selecting Battle Positions to cover SC4 system tools for creating and distributing

operations orders and overlays. 

Targeting to cover SC4 system tools for battle tracking and battle damage assessment. 

Combat Service Support to cover SC4 system tools for logistic estimates, unit status, and 

route planning. 

The training audience targeted for the Digital Staff Drills was the squadron commander and 

primary staff members with company commanders providing supporting roles. The training time 

allocated for these drills was four hours during the morning of Day 3, after the squadron had 

completed Functions Training (Level 3) and before starting Task Training (Level 5). 

Due to resource constraints, two Digital Staff Drills, Conduct a Whiteboard Conference and 

Select Battle Position, were developed during this project. The following section covers the 

design of these two Digital Staff Drills. 

Design of the Digital Staff Drills. There were two goals established for the drills. The first 

was to provide additional practice using the SC4

 system, and the second was to provide an 

assessment feature to ensure system proficiency prior to moving on to the next level of training. 

The foundation for the design of the Digital Staff Drills originates in ARI research exploring the 

use of vignettes for assessing tactical command and control skills (e.g., Lickteig, 1991; Lickteig

& Emery, 1994). The use of vignettes was well established with the Force XXI Training 

Program: Combined Arms Operations at Brigade Level, Realistically Achieved Through 

Simulation (COBRAS), which developed a series of 24 vignettes for brigade staffs. The process 

19 
established by Campbell, Ford, Campbell, & Quinkert (1998), addresses how to: a) focus 

training on key objectives and performance considerations for a small group, b) “slice” a single

event from a larger scenario, and c) keep user preparation time and materials to a minimum. 

The design limited each Digital Staff Drill to approximately 60 minutes. There was an 

introduction or set-up period, an execution segment of approximately 30 minutes that included 

four separate events, and a period for reviewing performance. The performance evaluation 

centered only on SC4

 system operational procedures, not tactical proficiency. 

For adequate practice and assessment opportunities, the Digital Staff Drills were designed to 

provide an opportunity for each primary staff member to demonstrate proficiency with selected 

staff tasks. Referring to the top part of Figure 8, the first three events of a drill are listed in the

center. The circles around each node indicate that the staff works together on the tasks within

each node. The fourth event of a drill, pairs two nodes, as indicated in the bottom part of the 

figure, to work together similar to how they will collaborate during the TDXs and experiment. 

As mentioned earlier, company commanders were included in the drills to raise the tactical

training context as supporting roles. 

Friendly Ops NCO

Battle Captain

Enemy Ops NCO

Sensor NCO

Current Ops

Iron Company

Friendly Ops NCO

Battle Captain

Enemy Ops NCO

Sensor NCO

Future Ops

Lightning

Company

Event 1 - INTSUM Analysis

Event 2 - Higher Headquarters

OPORD Analysis

Event 3 - Battle

Position Selection

Effects Officer

Commander

Operations Officer

Command 1

Killer Company

Effects Officer

Deputy Commander

Operations Officer

Command 2

Mad Dog

Company

Effects Officer

Deputy Commander

Operations Officer

Command 2

Mad Dog Company

Friendly Ops NCO

Battle Captain

Enemy Ops NCO

Sensor NCO

Future Ops

Lightning

Company

Friendly Ops NCO

Battle Captain

Enemy Ops NCO

Sensor NCO

Current Ops

Iron Company

Effects Officer

Commander

Operations Officer

Command 1

Killer Company

Event 4 - COA

Development

Training

Figure 8. Node groupings by event for Conduct a Whiteboard Conference Drill. 

20 
Development of Digital Staff Drills. To establish a tactical context for the Digital Staff

Drills training, the Project Team adopted a modified version of the scenario that was used during

the demonstration. That is, the training unit had arrived at an airfield and was located in 

dispersed assembly areas. The OPFOR was moving to encircle the unit and attack it from four

separate directions. The terrain selected for the drills had well defined mobility corridors that

were separated by mountain ridges. This allowed the four command and control nodes and their 

associated company commanders to train simultaneously without interfering with one another. 

To guide development, an event list was created for each drill to provide the structure 

around the cues required to stimulate the staff member performance. The events are listed in 

Table 6. 

Table 6 

Drill Events 

Digital Staff Drill 1: Conduct a Whiteboard Conference 

Event 1 INTSUM

Analysis

Enemy Operations Officer receives INTSUM from HHQ, initiates a 

Whiteboard conference within node to discuss INTSUM and designate 

NAI.

Event 2 HHQ OPORD 

Analysis

Friendly Operations Officer receives OPORD from HHQ, initiates a

Whiteboard conference within node to discuss OPORD specified and 

implied tasks. 

Event 3 BP Selection 

Battle Captain initiates a Whiteboard conference within node and a 

company commander to select three platoon Battle Positions. 

Event 4 Course of Action 

Development 

Both command nodes initiate a Whiteboard conference with a control 

node and two company commanders to designate company areas of 

operations from a change of mission. 

Digital Staff Drill 2: Select Battle Position 

Event 1 

Commander’s 

Planning

Guidance

Node OICs receive commander’s planning guidance via Netscape® email message, sends reply.

Event 2 Staff Estimate 

Update 

Staff use Netscape® browser to research the threat capabilities 

manual. 

Event 3 BP Selection 

Staff open a PVD overlay file, drawing Battle Positions, save and send 

overlay to Node OIC. 

Event 4 BP Analysis, 

PVD Conference 

Node OIC opens a PVD conference with node staff, discusses solution 

and sends file to HHQ. 

Note. BP = Battle Position; HHQ = higher headquarters; INTSUM = intelligence summary; NAI = named area of

interest; OIC = officer-in-charge; OPORD = operations order; PVD = Plan View Display.

A separate drill “guideline” was developed for each staff member and company commander

participating in the instruction. The guidelines were individualized and provided specific, stepby-step performance instruction based on the individual’s role during each event in the drill. An 

abbreviated sample from the Conducting a Whiteboard Conference Digital Staff Drill is shown 

in Figure 9. An example of a complete Whiteboard Drill Guideline can be found in Appendix C. 

21 
Whiteboard Drill Guidelines - Wolfpack 53

TACTICAL

SITUATION

Your task force, 3rd Squadron, 2

nd Battle Force has just arrived by air

and is currently located in assembly areas... (continued)

Exercise

guidance

For this drill’s four Whiteboard (WB) events, you are Wolfpack 53, located

in the Command 2 Node. During events... (continued)

Event Action Activity

1. INTSUM

Analysis

Participate in Wolfpack 52

Whiteboard Conference

 Select CAU Channel 3 for

monitoring/transmitting.  Wolfpack 52 will contact you on the radio and

announce that he is initiating...(continued)

Establish radio

communications

 Establish radio contact with Wolfpack 5,

Wolfpack 52, and Mad Dog 6 on CAU Channel 3.  Inform them that you will use the SunForum®

Whiteboard Tool to coordinate your analysis of an

INTSUM from higher headquarters.

2. Higher

Headquarters

OPORD Analysis

Initiate whiteboard

conference

 Open the SunForum® Window and initiate a

conference with Wolfpack 5, Wolfpack 52, and

Mad Dog 6.  Once the conference... (continued)

(3, 4 continued)

5. AAR Drill AAR  Node RA will conduct AAR in place.  Move to classroom for unit AAR.

Rules of

engagement

While you are participating in Whiteboard conferences initiated by other staff

members:  Follow their lead.  Do not open Whiteboard Window until directed...

Figure 9. Example of the drill guidelines for Conduct a Whiteboard Conference Digital Staff

Drill. 

An interesting feature of the Conduct a Whiteboard Conference guidelines is the concept of 

rotating the “initiator” or “lead” role for participants in a conference. Each event cued a different 

node member to initiate, or lead, a conference which ensured that each squadron primary staff 

member had the chance to practice the procedure. This feature was described in detail during the 

pre-drill briefing to provide the information regarding what will happen during the drill, the

objectives of the drill, and the expectations of their performance. 

In addition to the guidelines, staff members were also provided a job aid (see Figure 10) for 

each drill. The aid provided the operational steps required to perform the critical SC4

 System’s

tasks applicable to the drills. Though the job aids were intended to support training, by posting a 

copy in each node, they could also provide a quick reference for the staff during the BCR

experiment missions. 

22 
 SunForum Whiteboard Job Aid

Action - Icon Description

1. Open SunForum

 Cursor in desktop open area  Click right mouse button.  Using the left mouse button,

click on C2 heading  Click on SunForum heading  Use left mouse button for all

subsequent actions.

2. Find Addresses

Address Book

 When SunForum window has

opened  Click Address Book  Click on individual address

3. Call Participants  Click the Call button  Select and call additional

participants until everyone...

Figure 10. Example of job aid for Conduct a Whiteboard Conference Digital Staff Drill 

A contributor to the successful implementation of the Digital Staff Drill was the skill of the

RAs. Though the drills do not require constant input from the RA as do the Fundamental and 

Functions training (Levels 2 and 3, respectively), the RAs monitor the actions of the training

audience to provide guidance, feedback, and additional training should someone have difficulty

with a particular procedure. Each RA was given an event guide (see Figure 11) which provides a 

“script” of the actions received by each participant (as provided in the guidelines). The event 

guide also covered the sequence of actions of the staff members, the company commanders, and 

other personnel in the White Cell who support the drill. By following the event guide, the RA 

could ensure that the drill was unfolding in sequence with the individual staff member’s drill 

guidelines, and that the supporting personnel were providing the correct cues when needed. 

3.3 Event Guide, Continued

Whiteboard Conference Event 3: Battle Position Selection

Trainer Notes/Events/Briefings Node Participants Company

Commander

White Cell Done

()

Note: The RA notifies the Training Director that the

node is prepared to continue with Event 2.

Note: The Training Director directs the White Cell to

send the Higher Headquarters OPORD Whiteboard file

to the Friendly Ops station in the nodes that are ready.

Friendly Ops initiates

whiteboard conference

with the node OIC,

White Cell sends the

Higher Headquarters

OPORD Whiteboard

file to the Friendly

Ops in each node.

Note: RA monitors Friendly Ops and assists as

necessary.

Company commander

enters whiteboard...

Figure 11. Example of the event guide for Conduct a Whiteboard Conference Digital Staff Drill. 

A function for the RAs would be to assess the SC4 System critical task proficiency of the 

participants. To assist in developing this assessment, an after action review (AAR) checklist (see 

23 
Figure 12) was developed for use by the RA. It was keyed to the drill events and provided space

for the RA to indicate whether each individual staff member was proficient or needed additional 

training. At the conclusion of the drill, the RA would conduct an informal review with the node 

staff members and provide them feedback on their performance. 

Conduct a WhiteBoard Conference Drill

After Action Review Checklist

ACTION Enemy

Ops

Friendly

Ops

Co

Cdr(s)

Node

OIC

S I S I S I S I

INITIATE WHITEBOARD CONFERENCE

 Solaris® Operating System

 SunForum® Window

 Address Book

CONDUCTING WHITEBOARD

CONFERENCE

 Call participants

 Open Whiteboard Window

 Open Whiteboard File

Figure 12. Example of an after action review checklist for the Conduct a Whiteboard 

Conference Digital Staff Drill. 

Implementation. The two developed Digital Staff Drills, Conduct a Whiteboard Conference

and Select Battle Position, were successfully implemented during the morning of Training Week, 

Day 3. No significant problems were noted by the Project Team. Each of the two drills took 

about 75 minutes to accomplish. 

Results

The squadron commander and the 13 primary staff members were asked questions about the 

drills in the survey administered at the conclusion of the training week and at the end of the

experiment. Unfortunately, one staff member neglected to complete or turn in a survey, 

therefore the results are being reported for 13 respondents. Overall, the survey results indicated 

a favorable response regarding the usefulness of the drills. 

Conduct a Whiteboard Conference Digital Staff Drill. As seen in Figure 13, a majority of

the respondents felt the drill was helpful. Several comments centered on the desire to have more 

repetitions of the procedures and to provide a reference guide (or more training) to the RAs so 

they could better field questions. The survey results also indicated that the job aid was not used 

during the actual BCR experiment. It is interesting to note that there were numerous comments 

for BCR III that a job aid was needed, however, these results might seem to indicate otherwise. 

There were two comments received that the job aid needed improvement, but no specific

suggestions were provided. 

24 
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Q1 Q2 Q3

Question

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither D/A

Agree

Strongly Agree

Note. N = 13. Q1 = This drill was useful in helping me initiate Whiteboard conferences during the 

experiment. Q2 = I referred to the job aid on initiating Whiteboard conferences at least once during

the experiment. Q3 = Because of the job aid, I already knew how to initiate a Whiteboard conference 

by the time the experiment began.

Figure 13. Participant ratings of Conduct a Whiteboard Conference Digital Staff Drill. 

Select Battle Position Digital Staff Drill. The results were a little less favorable overall with 

this drill, though still positive (see Figure 14). Over half of the participants felt that this drill was 

useful in helping them edit and send overlays during the experiment. Although most of the 

respondents denied referring to the job aids during the experiment, they may have used them 

earlier in the training. Most of the participants used the Netscape® browser at least once during

the experiment, while only six initiated PVD conferences. Participant comments noted a need

for more practice with the PVD conference feature, more help for the RAs to be able to respond 

better to questions, and the need for a more realistic tactical requirement: “Draw phase lines

instead of battle positions.”

25 
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6

Question

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither D/A

Agree

Strongly Agree

Note. N = 13. Q1 = This drill was useful in helping me edit overlays during the experiment. Q2 = This drill 

was useful in helping me send overlays during the experiment. Q3 = I referred to the job aid on using the 

Netscape® browser at least once during the experiment. Q4 = I referred to the job aid on initiating PVD 

conferences at least once during the experiment. Q5 = I used the Netscape® browser during the experiment.

1

 

Q6 = I initiated PVD conferences during the experiment. 

Figure 14. Participant ratings of Select Battle Position Digital Staff Drill. 

Figure 14

Discussion

The drills, as designed, developed, and implemented, were at least partially successful in 

providing additional training to the commander and the primary staff members in operating the

SC4

 system. Undoubtedly, a key “result” was that few serious problems with Whiteboard 

conferencing occurred, in contrast to BCR III. These results suggest that scenario-based training

is a better method for training on C4

I systems that the lecture and demonstration method 

employed during some previous BCRs. 

Developing structured scenario-based training, however, is costly in terms of the resources 

required to put it together. It may have limited applicability when C4

I systems are continually

being modified or reconfigured. In the BCR environment, for example, a change to the specific 

software program used to conduct Whiteboard conferences may require, at a minimum, the staff 

member drill guidelines and job aid be redone or completely discarded which would require that

the training development cycle be reinitiated. 

Moving from individual to staff collaborative training adds complexity which may detract 

from the overall objective of providing increased training opportunities and assessing

performance. Extending training beyond the primary audience creates other requirements for 

cues and interdependencies that may not be needed for the primary training audience. The 

 

1

 Questions 5 and 6 were recoded for . On the surveys, the questions appeared as not using the Netscape® 

browser and not initiating PVD conferences. Since disagreement would actually be positive for these two questions, 

they were recoded so that agreement would be positive and the results presented in the figure would be consistent. 

26 
problem with the addition of cues is that they may interfere with or muddy the execution of the

primary tasks of the drill. For example, including a requirement for a drill to train a vehicle

gunner while simultaneously training a battalion intelligence officer means much more than just 

adding a couple of more targets to the scenario. The cues that the intelligence officer would need 

to be adequately trained (e.g., robotic scouts and unmanned aerial scout vehicles) would be 

inconsequential to the gunner. 

Finally, there is still a lingering question regarding the usefulness of job aids. Many

responses were received from BCR III that job aids were needed. It was clear from BCR IV, 

however, that the job aids usage was low. There are a few possible reasons for the low usage. 

First, as indicated by the commander, the job aids might have been more helpful had they been 

used as “training” aids when those tasks were first introduced. Second, the job aids may have

covered tasks that were so well practiced during training that the need to refer back to process 

steps was eliminated. A solution for these concerns could be to develop separate training aids 

and job aids. The training aids would focus on commonly used functions and would be used 

when the system functions are first introduced and practiced. The job aids would focus on 

important system functions that are used less frequently during a collective mission exercise. 

Notably, the more such aids are made available on-line, the more they may be accessible on 

demand. 

Team Training Sessions and Team Training Sessions Trainer Guide

This section of the report covers two related efforts, the revision to the TTSs and 

development of a trainer guide for the TTSs. The TTSs were developed during the first project 

to provide brigade- and battalion-level staffs the opportunity to develop and practice teamwork 

and decision-making skills. They are a series of five exercises, with associated short briefings to 

describe their benefits and processes, that are used in conjunction with a brigade or battalion 

tactical training event. The Trainer Guide provides the information required to conduct and 

implement the training sessions. 

The TTSs are: a) Roles and Functions, b) Information Management, c) Pre-Execution Brief, 

d) Situation Update, and e) Team Decision-Making Debrief. Although each TTS can be used 

independently, as a complete set they may provide an integrated approach to improving

teamwork and decision-making skills. It should be noted that the TTSs were intended to be

exercises a commander will want to adopt and use during any tactical training event that includes 

the staff, not just the BCRs. 

Method

The Method section will cover the analysis, design, development, and implementation of the 

TTSs and TTSs Trainer Guide. Results and discussion follow that section 

Analysis. The training aspects incorporated in the TTSs, not only included context-based 

training discussed in the background section, but decision-making, teamwork skills, SA, and 

information management (Throne et al., 1999). The cognitive and collaborative nature of this 

training, sometimes called “soft-skills,” is quite different than psychomotor training, or “hard 

27 
skills” and it may demand different methods of delivering training. Therefore, the Project Team 

reviewed current literature for delivery methods of “soft-skills” training. 

When dealing with “soft-skills” training, there is a need to both educate and train. 

Educating increases intellectual awareness of a subject; while training increases proficiency in

the execution of a given task. Therefore, it is best to educate briefly, then train at length

(Georges, 1996). First, learners are educated about what they are being asked to achieve and the 

cognitive and collaborative skills they will have to execute in order to obtain those results. Then

they must practice, with expert guidance, until they become proficient (Georges, 1996). 

A popular approach to soft-skills training combines two aspects of training discussed earlier: 

part-task, deliberate practice, and context-based training (Georges, 1988; Whitmore & Fry,

1974). They state that the systematic breakdown of tasks is important in soft-skills training to 

effectively complete the task from start to completion. Then the learner should practice the steps 

of the task, and perform or roleplay the task in a “real” situation. By interacting with one another 

in roleplaying situations, the learners may become more aware of each other’s roles, knowledge, 

skills, abilities, and preferences (Cannon-Bowers, Tannebaum, Salas, & Volpe, 1995). 

Initially, the Project Team focused on the design and development of the TTSs Trainer

Guide. When the lessons learned from the BCR III were reviewed, there were several comments 

suggesting improvements which prompted consideration of revising the TTSs. The relevant 

lessons learned from BCR III include: 

Revise the Information Management training session content. 

Revise the titles of some training sessions to reflect current military terminology.

Develop a strategy to increase unit leader acceptance of TTSs. 

Provide a trainer outside the unit to implement the TTSs 

Also, the TTS materials from the previous project were closely examined. This effort 

resulted in a concern that the sessions, as originally developed, lacked clear training objectives 

and a documented method of how they should be implemented. This concern was supported by

comments received from BCR III indicating the staff felt they did not have a good grasp of the 

expectations of the training. The Project Team, therefore, determined that designing and 

developing a trainer guide for TTSs that were not well defined was premature. The Project 

Team decided to clearly define and develop the TTSs, before designing and developing the 

trainer materials. 

Design of TTSs and TTSs Trainer Guide. The first of two underlying assumptions, which 

were established prior to the start of the design phase, was to retain the basic design features of 

the TTSs established during the previous project. However, ARI concurred that work was 

required to improve methods and training procedures, and to determine clear objectives for each 

session. Table 7 documents the training objectives for the TTSs. 

28 
Table 7 

Team Training Sessions Training Objectives 

Team Training Sessions Objectives 

Roles and Functions ➙ Understand your own and other’s roles, functions, and tasks. 

Information Management ➙ Establish unit standing operating procedures for file naming

conventions, retention, and deletion. 

Pre-Execution Brief 

(Pre-Action Analysis) ➙

Identify potential problems that could negatively impact the 

mission (not previously addressed in planning) and their 

solutions. 

Situation Update 

(Commander’s Timeout) ➙ Share a common understanding of the current situation,

mission, and commander’s intent. 

Team Decision-Making

Debrief ➙ Identify improvements to the decision-making process.

Note. The titles in parentheses were Team Training Session names used during Battle Command Reengineering III. 

Refinement of the TTSs focused upon two lessons learned from their implementation during

BCR III: obtain the commander’s buy-in to use the TTSs and develop clear step-by-step 

procedures for conducting the sessions. Therefore, a front-end analysis was needed that would 

describe the purpose, benefits, and procedural description of the TTSs. Interviews would be 

conducted with SMEs having battalion staff training experience to determine the type of 

information that a commander would likely want to know. Then procedures for conducting each 

TTSs were established through a series of round table discussions with Project Team members 

and ARI’s contract representatives. 

The second underlying assumption for the design phase was to have the TTSs Trainer Guide 

be generic in nature, so that it could be adaptable for a variety of training environments. There 

was, however, an opportunity to conduct a trial of the Trainer Guide during BCR IV which 

required a BCR IV specific Trainer Guide to be developed. Therefore, a dual-track design was 

adopted for the trainer materials: one set of materials framed with generic team concepts and 

processes; another set of materials that were specifically applicable to BCR IV. This dual track

resulted in the BCR IV materials becoming a formative evaluation vehicle for the generic Trainer 

Guide. 

The design also addressed required trainer characteristics and qualifications. The trainer for

the TTSs should be of equal or higher rank to the battalion or squadron commander, be familiar 

with the current operating environment, and have brigade- or battalion-level training experience. 

Development of the TTSs and TTSs Trainer Guide. As with the design phase, the 

development phase followed a similar dual-track process: a generic TTSs Trainer Guide and one

that was specifically focused on BCR IV. It was decided to first develop the Roles and 

Functions TTS. This would include determining the process for delivering the Roles and 

Functions exercise in addition to developing the TTSs Trainer Guide support materials. 

29 
Project Team brainstorming sessions were conducted to “walk through” the process of how 

each TTS would be implemented. These brainstorming sessions included three Army SMEs, a 

psychologist, and two training developers. The inclusion of the SMEs was critical to ensure the

procedures developed for conducting the TTSs were appropriate and acceptable to a commander 

and unit. Weekly process reviews were conducted throughout the development process. As a 

summary, Table 8 provides a brief description of the implementation method that was developed 

for each TTS. A complete description of each TTS can be found in Volume 4 of the Training 

and Measurement Support Package, Battle Command Reengineering IV, Mounted Maneuver 

Battlespace Lab (U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 2000). 

Table 8 

Summary of Team Training Sessions (TTSs) Implementation Procedures 

TTS Implementation Procedures

Roles and 

Functions 

Write down who they report to, who reports to them, and the tasks within their 

area of responsibility using the Roles and Functions worksheet. 

Identify, on the worksheet, from whom they receive task related information. 

Identify, on the worksheet, to whom they provide task related information. 

Brief key aspects of the information on the worksheet to other staff members. 

Discuss solutions to conflicting information or product flows. 

Information 

Management 

Receive a briefing on an Information Management exercise scenario. 

Identify the problem identified in the exercise scenario and discuss how to 

prevent it from happening. 

Develop standing operating procedures to address the problem described 

within the scenario. 

Pre-Execution 

Brief

Review roles and primary tasks for executing the upcoming mission. 

Identify potential problems which could occur (since planning phase). 

Determine solutions for key problems. 

Brief task responsibilities, potential problems, and solutions to staff. 

Situation Update 

Staff Huddle, Variation 1 (exercise is stopped or paused): 

Prepare answers to questions regarding current battle situation, current 

information needs, and expectations for the near future. 

Brief their answers to the questions. 

Receive feedback from commander regarding any misunderstandings. 

Commander’s Timeout, Variation 2 (exercise continues): 

Receive commander’s assessment of current battle situation. 

Receive commander’s expectations of the near future situation. 

Team DecisionMaking Debrief 

Identify a key decision they made during the exercise. 

Discuss aspects of decision; what resources were needed, were resources

available, to whom decision was conveyed, feedback received. 

Analyze several decisions with regard to process and impacts on team. 

Each TTS entailed a familiarization briefing and an exercise. Each briefing was to be 

conducted once per training event so the unit members understand the objective and process for 

each TTS. The exercise portion of the first two TTSs (Roles and Functions, Information 

Management) were also designed to be conducted before mission receipt and focus on more 

general staff process issues. The last three TTS exercises were embedded within tactical training

exercises. Therefore, the TTS exercises are repeated with each new tactical exercise similar to 

30 
conducting troop leading procedures or an AAR. Because the “embedded” TTSs are part of and 

dependent upon a tactical exercise setting, there was little benefit in trying to create “practice”

opportunities in a classroom. Therefore, the first tactical exercise during a training event 

becomes the “practice” exercise. Figure 15 shows how the TTSs are designed to fit into a 

tactical training event.

Planning Preparation Execution Mission 

Receipt

PostExecution

Roles 

and

Functions

Rehearsal

Pre-Execution

Brief

Situation

Update

AAR

Team

Decision-Making

Debrief

OPORD

Information

Management

Pre-Execution

Checks

Figure 15. Team Training Sessions’ sequence during a tactical training event. 

As the TTSs were being developed, the TTSs Trainer Guide was being developed. A brief 

description of each section in the Trainer Guide is provided in Table 9. Samples of selected 

materials from the Trainer Guide sections can be found in Appendix D. The sample materials 

include: Overview, Commander’s Read-Ahead, TPO and exercise worksheet for Roles and 

Functions, and the Team Decision-Making Debrief execution guidelines and worksheet. 

Full support by the commander may be important to the successful implementation of the 

TTSs. Therefore, the “pull-out” Commander’s Read-Ahead section was created to address this

concern. This section was provided to the commander in advance of the train-up week. 

Providing a clear rationale and description of the TTSs to the commander ahead of time, may

prepare him to work with the trainer to develop the specific implementation details. 

The TTSs section contains TPOs that are the framework from which a training plan can be 

developed by the trainer. The design of the TPOs was similar to the TPOs designed in the first 

project. Notably, for the BCR-specific guide, a full training plan was developed by the Project 

Team from the TPO. Other materials provided in the following subsections include briefing

slides, worksheets, and procedures for conducting the exercises for the Roles and Functions and 

the Information Management TTSs. 

The section entitled Conducting TTS During Mission Exercises contains the execution 

materials for the three TTSs that occur during tactical training exercises: Pre-Execution Brief, 

Situation Update, and Team Decision-Making Debrief. As these TTSs are repeated with each 

tactical exercise, the same guidelines, slides, and worksheets are used repeatedly. 

31 
Table 9

Team Training Sessions (TTSs) Trainer Guide Sections 

TTSs Trainer Guide Sections Description 

Overview Introduces the TTSs by providing information regarding TTS

design, TTSs Trainer Guide Design, Trainer prerequisites and 

responsibilities, and training audience. 

Commander’s Read-Ahead Designed as a separate “pull-out” section that describes what the 

TTSs are, their benefits and process, commander’s role, and an 

additional background section regarding the research behind the 

development of the TTSs. 

TTSs Five TTS sections which provide an overview, a Training Plan 

Outline for the familiarization briefing, briefing slides, and 

exercise materials (for Roles and Functions/Information 

Management) such as execution guidelines, overhead slides, 

worksheets. 

Conducting TTSs During Mission 

Exercises 

Provides easy access to the materials needed for conducting the 

three embedded TTS exercises (Pre-Execution Brief, Situation 

Update, Team Decision-Making Debrief) such as execution 

guidelines, overhead slides, worksheets. 

Implementation. Roles and Functions and Information Management were implemented on 

Training Day 4 at the start of Level 4, Task Training. The trainer conducted the briefings using

the TTSs Trainer Guide. This individual was a military person with battalion level command 

and training experience, as recommended by the guide’s trainer prerequisites. Generally, the 

TTS exercises were conducted as designed, although specific implementation procedures were 

altered by the participating unit. Results from the implementation are discussed in the following

section. 

The remaining three TTSs that are part of tactical training exercises (Pre-Execution Brief, 

Situation Update, and Team Decision-Making Debrief) were not implemented during the BCR 

IV. The commander, after reviewing the training materials for those three sessions, indicated he 

already used similar techniques, or exercises, as part of his staff development activities. The

Project Team decided to observe the unit’s method. 

Results

This section discusses the data collected after implementation of the TTSs Trainer Guide

and training sessions during BCR IV. First, the TTSs Trainer Guide was assessed by combining

interview comments from the trainer with the Project Team observations. No TTSs Trainer

Guide surveys were administered since there was only one trainer using the guide. Second, the 

results from participant surveys and Project Team observations are presented for the Roles and 

Functions and Information Management sessions. Since there were no notable differences 

between the surveys at the end of the train-up week and end of experiment, only the data from 

the end of the experiment survey are discussed. The remaining three TTSs: Pre-Execution 

32 
Brief, Situation Update, and Team Decision-Making Debrief are covered under one heading

since they were not implemented during BCR IV. 

TTSs Trainer Guide. The TTSs Trainer Guide was used by the trainer designated to deliver 

the TTSs familiarization briefs and exercises. In addition to using the materials during BCR IV, 

the trainer also was a reviewer during the Trainer Guide development phase and provided 

feedback which resulted in revisions to the materials and implementation processes. 

Overall, the TTSs Trainer Guide received favorable comments from the trainer regarding the

organization of the materials, completeness, and clarity. Particularly, the trainer felt the addition 

of the Commander’s Read-Ahead was a good idea, especially when dealing with new training

concepts. The trainer reported the Overview section provided complete and appropriate 

information in a concise manner. Dividing the sections by training session allowed the trainer to 

access more easily all necessary materials when preparing to deliver each training session. Also, 

positive comments were made regarding the clear wording on the slides, with the “extra” details 

provided in the TPO. 

Only minor changes and enhancements to the TTSs Trainer Guide were recommended by

the trainer:

Provide the Commander’s Read-Ahead as a “pull out” annex. This would expedite 

delivery and reduce redundancy since, as an executive summary, it duplicates much of

the information provided in the overview section. 

Revise the order of information in the overview by presenting the training schedule first,

then how the guide is designed. 

Clearly define who exactly the intended training audience should include in the overview 

or in each training session section. 

Roles and Functions. In general, the implementation procedures for the Roles and Functions 

exercise were followed during BCR IV. However, the unit did not exactly follow the 

implementation process as designed. The first process or procedural change requested by the 

participants was to delay the timing of the Roles and Functions exercise. The primary training

audience found it difficult to determine roles and functions for individuals prior to gaining some 

experience with the SC4

 system in a mission exercise. This resulted in the staff opting to conduct 

a second iteration of the Roles and Functions after the first collective training exercise. 

The implementation design requested that the staff members first complete a Roles and 

Functions Worksheet (found in Appendix D) requesting information such as: staff member’s job 

title, supervisory control, individual tasks (with many draft examples provided based on BCR 

III), and how information flows between staff members. The staff members were to brief, in 

turn, their worksheet information to the entire staff, and then discuss any problems or questions 

raised by other staff members. Another change to the process was the commander first clustered 

with the node OICs, using blank worksheets to identify the task assignment for each node. The 

node OICs then met with their respective node personnel to discuss individual roles, having

everyone complete the worksheet at that point. Finally, the staff met as a whole group and each 

individual discussed his roles with the rest of the staff in a round-table format rather than 

33 
successive briefs. Starting with Control nodes, each member of the node discussed to whom 

they reported, if someone reported to them, their key tasks, from whom they received task related 

information or products, and to whom they provided task information or products. 

Only the 14 primary staff members who participated in the Roles and Functions exercise

completed the survey items for this training session. Their frequency ratings for the survey items 

are provided in Figure 16. Unfortunately, one of the participants did not complete the survey. 

Therefore, the ratings in the figure are based on responses from 13 of the primary staff members. 

As can be seen from the figure, all participants agreed that the Roles and Functions exercise was 

useful. However, they did not necessarily agree with using the Exercise Worksheet to draw the

diagram mapping out their roles and functions. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Question

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither D/A

Agree

Strongly Agree

Note. N = 13. Q1 = Identifying what each staff member is suppose to do is a useful exercise. 

Q2 = Drawing the diagram was useful in helping me identify what I was supposed to do during the 

experiment. Q3 = I referred to my diagram during the experiment. Q4 = Because of the diagram, I 

already knew everyone’s roles and functions by the time the experiment began.

Figure 16. Participant ratings of Roles and Functions session. 

Three of the participants commented that the staff preferred their way of conducting the 

exercise over the method proposed by the Project Team. Other comments referred to the timing

of the Roles and Functions exercise. For example, one node OIC commented that the “Staff 

needs time to actually execute in order to identify tasks and responsibilities. The staff exercise 

should be held off for a day or two.” Another node OIC commented that the “...roles and 

functions with no experience is meaningless.” 

In order to evaluate this exercise better, the primary staff members were asked to complete

the Roles and Functions diagram again at the end of the experiment. The Project Team’s review

of these final worksheets disclosed that there was still confusion regarding supervisory and 

reporting roles and relationships. An example is that several staff members indicated they had 

34 
direct supervisory control over the Sensor NCOs, while the Sensor NCOs indicated they were 

supervised by someone else altogether. Therefore, even though some of the staff did not think 

completing the diagram worksheet was helpful, some kind of guidance appears to be needed for 

at least some of the staff members. Overall, the results suggest that the Roles and Functions 

exercise would be a worthwhile use of training time. However, participant comments indicated

the need for modification, especially to methods for defining roles and timing of the exercise. 

Information Management. The Information Management session was intended to give the 

staff members an opportunity to develop a standing operating procedure (SOP) for naming

overlays. With the SC4

 system, as with most digital systems, it is important to have unique file 

names so that one file will not inadvertently replace or write over another. In this session, a file 

naming problem scenario was presented to the unit by the trainer. Then the primary staff

members were given a chance to come up with a workable solution. Instead of discussing

strategies as a group (as designed), the deputy commander briefed the staff with the SOP that 

they would use. 

Although all the participants were included in the Information Management briefing, only

the 14 primary staff members were asked to complete the survey items regarding the Information 

Management session since they were the only ones who actually distributed overlays to others. 

Of the 14 primary staff members, only 13 completed the survey. Figure 17 provides their 

frequency ratings for the Information Management exercise. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Question

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither D/A

Agree

Strongly Agree

Note. N = 13. Q1 = Developing SOPs for naming overlays is a useful exercise. Q2 = Understanding the

file-naming conventions of the SC4

 system was useful during the experiment. Q3 = I used the SOPs we

developed during this exercise when naming and/or saving overlays in the experiment. Q4 = I named 

and/or saved overlays during the experiment.

2

Figure 17. Participant ratings of Information Management session. 

Figure 17

 

2

 Question 4 was re-coded for . On the surveys, the question appeared as not naming and/or saving

overlays. Since disagreement would actually be positive for this question, it was re-coded so that agreement would

be positive and the results presented in the figure would be consistent. 

35 
As indicated in Figure 17, the majority of the participants felt that the Information 

Management was a useful exercise and that it was important to understand the SC4

 system’s filenaming conventions. The majority of the staff members agreed that they used the SOPs for 

naming and saving files, and that they did have to name and/or save overlays throughout the 

course of the experiment. Most respondents reported they used the SOPs developed, but it 

seemed from the survey comments that some of the staff did not initially hear or understand this 

solution and were not aware of it throughout the experiment. As one of the participants asked on 

the end of experiment survey, “What is the file naming convention of SC4

 system?”

TTSs During Mission Exercises. The Pre-Execution Brief, Situation Update, and Team 

Decision-Making Debrief were designed to be conducted as part of a tactical training exercise. 

However, these TTSs were not implemented during BCR IV. After the commander received the

Commander’s Read-Ahead and had a chance to review it, he met with members of the Project 

Team to clarify his training approach. The commander explained that he routinely conducted 

similar training as part of his usual staff development activities. Therefore, the Project Team

decided to observe these types of staff activities during the BCR, rather than impose other

versions, and the staff never received the familiarization briefings for these TTS exercises. As 

one staff member commented, “...since we are an experienced team, we used our own format 

rather than the one recommended by the exercise. Content is the key, not format.” 

Discussion

The survey results and comments from the staff reported above are combined with 

observations by the Project Team to provide an evaluation summary of TTS training in the BCR 

environment. Though the TTSs were not fully implemented, there were lessons learned that may

be useful to future efforts to provide this type of training. 

The initial focus was to design and develop a trainer guide for the TTSs. However, it 

became evident very quickly that the training must be well-developed before progress can be

made to develop a trainer guide. To successfully implement this type of training, several points 

should be noted. First, the commander has to understand and embrace the training prior to 

implementation. Second, the implementation of the TTSs must be clearly outlined in an easy to 

use format. And third, the implementation of the TTSs must be easily adaptable to the training

environment and staff organization. The TTS Trainer Guide is essential to address these points. 

The “generic” Trainer Guide was designed to provide the framework from which specific

training plans, slides, and worksheets can be developed to fit different training environments 

easily.

The survey results, comments, and Project Team observations indicate that the Roles and 

Functions TTS is a beneficial exercise. Though the TTS exercise process was altered from the 

original design, the overall purpose of the exercise is solid and was supported by the participants. 

The staff maintained the concept of identifying and communicating each person’s role and 

functions, but tailored the process to fit their organization. That process could be used as a 

model for revisions to the exercise. It was clear that the placement of the Roles and Functions 

exercise should be later in the training week. The commander and staff clearly indicated it was 

essential to gain mission-related experience in their new environment, before attempting to 

determine each person’s roles and functions. Other recommended changes include: a) allow the 

36 
commander and senior staff members to determine general tasks, b) have the senior staff

members discuss specific tasks with individuals in the their domain, and c) allow the individual 

staff members to discuss their roles and functions in a round-table group format. 

The Information Management TTS appeared to be a beneficial exercise, but also needs 

modification. This session was received better by the unit during BCR IV than BCR III. This 

was probably due to focusing on specific information management issues, instead of rehashing

general information management principles that the staff members may have received numerous 

times throughout their career. Key information management problems for the particular training

environment should be been identified and addressed in the exercise design, such as file naming

conventions. Also, though potential solutions to information management problems should be 

prepared, the staff needs ample time to create their own solutions and develop unit SOPs. The

session is positioned well, after the Roles and Functions, but it should also be moved to a later 

time slot to allow the staff to gain some experience operating within the new mission 

environment. This will prepare the staff to better develop appropriate SOPs to deal with 

information management problems they identify.

In general, the BCR is a difficult training environment to develop “new” teamwork skills, 

due to the training time constraints, new systems, and new staff structure. The BCR experiments 

focus primarily on gathering feedback about SC4

 system and future warfare system capabilities, 

in addition to focusing on staff performance using the new organizational environment. Trying

to incorporate staff process training on top of SC4

 system training and a new organizational 

structure may be a step too far, particularly considering the one week train-up window. 

Still, the Project Team concludes that this type of training has benefit for use in the BCR. It

is recommended the commander receive the training in advance of the unit and become an 

integral part of the TTSs. Finally, as indicated by respondent ratings and comments, the training

audience should be an essential factor in the design and refinement of the training they are to 

receive. 

Refined Tactical Decision-Making Exercises

The TDXs were designed to provide a battalion or squadron battle staff the opportunity to 

combine teamwork and decision-making skills with collective battle staff tasks using the full 

capabilities of the SC4

 system. The exercises provided the opportunity to practice new skills in a 

tactical scenario similar to the type of mission used during the pilot and trials of the experiment. 

Methods

The Method section will cover the analysis, design, development, and implementation of the 

refined TDXs. Results and discussion follow that section. 

Analysis. The TDXs, developed during the first project, were designed to provide contextbased training in the BCR environment. Other training aspects included in the TDXs were 

decision-making, teamwork skills, SA, and information management (Throne et al., 1999). 

37 
Though TDXs were favorably received by the staff members during BCR III, there were

several comments received which indicated the need for some revision. The most prevalent 

concern was that the pace of the TDXs was too slow. By reducing the time for the TDXs, there

would be more opportunity for SC4

 system practice (e.g., Digital Staff Drills). The relevant 

lessons learned from BCR III include: 

Reduce the training time allocated for the TDXs. 

Increase the level of OPFOR activity early in the TDX sequence.

Increase the amount of Combat Service Support functions. 

An additional requirement for refining the TDXs was to convert them to a new terrain 

database for BCR IV, based on a decision by the MMBL to expand the size of the tactical

maneuver area available for experimentation. 

Design of the Refined TDXs. The TDX analysis for BCR III led to the delineation of four 

distinct segments that required the participants to practice a wide range of staff processes and 

SC4 functions. The four segments outlined were: a) Mission Analysis and Wargaming; b)

Mission Rehearsal; c) Execution of a Squadron Branch; and d) Execution of a Brigade Sequel. 

Each of these segments were developed into TDXs. Based on the BCR III participant comments, 

the last two TDXs provided unique opportunities and sufficient cues and, therefore, should 

remain intact. Since additional BCR IV train-up time was required to address communication 

and coordination functions, the Mission Analysis TDX and the Rehearsal TDX were combined 

into one TDX. 

Development of the Refined TDXs. The overall training objectives, tasks, conditions, and 

events for the new TDXs remained the same, but the execution time was reduced from 12 hours

to 8 hours to force the battalion staff to work at a faster pace. Additionally, the revised TDS 

provided more activity for the subordinate company commanders and other non-staff personnel. 

The intent, outside of reducing the time allocated for the TDXs by a half day, was to run 

the TDXs during BCR IV in the same fashion they were conducted for BCR III. Some 

additional refinements included increasing the unit’s need to deal with shortages in ammunition 

and fuel, and non-operational key combat systems (e.g., fighting vehicles, mortar systems ). 

Additionally, OPFOR activity was programmed to begin earlier, and non-combatants were 

introduced as an operational consideration into the training unit’s area of operation, as would 

occur during the BCR trials. 

Descriptions of the refined TDXs are provided in Table 10. The three TDXs shared a 

common tactical scenario and were projected to last 4 - 8 hours each. The TDX events, as 

documented in Volume 3 (U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 

2000), paralleled situations contained in the BCR trials. They were designed to assist the 

squadron participants in planning, preparing, and executing common battle staff collective tasks 

in the uncommon BCR environment. 

38 
Table 10 

Tactical Decision-Making Exercise (TDX) Descriptions 

TDX Description

Mission Analysis

and Rehearsal 

Provided the battle staff decision-making practice using SC4 tools under 

experiment-like conditions and practice conducting a virtual rehearsal. The 

exercise limited current operation requirements so that the battle staff focus would 

be on developing techniques and procedures for their decision-making process for 

the BCR. 

Execution of a

Battalion or

Squadron Branch 

Provided the Squadron Cdr, staff, and subordinate commanders practice in 

modifying and executing a branch to their defensive plan using SC4

 tools under 

experiment-like conditions. 

Execution of a

Battalion or

Squadron Sequel 

Provided the battle staff practice with planning a future operation while executing

a current mission. 

Note. BCR = Battle Command Reengineering. SC4 = Surrogate Command, Control, Communications, and 

Computers.

Implementation. Originally scheduled to end on Day 5, the TDXs were conducted on 

Days 4 - 6 of the BCR IV training week. The extension of the training week was caused by

numerous factors, including technical difficulties. All other aspects of the TDX implementation 

went according to the refined design. 

Results

Both the primary and extended training audiences completed the TDX survey. However, 

since the focus of this report is on the 14 primary training audience members, only their results 

are presented in the body of the report. One staff member did not complete the survey, therefore,

the results are based on 13 respondents. Figure 18 contains the frequency ratings for each of the 

TDX survey rating items. 

Comments from the training audience generally indicated a desire for more and shorter 

tactical missions that involve the whole squadron in combat while the staff plans future tactical 

operations. From the Project Team’s perspective, the TDXs provided good practice, and the 

supporting TDX materials, such as orders and overlays, provided a solid basis for planning, 

preparing, and executing the TDXs. At the completion of the TDXs, the training audience 

appeared reasonably ready to perform whatever mission they were assigned during the BCR IV

experiment. 

39 
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Q1 Q2 Q3

Question

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither D/A

Agree

Strongly Agree

Note. N = 13. Q1 = The TDXs were representative of what happened during the experiment. Q2 = 

The TDXs gave me a good chance to practice using the SC4 system. Q3 = The OPORD and associated 

tactical materials gave me enough information for planning.

Figure 18. Participant ratings of Tactical Decision-Making Exercises (TDXs). 

Discussion

The TDXs appeared to help prepare the staff and the unit to participate in the BCR IV

experiment, based upon participant comments and ratings. The fact that the TDXs mirrored the 

tasks and conditions for the upcoming BCR trials contributed to this success. This reinforces a 

finding from previous projects, such as the Fort Knox Armor Center’s impact analysis for the 

Virtual Training Program (VTP), that simulation-based structured exercises are an effective and 

efficient training method (Davidson, 2000). 

Notably, collective training for unit staffs equipped with digital C4

I systems requires an 

integrated training package. This package must address not only the staff, but also the multiechelon training audience, supporting intelligence systems, and a multi-faceted control cell to 

provide all of the scripted exercise cues that the unit and staff would expect to receive. 

As the scope of the BCR experiments begins to include other factors not directly related to 

battle command reengineering and additional personnel are added to the training audience, there 

is a propensity for a staff training exercise to turn into a command arms exercise. However, the

staff training focus, explicit in the TDX design, needs to be maintained to prepare the staff for

meaningful BCR trials. 

BATTLE COMMAND REENGINEERING IV TRAINING LESSONS LEARNED 

As with any research and development effort, an important product is the documentation of 

overall project lessons learned. A consolidated summary of the lessons learned during BCR IV

is presented by product type. A brief description of the benefit or advantage to implementing

each lesson is also provided. A full discussion of each lesson learned can be found in the 

preceding Training Products section. 

40 
SC4

 System Demonstration 

The SC4

 System Demonstration was developed, as part of the initial orientation program, to 

provide the training audience with an overview of key SC4

 system capabilities and unit 

performance expectations in a scenario-based context. The demonstration was presented to the 

training audience in one group, displaying the key system capabilities on a wall in the MWTB

with a narrator describing the visuals and scenario. Table 11 summarizes the lessons learned. 

Table 11 

Summary of SC4

 System Demonstration Lessons Learned 

Lesson Learned Advantage to Implementing

Conduct the demonstration at a 

soldier’s duty position 

Provides the opportunity for the training audience to not only see the 

SC4

 system screens as they will be viewed during training, but watch 

how the system is manipulated. It also reduces the difficulties with 

ambient noise, inflexible lighting, and system display details in a 

large viewing area. 

Develop the demonstration in an 

exportable format 

Provides an opportunity for the staff to gain an understanding of the 

training environment in advance of the training week. The better 

prepared the unit is prior to training, the more likely training will be

improved. 

Use key system aspects for 

demonstration content 

Limits the training to key points of the system capabilities, without 

the burden of too much detail. The purpose of a demonstration is to 

provide a general overview of unit performance expectations. With 

a complex system, there is the potential to provide too many details. 

Tailor the demonstration to

different duty positions 

Limits the amount of information each person receives, yet narrows 

it to appropriate topics. Several key system capabilities of interest to 

the staff did not apply to the majority of the extended training

audience. Tailoring the demonstration provides time to preview 

particular functions with the appropriate training audience members. 

Digital Staff Drills 

The Digital Staff Drills are designed to provide practice and assessment opportunities for

SC4

 system skills by focusing on selected critical procedures required to conduct tactical

operations. Each of the two drills developed, Conduct a Whiteboard Conference and Select 

Battle Position, focused on a different aspect of the SC4

 system. Table 12 summarizes the 

lessons learned. 

41 
Table 12 

Summary of Digital Staff Drills Lessons Learned 

Lesson Learned Advantage to Implementing

Utilize scenario-based training, 

whenever applicable 

Provides the opportunity to practice new system skills as they will 

be used in a mission setting. The drills reduced or eliminated the 

problems noted in previous BCRs with staff executing the tasks

covered in the drills. The training needs to be updated, though, 

each time digital C4

Isystems are modified. 

Maintain the training focus on the 

primary training audience 

Keeps the emphasis of the training on the staff, who is the primary

focus of the BCRs. As the audience is expanded, the focus on the

primary training audience is lost. 

“Embed” training and job aids Training aids can address the more critical, often-used system

tasks until the training audience has gained proficiency. Job aids 

can be developed to provide a reference for less used system

functions. Embedded aids ensure help is available, as needed. 

Note. BCR = Battle Command Reengineering; C4I = command, control, communications, computers, and 

intelligence. 

Team Training Sessions and Team Training Sessions Trainer Guide 

The TTSs were developed to provide brigade- and battalion-level staffs the opportunity to 

develop and practice teamwork and decision-making skills. They are a series of five exercises 

with associated short briefings and are: a) Roles and Functions, b) Information Management, c) 

Pre-Execution Brief, d) Situation Update, and e) Team Decision-Making Debrief. The TTSs 

Trainer Guide provides the information required to conduct and implement the training sessions. 

Table 13 summarizes the lessons learned. 

Table 13 

Summary of Team Training Sessions (TTSs) and Trainer Guide Lessons Learned 

Lesson Learned Advantage to Implementing

Ensure training is well-developed 

before developing a trainer guide 

Ensures the training content has been fully developed so that the 

implementation process and required materials can be identified in

the trainer guide. 

The trainer guide is essential to

successfully conduct TTSs

Provides the essential information to gain the commander’s support 

for conducting the TTSs, clearly outlines steps to implement the 

TTSs exercises, and provides a framework to adapt the TTSs to the 

training environment. 

Modify timing and 

implementation process of Roles 

and Functions TTS 

Ensures the unit members have enough experience with the system

to conduct this TTS and simplify the process. 

(table continues)

42 
Table 13 (Continued) 

Lesson Learned Advantage to Implementing

Focus Information Management 

TTS on specific information 

issues. 

Provides the staff with specific information and a “draft” process by

which unit SOPs can be developed that are appropriate to the 

training environment. 

Conduct team (staff) training

“outside” the BCR environment.

Provides the opportunity to focus solely on staff process skills. 

Trying to develop “new” teamwork skills while learning a new and 

different system and organizational structure may be a step too far. 

Train commander in advance of 

staff members.

Ensures that the commander has a complete understanding of the 

team training process and desired outcomes, and includes his input 

into the training implementation plan. 

Note. BCR = Battle Command Reengineering; SOP = standing operating procedure. 

Refined Tactical Decision-Making Exercises 

The TDXs were designed to provide a battalion or squadron battle staff the opportunity to 

combine teamwork and decision-making skills with collective battle staff tasks using the full 

capabilities of the SC4

 system. The exercises provided the opportunity to practice new skills in a 

tactical scenario similar to the type of mission used during the pilot and trials of the experiment. 

Table 14 summarizes the lessons learned. 

Table 14 

Summary of Refined Tactical Decision-Making Exercises (TDXs) Lessons Learned 

Lesson Learned Advantage to Implementing

Utilize scenario-based training Prepares the staff to be better able to conduct mission exercises 

during the experiment by practicing command and control in a 

similar mission context.

Collective training requires an 

integrated training package 

Provides all components of an integrated training package to 

address multi-echelon training and a multi-faceted control cell to 

provide expected cues. 

Maintain staff training focus for 

TDXs

Ensures the original intent of the TDXs is maintained, to provide a 

staff the opportunity to practice teamwork and decision-making

skills while using the SC4 system. As the scope of the BCRs

expands, there will likely be a tendency to turn TDXs in to CFXs. 

Note. BCR = Battle Command Reengineering; CFX = command field exercise; SC4 = Surrogate Command,

Control, Communications, and Computers.

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

The Army has a need for a command and staff TSP that would fully integrate digitization 

into normal staff training. While this project’s training products were designed to support BCR 

experimentation with battle command and staffs projected to be fielded in 2012 and beyond, 

some of the digital C4

I capabilities that were showcased during the BCR may become available

43 
to digital staffs much sooner than that. The Interim Brigade Combat Teams, scheduled to be 

fielded in early 2001, will be confronted with some of the same challenges presented in the BCR: 

new equipment, new organization, new digital C4

I systems, and a compressed training schedule. 

As a result the need for command and staff training for future forces is underscored. 

Some future directions recommended for developing command and staff training to match 

future force requirements are summarized in Table 15. These directions are based on lessons 

learned during this effort and related work on command and staff training. A detailed discussion 

of each follows the table.

Table 15 

Future Directions for Command and Staff Training

Future Directions Rationale

Incorporate instructional 

principles 

Advance organizers, part-task training, deliberate practice, and 

context-based training provide a means to create training that 

relates new situations to old, breaks up complex tasks, provides 

feedback with practice, and does this within a “real” situation. 

Address multi-echelon and multifunctional trainingSupports multi-echelon training in various organizations, current 

and future digital systems, and duty positions within a staff. 

Form integrated training

development team 

Future digital C4

I systems will require integrated teams of experts 

to develop training that addresses the needs of the multi-echelon 

units and multi-functional soldier. 

Use structured training Structured training focuses training on selected objectives and 

tasks in a controlled environment that "sets" the conditions for 

training. 

Include team training Provides a model from which training could be constructed that

focuses on improved staff performance. This can be beneficial 

with a need to quickly integrate new staff deployed on a 

contingency mission. 

Use embedded training

technologies

Benefits of embedded training have been well established by the 

military. It has been focused primarily on combat vehicle crews. 

There is a need to expand that training to the staff. 

Tailor training feedback Not all staffs require the same type of training or feedback. Need 

to explore new ways to tailor immediate feedback. 

Provide tool for flexible training Commander and staff need tools to shape training to their needs. 

Note. C4I = command, control, communications, computers and intelligence; TSP = training support package. 

The four instructional principles used to develop the prototype future staff training package 

might guide development of a command and staff TSP. Advance organizers provide a bridge for 

soldiers to transition easily from familiar organizations, equipment, doctrine, and tactics into the

new and unfamiliar. Part-task training simplifies the challenge of learning about complex

systems and intricate procedures by allowing soldiers to master smaller parts of the whole

incrementally until finally the soldier, crew, small group, or unit demonstrates mastery of the 

whole. Deliberate practice provides guidance and feedback to soldiers to assure them that they

44 
are meeting the required performance standards as they progress through their training. Contextbased training builds soldier confidence in themselves, their leaders, and their weapons and 

equipment by replicating the combat conditions in which they will be expected to fight. 

A command and staff TSP should support multi-echelon training and training for soldiers 

who perform multiple mission roles. However, unless carefully designed, the cues required to 

initiate this type of training could overlap each other and become training distracters. It should 

be comprehensive and yet flexible enough to accommodate the various staff organizations, and 

current and projected digital C4

I systems that will be an integral component of the Future

Combat Systems (FCS). It should support scenarios and conditions like those likely to be 

encountered during contingency operations where the staff could find itself operating in an 

unfamiliar environment with combined and joint forces. 

Any training for staffs that are equipped with future digital C4

I systems, such as those 

represented by the SC4

 system used during this project, will require an integrated team of C4I 

system experts, tactical operation experts, and training and evaluation experts. Any changes to 

either the hardware configuration of the C4

I System or to software residing on the system could 

reduce the value of training that had previously developed, or cause a new training design and 

development effort to be undertaken. 

Commanders and staffs should be able to arrive at the training site after having completed 

the necessary troop leading procedures to familiar their soldiers with their mission, and begin to 

train immediately. Incorporating structured training into the TSP provides this capability. 

Structured training is focused on specific training objectives and selected critical tasks, provides 

standardized training exercise control to ensure practice of the critical tasks, provides 

standardized feedback to guide and reinforce task performance, and provides all supporting

training materials in the form of the TSP itself (Campbell, Campbell, Sanders, Flynn, & Myers, 

1995). 

Team skills training should be an integral part of the command and staff TSP. Future

commanders may find that their staff is augmented by personnel who have not previously trained 

with the unit prior to its deployment on a mission. Commanders need to be able to integrate 

these personnel into their staff rapidly, with little disruption to the staff’s effectiveness and 

efficiency. Training constructed around the Military Decision-Making Process (Department of 

the Army, 1997) may not develop the adaptability, shared SA, communications, coordination, 

performance monitoring and feedback, and decision-making skills that are required for effective

staff performance in a short period of time. The TTSs developed as part of this project provide

prototype examples for such training. 

 

A method for increasing realism or providing a way for commanders and staffs to train 

separately from their subordinate units under field conditions during breaks in training may be to 

develop embedded training capabilities. Embedded training could take many forms, from an

automated tutor coaching a soldier through a task, to a full mission rehearsal capability involving

every soldier in the unit. With embedded training, soldiers and staffs can train close to the 

operational environment in which they will fight. Most of the focus on current embedded 

training has involved combat vehicle crews. 

45 
Performance feedback should be immediate and objective without interfering with the actual 

functioning of the staff, and does not require extensive SMEs to observe. The commander and 

the staff being trained should also have the tools to tailor the feedback they receive based on 

their training needs. Not all staffs will need the same type of training and do not need a fixed set 

of performance assessments. Extensive research and development is still required to embed staff

training into digital C4

I systems. If staff training can be successfully embedded, then automated 

feedback of staff performance will become critical (see Throne, Holden, & Lickteig, in 

preparation). 

Finally, the training audience, the commander and staff, must be given the tools to shape 

their training. A command and staff TSP should provide that flexibility without creating an 

unmanageable administrative burden on the unit. There is a current ARI research project that

provides commanders the tools to create their own individualized structured exercises for the 

Close Combat Tactical Trainer off-site, and then proceed to the training facility and execute the 

training (Gossman et al., 1999). Such tools will be needed for future commanders and staff to 

develop and execute their own embedded training exercises. 

SUMMARY 

The issue of how the operating environment of commanders and staffs will change in the

future is fundamental to staff training requirements. Effective training for future commanders 

and staffs cannot be developed without some idea of what future commanders and staffs will 

have to do, and how that differs from what they do today. The ARI has already conducted 

several studies of what the soldiers of the 21st century will confront, and how those soldiers need

to be selected and trained as summarized by Ford, Campbell, Campbell, Knapp, and Walker (in 

preparation). 

Training developers must be prepared to meet the changing collective task demands and 

training requirements that will confront future soldiers and leaders. It is anticipated that the

future Army will include lighter and more mobile forces fielded in brigade sets. This future

training environment may rely heavily on technology to provide distributed and embedded 

training approaches to meet collective and unit-based training requirements, including command 

and staff training. According to Witmer and Knerr (1996), there are few instances of successful 

implementation of embedded training in Army systems. Currently, most embedded training is 

limited to individual tutorials that do not allow direct interaction with others or the use of

equipment and software used on the job. However, the design of synchronous embedded 

training for a collective audience is a challenge that will require innovative and highly integrated 

training approaches. 

In addition, FCS brigades will likely be composed of multi-functional soldiers and leaders 

who perform multiple tasks, in contrast to the current orientation on job specialization. Staff 

personnel, in particular, may need to be multi-functional, as evidenced by the MMBL’s work on 

Battle Command Reengineering. It follows that the Army will need to identify principles and 

derive rules for optimally assigning multiple tasks to soldiers. 

In conclusion, the Army’s projections for future operational conditions entail severe training

challenges, particularly at the command and staff level. The prototype methods and products 

46 
documented in this report may help direct the Army’s effort to train the commanders and staffs 

of future forces. 

47 

REFERENCES 

Campbell, C. H., Campbell, R. C., Sanders, J. J., Flynn, M. R., & Myers, W. E. (1995). 

Methodology for the development of structured simulation-based training (ARI Research 

Product 95-08). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Social and 

Behavioral Sciences. 

Campbell, C. H., Ford, L. A., Campbell, R. C., Quinkert, K. A. (1998). A procedure for 

development of structured vignette training exercises for small groups (ARI Research 

Report 98-37). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Social and 

Behavioral Sciences. 

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Burns, J. J., Salas, E., & Pruitt, J. S. (1998). Advanced technology in 

scenario-based training. In J. A. Cannon-Bowers & E. Salas (Eds.), Making decisions 

under stress: Implications for individual and team training (pp. 365-374). Washington, 

DC: American Psychological Association. 

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Rhodenizer, L., Salas, E., & Bowers, C. A. (1998). A framework for 

understanding pre-practice conditions and their impact on learning. Personnel 

Psychology, 51, 291-320. 

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1992). Shared mental models in expert team 

decision making. In N. J. Castellan, Jr. (Ed.), Current issues in individual and group 

decision making (pp. 221-246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining

competencies and establishing team training requirements. In R. Guzzo & E. Salas 

(Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 333-380). San 

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 

Davidson, D. S. (2000). Virtual simulations training. Armor, CIX (3), 32-35. 

Decker, G. F. (1996). The U.S. Army towards Force XXI. Military Psychology, 20, 111-117. 

Department of the Army (1997). Field Manual 101-5, Staff organization and operations. 

Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army. 

Department of the Army (1998). TRADOC digital learning strategy. (Memorandum). Fort 

Monroe, VA: Deputy Chief of Staff for Training.

Department of the Army. (1999). TRADOC Regulation 350-70, Training development 

management, processes, and products. Fort Monroe, VA: Headquarters, U.S. Training

and Doctrine Command.

Endsley, M. R. (1998). Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. 

Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 32nd Annual Meeting, 1, 97-101. Santa 

Monica, CA: The Human Factors Society.

49 
Ford, L. A., Campbell, R. C., Campbell, J. P., Knapp, D. J., & Walker, C. B. (in preparation). 

21st century soldiers and noncommissioned officers: Critical predictors of performance

(ARI Technical Report). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Georges, J. C. (1988). Why soft-skills training doesn’t take. Training, 25 (4), 42-47. 

Georges, J. C. (1996). The myth of soft-skills training. Training, 33 (1), 48-54. 

Gossman, J. R., Bonnett, M., Forrest, D., Shadrick, S., Dannemiller, B., Flynn, M. R., Mauzy,

R. P., & Bonnet, M. (1999). The commander’s integrated training tool for the close 

combat tactical trainer – 2: Second generation design and prototype development (ARI

Research Report 1759). Alexandra, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Social and 

Behavioral Sciences. 

Koger, M. E., Quensel, S. L., Sawyer, A. R., Sanders, J. J., Crumley, K. A., Brewer, J. D., 

Sterling, B. S. (1998). Staff group trainer: Development of a computer-driven, 

structured, staff training environment (ARI Research Report 1718). Alexandria, VA: 

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

Lickteig, C. W. (1991). Prototype methods for training and assessing future tactical command 

and control skills (ARI Research Product 92-01). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research 

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Lickteig, C. W., & Emery, C. D. (1994). Information management performance of future 

platoon leaders: An initial investigation (ARI Technical Report 1000). Alexandria, VA: 

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

Means, B., Salas, E., Crandall, B., & Jacobs, O. T. (1993). Training decision makers for the real 

world. In G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, & C. E. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision

making in action: Models and methods (pp. 306-326). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing

Corporation. 

Mounted Maneuver Battlespace Lab. (in preparation). Battle lab experiment final report 

(BLEFR) for battle command reengineering, phase IV. (Available from Mounted 

Maneuver Battlespace Lab, Attn: ATZK-MW, Fort Knox, KY 40121) 

Shlechter, T. M., & Anthony, J. (1996). An examination of the value of demonstration tapes for 

the virtual training program (ARI Research Product 97-14). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Social and Behavioral Sciences. 

Smith, E. M., Ford, J. K., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1997). Building adaptive expertise: 

Implications for training design strategies. In M. A. Quiñones & A. Ehrenstein (Eds.), 

Training for a rapidly changing workforce (pp. 89-118). Washington, DC: American 

Psychological Association. 

50 
Throne, M. H., Deatz, R. C., Holden, W. T., Jr., Campbell, C. H., Sterling, B. S., & Lickteig, C. 

W. (1999). Prototype staff training and evaluation methods for future forces (ARI

Research Report 1745). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Throne, M. H., Holden, W. T., Jr., & Lickteig, C. W. (in preparation). Refinement of prototype 

staff evaluation methods for future forces: A focus on automated measures (ARI

Research Report). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and 

Social Sciences. 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (2000). Training and 

Measurement Support Package, Battle Command Reengineering IV, Mounted Maneuver 

Battlespace Lab, Volumes 1-6. (Available from Mounted Maneuver Battlespace Lab, 

Attn: ATZK-MW, Fort Knox, KY 40121) 

Whitmore, P. G., & Fry, J. P. (1974). Soft skills: Definition behavioral model analysis training

procedures (HumRRO Professional Paper 3-74). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources 

Research Organization. 

Witmer, B. G., & Knerr, B. W. (1996). A guide for early embedded training decisions (second 

edition) (ARI Research Product 96-06). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

51 
APPENDIX A 

LIST OF ACRONYMS

1SG ................first sergeant 

AAR...............after action review

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

ARPA.............Advanced Research Projects Agency

ARSI ..............Reconfigurable Simulator Initiative 

BCR................Battle Command Reengineering

BCV ...............battle command vehicle 

BLEFR...........Battle Lab Experiment Final Report 

BLUFOR........blue forces 

BP...................Battle Position 

C2

V.................command and control vehicle 

C4

I..................command, control, communications, computer and intelligence

CAU...............crewman’s access unit 

Cdr..................commander 

CEP ................Concept Experimentation Program 

CFX................command field exercise 

COBRAS........Combined Arms Operations at Brigade Level Realistically Achieved Through 

Simulation 

Co Cdr............company commander 

CSS ................combat service support 

DIS .................distributed interactive simulation 

FASTRAIN....Force XXI Training Methods and Strategies 

FBC................Future Battlefield Conditions 

FCS ................Future Combat Systems 

HHQ...............higher headquarters 

HumRRO .......Human Resources Research Organization 

INTSUM ........intelligence summary

MCOO............modified combined obstacle overlay

MDMP ..........military decision-making process 

MLRS.............Multiple Launch Rocket System 

MMBL ...........Mounted Maneuver Battlespace Lab 

ModSAF.........Modular Semi-Automated Forces 

MSR...............main supply route 

MWTB...........Mounted Warfare Test Bed 

A-1 
NAI ................named area of interest 

NCO...............non-commissioned officer 

O/C.................observer/controller 

OIC.................officer-in-charge

OPFOR...........opposing forces 

OPORD..........operations order 

PVD................plan view display 

RA..................research assistant 

SA ..................situational awareness 

SAT................Systems Approach to Training

SC4

.................surrogate command, control, communications, and computers 

SITREP ..........situation report 

SME ...............subject matter expert 

SPE.................Structured Practice Exercise 

SPOTREP ......spot report 

SOP ................standing operating procedure 

SOV................staff operations vehicle 

STO................Science and Technology Objective 

TDG ...............Tactical Decision Game 

TDX ...............Tactical Decision-Making Exercise 

TECO.............Test and Evaluation Coordination Office 

TMSP.............Training and Measurement Support Package 

TPO................Training Plan Outline 

TRADOC.......U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command 

TSP.................training support package

TTS ................Team Training Session 

UAV...............Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 

UGV...............Unmanned Ground Vehicle 

VTC................video teleconference 

VTP................Virtual Training Program

WB.................Whiteboard 

A-2 
APPENDIX B

SAMPLE MATERIALS OF THE SC4

 SYSTEM DEMONSTRATION 

This appendix provides sample materials of the Surrogate Command, Control, 

Communications, and Computer (SC4

) System Demonstration which is conducted during the 

Level 1, Initial Orientation training. It provides the reader with brief samples of selected training

materials mentioned in the report that were designed and developed to conduct the 

demonstration. A complete set of materials can be found in Volume 2 (U.S. Army Research 

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 2000). 

The table of contents below provides a list of the demonstration materials provided in this 

appendix. The first column in the table provides the title for each product. The second column 

states whether this appendix contains a partial or a complete sample of the product and the last 

column identifies the page number.

Title Sample Page 

Battle Commander Reengineering IV SC4 System

Demonstration Script 

Partial B-2

SC4 System Demonstration Overhead Projection Slides Partial B-3 

SC4 System Screen Sample Partial B-4 

B-1
Battle Command Reengineering IV SC4

 System Demonstration Script 

The demonstration was delivered by using a combination of a projected screen display of a 

pre-recorded exercise using the SC4

 system, narrative descriptions of the events depicted in the 

pre-recorded exercise, and overhead projection slides. The Training Director uses the narration 

(script), sample below, to provide the training audience with a description of key aspects of the 

SC4

 capabilities depicted on the screen display. The script also provides the training audience a

contextual setting for the system capabilities, similar to the type of mission the staff may be

conducting during the Battle Command Reengineering (BCR) experiment. 

capabilities of the SC4 system to provide you with

Situational Awareness.

The tactical situation portrayed during this demonstration

actually took about an hour to unfold. In the interest of saving

time, the action has been compressed to about 30 minutes. For

demonstration purposes, some artificiality has been introduced

in terms of the tactical disposition of the squadron and OPFOR

engagements. Your unit might react differently to the situation

depicted during this demonstration.

Terrain Map Vugraph Slide

The demonstration is being staged around the Banja Luka

Airfield in Northeastern Bosnia. Many of you have had chance to

serve in Bosnia and are already familiar with the terrain. The

Vugraph slide shows the location of the demonstration on the

terrain. [Laze to map scale on map and PVD] Note the map scale

indicated in the upper right hand corner here and on the PVD

which gives you an idea of the amount of terrain you are looking

at.

Let me set the stage for the demonstration. The 3rd Squadron,

having just deplaned, is in local dispersal sites around the Banja

Luka airfield in order to rig equipment, battle sight weapons, and

Troop is located to the northwest of the airstrip; Killer Troop is

the airstrip; with Mad Dog Troop located to the southeast. A

finish vehicle combat loading of ammunition and fuel. Iron

to the northeast; Lightning Troop is located to the southwest of

Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) battery is positioned.

BCR IV SC4 System Demonstration

Title Slide

Now that I’ve updated you on the BCR IV experiment, I’m

going to demonstrate some of the key aspects of the SC 4

 system

that you will be using during the experiment.

Demonstration Objective Slide

The objective of the demonstration is to provide a quick

overview of how the system could be used in an operational

setting. We will show you a way to perform certain functions,

but there may be other ways to do the same thing. Your training

will help you discover what is the best way for you.

Key Aspects Slide

Key aspects of the system that you will see during the

demonstration are as shown on this slide. [Laze to slide as

needed]

In terms of Information Fusion which describes the ability of the

SC4 System to process and display information from a variety of

sources, we will show you how to obtain SITREPs and

SPOTREPs, as well as a technique for determining unit status

and a way to obtain battle damage reports. For collaborative

planning on a common relevant picture among commanders and

staff, we will show you a SunForum Whiteboard conference, and

a PVD Whiteboard conference. We will show you how to the use

the electronic reference library to look at the threat manual. And,

B-2
SC4 System Demonstration Overhead Projection Slides 

In addition to the projected SC4

 system screen display, the demonstration overhead slides 

provide a reference of the way in which information is displayed on the SC4

 system. The 

demonstration narration provides cues to when to display and discuss these overhead slides. 

Terrain Map

Tuzla

Banja

Luka

Serbia

180 KM

130

KM

1:1,000,000

L iv e

M o b ility

K ill

F ire p o w e r

K ill

C a ta s tro p h ic

K ill

K ills

Friendly

Unknown/Unidentified Dead

Vehicle Identification

Non-Combatant Enemy

SC4 Battle Tracking

Who What When

Location &

Status

Updated

< 30 Seconds

Detected

Location &

Status

Updated

30 - 90 Seconds

Projected

Movement

Moving - Lost

 Detection

5 

Minutes

Last Location &

Stopped Stopped - Lost

Detection

30

Minutes

B-3
SC4 System Screen Sample

The three screen captures below are provided as examples of the way information is 

presented while conducting a mission exercise using the SC4

 system. 

B-4
APPENDIX C 

SAMPLE MATERIALS OF DIGITAL STAFF DRILLS 

This appendix provides sample materials of the Digital Staff Drills. It provides the reader

with samples of selected training materials used in the guide. A complete set of materials can be

found in Volume 2 (U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 2000). 

The table of contents below provides a list of the sample materials of the Digital Staff Drills, 

which are taken from the slides, training plan outline, and worksheets. The first column in the

table provides the title for each product. The second column states whether this appendix

contains a partial or a complete sample of the product and the last column identifies the page

number. 

Title Sample Page 

Whiteboard Drill Guidelines – Wolfpack 53 Complete C-2 

SunForum Whiteboard Job Aid Complete C-4 

C-1 
Whiteboard Drill Guidelines - Wolfpack 53

Tactical 

Situation 

Your task force, 3rd Squadron, 2nd Battle Force has just arrived by air

and is currently located in assembly areas vicinity the airhead at

TUZLA AIR FIELD (CQ180520). You have just been alerted that the 

OPFOR has begun an attack aimed at destroying your force and 

capturing the airfield. 

Exercise 

guidance

For this drill’s four Whiteboard (WB) events, you are Wolfpack 53, located

in the Command 2 Node. During events 1–3, your WB participants will be 

Wolfpack 5 and Wolfpack 52, co-located with you, and Mad Dog 6, located 

at his workstation. During event 4, your WB participants will also include 

Wolfpack 99, 92, 93, and Lightning 6. To complete the drill, perform the

following sequence of activities. If you have a problem performing any

activity, contact the RA for assistance. 

Event Action Activity 

1. INTSUM 

Analysis

Participate in Wolfpack 52

Whiteboard Conference 

Select crewman access unit (CAU) Channel 3 

for monitoring/transmitting. 

Wolfpack 52 will contact you on the radio and 

announce that he is initiating a whiteboard 

conference. 

Follow the instructions that he provides and 

participate in his conference as directed. 

Establish radio 

communications 

Establish radio contact with Wolfpack 5, 

Wolfpack 52, and Mad Dog 6 on CAU Channel 3. 

Inform them that you will use the SunForum® 

Whiteboard Tool to coordinate your analysis of an 

INTSUM from higher headquarters. 

Initiate whiteboard 

conference 

Open the SunForum® Window and initiate a 

conference with Wolfpack 5, Wolfpack 52, and 

Mad Dog 6. 

Once the conference is established, open the 

Whiteboard window. 

Use radio to verify participants are displaying a 

blank whiteboard window. 

Open ARI_BCR4_WBVIG_CMD2_BP

whiteboard file. 

Verify participants are displaying right file. 

2. Higher 

Headquarters 

Operations Order

(OPORD)Analysis 

OPORD Analysis 

Use drawing tools to highlight specified task(s) 

in 2nd Battle Force OPORD. 

Ask other participants to identify implied tasks. 

Answer any questions about OPORD. 

Announce that you are going to terminate the 

whiteboard conference. 

C-2 
Event Action Activity 

2. Higher 

Headquarters 

OPORD Analysis, 

cont’d 

Terminate whiteboard 

conference 

Exit the whiteboard window. 

Do not save changes. 

Once file closed, Hang-up. 

3. Battle Position 

Selection 

Participate in Wolfpack 5

Whiteboard Conference 

Continue to monitor CAU Channel 3. 

Wolfpack 5 will contact you on the radio and 

announce that he is initiating a whiteboard 

conference. 

Follow the instructions that he provides and 

participate in his conference as directed. 

4. Course of 

Action

Development 

Participate in Wolfpack 5 

Whiteboard Conference 

Set CAU to Channel 4. 

Wolfpack 5 will contact you on the radio and 

announce that he is initiating a whiteboard 

conference. 

Follow the instructions that he provides and 

participate in his conference as directed. 

5. AAR

 

Drill AAR Node RA will conduct AAR in place. 

Move to classroom for unit AAR. 

Rules of

engagement

While you are participating in Whiteboard conferences initiated by other staff

members: 

Follow their lead. 

Do not open Whiteboard Window until directed. 

Do not lock the whiteboard drawing tools unless the conference leader 

directs you to do so. 

Do not save any changes to the whiteboard file. 

When you initiate a Whiteboard Conference

Go slowly enough to allow other staff members to keep up. 

Verify by radio that all staff members have the right Whiteboard files 

displayed. 

Only lock the whiteboard file drawing tools when necessary. 

Do not save any changes to the whiteboard file. 

C-3 
 SunForum Whiteboard Job Aid

Action - Icon Description

1. Open SunForum

 Cursor in desktop open area

 Click right mouse button.

 Using the left mouse button,

click on C2 heading

 Click on SunForum heading

 Use left mouse button for all

subsequent actions.

2. Find Addresses

Address Book

 When SunForum window has

opened

 Click Address Book

 Click on individual address

3. Call Participants

Call

 Click the Call button

 Select and call additional

participants until everyone has

been called.

4. Verify Participants

Current Call

 Click Current Call button to

make sure that everyone is in the

conference.

 Repeat Action 3 as necessary

5. Initiate Whiteboard

Whiteboard

 Click Whiteboard button

 When the whiteboard

window opens, click on the File

pull down menu and then Open

 Select the desired whiteboard

file and begin the conference.

6. Terminate Conference

Hang Up

 Click File pull down men

and then Exit

 Click Hang Up button

 Resize, close, or minimize

the SunForum Window to provide

more room on your desktop.

C-4 
APPENDIX D 

SAMPLE MATERIALS OF TEAM TRAINING SESSIONS TRAINER GUIDE 

This appendix provides sample materials of the Team Training Sessions (TTSs) Trainer 

Guide. It provides the reader with brief samples of selected training materials used in the guide. 

A complete set of materials can be found in Volume 4 (U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences, 2000). 

The table of contents below provides a list of the sample materials of the TTSs trainer

Guide, which are taken from the slides, training plan outline, and worksheets. The first column 

in the table provides the title for each product. The second column states whether this appendix

contains a partial or a complete sample of the product and the last column identifies the page

number. 

Title Sample Page 

Team Training Sessions Trainer Guide Overview Partial D-2 

Commander’s Read-Ahead Partial D-3 

Roles and Functions Training Plan Outline Partial D-4 

Team Training Session Roles and Functions Worksheet Complete D-5 

Team Decision-Making Debrief Execution Outline Partial D-6 

Team Decision-Making Debrief Worksheet Complete D-7 

D-1 
Team Training Sessions Trainer Guide Overview 

The overview section of the TTSs Trainer Guide provides the trainer with general 

information regarding the TTSs overall design, training prerequisites, training audience, trainer 

responsibilities, and proposed training schedule. 

Roles and Functions

Overview

Introduction The Roles and Functions training session provides the training audience the

opportunity to ensure each member of the staff knows and understands what

the other staff members will be doing while executing tactical training

exercises. This training session can be beneficial for both digital and analog

units.

It is particularly beneficial for staffs that have experienced substantial changes

in personnel, organization, or mission.

Purpose of

these materials

To provide the necessary materials to prepare the trainer to conduct the Roles

and Functions training briefing and Structured Practice Exercise (SPE).

Roles and

Functions

process

The Roles and Functions exercise is intended to include the entire staff and is

conducted after receiving the initial briefing at the start of a tactical training

event. During a Roles and Functions exercise, unit members will:

 Identify who they report to (and who reports to them if applicable) and the

tasks within their area of responsibility for the upcoming training event

 Identify from whom they will receive task related information or products

 Identify to whom they will provide task related information or products

 Brief that information to the other staff members

 Discuss solutions to any conflicts regarding information or product flows

D-2 
Commander’s Read-Ahead 

The Commander’s Read-Ahead is provided to familiarize the commander with the TTSs. It

provides the Commander with information regarding the TTSs design, Commander’s role, 

descriptions of the benefits and process for conducting each training session, and additional 

background information. 

Commander's Read-Ahead

The only way to develop teamwork is for team members

to do things together. This applies to training.

FM 22-102, Soldier Team Development

I ntroduction

This Commander's Read-Ahead describes five staff training exercises called

Team Training Sessions (TTSs) that will be implemented during BCR IV.

1

 The purpose

of the TTSs described here is to improve the staff's teamwork skills by allowing them to

practice doing things together. Such training is particularly important when units face

new missions, new organizations, new roles, new equipment, and/or major revisions to

standing operating procedures (SOPs). Background information, at the end of this packet,

examines how the TTSs relate to basic teamwork skills.

T eam Training Sessions

The TTSs provide brigade and battalion level staffs the opportunity to train and

practice teamwork and decision-making skills. The TTSs are: Roles and Functions,

Information Management, Pre-Execution Brief, Situation Update, and Team DecisionMaking Debrief. Figure 1 provides a recommended timeline for implementing the TTSs

in a tactical training event (e.g., CFX, FTX), including Battle Command Reengineering.

Each TTS includes a short familiarization brief and exercise requiring approximately 30

minutes. The primary training audience for the TTSs is the commander and his staff.

Figure 1. Recommended TTS training timeline

Briefings and exercises for the Roles and Functions and Information Management TTSs

are designed for a classroom-type setting, prior to the planning phase of the overall

 1 Note: The Team Training Sessions Trainer Guide provides a more complete description of the TTSs and

how they are to be executed.

Planning Preparation Execution Mission 

Receipt

PostExecution

Roles and Functions

Rehearsal

Pre-Execution Brief

Situation Update

AAR

Team Decision-Making Debrief

OPORD

Information Management

Pre-Execution

Checks

conducted during each tactical training exercise. It is recommended that these

three TTS exercises be repeated for each change of mission during a training event.

T raining Objectives

Before describing the TTSs, the desired outcome or training objective of each

exercise is identified in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Anticipated outcomes of each Team Training Session

R oles and Functions

Roles and Functions provides you and your staff an opportunity to ensure each

member of the team understands other team members' roles and functions. This session

encourages individual soldiers to consider how their roles and responsibilities contribute

to the overall functioning of the staff. During this exercise, unit members review team

roles and functions by:

 Writing down who they report to and the tasks within their area of responsibility

 Identifying from whom they will receive task related information or products

 Identifying to whom they will provide task related information or products

 Briefing key aspects of that information to the other staff members

 Discussing solutions to any conflicts regarding task flow

T eam Training Sessions Ou tcomes

1. Roles and Functions

2. Information Management

3. Pre-Execution Brief

4. Situation Update

5. Team Decision-Making

Debrief

Understand team members’ roles, functions, and

 tasks.

Get the right data ormation to the right

people at the right time

Address problems not previously identified.

Share a common understanding of the current

situation, the mission, and commander’s intent.

Improve the decision-making process.

and inf

D-3 
Roles and Functions Training Plan Outline

The Roles and Functions Training Plan Outline provides the trainer with the foundation 

from which a training plan can be developed that focuses the training for the current operating

environment. 

Training Plan Outline

Roles and

Functions

briefing

introduction

Title Slide. The Roles and Functions activity is used to ensure the staff

members understand what the other members of the staff will be doing and

how information should flow for the upcoming mission. Though everyone

knows, in general, what each person does and who is responsible for what

task or information, this exercise provides a framework to openly discuss

these issues as they relate to the upcoming tactical training event. This

training will include the following information:

 A short briefing on the purpose, benefits, and process of conducting the

Roles and Functions training session;

 An SPE to use the concepts presented during the briefing

The Roles and Functions training session should take approximately one hour.

This estimate includes the briefing, discussion, and conduct of the SPE.

Slide 2. Topics to be discussed during the briefing.

Roles and

Functions

briefing content

Slide 3, Purpose

Discuss bullets...

 It provides staff members the opportunity to verbalize what they believe

they are to do during the particular tactical training event or exercise.

 After hearing the staff members state their roles and expected

contributions to the training situation, everyone better understands what to

expect from others.

 By understanding what each person intends to do, how the team will work

together during the exercise becomes clearer.

 This session also establishes a simple process to quickly modify unit

SOPs (e.g., who attends orders briefings, message traffic flows) and when

adopted into a regular training process, it can allow new staff members to

more quickly become acclimated to the team.

Note: Roles and Functions is a good exercise to conduct each time the staff

conducts any type of training event. The key point is to focus the discussion

to the current staff training event or exercise. This is not a general discussion

of what each staff position is, but a focused dialogue regarding information

elements each person intends to monitor, will need from others, and will be

prepared to provide.

Continued on next page

D-4 
Team Training Session Roles and Functions Worksheet 

The Roles and Functions Worksheet is used by the staff members to document their own 

responsibilities so that they can easily, and concisely, brief the information to the rest of the staff. 

As a member of the staff, the procedure for using the worksheet is to: 

Write in your position title 

Identify several key tasks you are responsible for during the training event 

Draw a dotted arrow indicating to whom you report to for supervisory guidance, if you 

directly supervise someone, draw a dotted arrow from that person(s) to your box

Draw a solid arrow indicating from whom you receive task related information or 

products for each task 

Draw a solid arrow indicating to whom you send your task related information or 

products 

The sample below is a completed worksheet for the Sensor NCO (84) position for Battle

Command Reengineering (BCR) IV. 

Battle Captain

Friendly Ops NCO

Logistics NCO

Sensor NCO

Battle Captain

Enemy Ops NCO

Sensor NCO

Friendly Ops NCO

Higher HQ Scouts

Company

Commanders

Job Title: Sensor NCO

 84

 

 Task Create and control

 1 SOV (HQ88)

Operations Officer

Deputy Commander

Enemy Operations

NCO

Commander

Effects Officer

Enemy Operations

Officer

Command 2

Control 1 Control 2

Task Create and operate

 2 UAV

Task Create and emplace

 3 3 ADA vehicles

Task

 4

Task

 5

Task

 7

Task

 6

Roles and Functions 

Exercise Worksheet

Automatic SC4

Generated Info

F

Legend:

 Job Supervisory Control

 Task Information Flow

Command 1

3

1

3

D-5 
Team Decision-Making Debrief Exercise Outline 

The Team Decision-Making Debrief Exercise Outline provides the trainer or commander

with steps for conducting the TTS exercise. 

Team Decision-Making Debrief Execution Outline

Steps Action

Exercise Objective : Staff members will identify and provide a briefing regarding: 1) key

decisions, 2) resources needed and available, 3) whom the decision was conveyed to, and 4)

type of feedback received.

Materials/Equipment :

Photocopies of the Team Decision-Making Debrief Worksheet

Overhead slide copies of the Team Decision-Making Debrief Node Worksheet

Overhead slides, projector, and overhead projector pen

Whiteboard or butcher paper, with several markers

1 Once mission exercise has stopped, ask the Senior Staff members to meet with their staff for

approximately 5 minutes to identify a key decision (good, bad, easy, hard) made by each

person in their group during the tactical training exercise.

Ask them to complete the Team Decision-Making Debrief Node Worksheet (found on page

8-24) paper and/or transparency, then have the entire staff move to a central location (briefing

room, classroom). The worksheets (paper and/or transparency) are used to conduct a briefing

on the decision they selected. (This could be limited to only Senior Staff members)

2 Review Team Decision-Making Debrief Process poster.

Review Team Training Sessions General Rules poster.

Review the questions on the Team Decision-Making Debrief Process poster.

(Or use Slides 1-3 that are found after this section)

3 Have the staff members (or Senior Staff only) provide a briefing of the following information,

without interruption.

Display the Team Decision-Making Debrief Example (Slide4). (From the BCR

Experiment)

Command 1, Friendly Operations: “The decision was that the main supply route (MSR) forward

of line of departure was unusable due to the combination of battle damages and wash out from the

rain; therefore, a new MSR had to be designated. The resources that were needed were a route

reconnaissance from the scouts map reconnaissance, and the Co 1SG reports. The resources

were not available from the scouts, but the Co 1SGs provided feedback on trafficability. The

maps and PVD display were not current enough to base the decision. The decision was

conveyed by the Deputy Cdr and the FSC Co Cdr. The Deputy Cdr and the Co 1SGs approved

the route, while the FSC Co Cdr reported that the route was sufficient.”

Note: Ensure the unit is aware that the whiteboard or butcher paper and pens are available

should they wish to appoint someone to record or make notes of each person’s briefing

Continued on next page

D-6 
Team Decision-Making Debrief Worksheet 

The Team Decision-Making Debrief Worksheet provides the staff a common format from 

which they can use to discuss decision-making information with the entire staff. 

Team Decision-Making Debrief Node Worksheet

This worksheet provides each node the opportunity to identify a key decision and answer

questions based on the identified decision to use during the Team Decision-Making Debrief.

1. Identify a key decision (good, bad, easy, or hard) that was made in the node during the

tactical training exercise. Use the space provided to write down the decision to help in

answering the following questions.

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

2. Using the decision identified above, answer the following questions and prepare to discuss

the answers during the debrief.

a. What resources were needed (e.g., information, products)?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

b. Were all the resources available?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

c. To whom was the decision conveyed?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

d. What type of feedback was received?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

D-7