U.S. Army Research Institute

ATTN: TAPC-ARI-PO

5001 Eisenhower Ave.

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

www.ari.army.mil

U.S. Army Research Institute

ATTN: TAPC-ARI-PO

5001 Eisenhower Ave.

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

www.ari.army.mil
Training Challenges 

for Digitization

ARI Special Report 47, June 2001

Franklin L. Moses

Chief, Advanced Training Methods Research Unit

Advanced Training Methods Research Unit

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue • Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

Internet site: http://www.ari.army.mil
3

U.S. Army Research Institute

Foreword

This Special Report from the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and 

Social Sciences (ARI) reviews the challenges of how best to train computer-based 

digital skills required for future battlefield operations. It explains the foundation 

of Army needs, the state of current knowledge, suggests research to address the most 

pressing needs, and outlines the potential benefits to the Army. The goal is to communicate 

these challenges to training managers and leaders who have to make informed decisions 

about how to support training for the Objective Force and the future Army. 

ARI personnel derived the challenges from several sources. Training researchers reviewed 

official and unofficial documentation and reviewed the scientific literature about digital 

skills training, retention, and related topics. ARI research units co-located with TRADOC 

schools interacted with school personnel to understand digitization from their perspective. 

Current experience with digitized systems was gained from interviews conducted at Fort 

Hood, Fort Huachuca, and Fort Drum. Fort Hood is the home of the 4th ID (M), the 

first digital division. The U.S. Army Intelligence Center (USAIC), a long-time user of 

digitization, is at Fort Huachuca. Digitization is beginning at Fort Drum within a light 

infantry brigade. ARI scientists reviewed digitization perspectives at a Workshop in 1999 

that began the job of organizing the challenges represented in this report.

 EDGAR M. JOHNSON

Director 
4

Training Challenges for Digitization

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the contributions of and expresses his gratitude to scientists 

across ARI and to other contributors whose ideas made this Special Report possible. He 

particularly thanks those who contributed significantly to early versions of the report: 

Dr. Richard E. Christ, Mr. Douglas Dressel, Dr. Jean L. Dyer, Dr. Jon J. Fallesen, Dr. 

William R. Howse, Dr. Angelo Maribella, Dr. Larry L. Meliza, Dr. Kathy A. Quinkert, 

Dr. Guy L. Siebold, Dr. Dennis C. Wightman, and Dr. Robert A. Wisher. Thanks as 

well for input from ARI personnel not already mentioned at the Advanced Training 

Methods Research Unit, Alexandria, VA; Armored Forces Research Unit, Fort Knox, 

KY; Fort Leavenworth Research Unit, KS; Infantry Forces Research Unit, Fort Benning, 

GA; Rotary-Wing Aviation Research Unit, Fort Rucker, AL; and the Simulator Systems 

Research Unit, Orlando; FL. In addition, the author expresses his gratitude to personnel 

from Booz•Allen & Hamilton, Tysons Corner, VA, and from TRW Systems for help 

describing digitization and training in the future Army. He also is indebted to graduate 

students from the Washington Area Consortium Research Fellows Program who, along 

with other civilian and military readers, provided invaluable comments and edits on 

drafts of the report. The author has sole responsibility, of course, for the report’s final 

version and for any misrepresentations or inaccuracies.
5

U.S. Army Research Institute

Table of Contents

Digitization and Training in the Future Army ..................................................... 7

Leveraging Technology....................................................................................... 12

Structuring the Challenge................................................................................... 13

Digitization Challenges and Research................................................................ 15

Determine Digital Task Training Requirements .......................................... 15

Train Adaptability (Individual Training)..................................................... 17

Prepare Electronically-Linked Teams (Staff and Group Training).............. 18

Assess Skill Levels Of Digital Soldiers ......................................................... 20

Training On Demand ................................................................................... 21

Another Factor: The Environment............................................................... 23

A Digitization Research Strategy........................................................................ 25

Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 26

Bibliography and References.............................................................................. 27

Appendix A: Four Levels of Digitization Skills .................................................. 29

Appendix B: Challenges Presented by Digitization............................................ 31

List of Figures

Figure 1. Changes resulting in the need for research: How the Army fights ..... 11

Figure 2. Changes resulting in the need for research: 

Technology the Army uses.................................................................. 13

Figure 3. Changes that challenge training ......................................................... 14

Figure 4. Five training challenges for digitzation .............................................. 15

Figure 5. Testbed for training challenges........................................................... 25
6

Training Challenges for Digitization
7

U.S. Army Research Institute

Training Challenges

for Digitization

Digitization and Training in the Future Army

COL Jones is evaluating his first moves to deter invasion of a friendly nation. 

His combat team is deploying as the initial elements of a highly mobile combat 

force. Their deployment will enable defeat of the invasion force if required. Each 

soldier sees the battle area on personal displays, each one tracks own and opposing 

forces, and each one can interact through an information network. 

The capabilities of COL Jones and his future force in 2015 are heavily dependent on 

computers and robots. Their training with a family of digital systems and networks 

includes suites of advanced sensor systems and control of direct/indirect fires. The latest 

RPVs and satellite downlinks give near real-time data about our own and hostile forces. 

Sensor reports to date show hostile action has been characterized by battalion size raids 

and support to insurgent forces. Some combat cells, as they now are called, have closed 

in the theater with reconnaissance, infantry, standoff robotic artillery, and a multi-cell 

distributed command post. COL Jones’ mission is to defend well forward from the 

lodgment, cover the deployment of follow-on friendly forces, and be prepared to initiate 

offensive action against the threat should the invasion force cross the border.

COL Jones’ staff – some elements airborne en route, some still at home station, and 

some at a mobile tactical command post – do parallel planning and information sharing 

through digital networks connected to staff in theater and subordinate elements. The 

combat team uses an information structure linked through horizontal and vertical 

networks that enable detection and destruction of the enemy at a distance. The same 

information structure rapidly informs the combat team about the constantly changing 

situation. Having advanced systems provides a technology edge to the friendly force, but 

technology alone does not win battles. 

Success depends on each soldier’s proficiency with a network of digital systems. Multiskilled training allows soldiers to horizontally integrate their actions with team members 

from other branch disciplines and cells. For example, Threat Situation Analysts must 

develop fire support options cooperatively with Direct/Indirect Fires Officers. To fight 
8

Training Challenges for Digitization

and win, responsibility for parsing information occurs at many levels with only split 

seconds for responding to changes in a situation. 

The flattened organizational structure created by widely dispersed individuals and cells 

mandates more responsibility at lower levels. Soldiers and leaders must be proficient and 

current in equipment employment, operation, and maintenance. They “train on demand” 

through an embedded capability or from a satellite download using the network. More 

junior soldiers rely on skills in decision-making aided by automated tools and checklists. 

Even mid- and junior-level soldiers can understand different levels of the commander’s 

intent and his operational priorities, all of which place added burdens on training.

As the situation progresses, the combat team’s Threat Situation Analysts focus on the 

potential leading edge of the invasion force since the initial alert. The multi-system allsource update confirms that the threat has repositioned forces in reaction to COL Jones’ 

deployment. Penetration of the border could occur with no notice.

The alert on COL Jones’ command display comes with an ominous voice that barks 

“warning” accompanied by a flashing screen. A light and highly mobile two-man outpost 

is operating 15 kilometers from the forward line of friendly positions. Using remotely 

positioned monitoring devices, the outpost detects a large threat unit approaching the 

border. The Threat Situation Analysts check real-time images being received from 

higher-level assets and quickly note a double thrust of the threat. Three truck-mounted 

regiment-sized units are headed toward the capital, and one mechanized brigade with 

truck-mounted infantry is aimed at the combat team. Who constitutes the opposing 

force in unclear. In the world economy, it has been easy for countries to purchase 

NATO equipment and outfit it with state-of-the-art sensors and armament. Friend-foe 
9

U.S. Army Research Institute

identification now depends not on identifying the silhouette of the vehicle but on 

use of the Identify Friend-Foe (IFF) system built into the network signatures of our 

forces. By choosing to mute displays of our vehicles, COL Jones can identify on his 

surveillance screen two armored and heavily armed hostiles moving in dust through the 

rolling terrain. The follow-on threat formations beyond direct line of sight of forward 

reconnaissance cells are confirmed and located by remote sensor arrays.

COL Jones’ combat team reacts immediately based on prior planning and practice for 

multiple contingencies. Simultaneously, coded orders issued from his combat console 

prompt all subordinate cells to take action. Teams and staff are skilled in collaborative 

tasks in addition to individual tasks. These personnel typically are located over long 

distances and do not have the luxury of face-to-face coordination. They have selected 

sites to provide effective interfaces with the digital network and survivability against 

a broad array of threats. The different participants are linked to provide real-time 

information sharing to properly train and prepare for operations. 

Being a light and highly mobile force enables the combat team to deploy rapidly but still 

engage in full spectrum conflict over a large territory with rolling hills, scattered villages 

and a few towns, and groves of trees. Junior leaders, operating independently, use digital 

systems to maintain information flow and situation awareness. They possess the tactical 

knowledge to accomplish missions per the commander’s remote guidance. In one action, 

a captain in charge of a 100-soldier cell dispersed over 10 kilometers is charged to delay 

the enemy force. He verifies his operational and logistics status using map displays and 

information garnered from the network. As the battle commences, the captain avoids the 

necessity of last minute or additional support requirements, given that his self-sustaining 

cell and the digital network “see” logistical readiness.

Overview of The Training and Research Challenge

Certainly, this new way of conducting Army operations presents many challenges to 

leaders and soldiers. A significant challenge to the training community is how to make 

this future battlefield work and sustain its complex readiness. What advice does the Army 

need about how to handle training for digital operations as it transforms itself into the 

Objective Force? 

To create a balanced system, the Army should both develop information-age materiel 

with accompanying doctrine and organization and changes in training and leader 

development. For example, there will be an increasing need for adaptive leaders to 

cope with unexpected and rapidly changing situations (Ervin and Decker, 2000). As 

another example, there will be a need for soldiers who understand and perform functions 

for more than one duty station, i.e., training must result in soldiers who are digitally 

proficient, multi-skilled, and adaptable. 

The role of research is to develop the training technology to meet the digital task 

training requirements for soldiers to do their jobs using computer systems with multifunctional windows-type operating systems and menus. Learning “knobology” – what 

keys and menu items map to different functions – is a small part of using the system. 

The emphasis must be on training soldiers in skills for mission execution including 

adaptability to change. They become familiar with different duty assignments within 

their branch, and learn how their duties fit in with other branches and how to shift 
10

Training Challenges for Digitization

emphasis as needed to work as digitally-linked teams. Training technologies must 

support workstation-to-workstation operating requirements, even across branches. The 

targeting function, for example, depends on horizontal and vertical integration of 

information between the ground force commander, his intelligence staff, supporting 

engineers, and the indirect fire assets (artillery, AF, and Navy.) In addition, soldiers’ jobs 

include skills for routine workstation maintenance and how to troubleshoot day-to-day 

operating problems. 

From officers to system operators, the digital environment needs emphasis on training 

assessment and feedback to ensure proficiency. The Army has to train soldiers to “see the 

battle,” understand it, and share it through their computers and computer screens. This 

only will be possible with training on demand so soldiers can be proficient on the job 

they must perform presently. 

In summary, COL Jones has the digital systems that have been proven to provide a 

technological advantage. However, his greatest challenge is to ensure soldiers are trained 

properly and effectively to employ these systems.

Background

The Army is greatly increasing its use of weapons, equipment, and technologies that 

depend on soldiers and leaders with information-age, digital skills. The Army Digitization 

Report 2000 (Army Directorate of Integration, 2000), emphasizes the advantage of 

advances in information technology throughout the battlespace, and defines digitization 

as shown in the shaded box. The benefits of digitization are for all personnel – users, 

managers, maintainers, and sustainers – with the particular emphasis here on users. 

The right training is important to help prepare for the decentralized, fluid, fast-paced 

operational strategies and tactics of the Objective Force. How should the Army train to 

sustain the skills necessary for multi-faceted military operations, including peacekeeping 

and security missions, using digitization, its equipment, software, and procedures? Most 

critical is research on how to train soldiers and teams of soldiers to: 1) seek out, identify, 

and analyze information, 2) cope with information overload, 3) operate as components 

in networks of digital systems, and 4) make wise individual or collective decisions. The 

Army needs to determine how to best train what, where, and when.

Training must evolve as technology changes the ways soldiers fight, from the infantryman 

to the highest levels of command. For example, preparing infantrymen for close combat 

now involves individual marksmanship, bayonet, and hand-grenade training. In the 

not-too-distant future, that same infantryman will be much more removed from close 

proximity to the enemy. The Land Warrior “foot soldier” can be a weapon system. 

Training him in squad tactics now involves line-of-sight hand and arm signals. Future 

Digitization applies information technologies to acquire, exchange, and employ timely data throughout 

the battlespace ...[that]...will allow all friendly forces to share a constantly updated view of the entire 

battlefield, no matter what the mission, to penetrate the enemy’s decision loop, and act faster than he 

can react.

— The Army Digitization Report 2000, June 14, 2000 
11

U.S. Army Research Institute

Commanders of digitized units, as well as other observers, state that training in battlefield digitization 

systems is broken. The Army has spent billions on these systems, and it has been estimated that units are 

getting only a small amount of the potential increased effectiveness. 

tactics may have him separated from other soldiers by kilometers as he digitally controls 

robotic weapons systems by using a helmet-mounted situation display, a visual sensing 

device, and a keypad. New digital technologies can remove the more senior NCOs and 

officers even further from their traditional places on the battlefield, making warfare 

increasingly abstract at higher levels of command.

Younger, less experienced leaders need to train “how to think” and adapt at increasing 

levels of abstraction. 

Figure 1 was modified from one used by GEN (Ret.) Vuono to brief senior Army trainers. 

It shows that the Army of the near future will fight “over the horizon.” Those major 

changes must bring changes to training technologies. Broader mission responsibilities 

– peace keeping, peace making, and conducting combat operations – increase the 

complexity of what needs to be trained. In addition, the level of abstraction, separation, 

and detachment will be greater for soldiers and leaders. They will be removed in space 

more than ever before from each other, the systems they control, and the enemy they 

engage. The Army’s “zone of research” for this effort starts now through 2008 with fielding 

the first unit equipped, and continues beyond. Although specific changes are unknown 

in both fighting and non-fighting missions, current indications certainly provide major 

opportunities for new and innovative training research and training.

Figure 1 

Changes resulting in the 

need for research: How 

the Army fights.
12

Training Challenges for Digitization

Leveraging Technology

People often are told that digital tools and devices, including the computer, will 

help them do a better job. As with other technological innovations, digitization 

initially was introduced to improve job performance over existing technology. 

For example, the word processor was accepted as a better typewriter, the computer as a 

faster calculator, and so on. However, there are reminders from experts that technologies 

may be a problem instead of a solution particularly for managing information. In 

his book about the trouble with computers, Landauer (1995) points out that fully 

automated systems where the human operator is replaced, as with telephone switching 

operations, are highly successful and increase productivity. In contrast, systems to 

augment, aid, or assist the human operator may not enhance productivity because of 

problems with software design, user interfaces, and operational deployment. Martinsons 

and Chong (1999) point out that the full benefit of information systems is realized 

only if tailored to the user’s need and environment. Without redesigning the tasks and 

processes, automation is not enough. Then too, with automation of information systems 

comes the growing problem of information overload, which can make it harder to 

determine the right solutions or make the correct decisions.

To realize the potential power from digitization, the equipment needs to be interconnected 

and utilized in new performance-enhancing ways. It takes time for new technology to 

develop to a high level of quality and dependability. At that stage, design changes and 

special features accomplish old things in better ways or make new uses possible. For 

instance, the airplane was selected for use in World War I as an improvement over the 

observation balloon. It was later that the airplane had armaments added to become an 

early version of a fighter-bomber. However, it was not until the next decade that General 

Billy Mitchell sank a battleship with bombs from an airplane. Similarly, the effectiveness 

of digital technology is a function of many factors. Improved training, one of the major 

factors, is diagrammed in Figure 2. 

People need training designed to achieve full performance through use of technology. 

Current evidence for that concept comes from results of the first digitally equipped 

units during their advanced warfighting exercises. Expert observers state that units’ 

performance showed them doing old things only a little better and showed them starting 

to use the digital technologies in new ways. However, they get very little increase in 

effectiveness because the training to go along with that technology has not kept pace. 

Feedback from these exercises showed that NCOs and officers had problems determining 

how to best train their soldiers.
13

U.S. Army Research Institute

Structuring the Challenge

Research should identify training principles and methods for digitized operations 

and procedures that maximize skill acquisition, utilization, and retention. There 

are a number of identifiable issues, questions, and gaps concerning the training of 

digital skills. Issues may exist at more than one level of task complexity, from computer 

keyboard and software use to command skills (see Appendix A). However, there is a 

question about what effects digital equipment and procedures have on training. 

Training technology must prepare the warfighter to handle data from digital platforms 

such as satellites, Joint Surveillance/Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS), and Unattended 

Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) that supply hundreds of messages per minute to command and 

control workstations such as the All Source Analysis System (ASAS), Maneuver Control 

System (MCS), and Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFTADS). Leaders 

and staffs must learn to sort through this flood of data (messages and imagery), process 

it into information (intelligence), distribute the information across workstations and 

echelons, and then decide on courses of action. Their task will be complicated in hybrid 

operations where digital and “manual” modes of operation co-exist or where digital 

systems across echelons are incompatible.

Figure 2

Changes resulting in 

the need for research: 

technology the 

Army uses.
14

Training Challenges for Digitization

Training needs to accommodate missions characterized by: 1) an extended operational 

battle space that goes beyond width, depth, and height to include the electro-magnetic 

spectrum, 2) precise and synchronized attacks throughout the battle space, and 

3) non-linear, distributed, and simultaneous operations. In these ill-defined, unpredictable 

environments, soldiers and leaders will not find all the answers to tactical problems in 

existing doctrine. They must have experience in discovering or even inventing solutions 

(Assistant Secretary of the Army, 1999; HQ, US Army, TRADOC, 1998). The kinds of 

challenges are illustrated in Figure 3.

The result of a properly trained digital force will be much more than an Army equipped 

with new systems. Digitization can enable the Army to achieve information dominance, 

the key to success for operational changes planned over the next 25 years. Digital systems 

will allow soldiers to acquire, process, exchange, and employ data and information 

throughout the operational battle space. These systems will provide the basis for 

operational skills at every level from target identification and acquisition to situational 

awareness and command decision-making.

ARI identified major stakeholders and customers who could identify training challenges 

for digitization (summarized in Appendix B). HQ, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine 

Command (TRADOC), a key stakeholder, needs training modernized to fit the 

information age. Commanders and leaders in the field who are receiving new digital 

equipment, as well as Army schools and centers within TRADOC, are also stakeholders 

who need to adapt to digitization. Senior Army leaders are stakeholders concerned with 

readiness and costs. We used these stakeholder interests, and how the Army must respond 

with new training technologies as the basis for structuring the challenges.

• Time and resource limitations demand that training of digital procedures and skills – including 

back-up and work-around skills – are integrated into training of tactics, techniques, and procedures.

• The volume of ambiguous data, along with smaller operational units and novel situations, require 

methods for training junior and mid-level soldiers to be flexible and adaptive.

• Frequent upgrades in digital system hardware and software limit learning of skills to mastery levels 

and place great demands on refresher training.

• Future operations call for widely dispersed soldiers linked through electronic networks to perform 

as digital teams with new training demands (e.g., advanced distributed learning, asynchronous 

simulations, and collaborative environments.

Figure 3

Changes that 

challenge training
15

U.S. Army Research Institute

Digitization Challenges and Research

ARI researchers chose an overarching framework to summarize content areas and 

focus on high priority topics. It was important that the framework cover topics 

already approved by stakeholders such as HQ TRADOC and Army schools. Good 

principles of training remain the same. The Army describes requirements for training 

in Chapter 1 of “Training the Force” (FM 25-100, 1988). Underlying this approach 

is an extensive literature about how to train. There are many excellent summaries of 

what works in teaching and learning, with two books of particular note (Bennett, 1986; 

Naval Personnel R&D Center, 1987). The emphasis here, for digitization, falls under 

three broad areas: Requirements for Soldier/Leader Capabilities, Training Methods, and 

Training Delivery. Training Methods include three important sub-areas covering training 

adaptability (individual), team training, and assess-skill levels. The resulting five topics 

(Figure 4) are elaborated in the following paragraphs.

Figure 4

Five training challenges 

for digitization

Determine Digital Task Training Requirements

The Challenge

Among the more critical training requirements associated with digitization and the 

down-sizing of the military is the need for soldiers to operate in multiple arenas with 

the help of distributed learning and digital skills. That raises the question of how 

training requirements analysis should change to foster high performance organizations, 

leaders, and soldiers. The challenge is to determine the kinds of demands that digital 

Training Delivery on Demand

What training should be done now, 

when and where using soldiercentered distributed/digital 

environments?

Assess Skill Levels 

of Digital Soldiers

What measurement/assessment 

and feedback tools are needed to 

ensure that required skill levels are 

attained and retained?

Determine Digital Task Training Requirements

How should training requirements analyses change for 

digital tasks and for hybrid digital-conventional 

environments to determine the training needed for 

producing and sustaining high 

performance soldiers?

Train Adaptability

What training methods work 

best to prepare soldiers for 

frequent software/equipment 

changes combined with ad 

hoc and varied missions 

(including combat and 

special assignments) ?

Prepare Digitally-linked Teams

What methods work best to prepare leaders and to train 

widely dispersed soldiers linked as teams and units through 

digital networks?
16

Training Challenges for Digitization

operations and procedures create for tactics, techniques, procedures, task performance, 

and cognitive/operational skills. One of the results of digitization may be to change the 

nature of lower-level procedural jobs to become more open-ended. Training requirements 

and standards for such jobs are difficult to establish. Soldiers will need to develop 

innovative thinking for responding to ad hoc military missions and objectives that are 

assigned with limited lead-time. To perform well in different missions, soldiers will need 

skills that easily are applied to multiple situations and conditions. In addition, what are the 

training requirements for digital staffs, nodes, and networks with no tradition or tested 

doctrine? And eventually, what are the training requirements for a broader population 

that incorporates Active and Reserve Components, other governmental agencies, and 

non-governmental organizations? We need to determine what to train, who to train it to, 

and what the workload demands will be.

Background

What is needed to articulate job tasks for digitization? Some initiatives, such as 

building Military Intelligence Combat Assessment Tables (MICATS), are going in the 

right direction. However, more definition 

of task requirements for digital operations 

must be developed. We do know that the 

lower grades tend to need training on the 

operation of specific equipment while the 

higher grades and leaders need training 

on integrative digital skills and software 

for them. Staff personnel, in particular, 

report spending inordinate amounts of time 

on electronic mail and briefings. When 

software changes occur, most of the training 

is obtained through exploring new program 

features, asking peers, or asking an expert if one is available. How should the Army 

deal with exploration to include it as part of the conditions and standards for digital 

operations? The challenge is growing with increases in new digital systems projected for 

fielding with associated MOS changes.

Challenges in Determining Digital Task Training Requirements 

• Analyzing missions in terms of tasks and standards for soldiers and leaders.

• Defining innovative thinking skills needed for ad hoc missions, objectives and greater responsibilities.

• Identifying skills needed by multifunctional soldiers with cross-disciplinary MOSs.

• Identifying differences between digital and non-digital environments.
17

U.S. Army Research Institute

Train Adaptability (Individual Training)

The Challenge

The future military environment will demand dramatically new types and levels of 

individual soldier and leader capabilities. The grease pencil and acetate will give way to the 

Army Battle Command System (ABCS) and the Future Combat System (FCS). Soldiers will 

have to go beyond minimal operation of digital workstations to be effective. For example, 

a battle captain with digital operations must understand the range of capabilities of the 

systems he oversees (e.g., ABCS and Force XXI Battle Command Battalion/Brigade and 

Below [FBCB2]). This understanding is difficult to acquire and is believed to be very 

perishable. Skill sustainment will be threatened further by rapid changes in technology that 

require frequent skill upgrading. However, degree and type of digitization will vary within 

and across organizations. As a consequence, communications among digital systems will be 

a problem and personnel transferring will need to retrain. We need to know what training 

works for frequent changes of software or equipment and the Army’s varied missions.

How does the Army prepare individual soldiers and leaders to cope with the extraordinary 

changes described above? It still has to train the 

traditional warrior technical (tactical and MOS) 

skills. However, the Army must also develop the 

cognitive/operational skills needed for the nonlinear, asymmetric, mixed intensity environments. The 

highest stage of training probably only is attainable 

when soldiers employ systems as an extension of their 

own thinking. How can soldiers achieve increasing 

stages of proficiency and maintain them over time? 

The traditional questions (what, how, how often, 

and when) raised about instructional design still are 

appropriate. The traditional questions about transfer, 

retention, and adaptability of training also still are 

appropriate. The questions are the same but the 

answers may be very different.

Research Solutions

• Document digital skills for exemplar systems and related skills needed to cooperate with non-digital 

environments.

• Define digital task attributes and their workload levels and performance standards.

• Apply task and workload analysis techniques to digital systems and procedures for:

 – multifunctional soldiers and their span-of-control. 

 – teams operating as nodes in digital networks.

• Identify basic competencies that can be bundled together as generic and key digital skill competencies 

applicable to multiple situations and conditions.

• Produce prototype methods and techniques for general application in establishing digital task 

requirements.
18

Training Challenges for Digitization

Background

Much of the individual skill acquisition and retention drills done today are based on 

performance-oriented, criterion-referenced training. This approach has served the Army 

well in preparing soldiers and leaders to perform highly proceduralized, structured tasks 

in predictable environments involving high intensity conflict. It has been characterized in 

TRADOC and other high-level briefings as a “what to think” approach to training. How 

should that change to suit the new environments and support a shift in training emphasis 

to “how to think”?

Prepare Electronically-Linked Teams (Staff and Group Training)

The Challenge

Digitization adds obstacles to and opportunities for how to operate as part of a team. The 

challenge is that the Army is expected to use smaller and more diverse staffs and groups 

in dispersed environments that depend on information exchange through extensive 

horizontal and vertical networks. For example, if properly trained, each staff element 

in an MCS/FBCB2 tactical operations center and all subordinate and supporting cells 

should have an accurate, up-to-the-minute picture of all friendly forces. There would 

be no guesswork or extrapolation on front line traces as in the past. However, elements 

are separated by distance and workstations and will not benefit from initial team or 

group development. This development traditionally results from eye-to-eye, interpersonal 

relationships that establish standard operating procedures, shared common frameworks, 

understandings, goals and priorities. What strategies are needed to train teams in this 

non-traditional and networked environment? 

Soldiers and leaders who operate and use digital systems face several challenges, including :

• Frequent software and equipment changes reduce proficiency.

• Varied missions require training methods that include combat, special assignments, and contingency 

operations.

• Everyone must learn to handle the unexpected as part of everyday events.

• More complex task and skill requirements reduce skill retention and sustainment.

Research Solutions

• Develop training methods and strategies that promote adaptive/flexible and innovative behavior for 

the Army’s paradigm shift to “how to think” and generic skills.

• Determine the right mix of digital operational skills (“practice”) with general task principles 

(“theory”) in both on-line and face-to-face instruction.

• Determine the training methods and strategies to prepare soldiers and leaders for changing roles 

in the future Army. 

• Develop tools for predicting retention of digital skills and the training methods for reducing the 

perishability of such skills.
19

U.S. Army Research Institute

Digitization can aid the teaming process through 

use of networks to disseminate team information, 

battle structures, and changes. What it does not 

do is help soldiers spend time together to get to 

know one another and learn how to work together. 

That time becomes less and less available with the 

focus on digital integration instead of face-to-face 

interactions. One question is how to accelerate the 

rapid train up for mobilization of newly configured 

teams and organizations to perform a variety of 

missions. Another concern is to determine the 

types of training – for levels of competency, and 

adaptability – that should be performed at different 

times of a digitally-integrated team’s life cycle. This 

includes guidelines and approaches for intra-nodal 

and inter-nodal training as well as for team leaders 

to enhance group motivation and coherence for 

sustained high levels of competence. We need to 

determine how, how often, and when to train for these leaders and their teams and groups 

to operate effectively in varying environments.

Background

With their leaders, soldiers need to be able to quickly form teams and organizations that 

carry out a wide array of missions in an information-age Army. Interconnection 

through networks provides opportunities for training performance enhancement, 

developing shared understandings, and reconciling different perspectives. However, this 

information network is different from the traditional hierarchical control structures. 

What techniques and arrangements are needed to foster the fluid, non-hierarchical nature 

of digital operations while maintaining acceptable levels of direct or indirect control and 

coordination over soldiers and their actions? Further, soldiers will increasingly spend time 

interacting electronically instead of working directly together. What training methods 

are needed for them to operate as part of a virtual team while maintaining positive 

social relationships with physically co-located soldiers and leaders? The magnitude of the 

problem is huge with networks that link individual solders, weapon crews, organizations, 

and leaders.

Specific challenges for teams include training to exploit extensive horizontal and 

vertical networks that:

• May have incompatible equipment, software, or procedures. 

• Mix different situations and individual mental models of problems and events.

• Emphasize electronic interactions that depersonalize information and its importance.

• Potentially isolate team members and thereby compromise teamwork and morale.
20

Training Challenges for Digitization

Assess Skill Levels of Digital Soldiers

The Challenge

Certifying the digital skills of soldiers and leaders is a chief reason for measuring how well 

tasks are performed. It also is fundamental to an understanding of sustainment of such 

skills. Without measurement, how do we know that a particular training approach was 

more effective or how do we know when to schedule refresher training? The challenge 

with digital systems is that so much happens in the interactions between the solder and the 

electronics that is fleeting, hard to observe, and difficult to assess. Instructors or leaders, after 

spending time with soldiers, generally can identify who has the strongest digital skills or 

is especially good at some aspect of digital 

operations. However, this ranking of soldiers 

is intuitive and without any specific criteria. 

Records of training are usually limited to 

course completion information, so there is 

insufficient schoolhouse data. Furthermore, 

given the newness of many digital systems, 

there is limited opportunity to develop 

subject matter experts who can assess 

performance levels. 

Deciding how to assess skills is a major challenge, whether by soldier self-assessment, 

a computer program, a supervisor, or a very-hard-to-obtain skilled outside observer. 

Because of frequent updates in equipment and software, it is difficult to have updated 

tests or measures of proficiency calibrated to new standards. Likewise, it is difficult to 

establish a long-lived basis for any competency or skill certification. This challenge of 

measurement is magnified with collective digital skills of a team or group. In addition, 

what types of records does the Army need about digital skills: such as certification of 

competency, initial skill proficiency, current skill level, and so on? 

Research Solutions

• Determine how to use networks for pre-assignment training and training-on-the-go as we deploy.

• Teach how to operate as part of a network with standards and feedback.

• Develop procedures for leaders to form responsive teams through electronic networks.
21

U.S. Army Research Institute

Background

Quantitative measures typically are only for speed and accuracy of performance 

outcomes – number of volleys, metal on target, or messages processed. Measures of 

speed and accuracy do not necessarily give any indication of how well tasks were 

performed. Observers can judge effectiveness based on discussions, interim products, 

and recommended actions. However, such judgments are hard to make with digitization 

where electrons flow simultaneously to influence many people and events. Collective 

digital skills of a team or group, with their many nodes and interactions, magnify the 

requirements for individual assessment. In addition, there are important questions about 

how to do assessment – soldier self-assessment, a computer program, a supervisor, or 

a very-hard-to-obtain skilled outside observer. When multiple sources are used, there 

needs to be a convergence across measures as a means of validating level of performance 

or effectiveness.

Training Delivery on Demand

The Challenge

Training today primarily is centered in the schoolhouse while, increasingly, training delivery 

“on demand” when and where it is needed would better serve the soldier. Some delivery 

mechanisms for making this transition are available. For example, Military Intelligence 

(MI) has developed a Master Analyst program, which employs a highly qualified local expert 

to train the trainers and assist users. In part, such a program is more of a necessity for MI 

because it is fully digitized and soldiers may work outside their MOS during assignments. 

Specific challenges for assessment include:

• Feedback for soldiers involved in complex procedures with digital equipment makes performance 

observation difficult.

• Records about skill assessments and certification are vague about soldier capabilities and often out-of-date.

• Collective performance assessment becomes complicated when the least-skilled soldier can degrade 

much of the performance in a network. 

• Dispersed teams require distributed assessment capabilities. 

• Trained observers, current with new equipment and procedures, are rare.

Research Solutions

• Identify key digital skill competencies and measures of performance.

• Identify opportunities for digital systems to provide training feedback.

• Develop a generic, computer-adaptive Digital Skills Certification Test (DSCT) that includes measures of 

proficiency on key digital-skill competencies.

• Establish plans to embed DSCT in fielded systems and on the Internet for use “on-demand” anywhere.

• Establish a means to link soldiers to Army Training Support Center resources for upgrading digital 

skills through on-demand training.
22

Training Challenges for Digitization

At the other end of the spectrum, non-digitized combat units may have little in the way 

of useful digital skill delivery mechanisms. For example, there may be centralized training 

on operating systems or application software that is offered at various times. However, the 

Operational Tempo (OPTEMPO) is often so high or erratic that soldiers cannot plan to 

attend any synchronous courses, locally or by distance learning.

Because digitization is relatively new, validated training and instructional procedures 

for acquiring skills are not established. The result is a lack of standards for training on 

demand. For example, the most appropriate and effective training delivery mechanisms, 

individually or in combination, at different levels of skill complexity, are not clear. The 

mechanisms vary from platform instruction to various types of simulations, to training 

occasionally embedded in operational devices, to the use of master-trainers, and to some 

form of distributed learning. Furthermore, a soldier may learn faster or better under 

some conditions than others.

Background

Soldiers generally acquire digital skills by doing what they can and seeking help when 

stuck. Due to personnel turbulence and the OPTEMPO, there is limited time for collective 

training on digital tasks and little time or energy for self-development when the soldier 

returns home in the evening. As good news, many soldiers have high quality personal 

computers at home on which they can do adjunct training. For example, a Fall 2000 

survey of active duty personnel indicated that 93% of officers and 80% of enlisted 

personnel have access to a computer where they live. This creates an opportunity for 

arranging training time at home.

Along with difficulties in allocating training, there is much unknown about new delivery 

mechanisms such as distributed learning. Exactly what should be taught by what 

distributed learning mechanism, how and when, needs clearer definition. The overall 

training paradigm in the Army is shifting from school-and-trainer-centered instruction 

to soldier-centered learning. The direct impact of this for providing training delivery and 

support to soldiers acquiring digital skills is unclear. 

Research Solutions

• Identify key distributed training technologies that can assist and motivate soldiers in acquiring and 

sustaining digital skills.

• Determine the role of individual preferences in digital skill acquisition.

• Identify solutions to organizational barriers and policies about on-demand training including at home.

Specific challenges for training on demand include:

• Lack of best practices for training skill at digital tasks.

• Time constraints and facilities for scheduling and delivering training. 

• Matching training delivery to level of task complexity.

• Designing training methods for soldiers to achieve skill mastery as quickly as possible.
23

U.S. Army Research Institute

Another Factor: The Environment

The Challenge

The cycle of Army training is never complete since it must keep up with changes in the 

battlefield environment. That is a particularly important factor to consider in devising 

training for digitization. 

Soldiers will have difficulty operating some systems effectively because of their design 

and maintenance. Changes in software and operating procedures will cause confusion. In 

addition, over many years to come, digitization will co-exist with predecessor equipment. 

Where digitization is available, information complexity can increase greatly. Soldiers will 

have to handle large volumes of information, understand it, know how and when to seek 

more or to filter it, and how and when to disseminate it. At the same time, there will be 

constraints such as personnel turbulence and insufficient personnel, including on-site 

digital experts. 

These operational characteristics provide an opportunity for research on manpower 

and personnel integration (MANPRINT) factors in system design. Topics for attention 

might include: 1) designing graphical user interfaces for optimal performance and 

ease of training, 2) establishing equipment maintenance protocols that allow for an 

efficient division of labor between a user and a maintenance technician, 3) training and 

performance-based standardization of user interfaces and linkages between multiple 

pieces of digital and analog equipment within or across sites, 4) determining equipment 

carrying weight-to-benefit ratios and the optimal distribution of digital equipment 

within an organization, 5) establishing protocols for hybrid/mixed (digital and analog) 

equipment or degraded operations, and 6) optimizing personnel factors such as 

assignments, manning levels, and contractors on the battlefield. 
24

Training Challenges for Digitization

Background

Even the most heavily digitized fields such as MI are subject to working in conditions 

with hybrid (digital and predecessor) equipment, and are projected to be so for the 

foreseeable future. This situation occurs when a digital organization is operating along 

with a non-digital unit, when deployment is to an area where the digital equipment 

cannot be used for security or other reasons, and when the digital equipment itself 

is inoperable. In some cases, resources are provided for thorough training of digital 

repair technicians (e.g., in MOS 33W). In other cases, soldiers will have to perform 

jobs sometimes with digital equipment and sometimes without. For example, the soldier 

equipped to serve as a combat system with advanced communications and weapons 

must also be able to perform in a degraded mode. The challenge is how to introduce 

digital equipment and procedures that can make a revolutionary difference and have 

them function successfully in the company of many conventional systems. The challenge 

encompasses several generic topics, including:

• Quantify the human factors variables such as performance, compatibility, and 

endurance and other soldier issues associated with equipment and weapons for the 

battlefield.

• Apply human engineering technologies and practices to the analysis and execution of 

logistics processes to increase responsiveness and flexibility while reducing manpower, 

personnel, and training costs.

• Develop tools and methodologies to evaluate the impact of soldier performance on 

system performance and cost.

These topics must be considered in any system design and implementation including the 

implementation of digital training systems indicated by research in the current reports.
25

U.S. Army Research Institute

A Digitization Research Strategy

Much work already has been done to define the challenge at ARI and other 

Army organizations as well as at MITRE, RAND, and the Institute for Defense 

Analyses (IDA). Research is underway to identify attributes of digital skills, to 

improve individual training for them, and to deliver that training when and where it is 

needed. Those research projects form a foundation for a comprehensive program. That 

program needs Army test beds and specific contexts to demonstrate the value gained 

from doing the work, along with ancillary research.

An as yet untried strategy is to investigate training challenges within the context of a 

realistic test bed, utilizing command and staff operations. Findings could be applied 

in other functional areas. With that in mind, the focus should be on the interactions 

in a maneuver unit’s tactical operations center (TOC) between the S3, S2, and Fire 

Support Element (FSE) personnel as they train their procedures in producing operations 

orders (OPORDs) and as they train in the targeting process. In these procedures 

and processes, enemy and friendly situational awareness is greatly increased by the 

new digitized systems. It also is in these procedures and processes where substantial 

research has been done in determining existing training challenges and solutions and 

can, therefore, best be used for comparison purposes.

Figure 4 depicts a typical TOC. The S3, S2, and FSE staff sections are equipped with 

digitized systems, none of which currently is compatible with another. Each system 

Figure 5

Test bed for 

training challenges.
26

Training Challenges for Digitization

(MCS, ASAS, and AFATADS) represents a different level of technology or a “hybrid,” 

since none of the systems recognizes the other’s outputs or inputs. In addition to the 

problems of compatibility between systems, there are continuous problems in training 

interactions of battle staffs, measuring their performance, and providing feedback for 

improvement. Therefore, the current TOC battle staff becomes a baseline from which data 

can be gathered right now to compare to more technologically advanced systems that will 

be trained later. Advanced techniques to address the five major training challenge areas 

for digitization (see Figure 3) can be tried out in the applicable organization. To find the 

value added by these techniques, the difference in the quality of the OPORDs produced, 

in the efficiency of the targeting process, and in the amount of relevant information 

exchanged will be measured.

Conclusion

Training practices in the Army must 

enable soldiers and leaders to take 

maximum advantage of digitization. 

Successful training and maintaining of 

digital skills presents challenges that go 

beyond those in traditional areas such as 

gunnery and vehicle maintenance. This is 

reflected in the often-heard statement, 

“Digital Skills are more perishable than other 

military skills.” A major factor working in 

the future Army’s favor is pointed out by 

COL (P) Lynch, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 

4th Infantry Division, from his digitization experience: more and more soldiers entering 

the Army have been taught computers and can discover through experiential learning 

how to take advantage of them. However, the systematic leveraging of training technology 

is an increasingly urgent need as digital systems become more pervasive and the Army 

strives toward a highly proficient total force.

As work with digitization proceeds, the Army will learn more about the current command 

and staff training challenges and how lessons learned can be applied to other areas. 

One of the most important ingredients of success will be to test and get feedback about 

how best to train what, where, and when for the changing digitized force. As the Army 

assesses results at key milestones, the training technologies should be tuned to keep 

in synchronization with developments in Army imperatives and fielded capabilities. 

Digitization is new enough so that learning as we go is a must. Attending to this report’s 

five training challenges for digitization will help the Army structure and pursue the goal 

to get maximum advantage from information technologies. 
27

U.S. Army Research Institute

Bibliography and References

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology). (1999). Weapon systems, 

United States Army. Washington, DC: Department of the Army, pp. 7, 121.

Bennett, W. J. (1986). What works: research about teaching and learning. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Office of Education. 

Directorate of Integration, Office of the U.S. Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Programs. (2000). The 

Army Digitization Report 2000. Washington, DC: Department of the Army, pp. 3, 8.

Campbell, R., Ford, L., Shaler, M., & Cobb, R. (1998). Issues and recommendations: training the 

digital force (Study Report 98-06). Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral 

and Social Sciences.

Center for Army Lessons Learned. (1999, January). Task Force Eagle information operations in a 

peace enforcement environment (Newsletter No. 99-2). Fort Leavenworth, KA: Author.

Dodge, G. E., Webb, H. W., & Christ, R. E. (1999). Impact of information technology on battle 

command: lessons from management science and business. (Technical Report 1091). Alexandria, VA: 

US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Ford, L. A., Campbell, R., & Cobb, R. (1998). Analysis of emerging digital and back-up training 

requirements. (Study Report 98-07). Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral 

and Social Sciences.

Foxen, M. (1993). A process approach to the transfer of training, Part 1: the impact of motivation 

and supervisor support on transfer maintenance. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 

9,(2), 230-143.

Foxen, M. (1994). A process approach to the transfer of training, Part 2: Using action planning to 

facilitate the transfer of training. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 10,(1), 1-18.

Graham, S. E., Valentine, P. J., & Lee, E. W. (1997). Enhancing performance in light infantry digital 

tactical operations. (ARI Research Report 1709). Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute for 

the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Headquarters, United States Army Training and Doctrine Command (1998). Knowledge and speed: 

battle force and the U.S. Army of 2025 (The 1998 Annual Report on the Army After Next Project to 

the Chief of Staff of the Army). Fort Monroe, VA: Training and Doctrine Command, p. 30.

Headquarters, Department of the Army (1988). Training the force. (Field Manual No. 25-100). Fort 

Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth.

Kitfield, J. (1998). War in the Urban jungles. Air Force Magazine, 81(12), 73-76.

Landauer, J. (1995). The trouble with computers: Usefulness, usability, and productivity. 

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Macpherson, D., Patterson, C., & Mirabella, A. (1989, August). Application of ARI Skill 

Retention Model to Wheel Vehicle Maintenance Tasks. (ARI Research Report 1538). 

Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Martisons, M. G., & Chong, P. K. C. (1999). The influence of human factors and specialist 

involvement on information systems success. Human Relations, 52(1), 123-152.
28

Training Challenges for Digitization

Naval Personnel R&D Center (1987). Research Findings about Navy Instruction and 

Learning. (NAVEDTRA 115). Pensacola, FL: Office of Naval Education and Training. 

Salter, M. S. & Black, B. A. (1998). Back-up training requirements for the digitized 

battlefield: an overview. (Study Report 98-05). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research 

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Throne, M.H. & Lickteig, C.W. (1998). Training computer skills for the future battlefield: a 

review and annotated bibliography. (Research Product 97-15). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army 

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Wadsworth, B. J. (1996). Foundations of constructivism: Piaget’s theory of cognitive and 

affective development. White Plains, NY: Longman.
29

U.S. Army Research Institute

Appendix A: Four Levels of Digitization Skills 

Many new and changing demands on human performance in the Army will accompany 

digitization. These demands will affect training of a broad diversity of individual and 

collective skills for soldiers and leaders at all echelons. A perspective on the breadth and 

depth of this effect is described below from a human performance perspective using four 

levels of digitization skills.

Equipment Operation

The basic skills for workstation or console operation include keyboarding, pointing/

clicking, and navigating in and through a software (usually Windows) environment. 

Command lines and data base queries need to be routine. In addition, there is a demand 

for understanding some system functions such as knowing how to reinitialize a system 

when it crashes, change formats, and do basic troubleshooting. 

Equipment Application 

Skills at this level involve performing tasks beyond the mechanics of basic program 

use and navigation. For example, a Military Intelligence (MI) system, such as the All 

Source Analysis System (ASAS), requires selecting images, defining searches, identifying 

anomalies, extracting reliable data, computing correlations, and synchronizing message 

traffic to address a commander’s priority intelligence requirements. Setting parameters 

and conducting searches are tasks added by the computer environment, especially by 

data base manipulations. The other tasks have always been performed but are far more 

complicated in the digital world because the potential amount, variety, and speed of 

data have increased by orders of magnitude. ASAS can receive and store hundreds, 

conceivably thousands of messages per minute, since it receives electronic data and stores 

it electronically in a data base without human intervention. The analytic skills to handle 

this volume are fundamentally different from those for non-digitized systems. 

Systems Operation and Integration

At a third level are skills that have to do with understanding the functions of all the human 

and equipment components within the soldier’s sphere of interest or responsibility 

and how they fit together through digitization. These skills, usually associated with 

officers and senior staff personnel, have increasing complexity with rank and echelon. 

A commander will need systems analytic skills to manage combinations of analog 

and digital operations. He must understand the essential technology underlying digital 

systems. For example, an officer-in-charge must be facile with capabilities such as tactical 

systems and network operations, connectivity requirements, and interface parameters for 

surveillance and targeting systems, as well as the ability to trouble shoot system operating 

problems under extreme time pressure. In addition, digitization means more emphasis 

on horizontal and vertical integration of information and operations, providing leaders 

with more to filter and understand. 

Command and Staff Operations

Skills at this level take advantage of digital systems to carry out missions, especially in 

innovative ways and for situations not anticipated by doctrine and explicit training. The 

Objective Force will undertake missions that combine combat, peacekeeping, and security 
30

Training Challenges for Digitization

operations not anticipated by doctrine or previous, explicit task training (Kitfield, 1998). 

For example, in Bosnia, Task Force Eagle (TFE) discovered it could not use JSTARS 

according to existing doctrine because civilians and combatants, including peacekeepers, 

were frequently intermingled. Workarounds, involving human intelligence had to be 

invented (Center for Army Lessons Learned, 1999, p. 52). The term “thinking outside the 

box” has been used to characterize performance requirements in such an environment. 

This level of definition imposes a particularly severe challenge to training how best to 

take advantage of digital systems and procedures.

These four levels of definition represent increasing complexity in the training and use 

of digital skills. Table 1 shows some of the new demands. The several levels are not, of 

course, easily distinguishable during military operations since they blend together as jobs 

are performed. However, they identify the kinds of operational conditions and tasks that 

form the foundation of necessary training research.

Table 1: What Makes Skills for Digital Systems Different?

Digital systems create new demands and ambiguities, such as:

Equipment Operation

• Task steps are not clearly related to products and have no prescribed order

• Different programs do not have standardized interfaces

• Skills easily perish because of frequent equipment/software changes

Equipment Application

• Graphical user interfaces are not intuitive and require lots of hands on practice

• Personnel must train both on battle tasks and on program recovery and backup

• The scope, volume, and rate of data increase job complexity

System Operations & Integration

• Users need a deep understanding of systems given inadequate documentation

• Networks speed up requirements to coordinate and integrate actions

• Data availability increases decision-making demands

Command & Staff Operations

• Information and communications foster “thinking outside the box,” greater risks, and innovation

• Orders have extensive impact and near instantaneous consequences
31

U.S. Army Research Institute

Table 2: Issue Clusters in Training

1. Operational and Training Environment Constraints: (a) hybrid/mixed equipment operations, (b) degraded 

operations, (c) general constraints such as human factors engineering (including equipment weight-tobenefit ratios), motivation and leadership, and time available, (d) on-site digital experts, (e) increased 

information ratios and complexity, (f) personnel turbulence and retention, (g) dwindling resources.

2. Training Requirements, in Terms of Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs), Tasks, and Skills 

Needed: (a) needs and task analyses, (b) multifunctional soldiers, (c) adaptability/thinking “outside the 

box.”

3. Training Delivery and Support Mechanisms: (a) availability of training doctrine and good instructional 

procedures, (b) delivery mechanisms such as Training Aids, Devices, Simulations, and Simulators (TADSS) 

(simulate/stimulate), platform training, train-the-trainer/master trainer, embedded training, and distance 

learning, (c) integrating TRADOC’s Training Pillars of Instructional, Unit, and Self-development, (d) tradeoffs 

about what to give up to get what’s needed in the time available, (e) where and when to train -- prior to 

assignment/during assignment.

4. Training Assessment Support for Trainers: (a) measurement and feedback for progressive skill levels, (b) 

recording and transmitting data, (c) competency tests, skill certification, and licenses, (d) obtaining external, 

objective observers.

5. Stages of Training: (a) skill acquisition and sustainment, (b) skill decay and reacquisition, (c) getting to 

maximum proficiency.

6. Training Transfer: (a) across similar and different systems, (b) across specialties (multifunctional), (c) across 

situations (adaptability).

7. Individual-Collective Dimensions: (a) normal and rapid team building, (b) skill development and learning 

to fight at individual/team/unit levels, (c) developing shared understanding and reconciling different 

perspectives.

Appendix B: Challenges Presented by Digitization

To become current on digitization challenges, scientists from the Advanced Training 

Methods Research Unit at ARI in Alexandria, VA, identified through interviews issues 

with digitization. They had discussions with senior training personnel at Fort Hood, 

home of the 4th ID (M), the first digital division. They did extensive interviews with a 

variety of personnel at the U.S. Army Intelligence Center (USAIC), Fort Huachuca, as 

well as with officers from one of the light infantry brigades at Fort Drum. USAIC is 

an important site because the intelligence field is, for the most part, already digitized. 

The 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum is important, in contrast, because it is 

scheduled to begin digitization but had only limited digital equipment at the time of 

the interviews. Interview results were combined with official and unofficial publications, 

scientific literature, and discussions among scientists to provide the clusters of issues 

summarized in Table 2. This became the starting point for determining research topics.
32

Training Challenges for Digitization

U.S. Army Research Institute

ATTN: TAPC-ARI-PO

5001 Eisenhower Ave.

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

www.ari.army.mil

U.S. Army Research Institute

ATTN: TAPC-ARI-PO

5001 Eisenhower Ave.

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

www.ari.army.mil