U.S. Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

Research Report 1818 

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (Medalist): Prototype Development And 

Recommendations For Future Research 

Christopher R. Graves 

Charles G. Heiden 

Human Resources Research Organization 

Samuel N. Jenkins, Michael R. Flynn, Paul G. Smith 

Northrop Grumman Information Technology 

Steven H. Brown 

 U.S. Army Research Institute 

Consortium Research Fellows Program 

Scott B. Shadrick 

U.S. Army Research Institute 

 January 2004 

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

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

A Directorate of the U.S. Army Human Resources Command 

ZITA M. SIMUTIS 

 Director 

Research accomplished under contract 

for the Department of the Army 

Human Resources Research Organization 

Northrop Grumman Information Technology 

Technical review by 

Paula Durlach, U.S. Army Research Institute 

Billy L Burnside, U.S. Army Research Institute 

 

NOTICES 

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

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

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Attn: DAPE-ARI-PO, 

5001 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22304-4841. 

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

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

and Social Sciences. 

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

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

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy) 

January 2004

2. REPORT TYPE

 Final 

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to) 

 June 2002 – August 2003 

5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER 

 DASW01-99-D-0012 DO #16

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST): Prototype Development and 

Recommendations for Future Research 5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

 0602785A

5c. PROJECT NUMBER

 A790

5d. TASK NUMBER 

 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Christopher R. Graves, Charles G. Heiden (Human Resources

Research Organization); Samuel N. Jenkins, Michael R. Flynn, Paul 

G. Smith, (Northrop Grumman Information Technology); Steven H.

Brown (University of Louisville); and Scott B. Shadrick (U.S. Army

Research Institute) 5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER

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

Human Resources Research Northrop Grumman Information U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

 Organization (HumRRO) Technology Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) 

66 Canal Center Plaza, 7575 Colshire Drive ATTN: DAPE-ARI-IK

Suite 400 McLean, VA 22102 2423 Morande Street 

Alexandria, VA 22314 Fort Knox, KY 40121

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 

10. MONITOR ACRONYM 

 ARI 

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

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

 ATTN: DAPE-ARI-IK

 5001 Eisenhower Avenue

 Alexandria, VA 22304-4841

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER 

Research Report 1818 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

Contracting Officer’s Representative: Mr. Scott B. Shadrick 

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): 

As the U.S. Army approaches the Future Force timeframe, challenges include developing leaders who are proficient in the 

conduct of dispersed operations and delivering effective training when and where training needs arise. This report describes the 

recently completed Multi-Echelon Distributed Army Leaders’ Information Support Training (MEDALIST) project. The project 

was sponsored by the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) Armored Forces Research 

Unit and had two primary objectives. The first was to identify selected communication requirements essential to conducting 

decentralized battle command in dispersed operations. The second was to develop and demonstrate a distributed approach for 

training those and related requirements in a multi-echelon, small group, deliberate practice setting. This report presents the

project’s background, objectives, activities, and outcomes. It represents the final documentation of the project and includes 

recommendations for the continued development of the MEDALIST training approach and the design of future Army training

and simulations. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS 

battle command communication distributed training structured training deliberate practice 

 coaching simulation Future Force OneSAF Objective System 

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 

16. REPORT 

 Unclassified 

17. ABSTRACT 

 Unclassified 

18. THIS PAGE 

 Unclassified

19. LIMITATION OF

 ABSTRACT 

 Unlimited

20. NUMBER 

 OF PAGES

21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

 Mr. Scott B. Shadrick 

 502-624-3450

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 

i
ii 
iii 

Research Report 1818 

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (Medalist): Prototype Development And 

Recommendations For Future Research 

Christopher R. Graves 

Charles G. Heiden 

Human Resources Research Organization 

Samuel N. Jenkins, Michael R. Flynn, Paul G. Smith 

Northrop Grumman Information Technology 

Steven H. Brown 

 U.S. Army Research Institute 

Consortium Research Fellows Program 

Scott B. Shadrick 

U.S. Army Research Institute 

Armored Forces Research Unit 

Barbara A. Black, Chief 

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22304-4841 

January 2004 

Army Project Number Personnel Performance and 

2O262785A790 Training Technology

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 
iv 
FOREWORD 

U.S. Army transformation doctrine is increasing the emphasis on dispersed operations and 

future operations will be conducted by command groups that plan, execute, and train in a 

dispersed manner. Despite the increased dispersion, future information technologies promise to 

enable greater coordination within and across echelons. The technologies include digital 

communication systems and information networks that support a common relevant operating 

picture, a network-centric environment, reach, and knowledge management, all of which enable 

efficient information dissemination. 

In order to meet the training requirements brought on by the increased complexity of 

command and control systems, future training must become more effective and efficient. 

Distributed team training exercises and drills should focus training on the exact people necessary 

for the competencies being trained and leverage highly effective training techniques such as 

repetition, immediate feedback, and focused coaching. 

The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI), as part of 

Work Package (211) FUTURETRAIN: Techniques and Tools for Command, Control, 

Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Training 

of Future Brigade Combat Team Commanders and Staffs, and in support of its Science and 

Technology Objective: IV.SP.2002.02, “Methods and Measures of Commander-Centric 

Training,” is developing a variety of new training methods to enhance the Army’s ability to 

develop the capable leaders required for future missions. As a part of this effort, ARI is 

assessing methods and techniques for measuring and training future command and staff C4ISR 

tasks. This objective represents a Top 5 Milestone for ARI. 

The present effort developed an approach for training small teams engaged in battle 

command with a focus on the communication skills essential for command and control. The 

approach trains these elements of battle command in a distributed, multi-echelon environment 

and incorporates key elements of structured training and deliberate practice, providing coaching 

and immediate feedback to the training audience. The approach was designed to be generic, 

adaptable, and scalable to meet dynamic needs. Such training provides a low-cost method for 

teaching teams to “push” the information needed in specific situations enabling Soldiers to “see 

and think like a team.” 

The training approach developed during this effort was used during May and June 2003 at 

the U.S. Army Armor School by captains in the Armor Captain’s Career Course and lieutenants 

from the Armor Officer’s Basic Course. The approach was briefed in June 2003 to the 

Commander of the 16th Cavalry Regiment; the Commander of the 3rd Squadron, 16th Cavalry 

Regiment; and the U.S. Army Armor Center instructor cadre from the 2nd and 3rd Squadrons, 16th

Cavalry Regiment. 

 MICHAEL G. RUMSEY 

 Acting Technical Director 

v 
vi 
MULTI-ECHELON DISTRIBUTED ARMY LEADERS’ INFORMATION SUPPORT 

TRAINING (MEDALIST): PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Research Requirement: 

To meet the challenges of the 21st century, the U.S. Army has dedicated itself to attaining 

a vast, strategic transformation. The transformation is proceeding expeditiously with the 

establishment of a Stryker Brigade Combat Team and will ultimately lead to the fielding of the 

Future Force, its Future Combat System of Systems, and all the training required to bring that 

Force to proficiency. 

As the Army approaches this objective, the emerging operational and training 

environments are presenting significant training and leader development challenges. The 

operational environment projects an increase in dispersed operations. Thus, one challenge is to 

train force proficiency in decentralized command and control under dispersed operating 

conditions. The training environment, influenced by the operational environment and the 

projected availability of expert trainers, forecasts a broader requirement for distributed training. 

A second challenge, thus, is to expedite effective training when and where training needs arise, 

even though trainee and trainer personnel may be separated by great distances. 

The recently completed Multi-Echelon Distributed Army Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST) project, conceived and sponsored by the U.S. Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) Armored Forces Research Unit at Fort Knox, KY, 

had two primary areas of focus: the identification of communication requirements associated 

with decentralized command and control in dispersed operations, and the development of an 

approach for training those and related tasks in a distributed manner. 

Procedure: 

The project began with the identification of selected requirements for training small 

teams of leaders on communicating in a dispersed and decentralized battle command 

environment. To identify these requirements, project staff examined the functions of battle 

command and identified the basic communication activities that occur therein. An additional 

literature review resulted in the production of a set of general guidelines for communicating 

effectively in a dispersed and decentralized command environment. Together, the 

communication activities and guidelines represent a set of training requirements that address 

certain aspects of the communication that occurs in decentralized battle command under 

dispersed operating conditions. The training requirements were used to construct a training 

objective for the project’s prototype exercise developed in accordance with the MEDALIST 

training approach. 

vii
The MEDALIST training approach was designed to meet the requirement for training 

that is distributed, realistic, efficient, scalable, adaptable, focused, and flexible. The approach is 

distributed in that it uses a prototype simulation system, the MEDALIST Prototype System, to 

enable groups of Army commanders, leaders, and trainers who are not co-located to train 

together. Its distributed feature also provides for a certain realism by allowing participants who 

are co-located to train under simulated dispersed operating conditions (i.e., from different offices 

or buildings). The approach was also designed to be efficient, scalable, and adaptable in its 

implementation, promoting an effective use of training time and materials. Efficiency results 

from the use of the structured training method and deliberate practice training techniques, to 

include repeated practice and active coaching. Scalability is achieved through a training design 

that allows various echelons within a unit to train on the same training objective using a single 

training support package (TSP). Finally, the approach incorporates focus and flexibility by 

enabling training on a variety of objectives, tasks, and skills associated with decentralized battle 

command in dispersed operations. 

Project staff developed a prototype exercise in order to demonstrate the MEDALIST 

training requirements and approach. The exercise provides training at the battalion-company 

level and its audience includes a battalion commander and three company commanders. The 

training objective for the exercise was developed from the project’s findings on effective 

communication in decentralized battle command in dispersed operations. 

The project’s evaluation efforts sought to improve the training approach and exercise and 

to obtain judgments of the approach’s potential effectiveness, value, and acceptability to Army

users. In the early phases of development, project staff conducted iterative reviews of training 

concepts and products. Project staff then conducted two types of pilots: internal and external. 

During the internal pilot, project staff filled all participant positions, including support and 

training audience. In the five external pilots, Army personnel filled the training audience 

positions, but project staff again filled the training support roles to allow for the continued 

refinement of the coaching approach through repeated practice and testing. 

Findings: 

Pilot feedback resulted in several key and many minor modifications that served to 

improve the training approach. Most importantly, however, the feedback indicated that the 

approach has significant potential for future integration into U.S. Army Training and Doctrine 

Command and U.S. Army Forces Command settings. The most notable finding in this area was 

that pilot participants representative of the approach’s intended audience viewed the program as 

an effective, efficient, and promising method of training. This was especially true among 

younger audiences who were more familiar and comfortable with distributed, electronic 

communication. 

Utilization of Findings: 

At the project’s conclusion, project staff made a number of recommendations related to 

the conduct of future research and development. Recommendations suggest expanding the focus 

and application of the training approach, refining the TSP model, refining the performance 

viii
measurement component, and evaluating the coaching model. Recommendations also address 

the identification of future simulation (i.e., One Semi-automated Forces [OneSAF] Objective 

System [OOS] and OneSAF Testbed Baseline [OTB]) requirements, the integration of the 

MEDALIST approach into Army training, and the design of training for future forces. Several 

of these recommendations will be addressed in a MEDALIST follow-on project. Others deserve 

the attention of related research and development that will design methods for providing 

effective training for future forces.

ix
x 
MULTI-ECHELON DISTRIBUTED ARMY LEADERS’ INFORMATION SUPPORT 

TRAINING (MEDALIST): PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 

CONTENTS

Page 

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

Background......................................................................................................................................2 

The Operational Environment and Battle Command.................................................................2 

The Training Environment and the Delivery of Training..........................................................3 

Summary of Training Needs......................................................................................................4 

 Training Methods.......................................................................................................................4 

 Project Objectives......................................................................................................................5 

Training Requirements.....................................................................................................................6 

 Battle Command Communication Activities.............................................................................6 

 Communication Guidelines .......................................................................................................6 

The Training Approach..................................................................................................................10 

Audience and Uses of the Approach........................................................................................10 

 Exercises..................................................................................................................................11 

 Support Requirements..............................................................................................................12 

 Material Support...............................................................................................................12 

 Simulation Support...........................................................................................................16 

 Personnel Support.............................................................................................................18 

 Implementation ........................................................................................................................21 

 Training Objective............................................................................................................21 

 Performance Coaching .....................................................................................................23 

Planning, Preparation, and Execution ..............................................................................29 

The Prototype Exercise ..................................................................................................................30 

xi 
CONTENTS (continued)

Page 

Formative Evaluation.....................................................................................................................31 

 Method .....................................................................................................................................31 

The Internal Pilot .....................................................................................................................32 

The External Pilots...................................................................................................................33 

The Initial External Pilot ..................................................................................................33 

 Follow-on Pilots...............................................................................................................35 

 Evaluation Summary................................................................................................................37 

Recommendations for Future Research.........................................................................................37 

An Expanded Focus and Application ......................................................................................38 

 Material Support ......................................................................................................................40 

 Performance Measurement ......................................................................................................41 

 Coaching ..................................................................................................................................41 

 Simulation................................................................................................................................42 

A Near-term Training Solution ........................................................................................42 

Designing the Future Combat System of Systems...........................................................43 

Integration into Army Training................................................................................................44 

Future Forces Training.............................................................................................................44 

Summary and Conclusion..............................................................................................................45 

 Project Summary......................................................................................................................45 

 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................47 

References......................................................................................................................................49 

Appendix A Acronyms ............................................................................................................. A-1

Appendix B Sample Pilot Evaluation Guide .............................................................................B-1 

xii 
CONTENTS (continued)

Page 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Basic communication activities of battle command.....................................................7 

Figure 2. Guidelines for communicating in decentralized battle command in dispersed 

 operations .................................................................................................................9 

Figure 3. Examples of safe and target performance topics........................................................10 

Figure 4. Exercise framework....................................................................................................12 

Figure 5. Training support package components and organization ...........................................13 

Figure 6. Exercise attachment contents by attachment type ......................................................16 

Figure 7. Prototype system interface for support personnel ......................................................19 

Figure 8. Prototype system interface for the training audience .................................................20 

Figure 9. Training objective from the prototype exercise .........................................................22 

Figure 10. Expectations of coaching participants........................................................................25 

Figure 11. Coaching guide from the prototype exercise..............................................................27 

Figure 12. Examples of direct and indirect coaching ..................................................................28 

Figure 13. Sample framework for future training........................................................................39 

Figure 14. Summary of project recommendations.......................................................................47 

xiii 
MULTI-ECHELON DISTRIBUTED ARMY LEADERS’ INFORMATION SUPPORT 

TRAINING (MEDALIST): PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 

Introduction 

The U.S. Army’s strategic transformation will require changes in all areas from doctrine, 

training, and leader development to organization, materiel, and Soldiers. The transformation is 

proceeding expeditiously with the establishment of a Stryker Brigade Combat Team and will 

ultimately lead to the fielding of the Future Force, its Future Combat System of Systems (FCS), 

and all the training required to bring that Force to proficiency. 

As the Army approaches this objective, the emerging operational and training 

environments are presenting significant challenges. The operational environment projects an 

increase in dispersed operations. Thus, one challenge is to train force proficiency in 

decentralized command and control under dispersed operating conditions. The training 

environment, influenced by the operational environment and the projected availability of expert 

trainers, forecasts a broader requirement for distributed training. A second challenge, thus, is to 

expedite effective training when and where training needs arise, even though trainee and trainer 

personnel may be separated by great distances. 

The recently completed Multi-Echelon Distributed Army Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST) project, conceived and sponsored by the U.S. Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) Armored Forces Research Unit at Fort Knox, KY, 

had two primary areas of focus: the identification of communication requirements associated 

with the conduct of decentralized command and control in dispersed operations, and the 

development of an approach for training those and related tasks in a distributed manner. Key 

project outcomes included the following products: 

• Training requirements that cover the basic communication activities of decentralized 

battle command in dispersed operations and selected guidelines for executing those 

activities effectively. Communication activities include tasks such as directing 

subordinates and reporting information and assessments. Communication guidelines 

include requirements such as ensuring communications are highly interactive. 

• A distributed, small-group training approach that includes techniques for effective 

distributed coaching and meets the needs of current and future forces. 

• A prototype training exercise and training support package (TSP) that demonstrate the 

training requirements and approach. 

This ARI report serves as the final account of the MEDALIST project. It describes the 

research and development (R&D) that influenced project planning and execution, documents the 

outcomes listed above, and presents recommendations for the continued development of 

MEDALIST and future forces training. 

1 
Background 

The MEDALIST project was initiated based on the premise that conducting battle 

command and delivering training will be as difficult and critical as ever in the emerging 

operational and training environments. This premise was established through research that 

explored the conditions of those environments and identified a list of relevant training needs. In 

response to those needs, project designers explored the potential utility of two proven training 

methods that remain underutilized in Army training: structured training and deliberate practice. 

The final project objectives reflect the findings of this research. 

The Operational Environment and Battle Command 

The operational environment is one of the prime determinants of Army training 

requirements, including those specific to the execution of battle command. Currently, 

operational conditions are defined along a number of dimensions that include threat, operations, 

information, and technology (Department of the Army [DA], 2001b). These conditions affect 

the conduct of military operations by forcing and enabling the dispersion of command and 

control nodes throughout a unit’s area of operations. Thus, forces are more broadly distributed 

across the battlefield, and a greater need exists for decentralized command and control that 

allows units to take greater advantage of opportunities. This, in turn, raises the requirement for 

training that addresses decentralized command in dispersed operations, including the 

communication that occurs therein. 

Force dispersion results primarily from conditions in the areas of threat and operations. 

Threat conditions specify that multiple threats, both from national powers and from transnational 

groups, will confront U.S. interests. These adversaries will employ tactics that take advantage of 

perceived U.S. doctrinal weaknesses and adapt to our tactics, techniques, and procedures. Their 

tactics will be seen in nonlinear, asymmetric operations that employ regular military, 

paramilitary, and terrorist or criminal organizations conducting such dissimilar activities as 

cross-border attacks, coercion, illegal drug trading, terrorism, illicit arms trafficking, or piracy. 

These operations will occur throughout the area of operation to bring about dispersion of U.S. 

forces and dissolution of effort. 

As these threats arise, U.S. force operations must enable local commanders to detect and 

react to the asymmetric and adaptive threat more quickly than has previously been required. The 

types of operations conducted by U.S. forces will increase in number, and the operations 

themselves will require rapid changes in mission as well as the dispersion of forces across the 

battlefield in a tactically sound manner. This will elicit a decentralized model of command and 

control, practiced under dispersed operating conditions, that relies heavily on timely, effective 

communication. 

 Conditions in the technology and information dimensions are key enablers of effective 

force dispersion, as they have the potential to enhance the communication that occurs in that 

environment. Advances in these dimensions include the development of digital communication 

systems and information networks. These command and control systems and network assets 

have the capacity to improve unit performance by enabling units to operate in a dispersed 

2 
manner while maintaining a common operating picture (COP). They support communication 

within units and teams of commanders, but they also provide access to external reach 

intelligence sources that have previously been unavailable to personnel on the battlefield. These 

sources include, but are not limited to, distant cells that can provide intelligence and lessons 

about how to interpret unique situations on the battlefield. As command and control systems and 

information networks are fielded, commanders should be able to acquire, share, and use 

information more effectively, thereby increasing unit performance in dispersed operations. If 

used to their full advantage, these assets will enhance the effectiveness of decentralized 

command in dispersed operations, enabling units to react without delay to the quick-paced events 

of the dynamic operating environment. 

In exercising battle command, commanders must visualize, describe, and direct their 

missions and forces (DA, 2001a). Among other requirements, this involves assessing risk, 

assigning missions, prioritizing and allocating resources, understanding subordinate needs, and 

deciding when and how to make adjustments. In exercising decentralized battle command, a 

commander’s requirements are expanded to include a greater emphasis on enabling subordinates 

to make decisions instantaneously, within their commander’s intent, in order to take advantage of 

tactical opportunities. This requires a commander whose command mode is decentralized as 

well as subordinate commanders who understand the extent to which command has been 

decentralized. Their understanding influences their duties, responsibilities, and freedom to act. 

Decentralized command also requires subordinate commanders who can articulate situations and 

recommendations in a manner their commander has come to expect and in a dispersed 

environment where communication becomes more critical, but also more difficult. 

Together, these conditions raise the need for training decentralized battle command under 

dispersed operating conditions, with a focus on communication. Furthermore, this type of 

training must be distributable anytime, anywhere. 

The Training Environment and the Delivery of Training 

Providing the right training to the right personnel at the right times will become

increasingly important as the Army moves toward its Future Force model that not only 

incorporates, but (also) leverages the conduct of dispersed operations. Training design and 

delivery, thus, must take full account of the conditions under which training will be executed. 

These conditions represent the training environment. 

Some training conditions stem directly from the operational environment. As mentioned 

earlier, the operational environment will present a greater frequency of dispersed operations in 

which commanders, who are scattered across greater distances, must retain their ability to 

execute an increasing number of separate but interdependent tasks. Additionally, effective 

communication involving the use of command and control and other information assets will be 

critical to the successful exercise of battle command in this setting. All these conditions affect 

the training environment by magnifying the importance of efficient training. First, force 

dispersion translates into a requirement for distributed training that can be conducted anywhere 

(e.g., in theater) and can present realistically the dispersed conditions of the operating 

environment in training at Army installations. Second, an increased number of mission types 

3 
and a broader requirement for proficiency with command and control and information assets will 

constrain the time allocated to any one training agenda. Therefore, training must be efficient. 

A final condition relates to the availability of training resources, specifically, trainers. 

Trainers who are experts in their fields and the most qualified to facilitate training will likely be 

located as far away as the continental U.S. and often at U.S. Army Training and Doctrine 

Command (TRADOC) installations. This too indicates that the best-designed training will 

include a distributed feature that allows deployed forces to access trainers located in the U.S. and 

non-deployed forces to access trainers located at TRADOC installations. 

Summary of Training Needs 

The training needs described so far can be summarized in terms of the topics that training 

should address and the means by which that training should be conducted. The topic—

communication in decentralized battle command in dispersed operations—is an area in which 

skills may not be so easily acquired. Soldiers arrive equipped with communication and 

command styles and techniques, some of which must be extinguished and some of which must 

be refined in order to facilitate effective communication within the team. This cannot be attained 

through individual training alone, and it is not often the focus of large-scale field training 

exercises. Instead, it requires small team training that focuses specifically on communication. 

Further, it cannot be trained only on occasion, but must be trained frequently and efficiently and 

not to the exclusion of other training requirements. Thus, there exists a requirement for training 

that is: 

• focused, addressing communication skills that support the conduct of decentralized 

battle command in dispersed operations; 

• flexible, enabling a focus on other Army leader tasks; 

• distributed, bringing people together in a virtual (i.e., distributed) team setting; 

• realistic, reflecting the conditions of the dispersed operating environment; 

• efficient, making the most of time spent by providing as much practice and feedback as

possible; 

• adaptable, allowing training to be conducted until proficiency is achieved; and 

• scalable, enabling units from brigade through platoon to train on the same objective and 

mission. 

Training Methods 

Designing a training approach that meets the identified training needs requires a careful 

application of appropriate training methods. Over the past decade, ARI has directed 

considerable attention toward the application of two such methods: structured training and 

deliberate practice. 

Structured training is the intentional design of training events so that trainees perform

tasks in a predetermined sequence, receive frequent and specific performance feedback, and 

4 
accomplish training objectives (Campbell, Quinkert, & Burnside, 2000). It focuses on task 

execution, but is often conducted in the context of a larger mission, where mission outcomes that 

are indirect and loose measures of task performance may distract from the more direct 

measurement of the tasks being trained. Even so, in numerous applications (Hoffman, Graves, 

Koger, Flynn, & Sever, 1995; Pratt et al., 2000) it has shown a considerable capacity to help 

participants improve their performance, identify areas where further improvement must be 

accomplished, and achieve further improvement in follow-up training. 

Deliberate practice is the forced repetition of task performance combined with the 

provision of cues, or performance coaching, on ways to improve that performance (Ericsson, 

Krampe, & Tesch- Römer, 1993). In this type of training, trainees perform tasks repeatedly until 

they achieve criterion performance or noted improvement. Through active coaching, the training 

raises performance levels to standard during the training instead of simply identifying areas in 

which performance should be sustained or improved. The deliberate practice method of training 

is executed under drill-like conditions and removes task performance from the context of the 

larger mission or game. This leads to an emphasis on performance technique over performance 

outcome, which is often influenced by factors other than strict technique and may redirect the 

intended focus of the training. Finally, deliberate practice is an intentional, disciplined activity. 

It is not designed for enjoyment, although participants may gain some motivation as a result of 

getting the opportunity to interact with or perform for an expert trainer (Ericsson, 1996). 

Deliberate practice has been used over the years to train motor skills as well as cognitive 

tasks. Examples from the military setting where the deliberate practice method has been used to 

train cognitive skills include TRADOC’s Adaptive Thinking Leaders’ Guide and ARI’s Think 

Like a Commander training program (Shadrick & Lussier, 2002). 

As alluded to earlier, the extensive training requirements placed on Army leaders restrict 

the opportunities for those leaders to train on any one task or set of tasks, especially in a team

context. Because of their time-saving features (i.e., an emphasis on focus, the frequent repetition 

and coaching of performance, and the provision of opportunities to address task performance 

independently from mission outcome), both the structured training method and the deliberate 

practice method should be incorporated into any training that intends to address the 

communication component of battle command. The MEDALIST project, thus, included a 

requirement to do just that. 

Project Objectives 

The MEDALIST project had four objectives that defined the focus and scope of the effort: 

• Objective 1. Identify a set of small team training requirements associated with effective 

communication in decentralized battle command in dispersed operations. 

• Objective 2. Design and develop a multi-echelon, distributed training approach and a 

sample prototype exercise based on the approach. 

• Objective 3. Evaluate the training requirements, approach, and exercise through pilot 

implementation. 

5 
• Objective 4. Prepare an ARI research report that describes the project’s literature 

reviews, development, and recommendations and an ARI research product1

 that contains

all the training materials and software needed to run the prototype exercise. 

The remainder of this report addresses the efforts and outcomes associated with the 

project’s first three objectives. 

Training Requirements 

The project’s first objective stipulated the identification of the requirements for training 

small teams of leaders on communicating in a dispersed and decentralized battle command 

environment. To identify these requirements, project staff first examined the functions of battle 

command and identified the basic communication activities that occur therein. An additional 

literature review was then conducted to develop a set of general guidelines for communicating 

effectively in decentralized battle command under dispersed operating conditions. The training 

requirements identified were later used to construct a training objective for the project’s 

prototype exercise. 

Battle Command Communication Activities 

To identify the basic communication activities that occur in the context of battle 

command, project military subject matter experts analyzed the three functions of battle 

command: visualize, describe, and direct (DA, 2001a). The analysis identified the various 

situations in which information is exchanged and the activities of commanders in those 

situations. Due to the project’s focus on training that involves only two echelons of leaders and 

the use of higher intelligence (i.e., reach) sources, project staff identified only those activities 

that occur between a senior commander and his immediate subordinate commanders, as well as 

the senior commander’s communication with higher intelligence sources. 

During the project, analysts identified communication activities only at the battalioncompany level. It was expected that these would generalize well to other echelons, even given 

the differences in commander responsibilities at different echelons and echelon-specific 

terminology. Figure 1 presents the base set of battle command communication activities, or 

requirements. 

Communication Guidelines 

It is widely accepted that frequent interaction in educational settings produces improved 

learning opportunities (Bloom, 1981; Daly, Friedrich, & Vangelisti, 1990). In one study (Jones, 

1996), researchers collected student reactions to seven interactive telecourses. Students 

participated from distributed classrooms that were connected by video cameras and microphones 

using telephone lines. Feedback suggests that students prefer courses in which instructors use 

more interactive strategies, that is, when instructors keep students involved with timely and 

consistent responses to their needs. Similarly, Marshall (2001) reviewed the literature on 

communication in the classroom and concluded that the distance education environment should 

 

1 See Graves et al., (in preparation). 

6 
reflect the regular classroom, especially in the area of instructor-student interaction. Finally, 

Bing and Laroche (2002), in their suggestions for achieving high-functioning virtual teams, 

assert that team leaders should ask for input from each member of the team, ensuring the 

participation of the entire team. 

 

Communication Activities at the Senior Commander Level 

• Seek information and assessments from subordinates. 

• Seek intelligence and other information from higher (reach) sources.

• Provide information to subordinates. 

• Describe intent, scheme of maneuver, and situational understanding. 

• Direct subordinates. 

Communication Activities at the Subordinate Commander Level 

• Request information and clarification of intent and guidance. 

• Report information and assessments. 

• Cross talk to exchange information. 

Figure 1. Basic communication activities of battle command. 

Part of the difficulty of maintaining an interactive atmosphere when facilitating virtual 

learning teams, is that it is easy for participants to disengage, especially when disagreements 

arise (Johnson, Berrett, Sumya, Yoon, & La Fleur, 2001). In response to these situations, these 

researchers suggest that leaders should monitor discussions, keeping an eye out for conflict, and 

then resolve that conflict outside the framework of the group discussion. This may require 

speaking one-on-one with those involved in the conflict. To further reduce conflict and increase 

participation, Bing (2001) and Willis (1992) suggest that leaders must maintain a high level of 

trust among group members, because separation by distance has a negative effect on rapport. 

Several specific communication techniques are likely to improve the effective 

functioning of virtual teams operating in a distance mode. First, Bing and Laroche (2002) 

suggest that participants in distance discussions should identify themselves prior to speaking. 

Second, Willis (1992) asserts that distance discussion participants should use concise, cohesive 

statements and direct questions in order to reduce response time. Third, Bailey and Luetkehans 

(1998), in presenting tips for facilitating virtual teams, suggest that discussion leaders should use 

open-ended questions when attempting to build on prior concepts. Together, these techniques, 

conditions, and requirements represent various criteria for effective distance communication. 

The guidance, however, does not address extensively the unique communication requirements of 

leaders (e.g., battle commanders). Subsequent reviews, therefore, examined the communication 

requirements linked to leadership. 

In addressing the leadership component, project staff focused on J. A. Olmstead’s most 

recent work (Olmstead, 2002), which provided the following suggestions: 

• Individuals at information control points must evaluate and pass along information, all 

the time remaining aware of the problems associated with selective emphasis and 

selective omission, in order to avoid the reporting of inaccurate or incomplete 

7 
information. Selective emphasis occurs when an individual receives a message and 

stresses the aspects of that message that are most important to him when he passes the 

message along. Those aspects stressed may not be those intended by the original sender. 

Selective omission occurs when an individual does not pass along all elements of a 

communication; this may occur when persons avoid passing along information that 

reflects unfavorably on them. 

• In downward communication, subordinates may second-guess superiors or expand 

inappropriately on instructions, carrying actions further than was intended. Furthermore, 

sensitivity to power may prohibit subordinates from obtaining clarification. 

• Supervisors may withhold key information in order to maintain control of the operation. 

This keeps subordinates from having all the information they need to perform

effectively. 

• When seeking information, the need-to-know is generally less than the desire-to-know. 

• A climate of trust facilitates effective communication; it helps subordinates perceive 

their superior as an aid rather than as a threat. 

• Communication is ineffective many times when an individual does not realize the 

relevance of the information he possesses, and, thus, does not pass it on. 

• Leaders can increase communication effectiveness by using standing procedures and 

directives and by establishing a conducive climate and positive relationships. 

• Leaders can attack the causes of poor communication—changing organizational 

practices and climate—in part, by maximizing contact. 

• Leaders should assure subordinates that they are trusted by limiting the extent to which 

they check on subordinate activities and by using words for information purposes rather 

than to influence behavior. 

These findings were used to develop a set of guidelines for communicating effectively in 

a dispersed and decentralized command setting. The guidelines contain inferences into how 

communication should be conducted based on the findings described above. The guidelines also 

translate findings from the various domains into a military command context and are organized 

under the following topics: key and relevant information, open communication, involvement, 

and communication techniques, as shown in Figure 2. 

8 
Key and Relevant Information 

Commanders should pass along all key and relevant information. 

Commanders should pass along only information that is relevant. 

Commanders should ensure their communications place emphasis on key information. 

Commanders should not withhold information to maintain control of the operation.

Commanders should seek only the information they need to know.

Open Communication 

Commanders should encourage subordinates to request clarification of intent and directives. 

Commanders should establish themselves as an aid, not a threat, to facilitate open communication. 

Commanders should maintain a high level of trust. 

Commanders should use their communications for information rather than influence. 

Commanders should allow subordinates to take initiative, thereby demonstrating trust in those 

subordinates. 

Involvement 

Commanders should maintain contact with subordinates. 

Commanders should ensure their communications are highly interactive. 

Commanders should request the input of subordinates. 

Commanders should monitor and resolve conflicts to ensure participants remain engaged in 

discussions.

Communication Techniques 

Communications should be short, concise, and direct. 

Open-ended questions should be used for obtaining additional critical information. 

Commanders should require the use of standing operating procedures for communications. 

Figure 2. Guidelines for communicating in decentralized battle command in dispersed 

operations. 

The communication activities and guidelines represent a set of training requirements that 

address certain aspects of the communication that occurs in decentralized battle command in 

dispersed operations. The activities indicate what types of communications will occur, and the 

guidelines specify techniques for ensuring communication is effective. Together, they target

communication style, technique, and effectiveness, especially as related to the interaction that 

occurs within teams. 

Because a person’s ability to communicate skillfully is typically a sensitive subject, any 

training that addresses the guidelines identified should be conducted under the condition of trust 

and a mutual agreement that the intended outcome is performance improvement and not critical 

personal evaluation. No less important, trainers in this area must ensure their feedback and 

instruction drives down past the “safer” topics of tactics, decision-making, and situational 

understanding, into the inner-workings or mechanics of performance that enable effective tactics, 

decision-making, and situational understanding. Those mechanics are communications and 

communication criteria, such as those identified as targeted performance topics in Figure 3. 

9 
SAFE 

Tactics 

Decision-making 

Situational understanding

TARGET 

Seeking and providing information 

Directing subordinates 

Communicating effectively (e.g., clearly) 

Establishing an open communication environment 

 Figure 3. Examples of safe and target performance topics. 

 

With these training requirements (i.e., activities and guidelines) in hand, project staff began 

developing an approach suitable for training these and related requirements. 

The Training Approach 

The MEDALIST training approach was designed to meet the requirement for training 

that is distributed, realistic, efficient, scalable, adaptable, focused, and flexible, as described 

earlier in this document. As such, the approach is distributed, enabling groups of Army 

commanders, leaders, and trainers who are not co-located to train together. Its distributed 

feature, enabled by the MEDALIST Prototype System ([MPS], described on page 16), also 

provides for a certain realism by allowing participants who are co-located to train under 

simulated dispersed operating conditions (i.e., from different offices or buildings). The approach 

is also efficient, scalable, and adaptable in its implementation, promoting an effective use of 

training time and materials. Efficiency results from the use of the structured training method and 

deliberate practice training techniques, to include repeated practice and active coaching. 

Scalability is achieved through a training design that allows various echelons within a unit to 

train on the same training objective using a single TSP. The exercises are designed to be used 

repeatedly by the same training audience. Finally, the approach incorporates focus and 

flexibility by enabling training on a variety of objectives, tasks, and skills associated with 

decentralized battle command in dispersed operations. 

This section describes the MEDALIST training approach in terms of its audience and 

uses; exercises; material, simulation, and personnel requirements; and implementation. In 

certain instances, the section presents materials developed for the project’s prototype exercise to 

demonstrate the concepts described. 

Audience and Uses of the Approach 

The MEDALIST training approach is designed to train the communication tasks required 

of Army commanders and leaders at all echelons, brigade through platoon. Specifically, the 

audience of the approach includes brigade commanders, battalion commanders, company 

commanders, and platoon leaders who train in the following combinations: 

• a brigade commander and his battalion commanders, 

• a battalion commander and his company commanders, and 

• a company commander and his platoon leaders. 

10 
The approach is intended for use in U.S. Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) and 

TRADOC settings. In FORSCOM units, the approach should be used to build proficient intact 

battle command teams in situations where teams are composed of personnel who have the 

military education level and professional experience that qualify them for the slots they are 

holding. The approach can be used throughout a unit’s training calendar, but is particularly 

appropriate upon the arrival of a new commander or subordinate commander when team 

proficiency naturally drops. In the TRADOC setting, the focus shifts from building intact teams 

to acquiring expertise in basic battle command skills. In the TRADOC setting, the approach 

should be employed to allow future leaders to practice the skills taught in their courses. 

Exercises 

The MEDALIST training approach provides exercises that support scalable, adaptable 

training for the selected multi-echelon audiences. Scalable training is training that can be 

conducted at different echelons (e.g., brigade-battalion, battalion-company). Adaptable training 

is training that can be conducted multiple times under varied tactical scenario conditions to build 

proficiency over time. 

In the MEDALIST approach, scalability is achieved through the provision of three 

separate sets of exercises, one set for each echelon combination. All the exercises train the same

objective and are contained in a single TSP. Thus, a single TSP provides one exercise set at the 

brigade-battalion level, another at the battalion-company level, and a third at the companyplatoon level. Finally, all three exercise sets are nested in the same division-level tactical 

scenario: The brigade-battalion exercises are based on one of the division’s brigade missions; 

the battalion-company exercises are based on one of the brigade’s battalion missions, and the 

company-platoon exercises are based on one of the battalion’s company missions. 

The MEDALIST approach uses multiple exercise versions and scripted scenario branches 

to address different training needs. The use of multiple exercise versions (i.e., three for each 

exercise) enables training on the same mission and training objective, but with different tactical 

conditions, events, and outcomes. A single audience, thus, can conduct an exercise three times, 

using the three versions, in order to improve its proficiency on the training objective over the 

course of those executions. In addition, each exercise version contains scenario branches that 

occur at tactical decision points in the scenario. Through making different tactical decisions, 

commanders are able to influence the course of a scenario and even change its outcome. 

In summary, the MEDALIST training approach stipulates the provision of three 

exercises, each presented in three versions, for a total of nine exercise versions, as shown in 

Figure 4. The nine versions provide scalable, adaptable training on an overarching training 

objective and are contained in a single TSP that describes their support requirements and 

implementation. 

11 
Training Support Package

(Three exercises, each provided in three versions. All cover

a single overarching training objective and use a single 

overarching tactical scenario.)

Brigade-Battalion

Exercise, Version A

Brigade-Battalion

Exercise, Version B

Brigade-Battalion

Exercise, Version C

Battalion-Company

Exercise, Version A

Company-Platoon 

Exercise, Version A

Battalion-Company

Exercise, Version B

Battalion-Company

Exercise, Version C

Company-Platoon 

Exercise, Version B

Company-Platoon 

Exercise, Version C

Figure 4. Exercise framework. 

Support Requirements 

The MEDALIST training approach requires support in the areas of material, simulation, 

and personnel. Material support refers to the TSP that contains all the information and guidance 

needed to execute the training. A sample TSP developed for the project’s prototype exercise is 

provided in Graves et al. (in preparation). Simulation support is provided by the MPS. The MPS 

establishes the conditions and events of the tactical scenario, provides communication 

capabilities, and enables the training to be conducted in a distributed manner. Personnel support 

refers to all trainer and other support personnel who assist in the training, from exercise selection 

through execution. 

Material Support 

Material support for MEDALIST training is provided in TSPs. The TSPs contain 

components representative of those generated in the Army’s previous development of structured 

training programs (e.g., Hoffman et al., 1995; Graves, Campbell, Deter, & Quinkert, 1997) and 

identified in Appendix E of TRADOC Regulation 350-70 (DA, 1999). Each MEDALIST TSP is 

designed for a specific unit type, mission, and training objective. The TSPs contain five 

component types, including an exercise thumbnail, a read-me-first document, training guides, 

simulation files, and exercise attachments, as shown in Figure 5. 

12 
Figure 5. Training support package components and organization. 

MEDALIST Training 

Support Package

Compliance Inspection 

Company-Platoon 

Version A

August 2003

MEDALIST

MEDALIST Training 

Support Package

Compliance Inspection 

Company-Platoon 

Version A

August 2003

MEDALIST

MEDALIST Training 

Support Package

Compliance Inspection 

Company-Platoon 

Version B

August 2003

MEDALIST

MEDALIST Training 

Support Package

Compliance Inspection 

Company-Platoon 

Version B

August 2003

MEDALIST

MEDALIST Training 

Support Package

Compliance Inspection 

Company-Platoon 

Version C

August 2003

MEDALIST

MEDALIST Training 

Support Package

Compliance Inspection 

Company-Platoon 

Version C

August 2003

MEDALIST

MEDALIST Training 

Support Package

Compliance Inspection 

Battalion-Company

Version A

August 2003

MEDALIST

MEDALIST Training 

Support Package

Compliance Inspection 

Battalion-Company

Version A

August 2003

MEDALIST

MEDALIST Training 

Support Package

Compliance Inspection 

Battalion-Company

Version A

August 2003

MEDALIST

MEDALIST Training 

Support Package

Compliance Inspection 

Battalion-Company

Version B

August 2003

MEDALIST

MEDALIST Training 

Support Package

Compliance Inspection 

Battalion-Company

Version B

August 2003

MEDALIST

MEDALIST Training 

Support Package

Compliance Inspection 

Battalion-Company

Version C

August 2003

MEDALIST

MEDALIST Training 

Support Package

Compliance Inspection 

Battalion-Company

Version C

August 2003

MEDALIST

MEDALIST Training 

Support Package

Security Operations 

Brigade-Battalion 

Version A

August 2003

MEDALIST

MEDALIST Training 

Support Package

Security Operations

Brigade-Battalion 

Version B

August 2003

MEDALIST

MEDALIST Training 

Support Package

Security Operations

Brigade-Battalion 

Version C

August 2003

MEDALIST

MEDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Training Guide for the 

Training Audience

August 2003

MEDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Training Guide for the System

Operator

August 2003

MEDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Training Guide for the O/C

and Assistant O/C

August 2003

Simulation Files (9, one for each exercise 

version) 

Training Guides (3, one for each

participant type)

Read-Me-First (1 per training support 

package) 

MEDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Read-Me-First

August 2003

Exercise 

Thumbnail (1 per training

support package) 

The Multi-Echelon Distributed Army Leader Training 

(MEDALIST) Prototype Training Package Thumbnail

Using this file: Use this file to help you decide if you want to use the training package and to select the exercise(s) you 

want to conduct. You should be reading this file at least one month prior to the date of the training.

The MEDALIST Training Approach

Overview

The MEDALIST training approach provides distributed training for small, multi-echelon leader teams. It focuses on the information support (i.e., communication) skills essential 

to the conduct of battle command in a dispersed command setting, to include “reach” intelligence gathering. The approach emphasizes repeated practice and active coaching

to help trainees master skills during the training. 

Uses In FORSCOM: To build proficient battle command teams when teams are composed of MEL qualified personnel. 

In OES: To train the battle command skills taught in courses.

Resources 

required

Support Personnel: An O/C (the cdr or grade command equivalent of the senior commander in the exercise, or the O/C equivalent), assistant O/C, and system operator.

Time: Four hours for support personnel; three hours for the training audience.

Equipment: For each participant, a computer that is running MS® Windows NT, and has two monitors, a microphone, speakers, and intranet or Internet access. 

Simulation: The MEDALIST Prototype System (MPS), the simulation and communications system that supports MEDALIST training, is provided with this training package.

The Prototype Exercises

Exercise Title Audience

Security Operations—Brigade-Battalion One Bde Cdr and three Bn Cdrs

Compliance Inspection—Battalion-Company One Bn Cdr and three Co Cdrs

Exercises

supported 

This training package contains three mutually-supporting exercises. The exercises 

are based on a single overarching scenario and training objective and are designed 

for different audiences. Each exercise is built in three versions allowing a training

audience to execute an exercise up to three times, each time experiencing different

tactical events and outcomes. Compliance Inspection—Company-Platoon One Co Cdr and three Plt Ldrs

Objective Commanders communicate to exert and facilitate battle command and control in a distributed, decentralized command environment.

Task 1 The commander communicates to exert battle command and control. Training

objective 

All exercises have the 

same overarching 

training objective and

tasks. Task 2 Subordinate commanders/leaders communicate to facilitate battle command and control.

Task org The brigade consists of one infantry task force (two infantry companies and one armor company), one armor task force (two armor companies and one infantry company), one

pure armor battalion, one artillery battalion, and an engineer company. 

Tactical

scenario

1st Brigade Team is operating as part of a multi-national force under the command of

Multi-National Division East (MND-E). It has been participating in security operations

throughout the region and regularly works alongside multi-national units. The brigade

is conducting a compliance inspection in OBJECTIVE ANVIL near the town of Payokee 

as the division’s main effort. The Norwegian Battalion conducts normal security

operations to our North under the control of the French Brigade. Their patrol schedule

has been altered to draw attention further north, and so away from our area of

operations. The Division Cavalry Squadron, 1st Regiment of Queens Hussars (Polish)

conducts security operations to guard our Southern flank. A security force liaison team

will provide direct coordination with Brigade for this operation. The brigade support 

area remains in position, as do other Brigade units conducting other operations in the 

area of operations.

Task Force (TF) 1-66 is to conduct a rapid tactical movement to isolate the town of

Payokee and conduct a compliance inspection of the storage depot in OBJ ANVIL, in

accordance with the international implementation agreements on the cease fire in

country. The desired end state is defined as conducting the inspection without the 

factional army being able to move quantities of undeclared material out of the

inspection area. Threat forces in the area consist of regular and paramilitary units. 

The TF plans to move with three companies abreast to OBJECTIVEs ANVIL CENTER,

SOUTH, and NORTH. Teams will move through the zone quickly to establish north

(Tm A) and south (Tm C), blocking positions to isolate the weapons depot in

OBJECTIVE ANVIL. Once the depot has been isolated, Tm B will provide close-in

security and conduct the inspection with a platoon. Following the inspection, Tms A 

and C will hold their positions to cover the withdrawal of Tm B, then conduct normal

security patrols through the area. Tm B leaves one platoon that will visually monitor 

the depot for 24 hours from a position outside of town.

First step Select an O/C and provide the O/C with the entire training package. The O/C will initiate exercise planning and distribute the training package.

PL Ohio PL Maine

OBJ

Anvil North

OBJ

Anvil

Center

X

X

PL Utah

II

XX

XX

OBJ

ANVIL

Payokee

Balokia

Haloda

1st Bde (French)

1st Bde (US)

1st Bde (US)

1st Sqdn (Polish)

1st QH

GUARD

I

I

I

A

B

C

I

I

II 1 66

PL Ohio PL Maine

OBJ

Anvil North

OBJ

Anvil

Center

X

X

PL Utah

II

XX

XX

OBJ

ANVIL

Payokee

Balokia

Haloda

1st Bde (French)

1st Bde (US)

1st Bde (US)

1st Sqdn (Polish)

1st QH

GUARD

I

I

I

A

B

C

I

I

II 1 66

13 
MEDALIST

Multi-E

Lead

chelon Distributed Army 

ers’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Train

Exerci

T

Com

C

ing Support Package

se Attachment for the 

raining Audience

pliance Inspection 

ompany-Platoon 

Version C

August 2003

MEDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Exercise Attachment for the 

System Operator

Compliance Inspection 

Company-Platoon 

Version C

August

M 2003EDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Exercise Attachment for the 

O/C and Assistant O/C

Compliance Inspection 

Company-Platoon 

Version C

August 2003

MEDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Exercise Attachment for the 

Training Audience

Compliance Inspection 

Company-Platoon 

Version B

August 2003

MEDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

ers’ Information Support 

aining (MEDALIST)

Lead

Tr

Traini

Exerci

S

Com

C

ng Support Package

se Attachment for the 

ystem Operator

pliance Inspection 

ompany-Platoon 

Version B

August

M 2003EDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Exercise Attachment for the 

O/C and Assistant O/C

Compliance Inspection 

Company-Platoon 

Version B

August 2003

MEDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Exercise Attachment for the 

Training Audience

Compliance Inspection 

Company-Platoon 

Version A

August 2003

MEDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Exercise Attachment for the 

System Operator

Compliance Inspection 

Company-Platoon 

Version A

August 2003

MEDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Exercise Attachment for the 

O/C and Assistant O/C

Compliance Inspection 

Company-Platoon 

Version A

August 2003

MEDALIST

Multi-E

Lead

chelon Distributed Army 

ers’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Train

Exerci

T

Com

Ba

ing Support Package

se Attachment for the 

raining Audience

pliance Inspection 

ttalion-Company 

Version C

August 2003

MEDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Exercise Attachment for the 

System Operator

Compliance Inspection 

Battalion-Company 

Version C

August 2

M003EDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Exercise Attachment for the 

O/C and Assistant O/C

Compliance Inspection 

Battalion-Company 

Version C

August 2003

MEDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Exercise Attachment for the 

Training Audience

Compliance Inspection 

Battalion-Company 

Version B

August 2003

MEDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Exercise Attachment for the 

System Operator

Compliance Inspection 

Battalion-Company 

Version B

August 2

M003 EDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Exercise Attachment for the 

O/C and Assistant O/C

Compliance Inspection 

Battalion-Company 

Version B

August 2003

MEDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Exercise Attachment for the 

Training Audience

Compliance Inspection 

Battalion-Company 

Version A

August 2003

MEDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Exercise Attachment for the 

System Operator

Compliance Inspection 

Battalion-Company 

Version A

August 2003

MEDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Exercise Attachment for the 

O/C and Assistant O/C

Compliance Inspection 

Battalion-Company 

Version A

August 2003

MEDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Exercise Attachment for the 

Training Audience

Security Operations 

Brigade-Battalion 

Version C

August 2003

MEDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Exercise Attachment for the 

System Operator

Security Operations 

Brigade-Battalion 

Version C

August 200 M3

EDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Exercise Attachment for the 

O/C and Assistant O/C

Security Operations 

Brigade-Battalion 

Version C

August 2003

MEDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Exercise Attachment for the 

Training Audience

Security Operations 

Brigade-Battalion 

Version B

August 2003

MEDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

ers’ Information Support 

aining (MEDALIST)

Lead

Tr

Traini

Exerci

S

Sec

Br

ng Support Package

se Attachment for the 

ystem Operator

urity Operations 

igade-Battalion 

Version B

August 200 M3 EDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Exercise Attachment for the 

O/C and Assistant O/C

Security Operations 

Brigade-Battalion 

Version B

August 2003

MEDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Exercise Attachment for the 

Training Audience

Security Operations 

Brigade-Battalion 

Version A

August 2003

MEDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Exercise Attachment for the 

Training Audience

Security Operations 

Brigade-Battalion 

Version A

August 2003

MEDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Exercise Attachment for the 

System Operator

Security Operations 

Brigade-Battalion 

Version A

August 2003

MEDALIST

Multi-Echelon Distributed Army 

Leaders’ Information Support 

Training (MEDALIST)

Training Support Package

Exercise Attachment for the 

O/C and Assistant O/C

Security Operations 

Brigade-Battalion 

Version A

August 2003

Security Operations 

Brigade-Battalion 

Version C 

Compliance Inspection 

Company-Platoon 

Version C 

Compliance Inspection 

Battalion-Company

Version C 

Security Operations 

Brigade-Battalion 

Version B 

Compliance Inspection 

Company-Platoon 

Version B 

Compliance Inspection 

Battalion-Company

Version B 

Security Operations 

Brigade-Battalion 

Version A

Compliance Inspection 

Company-Platoon 

Version A

Compliance Inspection 

Battalion-Company

Version A

Exercise Attachments (27, one for each participant type 

[3] and exercise version [9])

 Figure 5 (continued). Training support package components and organization. 

The exercise thumbnail was developed to provide all the information that would be 

needed for a unit leader or trainer to select a MEDALIST TSP. The thumbnail includes 

information concerning (a) the overall design, intent, and uses of the approach; (b) the training 

objective and exercises supported by the TSP; (c) the tactical scenario underlying the exercises; 

14 
and (d) the resources required to implement the training. In the future, such information will be 

searchable and will reside in training repositories included in Army training support systems. 

The read-me-first document was included in the TSP as a means to launch users into the 

first steps of planning and preparing for MEDALIST exercises. It contains guidance for the 

different user types who may select or retrieve the TSP. User types include commanders or 

trainers who are seeking training for their units and the instructors of TRADOC courses. 

The training guides of any given TSP explain how to plan, prepare for, and execute the 

exercises supported by that TSP. The TSPs provide one training guide for each type of 

participant, for a total of three guides. Participant types, as described in more detail later, include 

trainers (i.e., an observer/controller [O/C] and assistant O/C), a simulation operator (i.e., MPS 

system operator), and training audience personnel. The guides present need-to-know 

information by participant type and are organized into four sections: 

• An Introduction orients the reader to the training approach, exercises supported, and 

TSP and guide contents. It also indicates the first step in planning or preparing for the 

training, depending on the audience of the guide—only O/C and training audience 

personnel are involved in exercise planning. 

• An Overview of the Training Approach section describes the training approach in terms 

of its (a) defining characteristics, (b) recommended and potential uses, (c) support 

requirements, (d) exercises, (e) training objective model, (f) execution, (g) coaching 

model, (h) limitations, and (i) supporting MPS. 

• An Exercises section presents the individual exercises supported by the package, 

identifying their audiences, difficulty levels, and focus. 

• A Roles and Tasks section describes the participants’ roles and all the activities required 

by those participants during the planning of, preparation for, and execution of the 

training. 

The simulation files that are provided in MEDALIST TSPs are database files. Each TSP 

comes with a set of these files, one file for each exercise version. The files contain all the 

scripted tactical reports and displays that are used during training to present scenario events. 

Individual exercise attachments are designed to support the execution of the various 

exercise versions supported by a TSP. Each TSP contains twenty-seven exercise attachments, as 

three attachments (one for each participant type) are provided for each of the nine exercise 

versions. Exercise attachments contain only information related to the specific exercises and 

audiences for which they were compiled. Together, attachment contents include (a) the exercise 

title and version, (b) an exercise overview, (c) a training objective, (d) an exercise coaching 

guide, (e) a scenario storyboard, (f) a scenario decision tree, (g) an operations order, (h) an 

intelligence summary, and (i) rules of engagement. These contents, as contained in the three 

types of attachments, by participant type, are presented in Figure 6. 

15 
Exercise Attachment for the Observer/Controller (O/C) and Assistant O/C

• The exercise title and version. 

• An exercise overview (describes the events and conditions of the tactical scenario). 

• A training objective. 

• An exercise coaching guide. 

• A scenario storyboard (lists all tactical reports and sends times by exercise event). 

• A scenario decision-tree (indicates the tactical reports and displays to use based on tactical 

decisions made during the exercise). 

• An operations order extract and overlay. 

• An intelligence summary. 

• Rules of engagement. 

Exercise Attachment for the System Operator

• The exercise title and version. 

• A scenario storyboard. 

• A scenario decision-tree. 

Exercise Attachment for the Training Audience

• The exercise title and version. 

• A training objective. 

• An operations order extract and overlay. 

• An intelligence summary. 

• Rules of engagement. 

Figure 6. Exercise attachment contents by attachment type. 

Simulation Support 

All MEDALIST training is driven by a prototype constructive simulation system that 

runs on a set of personal computers networked via Internet or intranet. The system, called the 

MPS, was developed specifically for the MEDALIST project in order to support a limited 

implementation of the project’s prototype exercise2

. The MPS creates the training environment 

by presenting tactical reports, displays, and overlays to the training audience and by providing 

various means of communication among exercise participants. This section provides an 

operational overview of the MPS. 

Using the MPS, training support personnel depict battlefield events by sending tactical 

reports and displays to the training audience. Reports represent messages from notional 

subordinate and higher tactical elements. Displays are used to provide the digitally constructed 

COP, which under operational conditions is generated by Army battle command and control 

systems, such as the Force XXI Battle Command for Brigade and Below (FBCB2). The MPS is 

also used to support the tactical interaction that occurs among training audience members and the 

training support communication required for exercise control and performance coaching. 

 

2

 The current MPS is intended for research purposes only and satisfies the minimum requirements for MEDALIST 

training support. Project findings, however, indicate that an enhanced version of the system may represent a viable

tool for supporting near-term training needs, especially in the TRADOC setting. 

16 
The MPS was intended to represent, but not necessarily replicate, the functions of the 

Army’s operational communication systems. Functions represented include (a) an FM voice 

communication function, (b) a written reporting function, (c) an instant messaging function, (d) a 

tactical display function, and (e) a tactical overlay function. 

• The FM function supports all voice communication, both tactical and training support 

that occurs during MEDALIST training. The MPS provides one channel that represents, 

in its tactical application, the training unit’s command net. Most last minute preparation 

and coaching are conducted via this function. 

• The reporting function serves as the primary means of delivering tactical 

communications during MEDALIST exercises. Training support personnel use the 

function to send prepared tactical reports to the training audience to drive the tactical 

scenario. Support personnel may also use the function to respond to the audience’s 

requests for information from notional higher or subordinate units. The training 

audience uses the function to forward prepared reports or construct and send new reports 

as they execute the mission. The reporting function provides pre-formatted report types 

(e.g., combat reports, logistics reports), as well as free text messages. 

• The instant messaging function was included to explore the possibility of including like 

functions in future Army command and control systems. In MEDALIST training, this 

function is used for tactical as well as training support communication. For instance, the 

training audience can converse amongst themselves in a running dialogue to attain 

situational awareness and understanding. Support personnel can use the function to 

provide coaching to participants or replies to requests for tactical information. Instant 

messages originating from the O/C, which most frequently contain coaching, are 

presented in blue font to distinguish them from the audience’s tactical communications. 

• The tactical display function is provided to represent the COP. The system operator 

(described later) is responsible for populating the COP with prepared tactical displays 

that present friendly, threat, and other elements, as well as control measures and the 

terrain on which the mission is being conducted. Participants can click on the tactical 

display to obtain the grid coordinates of locations they need to include in their reports 

and messages. 

• The tactical overlay function represents the means by which overlays are provided and 

generated. It is supported by an electronic whiteboard feature. The system operator uses 

the overlay function to send prepared overlays to the training audience. Further, each 

member of the audience has his own tactical overlay that he can modify prior to or 

during an exercise. The MPS provides a collaboration overlay on which the training 

audience can communicate by sketching tentative control measures and symbols 

(although not in great detail in the current MPS version). Audience members can view 

any overlay at will, but can modify only their own overlay and the collaboration overlay. 

The functions described above are used by all exercise participants. Support personnel, 

however, have the additional capabilities of starting, pausing, and rewinding exercises, as well as 

manipulating the prepared tactical reports and displays contained in the MPS database files. 

17 
To present all these functions, the MPS requires a dual set of computer monitors at each 

station. One monitor presents a reports and messages interface, and the other presents a tactical 

displays and overlays interface. In addition, there are two versions of the MPS, one for the 

support personnel and one for the training audience. Figures 7 and 8 show the interfaces for the 

support personnel and training audience, respectively. 

Personnel Support 

Executing MEDALIST exercises requires the assistance of personnel who have the 

experience and expertise that are needed to provide instruction and evaluation on the topic being 

trained. It is highly recommended, however, that support personnel already be familiar with the 

training approach and specific exercise(s) to be conducted. 

In all, the MEDALIST training approach requires the participation of three support 

personnel.3

 These individuals fill the positions of O/C, assistant O/C, and system operator:

• The O/C is the primary trainer and should be the commander or grade command 

equivalent of the senior commander participating in the exercise. For example, in a 

brigade-battalion exercise, the O/C should be the division commander or assistant 

division commander, or the O/C equivalent.

4

 

• The assistant O/C helps the O/C control the training by adjusting the tactical scenario 

according to tactical decisions made during the exercise and playing the roles of higher 

and subordinate units and “reach” intelligence sources. The assistant O/C needs the 

operations and intelligence experience at the echelons being trained. He should be the 

training unit or higher unit operations officer or executive officer, or the O/C equivalent. 

• The system operator controls the MPS, the communication system built expressly for the 

MEDALIST training approach. The system operator should be familiar with 

Microsoft® Windows software, capable of operating the MPS, and prepared to train and 

assist other participants on the system. 

 

3

 As discussed later in this report, pilots of the MEDALIST prototype exercise indicate that it is possible to conduct 

MEDALIST training using only two support personnel. The two-person model would include an O/C who acts

primarily as a performance coach and an exercise controller who performs the duties of the assistant O/C and system

operator. 4

 Army Field Manual 7.0 (DA, 2002b) states that commanders are to be the primary trainers of their units and 

actively engaged in all phases of training. Thus, the recommendation that a senior commander fill the O/C position

is consistent with Army doctrine, though doing so represents one of the most time-consuming means of commander 

involvement. Because MEDALIST exercises are designed to be executed in a distance mode, O/Cs and assistant 

O/Cs could also be drawn from the pools of qualified personnel serving at the Army’s War College and Combat

Training Centers when unit commanders and staff officers are not available. 

18 
 Figure 7. Prototype system interface for support personnel.

19 
 Figure 8. Prototype system interface for the training audience. 

20 
Implementation 

To this point, the MEDALIST training approach has been described in terms of its 

audience, uses, exercises, and support requirements. This section describes how the exercises 

are implemented. The section begins with a discussion of the training objective and performance 

coaching models that enable users to take advantage of the structured, deliberate practice 

provided by the training. It then describes the planning, preparation, and execution activities 

required by MEDALIST exercises. 

Training Objective 

The focus of MEDALIST training exercises is provided in the form of training 

objectives. These training objectives are designed to support MEDALIST performance coaching 

(described later). The content of different training objectives varies based on the performance 

requirements addressed, but the format in which that content is presented should remain true to 

the model. The format, itself, is succinct and manageable, and reflects the organization of tasks 

contained in the Army’s newly developed Mission Training Plans (MTPs; e.g., Army Training 

and Evaluation Plan [ARTEP]-71-3-MTP [DA, 2002a], ARTEP-17-97F-10-MTP [DA, 2003]). 

Each objective includes: 

• an objective statement that identifies the overarching focus of the training, 

• tasks that relate the focus to the different echelons being trained, 

• conditions that provide the operational context for the training, 

• standards that identify the key outcomes of effective task performance, 

• task steps that indicate what actions are necessary to execute the tasks, and 

• coaching points that identify how and how well those actions should be performed. 

Two of these elements deserve special attention: coaching points and standards. 

Coaching points represent the primary focus of MEDALIST exercises and coaching. Standards 

are used to identify when coaching is required. The other components—the objective statement, 

conditions, tasks, and task steps—are developed and provided to set the context for performance 

feedback. 

In developing a training objective, coaching points are identified for each task step by 

asking the following questions: What are the key and relevant (i.e., pertinent to the purpose of 

the training) elements of task step performance? What knowledge, skills, and abilities are 

critical to performing task steps? What are the indicators that the task step has been performed 

to standard and effectively? Answering these questions results in the identification of points that 

can help trainers assess whether the task steps are performed when appropriate and as 

appropriate, and whether performance meets the broader performance criteria specified in the 

training objective’s standards. In sum, the coaching points make the focus of an exercise more 

explicit by directing attention to those aspects of performance that lie at the heart of the 

overarching training objective. The standards provide a mechanism for judging that 

performance. Figure 9 contains a sample training objective developed for the MEDALIST 

prototype exercise. 

21 
TRAINING 

OBJECTIVE 

Commanders communicate to exert and facilitate decentralized battle command and 

control in a dispersed operating environment.

TASK 1. The commander communicates to exert battle command and control. 

Conditions: The unit is operating in a dispersed and decentralized command environment. The 

command has established communications and digital connectivity, and reach sources are available to 

the commander. Intelligence summaries, the common operating picture, rules of engagement, and the 

scheme of maneuver have been provided. Tactical tasks have been assigned to subordinate 

commanders. The commander receives reports and tactical display updates from subordinate 

commanders and higher intelligence sources. These reports portray events that may adversely affect 

execution of the current scheme of maneuver within the commander’s intent. 

Standards: The commander’s communications enable him to exert battle command and control. The 

commander maintains an accurate situational understanding (SU). The commander ensures each 

subordinate commander understands his task and purpose within the unit’s mission and scheme of

maneuver, and his freedom and responsibilities in displaying initiative in the absence of further 

instructions. The commander controls the situation to ensure mission success. 

Task Steps and Coaching Points: 

Task Step A. The commander seeks information and assessments from subordinates and 

intelligence from higher (reach) sources. 

• The commander requests all, but only the information needed to fill the gaps in his SU. 

• The commander monitors cross talk among his subordinates to fill the gaps in his SU. 

Task Step B. The commander provides information and describes his SU, intent, and scheme 

of maneuver. 

• The commander provides the information needed to meet his subordinates’ information 

requirements. 

• The commander’s descriptions of his SU allow the commander to confirm or clarify his SU. 

• The commander describes his SU, intent, and scheme of maneuver so that subordinates can 

describe them accurately and make decisions and take actions that demonstrate 

understanding. 

Task Step C. The commander directs his subordinates. 

• The commander’s directives are issued so that subordinates can describe the directives 

accurately and make decisions and take actions that demonstrate an understanding of the 

directives. 

• The commander allows his subordinates to take initiative, demonstrating trust in those 

subordinates.

Task Step D. The commander communicates effectively.

• The commander uses the communication methods that are most effective for the content, 

situation, and other members of the command. 

• The commander’s communications are clear, concise, and timely. 

• The commander requests information using direct or open-ended questions, as appropriate. 

• The commander requires the use of standing operating procedures. 

Task Step E. The commander maintains open communication within the command. 

• The commander establishes himself as an aid, not a threat, to his subordinates. 

• The commander monitors communications to identify and resolve conflicts. 

• The commander maintains contact with all subordinates to enhance situational awareness 

throughout the command. 

• The commander encourages his subordinates to request clarification of his SU, intent,

scheme of maneuver, and directives.

Figure 9. Training objective from the prototype exercise. 

22 
TRAINING

OBJECTIVE 

Commanders communicate to exert and facilitate decentralized battle command and 

control in a dispersed operating environment.

TASK 2. Subordinate commanders communicate to facilitate battle command and control. 

Conditions: The unit is operating in a dispersed and decentralized command environment. The 

command has established communications and digital connectivity, and reach sources are available 

to the commander. Intelligence summaries, the common operating picture, rules of engagement, and 

the scheme of maneuver have been provided. Tactical tasks have been assigned to subordinate 

commanders. Subordinate commanders receive reports and tactical display updates from their 

notional subordinate units. These reports portray events that may adversely affect execution of the 

current scheme of maneuver within the commander’s intent. 

Standards: Subordinate commanders’ communications facilitate battle command and control. 

Requests for information enhance the commander’s SU and clarify the commander’s intent and 

guidance. Reports and assessments enhance the SUs of the commander and other subordinate 

commanders and enable the commander to control the situation to ensure mission success. 

Task Steps and Coaching Points: 

Task Step A. Subordinate commanders request information and clarification of the 

commander’s intent and guidance, as necessary.

• Commanders request all, but only the information needed, based on gaps in their SU. 

• Commanders request clarification to ensure they understand the commander’s intent and 

guidance. 

Task Step B. Subordinate commanders assess subordinate unit messages and submit 

reports with assessments, if applicable, to their commander. 

• Commanders provide information and assessments based on the common operating 

picture and their commander’s intent. 

• Commanders support their commander’s development of an SU at every echelon.

• Commanders identify and provide all relevant information. 

• Commanders emphasize key pieces of information. 

Task Step C. Subordinate commanders cross talk to exchange information.

• Commanders cross talk to enhance their SUs. 

• Commanders monitor cross talk to enhance their SUs. 

Task Step D. Subordinate commanders communicate effectively.

• Commanders use the communication methods that are most effective for the content, 

situation, and other members of the command. 

• The commanders’ communications are clear, concise, and timely. 

• The commanders request information using direct or open-ended questions, as

appropriate. 

• The commanders follow standing operating procedures. 

Figure 9 (continued). Training objective from the prototype exercise. 

Performance Coaching 

The MEDALIST training approach hangs its hat on the incorporation of deliberate 

practice, where performance is repeated in a drill-like setting until improvement is achieved. 

Although practice alone can lead to improved performance, it does not guarantee it. 

Additionally, unguided practice does not control for the occurrence of negative training, where 

participants become efficient at performing tasks the wrong way. Deliberate practice, however, 

also relies on frequent and active coaching. Coaching increases the rate at which participants can 

23 
improve their performance, as well as the probability that they will learn to perform tasks 

correctly and by the most effective means. 

Because the MEDALIST training approach incorporates the deliberate practice training 

method, which requires that tasks be performed repeatedly until mastered, active performance 

coaching is a key component of the approach. The purpose of MEDALIST coaching is to assist 

the training audience in bringing their performance to standard during the exercise, rather than 

simply identifying what the audience needs to improve during future training events. 

To help achieve this purpose, the MEDALIST coaching model incorporates elements of 

an executive coaching model (The Executive Coaching Forum, 2001) that have been tailored to 

the Army training context. The tailored model facilitates an open flow of performance 

information among the O/C and training audience members and proceeds based upon a pretraining coaching agreement. It assumes the participation of an O/C with expertise in the content 

area(s) to be coached and a training audience that seeks to maximize the opportunity to receive 

expert coaching. The MEDALIST coaching process includes four key activities: (a) 

establishing a coaching agreement, (b) tracking performance, (c) coaching during the training, 

and (d) documenting a developmental action plan at the conclusion of the training. 

The coaching agreement. In planning for MEDALIST training, the O/C and training 

audience establish a coaching agreement to ensure a collaborative coaching partnership. Making 

the agreement includes pre-training needs analysis and planning that determines (a) the 

audience’s developmental goals, (b) the O/C’s coaching goals, (c) expectations for how and who 

the O/C will coach and how the audience will respond to that coaching, and (d) provisions for 

pausing the exercise for coaching and repeating scenario events as required to achieve desired 

performance. 

The training audience chooses their developmental goals by selecting the coaching points 

they want to emphasize during the training. The audience selects coaching points based on unit 

training assessments and recent training experiences. This allows the audience to identify the 

coaching points that will help them address their current training needs. In selecting coaching 

points, the training audience may wish to target one or more tasks steps (e.g., the commander 

directs subordinates). In this case, they would select most or all of the coaching points 

associated with the selected task step(s). Alternatively, they may choose to target coaching 

points across the range of task steps. The audience then provides the O/C with the list of

developmental goals and any necessary background information regarding performance strengths 

and weaknesses in the areas to be trained. 

The O/C’s coaching goals represent the O/C’s list or version of the audience’s 

developmental goals (i.e., coaching points the audience wants to emphasize during the training). 

The O/C presents his coaching goals to the training audience prior to the training to ensure they 

reflect accurately the audience’s developmental goals. The O/C uses the coaching goals during 

the training as a reminder of those aspects of performance on which he should focus his 

observation and coaching. As coaching goals are met, the O/C can check them off his list and 

focus more extensively on unmet goals. 

24 
Documenting expectations for how coaching will be conducted involves agreeing on the 

approach the O/C and audience will take to coaching. In MEDALIST exercises, coaching is 

intended to be conducted using an open approach, where the O/C coaches all members of the 

training audience directly. Although the O/C is to be the primary coach during the training, the 

senior commander and O/C should come to an agreement on the extent to which the senior 

commander will provide coaching—the senior commander may choose to be a more or less 

active coach. Coaching in MEDALIST training also requires participants to be professional, 

honest, open, trusting, motivated, strategic, discrete but direct whenever possible, and receptive 

to feedback. These characteristics are represented in a set of expectations, which are presented 

in Figure 10. 

Expectations for the 

Observer/Controller (O/C) 

Expectations for the Training 

Audience 

• Maintains an objective and impartial perspective and 

the highest level of professionalism. 

• Invests himself in the success of the trainees’ 

achievement of their development goals. 

• Acts in the best interests of the training audience. 

• Recognizes the limitations of his expertise and 

provides guidance only where qualified to do so. 

• Establishes a safe environment where the audience 

is comfortable discussing their performance. 

• Creates an environment that supports exploration 

and change. 

• Follows up on previously addressed topics. 

• Facilitates communication among members of the 

training audience. 

• Prevents misunderstandings by explaining input 

prior to delivery. 

• Hears all relevant perspectives and mediates

conflict. 

• Delivers feedback in ways that encourage 

participants. 

• Listens to audience’s perspectives with an open 

mind. 

• Provides honest and direct feedback. 

• Applies the discovery learning technique. 

• Fulfill their obligation to contribute to the coaching

process. 

• Assume ownership of own learning. 

• Take responsibility for actions. 

• Be willing to discuss their performance. 

• Maintain an open mind and be willing to change it. 

• Try new approaches. 

• Accept credit and blame when appropriate. 

• Be honest and direct. 

• Respond to feedback in non-defensive ways.

• Begin the coaching process with a willingness to 

learn. 

• Be willing to examine and possibly change aspects 

of the organization’s operations. 

• Hold the O/C and subordinate commanders 

accountable to the agreed-upon goals. 

• Provide feedback on the performance of subordinate 

commanders. 

• Demonstrate trust in subordinate commanders. 

• Remove barriers to the agreed-upon coaching 

process. 

• View the O/C as a partner. 

Figure 10. Expectations of coaching participants. 

Because MEDALIST scenarios unfold rapidly, exercises should be put in pause mode for 

coaching that is expected to take more than a few seconds. After coaching, it may be of value to 

“rewind” the exercise, providing an opportunity for the training audience to achieve improved or 

correct performance before continuing the exercise. The O/C should rewind an exercise 

especially upon a trend of sub-par performance until that trend is reversed. 

 Tracking performance. Tracking performance on coaching points is critical to providing 

valuable coaching. Using a coaching guide, the O/C observes and records performance 

information related to the audience’s developmental goals. 

25 
26 

 A coaching guide, such as that shown in Figure 11, is provided for each exercise version. 

The coaching guides are organized by the key scenario events and present the standards to be 

achieved and the task steps and coaching points associated with those standards. They also 

provide space for recording observations. Prior to the exercise, the O/C should become very 

familiar with the training objective and coaching points; he should also mark or highlight, on the 

coaching guide, those coaching points that represent the training audience’s developmental 

goals. During the exercise, the O/C should record his performance observations that relate to the 

highlighted coaching points. The O/C can place various marks in the boxes that precede 

coaching points to indicate points to address or points that were performed effectively. 

 Coaching. During an exercise, participants conduct and participate in coaching 

according to the coaching agreement established prior to the training. All coaching is designed 

to lead the audience to achieve its developmental goals. The O/C attends to his coaching guide, 

and the training audience participates actively and positively in the coaching. Scheduled 

coaching opportunities are built into MEDALIST exercises, but coaching may be conducted at 

any time to help the audience achieve their developmental goals. An O/C should coach 

whenever performance does not meet the specifications represented in coaching points and 

standards, but especially upon trends of sub-par performance or when sub-par performance 

threatens the intended course of the exercise. 

 An O/C can use two general coaching approaches in the training. Both approaches lead 

ultimately to a focus on specific coaching points. The first approach is a direct approach. It is 

used when an O/C observes that the execution of a task step has not been performed according to 

one or more of the specifications identified in the coaching points. Further, it is normally brief, 

driving directly at the performance observed. This type of coaching can be conducted 

immediately and directly to the individual. 

 The second approach is an indirect, exploratory approach. It involves questioning 

training audience members on broader performance outcomes or standards (e.g., the battalion 

commander maintains an accurate situational understanding, company commanders enhance 

their commander’s situational understanding and enable him to control the situation) to get at 

issues more directly related to task step performance and whether that performance falls in line 

with coaching point specifications. The second approach requires pausing the exercise, usually 

at the conclusion of an exercise event and especially after exercise events in which an O/C 

perceives that standards are not met, but the cause has not been observed. It may employ 

questioning that starts at the group performance level, but it always leads to discussion on 

individual or team performance, as reflected in the coaching points. As an example, an O/C may 

ask a commander to describe his situational understanding and, then, direct the discussion to 

discover why that understanding does not accurately reflect ground truth. The reason may be 

related to task step and coaching point performance. Figure 12 contains detailed examples of 

direct and indirect coaching. Note that direct coaching events reference coaching points and that 

indirect coaching events reference performance standards and coaching points. 
Coachin

g Guide, Compliance Inspection—Bn-Co, Version A 

Event 1 – Unit encounters organized resistanceAt H+14, the civilian population patterns of behavior are not normal. The civilians are a

ware that threat forces are planning to confront U.S. forces.

StandardsBattalion com

mander maintains an accurate situati

(SU). Company com

manders enhance the battalion com

the battalion commander to control the situation.

Message Text Company Com

mander 

Task Steps and Coaching Points 

Notes Battalion C

Task Steps and 

-H+0 Crossing line of departure, no contact -H+ 1 Cell phone activity in the area of operations hasincreased significantly-H+2 Little farm activity noted in area -H+3 Moving Target Indicator (MTIs) sho

w heavy 

commercial bus activity to the east -H+5 Civilian population is hostile/sullen: no military age males present -H+7Stores closed in Balokia -H+11 Polish Hussars report M1-24 observing your flank -H+14 Civilians not friendly as usual 

Task Step

A. Comman

d

ers request 

information and clarification of thecomman

d

er’s intent and guidance, as 

necessary. 

 Request all, but only required information.  Request clarification of Cdr’s intent and 

guidance. 

Task Step B. Comman

d

ers assess 

subordinate messages and submit rep

orts 

with assessments, if 

ap

plicable, to their comman

der. 

 Provide information and assessments 

based on the common operating picture and their com

mander’s intent. 

 Support their commander’s development 

of an SU at every echelon. 

 Identify and provide all relevant 

information. 

 Emphasize key pieces of information. 

Task Step C. Comman

d

ers cross talk to

exchan

g

e information.

 Cross talk to enhance their SUs.  Monitor cross talk to enhance their SUs. 

Task Step D. Comman

d

ers communicate 

effecti

vel

y.

 Methods fit the content, situation, and 

recipients. 

 Clearly, concisely, and timely. Use direct and open-ended questions 

appropriately. 

 Follo

w standing operating procedures 

(SOP). 

Task Step

A. Comma

information and assubordinates and higher (reach) sou

 Requests all, but on Monitors cross talk. 

Task Step B. Comma

information and dean

d scheme of ma

 Meets subordinates

requirements. 

 Confirms or clarifies  Subordinates under

scheme of maneuve

Task Step D. Comma

effecti

vel

y.

 Methods fit the cont

recipients. 

 Clearly, concisely, a Uses direct and ope

appropriately. 

 Requires use of SOTask Step E. Comma

communication 

wi

 Acts as an aid, not a  Monitors com

munic

conflicts. 

 Maintains contact 

w

enhance situational 

 Encourages subord

clarification of his Smaneuver, and dire

27 

Figure 11. Coaching guide from the prototype exercise.
TASK 2. Subordinate commanders communicate to exert battle command and control.

Conditions: The unit is operating in a dispersed and decentralized command environment. The command has established communications

and digital connectivity, and reach sources are available to the commander. Intelligence summaries, the common operating picture, rules of

engagement, and the scheme of maneuver have been provided. Tactical tasks have been assigned to subordinate commanders. 

Subordinate commanders receive reports and tactical display updates from their notional subordinate units. These reports portray events that

may adversely affect execution of the current scheme of maneuver within the commander’s intent. 

Standards: Subordinate commanders’ communications facilitate battle command and control. Requests for information enhance the 

commander’s SU and clarify the commander’s intent and guidance. Reports and assessments enhance the SUs of the commander and other

subordinate commanders and enable the commander to control the situation to ensure mission success.

Task Steps and Coaching Points:

Task Step A. Subordinate commanders request information and clarification of the commander’s intent and guidance, as necessary.

• Commanders request all, but only the information needed, based on gaps in their SU.

• Commanders request clarification to ensure they understand the commander’s intent and guidance.

Task Step B. Subordinate commanders assess subordinate unit messages and submit reports with assessments, if applicable, to

their commander.

• Commanders provide information and assessments based on the common operating picture and their commander’s intent.

• Commanders support their commander’s development of an SU at every echelon. 

• Commanders identify and provide all relevant information. 

• Commanders emphasize key pieces of information

Task Step C. Subordinate commanders cross talk to exchange information.

• Commanders cross talk to enhance their SUs.

• Commanders monitor cross talk to enhance their SUs.

Task Step D. Subordinate commanders communicate effectively.

• Commanders use the communication methods that are most effective for the content, situation, and other members of the command.

• The commanders’ communications are clear, concise, and timely.

• The commanders request information using direct or open-ended questions, as appropriate.

• The commanders follow standing operating procedures.

TASK 2. Subordinate commanders communicate to exert battle command and control.

Conditions: The unit is operating in a dispersed and decentralized command environment. The command has established communications

and digital connectivity, and reach sources are available to the commander. Intelligence summaries, the common operating picture, rules of

engagement, and the scheme of maneuver have been provided. Tactical tasks have been assigned to subordinate commanders. 

Subordinate commanders receive reports and tactical display updates from their notional subordinate units. These reports portray events that

may adversely affect execution of the current scheme of maneuver within the commander’s intent. 

Standards: Subordinate commanders’ communications facilitate battle command and control. Requests for information enhance the 

commander’s SU and clarify the commander’s intent and guidance. Reports and assessments enhance the SUs of the commander and other

subordinate commanders and enable the commander to control the situation to ensure mission success.

Task Steps and Coaching Points:

Task Step A. Subordinate commanders request information and clarification of the commander’s intent and guidance, as necessary.

• Commanders request all, but only the information needed, based on gaps in their SU.

• Commanders request clarification to ensure they understand the commander’s intent and guidance.

Task Step B. Subordinate commanders assess subordinate unit messages and submit reports with assessments, if applicable, to

their commander.

• Commanders provide information and assessments based on the common operating picture and their commander’s intent.

• Commanders support their commander’s development of an SU at every echelon. 

• Commanders identify and provide all relevant information. 

• Commanders emphasize key pieces of information

Task Step C. Subordinate commanders cross talk to exchange information.

• Commanders cross talk to enhance their SUs.

• Commanders monitor cross talk to enhance their SUs.

Task Step D. Subordinate commanders communicate effectively.

• Commanders use the communication methods that are most effective for the content, situation, and other members of the command.

• The commanders’ communications are clear, concise, and timely.

• The commanders request information using direct or open-ended questions, as appropriate.

• The commanders follow standing operating procedures.

TASK 1. The commander communicates to exert battle command and control.

Conditions: The unit is operating in a dispersed and decentralized command environment. The command has established communications

and digital connectivity, and reach sources are available to the commander. Intelligence summaries, the common operating picture, rules of

engagement, and the scheme of maneuver have been provided. Tactical tasks have been assigned to subordinate commanders. The 

commander receives reports and tactical display updates from subordinate commanders and higher intelligence sources. These reports

portray events that may adversely affect execution of the current scheme of maneuver within the commander’s intent.

Standards: The commander’s communications enable him to exert battle command and control. The commander maintains an accurate

situational understanding (SU). The commander ensures each subordinate commander understands his task and purpose within the unit’s

mission and scheme of maneuver, and his freedom and responsibilities in displaying initiative in the absence of further instructions. The

commander controls the situation to ensure mission success.

Task Steps and Coaching Points:

Task Step A. The commander seeks information and assessments from subordinates and intelligence from higher (reach) sources.

• The commander requests all, but only the information needed to fill the gaps in his SU.

• The commander monitors cross talk among his subordinates to fill the gaps in his SU.

Task Step B. The commander provides information and describes his SU, intent, and scheme of maneuver.

• The commander provides the information needed to meet his subordinates’ information requirements.

• The commander’s descriptions of his SU allow the commander to confirm or clarify his SU. 

• The commander describes his SU, intent, and scheme of maneuver so that subordinates can describe them accurately and make decisions

and take actions that demonstrate understanding.

Task Step C. The commander directs his subordinates.

• The commander’s directives are issued so that subordinates can describe the directives accurately and make decisions and take actions that

demonstrate an understanding of the directives.

• The commander allows his subordinates to take initiative, demonstrating trust in those subordinates.

Task Step D. The commander communicates effectively.

• The commander uses the communication methods that are most effective for the content, situation, and other members of the command.

• The commander’s communications are clear, concise, and timely.

• The commander requests information using direct or open-ended questions, as appropriate.

• The commander requires the use of standing operating procedures.

Task Step E. The commander maintains open communication within the command.

• The commander establishes himself as an aid, not a threat, to his subordinates.

• The commander monitors communications to identify and resolve conflicts.

• The commander maintains contact with all subordinates to enhance situational awareness throughout the command.

• The commander encourages his subordinates to request clarification of his SU, intent, scheme of maneuver, and directives.

Commanders communicate to exert and facilitate decentralized battle command and control

in a dispersed operating environment.

TRAINING

OBJECTIVE 

TASK 1. The commander communicates to exert battle command and control.

Conditions: The unit is operating in a dispersed and decentralized command environment. The command has established communications

and digital connectivity, and reach sources are available to the commander. Intelligence summaries, the common operating picture, rules of

engagement, and the scheme of maneuver have been provided. Tactical tasks have been assigned to subordinate commanders. The 

commander receives reports and tactical display updates from subordinate commanders and higher intelligence sources. These reports

portray events that may adversely affect execution of the current scheme of maneuver within the commander’s intent.

Standards: The commander’s communications enable him to exert battle command and control. The commander maintains an accurate

situational understanding (SU). The commander ensures each subordinate commander understands his task and purpose within the unit’s

mission and scheme of maneuver, and his freedom and responsibilities in displaying initiative in the absence of further instructions. The

commander controls the situation to ensure mission success.

Task Steps and Coaching Points:

Task Step A. The commander seeks information and assessments from subordinates and intelligence from higher (reach) sources.

• The commander requests all, but only the information needed to fill the gaps in his SU.

• The commander monitors cross talk among his subordinates to fill the gaps in his SU.

Task Step B. The commander provides information and describes his SU, intent, and scheme of maneuver.

• The commander provides the information needed to meet his subordinates’ information requirements.

• The commander’s descriptions of his SU allow the commander to confirm or clarify his SU. 

• The commander describes his SU, intent, and scheme of maneuver so that subordinates can describe them accurately and make decisions

and take actions that demonstrate understanding.

Task Step C. The commander directs his subordinates.

• The commander’s directives are issued so that subordinates can describe the directives accurately and make decisions and take actions that

demonstrate an understanding of the directives.

• The commander allows his subordinates to take initiative, demonstrating trust in those subordinates.

Task Step D. The commander communicates effectively.

• The commander uses the communication methods that are most effective for the content, situation, and other members of the command.

• The commander’s communications are clear, concise, and timely.

• The commander requests information using direct or open-ended questions, as appropriate.

• The commander requires the use of standing operating procedures.

Task Step E. The commander maintains open communication within the command.

• The commander establishes himself as an aid, not a threat, to his subordinates.

• The commander monitors communications to identify and resolve conflicts.

• The commander maintains contact with all subordinates to enhance situational awareness throughout the command.

• The commander encourages his subordinates to request clarification of his SU, intent, scheme of maneuver, and directives.

Commanders communicate to exert and facilitate decentralized battle command and control

in a dispersed operating environment.

TRAINING

OBJECTIVE 

Direct Coaching Event 2

A Company. When you’re giving an unsolicited assessment to your commander, make it

clear to him what you’re doing. Your message said, “It looks like ...” Get to the point and

use terms that will communicate your intent. Say, “My assessment is ...”

communications are clear, concise and timely

Direct Coaching Event 4

C Company. Good SALT and follow-up 

with voice. You can use this technique to

help ensure your message is received and 

understood.

Direct Coaching Event 1

B Company. It looks like you’ve made

an assessment of the situation in your 

sector. If you have, you should share 

it with the battalion. 

crosstalk to enhance their SUs

Direct Coaching Event 3

A Company. You painted a good picture of

how far behind you are and how you will be

unable to support the mission. Think about

doing the same thing sooner next time so 

your commander can have more flexibility in

how he can respond.

Direct Coaching Event 5

Battalion Commander. It may help you

in situations like this to state your SU so 

that your companies can help you 

clarify your understanding.

Indirect Coaching Event 1

Battalion Commander. What is your understanding of what the enemy is trying to do? If you can’t form a 

conclusion about what the enemy is trying to do, you can always contact brigade or your adjacent battalions to

find out if they are seeing the same types of things that you’re seeing.

maintains an accurate SU

requests information needed to fill gaps in SU

Indirect Coaching Event 3

Battalion Commander. What is your SU? 

Companies. Do you have a different 

understanding? Yes, that’s different and 

it’s based on your assessment of your

situations. OK, what do you, as company

commanders, have to do to ensure your

commander can incorporate your

assessments in his SU? Right, tell him. 

assessments enhance the SU of the commander

Indirect Coaching Event 2

A Company. What is your

understanding of your freedom to act

within your commander’s intent in

situations like the one in the village?

Battalion Commander. Is this

consistent with what you wanted to

communicate in your intent? Go ahead

and update your intent so everyone

understands their freedoms in the 

absence of guidance from you. describes intent so subordinates can take action

ensures subordinates understand freedom to act

descriptions of his SU allow the commander to confirm or clarify his SU

use the methods that are most effective

support commander’s development of an SU

SALT – size, activity, location, time

SU – Situational Understanding

Figure 12. Examples of direct and indirect coaching. 

Because MEDALIST coaching occurs in the context of distributed training, it is 

conducted at a distance without the benefit of face-to-face interaction. Project staff, thus, 

examined literature in the distance education and virtual team domains to identify some effective 

techniques for coaching at a distance. After applying the findings to the military setting, a list of 

techniques was generated. These techniques, along with the sources from which they were 

derived, include the following: 

• Actively maintain the trust of the training audience by being honest and discrete; general 

rapport is not easily maintained in a distance environment (Bing, 2001; Willis, 1992). 

• Encourage participation in the coaching process by requesting input from all members of 

the training audience as appropriate (Bing & Laroche, 2002) and creating intentional 

interaction (Jones, 1996; Marshall, 2001). 

• Pose direct questions and avoid lecture (Willis, 1992). 

• Monitor discussions for emerging conflicts and preempt or resolve conflicts discretely, if

required; participants disengage easily from a distance discussion when conflicts arise, 

and it is difficult to resolve conflicts in a distance environment (Johnson et al., 2001). 

• Actively maintain enthusiasm during coaching discussions (Dilworth, 1999). 

• Require participants to identify themselves before they speak (Bing & Laroche, 2002). 

28 
• Monitor the effectiveness of coaching discussions and establish group norms that reward 

instead of punish team member contributions (Bing & Laroche, 2002; Bailey & 

Luetkehans, 1998). 

• Eliminate communication apprehension and avoidance that may surface due to 

evaluation apprehension or negative perceptions of communication competence 

(Marshall, 2001). 

• Understand the strengths and weaknesses of the communication technologies supporting 

the discussion, using voice, text, and visual methods as appropriate to communicate 

ideas effectively and maintain effective discussion (Dilworth, 1999; Willis, 1992). 

• Use the available communication technologies, but humanize the coaching by focusing 

on the participants and not the technologies (Willis, 1992). 

• Prepare the training audience to deal with technical complications (Willis, 1992). 

Developmental action plan. After an exercise, the training audience is responsible for 

formulating a developmental action plan. The O/C assists by identifying the goals that have and 

have not been met. Following the last coaching opportunity, the O/C walks through the 

audience’s progress on each of the developmental goals and provides time for the training 

audience to develop a plan for achieving those goals in future training. 

Planning, Preparation, and Execution 

The implementation of MEDALIST exercises encompasses the traditional steps of 

planning, preparing for, and executing an exercise. Planning and preparation activities should be 

conducted in a way that ensures the desired focus will be achieved during execution. The main 

requirements to be met in planning and preparation are to (a) make sure all participants are 

familiar with the training objective and coaching model, (b) identify the audience’s 

developmental goals, and (c) develop a familiarity with how to use the MPS. 

The execution of each MEDALIST exercise lasts approximately 2 hours. This allows for 

an approximately even mix of scenario run-time and coaching. An exercise begins with the 

senior commander briefing his intent and scheme of maneuver as he conducts troop-leading 

procedures. As the exercise proceeds, written tactical reports and tactical displays are sent to the 

training audience portraying scenario events. Tactical reports are sent by notional subordinate 

and higher units. For example, in a battalion-company exercise, reports from notional platoons 

are sent to the company commanders and reports from notional brigade sources are sent to the 

battalion commander. Tactical displays are used to emulate the Army’s operational digital 

display technology that provides the COP. All tactical reports and displays are delivered at 

predetermined times throughout an exercise using digital communication functions supported by 

the MPS. Because the exercises focus on improving task performance rather than on mission 

outcome, the tactical scenarios need not continue until the mission has been completed. 

During an exercise, scripted events cause the commander to (a) interact with his 

subordinates and reach intelligence sources, (b) revise his situational understanding, and (c) 

consider revising his intent and/or scheme of maneuver. The routine of presenting events to 

29 
prompt changes in schemes of maneuver is repeated several times during an exercise to prompt 

repeated performance of the training objective. 

Scenarios, though scripted, also incorporate limited flexibility through the use of scenario 

branches. Branches occur at key decision points at which the training audience must choose 

whether to change their scheme of maneuver. For each branch, TSPs provide two or more sets 

of reports and displays that can be selected and used by training support personnel based on the 

commander’s tactical decisions. For example, a scenario may present events that are intended to 

cause the commander to consider changing one of his subordinate units’ avenues of approach. 

The scenario materials, which anticipate the two avenues of approach that are likely to be used, 

include two sets of reports and displays. One set presents continuing scenario events and is used 

if no change is made. The other presents events that would occur if the anticipated change were 

made. 

To review, the MEDALIST training approach provides a multi-echelon, distributed 

method of training that supports the requirements of current as well as future forces. Its key 

features include its applicability to multiple audiences, provision of a tailored simulation and 

communications system (i.e., the MPS), and utilization of repeated practice and active 

performance coaching. During the project, the approach was demonstrated, evaluated, and 

refined through the development and implementation of a prototype exercise. 

The Prototype Exercise 

The MEDALIST prototype exercise was developed to demonstrate the project’s training 

requirements and approach. The exercise represents only one version of one exercise, but it is 

documented in a TSP design that supports related, though notional, exercises that were not 

developed during the current project. The exercise demonstrates all the characteristics of the 

training approach, with the exception of scalability. The TSP for the exercise is provided on CD 

along with a copy of the MPS (Graves et al., in preparation). This section provides only an 

overview of the exercise, covering its audience, mission, and training objective. 

The exercise was developed at the battalion-company level and its audience includes a 

battalion commander and three company commanders. The exercise is set in a brigade-level 

scenario in which the brigade is conducting Security Operations. The battalion, representing the 

brigade’s main effort, is conducting a Compliance Inspection. The training objective for the 

exercise was developed from the project’s examination of effective communication in 

decentralized battle command in dispersed operations. The entire objective, to include tasks, 

conditions, standards, task steps, and coaching points, is shown in Figure 9, but the objective and 

task statements are as follows: 

• Training Objective. Commanders communicate to exert and facilitate decentralized 

battle command and control in a dispersed operating environment. 

• Task 1. The commander communicates to exert battle command and control. 

• Task 2. Subordinate commanders communicate to facilitate battle command and 

control. 

30 
During the project, the exercise was implemented six times in pilots. The pilots provided 

feedback on the training requirements, approach, and exercise. Appropriate elements of that 

feedback were incorporated into the final product designs. 

Formative Evaluation 

The intent of the MEDALIST project was to generate and evaluate training requirements 

and methods in order to provide recommendations for the development of future Army training. 

This was accomplished through the design, development, and evaluation of prototype products, 

including a prototype training exercise. The project’s evaluation component focused on 

obtaining judgments of the potential effectiveness, value, and acceptability of those products. 

Method 

The method of evaluation selected for the MEDALIST project was formative evaluation. 

In formative evaluation, products undergo iterative review and testing during their design and 

development phases. This allows developers to identify and incorporate needed refinements and 

improvements until the products are ready for use. The formative evaluation conducted during 

the MEDALIST project reflected those evaluations conducted in previous ARI training R&D 

(e.g., Graves & Myers, 1997). It was based on the method of evaluation described in Kirkpatrick 

(1994) and focused almost exclusively on the first, or “reaction,” level of evaluation. The 

reaction level addresses the extent to which a program is accepted and valued by its potential 

users, and includes estimates of effectiveness. It is based on the perceptions of users who have 

reviewed or piloted the program and not often on objective data. 

Early in the project, iterative reviews of training concepts and products were conducted 

by project staff and the ARI project contracting officer’s representative. All aspects of the 

products were reviewed, including the focus of the training requirements, the characteristics and 

design of the training approach, and the tactical scenario and TSP components supporting the 

prototype exercise. Reviews resulted in mid-course revisions of these products that enabled 

more extensive testing later in the project through product implementations, or pilots, of the 

prototype exercise. The prototype exercise was developed to incorporate the training 

requirements and demonstrate the approach; it, thus, enabled an evaluation of all project 

outcomes. 

Two types of pilots were conducted during the MEDALIST project: internal and 

external. Project staff conducted one internal pilot. In this pilot, project staff filled all 

participant positions, including support and training audience. Five external pilots followed. In 

these pilots, Army personnel filled the training audience positions, and project staff again filled 

the training support roles. This allowed for the continued refinement of the coaching approach 

through repeated practice and testing. 

During the pilots, project staff collected feedback from participants through direct 

observation, informal discussions, and post-exercise structured interviews. Evaluation guides 

were given to all project personnel, including those observing and those participating in the 

pilots. The guides contained questions to answer during and after the pilots. The guides also 

31 
contained structured interview questions directed primarily at the training audience. Project staff 

began structured interviews by stating that the purpose of the pilots, in addition to providing a 

valuable training experience, was to gather constructive criticism that would lead to 

improvements in the program. Project staff encouraged interview participants to point out 

aspects of the training that were not effective. Evaluation guides were updated for each pilot. 

Updates were made to enable the evaluation of the most recent TSP revisions and the further 

investigation of feedback gathered during the previous pilot(s). Appendix B provides a sample 

evaluation guide. 

The remainder of this section focuses on the pilot implementations. It provides the key 

feedback from those pilots, most of which related to TSP design, the deliberate practice 

component, the coaching approach, and the MPS. A majority of the feedback was incorporated 

into the final products. It was decided that some, however, should be incorporated in future 

development, to include the MEDALIST follow-on project that began three months prior to the 

conclusion of the MEDALIST project. That feedback is discussed in more detail in the 

Recommendations for Future Research section of this document. 

The Internal Pilot 

The project’s internal pilot evaluated the initial version of the prototype exercise and 

TSP. The pilot focused primarily on the training approach, MPS, and TSP. It did not address the 

training requirements in any detail. 

The training approach, including its reliance on the MPS, was evaluated in a very general 

sense for its capability to immerse the training audience into the training experience. That is, 

there was some concern that the artificial environment created solely by scripted reports and 

displays would cause the training audience to lose interest in the training. This was not 

confirmed; instead, participants indicated that the experience held their interest and represented a 

valuable method of training. 

Recommendations did surface, however, regarding the design and functionality of the 

MPS. Those that were incorporated after the pilot included the addition of: 

• the collaboration overlay, 

• the ability for the O/C to send messages as if he were any participant, 

• a time stamp on instant messages, and 

• distribution lists that allow reports to be sent to the entire audience (e.g., battalion and 

company commanders) and the group of subordinate commanders (e.g., all three 

company commanders). 

The initial version of the TSP was written to provide comprehensive guidance on how the 

training should be conducted. This was necessary to ensure a complete implementation and 

evaluation of the concepts relating to repeated, deliberate practice; frequent, active performance 

coaching; and a scenario driven by highly scripted reports and displays. In order to be tested, 

32 
these concepts had to be implemented as envisioned by developers, and this required providing 

training participants with an abundance of guidance. 

To evaluate the TSP, all pilot participants read their materials the week before the pilot to 

ensure everyone understood his or her roles and responsibilities. After receiving comments, 

project staff revised the guides and the updated guides were used during the pilot. One comment 

made by almost all the participants indicated that the guides contained too much information. 

Because the training approach and exercise had not yet been executed fully, project staff decided 

not to reduce the information in the TSP. In fact, they held this position through the remainder 

of pilots, and the final TSP contains comprehensive guidance on how to conduct the training. As 

explained later, the MEDALIST follow-on project will address this issue as it developes a more 

mature, user-friendly TSP model. 

Other comments on the TSP suggested that several specific changes be made. First, the 

instructions for making the coaching agreement were neither clear nor sufficiently detailed and 

needed further refinement. During the course of the external pilots, project staff evaluated the 

coaching agreement and refined the guidance provided in the TSP. Second, training support 

personnel found it difficult to keep track of events and decision points in the scenario. Project 

staff developed a scenario storyboard that indicates when decision points occur in relation to 

specific reports and displays and provides guidance on which reports and displays to send 

depending on the scenario branch selected. Third, the system operator indicated the need for a 

printout of the entire list of tactical reports. This, too, was added to the TSP and a revised 

package was prepared for use during the external pilots. 

The External Pilots 

Project staff conducted a total of five external pilots. The first was originally intended to 

be the only external pilot conducted during the project. The initiation of the follow-on project, 

however, allowed the conduct of four additional pilots. These proved valuable, especially to the 

refinement of the coaching model. 

The Initial External Pilot 

The first external pilot occurred approximately three weeks after the internal pilot and 

used a slightly revised version of the TSP and MPS. Four captains from the Armor Captain’s 

Career Course at Fort Knox, KY, participated as the training audience, one as the battalion 

commander and three as company commanders. Audience positions were assigned by the school 

troop commander based on seniority and experience. 

The captains were informed of their requirement to participate in the pilot only a day 

before the exercise and were unable to read their training materials or prepare prior to their 

arrival. This hurt the evaluation because the MEDALIST approach assumes adequate time for 

planning and preparation, especially in respect to becoming familiar with the training objectives 

and coaching model. Project staff improvised by briefing the captains before the exercise began

and then providing an hour to review the tactical materials and conduct troop-leading procedures. 

33 
The O/C, a part-time project staff member and former Army officer, supervised the tactical 

preparation. 

Cutting planning and preparation short restricted the planned evaluation of the training 

materials, but the pilot generally provided another good test of the training approach and 

exercise. The most valuable aspect of the pilot was the opportunity to observe the 

implementation of the coaching approach. 

Once started, the exercise ran smoothly with only a few technical problems, and 

participants reported that they liked the program. Specific comments of this nature indicated that 

the participants, as company commanders, would like to take the program to their units to use 

with their new lieutenants. They also stated that the program provided a good way to train 

communication. Other specific feedback and observations indicated the following: 

• The description of coaching in the O/C’s training guide required additional explanation 

in order to enable the O/C to address the communicative aspects of battle command. 

After the pilot, guidance was added to clarify the difference between safe and target 

topics and to describe two specific methods of coaching: direct and indirect. 

• Again, too much information was provided in the TSP. This kept the participants from

reading the materials carefully. In response, it was suggested that the approach be 

renamed to depict more accurately the focus of the training, so that the focus would not 

require so much explanation in the TSP itself. One suggestion was to use a model in 

which the base MEDALIST title would be accompanied by a term such as, 

“communication drill.” This would apply to all MEDALIST exercises in which 

communication is the primary focus. Depending on the focus, other titles, such as 

“decision-making drill,” could be used. Project staff recommended that this naming 

convention be incorporated during the follow-on project. 

• During the pilot, the O/C conducted all coaching through the senior commander 

participating in the exercise. This approach can work, but coaching all participants 

directly was still viewed by project staff as being more effective for the MEDALIST 

training approach. Project staff added guidance to the TSP recommending that the O/C 

coach all participants directly, but in coordination with the senior commander. 

• The number of support personnel should be reduced from three to two. The O/C 

position should be kept, and the assistant O/C and system operator positions should be 

combined into an exercise controller position. Further, the O/C should be called a 

“coach” to eliminate the effects of the traditional nuances associated with the use of the 

title, “O/C.” Project staff expected this to enable coaching that would be more 

consistent with the MEDALIST model. These changes were designated for 

implementation in the follow-on project. 

• The training audience must understand and take ownership of the focus of the training 

prior to an exercise. The TSP already contained guidance to this effect (as part of the 

coaching agreement) and so no changes were made in that respect. However, project 

staff tried to ensure that the audiences of all remaining pilots had ample time to review 

their training materials and discuss the focus of the training with the O/C prior to 

execution. 

34 
• The audience must establish standing operating procedures for using the various modes 

of communication supported by the MPS, especially the instant messaging and 

collaboration overlay functions. Guidance was added to the TSP to this effect. 

• More frequently updated tactical displays would increase realism. In the prototype 

exercise, displays are updated approximately every five minutes. Occasionally, reports 

of battlefield events would arrive slightly before the COP was updated, and this caused 

minor confusion for one of the participants. It was decided that the prototype exercise 

would not be modified to include more tactical displays, rather that the timing of 

displays would be checked and adjusted to synchronize better the presentation of reports 

and displays. Future exercises may use a larger number of displays. 

• As the exercise progressed, the MPS began to run more slowly, delaying the arrival of

displays, reports, and messages. This required that the design of the MPS, in terms of 

how it stores data, be refined to allow information to be processed more rapidly. This 

was accomplished during the project, not eliminating the problem, but reducing the 

effect. Future versions of the system should remedy the problem. 

• Finally, numerous refinements to the tactical materials were suggested. These, as 

appropriate, were incorporated into the TSP versions used during the follow-on pilots. 

Follow-on Pilots 

The second set of pilots occurred in the twelfth month of the project, just prior to its 

conclusion. The training audiences for these pilots were lieutenants who had just completed the 

Armor Officer’s Basic Course (AOBC), again at Fort Knox, KY. In each pilot, one lieutenant 

was selected to be the battalion commander, and three other lieutenants filled the company 

commander positions. The battalion commanders were chosen based on seniority and 

experience. This audience of lieutenants, although not at all representative of the senior officers 

for whom the battalion-company exercise was written, provided a good measure of the extent to 

which the general training approach could be applied in a TRADOC setting. The pilots used two 

O/Cs and both participated in two of the pilots. Using two O/Cs allowed for a more 

representative evaluation of the coaching model. 

In the follow-on pilots, the training audiences had varying amounts of time to review 

their materials prior to the training. Additionally, the coaching agreements were made prior to 

the exercises. Finally, the O/C’s were able to use the new coaching methods—direct and 

indirect—during the pilots. As the O/Cs worked through the model, their coaching became 

increasingly effective at addressing the intended focus of the training. 

Follow-on pilot 1. In the first follow-on pilot, the individual playing the senior 

commander executed the coaching agreement with the O/C several days prior to the training. On 

the day of the pilot, the senior commander and O/C reviewed the agreement that was made, to 

include the coaching points that would be addressed in the training. Training audience feedback 

gathered during and after the pilot indicated the following: 

• The training guide for the training audience should include only an explanation of the 

MPS and a brief overview of the coaching and execution models. In response, project 

35 
staff developed a short version of the guide, and the shortened guide was used in the 

third and fourth follow-on pilots. 

• The training audience viewed the training as being restrictive in the sense that it did not 

allow much freedom for tactical decision-making. Given its focus on communication, 

project staff estimated that this was not a problem for the prototype exercise. However, 

future exercises with expanded focuses may need to provide a greater number of 

scenario branches. 

• The MPS should include a capability to click on icons in the tactical displays to get 

status information. In addition, users should be able to zoom in on the map and obtain 

grid coordinates by clicking on the map. The MPS was subsequently modified to 

provide a capability for obtaining grid coordinates. Other changes may be possible in 

future versions of the MPS. 

• Frequent coaching served to improve the training experience and was not disruptive. 

• The training should be used prior to unit-level training in simulators (e.g., the Close 

Combat Tactical Trainer). This would allow participants to refine their communication 

and battle command skills before executing training that involves other tasks. 

• The approach would be a good tool for commanders who need to train with new 

subordinate commanders. 

Follow-on pilot 2. The participants and planning and preparation activities of the second 

follow-on pilot mirrored those of the first. Key training audience feedback from this pilot 

included the following: 

• The coaching agreement represented a “value-point,” but it may be worth making the 

agreement with the entire training audience present, especially when the training is used 

in a TRADOC setting. 

• Pausing the exercise for coaching provided breaks in the action, allowing time for the 

training audience to think about their performance. The audience indicated that 

“coaching” is a perfect word for the feedback that was provided during the training. 

• The MPS was easy to use. However, the report formats provided by the MPS reporting 

function should only include report and field titles and users should be able to type over 

the titles. 

• The AOBC does not currently focus on reporting, although good reporting is required in 

the execution of other course activities. Thus, the program should be integrated into the 

AOBC. 

Follow-on pilot 3. In the third follow-on pilot, four second lieutenants, all with prior 

service, came directly from an AOBC field training exercise. The group had limited time to 

review the materials before arriving. The O/C gave them 30 minutes to review the operations 

order and then conducted a joint session to develop the coaching agreement. Audience feedback 

indicated the following: 

36 
• Again, the audience liked how the coaching created situations where they had to think

about what they were doing, and the coaching helped them improve their performance. 

The audience actually would have preferred more coaching. Specifically, they 

recommended that the coach provide more “hints” (i.e., guidance) and informal or quick 

coaching instead of pausing the exercise for extended coaching. 

• The audience reported that the MPS represents a good tool for training and that it is 

user-friendly due to its MicroSoft® Windows interface. 

• This audience believed that the training, due to its capability to be executed in a 

distributed mode, would be good for U.S. Army National Guard units. They did not 

believe, however, that it should be incorporated into the AOBC, as it would take too 

much time away from field training. 

Follow-on pilot 4. The participants and planning and preparation activities of the fourth 

follow-on pilot reflected those of the third. Key observations and feedback from this pilot 

included the following: 

• The audience viewed the coaching as valuable and suggested that using the instant 

messaging function was the best way to conduct coaching. They did not believe that 

pausing the exercise for coaching was valuable. 

• The audience believed the MPS was useful as a training tool, but recommended several 

changes. They recommended including (a) a greater number of voice nets, (b) a sound 

effect to indicate the arrival of reports, (c) an indicator of which reports are new, and (d) 

a capability to erase marks made on overlays. Project staff will consider incorporating

these functions into future versions of the MPS. 

• Finally, the audience stated that the training approach was effective in isolating the tasks 

being trained and generating performance improvement. 

Evaluation Summary 

The evaluation of the training requirements and approach included numerous 

implementations of the prototype exercise. Together, feedback resulted in several key and many 

minor modifications that served to improve the program. Most importantly, however, both the 

concepts and the design employed by the program were shown to have significant potential for 

future integration into TRADOC and FORSCOM settings. The most notable finding in this area

was that pilot participants representative of the approach’s intended audience viewed the 

program as an effective, efficient, and promising method of training. This was especially true 

among younger audiences, where several lieutenants reported that they were extremely familiar 

and comfortable with web-based communication, such as that supported by the instant 

messaging feature of the MPS. 

Recommendations for Future Research 

The project concluded by generating a set of recommendations related to the continued 

development of the MEDALIST training approach and future forces training in general. Many 

37 
of the recommendations represent ideas that can be incorporated or explored in the MEDALIST 

follow-on project. The areas in which recommendations are provided include the following: 

• Expanding the focus and application of the training approach. 

• Refining the material support model. 

• Refining the performance measurement component. 

• Evaluating the coaching model. 

• Identifying simulation requirements for future forces training. 

• Integrating the MEDALIST approach into Army training. 

• Designing training for future forces. 

An Expanded Focus and Application 

The MEDALIST project’s main effort involved the design of a multi-echelon, distributed 

training approach and prototype exercise. The approach is capable of providing training on the 

range of battle command information support (i.e., communication) tasks, which are fast 

becoming performance requirements in the Army’s emerging operational environment. The 

exercise, developed as an instantiation of the approach has a narrower focus: The objective of 

the exercise is to train small teams of commanders and leaders on the basic communication tasks 

and skills that support decentralized battle command in dispersed operations. Exercise tasks 

cover the base communication requirements of battle command, including (a) attaining 

information from subordinate and higher sources, (b) providing information to and directing 

subordinates, (c) requesting information and clarification, (d) submitting reports and 

assessments, and (e) conducting cross talk to support the exchange of information. 

Communication skills are addressed by a set of general guidelines for effective distributed 

communication and fall under headings that include (a) providing key and relevant information, 

(b) maintaining open communication within the command, (c) maintaining the involvement of 

all participants, and (d) communicating effectively (e.g., clearly, timely, in accordance with 

SOP). In itself, the prototype exercise represents adequately how the larger training approach 

should be implemented. Its focus, however, covers only a portion of the total number of topics 

that can be addressed by the approach. 

Given the overall positive reception of the MEDALIST training approach during project 

pilots, it is appropriate that developers give more thought to how the overall approach could be 

used to address a wider variety of performance requirements. Recommendation 1: Future 

research should develop and evaluate a framework by which the MEDALIST approach can be 

implemented in order to train a broader array of objectives. At this point in the approach’s 

development, it is possible to outline a tentative framework that can be used to support that 

research. The framework suggested in this report consists of three levels of training: advanced, 

intermediate, and basic. Together, the three levels represent a staged approach to training the 

communication (i.e., information support) tasks involved in battle command. Figure 13 depicts 

the three levels of training by presenting sample TSP titles at the advanced and intermediate 

levels, and sample exercise (i.e., drill) titles at the basic level. 

38 
Figure 13. Sample framework for future training. 

According to the framework, Level 1 training, called MEDALIST Communication Drills, 

would represent “crawl-level” training on information support. This training would provide 

process-oriented training on basic distributed communication skills. Skills trained would 

include, as a minimum, those skills incorporated into the focus of the existing prototype exercise. 

The training itself would be implemented as a series, or set, of short (e.g., 10 minute) drills, and 

the drills contained in a set would be executed consecutively and as a single training event. Each

set of drills would be framed in the context of a single mission segment, but each drill in a set 

would present different battlefield conditions (e.g., threats). Sets of drills would be designed as 

“part task trainers,” with each set cueing a limited number of communication skills and all drills 

in a set cueing the same skills. This would help drive the focus of the training down to the 

MEDALIST coaching point level. Limiting the number of tasks trained in order to maintain 

focus has been employed effectively in the lower-echelon training exercises of the Army’s 

Virtual Training Program at Fort Knox, KY (Hoffman et al., 1995). 

In Level 1 training, different sets of drills would be developed for different mission 

segments, in as far as the different segments would cue the performance of different 

communication skills. The same mission and intelligence would be used for all the drills in a set, 

keeping development and preparation time to a minimum. Drills within a set would be 

conducted by an audience until proficiency on those skills addressed is attained. This would 

provide a unique opportunity for an audience to approach automaticity, approximating “overlearning,” on skills that ought to be executed as a matter of course. 

Level 1 drills would offer the distinct advantage of enabling audiences to understand that 

mission outcome is not, by itself, pertinent to the training. This would reduce the tendency for 

an audience’s focus to drift towards completing the mission and increase the likelihood that 

Level 3 (Advanced): 

Applied Battle 

Command Drills 

Develop Situation Out of 

Contact 

Level 2 (Intermediate): 

Basic Battle 

Command Drills 

Level 1 (Basic): 

Communication 

Drills 

Decision-making Collaborative Planning 

Security Operations Security Operations Security Operations Unit of Action Unit of Action 

Unit of Action 

Battle Command

Security Operations 

Unit of Action 

Battle Command Battle Command

Compliance Inspection Defense 

Unit of Action Unit of Action 

Clear Communication 

Drill 1 

Directing Subordinates 

Unit of Action 

Clear Communication 

Drill 2 

Directing Subordinates 

Unit of Action

Clear Communication 

Drill 3 

Directing Subordinates 

Unit of Action 

39 
attention would remain directed toward the specific skills trained. If used as intended, Level 1 

training would prepare an audience for training with an expanded focus. 

The existing MEDALIST prototype exercise is an example of the framework’s Level 2 

training, called Basic Battle Command Drills. This level of training would also be processoriented, training basic communication skills. It would do so, however, within the context of an 

entire mission, where a broad range of communication skills would be trained. Thus, it would be 

more akin, than the Level 1 drills, to “whole-task training.” To support different audiences and 

mission training requirements, developers would develop different drills for different unit types 

and missions. 

Level 2 training would have two uses. First, an audience could use the drills to train the 

range of basic communication skills required in the execution of battle command. Second, an 

audience could use the drills as diagnostic tools, allowing unit commanders to determine where 

their weaknesses lie. For instance, after implementing a Level 2 drill, a commander may decide 

that his unit should conduct certain Level 1 drills that focus on selected basic communication 

skills. Alternatively, he may determine that his unit is ready to take the next step and conduct 

training that enables it to apply the basic communication skills in specific task settings. 

Whereas the first two levels of training would have a process-oriented focus on basic 

communication skills, Level 3 training—Applied Battle Command Drills—would target the 

application and transference of those skills. That is, Level 3 training would focus on the design, 

content, and delivery of communications as they occur in specific battle command task settings. 

Task settings could include decision making, collaborative planning, and developing the 

situation out of direct contact5

, among others. In Level 3 training, the more basic communication 

skills would represent a secondary focus to be addressed only if necessary. 

Material Support 

The material support, or TSP model, developed during the MEDALIST project is 

designed to support those characteristics of the MEDALIST training approach that enable 

scalable and adaptable training. The model stipulates the development of individual TSPs for 

different training objectives—one package per objective. Further, each TSP contains a single set 

of training guides and various sets of exercise attachments, one set of attachments for each 

exercise version supported by the package. 

Based on the implementations of the MEDALIST prototype exercise, as well as on the 

conclusions of previous structured training R&D (Hoffman et al., 1995; Graves et al., 1997; 

Gossman et al., 1999), it is clear that at least one key revision should be made to the existing TSP 

model before it can be used in a wider context. Recommendation 2: Information within the TSP 

should be redistributed, freeing users who are familiar with the approach from having to handle 

information that they do not need. This would require the development of a single MEDALIST 

Training Manual that would provide comprehensive guidance on the training approach. The 

manual would be designed for users who have not previously executed MEDALIST training. In 

addition, the development of a training manual would allow the training guides and exercise 

 

5

 This task is described in Gossman, Burnside, Flynn, Dannemiller, and Mauzy (2002). 

40 
attachments to be collapsed into single, exercise version-specific guides that would consist 

entirely of participant tasks, tactical materials, execution materials, training objectives, and 

guidance on operating the MPS. Multiple exercise guides, one for each type of participant, 

would still be required for each exercise version. 

Implementing this approach would have two main benefits. First, participants would 

receive only as much information as they need to conduct the training. Second, and no less 

important, a single TSP could be used to support all or large sets of MEDALIST exercises. 

Performance Measurement 

The MEDALIST training approach currently supports the subjective, but not objective, 

measurement of performance. Future research could explore the integration of objective 

measurement, but the eventual success of the approach depends not so much on its use of 

objective measurement, as it does on the effective application of performance measurement in 

feedback situations. Effective application of performance measurement demands measurements 

that are not so much justified by their accuracy, but that are helpful in generating performance 

discussion and improvement. 

The MEDALIST training objective model uses coaching points to help both the O/C and 

training audience generate helpful feedback. The coaching points identify how tasks and task 

steps should be performed and include some general performance criteria. More detailed 

criteria, however, could be developed to encourage the use of coaching points that involve highly 

subjective judgments on the effectiveness of performance. This is true especially in areas such 

as communication style and technique, where participants will likely be particularly sensitive to 

criticism in any form, be it constructive or not. For instance, one of coaching points indicates 

that communications should be concise and direct. Yet, there is no existing standard or measure 

provided to indicate the meaning of these concepts. It is left to the O/C and training audience to 

determine what is, in the best case, effective, and in a less desirable case, acceptable. 

During project pilots the participants avoided these areas. They were not chosen as 

exercise developmental goals by the audience or as topics to provide coaching on by the O/C. 

Thus, project staff make the following recommendation: Recommendation 3: Future research 

should investigate the utility of providing additional criteria by which performance related to 

specific coaching points should be measured. 

The benefits of taking this approach could be significant, and it should be explored, 

though an immediate concern is the inclusion of too much performance information. An overabundance of information may corner users into an extremely narrow focus. In this case, 

opportunities to provide valuable coaching on adjacent topics may be missed. 

Coaching 

During the project, pilot implementations of the prototype exercise allowed developers to 

refine, test, and develop guidance for the MEDALIST coaching model. It took only a few 

implementations to solidify the model and document it in the TSP. Project staff, however, did 

41 
not test that guidance by requiring users unfamiliar with the development of the model to 

implement it using the guidance provided. Recommendation 4: Future research should evaluate 

the MEDALIST coaching guidance by conducting pilots in which Army personnel fill the position 

of O/C. This would bring more objective assurance that the written guidance supports the 

coaching concept as intended, and may identify improvements that have not to this point been 

considered. 

Simulation 

The MPS represents an experimental tool for supporting MEDALIST training exercises. 

It serves as the simulation for the training by presenting performance cues (i.e., scripted tactical 

reports and displays) and supporting distributed communication among training participants. 

During the project, developers evaluated and refined the MPS so that it fully supports the current 

MEDALIST training approach. Future versions (i.e., those to be developed during the 

MEDALIST follow-on project) will include a more realistic portrayal of the emerging operating 

environment and will be used to support further refinement of the MEDALIST training 

approach. Future versions may also find a broader application as near-term Army training 

solutions. In the mean time, the MPS has already provided insight into the requirements for FCS 

design, to include the design of the FCS embedded simulation, called the One Semi-automated 

Forces (OneSAF) Objective System (OOS). 

A Near-term Training Solution 

Given its positive reception in the MEDALIST prototype exercise pilots, the MPS 

appears to represent more than just a model on which future simulations should be developed—it 

may gain acceptance, itself, as a useful operational training system for use prior to the fielding of

the FCS and its OOS. For this to happen, however, the system would have to be fully exportable 

to its prospective users who have a broad range of computer hardware, software, and network 

requirements. In addition, future versions of the MPS could also benefit from better integration 

with other simulation tools supporting future modeling and simulation of ground warfare, 

command, control, communications, combat support, and combat service support. 

Recommendation 5: Future MPS versions should be designed for greater architectural 

portability and improved performance. 

One approach to implementing this recommendation could include reprogramming the 

MPS system in Java. The Java language has been designed to enable the development of secure, 

high performance, and highly robust applications on multiple platforms in heterogeneous, 

distributed networks. A Java-based implementation of the MPS could provide an architectureneutral, portable, and dynamically adaptable environment for future development efforts. A 

Java-based MPS could run on operating systems other than Microsoft Windows 2000. This 

would make it easier for the system to be implemented as a web-based application running on an 

independent web server, which, in turn, would reduce the end-user hardware and software 

requirements. A Java-based MPS could also be used in tandem with other simulation tools such 

as the OneSAF Testbed Baseline (OTB), the OOS prototype. 

42 
Currently, the MEDALIST training approach lacks flexibility in the extent to which 

tactical scenarios can be modified, both in preparation for training and during training. This is 

due to the extensive scripting of tactical reports and displays. The integration of the additional 

simulation capabilities of the OTB, however, could enable users to modify scenario events more 

easily, allowing commanders to make more decisions during an exercise and train with a more 

realistic COP. It could also reduce the requirement to develop the multiple exercise versions that

are currently needed to portray varying scenarios, and it could provide training that is truly 

adaptable to the requirements of different users. This is significant in light of the fact that it 

requires approximately 40 hours to develop a base exercise version and 12 hours to develop each 

alternate exercise version. 

The current MPS is also designed to minimize the personnel support requirements 

commonly associated with the use of the more comprehensive constructive simulations. These 

requirements surface in the form of translating simulation data into usable tactical reports during 

training. With a Java application, it may be possible to link the MPS and simulation to eliminate 

or minimize this additional support task. The key variable would be the simulation’s capability 

to generate automatically the tactical reports required for the training. If this capability were 

realized, it would also eliminate or reduce the requirement to script tactical reports during 

exercise development, leading to a reduction in total development time. 

Though the benefits would be substantial, the addition of OTB into MEDALIST training 

must be executed in consideration of how it may affect the users’ ability to accomplish their 

training objectives. The current MPS-only training model inhibits flexibility, but at the same

time enhances the focus on tasks trained due to the virtual removal of the “game” component. 

Adding OTB would increase flexibility, but would also reintroduce the detracting effects 

associated with immersing participants in a more realistic mission or game environment. 

Recommendation 6: Future versions of the MPS should be designed to integrate OTB, but only 

to the extent that it increases the value of the training. Exercises that train higher-level tasks, 

such as decision-making or planning, and require greater scenario flexibility represent ideal 

candidates. Alternatively, exercises that focus on basic communication skills and that require 

minimally flexible scenarios may not benefit substantially from the addition of OTB. 

Designing the Future Combat System of Systems 

In addition to being potentially useful as a training delivery tool, the MPS has also 

enabled the MEDALIST project to generate recommendations regarding the development of the 

FCS and its embedded simulation, OOS. Regarding FCS development, project findings suggest 

that future Army commanders and leaders will be better prepared than their predecessors are for 

adapting to and using digital communication tools. Recommendation 7: The FCS command and 

control systems should leverage the digital communication methods that their users will already 

have come to know. The instant messaging function included in the MPS is a prime example of 

such communication methods. 

Regarding the development of the OOS, the simulation must incorporate the capability to 

construct realistic scenarios without the support of a large training support contingent. Previous 

simulation-based training programs have used constructive simulation extensively to generate 

43 
realistic training environments (Hoffman et al., 1995; Graves et al., 1997). Doing this, however, 

has required the participation of numerous roleplayer personnel who were responsible for 

translating simulation data into usable tactical reports to be delivered to the training audience. 

Because future training should require the lowest possible level of personnel support, any 

incorporation of constructive simulation should be executable without this requirement. 

Recommendation 8: The OOS must be designed to provide data in the formats and level of detail 

that reflect how that data would be provided if it had originated from operational command and 

control sources. 

Integration into Army Training 

One of the project’s goals was to determine the extent to which the MEDALIST approach 

would be acceptable and useful in the TRADOC and FORSCOM environments. Overall, the 

program was found to be acceptable by small samples of Soldiers from both settings. However, 

the program was adapted to and accepted more readily by the younger Soldiers coming straight 

out of AOBC. Project staff estimated that this was due, at least in part, to the younger officers’ 

familiarity with technologies such as instant messaging. 

If younger Soldiers are more comfortable with the digital communication technologies, 

such as those used by the MEDALIST training approach, integration of the approach into the 

TRADOC domain should be initiated with that group of constituents in mind. Recommendation 

9: The MEDALIST training approach should be integrated into TRADOC courses starting with 

the AOBC, where it may be best received and utilized. The integration should not be rushed, 

however, but conducted strategically to obtain the best results. Recommendation 10: Future 

research should require developers to team with AOBC instructors and students to determine the 

best ways to integrate MEDALIST exercises into the AOBC. 

Integrating the approach into FORSCOM training will also require additional research,

but may take longer to enact due to the difficulty of integrating new training concepts into 

established training regimens. Thus, any effort to introduce new training concepts should be 

attached to key Army-sponsored training development. Recommendation 11: The MEDALIST 

training approach may be most effectively integrated into FORSCOM training if it is introduced 

through future forces training development for the Future Force. 

Future Forces Training 

In light of the potential acceptability of the MEDALIST training approach, it is critical 

that the approach be refined so that it can be viewed by as wide an audience as possible as the 

Army prepares to design its training for future forces. The MEDALIST follow-on project has 

this goal as its primary objective and will develop several prototype exercises for future force 

audiences. Refining the approach will involve exploring the Future Force, or FCS, environment 

and determining its effects on the training approach. The environment should be examined in 

terms of force structure, equipment, training support systems, and threat and other battlefield 

conditions in order to determine how each of these factors affects leader performance 

requirements, training needs, training conditions, and, eventually, the training approach itself. 

44 
In anticipation of the follow-on revision effort, project staff identified two specific 

recommendations regarding how the approach should be refined. Recommendation 12: The 

approach’s use of reach intelligence sources should be expanded to include the use of web sites 

that represent those likely to be available to forces in the future (i.e., 2010). This should include 

expanding or supplementing the MPS with information feeds obtained by notional digital 

intelligence collectors (i.e., sensors) and will add significantly to the degree to which exercises 

can include realistic performance requirements and conditions. In addition, successful training 

for future forces will rely on the participation of coaches who are experts in their fields, but who 

are also well trained as coaches. In the case of MEDALIST training, which employs a unique 

model of coaching, this aspect takes on an elevated importance. Recommendation 13: The 

training approach should incorporate training for coaches. 

The individual recommendations made in this section represent numerous ways in which 

the MEDALIST training approach could be refined. Together though, they reflect the need for 

continued refinement, both to allow the approach to meet the needs of its future users and to 

develop a version of the approach that can be demonstrated for the purpose of integrating key 

training concepts into future forces training. 

Summary and Conclusion 

This report has described ARI’s initial MEDALIST project, covering the project’s 

background, objectives, activities, and outcomes. It represents the final documentation of the 

project and includes recommendations that can be used to facilitate and guide future research in 

follow-on and related efforts. This section provides a brief summary of the project and describes 

the potential of the MEDALIST approach as an appropriate solution for delivering training in the 

future. 

Project Summary 

The MEDALIST project was initiated based on the premise that conducting battle 

command and delivering training will be as difficult and critical as ever in the emerging 

operational and training environments. This premise was established by exploring the conditions 

of those environments and identifying a list of relevant training needs. In response to these 

needs, project designers explored the potential utility of two proven training methods that remain 

underutilized in Army training: structured training and deliberate practice. The key project 

objectives reflected the findings of this research and were stated as follows: 

• Objective 1. Identify a set of small team training requirements associated with effective 

communication in decentralized battle command in dispersed operations. 

• Objective 2. Design and develop a multi-echelon, distributed training approach and a 

sample prototype exercise based on the approach. 

• Objective 3. Evaluate the training requirements, approach, and exercise through pilot 

implementation. 

Initial project efforts dealt with the first objective, which stipulated the identification of

the requirements for training small teams of leaders on communicating in a dispersed and 

45 
decentralized battle command environment. To identify these requirements, project staff first 

examined the functions of battle command to identify the basic communication activities that

occur therein (see Figure 1). An additional literature review led to the identification of a set of

general guidelines for communicating effectively in decentralized command in dispersed 

operations (see Figure 2). The training requirements identified were later used to construct a 

single training objective for the project’s prototype exercise, which was developed to 

demonstrate the MEDALIST training approach. 

The MEDALIST training approach was designed to meet the requirement for training 

that is distributed, realistic, efficient, scalable, adaptable, focused, and flexible, as described 

earlier in this document. As such, the approach is distributed, enabling groups of Army 

commanders, leaders, and trainers who are not co-located to train together. Its distributed 

feature, enabled by the MPS (described on page 16), also provides for a certain realism by 

allowing participants who are co-located to train under simulated dispersed operating conditions 

(i.e., from different offices or buildings). The approach is also efficient, scalable, and adaptable 

in its implementation, promoting an effective use of training time and materials. Finally, the 

approach incorporates focus and flexibility by enabling training on a variety of objectives, tasks, 

and skills associated with decentralized battle command in dispersed operations. 

To demonstrate the MEDALIST training requirements and approach, project staff 

designed and developed a prototype exercise. The exercise represents only one version of one 

exercise, but is documented in a TSP design that supports related, though notional, exercises that 

were not developed during the current project. The exercise demonstrates all the characteristics 

of the training approach, with the exception of scalability. 

During the project, the prototype exercise was implemented six times in order to obtain 

feedback and identify needed revisions to the training requirements, approach, and exercise. 

Appropriate feedback and observations, most of which related to the approach’s coaching model 

and MPS, were incorporated into the final product designs. Other feedback and observations 

related to TSP design and the utilization of the deliberate practice method were documented as 

project recommendations to be incorporated in future R&D. 

The project concluded by presenting a set of recommendations for the conduct of future 

research. Many of the recommendations represent ideas that can be incorporated or explored in 

the MEDALIST follow-on project. Others deserve the attention of future R&D that further 

explores means by which effective training can be provided for future forces. A summary of the 

project’s recommendations is provided in Figure 14. 

46 
Recommendation 1: Future research should develop and evaluate a framework by which the Multi-Echelon 

Distributed Army Leaders’ Information Support Training (MEDALIST) approach can be implemented in order to 

train a broader array of objectives. 

Recommendation 2: Information within the training support package should be redistributed, freeing users who 

are familiar with the approach from having to handle information that they do not need. 

Recommendation 3: Future research should investigate the utility of providing additional criteria by which 

performance related to specific coaching points should be measured. 

Recommendation 4: Future research should evaluate the MEDALIST coaching guidance by conducting pilots in 

which Army personnel fill the position of observer/controller.

Recommendation 5: Future MEDALIST Prototype System (MPS) versions should be designed for greater 

architectural portability and improved performance. 

Recommendation 6: Future versions of the MPS should be designed to integrate One Semi-automated Forces 

(OneSAF) Testbed Baseline, but only to the extent that it increases the value of the training. 

Recommendation 7: The Future Combat System of Systems command and control systems should leverage the 

digital communication methods that their users will already have come to know. 

Recommendation 8: The OneSAF Objective System must be designed to provide data in the formats and level 

of detail that reflect how that data would be provided if it had originated from operational command and control 

sources. 

Recommendation 9: The MEDALIST training approach should be integrated into U.S. Army Training and 

Doctrine Command courses starting with the Armor Officer’s Basic Course (AOBC), where it may be best received 

and utilized. 

Recommendation 10: Future research should require developers to team with AOBC instructors and students to 

determine the best ways to integrate MEDALIST exercises into the AOBC. 

Recommendation 11: The MEDALIST training approach may be most effectively integrated into U.S. Army

Forces Command training if it is introduced through future forces training development for the Future Force. 

Recommendation 12: The approach’s use of reach intelligence sources should be expanded to include the use 

of web sites that represent those likely to be available to forces in the future (i.e., 2010). 

Recommendation 13: The training approach should incorporate training for coaches. 

Figure 14. Summary of project recommendations. 

Conclusion 

As the Army nears its fielding of the Future Force and FCS, it is becoming increasingly 

important to define the range and methods of training that will be needed to bring that force to 

proficiency. The outcomes of the MEDALIST project have the potential to assist in these tasks. 

First, the project identified a set of training requirements that address the communication 

involved in executing battle command in a dispersed environment. Second, the project 

developed an approach for training those requirements. The approach is designed to be 

conducted in a distributed manner and to integrate deliberate practice, to include active, expert 

coaching, in support of an efficient training experience. 

Initial implementations of the approach suggest that it represents an effective means of 

delivering training. Furthermore, the implementations suggest that the approach will be 

acceptable to Army users. Based on these findings, these authors conclude that the approach 

should be refined, expanded, and integrated into the Army’s TRADOC courses, starting with the 

officer basic courses. The approach should then be examined by the developers of FCS training 

for its potential to assist in the design of training for future forces. 

47 
LEAVE BLANK REFERENCES START ON AN ODD PAGE

48 
References 

Bailey, M. L., & Luetkehans, L. (1998). Ten great tips for facilitating virtual learning 

teams. Northern Illinois University. 

Bing, C. M. & Laroche, L. (2002). Communication technologies for Global Teams 

(available at http://www.Itapintl.com/communicationTechnoloites.htm). 

Bing, J. W. (2001). Developing a consulting tool to measure process change on Global 

Teams: The Global Team Process Questionnaire. ITPA International, Inc. 

Bloom, B. S. (1981). Foreword. In T. Levin, Effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: 

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 

Campbell, C. H., Quinkert, K. A., & Burnside, B. L. (2000). Training for performance: 

The structured training approach (ARI Special Report 45). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Daly, J. A., Friedrich, G. W., & Vangelisti, A. L. (1990). Teaching communication: 

Theory, research, and methods. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Department of the Army, Headquarters. (1999). Systems approach to training management, 

processes, and products (TRADOC Regulation 350-70). Fort Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training 

and Doctrine Command. 

Department of the Army, Headquarters. (2001a). Command and control (Field Manual 6-0; 

final draft version). Washington, DC: Author. 

Department of the Army, Headquarters. (2001b). Operations (Field Manual 3-0). 

Washington, DC: Author. 

Department of the Army, Headquarters. (2002a). Mission training plan for the mounted 

brigade combat team (ARTEP-71-3-MTP). Washington, DC: Author. 

Department of the Army, Headquarters. (2002b). Training the force (Field Manual 7.0). 

Washington, DC: Author. 

Department of the Army, Headquarters. (2003). Mission training plan for the 

reconnaissance platoon (ARTEP-17-97F-10-MTP). Washington, DC: Author. 

Dilworth, M. E. (1999). Effective teaching in distance education. ERIC Digest 1999-5 

Washington DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education. 

49 
Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of 

the issues. In K. Anders Ericsson (Ed.), The Road to excellence: The acquisition of expert 

performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 1-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence 

Erlbaum.

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice 

in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363-406. 

Gossman, J. R., Beebe, M. E., Bonnett, Michael, Forrest, D., Shadrick, S. B., 

Dannemiller, B., Mauzy, R. P, & Bonnett, Mitch. (1999). The Commanders' Integrated Training 

Tool for the Close Combat Tactical Trainer: Design, prototype development, and lessons 

learned (ARI Research Report 1739). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Gossman, J. R., Burnside, B. L., Flynn, M. R., Dannemiller, M. A., & Mauzy, R. P. (2002). 

Command group training in the Objective Force (ARI Research Report 1793). Alexandria, VA: 

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

Graves, C. R., Campbell, C. H., Deter, D. E., & Quinkert, K. A. (1997). Combined arms 

operations at brigade level, realistically achieved thought simulation I (COBRAS I): Report and 

development and lessons learned (ARI Research Report 1719). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Graves, C. R., & Myers, W. E. (1997). An expansion of the Virtual Training Program: 

History and lessons learned (ARI Research Report 1703). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Graves C. R., Brown, S. H., Shadrick, S. B., Heiden, C. G., Jenkins, S. N., Flynn, M. R., & 

Smith, P. G. (in preparation). The Multi-Echelon Distributed Army Leaders’ Information 

Support Training (MEDALIST) Prototype System (MPS) and sample exercise (ARI Research 

Product). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social 

Sciences. 

Hoffman, R. G., Graves, C. R., Koger, M. E., Flynn, M. R., & Sever, R. S. (1995). 

Developing the Reserve Component Virtual Training Program: History and lessons learned

(ARI Research Report 1675). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral 

and Social Sciences. 

Johnson, S. D., Berrett, J. V., Sumya, C., Yoon, S. W., & LaFleur, J. (2001). Team 

Development and Group Processes of Virtual Learning Teams. University of Illinois. 

Jones, T. C. (1996). Communicating skills necessary for success in a distance environment

(ERIC Digest 399 577). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher 

Education. 

50 
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco, 

CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. 

Marshall, R. (2001). Classroom communication apprehension and distance education. 

Paper submitted at the Southern States Communication Association Instructional Development 

Division). Lexington, KY. 

Olmstead, J. A. (2002). Leading groups in stressful times. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. 

Pratt, D. M., Graves, C. R., Campbell, C. H., Detrani, R. L., Leibrecht, B. C., Allen, J. D., et 

al. (2000). Operational assessment of Force XXI training products: Lessons for successful 

fielding (ARI Research Report 1752). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Shadrick, S. B., & Lussier, J. W. (2002). Think like a commander captain’s edition, 

prototype 1.0 for the combined arms battle command course (ARI Research Product 2002-02). 

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

The Executive Coaching Forum. (2001). The Executive Coaching Handbook: Principles 

and Guidelines for a Successful Coaching Partnership. (available at 

www.theexecutivecoachingforum.com). 

Willis, B. (1992). Strategies for teaching at a distance (ERIC Digest 92-8). Washington, 

DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.

51 
Appendix A 

Acronyms 

AOBC Armor Officer’s Basic Course 

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

ARTEP Army Training and Evaluation Plan 

C4ISR Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, 

and Reconnaissance 

COP Common Operating Picture 

DA Department of the Army

FBCB2 Force XXI Battle Command for Brigade and Below 

FCS Future Combat System of Systems 

FORSCOM U.S. Army Forces Command 

MEDALIST Multi-echelon Distributed Army Leaders’ Information Support Training 

MPS MEDALIST Prototype System

MTI Moving Target Indicator 

MTP Mission Training Plan 

O/C Observer/Controller 

OneSAF One Semi-Automated Forces 

OOS OneSAF Objective System 

OTB OneSAF Testbed Baseline 

R&D Research and Development 

SALT Size, Activity, Location, Time

SOP Standing Operating Procedures 

SU Situational Understanding 

TRADOC U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command 

TSP Training Support Package 

A-1 
Appendix B 

Sample Pilot Evaluation Guide 

Pilot Evaluation Guide 

 Topic 1. Coaching. 

 1. Describe how coaching materials were used. (pilot observer; talk to observer/controller)

• Coaching guide: 

• Coaching points: 

• Other (e.g., unit standing operating procedures): 

 2. Document coaching. (pilot observer)

Task Step / 

Coaching 

Point 

Questions Asked Performance 

Observed 

Direct or 

Indirect 

Audience Reaction 

Continue documenting coaching on back of page. 

1 

B-1 
Topic 1. Coaching, continued. 

3. Describe additional guidance needed to depict how coaching should occur. 

(observer/controller)

4. Have coach turn in coaching guide with indications of task steps & coaching points 

addressed. (Structured Interview Question)

5. What was the value of making the coaching agreement? (Structured Interview Question)

6. How effective was the coaching in helping you improve your performance? (Structured

Interview Question)

7. What is your opinion of the frequency at which coaching was conducted? (Structured

 Interview Question)

8. What was the value of pausing and repeating portions of the exercise? (Structured 

Interview Question)

9. Can you identify specific areas (task steps or coaching points) in which you improved 

your performance during the exercise? (Structured Interview Question)

10. Based on the number of coaching points or task steps you selected to focus on, how 

many should you have selected? Was the focus too broad? (Structured Interview Question, 

for audience and observer/controller)

11. Describe how the developmental action plan was handled. (pilot observer)

2 

B-2 
Topic 2. Scenario Materials. 

1. Document issues with report/display content and presentation. (system operator)

2. How difficult was the tactical scenario/situation? How many decisions did you have 

to make and how difficult were those decisions? (Structured Interview Question)

Topic 3. Simulation. 

1. Describe the technical issues involving the simulation. (pilot observer, 

observer/controller, assistant observer/controller, system operator)

2. What are your recommendations for improving the simulation? (Structured Interview 

Question)

Topic 4. Training Materials. 

1. Did your training guide provide a clear picture of the training? What was missing 

that would have helped you prepare for the training? (Structured Interview Question)

2. What are your other recommendations for improving the training guides and 

exercise attachments? (Structured Interview Question)

Topic 5. Overall Value. 

1. What was the overall value of this training? To you as a Basic Course student? 

(Structured Interview Question)

2. How well would this type of training fit in with the content and structure of the Basic 

Course? (Structured Interview Question)

3 

B-3 
Topic 6. Assistant Observer/Controller Role. 

1. Describe how busy you were during the training. How much time was devoted to (1) 

roleplaying brigade and (2) controlling the exercise? (assistant observer/controller)

2. How effectively could one person, an assistant observer/controller, perform both the 

assistant observer/controller functions and the system operator functions? (assistant 

observer/controller, system operator)

Topic 7. Training Schedule. 

1. Document the times of exercise activities. (pilot observer)

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

4 

B-4