Study 

 Report

 2002-06 

The Multi-Skilled Soldier Concept: 

Considerations for Army Implementation

 

 

 John T. Nelsen II

 Booz Allen Hamilton

Allan Akman 

Akman Associates, Inc.

United States Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

April 2002

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

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

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

 ZITA M. SIMUTIS 

 Acting Director 

Research accomplished under contract 

for the Department of the Army 

Booz Allen Hamilton 

Technical Review by 

Diana Tierney 

Kathleen A. Quinkert 

NOTICES 

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this Study 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-ARI-PO, 5001 

Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22333-5600. 

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

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

Sciences. 

NOTE: The findings in this Study 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)

 April 2002 

2. REPORT TYPE

 Final 

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to)

 07/03/2001 to 03/15/2002 

5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER

 GS-23F9775H 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

The Multi-Skilled Soldier Concept: Considerations for Army 

Implementation 5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

20665803

6. AUTHOR(S) 5c. PROJECT NUMBER

 D730 

Nelsen, John T.,II (Booz Allen Hamilton) and Akman, Allan (Akman

Associates, Inc)

5d. TASK NUMBER

 6900 

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER

C01

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

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

 and Social Sciences

5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

10. MONITOR ACRONYM

 ARI

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

Personnel Proponency Directorate,

Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, Training (ATTN: ATTG-P) 

Headquarters, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command

Ft. Monroe, VA 23651-1049

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER

Study Report 2002-06 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Dr. Elizabeth Brady, Contracting Officer’s Representative 

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): 

The purpose of this study was to analyze the meaning and implications of the Multi-Skilled Soldier (MSS) Concept and to 

assess the considerations for Army-wide implementation in order to provide a basis to make decisions whether or not to 

proceed with realization of the MSS Concept and, if so, how. The specific objectives were to analyze the Concept and its

implications generally for the Army and specifically for the Objective Force, to develop a Blueprint for use in defining and 

assessing potential MSS implementation and sustainment courses of action, to devise a Roadmap outlining major actions 

required for MSS implementation by 2008, to craft a Study Plan of research and analysis projects, including behavioral

research, necessary to support MSS implementation and sustainment, and to make pertinent conclusions and 

recommendations. This study relied heavily on non-attribution interviews conducted from August 2001 through January 

2002 with those involved in developing the concepts for the Objective Force and in fielding the initial Interim Brigade

Combat Teams (IBCTs). This report serves as a departure point for further research and development work relating to

crafting and assessing implementation and sustainment courses of action, as well as supporting personnel and training 

designs and associated best practices.

15. SUBJECT TERMS 

multi-skilled soldier; objective force; competency-based training; initial entry training; military occupational specialty

(MOS) redesign; MOS consolidation; interim force; distance learning

 

 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF

19. LIMITATION OF 

ABSTRACT

20. NUMBER

OF PAGES

21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

(Name and Telephone Number) 

16. REPORT

Unclassified 

17. ABSTRACT

Unclassified 

18. THIS PAGE

Unclassified Unlimited 

 

 69 Dr. Elizabeth Brady

703/617-0326

i
ii
Study Report 2002-06 

The Multi-Skilled Soldier Concept: 

Considerations for Army Implementation 

John T. Nelsen II 

Booz Allen Hamilton

Allan Akman 

Akman Associates, Inc.

Occupational Analysis Office 

Darrell Worstine, Chief 

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600 

April 2002 

Army Project Number Personnel Performance and 

20665803D730 Training Technology

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

iii
iv
FOREWORD 

The mission of ARI is to maximize individual and unit performance and readiness 

to meet the full range of worldwide Army missions through advances in the behavioral 

and social sciences. ARI is the Army’s primary laboratory conducting research and 

analysis on personnel performance, leader development, and training. Our focus is on 

the human element in the Army. Our research and analysis contributes to the entire life 

cycle of recruiting, selection, assignment, training, and mission performance. ARI also 

conducts studies and analyses to address short-term issues and respond to emerging

“hot topics” and provides technical assistance on critical issues affecting all parts of the 

Army. 

 In the spring of 2001, the Personnel Proponency Directorate, Deputy Chief of Staff, 

Training, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), Ft. Monroe, Virginia, 

asked ARI to analyze the emerging Multi-Skilled Soldier (MSS) Concept, the 

implementation of which was increasingly characterized by the Army leadership as a key 

enabler for the Objective Force. The MSS Concept had thus become one of those 

emerging topics in the human realm that demanded immediate attention and 

investigation. Specifically, we were asked to analyze the meaning and implications of the 

MSS Concept and to assess the considerations for Army-wide implementation. In 

response, we developed a Blueprint to assess potential courses of action; a Roadmap to 

identify generically the major actions required by the Army Leadership, the Personnel 

Community, and the Training Community to implement any course of action; and a 

Study Plan to outline those research and analysis projects, inclusive of behavioral 

research, that would assist most significantly in MSS personnel and training design. 

 Completed under contract to Booz Allen Hamilton and Akman Associates, Inc., 

this report was prepared under the direction of ARI’s Occupational Analysis Office. The 

report was envisioned as the initial phase of a multi-phase effort to assess the MSS 

Concept relative to the Objective Force and the future operational needs of the Army. 

The report thus lays a solid foundation for further research and development into 

organizational designs, supporting personnel and training systems, best practices, and 

course of action development for implementing and sustaining the MSS Concept in an 

effective and efficient manner.

 This report has been briefed to the Army’s Objective Force Task Force, the Army 

Development System XXI Implementation Workshop, and the Personnel Proponency

Directorate, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, Training, TRADOC. 

 ZITA M. SIMUTIS 

 Acting Director 

v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors deeply appreciate of the support and assistance they received at every 

stage of this project. In particular, they would like to thank the following for 

contributing invaluable and timely information through briefings, interviews, document

reviews, or other feedback mechanisms: Colonel Dave Cutler, Colonel Reuben Jones, 

Sergeant Major (SGM) Gary Dahl, and SGM Edmund P. Crivello, Jr. of the U.S. Army 

Development System (ADS)-XXI Task Force; Colonel Gary Petrole of the U.S. Army 

Objective Force Task Force, Arlington, Virginia; Mr. Robert Seger, Mr. William Briscoe, 

Mr. D.E. MacAllister, Ms. Diana Tierney, and SGM Daniel Hubbard of the Office of the 

Deputy Chief of Staff, Training, TRADOC, Ft. Monroe, Virginia; Mr. Bill Shugrue, Office 

of the Deputy Chief of Staff, Doctrine, TRADOC, Ft. Monroe, Virginia; Colonel William 

M. Long, G-7 (Transformation), I Corps, Ft. Lewis, Washington; Lieutenant Colonel John 

Zoccola, TRADOC Brigade Coordination Cell, Ft. Lewis, Washington; Mr. Bob Statz, Mr. 

Jim Hitchcock, Mr. Steve Starner, and Ms. Barbara Davenport at Booz Allen Hamilton, 

McLean Virginia; Mr. Roger Hansen at Booz Allen Hamilton, Ft. Lewis, Washington; 

and Mr. Darrell Worstein, Dr. Frank Moses, Dr. Mike Rumsey, Dr. Trueman Tremble, 

and Dr. Zita Simutis of the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social 

Sciences (ARI), Alexandria, Virginia. 

The authors also wish to recognize Dr. Kathy Quinkert from ARI’s Scientific 

Coordination Office at TRADOC Headquarters for her particularly salient contributions. 

She facilitated timely, multi-faceted interactions with the TRADOC staff and provided 

invaluable updates, insights, suggestions, and leads from both the TRADOC and ARI 

perspectives. 

We are especially grateful to Lieutenant Colonel Walter Parker, Chief Warrant 

Officer Five Debrah Henson, Mr. Orlando Jones, Mr. Ben Ellis, Mr. Jeff Colimon, and rest 

of the staff of the Personnel Proponency Directorate, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff,

TRADOC, Ft. Monroe, Virginia. LTC Parker and his office sponsored this study for ARI,

hosted several in-progress reviews, orchestrated superb, broad-based feedback

throughout the project, and arranged for a concluding project brief to be presented at the 

ADS-XXI Implementation Workshop in January 2002, the attendees at which included 

branch proponent representatives from across the Army. 

Finally, the authors wish to express their profound gratitude to Dr. Elizabeth 

Brady of ARI, who directed and facilitated this study in a most admirable and collegial 

fashion. Her guidance, support, assistance, cooperation, and insights helped enormously 

to advance this study in an impressively smooth, reasonable, rigorous, and deliberate 

manner. 

vi
THE MULTI-SKILLED SOLDIER CONCEPT: 

CONSIDERATIONS FOR ARMY IMPLEMENTATION 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Research Requirement: 

The Multi-Skilled Soldier (MSS) Concept has been increasingly characterized by 

senior Army leaders as a key human-dimension enabler in the construct of the Army’s

Objective Force. Specifically, multi-skilled soldiers are envisioned to provide increased 

overall skill depth and redundancy to Objective Force units in a fashion that allows both 

increased combined-arms capabilities within comparatively smaller units and enhanced 

unit resiliency in the event of casualties. However, there is currently no consensus 

within the Army on an exact definition of this concept, how it might be implemented, or 

the implications involved. Therefore, the Personnel Proponency Office under the Deputy

Chief of Staff, Training, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Ft. Monroe, 

Virginia, requested the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social 

Sciences (ARI) to conduct this study as the first phase of an extended assessment and 

analysis of the MSS Concept. This purpose of this initial effort was to analyze the 

meaning and implications of this concept and to assess the considerations for Army-wide 

implementation in order to provide the basis for the Army to make decisions whether or 

not to proceed with realization of the MSS Concept and, if so, how.

Procedure: 

The objectives of this study were to analyze the MSS Concept and its implications 

generally for the Army and specifically for the Objective Force, to develop a Blueprint for 

use in defining and assessing potential MSS implementation and sustainment courses of

action, to devise a Roadmap outlining major actions required for MSS implementation by

2008, to craft a Study Plan of research and analysis projects necessary to support MSS 

implementation and sustainment, and to make associated conclusions and 

recommendations. This study relied heavily on non-attribution interviews conducted 

from August 2001 through January 2002 with those involved in developing the concepts 

for the Objective Force and in fielding the initial Interim Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs). 

The target audience for this report is the Army Leadership in general, and the leaders of 

the Army’s Personnel and Training Communities in particular. 

vii
Findings: 

The MSS Concept can have quite different meanings for different people. Definitions 

often vary considerably, according to how one combines and prioritizes the notions 

generally associated with it: the additionally skilled soldier, the generic MOS soldier, the 

adaptable soldier, and the perpetually learning soldier. There is no official consensus 

definition of the MSS relative to the requirements of the Objective Force, and no 

integrated planning underway for comprehensive implementation. Yet, such

implementation, if pursued, would be one of the longer poles in the tent in standing up 

the Objective Force and would require complex planning and other preparatory efforts 

on the part of the Army Leadership, the Personnel Community, and the Training 

Community. In addition, virtually all discussion about the MSS has understandably 

revolved around the needs of the Objective Force. However, there is much merit to 

exploring a broader application across the entire force. The report makes the following

recommendations: 

The Army should expeditiously and authoritatively define the MSS Concept. 

The Army should expeditiously establish overall proponency for MSS realization, 

select a corresponding course of action from among several candidates, and put an 

integrated master implementation plan in place. 

The Army should structure MSS implementation and sustainment for optimal and 

parallel benefit of the Interim and Legacy Forces. 

The Army should conduct the necessary supporting research and analysis projects

to implement the MSS Concept effectively and efficiently. 

Utilization of Findings: 

Since MSS implementation requires long lead times, the Army must move out 

swiftly to have it in place for the first Objective Force units. If the Army decides to 

pursue this implementation, the Blueprint, Roadmap, and Study Plan developed in this 

report will prove very useful in guiding and focusing those efforts. Borrowing from

those documents and from the report’s recommendations, the immediate way ahead to 

MSS implementation involves developing an authoritative Army definition of the MSS

Concept, designating an overall proponent, developing implementation and sustainment 

courses of action for decision, crafting a master plan to drive execution, earmarking the 

necessary resources, initiating the research and analysis projects most central to effective 

and effective personnel and training re-designs, developing unit prototypes, building 

required skill databases, continuing with synchronized MOS consolidations, and 

tailoring the MOSC process for the MSS. The discussion of the MSS Concept, as well as 

the MSS Blueprint, Roadmap, and Study Plan, contained in this report, provide a generic,

phased approach for expediting the start of MSS implementation planning in the near 

term, regardless of the exact MSS definition that might be adopted at a later point. 

viii
THE MULTI-SKILLED SOLDIER CONCEPT: 

CONSIDERATIONS FOR ARMY IMPLEMENTATION 

CONTENTS

 Page 

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

 Purpose.................................................................................................1 

 Overview...............................................................................................2 

 Methodology...........................................................................................2 

THE MULTI-SKILLED SOLDIER CONCEPT......................................................3 

Traditional Army Approaches to Multi-Skilling..............................................3 

The Emerging Concept of the Multi-Skilled Soldier.........................................4 

 The Multi-Skilled Soldier and the Objective Force...........................................7 

 Basic Terms.............................................................................................8 

This Study’s Characterization of the Multi-Skilled Soldier.................................9 

 Implementation Imperatives......................................................................11 

Potential Impacts on the Training Paradigm.................................................12 

THE MULTI-SKILLED SOLDIER DEVELOPMENTAL BLUEPRINT......................14 

Force Design Component..........................................................................15 

MOS Design Component..........................................................................16 

Training design Component......................................................................18 

 Implementation Component......................................................................20 

 Sustainment Component...........................................................................22 

 Tradeoffs and Constraints........................................................................24 

THE MULTI-SKILLED SOLDIER ROADMAP...................................................24 

 Approach..............................................................................................25 

 Army Leadership....................................................................................27 

 Personnel Community.............................................................................29 

 Training Community...............................................................................31 

 

ix
CONTENTS (Continued) 

THE MULTI-SKILLED SOLDIER STUDY PLAN..................................................34 

 Approach................................................................................................34 

Immediate and Near-Term Research and Analysis Projects (2002-04)...................37 

Mid-Term Research and Analysis Projects (2004-06).........................................37 

Long-Term Research and Analysis Projects (2006-08).........................................37 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................39

 Conclusions.............................................................................................39 

 Recommendations.....................................................................................40

The Immediate Way Ahead........................................................................41 

REFERENCES...............................................................................................44 

APPENDIX A – List of Abbreviations and Acronyms..........................................A-1

APPENDIX B - Proposed Research and Analysis Project Descriptions......................B-1 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1 MSS Roadmap (Army Leadership)....................................................28 

Table 2 MSS Roadmap (Personnel Community) ............................................30 

Table 3 MSS Roadmap (Training Community)...............................................32 

Table 4 Immediate and Near-term Research and Analysis Projects.....................36 

Table 5 Mid-term and Long-term Research and Analysis Projects.......................38 

Table 6 Conclusions and Recommendations..................................................41 

Table 7 Compelling Immediate Actions........................................................43 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1 Strawman Training Paradigm ........................................................13 

Figure 2 MSS Developmental Blueprint........................................................15 

Figure 3 Force Design Component...............................................................16 

Figure 4 MOS Design Component...............................................................17 

Figure 5 Training Design Component ..........................................................19 

Figure 6 Implementation Component...........................................................20 

Figure 7 Sustainment Component ...............................................................23 

Figure 8 The MSS Roadmap Overview..........................................................26 

 Figure 9 Approach for Determining Studies...................................................35

x
THE MULTI-SKILLED SOLDIER CONCEPT: 

CONSIDERATIONS FOR ARMY IMPLEMENTATION 

INTRODUCTION 

The U.S. Army’s ongoing transformation process involves the fielding of a 

number of highly deployable Interim Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs). These units will 

serve alongside of so-called Legacy Force units (that is, traditionally organized and 

equipped units from the Cold War and immediate post-Cold War era), en route to the 

eventual reshaping of mainstream Army units into the Objective Force (OF). The first 

OF units are currently envisioned to start appearing in the Army’s force structure in

2008. However, what we today term Legacy and Interim Force units will likely serve 

alongside of the new OF units until well beyond 2010. Many fully expect the Army’s 

future force structure to reflect a mix of Legacy Force, Interim Force, and OF units until 

at least 2020. 

The Multi-Skilled Soldier (MSS) Concept has been repeatedly characterized by 

senior Army leaders as a key human-dimension enabler in the construct of the Army’s

OF. Specifically, multi-skilled soldiers are expected to provide increased overall skill 

depth and redundancy to OF units in a fashion that allows both increased organic 

combined-arms capabilities within comparatively smaller units and enhanced unit 

resiliency in the event of casualties. However, there is currently no consensus within 

the Army on an exact definition of this concept, how it might be implemented, or the 

implications involved. Therefore, in June 2001, the emerging Personnel Proponency 

Directorate within the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, Training, for the U.S. Army 

Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), Fort Monroe, Virginia, requested the U.S. 

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) to conduct this 

study as the first phase of an extended assessment and analysis of the MSS Concept. 

Purpose 

The purpose of this study was to analyze the meaning and implications of the 

MSS Concept and to assess the considerations for Army-wide implementation in order 

to provide a basis for the Army to make decisions whether or not to proceed with

realization of the MSS Concept and, if so, how. The target audience for this report is the 

Army Leadership in general, and the leaders of the Army’s Personnel and Training 

Communities in particular. It is they who ultimately must make the major decisions

about the MSS Concept for the Army and who must consider and decide upon the 

conclusions and recommendations of this report. 

 1
Overview 

First, this study provides background and discusses issues surrounding the MSS

Concept currently under consideration by the U.S. Army. It explores the various

perceptions of the MSS, the stated needs of the OF, implementation imperatives,

notional definitions of the MSS, and associated personnel and training implications. 

Second, it describes an MSS Developmental Blueprint, which frames a process 

that can be used to define the salient issues and factors the Army will have to address in 

formulating and assessing options, or courses of action, for implementing and 

sustaining an MSS Concept. This Blueprint is designed to assist in articulating the 

requirements for future soldier competencies, as well as a process for assessing options 

designed to produce considerably different skill sets for soldiers serving in maneuver, 

maneuver support, and maneuver sustainment units. In short, this process will provide 

a framework for a comprehensive, multi-dimensional analysis of the implications 

connected with whatever implementation and sustainment courses of action may be 

considered. 

Third, an MSS Roadmap and an MSS Study Plan are presented. The Roadmap is 

intended to outline the major actions required by the Army to examine, adopt, and 

implement an appropriate MSS Concept by 2008 and to sustain it thereafter. The 

companion Study Plan identifies those research and analysis questions and issues, 

inclusive of behavioral studies, deemed necessary to support an efficiently executed 

MSS implementation and sustainment master plan. 

The Blueprint, Roadmap, and Study Plan have been crafted in generic terms so

that they can be easily applied across a broad spectrum of possible MSS definitions to

assist significantly in advancing MSS implementation and sustainment planning. In 

other words, they outline the factors, actions, activities, projects, decisions, assessments, 

and other considerations common to actualizing any MSS conceptual definition that the 

Army might authoritatively adopt from among the possible permutations suggested by

this report. 

Methodology 

This study relies heavily on non-attribution briefings from, and interviews with, 

those involved in developing the concepts for the OF and in fielding the Army’s initial 

IBCTs. Those individuals had frequent contact with senior Army leaders and were 

intimately familiar with close-hold OF and IBCT requirements documents, as well as

related, dynamically emerging operational and organizational thinking. These 

interviews and briefings took place from August 2001 through January 2002. 

In most cases, the documents and briefings were still in draft form and thus not yet 

releasable to the public or to the authors. Particular attention was paid to the work and 

conceptual thinking of the Army Development System XXI Task Force (ADS-XXI TF),

the Objective Force Task Force (OFTF), those U.S. Army Training and Doctrine

 2
Command (TRADOC) Staff Directorates most engaged with the OF, and those at Ft. 

Lewis, Washington, working to field the first IBCTs. 

THE MULTI-SKILLED SOLDIER CONCEPT 

The MSS Concept is still clearly embryonic. Throughout the Army different 

organizations and individuals have disparate views of it. In general, most variations 

involve emphasizing or highlighting different aspects, sometimes to the exclusion of

others. At first blush, these differences often appear relatively minor. However, the 

nuances tend to influence thinking in quite different directions regarding future concept

development and implementation. In fact, whenever one is discussing the MSS 

Concept, it is prudent first to ask those involved to explain their understanding of the 

concept. Failing to do so often leads to miscommunication. 

Understanding these different conceptual constructs is therefore important in

developing a consensus definition of the MSS that can serve as a common departure 

point for possible implementation. Otherwise, the focus of this and future efforts might 

flounder on an inconsistent and confusing mixture of ideas. This section summarizes 

the various views that have emerged and concludes with an initial characterization of

an MSS Concept that is grounded in a set of terms and definitions. This

characterization of the MSS Concept will then serve as the basis for the MSS 

Developmental Blueprint, the MSS Roadmap, and the MSS Study Plan, as well as for 

further concept refinement and definition. 

Traditional Army Approaches to Multi-Skilling

The notion of developing soldiers with increasingly broader sets of basic skills is 

not new to the U.S. Army. Unit commanders have frequently attempted to cross-train

their soldiers so that they could expertly handle all the weapons in their platoons, not 

just their individually assigned weapon. In combat, for example, if an assigned 

machine gunner became a casualty, another soldier whose assigned weapon is a 

rifle/grenade launcher could step forward and immediately operate the machinegun 

proficiently. 

Unit commanders also have habitually resorted to assigning soldiers to positions 

requiring largely different sets of skills than those of their basic Military Occupational 

Specialty (MOS). In these cases, the soldiers generally learn their new skills through onthe-job training (OJT), whether formally or informally, and are frequently awarded a 

secondary MOS upon demonstrating proficiency in the new job. This is usually done 

principally for the needs of the unit, particularly when shortages in critically needed 

MOS occur. For example, an 11B (Infantryman) in a battalion may be assigned to the 

mortar platoon as a mortar crewman (MOS 11C, Indirect Fire Infantryman) when there 

are prolonged shortages of 11Cs and an abundance of 11Bs assigned. Similarly, an M-1 

Armor Crewman (MOS 19K) could be assigned to a position of Unit Supply Specialist 

 3
(MOS 92Y) in his company if that critical position became vacant and if the 92Y 

replacement flow were problematically slow. 

Broadening soldier skills has manifested itself in other ways. Frequently units 

strive to train their soldiers to perform tasks within their MOS at one or more higher 

skill levels. For instance, soldiers in a mortar platoon at Skill Level (SL) 1 (MOS 11C10) 

could be trained to perform tasks at SL 2 and 3 (MOS 11C20 and 11C30) in anticipation 

of promotion and to provide greater skill depth and redundancy in the unit. In this 

case, if a 11C30 became incapacitated during training or combat, a 11C20 in his squad 

could step up immediately to perform 11C30 duties competently while an 11C10 could 

simultaneously backfill him and perform 11C20 duties adequately. 

Another category of cross training involves teaching soldiers to perform carefully 

chosen sub-sets of tasks belonging to an entirely different MOS. For example, many 

units are generally required to train and certify a minimum number of their soldiers as 

combat lifesavers. These soldiers are trained in advanced combat lifesaving, first-aid 

tasks that, in essence, would encompass many but not all of the apprentice skills 

required of a formally trained Health Care Specialist (MOS 91W) [formerly known as 

medics] assigned to the battalion’s medical platoon. Since the Health Care Specialist is

a low-density MOS in a maneuver unit, he may not be quickly at the side of wounded 

or injured soldiers. Having a large number of combat lifesavers in the unit means that 

seriously hurt soldiers would more likely receive immediate and competent lifesaving 

care, even if Health Care Specialists could not reach them promptly.

Another traditional Army approach for developing multi-skilled soldiers

involves awarding a secondary MOS to soldiers, usually at the Non-Commissioned 

Officer (NCO) level. For example, an NCO who was initially an Infantryman (11B40) 

could acquire a secondary MOS (SMOS) from a long list of possibilities, such as Military 

Policeman (95B40), Imagery Analyst (MOS 96D40), Recruiter (MOS 79R40), or Career 

Counselor (MOS 79S40), just to name a few. 

The Emerging Concept of the Multi-Skilled Soldier 

Today’s MSS Concept, which is still evolving, encompasses several notions that 

differ considerably from much of the Army’s previous approaches to broadening

soldier skills. The feature of the MSS Concept that most differentiates it from previous 

efforts is that focuses on soldiers during their initial training experience. Previously, 

efforts at multi-skilling have occurred after initial entry training, and have typically 

focused on soldiers who have already become, or are about to become, NCOs 

Different organizations tend to group and emphasize the following main notions 

about the MSS in quite different ways, with the effect of creating a distinct spectrum of

definitional blends, end-state expectations, and institutional implications. Based on the 

interviews conducted, the following notions are the more pronounced and noteworthy: 

 4
1. The Additionally Skilled Soldier. One approach would focus principally on

training the soldier differently during his initial training base experience [the 

equivalent of today’s Basic Combat Training (BCT) and Advanced Individual 

Training (AIT)]. As a consequence, he would report to his initial unit of

assignment cross-trained in a carefully crafted blend of tasks considerably

different from those traditionally associated with his primary MOS. In most 

cases, this would involve skill sets drawn from MOS that are, in effect, low 

density within his assigned unit and combined-arms in nature since such tasks 

have been generally associated with different branch proponents in the past. For 

example, a soldier trained principally as an Infantryman (11B) in a maneuver 

unit might be cross-trained in a variety of selected sub-tasks that are today 

associated with one or more of the following MOS (at SL 1 or 2): Light Vehicle 

Repairman (MOS 63B), Bradley Fighting Vehicle System Mechanic (MOS 63T), 

Health Care Specialist (MOS 91W), Unit Supply Specialist (MOS 92Y), Petroleum 

Supply Specialist (MOS 77F), and Motor Transport Operator (MOS 88M), among 

others. While these MOS are may not be termed low-density across the Army, 

they are generally regarded as low-density in maneuver and maneuver support 

units. Different soldiers would be cross-trained in different sub-sets of tasks in a 

modular fashion. The principal responsibility for this cross training would 

reside with the Institutional Army, and not with the soldier’s first unit of

assignment. This MSS approach would be linked directly to the operational 

requirements of the future OF. In part, this means that the blending of skills a 

soldier acquires from the training base would be driven by the requirement to 

provide greater depth and redundancy of specific skills sets within the OF’s 

smallest self-sufficient unit, the Unit of Action. The Legacy Force and the IBCTs

could benefit as well from soldiers who receive such training. 

2. The Generic Soldier. This approach largely focuses on the desired results from

continuing MOS consolidations. Soldiers would become more MOS generic. 

They would reflect a selective consolidation of major MOS along the lines 

recently implemented for the infantry MOS to form a single generic infantry 

MOS, the 11B (reflecting the consolidation of the 11B traditional Infantryman, the 

11M Fighting Vehicle Infantryman, and the 11H Heavy Anti-Armor Weapons 

Infantryman). Using this methodology, the same kind of consolidation might be

applied to create other, more generic MOS, significantly reducing the number of

MOS. As an example, one might consider establishing a generic artilleryman, 

entitled the Indirect Fire Crewman. This crewman would be trained on the 

principles of operating indirect fire weapons, including the commonly

identifiable tasks and responsibilities of the crewmembers in servicing such 

systems, whether for a mortar, a towed artillery piece, a self-propelled howitzer, 

or a Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS). Such generic tasks would include 

laying in the guns, entering firing data on the guns or rocket system, cutting

charges, setting fuses, reacting to malfunctions, adhering to basic safety

procedures, adjusting fires, occupying a position, displacing, and the like. In 

addition, the Indirect Fire Crewman would be trained on representative indirect 

 5
firing systems (possibly an 81mm Mortar and a self-propelled 155 mm Howitzer) 

in significant enough detail to enable him not only to operate those specific

systems, but also, and just as importantly, to adapt quickly to serving as a 

crewman on similar but different indirect fire systems in the U.S. Army

inventory, whether in a Legacy, Interim, or OF unit. Once he understands the 

overarching principles, the soldier would be better suited and prepared to adapt 

rapidly to whatever indirect fire weapon with which his subsequent units of

assignment may be equipped. 

3. The Adaptable Soldier. Another approach frequently associated with the 

emerging MSS Concept focuses chiefly on developing soldiers with significantly 

enhanced capacities for adaptability, versatility, and mental flexibility. 

According to this notion, tomorrow’s multi-skilled soldiers are expected to

exhibit many of the creative and problem-solving qualities attributed to the 

emerging notion of the adaptive leader. In fact, many prefer the characterization 

of the adaptable soldier to that of the multi-skilled soldier. The focus of the 

training would be to instill in the soldier the mindset of adaptability, selfeducation, and problem solving as defining attributes. The notion here is that a 

soldier’s training provides not only skill sets to perform tasks effectively in given 

contexts, but the necessary attributes and orientation to adaptively and creatively 

apply existing knowledges and skills to deal successfully with new tasks in 

distinctly different situations. For many, this approach is termed competencybased, implying the ability to get things done, whatever they are, by adaptively 

employing existing inventories of knowledges, abilities, attitudes, and skills. 

Many argue that the most fundamental defining characteristic of the future 

multi-skilled soldiers should be the competency-based training they receive and 

subsequently apply as an ingrained approach to mission accomplishment. This 

competency-based approach is often juxtaposed to the Army’s traditional taskbased approach to training. By extension, this adaptive mindset would help steel 

soldiers psychologically in transitioning rapidly from one kind of mission to 

another along the range of military operations, thereby better contributing to

forging more resilient multi-functional units. 

4. The Perpetually Learning Soldier. This approach is increasingly referred to as 

that of life-long learning. It is fully compatible and complementary with the 

aforementioned notions of the additionally skilled soldier, the generic soldier,

and the adaptable soldier. Perpetually learning soldiers must be educated, 

trained, and motivated to deepen and broaden the skills they acquire in their

initial entry training and thereafter through never ending self-education, largely

featuring distributed training (DT) and distance learning (DL). This notion 

suggests that significant professional development incentives, both positive and 

negative, must be used to reward soldiers who seriously pursue self-learning 

throughout their careers and to penalize those who do not. Additionally it 

assumes that soldiers will have the necessary learning resources and mentoring 

consistently available to help focus and sustain self-education. It also assumes 

 6
that soldiers will have the time and energy to pursue self-study beyond the daily 

demands of job performance. Life-long learning is regarded by many as a silver 

bullet that can reduce risk in an aggressive approach to MOS consolidation. The 

central unresolved issue with this notion is how much one can reasonably expect 

from the average soldier regarding self-education, as well as the practical 

availability of resources required to establish and maintain such a truly 

comprehensive program. 

The Multi-Skilled Soldier and the Objective Force 

In the future, it is envisioned that our military units will have to be able to

transition more swiftly than ever before from one kind of mission to another (e.g., from 

a combat mission, to a humanitarian assistance mission, to a peacekeeping mission, and 

back to a combat mission.), both physically and mentally. The OF is being developed 

with this squarely in mind. The intent is to field a force that is so self-reliant, flexible, 

and adaptable that it can rapidly transition from one kind of operation to another with

minimal internal disruption or reconfiguration, deploy with unprecedented speed, and 

quickly dominate any situation. 

The fundamental unit building block is currently termed the Unit of Action. This 

will be a self-sufficient, combined-arms force with organic maneuver, maneuver

support, and maneuver sustainment capabilities. It must be capable of operating on an 

increasingly dispersed and non-linear battlefield. For this reason, its soldiers must 

possess an aggregate depth and redundancy in skills never before achieved in Army 

units of comparable size. The Unit of Action must be capable of accepting moderate

losses, especially in its low density MOS, without significantly degrading its capability 

to execute any of its basic combined-arms functions. At the same time, the size of this 

unit cannot swell to equal the size of an equivalent Legacy Force unit, which would 

require extensive attachments to give it the same redundancy and depth in combined 

arms capabilities. To remain rapidly strategically deployable and tactically mobile, the 

Unit of Action must remain as small as possible, consistent with the broad capabilities it 

must have. The multi-skilled, adaptive soldier is thus a key enabler for the Unit of

Action to operate resiliently and enduringly as an inherently self-sufficient, agile, 

combined arms force over comparatively extended distances. 

As OF units enter the force, they will be serving alongside of Legacy and Interim 

Force units for many years to come, posing an increasingly complex challenge for the 

training base and the individual soldier. This challenge will be heightened by the 

growing use of Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) technology to upgrade unit

technological capabilities swiftly. Training soldiers to operate specific pieces of

equipment, whether they are artillery howitzers or signal equipment, will be more and 

more problematic. The Army will likely have a growing number of types of equipment, 

many experimental, for different kinds of units. Therefore, training soldiers during 

their initial entry training in a way to facilitate adapting to the specific equipment items 

in their follow-on units of assignment makes a great deal of sense. This requires a 

 7
different training approach. Rather than training to operate a piece of equipment 

according to a memorized, step-by-step rote methodology, soldiers could be taught

more about principles of operation and associated problem-solving skills, along with 

how to use appropriate operator’s manuals and other key reference materials adroitly. 

In this way, soldiers completing initial entry training would be better prepared to

master quickly whatever major equipment items were prevalent in their follow-on units 

of assignment. Thus, the MSS Concept, in the minds of many, has enormous utility in 

this diverse organizational environment, with its growing equipment permutations. 

Basic Terms 

Much of the difficulty in gaining a consensus on a definition of the MSS revolves

around the language used. In many instances, terms and ideas that are quite distinct 

from one another are used interchangeably. This leads to MSS Concepts that sometimes

differ simply because of language and, at other times, appear similar but are 

substantially different. Among the terms that most often come into play when MSS

Concepts are being discussed are MOS, tasks, and skills and, to a lesser extent, 

knowledges and abilities. 

MOS has been the way jobs have been identified and described in the Army. In 

the MSS environment, the MOS would continue to represent the totality of a single job

performed by a soldier. The job could be described in terms of a number of different 

factors. The Army has traditionally defined jobs as comprising a given set of tasks. 

A task is a clearly defined and measurable activity accomplished by an 

individual soldier (TRADOC, 1999). Tasks can be grouped and categorized in various 

ways. For example, common tasks are those performed by all soldiers regardless of

their MOS. Branch-common tasks are those required of all soldiers whose MOS are 

associated with a given branch (e.g., infantry, artillery, armor, transportation, and the 

like). And MOS-specific tasks are those unique to a particular MOS. 

Associated with a task are knowledges, skills, and abilities (KSA), which are 

enablers in that they facilitate task performance. Knowledges can be learned. Skills can 

be trained. Abilities, because they are inherent to a person, are acquired by the Army 

through selection and recruiting. 

A knowledge consists of organized sets of principles and facts required to 

perform a task (Employment and Training Administration, 1999). A task may require 

more than a single knowledge, and a single knowledge may be required for a number 

of tasks. Knowledge has been used by the Army to assess the commonality among

MOS and could continue to be used as a discriminator in determining the feasibility of

restructuring MOS. However, MSS notions are not commonly described in terms of

knowledges. 

 8
Ability, like knowledge, is not often used in the context of describing the multiskilled soldier. Ability is an enduring attribute of an individual that influences task 

performance. Abilities are regarded as traits in that they exhibit some degree of

stability over relatively long periods of time. Examples include oral comprehension, 

written expression, memorization, manual dexterity, vision, and hearing sensitivity, 

among others. 

The term skill is central to any discussion of the MSS Concept. A skill is a 

developed capacity to perform tasks, predicated in part on the individual’s possession

of relevant underlying knowledge and abilities. Examples of skills include reading 

comprehension, writing, critical thinking, problem identification, troubleshooting, 

judgment and decision making, and time management. 

The notion of competency is increasingly used in reference to the MSS Concept. 

The ADS-XXI TF defined competency as the ability to perform in a given context and 

the capacity to transfer knowledge and skills to new tasks and situations. Attributes 

such as knowledges, skills, abilities, and attitudes, in combination, underlie 

competence. 

This Study’s Characterization of the Multi-Skilled Soldier 

The Army’s pursuit of a more multi-skilled soldier derives most directly from

thinking about soldier requirements for the Unit of Action, the fundamental, standalone unit building block of the OF. A Unit of Action will have a much smaller

organizational footprint than today’s units of comparable capability. The belief is that 

this can be accomplished, in part, by developing more adaptive soldiers—soldiers who

can competently perform additional tasks beyond those traditionally defined by their 

MOS. The goal is to increase task commonality with respect to various MOS subsets so

that more soldiers can perform more tasks, thereby providing much more skill depth 

and redundancy, especially for low-density, high-impact MOS. This would apply, for 

example, to infantry soldiers able to perform as super combat lifesavers or fuel 

handlers, when such specialists are incapacitated, otherwise unavailable, or

overwhelmed temporarily by a workload surge. 

The real impetus for the multi-skilled soldier is to have a soldier who is 

exceptionally adaptable and can adequately perform a greater variety of tasks on the 

battlefield. While having soldiers with more skills will facilitate that, the soldier may 

also need to have more abilities and more knowledges. So, although the focus here is 

on the multi-skilled soldier, the other enablers also must be accounted for in the design 

of the future soldier. The key is establishing the requirements for what soldiers must be 

able to do in future Units of Action. Defining those requirements will, in turn, lead to

an identification of the mix of knowledges, skills, and abilities that the soldier must 

have. Knowing the KSA requirements sets the stage for defining selection and 

recruiting, teaching, and training. 

 9
Understanding tasks and KSA helps explain the various depictions of the MSS. 

Depending upon the formulation, the soldier being described may have more skills, 

knowledges, and abilities than presently. Certainly, a fundamental assertion of the MSS 

Concept is that more KSA will enable soldiers to perform a greater variety of tasks. So, 

while various examples may involve soldiers with more abilities, more knowledges, or

more skills than is currently the case, ultimately the goal is to have soldiers who can 

perform more tasks. In essence, the multi-skilled soldier, if the Army’s soldier goals are 

to be achieved, is a multi-KSA soldier. This study thus characterizes the MSS Concept 

as follows: 

1. First and foremost, the multi-skilled soldier is one who may be recruited from a 

pool having a different ability set than current recruits and who emerges from

the initial institutional training experience (tomorrow’s equivalent of BCT and 

AIT) better trained in the base MOS knowledges and skills required for his first 

troop assignment than today’s soldier. The training would be more generic, as 

discussed above, resulting from a degree of consolidation of today’s MOS 

structure. 

2. The generic training the soldier receives for his base MOS would emphasize a 

competency-based training approach wherever possible. The soldier would train 

on representative equipment systems, with a primary emphasis on how to adapt 

rapidly to similar but different systems throughout his functional area. The 

intent is to produce a more thinking soldier, partially by employing different 

selection criteria and partially by implementing a mainstream training approach 

which is much less rote-based and much more competency-based or

comprehension-based. Much of this training would cover overarching principles 

with the intent of instilling in the soldier a broader understanding of the 

dynamics of equipment operations, techniques, and procedures. It would also 

focus specifically on how to apply these skill sets in diverse situations. This

would enable the soldier to apply his skills adaptively and creatively to

equipment and situations beyond just the ones to which he has been specifically 

exposed in previous training experiences. Thus, the soldier’s training would be 

focused on how to expand his skill and knowledge sets, both adaptively in new 

challenging job situations and also through parallel self-study, along functional 

lines to meet unit needs. Armed with this considerably broadened 

understanding, the soldier would be better equipped, psychologically and 

otherwise, for the kind of problem solving and aggressive, perpetual selflearning associated with increased skill set adaptability for dynamic situations. 

Key would be teaching the soldier how to pursue self-training to deepen, 

broaden, and sustain all his skills once he completes initial entry training. 

3. At the same time, the soldier would be trained on additional skills and taught 

additional knowledges which fall outside the scope of today’s base MOS. The 

soldier would receive carefully selected subsets of apprentice-level skills and 

knowledges associated with other MOS, most of which are associated with other 

 10
branches in today’s frame of reference. The main purpose is to provide increased 

combined-arms skill depth and redundancy, particularly for low-density MOS, 

in Table of Organization and Equipment (TOE) units. The principal driving force 

for the groupings of these skill sets would be the operational needs of the OF’s 

Unit of Action. However, the MOS design would also promise to enhance 

combined-arms skill depth and redundancy for Interim and Legacy Force units 

as well. 

4. Once he joins his first TOE unit, the multi-skilled soldier would be expected to

sustain and deepen his skills and knowledges, relative to both his base MOS and 

the additional sets of skills and knowlegdes received from initial entry training. 

Much of the effort to do so would fall on the shoulders of the individual soldier,

who would be expected to pursue skill and knowledge growth both through unit 

training experiences and energetic self-study, validating success via tests and 

other certifications. Career development incentives would reward soldiers who

do so and penalize those who do not. 

Implementation Imperatives 

Many senior Army leaders see great promise in pursuing the MSS Concept. 

However, based on a number of interviews, the following imperatives appear under 

serious consideration as parameters for devising implementation approaches. 

1. The Concept should be implemented in a way that does not lengthen the amount

of time a new soldier spends in his initial entry training (the equivalent of

today’s BCT and AIT) before joining his first regular unit. This is usually 

expressed in terms of keeping the Trainees, Transients, Holdees, and Students 

(TTHS) account from increasing. 

2. The Concept should be implemented in a fashion that does NOT transfer an 

increased burden to field commanders for individual training. The philosophy 

that the Institutional Army trains individual soldiers, while field commanders 

train their units must be upheld. It is broadly recognized that conceptually there 

is a limit to the amount of individual enhancement training unit commanders 

can assume without having a major adverse effect on the aggregate quality of

collective training and, hence, on unit readiness. 

3. The MSS Concept is different from the current system by which enlisted soldiers

or NCOs acquire a secondary MOS. The MSS Concept relates primarily to the 

training soldiers receive before joining their first regular units, as well as during

their initial assignment there (i.e., before they are promoted to NCO rank). 

4. Implementation of this Concept should involve a heavy emphasis on DL and DT

to broaden and sustain designated skill subsets. The implication here is that 

soldiers must be educated how to train themselves once they depart initial entry 

 11
training and join their first field units, as well as motivated to take personal 

responsibility and initiative for such learning. In the process, they must be 

thoroughly acquainted with accessing and employing the DL tools at their 

disposal. Soldiers must be professionally rewarded for following through with

such DL training, and penalized for not doing so. 

Potential Impacts on the Training Paradigm 

One of the areas most affected by the implementation of the MSS Concept will be 

the training base, particularly that part of the Institutional Army responsible for

conducting initial entry training and all subsequent schoolhouse training. In the future, 

the Institutional Army’s role in distributed training will become increasingly pivotal for

sustaining and broadening soldier skills after initial entry training. Of course, there are 

many options for the potential implementation of the MSS Concept in the Army. For 

example, the concept could be implemented only for OF units. Or the concept could be 

implemented for all soldiers undergoing initial entry, regardless of whether their 

follow-on assignments will be to OF, Interim Force, or Legacy Force units. In addition, 

the concept could be implemented over a short period of time in the next few years, or

it could be implemented in an incremental, evolutionary fashion in phases over time. In 

short, different options (also termed approaches or courses of action) would have 

different impacts on the training base. There is no doubt, however, that any effort to

implement this Concept would likely have a major impact. The only question is the 

degree, duration, and character of that impact. 

For illustrative purposes, a new training paradigm was presented as a strawman 

during the study’s interviews to spur discussion. This paradigm was intended as a 

potential training approach, or course of action, with regard to institutional re-design of

training in connection with MSS Concept realization. Virtually every discussant 

responded favorably, finding in the new paradigm great resonance with current

thinking. The elements of this paradigm are outlined in Figure 1. 

The first element in the paradigm is termed Warrior Training (WT), and replaces 

today’s BCT. However, its intent is to provide all soldiers, regardless of eventual MOS, 

with a common base of mentally and physically challenging infantry and other

common-skill training to serve as a foundation for their entire military careers. This 

approach is akin to the Marine Corps’ approach that every Marine is a Marine first and 

foremost. Warrior Training is thus intended to instill the cultural value that every 

soldier is first and foremost a war fighter trained in basic infantry skills. In this regard, 

Warrior Training could become the rite of passage for becoming a soldier. At 

graduation, for example, every trainee could be awarded his first black beret as an 

outward sign of having earned full soldier status. 

The next element is titled Advanced Training (AVT) and replaces today’s AIT. 

Like AIT, this training is focused initially on the soldier’s base MOS skills. Unlike AIT, 

however, this training is conducted along the lines of traditional schoolhouse training. 

 12
Warrior

Training

(WT)

Advanced

Training

(AVT)

Additional 

Skills 

Training

(AST)

Unit-specific 

Training

(UST)

Routine Unit

Training

Self-Study and

Distance Learning

(DL)

•Initial Entry Training in the Training Base

•No Longer than today’s BCT & AIT

•Post-Assignment Training

Warrior

Training

(WT)

Advanced

Training

(AVT)

Additional 

Skills 

Training

(AST)

Unit-specific 

Training

(UST)

Routine Unit

Training

Self-Study and

Distance Learning

(DL)

•Initial Entry Training in the Training Base

•No Longer than today’s BCT & AIT

•Post-Assignment Training

Figure 1. Strawman Training Paradigm 

As one discussant termed it, this is designed to promote learning with a more 

professional atmosphere without doing pushups with a Drill Instructor yelling in your

ear. The notion here is that the individual has already proven himself to be a soldier. 

He has completed his initial rite of passage. The purpose in Advanced Training is to 

learn as much about the MOS as possible in such a way as to produce the thinking, 

perpetual-learning soldier discussed previously. This does not mean that such training 

would be easy. Tough, challenging, purposeful field training would be conducted, as 

needed, to impart the necessary skills. As previously described, the soldiers would be 

trained more generically than today in their base MOS and would receive training on

representative equipment they might encounter in their first subsequent unit of

assignment. At the same time, they would be trained how to adapt to whatever specific 

equipment was on hand in those units. At some point in AVT, soldiers would receive 

modular Additional Skills Training (AST) in one or more subsets of skills associated 

currently with other MOS to provide the combined-arms, multi-skilled dimension to

their training. Each designated module would receive a pre-designated percentage of 

the soldiers in each AVT class for training, based upon the predetermined needs of the 

Unit of Action for skill depth and redundancy. 

 13
Following AVT and AST or appended to it would be Unit-Specific Training

(UST). This training is the last training a soldier would receive before reporting to his 

first subsequent unit of assignment and would be geared to the major equipment 

actually found in that unit. Consider, for example, the case of an Indirect Fire Crewman 

trained on representative artillery systems in AVT, say the 81mm Mortar and the 

155mm Towed Howitzer, who received a follow-on assignment to an artillery unit 

equipped with 155mm Self-Propelled Paladin Howitzers. UST would involve a short, 

intensive course, perhaps lasting one or two weeks, focused on the specifics of crewing

the Paladin Howitzer and designed to prepare the soldier to pass the crew certification 

test that his new unit will invariably administer before allowing him to participate in 

live fire exercises. It could be conducted at the same location as AVT; it could be 

conducted en route to the unit assignment following AVT; or it could be conducted at

the installation where the soldier will be assigned by TRADOC teams. In any event, the 

soldier would report to his new unit better prepared than today to contribute to its

mission accomplishment, both from the perspective of his base MOS and from the 

perspective of the additional skills sets acquired beyond the base MOS. This UST 

approach is intended to meet approximately the same requirements that TRADOC ‘s

current program of Assignment Oriented Training (AOT) is being developed to

address. 

The final element of this training paradigm involves the training each soldier 

receives in his new unit of assignment. This would have two dimensions. First, it

would involve individual and collective training conducted by the unit on a routine 

basis. Second, it would involve considerable individual study by the soldier to deepen 

and sustain the skills received in WT and AVT, including those skill sets external to the 

base MOS learned in the AST portion of AVT. DL would play a crucial resource role in 

this effort. TRADOC would have to develop standard courses and other training

packages to support this approach, which would require some unit participation, 

especially for critical hands-on training and certifications. The soldier who progresses 

in this DL-centric approach would be richly rewarded in career progression, while the 

soldier who fails to progress would be significantly penalized. Of course, appropriate 

safeguards would have to be in place to prevent soldiers on extended deployments

from being penalized in career progression if they are unable to meet the required DL 

progression gates specifically because of the circumstances of those deployments. 

THE MULTI-SKILLED SOLDIER DEVELOPMENTAL BLUEPRINT 

While enthusiasm for the Concept of the Multi-Skilled Soldier is clearly gaining 

steam, its development still remains at a relatively embryonic stage. A full 

implementation of the MSS Concept across the Army would be a potentially complex 

and costly undertaking. For that reason, a number of potential courses of action, or 

approaches, will likely be considered for implementation. 

 14
The purpose of the MSS Developmental Blueprint shown in Figure 2 is to assist

and guide that process by suggesting the more salient considerations that should be 

addressed in any comprehensive implementation scheme. It is intended to provide 

Army personnel and training planners a process model to identify the key elements, 

tradeoffs, and constraints necessary to make decisions leading to multi-skilled soldiers. 

Figure 2. MSS Developmental Blueprint 

Implementation 

Component

Sustainment

Component

Training 

Design

Component

MOS Design 

Component

Force

Design 

Component

Feedback

Implementation 

Component

Sustainment

Component

Training 

Design

Component

MOS Design 

Component

Force

Design 

Component

Feedback

Five major components are featured in the MSS Developmental Blueprint: force 

design, MOS design, training design, implementation, and sustainment. The process 

starts with a determination of the force design and proceeds to crafting an MOS 

structure to support the requirements of that force design. The results drive an 

assessment of the implications for the existing training paradigm and the adjustments, 

or even re-design, that may be required to implement the new MOS design. The next 

components of this MSS Blueprint address the considerations for implementing and 

sustaining the new MOS design throughout the institution. Each of the five

components is detailed below. 

Force Design Component

Figure 3 details the process by which force design and force structuring occur. 

That process begins with an exhaustive assessment of the future operational 

environment and the implications for the employment of military forces. Then, 

operational concepts are developed to deploy and employ forces in the most military 

efficient manner possible to accomplish anticipated missions. Ongoing efforts to craft

the operational concepts for the OF are a vivid example of this activity. Once a set of 

operational concepts is in place, the next step is to develop and test force structures that 

can best execute those concepts across the full spectrum of operations. Next, force 

structuring takes place in a fiscally constrained environment to determine the mix of

traditional, transitional, and new units that best meets the needs of the force. Costs and 

 15
tradeoffs get full attention here, as well as any associated risk connected with not

fielding the optimum force. The next step is to consider a supporting job structure to

support the force, with particular attention to re-designed and newly fielded unit

structures. 

Constraints Tradeoffs

• Threats

• Spectrum of

Operations

• Effects of

Technology

• Demographic Changes

• Salient

Operational 

Challenges

• Wild Cards

• Scenarios

• Risks

• Battlefield

Requirements

Range of Military Operations

Future

Operational 

Environment

6

MultiFunctional

Units

• Joint & Army

Visions

• Deployment

Parameters

• Employment

Parameters

• Joint & Combined

Considerations

• Combined Arms

Requirements

• Key Operational 

Imperatives

• Maneuver

Concept

• Maneuver

Support Concept

• Maneuver

Sustainment

Concept

• C4 Concepts

Operational 

Concepts

• Unit Missions

• Unit Functions

• Equipment &

Materiel

• Lateral 

Relationships

• Vertical

Relationships

• Leadership

Structure

• TOE Design

• Doctrinal

Development

• Unit Strengths

• Unit Limitations

Force

Design

• Types & Mixes 

of Units Needed

• Budgetary

Considerations/

Affordability

• Costs & 

Tradeoffs

• Overall Joint

Capabilities

• Strategic Risk

Force

Structuring

Constraints Tradeoffs

• Threats

• Spectrum of

Operations

• Effects of

Technology

• Demographic Changes

• Salient

Operational 

Challenges

• Wild Cards

• Scenarios

• Risks

• Battlefield

Requirements

Range of Military Operations

Future

Operational 

Environment

Future

Operational 

Environment

6

MultiFunctional

Units

MultiFunctional

Units

• Joint & Army

Visions

• Deployment

Parameters

• Employment

Parameters

• Joint & Combined

Considerations

• Combined Arms

Requirements

• Key Operational 

Imperatives

• Maneuver

Concept

• Maneuver

Support Concept

• Maneuver

Sustainment

Concept

• C4 Concepts

Operational 

Concepts

Operational 

Concepts

• Unit Missions

• Unit Functions

• Equipment &

Materiel

• Lateral 

Relationships

• Vertical

Relationships

• Leadership

Structure

• TOE Design

• Doctrinal

Development

• Unit Strengths

• Unit Limitations

Force

Design

Force

Design

• Types & Mixes 

of Units Needed

• Budgetary

Considerations/

Affordability

• Costs & 

Tradeoffs

• Overall Joint

Capabilities

• Strategic Risk

Force

Structuring

Force

Structuring

Figure 3. Force Design Component 

MOS Design Component 

The second component of the MSS Developmental Blueprint is MOS Design. 

Based on multi-functional units or units of action, job requirements can be formulated. 

The concept of duties as used in DA PAM 611-21, Military Occupational Classification 

and Structure (Department of the Army[DA], 1999) will be used as a means for

describing job requirements. These link unit functional requirements to soldier job 

performance. 

The goal of the MOS Design described here is to create a job structure that meets 

the requirements along the range of military operations in a way consistent with the 

existence of the OF, the Interim Force, and the Legacy Force. The general notion is to 

define a set of jobs that can be linked to the range of military operations. 

Future Army requirements pose a rather complex set of conditions for the Army

job structure. The structure must be flexible and scalable, accommodate different force 

 16
structures, respond to a variety of contingencies, be a positive and reinforcing factor in 

soldier performance and career development, and be managed efficiently, timely, and 

accurately by Army personnel and training planners and managers. 

Figure 4 portrays the concepts underlying this component. The steps in this

component can be described, from left to right. Analysis of the job structure begins 

based on an enumeration of the multi-functional units required to respond to a mix of

operations along the range of military operations. Associated with these units is a set of

functions. To accomplish the functions, soldiers must perform certain duties. 

Statements of duties are similar in format to those found in DA PAM 611-21 and 

describe work that soldiers must perform. 

Soldier Attributes

• ASVAB

• Skills

• Abilities

Cognitive

Perceptual

Psychomotor

Flexibility & Coordination

Strength & Stamina

• Mental Category

• PULHES

• Educational Level

• Gender

• Worker Attitudes

Work Orientation

Dependability

• Skill Decay - Perishability

Job Requirement Variables

• Tasks

Common Tasks

MOS-Specific Tasks

New Technology- Driven Tasks

Critical Tasks

Task Performance: Frequency, Difficulty, Task Time, Conditions

• Knowledge Requirements

• Skill Reequirements

• Ability Requirements

Cognitive

Perceptual

Psychomotor

Flexibility & Coordination

Strength & Stamina

• Physical Demands

• PULHES

• Gender

• Tools and TMDE

• Special Requirements, e.g., Clearance

Job 

Requirements

Soldier

Attributes

Tradeoffs

Constraints

MultiFunctional 

Units

Major Duties

A multi-functional

unit is responsible 

for a set of WF

functions.

Associated with each 

function is a set of

duty requirements

(similar to DA Pam

611-21 format).

The sets of duty

requirements are 

translated into a set 

of job (MOS) 

requirements that

are defined by a set

of attributes.

Soldiers in the

existing force or new

recruits have certain 

mental and physical

attributes.

A proposed job (MOS) 

structure can be derived 

by balancing and making 

tradeoffs between 

constraints with respect to

job requirements and 

soldier attributes.

1

2

3

4

5

Proposed Job 

Structure

Function

Soldier Attributes

• ASVAB

• Skills

• Abilities

Cognitive

Perceptual

Psychomotor

Flexibility & Coordination

Strength & Stamina

• Mental Category

• PULHES

• Educational Level

• Gender

• Worker Attitudes

Work Orientation

Dependability

• Skill Decay - Perishability

Job Requirement Variables

• Tasks

Common Tasks

MOS-Specific Tasks

New Technology- Driven Tasks

Critical Tasks

Task Performance: Frequency, Difficulty, Task Time, Conditions

• Knowledge Requirements

• Skill Reequirements

• Ability Requirements

Cognitive

Perceptual

Psychomotor

Flexibility & Coordination

Strength & Stamina

• Physical Demands

• PULHES

• Gender

• Tools and TMDE

• Special Requirements, e.g., Clearance

Job 

Requirements

Soldier

Attributes

Tradeoffs

Constraints

MultiFunctional 

Units

Major Duties

A multi-functional

unit is responsible 

for a set of WF

functions.

Associated with each 

function is a set of

duty requirements

(similar to DA Pam

611-21 format).

The sets of duty

requirements are 

translated into a set 

of job (MOS) 

requirements that

are defined by a set

of attributes.

Soldiers in the

existing force or new

recruits have certain 

mental and physical

attributes.

A proposed job (MOS) 

structure can be derived 

by balancing and making 

tradeoffs between 

constraints with respect to

job requirements and 

soldier attributes.

1

2

3

4

5

Proposed Job 

Structure

Proposed Job 

Structure

Function

Figure 4. MOS Design Component 

The duties can be organized into a set of job (MOS) requirements that can be 

described in terms of job-related attributes. Key among these is a set of tasks and 

related task performance attributes, knowledge requirements, and ability and skill 

requirements. There are others as well, including physical demands, gender, tools, test 

and measurement devices and equipment (TMDE), and special requirements. Not all 

factors are necessarily critical for consideration. In all cases, these attributes represent

"requirements" that are embedded in the jobs that are required to satisfy the needs of 

multi-functional units.

 17
The requirements do not necessarily define the job structure. Soldiers possess

certain knowledges, skills, and abilities (KSA), of which some are inherent and others

result from education and training. Some of these soldier attributes may be constraints

with respect to job requirements. For example, future Army jobs may require greater 

cognitive ability than current jobs as a result of the introduction of more technologybased equipment. The recruiting pool might be characterized by a potential enlistee 

population without the requisite level of cognitive ability. In that case, cognitive 

abilities might be a constraint on the job structure design and, therefore, tradeoffs 

would have to be considered. 

As a practical matter, analysts using the MSS Developmental Blueprint to design

a new job structure, be it focused on multi-skilled soldiers or other concepts, need to

isolate those job requirement variables and soldier attributes that are most critical. 

Their analyses would focus on the critical elements with secondary consideration given 

to other factors considered consequential. 

A key in the job structure design is that jobs must be defined in terms of

variables that lend themselves to scaling in response to changing mission requirements. 

The commonalities in terms of task sets, KSA, and other attributes need to be made 

visible so that planners can aggregate and disaggregate jobs with minimal disruption

and loss of effectiveness. 

Training Design Component 

Once a job structure has been determined, attention must focus on developing a 

corresponding training concept. The approach to formulating a training concept should 

be compatible and supportive of TRADOC's approach to training, as outlined in 

TRADOC Regulation 350-70, Systems Approach to Training Management [SAT], 

Processes, and Products, which would be used in the course of training development 

(TRADOC, 1999). At this stage, the objective is to develop the basic training concepts. 

Figure 5 illustrates the basic approach for arriving at a training concept design. 

The principal driver is the job structure formulated in the preceding component. 

Training requirements to support the job structure must be defined. There are both 

collective and individual training requirements. In regard to individual training, there 

is an existing model based on BCT, AIT, the Primary Leadership Development Course 

(PLDC), the Basic NCO Course (BNCOC), and the Advanced NCO Course (ANCOC). 

Alternative approaches have been discussed during the course of the Army's

transformation planning. One alternative is based on warrior training, functional 

qualification training, unit-specific training, and self-development training. Whichever 

approach is chosen, there will be training requirements depicted in terms of training 

objectives, content, course length, among other parameters. Taken together, these 

requirements conceptually portray the training demands associated with the job

structure. 

 18
Training Technology

• Distance Learning

• Embedded Training

• Web-Based Training

• Other Technologies 

Alternative Training Models

• Alternative #1

AIT

BNCOC

ANCOC

• Alternative #2

Warrior Training

Functional Qualification Training

Assignment Oriented Training

Self-Development Training

Training

requirements are 

derived based on the 

proposed job 

structure.

Requirements can 

be met through a 

combination of

training resources 

and technology.

A proposed training

concept can be derived by

balancing and making 

tradeoffs between 

constraints with respect to

training requirements,

training resources and 

training technology.

1

3

4

6

Collective 

Training

Requirements

Training

Technology

Tradeoffs

Proposed

Training

Concept Design

Proposed Job 

Structure

Training Resources

• Training Facilites

• Trainers

• Training Equipment

• Training Technology

• TTHS Training 

Resources

Approach to training 

design should be 

compatible with TRADOC 

Reg 350-70, Systems 

Approach to Training

(SAT) --- basically, a SATlite approach aimed at

formulating basic training 

concepts and strategies,

not a full-fledged training 

design.

A training model

needs to be 

selected; research 

required to

determine if the

current approach 

should be replaced

or modified.

2

Individual

Training 

Requirements

DoD Joint 

Training 

Requirements

Constraints

Training Technology

• Distance Learning

• Embedded Training

• Web-Based Training

• Other Technologies 

Alternative Training Models

• Alternative #1

AIT

BNCOC

ANCOC

• Alternative #2

Warrior Training

Functional Qualification Training

Assignment Oriented Training

Self-Development Training

Training

requirements are 

derived based on the 

proposed job 

structure.

Requirements can 

be met through a 

combination of

training resources 

and technology.

A proposed training

concept can be derived by

balancing and making 

tradeoffs between 

constraints with respect to

training requirements,

training resources and 

training technology.

1

3

4

6

Collective 

Training

Requirements

Training

Technology

Tradeoffs

Proposed

Training

Concept Design

Proposed Job 

Structure

Training Resources

• Training Facilites

• Trainers

• Training Equipment

• Training Technology

• TTHS Training 

Resources

Approach to training 

design should be 

compatible with TRADOC 

Reg 350-70, Systems 

Approach to Training

(SAT) --- basically, a SATlite approach aimed at

formulating basic training 

concepts and strategies,

not a full-fledged training 

design.

A training model

needs to be 

selected; research 

required to

determine if the

current approach 

should be replaced

or modified.

2

Individual

Training 

Requirements

DoD Joint 

Training 

Requirements

Constraints

Figure 5. Training Design Component 

The training demands must be weighed against the training resources and 

technology that are available to the Army. The training resources include facilities, 

trainers, training equipment, and training technology. Additionally, a key factor on the 

supply side is the TTHS account. Training technology can also be used to formulate the 

training strategy supporting the preliminary job structure. Advances in distance 

learning, embedded training, web-based training, and other technologies may leverage

Army training resources, facilitating a different and perhaps more effective training 

effort supporting future job structures. 

In order to match requirements with resources and technology, consideration

must be given to constraints and tradeoffs. Constraints exist when combinations of 

resources and technology are not sufficient to meet the training requirements. In these 

instances, there may be shortfalls in meeting the demands. Or, there may be tradeoffs

that will allow the Army to accommodate its needs. One particular consideration, the 

import of which will depend on particular situations, is the extent to which the Army 

has responsibility for training members of other Services. 

 19
After consideration of requirements, resources, and technology, a training

concept design results from this component. This concept must then be considered in 

relation to the proposed MOS structure. 

Implementation Component 

Resolving issues pertaining to job structure design and training concept design

do not, by themselves, complete the task of creating an improved job structure. 

Another major consideration that must be addressed is the transition from one structure 

to another. Implementation does not necessarily prevent adopting a new job structure 

but costs, delays, and disruptions may require tailoring the new job structure to

minimize negative impacts. Figure 6 identifies implementation issues that must be 

considered and accommodated within the scope of the proposed job structure. Seven 

different areas require consideration. 

Constraints Tradeoffs

Personnel

Proponent Life

Cycle Mgt

Functions

Structure

Grade Structure

TOE/TDA Organization

Classification Criteria

Acquisition

Accession Criteria

Accession Numbers

Recall Criteria

Individual Training

Distribution

Inventory

SIMOS

Unit Development

Sustainment

Professional Development

Separation

Position Data Analysis

Personnel Data Analysis

MOCS Identifier - Duties 

and Task Analysis

Training Needs Analysis

Physical Demands

Analysis

Recruiting Impacts 

Analysis

Standards of Grade 

Analysis and

Development

Position Document and 

Personnel

Reclassification

Guidance

Background and 

Rationale

MOCS Process

Personnel

Management

Information 

Systems

ASI/SQI Tracking

Multi-Skill Soldier

Management and 

Control

Resources

Implementation 

Budget

Personnel

Planners and 

Managers

How can the existing 

MOCS process be used to 

convert existing MOS to

MOS in the proposed job 

structure?

2

How does the Army

transition from its existing

job structure to the 

proposed job structure?

What are the impacts on 

current soldiers resulting

from a change in job 

structures? How are 

existing soldier capabilities

reflected in the proposed 

job structure? What may

be lost?

1

Soldier 

Impacts

Training 

Impacts

Transition

Facilities

TDE

Training 

Development

Other Impacts

Army Reserves

Army National Guard

Civilians

Contractors

Joint Operability

Proposed

Training 

Design

Proposed Job 

Structure

Constraints Tradeoffs

Personnel

Proponent Life

Cycle Mgt

Functions

Structure

Grade Structure

TOE/TDA Organization

Classification Criteria

Acquisition

Accession Criteria

Accession Numbers

Recall Criteria

Individual Training

Distribution

Inventory

SIMOS

Unit Development

Sustainment

Professional Development

Separation

Personnel

Proponent Life

Cycle Mgt

Functions

Personnel

Proponent Life

Cycle Mgt

Functions

Structure

Grade Structure

TOE/TDA Organization

Classification Criteria

Acquisition

Accession Criteria

Accession Numbers

Recall Criteria

Individual Training

Distribution

Inventory

SIMOS

Unit Development

Sustainment

Professional Development

Separation

Position Data Analysis

Personnel Data Analysis

MOCS Identifier - Duties 

and Task Analysis

Training Needs Analysis

Physical Demands

Analysis

Recruiting Impacts 

Analysis

Standards of Grade 

Analysis and

Development

Position Document and 

Personnel

Reclassification

Guidance

Background and 

Rationale

MOCS Process

Position Data Analysis

Personnel Data Analysis

MOCS Identifier - Duties 

and Task Analysis

Training Needs Analysis

Physical Demands

Analysis

Recruiting Impacts 

Analysis

Standards of Grade 

Analysis and

Development

Position Document and 

Personnel

Reclassification

Guidance

Background and 

Rationale

MOCS Process

Personnel

Management

Information 

Systems

ASI/SQI Tracking

Multi-Skill Soldier

Management and 

Control

Personnel

Management

Information 

Systems

ASI/SQI Tracking

Multi-Skill Soldier

Management and 

Control

Resources

Implementation 

Budget

Personnel

Planners and 

Managers

Resources

Implementation 

Budget

Personnel

Planners and 

Managers

How can the existing 

MOCS process be used to 

convert existing MOS to

MOS in the proposed job 

structure?

2

How does the Army

transition from its existing

job structure to the 

proposed job structure?

What are the impacts on 

current soldiers resulting

from a change in job 

structures? How are 

existing soldier capabilities

reflected in the proposed 

job structure? What may

be lost?

1

Soldier 

Impacts

Soldier 

Impacts

Training 

Impacts

Transition

Facilities

TDE

Training 

Development

Training 

Impacts

Transition

Facilities

TDE

Training 

Development

Training 

Impacts

Transition

Facilities

TDE

Training 

Development

Other Impacts

Army Reserves

Army National Guard

Civilians

Contractors

Joint Operability

Other Impacts

Army Reserves

Army National Guard

Civilians

Contractors

Joint Operability

Proposed

Training 

Design

Proposed Job 

Structure

Proposed

Training 

Design

Proposed

Training 

Design

Proposed Job 

Structure

Proposed Job 

Structure

Figure 6. Implementation Component 

 20
The first area involves the impact of changing the job structure on soldiers

currently in the Army. When careers have been built over years based on an existing 

job structure, changes can seriously affect morale if resulting changes in career

opportunities, promotions, and work occur. These impacts need to be identified, their 

positive and negative effects should be assessed, and a determination of whether the 

proposed job structure may require modification must be made. 

A second area that should be addressed is the transition impact on the personnel

proponent life cycle management functions, as prescribed in AR 600-3, The Army

Personnel Proponent System (DA, 1997). There are eight life cycle management 

functions, some more important than others in this context, but all requiring 

consideration. With respect to structure, how are grade structure, TOE/TDA

organization, and classification criteria affected? What impacts result on accessions and 

recruitment? Issues of distribution and unit development must be addressed. 

Adopting a new job structure will impose changes on these management functions, all 

of which need to be explicitly identified and considered. 

A third area involves the Army G-1's Military Occupational Classification

Structure (MOCS) process, the procedure by which changes in Army job structures are 

documented and requirements established for implementation. Does the MOCS

process need to be changed in order to transform the current job structure? If the 

underlying concept moves from a task-based approach to a competency-based 

approach, as some suggest, does the MOCS process have to be modified to 

accommodate such change? 

A fourth area concerns the degree and manner that personnel management

information systems need to change to accommodate a new job structure? To the extent 

the new job structure consists of MSS, how can the Army track and manage this

expanded set of soldier capabilities? If Additional Skill Identifiers (ASI) or Special 

Qualification Identifiers (SQI) indicate the multiple capabilities, can systems be created 

to track these characteristics? If the job structure is scalable in order to respond to

contingencies along the range of military operations, can management and control 

systems be created to support an ever-changing job structure? 

A fifth area of consideration is the impact on training and the training

establishment during the transition to a new job structure. Can changes be

incorporated in the existing training program? Or, will the Army face a requirement to

operate one training program to support Legacy and Interim Forces and another to train 

multi-skilled soldiers for their OF jobs? There is also the whole issue of training 

development. What is the magnitude of the effort and what are the timelines associated 

with training development? 

A sixth area involves other transition impacts to be considered, chief among

which are the effects on the U.S. Army Reserve, the Army National Guard, civilians, 

and contractors. Does the proposed job structure lead to a reallocation of 

 21
responsibilities among the different elements of the Total Army? The changes in Army 

job structure may reverberate widely. There also needs to be consideration of the 

effects on joint operations with the other Services. 

Finally, a seventh area encompasses the resource issues underlying a transition

to a new job structure. Depending on the scope of changes, there can be significant 

resource requirements. There must be sufficient budgetary resources to support

transition efforts. Also, in many ways more critical to implementing job changes, what 

is the capacity of Army personnel planners and managers to execute the changes? 

Answers lie in the numbers of planners and managers available and in the experience 

and expertise they can bring to the process. 

Before a job structure is finalized, the proposed courses of action must be

weighed against these implementation considerations. While these considerations are 

generally transitory and their effects of limited duration, albeit possibly over a long 

time period, they must be thoroughly identified and deliberately addressed. Any is a 

potential showstopper, all the more painful if it comes as a surprise during

implementation. As with the design process, constraints may result in shortfalls in one 

respect or another. This leads to looking for tradeoffs. The shortfalls and tradeoffs 

need to be made explicit. 

Sustainment Component 

In addition to viewing the job structure in the context of its implementation

effects, consideration must also be given to the operational or sustainment aspects as

well. While implementation focuses on one-time, transition changes, sustainment

addresses the effects on on-going, related activities for the foreseeable future. Figure 7 

identifies the elements requiring consideration. There are seven here as well, although 

not exactly the same seven, and all represent operational issues as distinguished from

implementation issues. The impacts of changes on soldiers already serving in the ranks 

are not addressed here; however, considerations of battlefield effectiveness are. Issues 

pertaining to proponent personnel life cycle management, as well as personnel 

management information systems, require attention. How to manage a job structure 

that features adaptable soldiers involves both management and supporting information 

systems. Can the procedures and systems required by the job structure function 

effectively?

The MOCS process needs to function in a time frame that is compatible with the Army's 

requirements to modify job structures to meet contingencies. There are serious 

concerns across the Personnel Community that the current MOCS process cannot

produce the necessary changes to job structure in a sufficiently responsive fashion to

meet the time requirements of dynamic change associated with fielding the OF and 

implementing the MSS Concept by 2008. The ability of the MOCS process to support

the on-going requirements of the proposed job structure should be addressed. 

 22
Constraints Tradeoffs

How can the MOCS

process be made more

responsive to the job 

requirements of the 

Objective Force?

What capacity do Army

personnel planners and 

managers have to manage

the proposed job

structure?

What operational problems

might the proposed job 

structure with regards to

joint operations and the

Total Army?

1

2

3

Personnel

Proponent Life

Cycle Mgt 

Functions

Structure

Grade Structure

TOE/TDA Organization

Classification Criteria

Acquisition

Accession Criteria

Accession Numbers

Recall Criteria

Individual Training

Distribution

Inventory

SIMOS

Unit Development

Sustainment

Professional Development

Separation

Position Data Analysis

Personnel Data Analysis

MOCS Identifier - Duties 

and Task Analysis

Training Needs Analysis

Physical Demands

Analysis

Recruiting Impacts

Analysis

Standards of Grade

Analysis and

Development

Position Document and 

Personnel

Reclassification

Guidance

Background and 

Rationale

MOCS Process

Personnel

Management

Information

Systems

ASI/SQI Tracking

Multi-Skill Soldier 

Management and

Control

Resources

Implementation

Budget

Personnel

Planners and 

Managers

Training

Impacts

Transition

Facilities

TDE

Training 

Development

Battlefield

Effectiveness

Mission

Effectiveness

Battlefield

Integration

Job Performance

Other Impacts

Army Reserves

Army National Guard

Civilians

Contractors

Joint Operability

Proposed

Training 

Design

Proposed Job

Structure

Constraints Tradeoffs

How can the MOCS

process be made more

responsive to the job 

requirements of the 

Objective Force?

What capacity do Army

personnel planners and 

managers have to manage

the proposed job

structure?

What operational problems

might the proposed job 

structure with regards to

joint operations and the

Total Army?

1

2

3

Personnel

Proponent Life

Cycle Mgt 

Functions

Structure

Grade Structure

TOE/TDA Organization

Classification Criteria

Acquisition

Accession Criteria

Accession Numbers

Recall Criteria

Individual Training

Distribution

Inventory

SIMOS

Unit Development

Sustainment

Professional Development

Separation

Personnel

Proponent Life

Cycle Mgt 

Functions

Personnel

Proponent Life

Cycle Mgt 

Functions

Structure

Grade Structure

TOE/TDA Organization

Classification Criteria

Acquisition

Accession Criteria

Accession Numbers

Recall Criteria

Individual Training

Distribution

Inventory

SIMOS

Unit Development

Sustainment

Professional Development

Separation

Position Data Analysis

Personnel Data Analysis

MOCS Identifier - Duties 

and Task Analysis

Training Needs Analysis

Physical Demands

Analysis

Recruiting Impacts

Analysis

Standards of Grade

Analysis and

Development

Position Document and 

Personnel

Reclassification

Guidance

Background and 

Rationale

MOCS Process

Position Data Analysis

Personnel Data Analysis

MOCS Identifier - Duties 

and Task Analysis

Training Needs Analysis

Physical Demands

Analysis

Recruiting Impacts

Analysis

Standards of Grade

Analysis and

Development

Position Document and 

Personnel

Reclassification

Guidance

Background and 

Rationale

MOCS Process

Personnel

Management

Information

Systems

ASI/SQI Tracking

Multi-Skill Soldier 

Management and

Control

Personnel

Management

Information

Systems

ASI/SQI Tracking

Multi-Skill Soldier 

Management and

Control

Resources

Implementation

Budget

Personnel

Planners and 

Managers

Resources

Implementation

Budget

Personnel

Planners and 

Managers

Training

Impacts

Transition

Facilities

TDE

Training 

Development

Training

Impacts

Transition

Facilities

TDE

Training 

Development

Training

Impacts

Transition

Facilities

TDE

Training 

Development

Battlefield

Effectiveness

Mission

Effectiveness

Battlefield

Integration

Job Performance

Battlefield

Effectiveness

Mission

Effectiveness

Battlefield

Integration

Job Performance

Other Impacts

Army Reserves

Army National Guard

Civilians

Contractors

Joint Operability

Other Impacts

Army Reserves

Army National Guard

Civilians

Contractors

Joint Operability

Proposed

Training 

Design

Proposed Job

Structure

Proposed

Training 

Design

Proposed

Training 

Design

Proposed Job

Structure

Proposed Job

Structure

Figure 7. Sustainment Component 

Operational issues with respect to training, Total Army impacts, and resources 

must again be assessed here. These include similar questions to those raised in 

connection with the discussion of the implementation component. Again, the capability 

of personnel and training planners and managers to operate in accordance with the 

proposed job structure should be a key consideration. 

Operational effectiveness is an additional consideration on the sustainment side. 

Does the proposed structure achieve its objectives with respect to the operational 

environment? Three areas of inquiry are included. First, mission effectiveness is the 

ability of the Unit of Action to achieve its mission based on Army doctrine whereby the 

role of each MOS contributes significantly to mission achievement. Second, battlefield 

integration addresses the way in which the proposed MOS will operate within the unit 

in relation to other MOS, particularly in respect to functions on the battlefield; this is a 

focus on the collective impact of the MOS structure. Third, job performance, the ability

of the soldier to carry out the duties and responsibilities encompassed in his MOS 

during operations, focuses on the individual’s impact. 

 23
Like the preceding blocks, shortfalls and constraints here lead to a consideration 

of tradeoffs within the sustainment block. In addition, there may be changes in the 

implementation or design block that will lead to the best-proposed job structure. 

Tradeoffs and Constraints 

The restructuring of Army jobs so that they are more multi-skilled or otherwise 

different is constrained by any of a number of factors. The MSS Developmental 

Blueprint has identified many. To arrive at a final design, constraints must be 

identified, tradeoffs considered, and changes made so that the final job design is 

achievable. At the same time, attention must be paid to the tradeoffs to ensure they do 

not represent compromises that undercut the goals of the job restructuring. 

The MSS Developmental Blueprint’s formulation includes tradeoff and constraint 

analysis within the five components. Additionally, there is feedback between the 

components in an effort to arrive at the “best” job structure. Using the MSS Blueprint 

involves an iterative process of successively addressing constraints and tradeoffs until 

the most effective job structure can be identified. 

Clearly, there are many variables and considerations that must be addressed. 

The MSS Developmental Blueprint, as described here, is aimed at making as many of 

these issues as visible and explicit as possible. Not all the issues identified need to be 

addressed all the time. Army personnel planners can use this Blueprint to define the 

scope of a proposed job restructuring effort, to prioritize and select issues that need to 

be addressed, and to make explicit the constraints and tradeoffs of a new set of jobs. 

THE MULTI-SKILLED SOLDIER ROADMAP 

In order to transform the current soldier to a multi-skilled soldier, the Army is 

faced with making a series of major decisions and initiating a set of key planning and 

implementing actions. This set of decisions and actions constitutes an MSS Roadmap, 

essentially a general planning approach for creating multi-skilled soldiers. Colloquially 

speaking, this Roadmap identifies the “major muscle movements” common to any

selected course of action for MSS implementation and sustainment. The Roadmap is 

structured to indicate the pivotal steps required in the short-, near-, and long-term to

emplace a functioning MSS system by 2008, at which time the first units of the OF 

should enter the force structure. 

For ease of discussion and categorization, the actions addressed in this Roadmap 

have been associated with three umbrella organizational groupings: the Army 

Leadership, the Personnel Community, and the Training Community. The Army

Leadership grouping includes the key Army civilian and uniformed leaders who make 

policy, provide recommendations, craft implementing guidance, and draft plans writ 

large for the Army as a whole. Included among the Army Leadership, for example, 

 24
would be the Secretary of the Army, his Undersecretary and Assistant Secretaries, the 

Chief of Staff of the Army, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, other Army full generals, 

and principal members of the Army Staff, as well as selected Army civilians and general 

officers of lesser grade. 

The Personnel Community encompasses all those in the Army responsible for 

recommending, making, and implementing personnel policies, plans, and procedures. 

Prominent within this community are the Army G-1, the Commanding General of the 

U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), the principal personnel staff officers

and personnel proponents for each of the Army’s major commands (MACOMs), and 

the branch personnel proponents. 

The Training Community refers primarily to those leaders within the 

Institutional Army responsible for education and training policy, devising training

approaches, and executing education and training courses from basic training through 

the Army War College. The Training Community is also responsible for assisting

operational units in designing and executing training by providing a broad spectrum of

doctrinal and procedural publications, training aids, and distance learning courses. 

Most prominently, the term Training Community in this report refers primarily to 

TRADOC Headquarters, East and West, the training centers, and the subordinate 

system of branch and functional schools. 

Approach 

Figure 8 provides a generic overview of the actions required to implement the 

MSS Concept. Activities fall within the purview of each of the three major 

organizational groupings that would play a leading role in the process. The activity 

blocks not only indicate the major set of implementation activities but also suggest their 

sequencing. The timing as well as level of effort is dependent on the availability of

resources and the commitment of the Army Leadership. The more resources available, 

the more quickly the change may occur. In like manner, the more commitment evident 

in the Army Leadership, the more likely timely decisions will be made and vigorously 

pursued in a prioritized and decisive way. 

The timeline also reflects the existence of the three different Army forces (Legacy, 

Interim, and Objective) that will co-exist for many years after multi-skilled soldiers start 

entering the force. Changes to the Army's job structure must occur in a way that 

supports the operational requirements of all three of these forces, as well as of the U.S. 

Army Reserve and U.S. Army National Guard. 

Generally speaking, the Army Leadership must first establish overall policy and 

direction with respect to creating multi-skilled soldiers. In short, the Army Leadership 

must frame the effort, motivate the institution, fence the necessary resources, and 

otherwise accelerate the impetus for change. Next, there are activities that both the 

Personnel and Training Communities must pursue. Many, if not most, of these early 

actions can proceed in parallel in order to facilitate implementation in the most time- 

 25
Personnel Info Mgt Systems Design

Training Development

Transition Training

MSS Restructuring 

Phase 1

MSS Data Development

MSS Restructuring 

Phase 2

MSS Restructuring .... Phase N .

MSS Monitoring & Assessment

MSS Resourcing

Responsible Timeline

Party

Army

Leadership

Personnel

Community

Training 

Community

Personnel Planning

Concept 

Development

Training Planning

Supporting Research

MSS Policy and

Doctrine

Personnel Policy

Training Policy

MOS

Consolidation

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Legacy Force

Interim Force

Objective Force

Personnel Info Mgt Systems Design

Training Development

Transition Training

MSS Restructuring 

Phase 1

MSS Data Development

MSS Restructuring 

Phase 2

MSS Restructuring .... Phase N .

MSS Monitoring & Assessment

MSS Resourcing

Responsible Timeline

Party

Army

Leadership

Personnel

Community

Training 

Community

Personnel Planning

Concept 

Development

Training Planning

Supporting Research

MSS Policy and

Doctrine

Personnel Policy

Training Policy

MOS

Consolidation

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Legacy Force

Interim Force

Objective Force

Figure 8. MSS Roadmap Overview 

efficient manner. Supporting these efforts, and in some instances preceding them, are 

requirements for behavioral and training research to answer critical questions posed by

 26
the challenges inherent in the MSS Concept. Some of the research questions must be 

addressed at an early stage to assist in initial implementation design, and others may be 

addressed at a later stage to help refine ongoing approaches for implementation and 

sustainment. These research requirements will be highlighted later in the follow-on

discussion of the MSS Study Plan. 

Army Leadership 

The Army Leadership plays the most pivotal role in generating the momentum

for implementing the MSS Concept, particularly because of the profound “grass-roots

change” involved from how the Army’s Personnel and Training Communities conduct

business today. Table 1 depicts the three critical areas involved and outlines the major 

actions within them that the Army Leadership must take in order to build and sustain 

this momentum. 

First, the leadership must establish overall policy and doctrine regarding multiskilled soldiers. This policy process should: 

1. Define clearly and definitively the MSS Concept for the Army, 

2. Develop and assess comprehensive, integrated implementation options, 

3. Select an option, 

4. Provide guidance and direction by publishing an Army Master Implementation 

Plan inclusive of milestones, priorities, timelines, and responsibilities, 

5. Determine and initiate changes required to existing Army policies, and 

6. Charter the necessary doctrinal work. 

An important part of defining the approved MSS Concept involves deciding 

whether to adopt a competency-based system or to maintain the present task-based 

approach to Army jobs. In chartering the supporting doctrinal efforts, the Army

Leadership should present a strong case for the value added by the multi-skilled soldier

to the Unit of Action, as well as to other unit configurations of the OF. In a similar vein, 

MSS enhancement to the capabilities of the Legacy and Interim Forces along the range 

of military operations should also be thoroughly articulated. Not only will such 

explanations provide further clarity in intent, but they will also assist significantly in 

justifying to the Army as a whole and to the public generally the significant level of

effort and costs associated with the ensuing implementation process. 

Second, given a decision to proceed with MSS implementation, the Army

Leadership must monitor the implementation process to ensure it unfolds in a 

comprehensively integrated and coordinated fashion, especially relative to the actions 

of the Personnel and Training Communities. A periodic review process should be 

 27
Near Term

(2002-2004)

Mid Term 

(2004-2006)

Long Term

(2006-2008)

Policy and 

 Doctrine

Clearly and definitively define

the MSS Concept for the

Army

Develop comprehensive 

implementation options for

consideration 

Select an implementation 

option 

Determine development &

implementation priorities

Determine phasing and 

proponent agencies 

Develop the Army Master

MSS Implementation Plan

Determine changes to Army 

policies required to support

MSS implementation 

Charter doctrine changes to

support MSS 

Consider impact on leader

development

Consider impact on Reserve 

Component 

Adjust Army policies 

to support MSS 

implementation 

Adjust Army Master

Implementation Plan

Oversee continued 

doctrinal 

development

Adjust Army policies to

support MSS 

implementation 

Adjust Army Master

Implementation Plan

Ensure needed doctrinal

changes are completed

Prepare the Army as a

whole for the MSS

Prepare the public for the 

MSS 

Monitoring

& Assessment

Establish comprehensive 

HQDA oversight mechanism 

Exercise HQDA

oversight of the 

entire MSS 

implementation 

process 

Monitor execution of 

implementation of 

plan milestones 

Ensure 

implementation 

efforts are fully 

integrated across the

Army

Exercise HQDA oversight of 

the entire MSS

implementation process 

Monitor execution of 

implementation of plan

milestones 

Ensure implementation

efforts are fully integrated 

across the Army

Resourcing 

Cost out all MSS

implementation options under 

consideration 

Phase the resources to

implement the selected MSS

option (financial, human, 

equipment, construction, restationing, and other

materials)

Establish POM line and 

program near-term 

funding/Fund initial phase 

immediately

Update costs 

Continue to program 

adequate funding by

phase 

Provide sufficient

resources in all 

categories

Update costs 

Continue to program 

adequate funding by phase

Provide sufficient resources 

in all categories 

Table 1. MSS Roadmap (Army Leadership) 

 28
established to monitor progress and to trigger required changes or adjustments to the 

base plan. This requires Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), to establish

and maintain an effective oversight mechanism. It also requires a subordinate 

organization with responsibility for day-to-day, cross-functional orchestration of the 

implementation process. A viable approach would be to assign the primary oversight 

function at HQDA to a single staff directorate while assigning the day-to-day 

management and integrating functions to a single MACOM or to a task force reporting 

directly to HQDA. 

Third, MSS implementation plans must be properly resourced in terms of general 

funding, personnel, equipment, construction, and other materials. For this reason, all 

implementation options under consideration should be fully costed out as part of the 

decision-making process. Once an option is selected, it must be properly resourced by

phase. The required resources include planners, managers, and developers in sufficient

numbers for both the Personnel and Training Communities. 

Personnel Community

As shown in Table 2, there are six major areas of implementation focus for the 

Personnel Community: concept development, MOS consolidation, personnel policy, 

data development, information management systems development, and personnel 

planning and re-structuring. 

An initial effort for the Personnel Community is to recast the MSS Concept into

an operational model, process, or set of procedures that can be used as a planning tool 

in analyzing and assessing specific multi-skilled soldier personnel options. Planners

could then use this tool as part of a standard, systematic approach to address the many

issues involved in transforming the current Army job structure to one featuring multiskilled soldiers. This methodology would help ensure that all associated constraints 

and tradeoffs are explicitly addressed in constructing viable personnel options for 

consideration and ultimately in selecting one for implementation. 

Second, since the current MOS structure will serve as the baseline from which 

the transformation to multi-skilled soldiers will occur, an interim step on the path to the 

MSS is to identify MOS consolidations based on the current job structure. The ADS XXI

Task Force identified numerous potential MOS consolidations, deletions, and other

changes in order to optimize the MOS structure. An assessment of the feasibility of

these proposed changes aimed at optimizing the current MOS structure will provide a 

more effective point of departure for determining multi-skill opportunities. The Task 

Knowledges Commonality Analysis Method (TKCAM), an ARI technique that has been 

used in the past to assess the feasibility of restructuring more than 25 MOS, could be 

used for these purposes (Akman, 1998). However, MOS consolidation must be 

synchronized with the multi-skill requirements under consideration for the OF. 

Otherwise, it is possible that MOS consolidation could work at cross purposes with MSS 

implementation. 

 29
Near Term 

(2002-2004)

Mid Term 

(2004-2006)

Long Term

(2006-2008)

Concept 

Development 

Derive operational model from

MSS Blueprint to use in

evaluating MSS personnel

concept options 

Develop MSS personnel

concept options

Select MSS personnel concept 

option to implement 

Consider impact on Reserve 

Component 

Refine concept as 

needed 

Refine concept as 

needed 

MOS 

Consolidation 

Determine priorities for

continued MOS consolidation

Continue current MOS

consolidation process 

Continue MOS 

consolidation 

Complete MOS 

consolidation 

Personnel 

Policy

Develop MSS-specific

personnel policies 

o Selection criteria 

o MOS structure &

Classification process 

o Job categories to be

multi-skilled 

o Secondary job 

attributes

o Restructuring

priorities 

Wargame MSS implications 

thru life cycle of the soldier/

Determine related policy &

process changes 

Test & expand MSSspecific personnel 

policies and 

procedures 

Develop career 

progression scheme

for the MSS 

Prepare personnel 

community for MSS 

approach & policies 

Prepare Army for MSS

personnel approach &

policies 

Ensure all supporting 

MSS personnel policies 

& procedures are fully

developed and in place 

Emplace career

progression scheme

for the MSS 

Adjust existing

policies 

MSS Data 

Development 

Determine supporting data

requirements

Develop data collection plan 

Start gathering needed data

Start building supporting data

bases for MSS

Continue gathering

data

Gather data from MSS 

test groups

Build data bases 

Complete supporting 

data base for MSS 

Gather data from MSS 

test groups

Info Mgt

System 

Development 

Develop process to track 

additional skills in MSS

Develop plan & taxonomy for

additional skill identification 

Emplace/test

additional skill 

tracking system

Emplace complete data

gathering process for

MSS 

Personnel 

Planning &

Restructuring

Develop master personnel

implementation plan for MSS

ICW Army’s Master

Implementation Plan

Start restructuring soldier jobs

into MSS jobs

Conduct behavioral research in

selected topics

Continue behavioral 

research

Continue MSS job 

restructuring 

Continue behavioral 

research

Complete MSS job 

restructuring 

Table 2. MSS Roadmap (Personnel Community)

Within the framework of the Army's policy regarding multi-skilled soldiers, 

there is the need for more detailed personnel policy. Among the more immediate issues 

to be addressed are changes in selection criteria, modifications to increase the 

 30
responsiveness of the existing MOS structure and classification process, job categories 

to be multi-skilled, primary and secondary job attributes to be used in describing multiskilled soldiers, and restructuring priorities. In the mid-term, these policies and related 

procedures should be tested, refined, and expanded. As the implementation process 

unfolds, a career progression scheme for the MSS must be developed and emplaced, 

and both the Personnel Community and the Army as a whole must be properly 

prepared for full institution of MSS personnel procedures and techniques. 

A fourth area of activity that the Personnel Community needs to pursue is the 

development of data required supporting an MSS job structure. Much of the current

data, to the extent they exist, are task-based. If the Army pursues a competency-based 

system, there will be a need to supplement existing data with substantial data 

development. Creating a database supporting the decisions required for a competencybased, multi-skilled soldier would be a major undertaking. 

Fifth, there is a need to develop personnel information and management control 

systems supportive of a multi-skilled soldier approach. Current systems need to be 

evaluated to determine how they can be used to support new requirements. A major 

challenge, however, will be to design and develop capabilities to manage the "multiskill" aspects of a new job structure. Based on past experience with tracking and 

managing additional skill identifiers (ASI) and specialty qualification identifiers (SQI), 

significant challenges in this area will have to be overcome. 

A sixth area of responsibility involves the planning and restructuring that 

actually changes traditional soldier jobs to multi-skilled jobs. One aspect is designing 

multi-skilled jobs; this would be based on applications of the MSS Developmental 

Blueprint. In addition, the planning would lead to establishing methods to document

and implement the job changes, building upon the existing MOCS process to improve 

responsiveness in general and to facilitate tracking multi-skilled soldiers. Table 2 

indicates that the job restructuring would occur in phases, the number and scope of

which would be determined during initial planning. 

Finally, there will be implementation actions to change existing jobs to multiskilled jobs. This will involve actions affecting soldiers currently in the force as well as 

new entrants. 

Training Community 

The Training Community has responsibilities of its own in the development and 

implementation of the MSS Concept. In many ways, because of the resource-intensive

nature of its requirements, the actions required by the Training Community probably 

demand the longest lead times within the entire MSS implementation process. As

depicted in Table 3, those actions fall into three major categories: training policy, 

training planning and development, and transition training. 

 31
Table 3. MSS Roadmap (Training Community) 

Near Term

(2002-2004)

Mid Term 

(2004-2006)

Long Term

(2006-2008)

Training

Policy

Develop Concept for future 

training paradigm (incl

scope) 

Determine changes to

leadership development

paradigm 

Consider impact on 

Reserve Component

Determine future role of

branches

Determine changes to

training base

Develop master transition 

concept for Training

Community

Begin implementing master 

transition plan in earnest 

Adjust training base as

planned 

Review Objective Force 

requirements

Adjust master plan as

required 

Prepare Army as a 

whole for new 

training changes 

Publish supporting 

training documents 

Training

Planning &

Development

Redesign BCT & AIT 

Determine additional skill 

modules

Design of unit-ofassignment training 

Develop DL support

concept 

Determine transition

resources 

Develop construction plan

Develop re-stationing plan

Develop transition plan for

the Training Community

Plan to acquire sufficient

number of training 

developers 

Develop DL support plan

Test DL methodology 

Conduct behavioral 

research in selected 

supporting topics 

Program transition

resources 

Start required construction

Develop supporting DL 

courses 

Start implementing 

transition plan for training

base

Test new training paradigm

courses with control groups 

(soup-to-nuts) 

Develop initial entry base

courses 

Develop additional skill 

modules

Develop UOA courses

Develop DL courses 

Develop plan to modify

leadership courses for the 

MSS 

Expand inventory of 

training developers

Continue behavioral 

research

Position training

personnel, materials,

& equipment for fullscale execution 

Refine plans for 

eventual NCO 

training of multiskilled soldiers 

Fully resource

training base for

execution 

Complete required 

construction

Expand/test DL 

courses and 

methodology 

Adjust leadership 

courses to prepare for

MSS 

Continue behavioral 

research

Transition 

Training

Develop a training

transition plan

Prepare initial training base 

cadre 

Set up required courses

Test all courses with

larger & larger

control groups

With respect to training policy, the Training Community must first determine 

whether to continue using the current branch-centric training paradigm or design an 

alternative one. The current training program may not optimally deal with

requirements for multi-skilled soldiers or their leaders. Already the Army is 

considering a warrior-based training model coupled with special emphasis on soldier

self-development and “life-long learning” to address specifically the requirements of 

multi-skilled soldiers related to adaptability, skill decay, and refresher training. 

 32
Similarly, the entire model for leader development training should be re-considered in

light of the implications of the MSS Concept. Specifically, what changes should be 

made to facilitate the career progression of the multi-skilled soldiers as they advance 

through the NCO ranks, and what changes should be made to prepare leaders who are 

already in the force, especially NCOs and junior officers, for MSS implementation? 

A pivotal part of the equation involves questions surrounding the future role of

the branches. Throughout the Army’s history, the branches have played the primary 

role in all aspects of institutional training. Altering that role significantly involves 

fundamental change to the Army’s modus operandi and culture. However, as soldiers 

are increasingly trained in skill sets that cut across traditional branch lines and as units 

are structured in an increasingly combined-arms fashion, how branches’ roles change in 

designing and administering training? Will training become less branch-centric? If so, 

how and when will this transition occur? What adjustments must be made to the 

training base to make this happen? These questions must be addressed in building a 

master training transition concept for the Army, a key early task since the associated 

execution time line will likely involve phases measured in multi-year increments. 

A second area of training responsibility is planning and development. This area 

is where the heavy lifting will be done by the Training Community to prepare the way 

for the arrival of multi-skilled soldier trainees. It involves translating changes to the 

training paradigm into redesigned programs and courses, ensuring that they are tested, 

validated, and fully in place before MSS training is scheduled to commence in earnest. 

Such efforts should be part of a master transition plan for the Training Community that

should be drafted at an early stage and continually updated to support the Army’s

Master MSS Implementation Plan. In part, this plan would trigger necessary 

subordinate plans, including a construction plan, a re-stationing plan, and a transition 

resources plan. In addition, this category of action would involve the design of a future 

DL concept to meet the needs of the Army once the MSS enters the force. The concept 

would then have to be implemented through the evolution of pertinent DT and DL 

methodologies, architectures and course packages. This effort alone would require 

many additional human and material resources, as well as significant in-house training 

and re-structuring. In particular, the Army would have to profoundly increase its 

current inventory of training developers to support and sustain the enormous 

preparatory and follow-up training redesign efforts involved. 

A third area of training responsibility involves transition training. If the Army

adopts a multi-skilled soldier approach, soldiers already in the force will have to be retrained, or transitioned, so that they can perform effectively in their newly structured 

jobs. In addition, leaders will have to be prepared for integrating the new multi-skilled 

soldiers into their units. This transition training may be facilitated by the considerable 

training and unit experience that many of them would have. DT and DL will likely be 

required to play a major role in this transition training. The cadre for the initial entry 

training will also have to be prepared for its role in shaping new soldiers, employing 

methods that differ significantly, at least in many respects, from today’s training

approaches for BCT and AIT. In order to focus and organize these efforts, the Training

 33
Community should construct a transition training plan as a component part of its 

master transition plan as soon as practicable. 

THE MULTI-SKILLED SOLDIER STUDY PLAN 

The issues surrounding the questions of whether to adopt the Multi-Skilled 

Soldier Concept, how to define that Concept for the purposes of implementation, and 

what courses of action should be considered are, in significant ways, matters of the 

human dimension. This section identifies behavioral research that explores the limits of 

human cognitive potential on a fairly broad front, as well as develops or refines 

techniques and approaches for structuring jobs, training, and learning in ways intended 

to support MSS development. This kind of research can also help avoid initial 

approaches and designs that may inadvertently exceed the range of realistic cognitive 

expectations for the general population of future recruits. 

One of the major challenges facing the Army is that MSS implementation 

requires background information from research that has largely not yet been conducted 

for the peculiar set of conditions and parameters connected with the MSS Concept. In

many ways, adopting the MSS Concept involves navigating through uncharted waters. 

It is highly prudent, therefore, to conduct critical, selected behavioral and other research 

in order to identify feasible courses of action within which adjustments and refinements 

can be efficiently accommodated as the MSS Concept is instituted. 

Approach 

This MSS Study Plan identifies research issues that, when addressed, will 

contribute significantly to the development and implementation of the Multi-Skilled 

Soldier Concept. These questions involve a variety of salient policy, personnel, and 

training issues that can be addressed through studies or research and development

projects. 

Research issues were identified based on information gathered in the various 

interviews and meetings conducted during the data collection phase of this project. In

attempting to determine the more pressing studies for consideration, the thought 

process outline in Figure 9 was applied in conjunction with the MSS Roadmap. The 

research projects were organized based on requirements potentially facing the Army 

Leadership, the Personnel Community, and the Training Community. Tables 4 and 5 

list a number of recommended research projects to be performed immediately, as well 

as in the near term, mid term, and long term in order to address the issues. These 

projects represent both basic and applied research, and are listed generally in order of

importance within each of the matrix boxes. All of the recommended research and 

analysis projects are detailed in Appendix B 

 34
Examples

MSS Definitions and 

Parameters

Alternative Training Models

Competency-Based

Personnel and Training

Examples

Alternative Training

Paradigms

Training Methods to

Offset Skill Decay

Distance Learning

Technology

Embedded Training 

Technology

Training Evaluation 

Model/Process

Roadmap

Study Areas

KEY

Examples

Recruiting Pool

Demographics

MSS Definitions and 

Parameters

Task-Based vs. 

Competency-Based

Selection Procedures

Recruiting Strategies

MOS Design Process

Tradeoff/Constraint

Methodologies

Personnel Research Requirements

Classification

Recruting/

Selection

Structure

Promotion

Distribution

Retention/

Separation

Personnel

Roadmap

Policy Research Requirements

Personnel Policy

Training Policy

Other

Army MSS

Policy

Roadmap

Training Research Requirements

Training Methods

Training Technology

Other

Training 

Roadmap

Examples

MSS Definitions and 

Parameters

Alternative Training Models

Competency-Based

Personnel and Training

Examples

Alternative Training

Paradigms

Training Methods to

Offset Skill Decay

Distance Learning

Technology

Embedded Training 

Technology

Training Evaluation 

Model/Process

Roadmap

Study Areas

KEY

Roadmap

Study Areas

KEY

Examples

Recruiting Pool

Demographics

MSS Definitions and 

Parameters

Task-Based vs. 

Competency-Based

Selection Procedures

Recruiting Strategies

MOS Design Process

Tradeoff/Constraint

Methodologies

Personnel Research Requirements

Classification

Recruting/

Selection

Structure

Promotion

Distribution

Retention/

Separation

Personnel Research Requirements

Classification

Recruting/

Selection

Structure

Promotion

Distribution

Retention/

Separation

Personnel

Roadmap

Policy Research Requirements

Personnel Policy

Training Policy

Other

Policy Research Requirements

Personnel Policy

Training Policy

Other

Army MSS

Policy

Roadmap

Training Research Requirements

Training Methods

Training Technology

Other

Training 

Roadmap

Figure 9. Approach for Determining Research and Analysis Projects

 35
Immediate Near Term 

(2002-04) 

Army

Leadership

Determine applicability of MSS

Construct to Legacy & Interim Forces

Determine impacts of MSS on the 

Army’s Reserve Components (RC) 

Personnel 

Community

Prototype MSS skill database 

Continue the efforts to examine MOS

for possible consolidation in

synchronization with MSS

prototyping for the Objective Force 

Identify ways to accelerate and

expedite the MOCS process to meet

MSS timelines and requirements

Determine performance and cognitive

limits on MSS

Develop principles for identifying and 

categorizing jobs requiring multiskilling 

Determine implications between taskbased and competency-based 

approaches to job structuring and

learning 

Identify KSAs associated with effective 

performance of tasks in an MSS

environment

Determine mitigating approaches to

lessen the impact of skill decay on MSS

Performance 

Determine how recruiting pool

demographics (2005-2010) potentially 

impact MSS 

Training

Community

Prototype MSS for the Objective 

Force Unit of Action and identify

models for possible skill 

combinations based on operational 

needs 

Begin a parallel process to determine 

what skill combinations would also

most benefit the Interim and Legacy

Forces 

Determine “best practice” methods for 

designing curriculum & learning 

strategies for complex jobs

Determine the “best practice”

approaches for integrating distance

learning (DL) into the training & 

educational design of the MSS

Determine best methodologies to

motivate and facilitate the perpetually

learning MSS 

Table 4. Immediate and Near-term Research and Analysis Projects

The list of studies was compiled using a resource-unconstrained approach. Not

all the studies must be pursued in order to implement and sustain the MSS Concept 

successfully. The list reflects those issues and associated studies that would ideally be 

pursued “in the best of all possible worlds” to inform the implementation process in the 

most comprehensive and time-phased fashion possible. It thus serves as a strawman 

against which to select studies for pursuit in a more resource-constrained environment. 

Also, as the MSS is defined definitively and as specific and detailed courses of action 

are considered, additional issues will emerge demanding research, and issues already 

listed may recede in comparative importance. 

Additionally, there is no intended suggestion that each of these studies requires 

the same amount of time to complete, or that any study necessarily requires an 

extensive amount of time to reach meaningful and important results. In fact, many, if 

 36
not most, of the studies are envisioned as adaptable to “quick-look” methodologies if

the MSS implementation process requires best-estimate answers, insights, findings, and 

recommendations in accordance with significantly accelerated timelines. 

Immediate and Near-term Research and Analysis Projects (2002-04) 

The greatest impediment in the near term to pursuing research issues is the lack

of a clear, approved definition of the MSS Concept. Prior to the establishment of such a 

definition, near-term research should focus on those basic questions that must be 

addressed to lay a basis for follow-on research or that are critical for the early 

consideration of implementation and sustainment courses of action. Moreover, the 

immediate and near-term studies must be largely geared to those aspects of the multiskilled soldier that are most likely to be incorporated into any approved MSS Concept. 

Chief among such aspects are the following:

1. The number and variety of skill sets a soldier will be required to learn and 

sustain will increase considerably 

2. The complexity of most, if not all, MOS will increase significantly 

3. The soldier must be more adaptable in applying learned skill sets to new 

situations and conditions 

4. Training and personnel approaches must be oriented to enable and motivate 

soldiers to assume greater personal responsibility for expanding and sustaining

complex, diverse skill sets once they complete their initial entry training 

The immediate and near-term research efforts detailed in Table 4 are envisioned 

as high impact, short duration efforts in order to inform the early phases of MSS

implementation design. 

Mid-term Research and Analysis Projects (2004-06) 

The mid-term studies are not critical for informing the early stages of MSS

Concept design or course of action development, but are important for supporting the 

early stages of implementation. These studies, for example, would address issues 

embracing the life cycle of the soldier, such as recruiting strategies, selection and 

classification approaches, career progression paradigms, as well as junior leadership 

challenges, personnel management considerations, data system development, and 

technology integration designs. 

Long-term Research and Analysis Projects (2006-08) 

These studies focus principally on refining processes already underway or about

to commence as full-scale MSS training draws near. More specifically, they involve 

 37
developing and validating predictive and measurement tools, adjusting subordinate 

training and personnel methodologies based on initial test group experiences, fine 

tuning course materials and aides, and ensuring that sustainment processes are in place. 

Mid Term 

(2004-06) 

Long Term 

(2006-08) 

Army

Leadership

Develop transition concept to MSS for

Legacy & Interim forces 

Develop MSS transition concept for the

RC 

Conduct overall assessment of the 

implementation & sustainment process 

Determine follow-on studies required to

support MSS 

Personnel 

Community

Determine demands of managing a force 

of highly skilled soldiers 

Develop career progression paradigm for 

MSS 

Determine career progression impacts of 

MSS on entire force 

Determine strategies to transition Legacy

& Interim soldiers to MSS paradigm

Determine cognitive/ emotional 

demands for soldiers in multi-functional 

units

Develop and validate selection methods 

for MSS 

Develop/validate classification

approaches for MSS 

Determine recruiting strategies for MSS

Develop MSS planning/ management

data requirements

Determine uses of existing personnel 

resources & systems to support MSS

Develop and validate selection tools for MSS

Develop/validate classification tools for MSS 

Develop/validate additional predictive &

assessment tools relating to impacts of MSS

across all the soldier life cycle functions 

Training

Community

Determine junior leadership 

requirements associated with the MSS

Develop/validate career-long training

methods for MSS 

Determine best mix of technology use for

MSS residential & distance learning

Develop MOE to predict & assess MSS 

performance levels 

Determine skill retention & sustainment

requirements

Explore technology design approaches 

that shorten time for both initial and

refresher training 

Determine uses of existing training 

resources& systems to support MSS

Explore embedded technology designs to

facilitate MSS Training 

Refine MSS training methods 

Develop/validate additional tools to predict &

assess training effectiveness of MSS

Develop job aides for refresher training & skill 

retention 

Determine alternative training strategies to

counter skill decay 

Table 5. Mid-term and Long-term Research and Analysis Projects

 38
At the level of the Army Leadership, the main study effort should revolve 

around making an overall assessment of the implementation efforts to date, with an eye 

toward making whatever changes or adjustments are required. At the same time, the 

entire realm of MSS sustainment should be reviewed for adequacy and completeness. 

This is also an opportune time to identify follow-on future study priorities for the 

period after the OF units start entering the force structure. This research may also

provide the basis for translating the MSS Developmental Blueprint concepts into more 

detailed and refined procedures for supporting both the final stages of implementation 

and the initial stages sustainment. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The U.S. Army’s leadership intends to accelerate transformation efforts to field 

the OF. The notion of the multi-skilled soldier will serve as a crucial enabling concept 

in the human dimension for bringing the OF to full fruition. For these reasons, the 

conclusions and recommendations detailed below are particularly focused on where the 

Army is and where it should go relative to meaningful and timely MSS implementation. 

Conclusions

1. There is no official consensus or definition of the MSS relating to the 

requirements of the Objective Force. There is general consensus among key 

participants that OF soldiers should be more adaptable and provide more skill 

depth and redundancy than present-day soldiers, thereby enabling units to 

operate with both increased capabilities and smaller operational footprints. 

However, there is no clear consensus with respect to more detailed aspects of the 

MSS concept; no authoritative working definition of the multi-skilled soldier, no

layout of MSS expectations in OF requirements documents, no integrated 

implementation plan in place or under development; and no proponent clearly 

charged with developing one. In fact, the MSS Concept is much more complex 

and multi-dimensional than many seem aware. The MSS Concept has many 

associated notions. Varying characterizations abound, depending how one 

groups and prioritizes these various notions. Absent an approved concept, 

implementation planning will tend to remain unfocused and chaotic. 

2. There is no integrated planning underway for comprehensive MSS 

implementation. There is no Army-wide proponent for MSS Concept 

development. However, implementing the MSS concept will require an iterative, 

step-by-step process in which concepts and plans are more clearly adjusted and 

refined at each successive stage. In this connection, effective and efficient MSS 

realization will require comprehensive, top-down integrating guidance and 

oversight across at least three major activity categories: personnel, training, and 

policy development. While there is a broad consensus that the MSS Concept is 

 39
an essential ingredient in the human dimension design of the OF, most of the 

efforts associated with the OF have thus far focused on operational concepts, 

materiel acquisition, and organizational design. However, MSS implementation

is one of the longer poles in the tent in terms of preparatory time, effort, and 

resources for the OF. 

3. Most of the discussions about the MSS Concept have oriented on the needs of 

the Objective Force. What are today termed the OF, the Interim Force, and the 

Legacy Force will co-exist for many years. The benefits of MSS implementation

can probably be applied to increase skill depth and redundancy in Interim and 

Legacy Forces as well. Designing and implementing the MSS Concept for the 

entire Army, including the Reserve Components, is much more efficient and 

desirable than operating different training and personnel systems for the Interim 

and Legacy Forces. However, optimizing MSS realization for the entire force 

requires a conscious design focus from the very beginning of the implementation

process. 

4. The MSS Concept involves issues of human cognitive potential and associated

practices that have not been adequately researched for the peculiar

requirements of the Objective Force. In significant ways, MSS implementing

involves navigating through uncharted waters relative to human cognition. The 

demands in the cognitive realm inherent in the MSS Concept involve crucial 

unresolved issues and unanswered questions that require a significant program 

of behavioral research relating to virtually every aspect of the life cycle of the 

soldier, to include: recruiting, classification, selection, distribution, deployment, 

retention, training and education, sustainment, professional development, and 

separation. Timely behavioral research can help ensure that the initial MSS 

designs are within the realm of sound cognitive expectations for the general 

soldier population. Such research can also suggest best practices for a number of

important MSS-related activities (e.g., curriculum design, distance or distributed 

learning, motivation for perpetual learning, learning strategies for complex jobs, 

classification and selection, recruiting, retention, competency-based learning). 

Recommendations 

1. The Army should expeditiously and authoritatively define the MSS Concept. 

This is a necessary prerequisite to drive comprehensive planning for integrated 

concept implementation. The Army should ensure that the MSS requirements are 

fully reflected in OF documents. 

2. The Army should expeditiously establish overall proponency for MSS realization, 

select a corresponding course of action from among several candidates, and put an 

integrated master implementation and sustainment plan in place. This master

plan would encompass Departmental oversight and a comprehensive blending of

efforts in the policy, personnel, and training realms to ensure unity of effort. 

 40
3. The Army should structure MSS implementation and sustainment for optimal 

and parallel benefit of the Interim and Legacy Forces. This means designing an 

MSS implementation and sustainment approach from the beginning that, insofar as 

possible, can be applied across the entire force, to include the Reserve Components. 

4. The Army should conduct the necessary research and analysis projects, inclusive 

of behavioral research, to implement the MSS Concept effectively and efficiently. 

This includes laying a foundation for the required conceptual underpinnings, data, 

and systems required to establish and sustain a significantly altered approach for 

manning the force. Without such fundamental research, pursuing MSS could easily

become a high-risk, trial-and-error, hit-or-miss venture. 

Conclusions Recommendations

There is no official consensus or

definition of the MSS relating to the 

requirements of the Objective Force. 

The Army should expeditiously and 

authoritatively define the MSS Concept. 

There is no integrated planning

underway for comprehensive MSS

implementation. 

The Army should expeditiously establish

overall proponency for MSS realization, 

select a corresponding course of action

from among several candidates, and put 

an integrated master implementation plan 

in place. 

Most of the discussions about the MSS 

Concept have oriented on the needs of 

the Objective Force. 

The Army should structure MSS 

implementation and sustainment for

optimal and parallel benefit of the Interim

and Legacy Forces. 

The MSS Concept involves issues of 

human cognitive potential and 

associated practices that have not been 

adequately researched for the peculiar 

requirements of the Objective Force. 

The Army should conduct the necessary

research and analysis projects, inclusive of

behavioral research, to implement the MSS 

Concept effectively and efficiently. 

Table 6. Conclusions and Recommendations

The Immediate Way Ahead 

In light of these conclusions and recommendations, the following steps are the 

most important and pressing for the immediate future if the MSS Concept is to be 

implemented by 2008. These steps are reflected in the MSS Roadmap and Table 7: 

1. Define the MSS Concept authoritatively and empower an overall proponent. 

This includes envisioning and articulating the desired end state sought from MSS 

 41
implementation, relative to the OF and the Army as a whole (to include 

maneuver support and maneuver sustainment elements, as well as the Reserve 

Components). This end state should be translated into future force requirements 

documents. 

2. Develop MSS implementation and sustainment courses of action for decision. 

Led by the proponent, these courses of action would consider viable and feasible 

options that address primarily the extent, phasing, and costs of MSS 

implementation and sustainment. This step would end with a decision by the 

Army Leadership on which course of action, if any, to pursue, as well as any 

guidance for further plan development.

3. Develop an MSS Master Implementation and Sustainment Plan. This is the 

integrated and comprehensive plan to execute the course of action selected. 

4. Put a “wedge” in the Army POM to support MSS implementation before 2008 

and to support MSS sustainment after 2008. The amount of the wedge would 

reflect the cost estimates associated with the range of courses of action under

consideration. 

5. Commence “foundation” behavioral and training studies. The recommended 

studies are listed in order of priority in the MSS Study Plan. 

6. Develop Unit of Action prototypes. This involves working closely with 

TRADOC to identify potential skill combinations for the MSS that best meet the 

operational needs of the Unit of Action and that would also enhance the 

capabilities of the Legacy and Interim Forces. These “prototypes” would then 

serve as a model against which assess the feasibility and desirability of such skill 

combinations and to explore alternate combinations. 

7. Develop an MSS skill database. The current task-based Army training 

methodology must be adapted for a skill-focused, competency-based one. The 

database to support this shift does not currently exist and must be constructed. 

8. Proceed with supporting MOS consolidation. MOS consolidation is a necessary 

prerequisite for MSS implementation. However, it must be done with an eye 

toward anticipated skill combinations envisioned for the MSS. Otherwise, MOS 

consolidation could, as an unintended consequence, be carried out in a way to 

impede the skill combinations desired for MSS implementation. For this reason, 

MOS consolidation efforts must be synchronized with both the aforementioned 

MSS concept definition and Unit of Action prototyping. 

9. Tailor the MOCS Process for MSS. The purpose of this step is to identify ways

to accelerate and expedite the MOCS process for documenting and implementing

changes to MOS, as well as for supporting the specific needs of the MSS. Current 

process timelines and procedures do not support making the kind of rapid 

 42
personnel system changes required to support MSS realization by 2008, 

particularly regarding MOS consolidations. 

The Immediate Way Ahead

Define the MSS Concept authoritatively and 

empower an overall proponent. 

Develop MSS implementation and sustainment 

courses of action for decision.

Develop an MSS Master Implementation and

Sustainment Plan.

Put a “wedge” in the Army POM to support MSS 

implementation before 2008 and to support MSS 

sustainment after 2008.

Commence “foundation” behavioral and training 

studies.

Develop Unit of Action prototypes.

Develop an MSS skill database.

Proceed with synchronized MOS consolidation.

Tailor the MOCS Process for MSS. 

Table 7. The Immediate Way Ahead. 

 43
 44
REFERENCES 

Akman, Allan (1998). Task knowledges commonality analysis method (TKCAM) user’s 

manual. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and 

Social Sciences. 

Department of the Army. (1997). The Army personnel proponent system (Department 

of the Army Regulation 600-3). [On Line]. Available: http://www.usapa.army. 

mil/gils/epubs//.html 

Department of the Army. (2001). Concepts for the Objective Force (United States Army 

White Paper). [On-line]. Available: http://www.army.mil. 

Department of the Army. (2001). Enlisted personnel management system XXI: Final 

Report. (Report prepared for the Chief of Staff, Army, by the Army 

Development System XXI Task Force). Alexandria, VA: ADS-XXI Task Force. 

Department of the Army (1999). Military occupational classification and structure

(Department of the Army Pamphlet 611-21). [On Line]. Available: 

http://www.usapa.army.mil/gils/epubs//.html 

Department of the Navy. (1999). Sailor 21: A research vision to attract, retain, and 

utilize the 21st century sailor. [On line]. Available: http://www.nprdc. 

navy.mil/sailor21.htm. 

Employment and Training Administration (ETA), U.S. Department of Labor (1999). 

O*NET 98 data dictionary. Washington, D.C., Department of Labor. 

Ford, Laura A., Campbell, Roy C., Knapp, Deirdre J., and Walker, Clinton B. (2000). 

21st century soldiers and noncommissioned officers: Critical predictors of

performance (ARI Technical Report 1102). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research 

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) (1999). Systems approach to 

training [SAT] management, processes, and products (TRADOC Regulation 350-

70). [On-line]. Available: http://www-dcst.monroe. 

army.mil/tdaa/SAT/tr_350-701.htm. 

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) (1999). Requirements 

determination (TRADOC Pamphlet 71-9). [On-line]. Available: 

http://tradoc.monroe.army.mil/tpubs/pams/p71-9/1999/p71-9.html. 

 45
 46
Appendix A – List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

ADS-XXI TF Army Development System-XXI Task Force 

AIT Advanced Individual Training 

ANCOC Advanced Non-Commissioned Officer Course

AOT Assignment-Oriented Training

ASI Additional Skill Identifiers 

AST Additional Skills Training 

AVT Advanced Training

BCT Basic Combat Training

BNCOC Basic Non-Commissioned Officer Course 

CMF Career Management Field 

COTS Commercial Off-the-Shelf Technology 

DA Department of the Army

DL Distance Learning 

DT Distributed Training

HQDA Headquarters, Department of the Army

IBCT Interim Brigade Combat Teams 

KSA Knowledges, Skills, and Abilities 

MACOM Major Command

MOS Military Occupational Specialty(-ies) 

MOCS Military Occupation Classification Structure 

MOE Measures of Effectiveness 

MSS Multi-Skilled Soldier

NCO Non-Commissioned Officer

OF Objective Force 

OFTF Objective Force Task Force 

PERSCOM U.S. Army Total Personnel Command 

PLDC Primary Leadership Development Course 

RC Reserve Component(s)

SAT Systems Approach to Training

SD Self-Development

SI Skill Identifier

SL Skill Level 

SMOS Secondary Military Occupational Specialty 

SQI Special Qualification Identifier

TKCAM Task Knowledges Commonality Analysis Method

TMDE Test and Measurement Devices and Equipment

TOE Table(s) of Organization & Equipment 

TRADOC U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command 

TTHS Trainees, Transients, Holdees, and Students Account 

UOA Unit of Action 

UST Unit-Specific Training

WT Warrior Training

A-1 
Appendix B - Proposed Research and Analysis Project Descriptions (MSS Study Plan) 

Project Description 

Title Case Study: Prototype MSS for the Objective Force Unit of 

Action 

Purpose 

To develop MSS concepts based on a unit of action of the 

Objective Force. 

Description

(Statement of

Work) 

There is need to further develop and refine MSS concepts so that 

they more closely mirror operational realities. This project will 

develop MSS concepts keyed to a specification of a unit of action 

(formal doctrine, if available; otherwise, best speculation) that 

may exist in the Objective Force. Based on a definition of the unit 

of action and its functional requirements, examples of MSS will be 

formulated. These examples will be used to refine concepts and 

issues that must be addressed by the Army as its transforms to

MSS. To facilitate this effort, MOS data identifying common 

knowledge requirements among MOS developed previously by

ARI (Future MOS Consolidation Project, 2000) will be used as a 

point of departure. This project should: 

Develop concepts of a typical unit of action of the Objective 

Force, its functional requirements, and its soldier

requirements. 

For a set of functional requirements, identify examples of 

MSS that may be required by the unit of action. 

Develop descriptive data required for MSS implementation

and management. 

Products/

Results 

A description of a typical unit of action of the Objective 

Force along with examples of its MSS requirements. 

A prototype database of characteristics for selected MSS. 

 B-1
Project Description 

Title Prototype MSS Skill Database 

Purpose 

To develop a prototype database of skill requirements of

selected MOS. 

Description

(Statement of

Work) 

While the focus of current efforts is on MSS, MOS databases 

have to date primarily concentrated on task-level data. As the 

Army considers adopting MSS concepts as well as 

competency-based training, there potentially is need for skill 

data. These type data are virtually non-existent for MOS. In

October 2000, knowledge data were developed for eight MOS. 

This effort should develop skill data for these same MOS to

create a prototype MSS database that could be used where 

data are needed to develop, refine, and test MSS concepts. 

This project should: 

Develop a MSS skill taxonomy that can be used to

support MOS restructuring and training re-design and

development. 

Formulate methods for collecting MOS-based skill 

data. 

Collect skill data for selected MOS. 

Organize skill data along with other MOS data into a 

prototype MSS database. 

Develop examples of how the data may be used to 

address MSS development and implementation issues. 

Develop examples of how the data may be used to 

address MSS training issues. 

Products/

Results 

An MSS skill taxonomy 

A method for collecting skill data for MOS. 

A prototype MSS database including knowledge and 

skill data that could be used in developing, 

implementing, and managing MSS as well as

addressing MSS training issues. 

 B-2
Project Description 

Title MOS Consolidation 

Purpose 

To assess the feasibility of MOS consolidation as a baseline for

MSS development.

Description

(Statement of

Work) 

The ADS XXI Task Force identified various combinations of 

MOS that should be considered for consolidation. TKCAM

can be used to assess the feasibility of these potential MOS

combinations. Assessing the feasibility of MOS consolidation 

can support the development of the MSS in several ways. By 

establishing the feasibility of selected MOS combinations, a 

baseline can be established for considering multi-skilling. 

Feasible MOS combinations may be used to identify priorities

in terms of groups of MOS that may be multi-skilled, 

potentially reducing risk and disruption related to MSS 

development. Data developed in this project, particularly 

those identifying MOS commonalities, may support the 

Army's consideration of centers of excellence as an organizing 

principle versus the present branch-centric approach. The 

data may be useful in identifying and selecting segments of

current MOS that may be incorporated into multi-skilled 

MOS. Finally, the data developed in this assessment may be

used to support training planning for multi-skilled soldiers by 

identifying commonalities among MOS that may be trained. 

This project should: 

Identify feasible MOS combinations based on

commonality of knowledge requirements. 

Develop an MOS knowledge database that can support

development of MSS. 

Products/

Results 

Enumeration of feasible MOS combinations based on

knowledge requirements. 

MOS knowledge database. 

 B-3
Project Description 

Title MSS Military Occupational Classification and Structure 

(MOCS) Process 

Purpose 

To identify ways to accelerate and expedite the MOCS process

to meet MSS timelines and requirements. 

Description

(Statement of

Work) 

The Army G-1’s MOCS process is a defined procedure for

documenting and implementing change to MOS. The Army's 

transformation to MSS ultimately will be accomplished 

through this process. The ADS XXI Task Force reviewed the 

current MOCS process. There have been other reviews of the 

Army's procedures and those of other military services. The 

requirements for implementing MSS as part of the Objective 

Force involves timelines that are likely shorter than current

MOCS procedures require. This effort is aimed at reviewing 

current personnel procedures and determining ways in which 

they maybe streamlined in order to meet the timelines for the 

Objective Force. This project should: 

Review past studies of job structuring procedures of

the Army and other military services to identify lessons 

learned. 

Document the current MOCS procedures. 

Identify ways in which the MOCS process can be 

expedited and the effects and resource implications of

such procedural changes. 

Describe a modified MOCS process tailored to meet the 

needs of MSS development and implementation. 

Products/

Results 

Recommended MSS MOCS process for development 

and documentation of restructured MSS MOS.

 B-4
Project Description 

Title 

Determine the Applicability of the MSS Construct to the 

Legacy and Interim Forces 

Purpose 

To assess the applicability of the MSS Concept not only to the 

emerging Objective Force, but also to the Legacy and Interim

Forces. 

Description

(Statement of

Work) 

Most discussions about the MSS are made in the context of

supporting the operational concepts of the emerging 

Objective Force. Yet, what is today termed the Legacy and 

Interim Forces will coexist with the Objective Force at least 

until 2020 by current projections. Implementing the MSS for 

only the Objective Force would reinforce the perception of at 

least three different armies with the Army, and would lead to 

duplicative personnel and training systems that significantly

increase organizational and bureaucratic overhead in a way 

that inhibits a fully efficient employment of available 

resources. This study should: 

Assess the coincident applicability of the MSS Concept

to the Legacy and Interim Forces

Identify & access a range of prioritized strategies for

applying the MSS Concept to the Legacy & Interim

Forces coincident with its implementation for the 

Objective Force 

Study the advantages & limitations of doing so. 

Assess the full implications of not applying the MSS 

Concept to the Legacy & Interim Forces

Products/

Results 

An analysis of the most feasible courses of action for

retrofit of the MSS to the Legacy & Interim Forces. 

Recommended methodologies to overcome the chief

obstacles and employ the key enablers in facilitating

application of the MSS Concept to the Legacy & 

Interim Forces. 

“Best practices” for applying the MSS Concept to the 

Legacy & interim Forces. 

 B-5
Project Description 

Title Determine Impacts of MSS on the Army’s Reserve 

Components (RC) 

Purpose 

To assess the applicability of the MSS Concept to the US

Army National Guard and to the US Army Reserve 

Description

(Statement of

Work) 

Discussions of the MSS Concept focus predominantly on the 

Objective Force, most of which will be in the Active

Component, at least initially. The desire to uphold the notion

of the Total Force would argue ideally for implementation of

such a basic Concept as the MSS as uniformly as possible 

across the entire Force so as to avoid the perception of a 

hierarchy in quality of forces and to promote optimal 

efficiencies in training and personnel management. This 

study should: 

Explore the applicability of the MSS Concept to the 

various elements of the Army’s Reserve Components. 

Identify key obstacles and enablers to such 

applicability 

Assess the downside of not attempting to implement 

the MSS Concept, where possible, throughout the RC. 

Products/

Results 

An overall assessment of the applicability of the MSS 

Concept to the Army’s Reserve Components 

An analysis of strategies and implementing courses of

action to apply the MSS Concept to the RC 

Recommended approaches to overcome salient

obstacles and to utilize enablers fully in the abovereferenced courses of action. 

Best practices and principles for applying the MSS 

Concept to the RC. 

 B-6
Project Description 

Title Determine Performance and Cognitive Limits on MSS 

Purpose 

To identify performance and cognitive limits on MSS and 

strategies that may offset the limitations. 

Description

(Statement of

Work) 

Underlying efforts to create multi-skilled soldiers is the goal 

to create soldiers who provide their units of action with

adaptability, flexibility, and redundancy. Implicit is the 

expectation that soldiers will perform in more demanding 

ways. As MOS are transformed to multi-skilled MOS, 

consideration of performance and cognitive limits appears 

critical in order that new MOS predicated on unrealistic 

requirements are not created. This project should: 

Identify both performance and cognitive limits on MSS 

and describe them in ways that can be used by 

personnel analysts to formulate specific MSS MOS.

Determine tradeoff strategies for each limitation that 

can be considered as a means to offset or lessen the 

constraining effects of the various performance and 

cognitive limitations. 

Demonstrate the applicability of the definitions and 

tradeoff strategies for a typical or prototype MSS.

Products/

Results 

A taxonomy of performance and cognitive limits with 

corresponding descriptions and examples. 

A description of tradeoff strategies that can be used by 

personnel planners to limit the effects of such 

limitations. 

An example of the application of recommended 

tradeoff strategies. 

 B-7
Project Description 

Title 

Develop Principles for Identifying and Categorizing Jobs 

Requiring Multi-Skilling 

Purpose 

To develop principles for identifying and categorizing jobs 

requiring multi-skilling. 

Description

(Statement of

Work) 

The MSS Developmental Blueprint lays out a process by 

which requirements for MSS soldiers can be defined based on

the requirements associated with multi-functional units. The 

Blueprint incorporates various assessment steps including

linking functions, duties and jobs, soldier requirements and 

attributes assessments, and tradeoff/constraint

methodologies. This project aims to identify the principles 

and formulate methods by which the Blueprint's assessment

steps can be accomplished. This project should: 

Develop a set of principles for identifying and 

categorizing jobs requiring multi-skilling. 

Develop assessment methods that apply these 

principles in the context of the Developmental 

Blueprint facilitating the definition of jobs as functions 

of the requirements of multi-functional units, 

comparisons and assessments of soldier requirements

and attributes, and formulation of tradeoff/constraint

methodologies.

Products/

Results 

A method for defining multi-skilled jobs as functions of

the requirements of multi-functional units. 

A method for matching soldier job requirements and

soldier attributes. 

A method for addressing tradeoffs and constraints 

affecting the development of MSS.

Demonstration of the application of the various 

methods illustrating the use of the MSS Developmental 

Blueprint for identifying and categorizing jobs

requiring multi-skilling. 

 B-8
Project Description 

Title 

Determine Implications Between Task-Based and 

Competency-Based Approaches to Job Structuring and 

Learning 

Purpose 

To determine the differences and associated implications for 

the MSS between task-based and competency-based 

approaches to job structuring and learning. 

Description

(Statement of

Work) 

Much of current Army personnel and training planning is 

task-based. In the course of adopting the MSS concept, serious

consideration is being given to placing a greater emphasis on a 

competency-based approach. In the latter case, more attention

would be placed on knowledges, skills, abilities, and other

task performance enablers when designing jobs and carrying 

out training. This project is aimed at identifying the 

implications stemming from a competency-based approach. 

This project should: 

Develop an operational concept for a competency-based 

approach to job structuring and training. 

Characterize and contrast a competency-based

approach with the current task-based approach. 

Address the advantages and limitations of a 

competency-based approach. 

Formulate a recommended strategy to be followed in

adopting a competency-based approach. 

Products/

Results 

An assessment of the implications of adopting a 

competency-based approach to job structuring and 

learning. 

Recommendations and a conceptual plan of action for 

adopting a competency-based training and learning 

approach for the MSS. 

 B-9
Project Description 

Title 

Identify KSAs Associated with Effective Performance of

Tasks in an MSS Environment 

Purpose 

To identify KSAs associated with effective performance of 

tasks in an MSS environment. 

Description

(Statement of

Work) 

KSAs enable task performance. As jobs are restructured to 

create MSS, combinations of existing jobs that have

substantial commonality among KSAs will potentially prove 

more successful. This aim of this project is to identify sets of

knowledges, skills, and abilities that, when combined, 

facilitate task performance. Sets of knowledges can be 

identified from existing TKCAM databases. Skill and ability 

sets can be derived using TKCAM-like procedures. This 

project should: 

Develop TKCAM-like or other procedures for 

identifying skill and ability sets. 

Collect skill and ability data corresponding to

knowledge data for selected MOS. 

Identify relationships between KSAs and task 

performance. 

Organize the data in a prototype database that can be

used to support MSS development. 

Products/

Results 

Review of research literature documenting how KSAs 

relate to task performance. 

Descriptions of methods for acquiring task-based 

knowledge, skill, and ability data. 

KSA sets contributing to effective task performance. 

Prototype KSA database. 

 B-10
Project Description 

Title 

Determine Mitigating Approaches to Lessen the Impact of

Skill Decay on MSS Performance 

Purpose 

To identify variables that predict the difficulty of acquiring 

and maintaining skills of the type required of the MSS and to

identify mitigating approaches for skill decay 

Description

(Statement of

Work) 

The variables determining skill acquisition and decay fall into

three broad classes: individual attributes, occupationalorganizational variables, and the nature of the skill itself. 

Intelligence and motivation are two broad variables of the 

individual class, number of tasks in an occupation and 

opportunity for practice of a skill are two broad variables of

the second class, and physical coordination and mathematical 

skills are two broad variables of the third class. This project 

should: 

Identify the individual differences variables that a) 

most influence skill acquisition and maintenance, and 

b) are most susceptible to change through 

organizational intervention (e.g., rewards, types of 

training, etc.) 

Identify the attributes or typologies that most

efficiently predict the difficulty of acquiring and 

maintaining skills 

Test a methodology for applying the knowledge of

these variables to predicting the difficulty of specific

skill acquisition and maintenance scenarios. 

Products/

Results 

Taxonomies of attributes for individual, occupational, 

organizational, and skill variables affecting skill 

acquisition and decay, or typologies of the same

variable sets 

Description of a methodology (or methodologies) to 

predict the difficulty for the MSS in learning and 

maintaining acceptable levels of skill 

Design and conduct of studies to test the validity of the 

method(s) on existing MOS 

Derive principles and approaches for “best methods” 

to design initial and sustaining training curricula for

MSS in order to mitigate skill decay. 

 B-11
Project Description 

Title 

Determine How Recruiting Pool Demographics (2005-2010) 

Potentially Impact MSS 

Purpose 

To determine how recruiting pool demographics (2005-2010) 

relate to MSS. 

Description

(Statement of

Work) 

The pool of people from which the Army recruits its soldiers

has certain demographic characteristics. Both the Army's

personnel requirements and recruiting must be consistent

with those characteristics. This is so for the MSS. To the 

extent characteristics of the MSS differ from that of current 

soldiers, there will be new requirements. The pool from

which the Army will recruit for the initial MSS already is in 

place. Requirements for MSS must be consistent with the 

attributes recruits are likely to have. This project should: 

Project the demographic characteristics for the 

recruiting pool in the 2005-2010 timeframe. 

Identify the constraints that the projected demographic

characteristics may impose on the MSS requirements. 

Products/

Results 

Enumeration of recruiting pool demographics (2005-

2010) and identification of potential recruiting enablers 

and limitations. 

Description of demographic constraints on MSS design. 

Procedures for maintaining and monitoring recruiting

pool demographics in support of MSS. 

 B-12
Project Description 

Title 

Determine “Best Practice” Methods for Designing 

Curriculum and Learning Strategies for Complex Jobs 

Purpose 

To review and evaluate methods and systems for designing

curricula incorporating appropriate learning strategies for the 

MOS structure of the MSS. 

Description

(Statement of

Work) 

Considerable expertise exists in the Army for designing 

curricula and learning experiences for highly technical 

occupations, largely using task-based learning and 

measurement strategies. The MSS will involve fewer,

broader, more complex MOS with a greater emphasis on 

“competency-based” than on specific task competence. Also, 

much of MSS success is dependent upon broadening and 

deepening skill set proficiency outside of residential training 

courses. This project should: 

Collect and document existing Army expertise on 

curricula development and learning strategies for

teaching the broader, more complex MOS and for 

continued, self-motivated, individual learning 

Review and evaluate civilian educational literature for

pertinent knowledge for the same issues 

Create and assess two or more prototype, curriculum 

design systems that incorporate the “best practices” 

from the Army and civilian literatures. 

Products/

Results 

Identification of “best practices” and “major pitfalls” 

for curricula design and learning strategies in support

of MSS 

A similar evaluation of current civilian (and other

services) educational practices to detect potential “best 

practices” and “pitfalls” 

Plan for follow-on performance testing of prototypes

on new, broader MOS using Army training personnel 

 B-13
Project Description 

Title 

Determine the “Best Practice” Approaches for Integrating

Distance Learning (DL) into the Training & Educational 

Design of the MSS 

Purpose 

To assess the use of current and anticipated DL technologies 

to support an optimal design for an effective and efficient

training, educational, and learning process across the career of

the MSS. 

Description

(Statement of

Work) 

In recent years, the use of personal computer-based and 

Internet-based technology has profoundly expanded. This 

technology holds great promise for multiplying the 

effectiveness of training in at least three ways: accessibility, 

flexibility, and fidelity. A phone line and a PC provide easy 

access to potentially sophisticated training content that can be

dynamically altered fairly quickly, and, through use of DVD 

video contain large amounts of high-fidelity representations

of job situations. This project should: 

Critically review the literature on the use of DL from 

the point of view of optimal incorporation into the 

entire MSS training & education scheme. Identify the 

types of skill proficiencies most likely and least likely 

to be assisted by DL. 

Identify the likely enablers and barriers for DL support 

to the MSS 

Products/

Results 

Identification of the most likely enablers for, and 

obstacles to, best DL use in support MSS. 

Overall assessment of DL’ s potential for career-long

support to the MSS, to include “best practice” 

guidelines for MSS support. 

Specific findings & recommendations on DL support 

for task, skill, and “competency-based training,” to

support the MSS Concept. 

Organizational & resource considerations for DL 

applications to support the MSS, with estimates of

costs and expected benefits of DL use over more

traditional approaches. 

 B-14
Project Description 

Title 

Determine Best Methodologies to Motivate and Facilitate 

the Perpetually Learning, Multi-Skilled Soldier 

Purpose 

To assess the best methodologies for motivating the MSS to

deepen & broaden skill sets through individual efforts after

initial training and to facilitate soldier efforts to do so. 

Description

(Statement of

Work) 

Pivotal to the MSS Concept is the notion of the perpetually 

learning soldier. Such soldiers would be positively motivated 

to deepen and broaden their skill set knowledges and 

proficiencies through largely individual study efforts 

following initial entry training. How to nurture and facilitate 

the individual soldier in doing so is the focus of this study. 

This project should: 

Assess approaches that would successfully motivate

and orient soldiers to the perpetually learning model 

and provide them with a sufficiently effective 

educational foundation during initial training to

sustain future efforts in that regard. 

Assess post-initial training approaches and techniques 

that would reinforce soldier motivation. 

Identify and analyze the more salient impediments and 

limitations to molding the perpetually learning soldier.

Explore the most effective positive and negative 

incentives. 

Explore the role of the junior leader in sustaining and 

reinforcing perpetually learning soldiers

Products/

Results 

“Best practices” and pitfalls in motivating and 

encouraging soldiers both during initial training and 

afterward. 

Strategies to overcome identified impediments. 

Assessment of realistic motivational limitations 

Guidelines for the application of career “carrots and 

sticks” 

Analysis of the role of the junior leader (NCO & 

Officer) in motivating, encouraging, & facilitating. 

 B-15