U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Research Report 1805

Training the Troops: What Today's Soldiers Tell

Us About Training For information-Age Digital

Competency

Brooke B. Schaab

J. Douglas Dressel

U.S. Army Research Institute

May 2003

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

20030701 12

J
U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

A Directorate of the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command

ZITA M. SIMUTIS

Director

Technical review by

Peter B. Hayes, U.S. Army Reserve

Larry L. Meliza, U.S. Army Researcfi 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: TAPC-ARIPO, 5001 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22333-5600.

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)

May 2003

2. REPORT TYPE

Interim

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Training the Troops: SNhat today's soldiers tell us about training

for information-age digital competency

6, AUTHOR(S)

Brooke B. Schaab & J. Douglas Dressel

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

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria. Virginia 22333-5600

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

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

Sciences

5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

3. DATES COVERED (from... to)

Feb 2002 - Sep 2002

5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER

5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

622785

5c. PROJECT NUMBER

A790

5d. TASK NUMBER

209

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

10. MONITOR ACRONYM

ARI

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER

Research Report 1805

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release: distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): Army transfoimation requires soldiers who can use information-age digital skills to

accomplish tasks and to do essential coordination with others. The objective of this research was to gain insights on

best practices for training; this was accomplished by interviewing soldiei^ cuirently trained on and using the Amny's

most advanced digital technology. Sixty-two operatore ofArmy Battle Command Systems (ABCS) answered

questionnaires and participated in interviews that addressed the soldiers' perspectives on how best to capitalize on

fraining to meet the demands of the airrent Army and the Army of the fuhjre. Findings showed that soldiers desire and

need additional training on how to integrate their digital systems to accomplish their Arniy mission. They want this

training to be hands on, scenario based, and in a ftill job flow sequence. Soldiers noted difficulties with different digital

systems communicating with each other, which degrades situational awareness. Another concern was the dependence

on contract personnel to maintain and troubleshoot equipment. This snapshot of the cun-ent state of digital training in

U.S. Army units provides insights from the users' perepective that highlights prefen-ed and advantageous training

practices.

15, SUBJECT TCRMS

Training, Transformation, Digital systems, Stryker Brigade Combat Team

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 (Name

and Telephone Number)

Dr. Brooke Schaab

(703)617-0325
Research Report 1805

Training the Troops: What Today's Soldiers Tell

Us About Training For Information-Age Digital

Competency

Brooke B. Schaab

J. Douglas Dressel

U.S. Army Research Institute

Advanced Training Methods Research Unit

Franklin L. Moses, Chief

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

May 2003

Army Project Number

2O622785A790

Pereonnel Perfomiance

and Training Technology

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Ill
FOREWORD

Soldiers ofthe "digital" Army will be confronted by both enemies and

information in many forms. Digital technologies will help the soldiers to cope with

whatever current situation they face. Knowing how to apply the digital equipment is a

matter oftraining. What are good approaches to digital training? What approaches are

used in units today? What do soldiers think about today's training for tomorrow's

conflicts?

The research reported here attempts to answer these questions as part ofthe U.S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social ScienceWork Package 209,

"Principles and Strategies for Training Digital Skills." Results were briefed to Mr' Robert

Seger, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, Training for the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine

Command (TRADOC) and COL Steven L. Bailey, Commander, 3'** Brigade, 2"^ Infantry

Division. A partial report ofthe resuhs was published as an article titled Interim Brigade

Combat Team: Training TOC Operators in the U.S. Army's^, L, & Tmagazine, Jan-Feb

2003.

KATHLEEN A. QUINKERT

Acting Technical Director
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would Hke to thank LTC Peter B. Hayes, Larry Meliza ofthe

Simulator Systems Research Unit, and Franklin L. Moses, Chief ofthe Advanced

Training Methods Research Unit, for their thoughtful contributions to this research

report. Our deep appreciation is expressed to COL Steven L. Bailey, Commander, 3/2

BCT and LTC Leonard McWherter, 2"*^ Battalion, 23'^*' Infantry Division whose forwardlooking support made this research possible. Our most sincere gratitude goes to the men

and women who unselfishly participated in our data collection efforts. Their assistance

has added immeasurable benefit to the U.S. Army's understanding of digital systems

training.

VI
TRAINING THE TROOPS: WHAT TODAY'S SOLDIERS TELL US ABOUT

TRAINING FOR INFORMATION-AGE DIGITAL COMPETENCY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Requirement:

The U.S. Army is continuing its ambitious transformation where soldiers will be

required to use digital technologies in an information-rich environment to gain tactical

advantage over the enemy.

To help accomplish that goal, research was done to identify training methods and

practices for soldiers to competently incorporate digital technology into accomplishing

their Army missions.

Procedure:

Researchers administered questionnaires and interviewed 62 soldiers trained on

the Army's most advanced digital technologies at three U.S. Army posts. The

questionnaire addressed the soldier's training background, types oftraining

environments, and preferences. Open-ended questions dealt with digital training practices

they had experienced directly. Small-group interviews focused on training practices,

training preferences, and suggested improvements.

Findings:

Soldiers expressed a desire and need for more training using digital technology.

They wanted training to be hands on, more scenario based, and in a Mljob flow

sequence. Soldiers noted difficulties with different digital systems communicating with

each other; a problem that seriously thwarts shared situational awareness. Another

concern was the dependence upon contract personnel to maintain and troubleshoot their

equipment.

Utilization ofFindings:

This research is a snapshot ofthe current state of digital training m U.S. Army

imits. It provides insights from the users' perspective ofthe successes and difficulties

experienced in training how to maximize technological advantages in the current Army

environment. Recommendations provide training managers with preferred and

advantageous training practices.

vu
TRAINING THE TROOPS: WHAT TODAY'S SOLDIERS TELL US ABOUT

TRAINING FOR INFORMATION-AGE DIGITAL COMPETENCY

CONTENTS

Introduction

Objectives

Method.. .,..,.„

Demographics of Soldiers

Findings/Implications.

In summary, what did we learn?....

References...,.

Appendix A. Results from questionnaire.........

Appendix B. Four questions concerning digital training.

Appendix C. Interview Questions/Interview Topics.,

Page

....1

....2

....2

....3

....4

..14

..15

A-1

B-1

C-1

List ofTables

Table 1. Percent ofsoldiers by rank. „..,..... 3

Table 2. Number ofsoldiers operating each digital system by Military

Occupational Specialty (MOS). 4

List of Figures

Figure 1. Preferred method oflearning new software 6

Figure 2. Computer experience reported by soldiers 7

Figure 3. How soldiers were trained on their digital systems........... 10

Figure 4. Soldier's response to: What method was most valuable for you

to learn the knobology? , , 10

Figure 5. Soldier's response to: What method has been most valuable for

you to leam to use your digital system to perform your Army job?.... 11

IX
Training the Troops: Wliat today's soldiers tell us about training for

Information-age digital competency

Introduction

When even the infantry-long characterized as grants and mud soldiers- is focused on

moving digits, it is clear a major shift is underway in the way the U.S. military

fights.

Washington Post (February 2, 2002) interviewing a StaffSgtfrom Fort Lewis

The Army is continuing its transition to weapons, equipment, and

technologies that require soldiers and commanders who can use information-age,

digital skills to fight directly, remotely, and through rohotic systems.

Accompanying this transition is an expected shift toward decentralized, fluid,

fast-paced operational strategies and tactics that may need to be applied to

increasingly novel, ambiguous, and unpredictable situations not fully addressed

by doctrine or archived intelligence. To improve the soldier's ability to perform

effectively in this information rich and changing environment, the Army needs to

train soldiers at all levels to use digital skills to accompUsh tasks and to do

essential coordination with others across horizontal and vertical networks.

How do we train mid- and junior-level soldiers in the information

technology (IT) skills needed for operational imits? How can we maximize the

acquisition, transfer, adaptability, and retention ofthese skills necessary for

transformation to the future force? To help answer these questions, researchers

from the U.S. Army Research histitute (ART) administered questionnaires and

conducted interviews with operators ofArmy Battle Command System (ABCS) at

Fort Lewis, Fort Hood, and Fort Bragg during the spring of 2002.

Findings in this report are part of a larger endeavor that addresses training

requirements for ensuring digitally competent soldiers, hiitially, entry-level

soldiers participating in Advanced Individual Training (AIT) were examined to

see how soldiers learn to operate their digital systems (Schaab & Dressel, 2001).

This research demonstrated that training was more efficient and effective when

instractors incorporated realistic vignettes that required soldiers to become

actively engaged in their own learning.

Following this, another group ofsoldiers was observed periodically for

one year as they moved from AIT to their first duty station (Schaab& Moses,

2001). Training over this year included New Equipment Training and unit training

that covered one major hardware/software change and three software upgrades.
Soldiers experienced only minor disruptions with these changes. It was found that

soldiers' skills did not perish, rather they had difficulty transferring what they had

learned to unfamiliar situations because their training tended to focus on basic

operating tasks with little connection to their functional use.

This report continues the effort to gain insights on best practices for training

by interviewing soldiers currently trained on and using the Army's most advanced

digital technology.

Obiectives

Soldiers currently using Army digital systems gave their perspective on

current and future training needs for the "digital soldier." Findings from

questionnaires and interviews provide insight into the type oftraining the soldiers

view as most productive in developing the expertise to take full advantage of new

technologies. This report summarizes soldier perspectives about:

• How will successful current training practices prepare them to perform

in units supported by digitization;

• Learning preferences for new technologies, noting opportunities

presently available to capitalize on training;

• Collaboration and cooperation within and between units employing

digital systems;

• Frustrations with current digital Training;

• Current support for the Army's digital technical systems;

• How digital systems change the roles or the tasks that soldiers

perform.

Method

Researchers met with groups offour to eight soldiers to gather information

on current digital training practices. The purpose ofthe research was explained to

the soldiers prior to beginning data collection.

First, we administered the Digital Task Proficiency Questionnaire (see

Appendix A). This questionnaire sought information on the soldiers' training

background, training environment, training preferences, computer experience and

digital team performance. The soldiers took about 15 minutes to complete this

questionnaire.

Next, each soldier was given the first of a series offour questions (see

Appendix B) concerning digital training. The soldiers had 10 minutes to write

their answers. Then the soldiers passed their question sheets counter-clockwise to
the next soldier who would answer this new question. The soldier could expand

upon the previous answer or give a different response; they were instructed to

write whatever they thought was appropriate. This rotation of questions and

additional responses was continued until each soldier answered each ofthe four

questions.

Following this, a similar rotation approach was taken by which each

soldier ranked the top two responses to each question. This resulted in each ofthe

four questions having four sets ofresponses and four sets ofrankings. This

information gathering approach is described in detail in Brassard & Ritter, 1994,

Finally, researchers conducted an interview with each group ofsoldiers,

which generally took 45-60 minutes. The interviews were audio-recorded for later

examination. Soldiers were asked to speak freely, and give their full and complete

impressions of digital training practices that would be valuable to the Army.

Comments were not for individual attribution. The soldiers did not seem to be

constrained or inhibited by the tape recording ofthe session. The interviews were

based on the soldiers' previous questionnaire and written responses in addition to

topics selected from the list ofinterview topics found in Appendix C.

No significant differences were found on responses to the questionnaire

among the three posts. Therefore, responses were compiled together.

Demographics of Soldiers

Researchers from ARI administered questionnaires and conducted

interviews with operators ofthe ABCS, Sixty-two soldiere, 25 posted at Fort

Hood, 25 at Fort Lewis, and 12 from Fort Bragg participated. Soldiers' ranks

ranged from E2 to E7, with approximately seventy-five percent ofthe soldiers

being E3-to-E5 (see Table 1). Eighty-four percent ofthese soldiers were at skill

level 1 or skill level 2, with 64% at skill level 1,

Table 1

Percent ofsoldiere by rank

Rank Percent

E2 8,2

E3 19.7

E4 L 41.0

E5 14.8

E6 11,5

E7 4.9

These soldiers operated a variety of digital systems, with the majority, 77

percent, operating either the Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below
(FBCB2) or the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS) (see

Table 2).

Table 2

Number ofsoldiers operating each digital system by Military Occupational

Specialty (MOS)

MOS FBCB2 AFATDS ASAS* MCS* AMDWS* CSSCS*

13A 1

13B 21

13D 1 10

13E 8

13F 2 2

14J 2

31U 1

34B 1

54B 1

63S 1

75H 1

75B 1

88M 1

96B 4

Total 26 21 4 4 2

1

Note: 4 participants operated systems other than those that comprise the ABCS

*ASAS-A11 Source Analysis System; MCS-Maneuver Control System; AMDWS-Air Missile

Defense Warning System; CSSCS- Combat Services Support Control System

Findings and Implications

''Our biggest problem is that we need more training."

The most pervasive and consistent finding is that junior-level enlisted

soldiers need and want additional training to become proficient at theirjobs.

• "Learning the system is crucial to a combat situation."

• "My unit needs to do more training on how to do ourjob using the

digital systems."

• "Training should be done more fi-equently so that soldiers can realize

all ofthe systems fiinctions."

• "Not enough people actually know the system. We really haven't

trained on them that much."
Nowhere is the need for continuous learning more evident than for digital

systems operators. Army digital systems are a never-ending work in progress:

build a little, try it out, modify, and build it again. Soldiers must continuously

update their knowledge and adapt to new, changed, or absent functionality. More

important, they must understand how these changes influence their ability to do

their Armyjob. This type oftraining goes beyond the content in New Equipment

Training (NET), which focuses on how to operate the system.

• "We have a 4.3 ASAS that has to send messages to a 6.0 MCS light.

We had to get a Structured Query Language (SQL) server so that the

two systems would work. But, none ofthe soldiers knows how to

troubleshoot the SQL server so when something goes wrong we're

screwed."

• "AFATDS A99 software was never fully implemented. Problems were

found between the AFATDS and Artillery Fire Control System

needed for firing data. Nothing was done about the problem. We're

still using the old system."

• "When working fire missions in the AFATDS system, it is not possible

to do two or more fire missions at once. The system will let you input

the information, but other than that, you can do nothing with it until

the prior mission has been ended. Also, in that situation, the computer

will choose whichever mission it wants. It is not always going in the

order in which the missions were processed."

• "We need more training to troubleshoot problems. Our unit expects us

to know the ins and outs ofthe system but we don't have proper

guidance to learn."

Training can be difficult to perform while in garrison. Although training

time and Sergeants' time are allocated, necessary post details fi-equently pre-empt

training. Most soldiers look forward to field exercises where they tram for their

"real" militaryjobs.

"A lot of hands on, that's important for

today's up and coming Army."

Soldiers tell us what kind oftraining they find successfiil. "Give us handson training, using a full job flow sequence." Here, they receive the inputs they'd

receive in an actual mission and produce/transmit the required outputs. Soldiers

tell us that field experiences and interacting with their peers are the "best" ways to

leam the systems. Field exercises should include setting up and connecting the

digital systems as well as operating the systems in various situations. Soldiers

complain that without coimectivity, an all too common occurrence, training does

not happen. There appears to be a disconnect between training to use the system
and training to set up and troubleshoot interconnectivity, with some digital system

training including both and others only system use.

• "Make training seem more like it would on the battlefield."

• "Give soldiers time to get their hands on and use the program to learn

for themselves."

• "Learning with my peers at the battery, teaching each other, we

learned at our own pace."

• "We have done no scenario-based training, only digital."

In other words, soldiers want to learn Army digital systems the same way

that they have acquired much oftheir non-military digital expertise: by exploring

the software and equipment to solve real problems, (see Figure 1).

How do you prefer to learn a new

software package?

70 n

60-

*- 50

§ 40

fc 30-

0- 20

10 -

0 1 .

Read the Watch Take a Explore Have

manual someone course the someone

use it program help me

Figure 1. Preferred method oflearning new software

Exploring ways to supplement or support training, soldiers were queried

about their familiarity with using technology aids for training. Most soldiers

report a great deal of experience with the internet and instant messaging, but

limited experience with distance leaming (DL), web-based gaming, or hardware

installation (see Figure 2). This suggests that training delivered via distance

leaming or web-based gaming might require added support to implement, at least

until soldiers become familiar with these techniques. Recent research with junior

officers supports on-line training to leam complex skills. When troops are able to

critique and share information and knowledge with each other, the performance of

junior level officers is indistinguishable fi"om senior officers (Wardell &

Paschetto, 2001).
How much experience do you have?

Internet Instant Networks Web4>ased Installing Distance

messaging gaming hardware learning

IA lot BSome O A little BNone

Figure 2. Computer experience reported by soldiere

Do soldiers have the time and resources available to take advantage ofDL

support ifit were more readily available? Two statements that soldiers disagreed

with strongly were:

> Training on our digital systems takes time away from other important

training activities.

> Lack of equipment that the team would normally use is not available.

Additional support for DL opportunities for training digital systems is found

as soldiere report:

> Ninety-two percent (92%) have their ABCS digital systems available

in their unit for training,

> Fifty-eight percent (58%) have time to train during their work hours if

training resources were available (e,g,, CD ROM, manuals, on-line

help, practice vignettes/scenarios),

> Seventy-four percent (74%) would train on their own time if computer

systems and training resources were available.

Today's high-caliber soldier is both well educated and, for the most part,

computer literate. Although many prefer to learn computer technology on their

own or with their peers, the complexity ofintegrating this new technology with
their military activities requires assistance. In the near term, too many leaders,

although proficient in military knowledge, lack the expertise in digital technology

necessary to assist with training. Separate schoolhouse and NET training are

costly and time consuming.

"Communication is always a problem. Our unit has lots of

problems talking digitally with other systems."

Netcentric warfare requires complex collaboration where soldiers must

rapidly switch between different duties, settings, and personnel. Current

collaboration with ABCS provides guidance for future development. One reoccurring concem is the role and responsibility ofthe digital-system operator. It is

becoming evident that the operator's role is pivotal, not just in operating the

knobology ofthe system, but in detecting, recognizing, diagnosing, processing,

and disseminating information in a timely fashion.

Units differ in who operates their digital systems and the responsibilities

ofthat operator. For example, one company has junior enlisted personnel

operating the systems. These soldiers are included in their unit training ofthe

military decision-making process to ensure they understand their role. These

young soldiers obtain the knowledge and assume the responsibilities ofmore

advanced soldiers. Yet, in another company, the NCO operates the digital

equipment and provides little training support for his personnel to develop their

skills.

When Battlestaff NCOs are asked (Felton, Schaab, & Dressel, 2003, in

press), who the primary operators ofthe digital systems are in the Tactical

Operations Center (TOG), the majority respond that lower-ranking enlisted

personnel assume this responsibility. One reason given was that these soldiers had

received training and were comfortable using the systems. Technology is

flattening the hierarchy of command and control. Commanders tend to select the

most capable personnel to operate systems, particularly digital systems,

irrespective ofrank.

Interoperability continues to be a problem with only 34 percent ofthe

soldiers interviewed ever having exchanged information with another Army

digital system. The most frequent exchanges were between AFATDS and ASAS

orAFATDSandFBCB2.

• "We should do something on the battery level between FBCB2 and

AFATDS. The only time we have those two systems talking is in the

field"

• "Communications is always a problem. We play with the system and

eventually get it to work. It is time consuming."
• "We have entire exercises on using and integrating systems. The push

is digital. The problem with this is that ifthe digital isn't working-we

go no further. None of our new soldiers has the fundamentals ofwhat

really goes on in the TOC. We have done no scenario-based training,

only digital."

• "The problem we face is that when systems are working together and

attempt to share data, systems fail. Answers are found by accident and

experimentation."

• "Our units kept repeating steps and hoping that the networks would

connect."

• "Our system will not receive sent messages fi-om other systems ifthe

system is turned off. The messages will not be stored and received

after the system is turned on. The problem hasn't been solved yet."

• "I work the help desk so I know about the problems. Messaging with

MCS-L and some ofthe other systems has been a major problem.

Connectivity between routers and switches is another problem. During

the last exercise, the major problem was that none oftiie upgrades

seemed to work. The brigade's typical way to solve the problem was

to call the help desk."

Concern over collaboration was expressed in responses on the

questionnaire where most soldiers were in strong agreement with statements such

as:

> Successful task/mission performance requires team members to

coordinate their activities directly with each other.

> Successftil task/mission performance requires team members to obtain

information about the work situation and pass it on to other team

members.

> Task performance by team members is dependent on timing, quality,

or completeness ofthe performance ofother team members.

How to train soldiers using ABCS to collaborate remains unanswered

because interconnectivity difficulties prevent systematic observations and lessons

learned about how soldiers perform.

"Provide us training on the whole digital piece."

hiformation technology results in soldiers looking to contractors rather

than to their NCOs for support and training, NCOs often are not introduced to

digital technology as they progressed in the Army, frequently have less formal

and imit experience than the soldiers they supervise.
Most soldiers (66 percent) received their system training via the New

Equipment Training team (see Figure 3).

70 n

60-

50-

1 40-

S. 30-

20-

1

10-

0- I 1 . .

AIT NET CD ROM Other

Type Training

Figure 3. How soldiers were trained on their digital systems

Soldiers view NET training as more beneficial for learning the

"knobology" ofthe system rather than for learning how to use the system to do

their Army job. In both cases, soldiers reported that field exercises were the most

valuable for learning to use digital systems (see Figures 4 & 5).

Figure 4. Soldier's response to: What method was most valuable for you to learn

the knobology?

10
Figure 5. Soldier's response to: What method has been most valuable for you to

learn to use your digital system to perform your Army job?

NET training serves a variety ofneeds. Some soldiers have no previous

exposure to the system that is being trained, while others currently are using the

system and attend NET training to learn the delta between system upgrades. This

can result in the training moving too fast for the novice and too slowly for the

more experienced user. Soldiers report that there are sufficient numbers ofNET

trainers so that the class could be trained according to its needs. Additionally,

soldiers recommend that the NET team should, "Train the t^ks we need to

perform rather than show the knobology of everything ofwhich the machine is

capable."

DL can be a partial solution. It must be interactive and adjustable to the

experience level ofthe trainee, both in knowledge ofthe system and in military

experience.

"Contractors do all the fixes and work arounds."

Soldiers are disturbed by the influence that contractors have on military

missions. Contractors Msume responsibility for setting up systems in the field,

establishing/maintaining interoperability between systems, troubleshooting

problems, overriding software problems, and so on. As technology plays an ever

increasing role in military operations, uniformed personnel will need to assume

the roles that contractors now hold or the systems must become much more

reliable.

11
• "The FBCB2 is very fragile. When problems occur, most operators are

not trained to deal with these problems."

• "The system is good but needs more work. Anytime a system has a

hard time coming up, you might need that time in combat. I prefer

degraded operations"!

• "We had hard drives that weren't burnt with the correct addresses so

we had to have the contractors re-bum the bricks."

• "Contractors can be slow to respond to problems and the soldiers are

the ones who should be learning the fixes."

Technology allows for agility that can replace heavy armor. Troops know

that their life depends on this technology. Clearly, they want the knowledge to

keep their equipment up and operating.

"Technology Changes the Way We Fight"

Troops at all levels are just beginning to understand how information

technology changes their duties and responsibilities. One major potential of

digital systems is enhanced situational awareness. Situational awareness entails

(1) perceiving important information is available; (2) comprehension or

interpreting information and it's relevance to the mission; and (3) projection or

forecasting future events or decisions based on the information (Ensley, 2000).

Soldiers may have difficulty moving beyond the first phase ofsituational

awareness, perceiving information, without continued and varied training in both

their MOS and in digital systems. For example, one platoon leader said that

soldiers were adept in sending and receiving messages and in manipulating

entities on the computer screen. Yet, when they saw three tanks on the screen,

they did not recognize that it was a platoon with its consequent dangers.

Both the quantity and quality ofinformation available raises important

training questions such as: What type of crosstraining, both horizontally and

vertically, is necessary for maintaining situational awareness and understanding?

Do soldiers understand how to get information, deploy it, and act on it in a timely

manner? How do soldiers learn use technology to deter their adversary?

• "The system is a good thing because you can give and receive

messages instead ofwalking far across the firing point or using a radio

because the enemy may intercept the channels."

• "With the FBCB2,1 can send messages to the commander when I am

lost or in a dangerous situation. I can tell what's going on where I am,

or set up an attack, or plan where to go next."

12
• "It is my beliefthat field training is the best training that an analyst can

benefit from. It is valuable because it gave me an understanding of

what the other ABCS components provided me within the Army."

One commander enthusiastically recounted a recent field exercise where

soldiers left from dispersed points to converge at a common location at the

designated time. Soldiers did not communicate with each other, but used their

digital system to track themselves and their allies. "This would have been

impossible without our digital systems," reported the commander.

Soldiers agreed with statements such as:

> Digital systems make it much safer for troop movement in enemy

territory.

> Once we understood the limitations and capabihties ofthe digital

systems, we were able to use them in new and better ways.

> Planning and preparation is much faster when we can collaborate using

our digital systems.

"Changes are Underway."

The Army is listening. One ofthe most influential changes in training

digital systems has taken place at Fort Huachuca under the leadership ofLTG

Richard Quirk and LTC Thomas Kelley. Instructors integrate the Army digital

system with theirjob responsibilities beginning the first week of a soldier's

Advanced Individual Training. This training simulates realistic missions as much

as possible. In other words, soldiers receive hands-on training in a reahstic

setting. Recent feedback from the field suggests that this approach is working.

One Battle Staff NCO noted that her soldiers continue to experience a "steep

learning curve" in operating digital systems, "except for our military intelMgence

analysts from Fort Huachuca. They are confident in using the system."

Training at Fort Sill concludes with trainees receiving a set ofCDs to

reinforce and sustain training on their digital system. In addition, Fort Sill is

developing distributed learning to use as a pre-requisite for resident fraining.

Soldiers will come to the schoolhouse with basic knowledge so that onsite

training is more productive. Distributed training materials also are being

developed for CSSCS and the FBCB2 for delivery over the Internet.

M^ter analyst courses now train NCOs on the skills needed to provide

oversight and instruction to their subordinates, as well ensure smooth operations

for commanders within the TOG.

13
U.S. Army training facilities understand that Army transformation will

place even greater emphasis on troops being able to leverage technology. They

are moving forward to address major training needs.

In summary, what did we learn?

• Soldiers want more training to integrate their knowledge oftheir

digital system with their Army role.

• Soldiers see opportunities available now for additional training at their

home station. Although unfamiliar with distributed learning methods,

they express a willingness to use technology to advance their training.

• Soldiers see a need to interact with their colleagues in simulated

military settings. Successful collaboration between units will become

even more important as technology advances throughout the Army.

Training collaboration goes beyond successful connection ofthe

systems.

• Soldiers and NCOs want to know how to maintain and troubleshoot

their systems.

14
References

Brassard, M,, and Ritter, D. (1994). The memory jogger: A pocket guide

oftools for continuous improvement and effective planning. Methuen, MA:

GOAL/QPC.

Ensley, M. R. (2000). Theoretical underpinnings ofsituational awareness:

A critical review. In M. R. Ensley & D. J. Garland (Eds.) Situational awareness

analysis and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Felton, R. J., Schaab, B., & Dressel, J. D. (2003, in press). Training

requirements ofBattle StaffNCOs in digital units. (Study Report) U. S. Army

Research histitute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences: Alexandria, VA.

Loeb, v., and Ricks, T. E. (February 2, 2002). / 's and 0 's Replacing

Bullets in U.S. Arsenal, Washington Post, DC.

Schaab, B., & Dressel, J, D. (2001). Trainingfor adaptability and transfer

on digital systems. (Research Report 1782). U, S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences: Alexandria, VA.

Schaab, B. & Moses, F. L. (2001). Six myths about digitalskills training.

(Research Report 1774). U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences: Alexandria, VA.

Warden, C. S., and P^chetto, G. (2001). Small group instruction in realtime over the web. Proceedings ofthe Interservice Industry Training Simulation

and Equipment Conference, Orlando, FL.

15
Appendix A

Results from questionnaire

X notes the mean score for each item.

Digital Team

A digital team is a group ofsoldiers who are digitally connected and whose input you

need in order to successfully do yourjob. This may be within a unit (e.g., ASAS

operators sharing information with other ASAS operators) or between units (e.g., ASAS

and AFATDS interfacing for target nominations and acquisition).

To what extent do each ofthe following task descriptions apply to your digital team?

Successful task/mission performance requires team members to coordinate their activities

directly with each other.

I I I X I I

To no To a small To a moderate To quite an To a great

extent extent extent extent extent

A team member needs to know his buddies and know how they will react in certain

situations.

To no To a small To a moderate To quite an Toa^eat

extent extent extent extent extent

Successful task/mission performance requires team members to obtain information about

the work situation and pass it on to other team members.

I I I X I I

To no To a small To a moderate To quite an To a great

extent extent extent extent extent

My leader places a high priority on our using our digital equipment.

I I I X I I

To no To a small To a moderate To quite an To a great

extent extent extent extent extent

Task performance by team members is dependent of timing, quality, or completeness ofthe

performance of other team members,

I I I X I

To no To a small To a moderate To quite an To a great

extent extent extent extent extent

A-1
Digit systems make it much safer for troop movement in enemy territory.

I I I X I

Tone

extent

To a small

extent

To a moderate

extent

To quite an

extent

To a great extent

Successful task/mission performance is dependent on a leader to closely coordinate the

activities of all team members.

I I I X

Tone

extent

To a small

extent

To a moderate

extent

I

To quite an

extent

_l

To a great

extent

Once we understood the limitations and capabilities of the digital systems we were able to

use them in new and better ways.

1 1 I X 1 . 1

To no To a small To a moderate To quite an To a great

extent extent extent extent extent

Planning and preparation is much faster when we can collaborate using our digital sy!

1 1 IX 1 1

To no To a small To a moderate To quite an To a great

extent extent extent extent extent

Inadequate amount of team training is a frequent/critical problem.

I__ I L__X I

To no To a small To a moderate To quite an

extent extent extent extent

To a great

extent

The team's tasks are mainly composed of the activities needed to operate the digital

equipment (knobology).

I ^ I . LJ^ I I

To no

extent

To a small

extent

To a moderate

extent

To quite an

extent

Lack of team spirit is a frequent/critical problem.

I I Xi

To a great

extent

.1

To no

extent

To a small

extent

To a moderate

extent

To quite an

extent

To a great

extent

Poor design of equipment the team uses to operate is a frequent/critical problem.

I I XL_ L__ ^1

To no

extent

To a small

extent

To a moderate

extent

To quite an

extent

To a great

extent

A-2
Team training is not realistic Is a frequent/critical problem.

I L X I

To no To a small To a moderate To quite an To a great

extent extent extent extent extent

The current composition of the team is inadequate (e.g., more or fewer members are needed

or different types of personnel are needed) Is a frequent/critical problem.

I I X I I I

To no To a small To a moderate To quite an To a great

extent extent extent extent extent

Team is not given the opportunity to train with other units is a frequent/critical problem.

I I x_i I I

To no To a small To a moderate To quite an To a great

extent extent extent extent extent

Digital systems provide more time for us to think and develop multiple COAs.

I I ^1 I I

To no To a small To a moderate To quite an To a great

extent extent extent extent extent

The tasks are such that if one member cannot perform adequately (e.g., fast enough) another

member can "make up for " that performance.

I 1 X__| I I

To no To a small To a moderate To quite an To a great

extent extent extent extent extent

Frequent turnover in team members Is a frequent/critical problem.

I I X_| I ,

To no To a small To a moderate To quite an To a great

extent extent extent extent extent

Lack of coordination between team members is a frequent/critical problem.

I I X I I I

To no To a small To a moderate To quite an To a great

extent extent extent extent extent

Team is tasked using inappropriate tactics is a frequent/critical problem.

L I X I I I

To no To a small To a moderate To quite an To a great

extent extent extent extent extent

Training on our digital system takes time away from other important training activities.

I L_X I I I

To no To a small To a moderate To quite an To a great

extent extent extent extent extent

A-3
Lack of equipment that the team would normally use.

I l_X _| I I

To no To a small To a moderate To quite an To a great

extent extent extent extent extent

A-4
Appendix B

Four questions concerning digital training

Soldiers provided individual written responses to each question then selected the

best 2 responses

How do you sustain your digital skills or your unit's digital skills? How is it

determined when training is needed? Is this method successful? If not, what

would your recommend?

What was the most valuable training that you received? Why? How would you

improve it?

What problems did your unit face in using digital systems? What changes did

your unit make to address these problems?

What new training techniques or events has your unit developed or adopted?

B-1
Appendix C

Interview Questions

Interview Topics

Fort Lewis-April 2002

I. General background and experience in using Army digital

systems.

What systems are you using?

What training did your receive?

How do you use your systems? (within unit, across unit)

• If you had only five minutes to tell your replacement what he or

she needs to know about operating your digital system in this

environment, what would you say?

II. Training Metliods What works? Best? Worst? Training aids used?

• What was the most valuable training you received? Why? How

would you improve it? Consider: Training within digital cells and

training across digital systems

• What was the least effective training you received? Why? Ifit

needs to be continued, how would you improve it?

• After knobology, what are the primary/basic digital training t^ks

for your unit to use its system? To interact with other systems?

• What new training techniques or events h^ your unit developed or

adopted? Consider: Training within digital cells and training across

digital systems

• How is sustainment training conducted for individual operators?

Who determines when this training is necessary? Is this method

successfiil?

• How is training conducted within the unit for system operators

who interact to perform their tasks? How effective is this training?

• How is training conducted across units that must interact to

perform their tasks? How effective is this training?

• What training aids were available? How effective?

III, Learning to do the job: Conflict/scenario situation

(War stories during exercises: with own system, interacting with

other systems or Imagine using it for real)

• What problems did your unit face in using digital systems? What

changes did your unit make to address these problems?

C-1
What specific skills are necessary to exploit the advantages of

digitization?

How do you know if a unit or soldiers in a unit are "digitally"

better? How is this assessed?

Do you think that digitization gives you greater access or less

access to the commander, other BOS, and higher and lower

echelons?

Do you use digital systems during mission planning/execution or,

do you rely more on voice or face-to-face communication?

Do digital systems help the process of analyzing data? Ifso, how?

Do they make it easier to obtain data and to disseminate the

results?

What shortfalls in digital capability exist as far as you are

concerned?

How do you overcome these flaws?

What skills are important in maintaining situational awareness?

What new digital sub-tasks are required to control enemy contact?

IV. Future Promise

Can you give an example, in general terms, of a task that will need

to be performed in the future by system operators?

What difficulties do you expect to encounter in performing such

future tasks?

How do these tasks relate to the TTPs you expect to be perform?

How do these tasks relate to changes in equipment or tactics, or

other types of anticipated changes?

This is an opportunity for you to use your knowledge ofthe Army and the current

use of digital systems to suggest what will make them better. Be creative, think

outside the box. Money is no object!

Imagine what tlie Army will look like in 10 years. Select one type of mission.

What tasks must entry-level enlisted soldiers be trained on to accomplish this

mission?

What training have you received in the Army or elsewhere that you would

recommendfor training soldiers in the Objective Force?

What changes are fundamental to becoming a digitally-trained soldier?

C-2