U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Research Report 1828

Capabilities of Future Training

Support Packages

Billy L. Burnside and May H. Throne

U.S. Army Research Institute

20050119 032

October 2004

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

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

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

ZITA M. SIMUTIS

Director

Technical review by

James D. Brewer, Unit of Action Maneuver Battle Lab

Fort Knox, Kentucky

Scott B. Shadrick, U.S. Army Research Institute

NOTICES

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

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

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

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926

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

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

and Social Sciences.

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

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

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy)

October 2004

2. REPORT TYPE

Final

3. DATES COVERED (from... to)

January 2004 - October 2004

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Capabilities of Future Training Support Packages

5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER

5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

0603007A

6. AUTHOR(S)

Billy L. Burnside and May H. Throne (U.S. Army Research Institute)

5c. PROJECT NUMBER

A792

5d. TASK NUMBER

212

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER

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

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

ATTN: DAPE-ARI-IK

2423 Morande Street

Fort Knox, KY 40121-5620

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

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

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

ATTN: DAPE-ARI-IK

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway

Arlington, VA 22202-3926

10. MONITOR ACRONYM

ARI

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER

Research Report 1828

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

A compact disc should be included inside the back cover ofthis report. If it is not included and you wish to obtain it, contact the

authors at: U.S. Army Research Institute - Armored Forces Research Unit, ATTN: DAPE-ARI-IK, Fort Knox, KY 40121-5620.

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words):

A training support package (TSP) integrates all the information and materials needed for the successful conduct of a training exercise

or event. As the Army transforms to the Future Force, the concept of a TSP needs to transform to make TSPs more accessible and

adaptable. This report identifies and analyzes five key capabilities needed in future TSPs: rapid tailoring or modification, reach,

simulated operating environment, performance measurement, and pretests/selection criteria. The analysis is based on results of a

survey of designers offuture training and a review of key acquisition documents for Future Combat Systems. The result is a

broadened view ofthe capabilities needed in future TSPs.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Future Force training

Training management

Training support packages

Structured training

Embedded training

Reach

SgEGURiTY CLASSIFICATION OF

16. REPORT

Unclassified

17. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

18. THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. LIMITATION OF

ABSTRACT

Unlimited

20. NUMBER

OF PAGES

21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

(Name and Telephone Number)

Ellen Kinzer

Technical Publication Specialist

(703) 602-8047
11
Research Report 1828

Capabilities of Future Training Support Packages

Billy L. Burnside and May H. Throne

U.S. Army Research Institute

Armored Forces Research Unit

Barbara A. Black, Chief

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

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202-3926

October 2004

Army Project Number Personnel Performance

20363007A792 and Training

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

in
IV
FOREWORD

The U.S. Army is transforming to a Future Force equipped with Future Combat Systems

(FCS), and embedded training has been identified as the primary means for training this force.

Key FCS acquisition documents indicate that fully embedded training will be achieved through

the development and implementation ofmulti-purpose training support packages (TSPs),

integrating all the information and materials required for successful conduct oftraining events.

To meet the needs ofFuture Force units, TSPs in the future need to be more accessible and

adaptable than they are today. The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences (ART), particularly its Armored Forces Research Unit (AFRU) at Fort Knox, Kentucky,

has been conducting research on structured training and the development and use of collective

TSPs to support this training for over a decade. This report builds on this experience in order to

address the capabilities that TSPs must provide to meet the needs ofthe Future Force.

First, this report provides a general description ofkey capabilities that future TSPs must

provide to support fully embedded training for Future Force units. It then provides the results of

a survey on these capabilities, followed by a detailed discussion of expanded capabilities needed

in future TSPs. The work supporting this report was performed as part ofWork Package 212,

"Unit Training Technologies for Future Forces." The relevant requirements document is a

Memorandum for Record between the Deputy Director, Unit ofAction Maneuver Battle

Laboratory (UAMBL), U.S. Army Armor Center and Fort Knox, and the Chief, ARI AFRU at

Fort Knox, entitled "Research and Development Related to Training Methods for Objective

Force Units ofAction Equipped with Future Combat Systems," dated 10 September 2002.

The compact disc (CD) supporting this effort was provided to members ofthe Lead

Systems Integrator's Training Systems Integrated Product Team (IPT) and to members ofthe

UAMBL in May 2004. The CD was distributed to support the collection offeedback through a

survey instrument and to meet requests ofTraining Systems IPT and UAMBL personnel. The

CD is currently being used by these personnel to demonstrate future TSP capabilities to

designers and developers ofFuture Force training. The results documented in this report were

provided to Training Systems IPT and UAMBL personnel on 22 September 2004. They are

using these results to develop and refine capabilities needed in Future Force TSPs.

PAULA. GADE

Acting Technical Director
VI
CAPABILITIES OF FUTURE TRAINING SUPPORT PACKAGES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Research Requirement:

As the Army transforms to a Future Force equipped with Future Combat Systems (FCS),

embedded training has been identified as a Key Performance Parameter. Fully embedded

training will be developed and implemented through multi-purpose training support packages

(TSPs). These TSPs will integrate all the information and materials required for conduct of

successful training events. To enable the embedded training of Future Force units, TSPs need to

be more accessible, adaptable, and manageable than they are today. This effort identifies and

analyzes the key capabilities that future TSPs must provide in order to meet these needs.

Procedure:

Based on review of key FCS acquisition documents, the authors ofthis report identified

five general capabilities that future collective TSPs should provide. A compact disc (CD)

demonstrating these capabilities was then produced through a supporting contract effort. The

authors distributed this CD to personnel involved in the design and development of embedded

training for the Future Force, along with a survey on future collective TSP capabilities. They

then used the results ofthis survey and a review of updated acquisition documents to further

analyze and broaden the description ofkey capabilities needed in future TSPs.

Findings:

To achieve fully embedded training for the Future Force, future TSPs must provide

supporting capabilities through the framework of a training management system. The key

capabilities that must be provided, in rank order ofimportance, are: rapid TSP tailoring or

modification, bi-directional reach, a simulated operating environment, semi-automated

performance measurement, and pretests or selection criteria for entry into a training event. These

capabilities are similar to the Training Common Components (TCC) identified as part ofFCS

embedded training acquisition, except the TCC do not address the need for reach.

Utilization ofFindings:

Managers ofthe development of embedded training for the Future Force (including

senior personnel within the Lead Systems Integrator's Training Systems Integrated Product

Team and the Unit ofAction Maneuver Battle Laboratory) are using the CD produced in this

research effort to demonstrate future TSP capabilities needed to training developers in proponent

schools and supporting contractor organizations. This report provides a broadened view and

description ofthese capabilities, along with a ranking oftheir relative importance. This will help

ensure that embedded training in general and collective TSPs in particular are developed to

provide the key capabilities needed for effective training ofthe Future Force.

Vll
via
CAPABILITIES OF FUTURE TRAINING SUPPORT PACKAGES

CONTENTS

Page

Traditional Concept ofTraining Support Packages 2

Lessons Learned from Structured Training 2

Formal Definition of a Training Support Package 4

Concept of Future Training Support Packages 5

Future Implementation ofEmbedded Training 5

Training Management System 7

Selected Future Training Support Package Capabilities 8

Survey on Future Training Support Packages 10

Survey Instrument and Procedures 10

Survey Results 10

Broad Capabilities Needed in Future Training Support Packages 12

Rapid Tailoring or Modification 12

Reach 16

Simulated Operating Environment 17

Performance Measurement 19

Pretests and Selection Criteria 20

Comparison with Training Common Components 21

Conclusions 22

References 23

Appendix A List ofAcronyms A-l

Appendix B Electronic Training Support Package Survey B-l

List ofTables

Table 1 Rankings for Initial TSP Capabilities 11

IX

CAPABILITIES OF FUTURE TRAINING SUPPORT PACKAGES

Over the past decade the concept ofintegrating all the information and materials needed

to support a training event or exercise into a training support package (TSP)1has evolved

considerably in the Army. While it's not clear exactly where or when the term "TSP" was first

used, extensive delineation ofthe elements of a collective TSP and approaches to integrating and

packaging them occurred during a series ofresearch and development projects conducted by the

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ART) at Fort Knox,

Kentucky, during the 1990s. These projects developed methods for what has come to be known

in the Army as structured training, initially for the Virtual Training Program and the Force XXI

Training Program (Campbell, Quinkert, & Burnside, 2000). The TSP definition aspect ofthese

projects culminated with a comprehensive listing ofthe components or elements of a TSP for a

collective training event (Gossman, Graves, Mauzy, & Clagg, 2001). The U.S. Army Training

and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) has incorporated this listing into updates ofits regulatory

guidance for training management, processes, and products (Department ofthe Army (DA),

1999).

Army leaders have recognized the importance oftraining in the ongoing transformation

to the Future Force by making embedded training a Key Performance Parameter (KPP) in the

acquisition ofFuture Combat Systems (FCS). This means that the transformation to a Future

Force equipped with FCS will not be achieved successfully without meeting KPP 6, stated as

follows: "The FCS family ofsystems must have an embedded individual and collective training

capability that supports live, virtual, and constructive training environments" (Unit ofAction

Maneuver Battle Laboratory (UAMBL), 2004, p. 43). Key FCS acquisition documents,

including the Operational Requirements Document (ORD; UAMBL, 2004) and the Operational

and Organizational Plan (O&O; TRADOC, 2004a), clearly state that embedded training will be

the primary means of conducting Future Force training, and that future embedded training

capability will be achieved through development and implementation ofTSPs. For example, the

O&O states that "TSPs will be developed to support individual tasks through Unit ofAction

(collective) tasks..." (TRADOC, 2004a, p. 175). The ORD states that "The FCS family of

systems must be fielded with a full set ofmulti-purpose, individual and collective TSPs for use at

institutions, in the self-development program, and in operational units..." (UAMBL, 2004, p.

64). To meet this requirement, the Lead Systems Integrator (LSI) for the FCS family ofsystems

has initiated a multi-year effort to develop collective TSPs for Units ofAction equipped with

FCS. The collective task analysis supporting this effort is currently ongoing. It thus appears that

TSPs will be at least as important to Army training in future decades as they have been in the

past decade.

It seems likely that as the Army transforms to the Future Force, the concept of a TSP

must transform also. Large paper-based volumes oftraining support materials will not meet

dynamic training needs and distributed access requirements ofthe future. The purpose ofthis

paper is to examine how the concept of a TSP needs to change to address the training (primarily

embedded) needs ofthe Future Force, along with implications for the development and

implementation offuture TSPs. The focus is collective TSPs, particularly those supporting

command and staff exercises, but there should be implications for all types ofTSPs. First, the

1 A list of all acronyms used in this report is included in Appendix A.
history and traditional perspectives ofTSPs are examined briefly. Then, the general capabilities

that TSPs must provide to support Future Force collective training are discussed, primarily in

terms oftraining management and five selected capabilities for which a demonstration has been

developed (see inside back cover ofthis report). The results of a survey administered to Future

Force training designers in conjunction with this demonstration are then presented, followed by

further analysis and discussion ofthe capabilities that collective TSPs must provide for the

successful implementation offuture embedded training.

Traditional Concept ofTraining Support Packages

Lessons Learned from Structured Training

The traditional concept for a TSP is a very simple one - provide all the information and

materials needed to support a training event or exercise in one integrated package. During the

aforementioned series ofresearch and development projects on structured training in the 1990s

one lesson learned was that collective TSPs can become very complex. This is due to the sheer

volume ofmaterials that may be required for a training event, as well as to the sometimes

complex interrelationships among TSP components.

Campbell, Campbell, Sanders, Flynn, and Myers (1995) provided the first comprehensive

description ofthe components of a collective TSP. These included preparation materials for the

training unit, execution materials for trainers and training managers (including observers and

controllers), training performance data collection and feedback materials, and summary report

materials supporting feedback to the training unit's leadership. The concept ofincluding all

required materials for the training unit and the training staffin one package led to the production

ofshelves full ofpaper-based TSPs. It also led to issues in the management ofvoluminous

paper-based materials. How can all training participants be provided ready access to all

materials they need, while minimizing duplication? Answering this question led to the

identification oftwo types ofTSP packaging - a "shelf version or master set from which copies

are made, and a "distribution" set of copied materials for training participants (Campbell &

Deter, 1997). Providing all participants in a training event with ready access to all materials they

need may be more easily achievable today and in the future. Further discussion ofthis is

included later in this paper.

In addition to concerns about packaging, several other considerations were key from the

beginning ofthe development of collective TSPs for structured training. Since the training

developed was virtually all simulation-based, it was necessary to include in the TSPs detailed

information for initializing the simulation exercises, such as starting locations and routes for

simulated entities. Plans and operations orders were generally prepared in advance to allow

training units (primarily Army National Guard units) to enter into training oftask execution

rapidly. It was thus necessary to include such materials in the TSPs, along with preparation and

reference materials to help units "read into" upcoming exercises. The TSPs also included

detailed instructions for a dedicated staff oftrainers or observer/controllers (O/Cs). An initial

focus ofstructured training was after action reviews (AARs) and ensuring that exercises were

designed to allow O/Cs to bring out selected key points during such reviews. Performance

measurement, at least in the form of organized checklists for observing complex behavior, and
feedback were thus key considerations early in the development ofTSPs. Yet another

consideration was minimizing the number of and burden on supporting staff(e.g., personnel

portraying higher headquarters or opposing forces) necessary for a training exercise. The TSPs

had to include information to facilitate the participation ofsuch role-players.

One consideration that arose early in the development ofTSPs for structured training

deserves special mention here. The TSPs included operations orders, training objectives (in

terms oftasks to be performed in each exercise), and other documents to minimize the materials

that participating units needed to prepare. But from the beginning of unit trials with structured

training exercises, unit leaders expressed a strong desire to be able to modify or tailor TSPs and

exercises to more precisely meet their needs. This varied from a desire to insert unique unit

names and call signs to a desire to change training objectives and address additional tasks. As

structured training evolved from the initial Simulation Networking virtual environment to the

Close Combat Tactical Trainer (CCTT) environment, ARI conducted a series ofprojects to

develop the Commanders' Integrated Training Tool (CITT; Flynn et al., 2001), sponsored by the

Project Manager and the TRADOC System Manager for the Combined Arms Tactical Trainer.

The CITT was a large software package designed to assist unit leaders and other trainers in

modifying existing TSPs or even developing their own TSPs for unique training requirements.

The development ofTSPs for different training environments also led to recognition ofthe need

for a capability to modify TSP components rapidly for implementation in varied environments.

Any effort to develop TSPs must include a means for tailoring them rapidly for user and

environmental reasons. It should also include recognition that provision of a tool for authoring

or modifying TSPs is far from a simple undertaking; TSP components have many

interrelationships, and changing one component can impact on many others.

Based on experience gained during development ofstructured training and recognition

that TSPs would increasingly be produced by users (institutional instructors and unit leaders) in

the future, Gossman et al. (2001) addressed the management ofuser-produced TSPs. Part ofthis

effort involved a comparison of collective TSP components or elements from various sources,

along with preparation of a comprehensive consolidated listing. A list of almost 300 elements

that might be included in a collective TSP (not all TSPs would include all elements) was

generated, organized in the following general areas:

• TSP Identification

• Exercise Overview

• Tactical Materials

• Exercise Control Materials

• Exercise Set-Up Materials

• Evaluation Plan

• Administrative Materials

Before moving on to discussion ofthe current definition of a collective TSP, one final

historical point should be made. Over the years many personnel newly introduced to the concept

of a TSP seem to have had difficulty distinguishing between a TSP and the event or exercise it

supports. This is understandable since the two go together; a TSP facilitates the conduct of an

effective training event. Basically, a TSP is the total information (recorded in paper and
electronic forms) necessary for a training event or exercise to be conducted in a way that meets

its objectives. An analogy might be completing a resident academic course by reading a

textbook and completing other supporting activities, and then attending class and demonstrating

proficiency by taking a test or other means. Sound educational procedures generally require

both. Sound training procedures require integrated support materials (generally in the form of a

TSP) and an event providing an opportunity for the training audience to perform, with feedback

provided on the process and the result.

Formal Definition ofa Training Support Package

The current version ofTRADOC Regulation 350-70 defines a TSP as follows: "a„

complete exportable package integrating training products, materials, and information necessary

to train one or more critical tasks.. .contents will vary depending on the training site and the

user." (DA, 1999, Para. V-7-3). The regulation goes on to distinguish between individual,

collective, and Army Modernization Training TSPs. It then provides the following complete

definition of a collective TSP:

"A complete, stand alone, exportable training package integrating training products and

materials needed to train one or more critical collective tasks and supporting individual

tasks (including leader and battle staff). It is a task-based information package that

provides a structured situational training scenario for live, virtual, or constructive unit or

institutional training." (DA, 1999, Para. V-7-4).

The TRADOC regulation makes a distinction between collective TSPs in general and one type

called "Warfighter" TSPs by stating that the latter supports training for all units (digital as well

as analog), whereas the former may not. In the case ofFuture Force TSPs, it seems that the

appropriate corresponding point is that these TSPs must support training with a variety of

systems and units that are not FCS-equipped, including joint, interagency, and multinational

(JIM) elements. Future Force TSPs for unit or team exercises could thus be referred to as

Warfighter TSPs; in this paper they will be referred to simply as collective TSPs.

There are several other points made in TRADOC Regulation 350-70 (DA, 1999) that are

particularly relevant to this paper. One is that TSPs are prepared for the unit commander to

minimize unit preparation time and measure unit performance. Another is that TSPs vary greatly

in content depending on the tasks to be trained, the training environment, and the training

audience. Yet another is that TSPs include pre-exercise event generation information, which in

simulation-based training equates to the initialization information mentioned earlier. A final key

relevant point is the recognition ofthe need for tailoring TSPs, noting that "TSPs are subject to

constant modification by the unit" (DA, 1999, Para. V-7-4m). The regulation indicates that

quality control must be maintained in TSP development and tailoring, without specifying how

this is managed.

The regulation also includes a listing ofthe components of a collective TSP, similar to

the list provided by Gossman et al. (2001). It appears that the TRADOC listing has changed

somewhat over the past few years, but not in a major way. There now appears to be a generally
accepted definition of a collective TSP and listing ofits potential components throughout the

Army, as documented in TRADOC Regulation 350-70 (DA, 1999).

Concept ofFuture Training Support Packages

Future Implementation ofEmbedded Training

A detailed description ofthe Army's ongoing transformation to a Future Force will not be

provided here, since it is available from many sources (e.g., TRADOC, 2004a; UAMBL, 2004).

The Army will be spirally transforming over the next decade into a force that can readily perform

a wide range of operations in a variety of environments. Characteristics to be possessed by this

force are that it will be responsive, deployable, agile, versatile, lethal, sustainable, and able to

provide survivability, enabling it to see first, understand first, act first, and finish decisively. Key

to achieving this transformation will be development and fielding ofthe FCS, a family of

systems including manned and unmanned ground and aerial platforms, sensors, and information

networks. These networks will support knowledge-based operations, including battle command.

One key aspect ofthe Army's transformation that will be examined in detail here is the

plan to implement embedded training as the primary training method. The current version ofthe

O&O indicates that the Future Force training strategy "emphasizes training via embedded

training linked to the live, virtual, and constructive domains" (TRADOC, 2004a, p. 168). The

O&O also states that "embedded training is the keystone concept for FCS training" (p. 169) and

that "Embedded training must support all essential tasks unless they do not lend themselves to

embedding because they are unsafe, impractical, or unaffordable" (p. 170). The ORD also

clearly identifies the requirement for embedded training: "The foundation ofthe FCS training

concept is a fully embedded training capability" (UAMBL, 2004, p. 80).

Before examining the underlying capabilities needed in Future Force collective TSPs to

achieve a fully embedded capability, it is necessary to define embedded training and how it will

be implemented. The Users' Functional Description (UFD) for Future Force embedded training

defines it as "a function hosted in hardware and/or software, integrated into the overall

equipment configuration" (TRADOC, 2004b, p. 3). In an earlier report the present authors

provided a similar definition of embedded training as "training provided by capabilities built into

or added onto operational systems to provide, enhance, and maintain the skills, knowledge, and

abilities necessary to enable task performance" (Throne & Burnside, 2003, p. 16). This latter

definition will be used for the purposes ofthe present report.

Ifit is to be successful, embedded training will be implemented as an inherent capability

ofthe FCS family ofsystems, rather than as a function peripheral to operational platforms. It is

thus best to think offuture training as being embedded in operational networks, rather than on

platforms (see Throne & Burnside, 2003, for further discussion ofthis point). Embedded

training software will reside on operational platforms as needed, but a fully embedded capability

will only be achieved through the power oflarge knowledge networks. Embedded training

software (including TSPs) will be downloaded as needed onto operational platforms and other

network portals, such as desktop and tablet computers, and where TSPs reside should be largely
transparent to users. This will enable training anywhere, anytime, on operational equipment or

other devices that are available and appropriate.

In order to achieve a fully embedded capability, TSPs will be implemented in various

forms. The O&O (TRADOC, 2004a) identifies three forms: computer-based interactive

courseware for individual training (usually called interactive multimedia instruction or IMI),

simulation-based TSPs for individual and crew operations, and simulation-based TSPs for

collective training ofunits, leader teams, and staff groups. Materials developed by the FCS LSI

(LSI, 2004) identify three somewhat different types of TSPs: IMI, simulation-based TSPs for

tactical task proficiency, and interactive electronic technical manuals (IETMs) for individual

operations and maintenance training. The present paper will use LSI's break-out and focus on

collective simulation-based TSPs at all levels, individual2to Unit ofAction.

The LSI's identification ofIETMs as a type ofindividual TSP brings up another point

addressed in detail by Throne and Burnside (2003). Generally IETMs may be considered a

simple type of electronic performance support system (EPSS), with EPSS defined as a computerbased system that includes access to information, guidance, advice, assistance, training, and tools

to enable performance with minimum support from other people (Gery, 1991). Think ofEPSS

as an integrated, effective help system that sustains performance, while embedded training

supports the initial acquisition ofskills and knowledge enabling performance. As training

becomes available anytime anywhere in the future, the distinction between EPSS and embedded

training will continue to blur. Achieving the ambitious performance goals for Future Force

Soldiers and leaders will require the complete integration ofEPSS and embedded training.

Embedded training and EPSS will reuse many common elements. Embedded training may

largely become practice (with feedback) on using EPSS tools, with a gradual "weaning" of

performers from reliance on these tools. This will result in speeding ofperformance, much like

we become more facile with complex software packages today as we use them and come to rely

less on tutorials and help. Ifa Soldier or leader continues to demonstrate inadequate

performance, EPSS may direct him or her back to retake a module of embedded training.

Embedded training and EPSS will thus be implemented hand-in-hand.

One final point that should be made here regarding the implementation of embedded

training is that it will not support the training of all tasks. Some tasks may be unsafe (e.g., initial

platform driving), unreasonable (e.g., digging foxholes), or not cost-effective (e.g., basic '

dismount operations) to train through embedded training. Operational Future Force networks

will provide access to information on how to perform and train such tasks, but practice with

feedback will not be accomplished on operational systems. Also, operational networks and

platforms may not be available for training at all times and places. While the time spent in

resident training at centralized training institutions is likely to decrease in the future, there will

still be a need for at least initial or basic training at such sites. Since availability of operational

systems is likely to be limited for basic training sites, devices and simulations will be needed.

The O&O (TRADOC, 2004a) describes such devices as networked reconfigurable, full-task

trainers (NRFTT), part-task trainers, and desk-top trainers. A key point here is that embedded

2 An individual can train in a simulation-based collective exercise if all other participating elements are simulatedmore on this later.
training software that functions on operational systems must also function on NRFTT and parttask or desk-top trainers. This will allow realistic training when operational systems are not

appropriate or available for training. For example, it is likely that at least initial battle command

training can be completed on desk-top trainers (computers) that work like (i.e., use the same

Warfighter Machine Interface (WMI) as) operational networks.

Again, the focus ofthis paper is simulation-based, collective exercises conducted over

operational networks and/or networks of devices, with from one to a large number of

participants. On operational networks Soldiers and leaders will log into a training mode (they

may actually be in training mode most ofthe time) and complete training exercises much as they

perform real-world operations. Full simulation capabilities, including computer-generated forces

and AAR support, will be available almost all the time on operational systems, no matter where

the systems are located. The details ofhow this will work will not be addressed here, as those

are currently being delineated by LSI personnel. The remainder ofthis paper focuses on specific

TSP capabilities needed to achieve the future embedded training vision.

Training Management System

When reviewing FCS acquisition documents such as the ORD (UAMBL, 2004) and the

O&O (TRADOC, 2004a) to identify TSP capabilities needed, training management issues

quickly come to the fore. The following question arose quickly while analyzing TSP capabilities

for this paper: Is that a capability ofTSPs or ofthe larger training management system within

which they reside? It appears that the answer in many cases is both. Just as TSPs are

inseparable from the events or exercises they support, they are also inseparable from the training

management system within which they are developed and implemented. The FCS embedded

training system ofsystems must integrate many functions or services, including TSPs, training

management, WMI, available delivery media, and EPSS. While exactly where a particular

function or capability resides may be ofinterest to system designers and engineers, it is generally

transparent and oflittle relevance to users. Therefore, in the remainder ofthis paper, only

limited discussion is included relating to whether a needed capability should reside in the TSPs

themselves versus in the overlying training management system or elsewhere.

Provision of an integrating management framework or infrastructure is critical to the

development and implementation ofFuture Force TSPs. The future training management system

must be developed by TRADOC, the Army's primary training manager, based on experiences

with legacy systems, such as the Automated Systems Approach to Training (ASAT). It should

be noted that teams initiating development ofFuture Force collective TSPs are working with an

early version ofTRADOC's Training and Doctrine Development Tool (TDDT, a successor to

ASAT). While many details ofthe future training management system remain to be worked out,

it will be developed within integrated architectures, such as the Army Training Information

System (ATIS). The UFD for embedded training (TRADOC, 2004b) indicates that this will be

achieved through a Training Support System (TSS) accessed via a reach (two-way distance

communication) capability. The development ofthe training management or support system

must stay ahead ofthe development ofTSPs, in order for the embedded training system of

systems to provide the capabilities discussed in the remainder ofthis paper.
Key FCS acquisition documents identify several embedded training capabilities that will

exist primarily in the training management system or services. For example, the O&O

(TRADOC, 2004a) discusses the updating and upgrading ofTSPs as operational systems are

reconfigured and fielded. A general training management capability will be needed to automate

updates linking IETMs and technical data to the training process. Another training management

capability that will continue to be needed in the future is the identification and justification of

required training resources within combined arms (and JIM) training strategies. Management

services will also be needed to synchronize TSP versions with equipment, software, and

organizational design versions. The previously discussed packaging ofTSPs to enhance

accessibility would also seem to be predominantly a training management function.

The LSI and government managers ofFCS acquisition have also recognized that a

training management system is critical to achieving fully embedded training capability for the

Future Force. Training and exercise management is included in an evolving list ofseven or eight

integrated training software applications and services (called Training Common Components or

TCC) that will provide required functionality or infrastructure for embedded training (Harrison,

2004; LSI, 2004). Plans call for the FCS training management system to be a reusable

application adapted from the ATIS, supporting activities such as development ofmissionessential task lists, development oftraining strategies, planning and scheduling oftraining

events, and recording the results oftraining. Required training management or support

capabilities are discussed further below in the context ofmore specific TSP capabilities. The

relationships ofneeded TSP capabilities to the TCC are examined further in a later section ofthis

paper.

SelectedFuture Training Support Package Capabilities

In early 2003 the present authors initiated a contract with Human Resources Research

Organization to develop a prototype or exemplary collective TSP for the Future Force (ARI,

2003). One ofthe general points made in the Statement ofWork (SOW) for this project was

that TSPs will not be paper-based in the future. They rather will consist of elements in databases

or other electronic repositories that are pulled together as needed to support specific training

needs. A unit leader may identify a training requirement in terms oftasks that need to be

practiced by a specific training audience, and the training management/support system will

create or pull together materials needed for conduct of a training exercise and deliver tailored

materials electronically to participants. Future Force TSPs thus represent a very dynamic rather

than a static concept. The SOW used the term "electronic TSP (eTSP)" to represent this concept;

other possible terms for future TSPs will be discussed in the final section ofthis paper.

Based on review of available FCS acquisition documents at the time, the authors ofthe

SOW (ARI, 2003) described five capabilities to be included or demonstrated in the exemplary

Future Force TSP. One was enabling Soldiers or leaders to reach to central repositories or

experts for assistance or training support. For example, a Soldier demonstrating performance

difficulty might drop out ofa collective training exercise and reach to an institutional repository

to complete remedial individual training before returning to the exercise. Soldiers and leaders

should be able to reach to central information repositories, subject matter experts (SMEs), or

training developers at the Home Station Operations Center (HSOC) or TRADOC centers and
schools for further assistance and training support. Access to JIM resources should also be

available.

A related capability was the inclusion of pretests or specified entry criteria in the TSP, so

that the training management system could assess whether Soldiers and leaders had completed

individual training requirements allowing them to be prepared to participate in collective

training. If a participant has not met the criteria for inclusion in a particular exercise, the

commander should be able to: inform and help the participant to meet the criteria before the

scheduled exercise, select a different exercise, or override the system and let the participant be

included without meeting the necessary criteria.

Another related capability described was that future collective TSPs will include access

to intelligent agents that can substitute for members ofthe training audience who are completing

individual training or not available for other reasons. Leaders will thus be able to specify which

participants in an exercise are actual unit members and which are represented through intelligent

semi-automated forces (SAF) or other means, allowing training to be conducted with any number

of unit members available. For each unavailable member, the commander will have several

options, including: continue with a human replacement, continue with an agent/avatar or

computer-generated replacement,3continue with no replacement (this will exclude that team

member's role entirely, and the training system would adjust the exercise accordingly), or

discontinue the exercise entirely.

The SOW (ARI, 2003) identified semi-automated performance measurement and

feedback as another key future TSP capability, primarily to facilitate AARs. The automated

performance measurement tools will link performance data directly to training tasks and

standards. Additionally, the entire AAR, along with the performance data, will be recorded and

saved for future use. The performance measurement tools will also provide the embedded

training system with the capability to continuously assess participant performance and identify

instances ofinadequate or poor performance by monitoring the actions ofthe participants and,

using intelligent agents, comparing those actions to reasonable or expected actions. If a

collective exercise participant is performing poorly, the commander will have several options for

intervention, including: continuing the exercise while providing coaching, removing the

participant from the exercise and providing tutoring while temporarily replacing the team

member with an agent, or pausing the exercise for everyone and conducting a short AAR.

The final TSP capability identified was the inclusion oftools enabling rapid tailoring or

modification oftraining materials and exercises to meet the anticipated dynamic requirements of

the Future Force. Leaders will then be able to gain rapid access to training support materials

tailored to the specific needs oftheir unit and mission. To provide this capability, an exercise

modification routine will be needed to identify, retrieve, modify, and update all ofthe relevant

TSP elements requiring modification. The routine will need to be able to carry out the desired

modifications to the TSP throughout all required databases, and for those that need human

intervention, it should provide step-by-step guidance and cues (i.e., electronic performance

3

In the near future, avatars will simulate missing team members in a limited manner, predominantly based on

Objective OneSAF (semi-automated forces) capabilities.
support). A management capability will also be required to make sure that all changes made are

compatible with the rest ofthe TSP and the exercise it supports.

The eTSP project resulted in a demonstration or illustration ofthe five future capabilities

described above, in the context ofa training management system. This demonstration was

produced in the form ofa compact disc (CD; Gossman, Flynn, & Breidenbach, 2004), which is

included inside the back cover ofthis report. The CD explains and illustrates the five

capabilities, but it does not provide software enabling the capabilities to function in an

interactive manner. Primarily through the FCS Integrated Product Team for Training Systems,

the CD was provided to numerous personnel involved in the design and development ofFuture

Force TSPs. A survey form was included with the CD, in order to gather feedback on the

capabilities demonstrated and additional ones that might be needed. The results ofthat survey

are described in the next section. This is then followed by further examination offuture TSP

capabilities needed, in the light ofthe survey results and analysis ofFCS acquisition documents

as they have been revised over the last two years.

Survey on Future Training Support Packages

Survey Instrument and Procedures

A short, five-question survey (see Appendix B) was designed to be filled out after

participants viewed the eTSP CD. Participants were first asked to rank order the five

capabilities, with "1" being the most important, and explain why it was considered the most

important. Then they were asked whether the capability they ranked last was "really important"

or "nice to have, but not really important" and why. Next they were to list any additional

capabilities that will be important to include in TSPs for Future Force collective training.

Finally, they were asked to identify the biggest challenge(s) in providing TSPs rapidly to meet

the collective training needs ofFuture Force units.

Approximately 75 CDs with surveys were distributed based on the requests received.

Due to the high demand, only one copy ofthe CD was mailed to each agency, even ifthere was

more than one request from that agency. Instead, participants were asked to share the single

copy with their co-workers. Three weeks after the CDs and surveys were mailed, a follow-up email was sent to everyone who requested a copy reminding them to return the survey. An

electronic version ofthe survey was attached to the e-mail so people could fill it out on their

computers if desired.

Survey Results

Ofthe 75 surveys distributed, 21 were returned (28% return rate). Table 1 shows the

rankings received for each demonstrated TSP capability. Rapid tailoring or modification was

rated as the most important capability for Future Force collective TSPs. Those who gave it the

highest ranking gave various reasons. One participant felt that a rapid tailoring capability would

make future TSPs more user-friendly and adaptable. Another thought that it would allow for

more hands-on training time rather than spending that time making changes. Finally, a third

participant wrote, "Having the ability to change scenarios/players will keep training '

10
fresh/interesting. Most embedded software is quickly memorized and becomes boring,

capability was not given the lowest ranking by any ofthe participants.

Table 1

This

Rankings for Initial TSP Capabilities

TSP Capability

Ranking

1 2 3 4 5 Mean

Rapid Modification 11. 3 3 4 0 2.00

Reach 6 8 3 1 3 2.38

Intelligent Agents 1 6 4 6 4 3.29

Performance Measurement 2 0 8 6 5 3.57

Pretests & Selection Criteria 1 4 3 4 9 3.76

The reach capability was a close second in rankings. Several participants who ranked it

as the most important capability gave a practical reason for their ranking: iftraining data are

contained in central repositories, then training cannot be conducted ifthe data (including TSPs)

cannot be accessed. The three participants who gave reach the lowest ranking agreed that it was

still a "really important" capability. As one participant wrote,".. .the database for scenarios must

be huge and therefore cannot be resident in the Soldier's tactical equipment. Also, scenarios

must be updated.. .Reachback is the most efficient way to accomplish this."

The other three capabilities were closely grouped together in their rankings. Only one

participant felt that the use ofintelligent agents to substitute for missing team members was the

most important capability. Most felt it fell somewhere in the middle ofthe other capabilities.

Two ofthe participants who gave the lowest ranking to the use ofintelligent agents to substitute

for missing team members said it was "really important" while the other two said it was "nice to

have, but not really important." When asked to explain their lowest ranking, both participants

who thought intelligent agents were really important wrote that when some participants are not

available for a collective exercise, learning is delayed for those who are available. Those who

rated agents as nice to have felt that agents could not accurately simulate human behavior and as

a trainer, one would want the critical players involved in the training.

While two participants ranked automated performance measurement tools as the most

important capability, most ranked it toward the bottom. Those who gave it the lowest ranking

were divided, with two participants saying it is "really important" and three rating it as "nice to

have, but not really important." According to one ofthe participants who gave it the lowest

ranking, ".. .this is critical to implementation ofthe 'training progression matrix' and greatly

enhances the O/C's capability to provide value added AARs."

Finally, pretests and selection criteria received the lowest ratings ofthe five capabilities.

Only two ofthe nine participants who gave it the lowest rating thought it was "really important,"

while the other seven said it was "nice to have, but not really important." One ofthe participants

11
who thought it was nice to have wrote, "The leader should already know his troops'

qualifications and although training progression is preferred, it does not hurt to be thrown into

the frying pan and tested beyond your comfort zone." Several ofthe other participants agreed

with this sentiment.

Several participants listed descriptions of additional capabilities needed in future

collective TSPs. Two mentioned the need for central updating to maintain the validity ofTSP

content, and two others mentioned the related need for an archive or feedback system to identify

updates needed to training managers or proponents. Two participants indicated that TSPs should

provide a thorough understanding of all the capabilities available to the Future Force, particularly

the myriad ofsensors expected to be available. Two others mentioned the need for online

training aids or help to ease the preparation and execution oftraining exercises. Finally, one

participant listed the need for TSPs to have the capability to configure and initialize operational

vehicles as well as simulated entities. These are all important capabilities that will need to be in

or accessible from future TSPs, but it may be that they can be developed within a generalization

ofthe five capabilities addressed explicitly in the survey. This is discussed further in the next

section ofthis paper.

Almost all the participants listed what they saw as a few ofthe biggest challenges to

providing TSPs rapidly to meet the collective training needs ofthe Future Force. Some ofthe

most commonly mentioned challenges included: creating the numerous scenarios that will be

needed as well as altering, modifying, tailoring, and updating them; getting the bandwidth that

will be needed to support exchange oftraining information; providing adequate training

infrastructure to support the use and maintenance ofTSPs; standardizing content within central

repositories; structuring TSPs so they will configure or initialize operational platforms; and

finally, connectivity between future and current forces and Combat Training Centers. '

Broad Capabilities Needed in Future Training Support Packages

Reviews of current versions ofFCS acquisition documents and the results ofthe eTSP

survey indicate that the five capabilities identified previously (ARI, 2003) are key ones needed to

support collective Future Force training. No major new capabilities have been identified.

However, analysis of acquisition documents and survey results has identified additional

functions or services that need to be accomplished within the "big five" capabilities. These

capabilities thus need to be broadened and refined to incorporate all required functionality. The

five broadened capabilities are discussed below in order oftheir survey ranking, with training

management issues integrated throughout rather than discussed as a separate topic. This is

followed by a discussion ofthe relationship ofthe five capabilities to the TCC.

Rapid Tailoring or Modification

Respondents to the eTSP survey agreed with a view frequently expressed by leaders of

units participating in structured training exercises - TSPs prepared for a unit must be readily

modifiable by unit personnel. Current versions ofFCS acquisition documents also stress the

importance oftools for tailoring TSPs. For example, the O&O includes a means to modify TSPs

in a list ofkey embedded training capabilities, and describes this capability as follows: "Tailor

12
training based on the users' needs, performance, and choice as appropriate. This includes the

capability for leaders to tailor training exercises to meet unit needs" (TRADOC, 2004a, p. 172).

The ORD states a requirement for an authoring tool for developing new TSPs or modifying

existing ones (UAMBL, 2004). It thus appears there is a consensus that tailoring or modification

is an important, ifnot the most important, capability needed in future collective TSPs.

Reasonsfor tailoring. There may be various reasons for tailoring a TSP. The most

commonly noted one is to meet units' needs or unit leaders' desires. It will never be possible to

identify every possible future training requirement, let alone develop every TSP that a unit might

need. This is even more true for Future Force units expected to be trained and ready to conduct a

full spectrum of operations. Since a complete repository or library ofTSPs potentially needed

will not be available, unit leaders will need to access and modify TSPs rapidly to meet their

dynamic training needs. They will need a means to locate and access the available TSP most

closely fitting their needs, determined through criteria such as the missions to be performed, the

tasks to be trained, and the training environment to be employed. They will then need

straightforward tools or aids (EPSS) to guide them through the sometimes difficult modification

process. A primary function ofthese tools will be to ensure that changes made in one element of

a TSP are reflected appropriately in other elements. For example, the addition of a task to be

trained may cause additions or changes to orders, objectives, measures, AAR guides, etc.

It will also be desirable to modify a TSP based on a unit's training history or performance

during previous training or operational events. This may be based on the choice of a commander

higher than the training unit's leader. For example, if a unit has done especially well on a

particular type oftraining exercise in the past, a higher commander may want to make the

conditions more challenging. Or he may want to do the opposite ifthe unit has performed poorly

in the past. Also, a commander may want to modify or create a TSP based on actual operations

that a unit has experienced recently. Eventually a training management system may be powerful

and intelligent enough to recommend training events and tailor TSPs for units based on their

training and operational performance history. This will provide full support for a progressive or

"crawl-walk-run" approach to training.

Another reason for modifying a TSP that merits further discussion here is the

characteristics ofthe available training environment or delivery media. The most common

environment for conduct of collective training exercises in the Future Force is intended to be

operational networks and platforms, but these will not always be available. Collective TSPs

must thus be developed for fully embedded exercises, but they should be readily adaptable for

training via other means, such as NRFTT and desk-top trainers. Thus, TSPs should include tools

for readily (automatically at some point in the distant future) adapting themselves and the

supported training events to the major collective training delivery environments expected to be

available to the Future Force. These may include live, virtual, and constructive embedded

training exercises, as well as NRFTT, desk-top trainers, laptop or tablet computers, and other

non-embedded training means.

Future Force TSPs must also have the capability to adapt to the synthetic natural

environment within which collective exercises are conducted. This includes the database

representing terrain and features on it, as well as weather and illumination conditions. In the past

13
it has not been a simple matter to adapt a TSP from one terrain database to another, or from day

to night conditions. Lessons learned from the CITT projects indicated that changing a TSP from

one terrain database to another was as complex as creating a new TSP (Gossman et al., 1999).

Modifications to the synthetic natural environment need to be facilitated and eventually

automated by TSP tailoring tools. Another key aspect ofthe training environment for Future

Force exercises will be the systems operating within it. Future Force units will increasingly

conduct training exercises with elements equipped with complementary or non-FCS systems as

well as JIM elements. The TSPs for such exercises will need to adapt for the participating

systems or elements.

The tailoring or adaptation ofTSPs for all the reasons listed above should as much as

possible be automated as part of a training management system rather than left to be worked out

by personnel in participating units. Leaders should be able to specify key parameters, such as

tasks to be trained, participating elements, and desired conditions (including terrain database and

weather), resulting in provision of an appropriate TSP as painlessly and rapidly as possible. The

need to adapt to a multitude ofincreasingly complex training environment factors in the future

indicates that the provision oftools for tailoring ofTSPs will not be a simple undertaking.

Degree oftailoring. A key management issue in the tailoring offuture TSPs will be the

extent or degree oftailoring that unit leaders and other personnel are allowed to accomplish.

One aspect ofthis will be the maintenance ofstandards to ensure quality control ofTSPs A

central agency (probably TRADOC) will need to provide policies for and monitor the production

and tailoring ofTSPs to ensure they contain all elements required to lead to a successful training

event. This agency will also need to maintain a repository ofTSPs so that units have ready

access to them, including a means to search rapidly for the TSP closest to meeting units' training

needs. A primary consideration in managing this repository will be the means for determining

whether a tailored TSP represents a new TSP that should be made available to all units. What

degree ofvariation will qualify a TSP for entry as a new item in the repository?

It seems unlikely that unit personnel will ever create a new TSP "from scratch." Rather

they will start with a template and probably with an available TSP that most closely meets their'

needs. It may thus not be necessary or wise to make TSP creation tools generally available to

units. For reasons of quality control and time available, it may be wise to limit the degree of

tailoring that can be accomplished by unit personnel. Extensive tailoring should perhaps be

accomplished by supporting elements with sufficient time and resources available, such as an

HSOC or a TRADOC institution. This is discussed further below, following a summary of

experience with a relevant software package, CITT.

Experience with CITT. The primary historical example ofa system supporting the

creation and modification of collective simulation-based TSPs is CITT. This large software

package was developed during a series ofthree ARI projects from 1997 to 2001 (Flynn et al

2001; Gossman et al., 1999; Gossman et al., 2000). The purpose ofthese projects was to design

and develop a system enabling trainers to maximize the effectiveness of unit training in the

CCTT. The products included a desktop software application, a Web Site, and two information

videos. The CITT software application included detailed information on training in the CCTT a

library of over 50 CCTT exercises and TSPs, guidance and tools for creating and modifying

14
TSPs, and software for developing exercise initialization files (the CCTT Exercise Initialization

ToolorCEIT).

As OTT was developed several rounds offormative evaluation were conducted with

representative members ofthe user population. Users' responses were generally positive, and

CITT was refined repeatedly based on users' suggestions. In 2001, CITT was transitioned to the

Project Manager - Combined Arms Tactical Trainer, and the desktop application was fielded to

six CCTT sites. It appears that this initiative has not been sustained, and that CITT is utilized

little today.

The CITT projects were an ambitious undertaking that resulted in several useful products.

It may be instructive to examine why these products are little utilized today, to identify lessons

learned for future TSP modification tools. Two general observations are provided here;

personnel involved in development offuture TSP modification tools should review the CITT

reports for additional ones. One relevant observation is that, despite repeated efforts to make

CITT easy to use, it was still somewhat cumbersome, especially for the creation ofTSPs.

Development oftraining in general and creation or tailoring of collective TSPs in particular is a

complex process, involving the integration ofnumerous elements. The creation of a new TSP in

CITT required several hours of effort, even with extensive supporting tools available;

modification took an hour or more, depending on its extent. The CITT projects made significant

progress toward but did not fully meet the challenge ofmaking TSP creation and modification

easy. The difficulties encountered in these projects dealing with one dedicated training

environment will be increased many times in the future context ofmultiple training

environments.

Another relevant observation is that at the time ofthe development ofCITT, there was

insufficient command emphasis on training in CCTT and using tools such as CITT to gain

maximum benefit from that training. Commanders placed greater emphasis on training exercises

conducted in the field than on those conducted in simulation facilities such as CCTT. Rather

than using CITT, unit leaders and simulation managers found it easier to start with a small set of

exercises and modify them "on the fly" as they saw fit. This reduced the preparation time and

burden for training exercises, but whether it allowed maximum benefit to be derived from

training is arguable. Establishing appropriate command emphasis and user acceptance may be

even more challenging in the Future Force environment where training is intended primarily to

be embedded on operational networks. Commanders must be led to believe that embedded

training will not interfere with their operational systems, and that TSPs help ensure this.

Summary. For a number ofinteracting reasons, the capability to tailor or modify Future

Force TSPs is very important. However, the CITT experience and the complexities ofFuture

Force training environments indicate that it will likely be a long time before TSP tailoring

becomes an easy, mostly automatic process that can be accomplished by unit personnel

deploying frequently and rapidly. Consideration should thus be given, at least initially, to

controlling tightly and limiting the TSP modifications that can be made by unit personnel, and to

dedicating HSOC or TRADOC resources to managing TSPs and changes to them. Eventually

the concept ofmodifiable TSPs should be broadened to adaptive TSPs, or ones that adjust in a

largely automatic manner to various aspects ofthe training environment, such as the delivery

15
media and synthetic natural environment available. But much work is needed before that goal

can be achieved.

Reach

Reach has been defined as ".. .a virtual and collaborative strategy to access, share, and

disseminate information in support ofintelligence, maneuver, and logistics regardless of'

distance, time, or echelon" (Custer, 2003). The participants in the eTSP survey indicated that

training in the future should also be supported by reach, since they ranked this capability as a

close second to TSP modification in importance. The O&O (TRADOC, 2004a) identifies reach

to remote knowledge centers as an important embedded training capability, and it lists several

resources that training units will reach to. The ORD (UAMBL, 2004) specifies the requirement

for "on-board" training products to link or reach to repositories to obtain updates, to access

additional products, or to exchange products between training centers. One could argue whether

reach is a function contained in TSPs, in the training management system, or in the overall FCS

family ofsystems, but it is clear that the capability to exchange information through reach with

distant nodes is an important one to include in Future Force TSPs.

Bi-directional reach. In the past reach has primarily been thought of as reach back; i.e.,

units at a forward location request information or other support from elements that are not as far

forward. But reach can also extend forward; personnel at rear locations may reach forward to

deployed elements for information ofvarious sorts. Reach is thus a distributed, collaborative

information-sharing process, as indicated in the definition above.

Reach must be designed to work over operational networks, while minimizing concerns

such as bandwidth and signal propagation. It seems likely that Future Force units will take as

much support as possible with them, minimizing the need for reach. In the case of collective

TSPs, unit leaders will analyze the anticipated mission(s) and load relevant TSPs on unit

computers. Modifications or updates to these TSPs, along with additional TSPs that may prove

to be needed, will be provided to the unit through reach, probably during lulls in operations.

Data from training exercises and modifications made to TSPs by unit personnel will be sent back

through the same reach mechanism. Collective TSPs will include links to IMI and doctrinal

references to ensure individuals complete preparatory or remedial training as required for

participation in collective exercises. Whether TSPs and associated materials are loaded on unit

computers or accessed through reach should be largely transparent to most unit personnel. The

only difference may be the time required to access materials.

Reach nodes. A deployed Future Force unit could potentially conduct reach in support of

training with many sources or nodes. The O&O (TRADOC, 2004a) lists many nodes that a unit

may reach to, including remote distributed depositories, remote knowledge centers, the HSOC,

institutional resource centers, subject matter experts, and the Army Knowledge Enterprise. A '

unit may also send training information back (including performance data, lessons learned, and

TSP modifications) that is ofinterest to numerous nodes or agencies, including training

institutions and repositories such as the Center for Army Lessons Learned.

16
Numerous technologies are available and rapidly evolving to support distributed

information search, retrieval, and dissemination (Wall, Elms, Biggers, & Sticha, 2004). Future

Force units could potentially access information from and provide information to many nodes

through future versions ofthe Internet. The key will be to ensure that unit personnel gain access

to information they need as quickly as possible, while not being burdened with providing

information back to numerous nodes. To achieve this it seems it will be necessary to establish a

gateway or channel for a deployed unit's reach activities. Unit personnel will then conduct reach

activities primarily with one node rather than many. At least in the case oftraining, an

appropriate gateway will be the HSOC.

The HSOC is designed to be a portion of a Future Force Unit ofAction that does not

deploy, at least not as far forward as the main body. During a prolonged deployment, unit

personnel may rotate between the HSOC and deployed elements. This will help ensure that

HSOC personnel have a thorough understanding of deployed elements' requirements, including

training needs. The HSOC could serve as a conduit for providing TSPs and updates to deployed

elements, and for collecting data and lessons learned for distribution to appropriate agencies.

The HSOC could also monitor and support deployed elements' training activities, perhaps filling

roles such as observer, controller, coach, or role player from a distance. Until truly adaptive

TSPs are available, the HSOC could accomplish many ofthe TSP modification activities

discussed previously. The HSOC should be a key player in the training ofFuture Force units.

Simulated Operating Environment

The eTSP CD and survey addressed the capability to employ intelligent agents to

substitute for missing members ofthe training audience. Reviews of current versions of

acquisition documents, eTSP survey responses, and the TCC indicate that the definition or scope

ofthis capability needs to be expanded considerably to include all aspects ofthe simulated

operating environment (SOE). The capability needs to address all aspects ofthe training

environment that are not physically present and are thus created synthetically. This may include

the terrain on which training is conducted, environmental conditions (weather, light, etc.),

entities (weapons platforms, sensors, etc.) operating on or above the terrain, weapons effects, and

personnel in or outside the training unit.

Aspects ofthe SOE. One key aspect ofthe SOE is the use of databases to create and

manage the synthetic natural environment for training exercises, including terrain (land and

water), features on terrain (vegetation, soil types, etc.), and environmental conditions (weather,

time of day, etc.). To support training of Future Force units, terrain databases must be readily

available or rapidly creatable for all parts ofthe world. Units will need to be able to apply all

appropriate environmental conditions to synthetic training areas. As indicated previously,

adapting TSPs for different terrains or environmental conditions is not as simple as taking a

training exercise from one piece ofsimulated terrain and dropping it on another. Relative

positions of entities, control measures, movement patterns, and many other factors may need to

be adjusted.

Synthetic entities operating on or over simulated terrain are generally created through

computer-generated forces (CGF) or SAF. In Future Force training exercises a wide variety of

17
platforms, systems, and units will need to be simulated through SAF, representing friendly (JIM)

and opposing forces as well as neutral entities. This will include man-made environmental

effects, such as smoke, minefields, and impacts ofrounds. Collective TSPs will need to include

or have ready access to data required for initializing SAF entities at the beginning of an exercise,

as well as for representing the interactive behavior of dynamic entities during the exercise.

One particularly important and challenging aspect of SAF is the intelligent representation

ofindividual human beings. This includes the use ofintelligent agents to represent members of

the training audience who are not participating in an exercise because they are not present or

adequately prepared. It also includes representation ofindividuals in adjacent or higher units

with whom interaction is required during a training exercise. To accomplish some training

objectives it may also include representation of opposing or neutral individuals. The provision

ofhumans adequately prepared to serve as role players is a heavy burden for many training

exercises, and simulation ofthese individuals through SAF would be very beneficial. In recent

years great advances have been made in the capability of SAF to realistically represent the

behavior ofweapons platforms and units. But it will be many years before SAF in the form of

intelligent agents will realistically and cost-effectively represent the behavior ofindividual

human beings. For some time collective TSPs will need to include instructions and scripts for

human role players to support training exercises. In the Future Force at least some ofthese

individuals may come from the HSOC.

Integration ofthe SOE. To support collective exercises, elements ofthe SOE must not

only behave individually in a realistic fashion. They must also behave interactively with each

other and with real elements or entities. The O&O (TRADOC, 2004a) indicates that the

simulation ofoperational data not available from actual data sources is a key capability of

embedded training. It also identifies the integration ofsimulated and actual data as a

requirement. As one example, a training exercise involving the employment ofsensors may

include data from real sensors emplaced on or above real terrain, along with simulated sensors

operating on virtual terrain. The embedded training system must integrate these real and

simulated data inputs on a WMI display as if all the inputs were real. As another example,

information during an exercise may come from real unit members and from surrogate members

represented in the near term through human role players and in the long term through intelligent

agents. The information must be provided so that the training audience doesn't know which

elements are real and which are simulated.

Another example ofthe required interaction ofreal and simulated data is the

representation ofdegraded modes ofoperation. The ORD (UAMBL, 2004) and the O&O

(TRADOC, 2004a) indicate that the embedded training system must simulate faults and errors to

allow training in such modes. Future Force TSPs must thus incorporate the capability to

simulate operational systems running normally, running partially or abnormally, or not running

at all. The integration of data into Future Force TSPs to drive simulation-based collective

exercises will not be a simple matter.

18
Performance Measurement

Many would argue that training cannot be effective without performance measurement

and feedback. Yet performance measurement was ranked fourth in the list offive capabilities in

the eTSP survey. This may reflect the perceived relative importance of other factors, as well as

the challenges in measuring human performance during collective exercises. The ORD

(UAMBL, 2004) indicates that collection oftraining data is essential for analyzing performance

and producing feedback. The O&O (TRADOC, 2004a) identifies automated evaluation of

performance against task standards as a key capability of embedded training. It also describes

training feedback as including the following general activities: collecting and recording

performance data, evaluating performance and providing feedback on it, and aggregating

performance records over time.

Collectingperformance data. In simulation-based training exercises the collection and

recording ofperformance data is often thought of as a data logging function. A data logger is

generally a software service that records all electronic transmissions or packets during a

simulation exercise, supporting later playback or recreation ofthe exercise. The logged data may

also be analyzed to support displays used in AARs. Since Future Force collective training

exercises are expected to be conducted primarily among distributed participants over operational

networks, the potential exists for automatically capturing relevant performance measures simply

by recording network traffic.

For various reasons, the future collection ofperformance measures may not be quite that

simple, and the collection of network data may not tell the whole story. Not all information

transfer may occur over the network. For example, information will likely be exchanged

verbally between personnel over a radio, over an intercom, or face-to-face. Lickteig, Sanders,

Durlach, and Carnahan (2004) found verbal communication within a command group to be near

continuous in a Future Force mission execution environment. It will thus be necessary to collect

(or at least overhear) voice transmissions, some ofwhich do not occur over a network. In order

to assess areas such as situational awareness, it will be necessary to record what information a

person had access to at particular times, such as which files were open or which screens were

being displayed. The degree to which operational systems can reasonably be instrumented to

record such data remains to be determined. And that may not tell the whole story; the fact that a

file was open or a screen was displayed does not guarantee that it was being looked at and

understood.

The collection ofperformance measures in the command and control arena is a complex

undertaking that in the past has relied heavily on trained observers. Future conduct of exercises

over operational networks may lead to more objective and automated data collection with less

reliance on observers, but it is expected that observational data will still be needed for some time

to develop a complete understanding ofperformance. Future Force TSPs will thus need to

include tools and procedures for observers (particularly observers who may be monitoring from a

distance) as well as procedures for data logging.

Providingperformancefeedback. The primary means ofproviding feedback on

performance in collective training exercises is the conduct ofAARs. There is a continuing need

19
for a standard AAR interface using standardized AAR displays (TRADOC, 2004a). In the future

AARs will increasingly be conducted in distributed mode, and there will likely be less time

available for them. This may lead to less reliance on replay ofmajor portions of an exercise,

with more focus on replay ofshort segments and presentation ofspecific performance measures

or indicators. Such measures will be needed not only to support AARs, but also to support rapid

provision ofperformance feedback during active coaching while an exercise is ongoing or

briefly paused. Measures also must support "take-home packages" for later study by exercise

participants and to provide performance results for archiving in training data repositories.

Given the anticipated increasing reliance on the efficient collection and presentation of

specific performance measures, a key area for future research is determination ofwhat these

measures are. Issues ofthe key performance measures to gather during collective exercises and

the best ways to display them during AARs have been addressed at least since attempts to

develop semi-automated AAR tools for the Simulation Networking system (Meliza, Bessemer &

Tan, 1994). Much work remains to be done in this area, especially for complex command and'

control performance (Holden, Throne, & Sterling, 2001; Throne, Holden, & Lickteig, 2000)

This includes the need to specify detailed objective standards for Future Force performance; such

specification needs to be accomplished as part of ongoing Future Force task analysis efforts

Provision of collective performance feedback for the Future Force needs to include more than

exercise replays and summary displays to support AARs. It needs to include specific

performance measures that are potentially automatable.

Archivingperformance records. Performance results for Future Force individuals and

teams will need to be stored in a readily accessible repository. This will enable the training

management system to determine what training exercises have been completed successfully and

what training needs to be completed next. The establishment ofskill retention standards will

also enable the training management system to determine when exercises need to be repeated for

refresher purposes. In addition to directly supporting training management for individuals and

teams, archiving ofperformance results will support quality control oftraining. For example if

many participants are having difficulty with a particular exercise, training managers should be

alerted to examine the TSP being used, including the performance measures and standards.

Recording the results ofhigh-fidelity embedded training exercises may also lead to the

identification oflessons learned and tactics, techniques, and procedures that can be applied

during operations.

Pretests and Selection Criteria

This was the lowest ranked ofthe five capabilities included in the eTSP survey, but

several participants (including two who gave it the lowest ranking) described it as an important

one. The O&O (TRADOC, 2004a) mentions the need for Future Force TSPs to address

identified weaknesses in individual and collective skills. Such identification can be achieved

through examining archived performance records, selecting training exercise participants based

on those records or other criteria, or administering a pretest before an exercise begins.

Several respondents to the eTSP survey downgraded the importance ofthis capability

indicating that leaders should know the abilities oftheir Soldiers and there is little harm in

20
providing challenges in training. At least in stabilized units, leaders should know the general

abilities oftheir subordinates, but they may not know whether subordinates possess the specific

knowledge and abilities required for a particular exercise. Also, in the Future Force environment

leaders may train with a variety ofindividuals and elements (including JIM elements) with which

they are not familiar. Finally, the harm in unprepared personnel participating in collective

exercises is that not only will they not perform to standard, they may also interfere with the

performance of and training benefit to prepared personnel.

This capability admittedly is largely a training management function and is the least

important ofthe capabilities discussed here. But, as discussed above, there are reasons for

keeping this capability as a distinctly identified one for Future Force TSPs. Provision ofthis

capability will supplement leaders' abilities to know their subordinates' preparedness for

training, and will help ensure that training resources are used effectively.

Comparison with Training Common Components

As mentioned previously, managers ofFCS acquisition have identified a list ofTCCs

providing an infrastructure for achieving embedded training for the Future Force. Seven TCCs

have been identified and an eighth one is currently under assessment (Harrison, 2004). Since the

potential eighth TCC (embedded Tactical Engagement Simulation System) is designed primarily

to support live training rather than the command and staff exercises focused on in this paper, it

will not be addressed here. The seven TCC ofrelevance here are:

• Training Management

• Exercise Management

• Scenario Development

• SAF-CGF

• SOE Management

• Data Logger

• AAR

A comparison ofthe seven TCCs with the five major capabilities addressed in this paper

indicates that there is a generally close match, with differences in organization, wording, and

emphasis. The seven TCCs are covered by the five capabilities, along with the training

management system within which the capabilities are addressed. The TCCs make a distinction

between training management and exercise management, with training management focusing

mostly on performance record keeping and exercise management focusing on initiation and

control of exercises. The five capabilities group all management activities into one higher level

function. The TCCs describe TSP modification as scenario development, but more than

development and modification ofthe scenario (e.g., modification oftraining objectives,

performance measures, observer guidelines) will be required. The TCCs distinguish between

SAF-CGF and SOE management, but the five capabilities address SAF-CGF as part ofthe SOE.

Finally, the TCCs distinguish between data logger and AAR functions, but the five capabilities

describe these closely related functions as one.

21
One important difference between the TCC and the capabilities discussed here is that,

reach, one ofthe most important capabilities, is not addressed by the TCC. This may be due to

reach being considered as a capability ofthe FCS system ofsystems, rather than of embedded

training and TSPs. Reach will be needed to support many activities other than training, such as

intelligence and logistics. But reach is such an important capability ofFuture Force embedded

training that support ofit should be included in any list oftraining components.

Conclusions

The concept of a TSP needs to transform as the Army transforms to a Future Force. The

concept ofintegrating all the information and materials needed to support a training event needs

to continue. But this integration will occur not in a physical, paper-based package. Rather, it

will occur electronically as linked databases and files. This will allow future TSPs to be more

accessible and adaptable than TSPs have been in the past. Borrowing from software

terminology, it may be more appropriate at some point to think ofa TSP as a training support

application, integrating training support services.

Future TSPs must be developed and implemented within a training management system

enabling key capabilities needed to support fully embedded training. Personnel involved in

Future Force training development and reviews ofFCS acquisition documents indicate that the

two most important capabilities that must be provided are TSP modification and reach. Users

need support for modifying a TSP as rapidly as possible to meet their training needs. This may

include modification tools integrated with EPSS, support from the appropriate HSOC or training

centers, and software adapting TSPs to available training environments as automatically as

possible. In order to access fully integrated training services (including modification tools),

users of a TSP must be able to reach or link from it to a wide range ofnodes. To keep this '

process simple for and responsive to busy deployed users, it will probably be best to establish

one dedicated pathway for a unit's reach activities. The HSOC appears to be the appropriate

pathway, at least for training.

Other capabilities that are important to provide in future TSPs include access to the SOE,

performance measurement, and pretests and selection criteria. The SOE will provide

representations ofthe environment (eventually including intelligent representations ofindividual

human beings) that are not physically present for training, along with the integration ofreal and

simulated data. The performance measurement and feedback process is critical for training, and

for the foreseeable future it must include the integration of data gathered automatically and'

through observation. This will support performance feedback to individuals and groups through

AARs, as well as feedback to the embedded training system through data archiving. The

implementation ofpretests and selection criteria will help ensure that future training resources

are used wisely.

A comparison ofkey future TSP capabilities with the TCC identified by managers ofthe

acquisition of embedded training for the Future Force shows a close match. One concern is that

reach is not addressed in the TCC. Reach is a capability that will support much more than

training in the future, but it is so critical to achieving fully embedded training that it should be

included in any listing offuture training components.

22
References

Campbell, C. H., Campbell, R. C, Sanders, J. J., Flynn, M. R, & Myers, W. E. (1995).

Methodologyfor the development ofstructured simulation-based training (ARI Research

Product 95-08). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences.

Campbell, C. H. & Deter, D. E. (1997). Guide to development ofstructured simulation-based

training (ARI Research Product 97-14). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Campbell, C. H., Quinkert, K. A., & Burnside, B. L. (2000). Trainingforperformance: The

structured training approach (ARI Special Report 45). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Custer, J. M. (2003). Reach: Leveraging time and distance. Military Review, 2,3-11.

Department ofthe Army, Headquarters. (1999). Systems approach to training management,

processes, andproducts (TRADOC Regulation 350-70). Fort Monroe, VA: U.S. Army

Training and Doctrine Command.

Flynn, M. R, Dannemiller, B., Bonnett, M., Gossman, J. R, Forrest, D., Bonnett, M., Shadrick,

S. B., & Mauzy, R. P. (2001). The Commanders' Integrated Training Tool: Final

prototype development (ARI Research Report 1781). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Gery, G. (1991). Electronic performance support systems. Cambridge, MA: ZiffInstitute.

Gossman, J. R, Beebe, M. E., Bonnett, M., Forrest, D., Shadrick, S. B., Dannemiller, B., Mauzy,

R. P., & Bonnett, M. (1999). The Commanders' Integrated Training Toolfor the Close

Combat Tactical Trainer: Design, prototype development, and lessons learned (ARI

Research Report 1739). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences.

Gossman, J. R., Bonnett, M., Forrest, D., Shadrick, S., Dannemiller, B., Flynn, M. R, Mauzy, R.

P., & Bonnett, M. (2000). The Commanders' Integrated Training Toolfor the Close

Combat Tactical Trainer - 2: Second generation design andprototype development

(ARI Research Report 1759). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Gossman, J. R, Flynn, M. R, & Breidenbach, M. (2004). Prototype electronic training support

packagefor the Future Force [CD]. (Available from U.S. Army Research Institute, 2423

Morande Street, ATTN: DAPE-ARI-IK, Fort Knox, KY 40121)

23
Gossman, J. R., Graves, C. R., Mauzy, R. P., & Clagg, R. A. (2001). Assessing and managing

user-produced training supportpackages (ARI Research Report 1772). Arlington, VA:

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

Harrison, C. (2004, September). Multi-use ofOne-Semi-Automated Force Objective System

training common components. Briefing presented at the 2nd Workshop ofthe Battle

Command Action Team, Mesa, AZ.

Holden, W. T., Throne, M.H, & Sterling, B. S. (2001). Prototype automated measures of

command and staff performance (ARI Research Report 1779). Arlington, VA: U.S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Lead Systems Integrator for Future Combat Systems (2004, August). Embedded training

concept ofoperations. Orlando, FL: Author.

Lickteig, C. W., Sanders, W. R., Durlach, P. J., & Carnahan, T. J. (2004). Future Combat

Systems command and control humanfunctions assessment: Interim report- Experiment

3 (ARI Research Report 1819). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Meliza, L. L., Bessemer, D. W., & Tan, S. C. (1994). Unit Performance Assessment System

development (ARI Technical Report 1008). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Throne, M. H. & Burnside, B. L. (2003). Integrated training andperformance supportfor the

Objective Force (ARI Research Report 1801). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Throne, M. H, Holden, W. T., & Lickteig, C. W. (2000). Refinement of prototype staffevaluation methodsforfutureforces: Afocus on automated measures (ARI Research

Report 1764). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences.

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (2003). Prototype

electronic training supportpackagefor the Objective Force (Statement ofWork).

Arlington, VA: Author.

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. (2004a, July). Future Force operational and

organizationalplanfor maneuver Unit of Action (Draft TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-90

O&O, Change 3). Fort Monroe, VA: Author.

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (2004b, July). Objective Force embedded training

users 'functional description (Draft TRADOC Pamphlet 350-37). Fort Monroe, VA:

Author.

24
Unit ofAction Maneuver Battle Laboratory. (2004). Operational Requirements Documentfor

the Future Combat Systems. (Change 1). Fort Knox, KY: Author, U.S. Army Armor

Center and Fort Knox.

Wall, J. A., Elms, R. D., Biggers, K. E., & Sticha, P. J. (2004). Knowledge networksfor Future

Force training: Illustration ofsearching, retrieval, and communication concepts (ARI

Research Report 1823). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences.

25
AAR

ARI

ASAT

ATIS

CCTT

CD

CEIT

CGF

CITT

DA

EPSS

eTSP

FCS

HSOC

IETM

IMI

IPT

JIM

KPP

LSI

NRFTT

O/C

O&O

ORD

SAF

SME

SOE

SOW

Appendix A

List ofAcronyms

after action review

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

Automated Systems Approach to Training

Army Training Information System

Close Combat Tactical Trainer

compact disc

CCTT Exercise Initialization Tool

computer-generated forces

Commanders' Integrated Training Tool

Department ofthe Army

electronic performance support system

electronic training support package

Future Combat Systems

Home Station Operations Center

interactive electronic technical manual

interactive multimedia instruction

Integrated Product Team

joint, interagency, and multinational

key performance parameter

Lead Systems Integrator

networked reconfigurable, full-task trainers

observer/controller

Operational and Organizational Plan

Operational Requirements Document

semi-automated forces

subject matter expert

simulated operating environment

Statement ofWork

A-l
TCC training common component

TDDT Training and Doctrine Development Tool

TRADOC U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command

TSP training support package

TSS Training Support System

UAMBL Unit ofAction Maneuver Battle Laboratory

UFD Users' Functional Description

WMI Warfighter Machine Interface

A-2
Appendix B

Electronic Training Support Package Survey

Future Force TSPs

After viewing the Electronic Training Support Package (TSP) CD to which this survey is

attached, please answer the questions below. You can fax your completed form to ARI at Fort

Knox (Comm (502) 624-8113, DSN 464-8113, ATTN: Dr. Burnside or Dr. Throne), you can

request an electronic copy to complete and return (Billy.Burnside@knox.army.mil or

May.Throne@knox.army.mil), or you can call to provide your answers over the phone (Comm

(502) 624-2613/7046, DSN 464-464-2613/7046). Ifwe have not heard from you within two

weeks, we will attempt to reach you by phone or email to obtain your answers. Thank you.

1. The electronic TSP CD highlights the 5 capabilities offuture TSPs listed below. Please

provide your view ofthe relative importance ofthese capabilities by rank ordering them. Place a

"1" by the capability you think is most important for Future Force collective training, a "2" by

the next most important, etc.

Pretest/selection criteria

Rapid tailoring and modification

Use ofintelligent agents to substitute for team members

Reach to central repositories

Semi-automated performance measurement tools

2.a. Please explain briefly your reason(s) for your #1 ranking above.

b. Please check and explain briefly whether your #5 ranking above is:

really important

nice to have, but not really important

PT# 60-61

B-l
3. Please provide brief descriptions of any other capabilities that are important to include in

TSPs for Future Force collective training. Also, indicate where any capabilities you list would

fall in your importance ranking.

4. Please describe briefly what you see as the biggest challenge(s) to providing TSPs rapidly to

meet the collective training needs of Future Force units.

B-2