Study

Report

2000-01

Integration of Training Development

Among Schools and Distributed

Training Environments

Robert A. Clagg

Litton PRC

Richard L. Detrani

Human Resources Research Organization

Billy L Burnside and Dorothy L. Finley

U.S. Army Research Institute

United States Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

December 1999

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

W&^mswtnsD a

20000103 077
U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

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

EDGAR M. JOHNSON

Director

Research accomplished under contract

for the Department of the Army

Human Resources Research Organization

Litton-PRC

Technical Review by

John F. Hayes, ARI

Diana O. Tierney, TRADOC DCST

NOTICES

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

Please address correspondence concerning distribution ofreporte to: U.S.Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Attn: TAPC-ARI-PO, 5UU1

Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22333-5600.

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

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

Sciences.

NOTE- The findings in this Study Report are not to be construed as an official

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

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy)

December 1999

2. REPORT TYPE

Final

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Integration of Training Development Among Schools and

Distributed Training Environments

6. AUTHOR(S)

Robert A. Clagg (Litton PRC), Richard L. Detrani (Human Resources

Research Organization), Billy L. Burnside and Dorothy L. Finley

(U.S. Army Research Institute)

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

Human Resource Research Organization (HumRRO) U.S. Army Research Institute

66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 400

Alexandria, VA 22314 Litton.pRC

1500 PRC Drive

McLean, VA 22102

Attn: TAPC-ARI-K

2423 Morande Street

Fort Knox, KY 40121

3. DATES COVERED (from... to)

December, 1998 - November, 1999

5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER

DASW01-94-D-0011 (DO #20)

5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

0465803D

5c. PROJECT NUMBER

D730

5d. TASK NUMBER

221

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER

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: TAPC-ARI-IK

5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

10. MONITOR ACRONYM

ARI

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER

Study Report 2000-01

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Contracting Officer's Representative: Dr. Billy L. Burnside

14 ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words):

Distributed training development activities provide a means for geographically separate proponents, subject matter experts,

and users to interact while developing training products. While this may not be a new concept, it has become increasingly

imoortant with the Army's digitization efforts and the rapid fielding of other new systems. This study examines distributed

training development activities among U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) proponent schools and ofcer

distributed training environments, such as that associated with Program Managers. The approach was a critical investigation

and examination of where the Army is and where it needs to be heading as it tackles the issue of distributed training

development in support of newly fielded digital information systems. The study revealed that there are major issues and needs

associated with the development and distribution of training at sites other than TRADOC proponent schools. An important

component of the study is the identification, analysis, and comparison of courses of action for addressing the current issues and

needs associated with distributed training development. Courses of action are thoroughly analyzed and compared and both

near- and long-term implementation considerations are identified.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

New systems training Systems Approach to Training

New equipment training Training management

Training development Training development management

Distributed training development activities

: SEWWTy.C^slRCAf<p|i #,F;.:;'.'.;;

::,:,;';;-

16: REPORT

Unclassified

17. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

18. THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. LIMITATION OF

ABSTRACT

Unlimited

20. NUMBER

OF PAGES

48

21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

(Name and Telephone Number)

Dr. Billy L. Burnside

(502) 624-2613
Study Report 2000-01

Integration of Training Development Among

Schools and Distributed Training Environments

Robert A. Clagg

Litton PRC

Richard L. Detrani

Human Resources Research Organization

Billy L. Burnside and Dorothy L. Finley

U.S. Army Research Institute

Armored Forces Research Unit

Barbara A. Black, Chief

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

December 1999

Army Project Number Personnel and Training

2O465803D730 Analysis Activntes

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

in
FOREWORD

The U.S. Army is rapidly fielding new systems while training development resources are

increasingly constrained. One outcome of this is that training development is becoming

increasingly distributed, i.e. performed by agencies other than U.S. Army Training and Doctrine

Command (TRADOC) proponent schools. Recognizing this situation, TRADOC representatives

requested that the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI)

undertake a study and analysis effort to examine issues in and approaches to distributed training

development activities. Based on extensive experience in innovative training development

methods, ARI's Armored Forces Research Unit (AFRU) at Fort Knox, Kentucky, performed the

study effort.

This final study report describes issues and needs associated with distributed training

development activities, along with alternative courses of action for addressing them. The AFRU

accomplished this study effort as part of Work Package 205, "Assessment of Force XXI Training

Tools and Techniques." The work was supported through a Memorandum for Record between

the Chief, ARI AFRU, and the Director, Training Development and Analysis Activity, Deputy

Chief of Staff for Training, TRADOC, subject: Integration of Training Development Among

Schools and Distributed Training Environments, dated 30 November 1998.

The results and recommendations of this study effort were briefed to the TRADOC Study

Advisory Group at Fort Monroe, Virginia, and to other senior TRADOC personnel at Fort Eustis,

Virginia; Fort Knox, Kentucky; and Fort Hood, Texas in late August and early September 1999.

Training developers and managers throughout TRADOC and other Army agencies can use these

results and recommendations to establish policy and procedures for future distribution of training

development activities. This should be particularly useful in supporting the rapid fielding of

new, largely digital systems.

^l.i^

TA M. SIMUTIS

Technical Director

Preceding Page! Blank
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The project team for this study was composed of members of the Human Resources

Research Organization (HumRRO) Advanced Distributed Training Program and Litton PRC

located at Fort Knox, Kentucky, and Killeen, Texas. Ms. Charlotte Campbell, HumRRO

Program Manager for the Advanced Distributed Training Program was the Program Manager for

this study. Her contributions to this study went far beyond project supervision. She was

involved in all project decisions, served as the team's Research Psychologist and was a reviewer

of this report. Mr. Michael Flynn, Litton PRC Fort Knox site manager, served as the team's

Army Training Information Management Program (ATIMP) advisor and was also a reviewer of

this report.

The contracting officer's representative (COR) for the project was Dr. Billy Burnside from

the Armored Forces Research Unit (AFRU), U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences, at Fort Knox. Dr. Burnside was an active member of the project in aU

aspects of the study, providing input and counsel throughout. Also from AFRU was Ms.

Dorothy Finley, who served as the project Assistant COR and provided a working liaison to the

project team. Ms. Finley was also actively involved in all phases of this study. Her comments

and insight were of great assistance to the study effort.

The issues, needs, and courses of action developed in this study were reviewed by a study

advisory group (SAG) which consisted of members of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine

Command (TRADOC) Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Training (including Training

Development Analysis Activity and Collective Training Directorate), Army Training Support

Center, Armor Center Directorate of Training and Doctrine Development (DTDD) and

Warrio'r-T staffs. The SAG reviewed all project deliverables and provided guidance to the study

team on various issues. The members of the SAG for this study were: Dr. Diana Tierney

(TRADOC), Ms. Mary Lou Carberry (TRADOC), Dr. William Melton (TRADOC), and Dr.

Robert Bauer (Armor Center DTDD). Ms. Frances (Jean) Taylor (Warrior-T) also provided

valuable comments on various project deliverables. Several members of the SAG also reviewed

portions of this report.

Ms. Kathy Horn of Litton PRC's Fort Knox office provided invaluable word processing

support and editing assistance to the study team.

VI
INTEGRATION OF TRAINING DEVELOPMENT AMONG SCHOOLS

AND DISTRIBUTED TRAINING ENVIRONMENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Study Requirements:

The U S Army's fielding of digital information systems, and the training challenges that

have ensued have caused the Army to re-look its established system for training development

The current system, which is based on training development being performed primarily at U.S.

Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) proponent schools and other training

development (task) proponents, is presently stressed by requirements such as military

occupational specialty changes, new staffing responsibilities, and resource decrements^ It is thus

not able to meet the training development needs of units receiving digital equipment. This has

necessitated a movement towards the development of training at sites other thartat proponent

schools. Acting on a request from the Deputy Chief of Staff for Training, TRADOC the US

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences initiated a study to ideni ify^the

issues and needs associated with distributed training development activities Additionally, the

study identified, analyzed and compared specific courses of action (COAs) for addressing

distributed training issues and needs. Development and use of distributed naming development

techniques is necessary to meet the training development requirements ensuing from the rapid

fielding of digital information systems.

Procedure:

Using the Warrior-T training development cell established within the Central Technical

Support Faculty at Fort Hood, Texas, and the U.S. Army Armor Center and School as exemplar

organizations, the study team conducted extensive structured interviews in order to identify the

issues and needs associated with distributed training development. These interviews were

conducted with subject matter experts (SMEs) from TRADOC Headquarters, the Army Training

Support Center, the Fort Hood Warrior-T Office, contract training developers working on behalf

of several of the materiel developers fielding equipment at Fort Hood, several Program

Managers TRADOC Systems Managers for digital information systems, and representatives

from the Armor Center's Directorate of Training and Doctrine Development. The project staff

analyzed the identified distributed training issues and needs, then developed COAs to address

them The COAs were then analyzed and compared and the near- and long-term implementation

considerations were examined. As a result, viable COAs for possible implementation in the

near- and long-term were provided.

Findings:

Five issues along with five corresponding needs associated with distributed training

development were identified. These issues and needs served as the basis for the development,

analysis, and comparison of four COAs.

Vll
The five identified issues and corresponding needs were:

1. Issue: Distributed training development activities and the five phases of Systems

Approach to Training (SAT)

Need: A requirement exists for a clear definition of which SAT phases should be

distributed, to whom they should be distributed, and how this should be done.

Distribution of all phases of SAT can take advantage of technology-based solutions.

2. Issue: Varying approaches to training development

Need: Meeting needs for effective Army training products requires adherence to a

development process, like SAT, that is known to be effective and is reasonably

standardized. These needs include the fielding of new systems.

3. Issue: Distributed training development tools, agencies, and information flow

Need: A complete management system architecture, which includes hardware, software,

policy, and regulatory guidance, is needed to facilitate the interaction among all Army

organizations involved in training development. This system should also facilitate the

accessing of off-site SMEs during training development activities.

4. Issue: Distributed training development activities in support of unit requirements

Need: Units need additional training tools specific to their needs such as the

Commanders' Integrated Training Tool (CITT). Unit leaders also need training in

appropriate portions of the SAT process.

5. Issue: Future requirements for distributed training development activities

Need: A flexible and responsive training development capability should be available to

support short-term surge requirements and possibly training development backlogs.

The four COAs developed as a result of the analysis of identified issues and needs were:

• Maintain the status quo

• Establish additional Warrior-T Offices

• Establish a mobile surge team capability

• Integrate training development activities into unit set fielding

Each identified issue and need was accompanied by an extensive analysis. The COAs were

analyzed and compared in detail and near- and long-term implementation considerations were

addressed and analyzed. Although the report did not recommend implementation of a specific

vm
COA, analysis suggested that the COA that included a mobile surge capability was the most

viable.

Utilization of Findings:

This report identifies key issues and needs associated with distributed training development

activities, along with alternative COAs for addressing them. The findings can be used by

training managers and developers throughout the TRADOC community to establish policies and

procedures for future distribution of training development activities. The findings should be

especially applicable for training development associated with the rapid fielding of new, largely

digital systems.

IX
INTEGRATION OF TRAINING DEVELOPMENT AMONG SCHOOLS

AND DISTRIBUTED TRAINING ENVIRONMENTS

CONTENTS

Page

Introduction 2

Scope of the Study

Report Organization

Background

Overview of the Army Training Development System J •.

Distributed Training Development • *

Warrior-T Office — 5

Methodology '

8

Results g

Issues and Needs

Courses of Action • _

COA 1 Maintain the Status Quo • • ••*

COA 2 Additional Warrior-T Offices jj

COA 3 Mobüe Surge Team {*

COA 4 Unit Set Fielding li

Course of Action Analysis....

Analysis Results _

COA 1 Maintain the Status Quo Jj)

COA 2 Additional Warrior-T Offices j°

COA 3 Mobüe Surge Team ;•• j°

COA 4 Unit Set Fielding 17

Discussion of Implementation Considerations }7

Short-Term Implementation Considerations jj

Culture ; 1Q

References

Unit requirements •

Tools. • ;"

TRADOC Systems Manager Training ^

Long-Term Implementation Considerations • • -^

Directorate of Evaluation and Standardization Restoration 20

Products of the Systems Approach to Training Process 21

Conclusions

23 References "

XI
CONTENTS (continued) ——

Page

Appendix A. Acronym and Glossary List B1

Appendix B. Issues and Needs Cl

Appendix C. Selected Interview Responses • D^

Appendix D. Related Reading •

List of Tables

18 Table 1. Course of Action and Needs Comparison • lg

Table 2. Course of Action Analysis

List of Figures

Figure 1. Interrelationships among Systems Approach to Training phases 3

Fisure 2. Warrior-T Office organization.... •••• •- • ; ""

Figure 3 The method used to conduct the Integration of Training Development

" Among Schools and Distributed Training Environments study • -/

Figure 4 The "Z" Model for business expansion, one technique that could be used

to identify risks associated with "mission creep."

Xll
INTEGRATION OF TRAINING DEVELOPMENT AMONG SCHOOLS

AND DISTRIBUTED TRAINING ENVIRONMENTS

Introduction

The U.S. Army's fielding of digital information systems and the training challenges that

have ensued have caused the Army to re-look its established system for training development.

The current system, which is based on training development being performed primarily at U.S.

Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) proponent schools, is presently stressed by

requirements such as military occupational specialty changes, new staffing responsibilities,

training developer reductions, and other resource decrements. It is thus not able to meet the

training development needs of units receiving digital equipment. This has necessitated a

movement towards the development of training at sites other than at proponent schools.

Additionally, plans and concepts for the future of the Army and Army training (Department of

the Army [DA], 1999c) suggest the need for a more integrated training development system in

which units, TRADOC, proponents (schools), and other agencies such as Project Managers

(PMs) and Combat Training Centers (CTCs) are linked and share selected responsibilities within

the training development process. Throughout the rest of this report the use of the term

proponent will include schools and all other organizations and agencies with training (task)

development responsibility.

Evolving technology and new training management and development strategies may

facilitate integration, but they may also create new challenges. First, under the Total Army

Distance Learning Program (DA, 1999c), TRADOC proponents and PMs are increasingly

responsible for exporting training and managing distributed training networks while significant

responsibility for management ofindividual skills training shifts to units. Second, current and

evolving strategies for new equipment fielding (such as digital systems) are impacting the

training development process. Use of rapid acquisition and spiral development (rapidly

developing, testing, and refining) strategies have resulted in fielding of numerous versions of

digital equipment to units before the objective system is fielded and before TRADOC schools are

able to develop the necessary training (Ford, Campbell, & Cobb, 1998). Third, units need

standardized but tailorable training and training support packages (TSPs) to support collective

training exercises and mission rehearsal (Ford et al). This need is evident today as units attempt

to modify available TSPs to meet their unique operational requirements.

A thorough and detailed system of training development management is mandated by

TRADOC Regulation 350-70 (DA, 1999c), which also suggests distributed training development

requirements in its Army XXI training development vision. Therefore, examination of this need

for increasingly distributed training development and efficient means for managing it is a high

near-term priority for TRADOC. To meet the challenges described above (primarily the second

one, dealing with rapid fielding of new equipment), the TRADOC Deputy Chief of Staff for

Training (DCST) established the Warrior-T Office within the Central Technical Support Facility

(CTSF) at Fort Hood, Texas. The objective of this office is to assist in the capture of doctrine;

tactics, techniques, and procedures; and training lessons learned relating to individual and

collective (including battle staff) tasks for selected digital systems. The Warrior-T Office works

closely with materiel developers to bridge the doctrine and training gap for newly fielded digital
systems until unit and institutional training for those systems is in place. This office provides the

capability to augment training development at Fort Hood, to capture lessons learned and provide

feedback to TRADOC proponents and other agencies (e.g., PMs for digital systems), and to

ensure standardization of TSPs. TRADOC's stated intent is that this capability (and associated

resources) will eventually migrate to PMs and TRADOC schools. The Warrior-T Office

therefore provides an interim solution to distributed training development challenges (U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences [ARI], 1998).

The establishment of training development cells in distributed training environments (such

as the Warrior-T Office at Fort Hood) is resource-intensive and is not seen as a viable long-term

approach for meeting distributed training development requirements. Alternative, more efficient

approaches or courses of action (COAs) are needed. Development of such COAs requires a

study of the fundamental needs for an integrated training development system among proponent

schools, units, CTCs, and PMs for new equipment/systems.

As a result, the TRADOC DCST initiated an ARI study to identify the needed functions of

an integrated training development system, such as quality control through two-way

communication or feedback between TRADOC schools and units on school- and unit-developed

products. Additionally, there was interest in investigating available or emerging training

development or management tools and methods associated with integrated training development

systems.

This report presents the findings of the ARI study entitled "Integration of Training

Development Among Schools and Distributed Training Environments (ITDATE)."

Scope of the Study

The overarching objective for this study was to examine and describe issues and needs

relating to integration of training development activities among TRADOC schools and

distributed training environments. The study focus was to be primarily on the current and nearterm distributed training development needs of Fort Knox, Kentucky, and Fort Hood, Texas.

Once near-term issues and needs were identified, guidelines and recommended COAs were to be

developed as exemplars to address them. The study was also to identify potential strengths and

weaknesses of the COAs developed, along with identifying organizational, personnel, or policy

issues for both current and future (Army Training XXI) environments. In addition, it was to

investigate available or emerging training development or management tools and methods

associated with effective and efficient management of an integrated training development system

(such as Automated Systems Approach to Training [ASAT]), as well as research and

development requirements for new tools or methods. The end result would be information and

recommended COAs that would enable TRADOC DCST to do the necessary anticipatory

planning for an integrated training development system, ensuring complementary and not

duplicative institutional and unit training programs. Finally, the study findings were to be

generalized or extended to address long-term needs and approaches for integrating distributed

training development throughout the Army training system.
Report Organization

This report summarizes an effort that explored many facets of a complex issue. It is

intended to provoke thought, discussion, and activity. It begins with a short background section

to set the context of the study. The methodology then describes the project activities. The

products of the study are presented in the results section, under the following headings: Issues

and Needs, Courses of Action, Course of Action Analysis, and Analysis Results. The discussion

section presents some considerations associated with implementation of each COA. These topics

are followed by four appendixes containing an acronym list and a glossary (Appendix A), a

complete discussion of the issues and needs (Appendix B), selected interview responses

(Appendix C), and related readings (Appendix D).

Background

Overview of the Army Training Development System

The U.S. Army uses the Systems Approach to Training (SAT) as its training development

model. TRADOC Regulation 350-70 describes SAT as a "systematic spiral approach to making

collective, individual and self development training decisions for the total Army" (DA, 1999c,

p. ES-4). The SAT process consists of five training related phases: analysis, design,

development, implementation, and evaluation. It should be noted that these phases need not be

performed sequentially. In fact, the normal training development process for a new training

requirement generally begins with the identification of a perceived training requirement, which is

often a product of the evaluation phase of SAT. Figure 1 depicts the interrelationships among

phases.

Figure 1. Interrelationships among Systems Approach to Training phases.
In addition to SAT, the Army also uses two automated training development and

management tools to assist in the training development process. These are ASAT and the

Standard Army Training System (SATS). These tools are also used to help distribute training

products that have already been developed and give users a tool to assist them in their training

development and management efforts.

ASAT is a management and information system that provides total task management and

development capability. It is primarily intended for use by proponent school training developers,

but it has functions, such as Combined Arms Training Strategies (CATS), that could be used by

units. The ASAT software provides the capability to link information from a designated type of

unit to mission, battlefield operating system (or Army Universal Task List), echelon, training

products, references, doctrine, and collective tasks. The collective tasks are linked to individual

tasks. The individual tasks are linked to other information elements, including occupational

specialties, courses, jobs, products, and categories. Essentially any query against Army task

information can be accomplished using the software. Application of ASAT is integrated with the

Automated Instructional Management System-Redesign (AMS-R) and SATS. The integration

with AIMS-R is intended to provide a seamless link of task information to the automated

creation of resident course instruction. The link with SATS supports Warfighter XXI

capabilities as outlined in the campaign plan (DCST, 1996) including the future build of TSPs

and CATS by the proponent in ASAT, distributed for use by the commander via SATS.

Essentially, ASAT is the foundation tool (Army Training Support Center [ATSC], 1999a).

SATS is a computer-based system that is the trainer's management tool to provide a "unit

specific" situational training template and aid in the management of training. SATS is based on

CATS and implements U.S. Army training management doctrine described in Field Manual

(FM) 25-100, Training the Force; FM 25-101, Battle Focused Training; and FM 100-5,

Operations (DA, 1988,1990,1993). SATS is designed to save the trainer time and manpower.

SATS provides the training resource manager a tool to capture usage and cost of training

resources for use in budgeting, management, and programming of training resources (DCST,

1998).

Distributed Training Development

The term "distributed training development" is not referred to nor has it been defined either

in Army Regulation (AR) 350-1 (DA, 1983,1999e) or TRADOC Regulation 350-70 (DA,

1999c). Although interview information indicated that a similar term had been considered by

TRADOC personnel some time ago (see Appendix C), initially the lack of a formal definition

caused a problem for the ITDATE study team since it would be critical for study participants to

understand what distributed training development was and, more importantly, what it was not.

This required consultation with the ARI contracting officer's representative (COR) and the Study

Advisory Group (SAG), which consisted of three individuals from TRADOC DCST and one

Armor School representative. After this coordination the study team developed a functional

definition for the distributed training development concept: "A process, or activity, in which

selectedphases ofthe Systems Approach to Training (SAT) process, or actions in support ofthe

SATprocess, are performed at more than one location with the guidance and oversight of

appropriate U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) proponents. Information
and products associated with this process can be exchanged using electronic technology (e.g.,

the Internet) and other means." (See glossary in Appendix A.) It should be noted that, although

some training products are distributed or exchanged using distance learning technology,

distributed training development is not synonymous with distance learning.

Currently, the responsibility for developing training and distributing it to users in the field

rests primarily with the various proponents. The proponents are ultimately responsible for the

conduct of all phases of the SAT process to include continuous evaluation of the training

products they have developed.

While the proponents have the primary responsibility for developing training; they are not

the only agencies developing training. In today's environment of rapid fielding of new

equipment there are several other groups involved in the training development process. Two key

groups are the PMs for the fielded systems and the end users of those systems. The PMs have

the responsibility for developing and distributing training products associated with individual

training required to operate their particular systems. They do not, however, have an "in house"

capability to develop training. In order to meet their training requirements, many materiel

developers outsource or contract for their training development needs. In some cases, such as

digitization, the users of newly fielded systems have also found it necessary to develop their own

collective training. Unfortunately they do not have either an organizational capability or the time

to develop training. Additionally, when funds are reduced training development for new systems

is often eliminated. Therefore, they require tools that allow them to access and modify already

developed training products to assist them with their training development requirements.

Distributed training development seems to be a viable alternative to assist them.

Warrior-T Office

With the rapid fielding of digital information systems at Fort Hood, combined with the

previously mentioned decrements of training development resources, the proponents soon found

that it is difficult to support the training requirements associated with those new systems.

Recognizing that TRADOC had this responsibility, the DCST decided to establish a temporary,

on-site, training development organization at Fort Hood. This organization was designated as

the Warrior-T Office. The Warrior-T Office's stated mission is to "ensure Army Modernization

Training supports the objectives of Force XXI by leveraging [Program Executive Office

Command, Control, and Communications Systems] PEOC3S, PM, 4 [Infantry Division] ID/III

Corps experience and knowledge in assisting PMs and proponents in incorporating digital

lessons learned, improving interaction among training, combat and materiel developers, and

delivering quality, standardized, timely doctrine and training to soldiers" (ATSC, 1999b). It was

staffed with military subject matter experts (SMEs), TRADOC civilian employees, and contract

training developers. This organization is led by a lieutenant colonel (LTC) and is divided into

three teams: combat arms, combat support and combat service support, and a multimedia team.

Much of the Warrior-T Office's day-to-day work is done in support of agencies such as

proponent schools and PMs. Its current taskings include the collection and documentation of

digital tactics, techniques, and procedures, and the documentation of individual and collective

tasks associated with systems such as Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System
(AFATDS), All Source Analysis System (ASAS), and Maneuver Control System (MCS). The

office is collocated with materiel fielding assets at Fort Hood's CTSF in order to allow training

developers access to both the materiel developers and to end users. This establishes the

conditions for the Warrior-T Office to develop more effective training focused on identified user

needs and facilitates the evaluation and spiral development processes necessary to ensure that

training products remained current as new versions of equipment and software are being fielded.

This office has been operational since September of 1998 and is under the operational control of

the ATSC. Figure 2 depicts the Warrior-T Office organization.

Combat Anns Team

05 Chief

04 Aviation

04 Air Defense Artillery

04 Field Artillery

04 Engineer

E7

E7

CHIEF (LTC)

TRADOC Civilian

Admin Spec

C&CSSTeam

05 Chief

04 Signal

04 Intel

04 CSS

04 Chemical/

Military Police

ES

E7

USASMA/Multimedia

Development Team

Civilian contractor

Figure 2. Warrior-T Office organization.

Methodology

The findings of this study were developed and refined with regard for the parameters within

which the Army must operate, now and in the near future. While Army training development

resources are decreasing and military and civilian training developers are being downsized,

training development requirements are increasing, technologies are changing rapidly, and units

are being deployed to increasingly complex operating environments.

The impact of these factors on the Army training development system results in the

requirement to do more with less. The TRADOC proponent schools are facing, and will

continue to face, sizeable cuts in their training development resources. Units are likewise

confronted with increasing operational requirements, decreasing resources, and the requirement

to quickly master the new equipment, roles, and responsibilities.
The contributors to this study were cognizant of these constraints. Options requiring high

dollar expenditures, large increases in manpower levels, or inordinate time requirements were

considered unsuitable and unrealistic.

To examine the integration of training development among proponents and distributed

training environments, the study team used two approaches: examination of existing

documentation relating to distributed training development, and collection of input from SMEs.

The process used to complete this study is depicted in Figure 3 and is described in detail below.

The COR and SAG were actively involved in each step of the study.

LITERATURE REVIEW

STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS

ISSUES AND NEEDS

FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWS

COURSES OF ACTION

I

ITDATE

STUDY

REPORT

Figure 3. The method used to conduct the Integration of Training Development Among Schools

and Distributed Training Environments study.

The first major study objective required the identification and assessment of the issues and

needs associated with distributed training development. This was accomplished primarily

through the use of structured interviews with SMEs from a number of different organizations.

These organizations included TRADOC DCST (Training Development Analysis Activity and

Collective Training Directorate), the ATSC, the Fort Hood Warrior-T Office, contract training

developers working on behalf of several of the materiel developers fielding equipment at Fort

Hood, and representatives from the Armor Center at Fort Knox. Over a four-week period the
study team interviewed 24 SMEs at various locations. These interviews provided considerable

insight into the challenges associated with distributed training development activities (see

Appendix C). Once the interviews were completed the study team analyzed the data collected

and developed a list of the perceived issues (identified problems) and needs (recommended

solutions). This list was presented to the ARI COR, the SAG, members of the Warrior-T Office,

and a group of proponent school training developers for input.

The next study objective required the development of COAs to address the identified issues

and needs. The study team accomplished this task by developing a preliminary list of COAs in

coordination with the ARI COR. The study team then refined, analyzed, and compared these

four COAs to determine their strengths and weaknesses. Implementation considerations

applicable to the short- and long-term were then developed to ensure the COAs completely

satisfied all contingencies associated with distributed training development activities.

Throughout this step the team continued to collect further data in the form of new (e.g., selected

TRADOC Systems Managers [TSMs]) and follow-up interviews. These findings were again

presented to the COR, the SAG, and representatives from the Warrior-T Office.

Throughout the study current literature and publications were reviewed and pertinent

information was incorporated. A complete list of literature and publications reviewed is

provided at the reference list and Appendix D.

Results

This section of the study report describes the major findings the study team developed

through interviews and the review of related literature. It includes a summary of the issues and

needs, and the COAs and implementation considerations for integrating distributed training

development activities. It also presents the criteria used to assess the COAs and the results of

COA analysis done by the ITDATE team.

Issues and Needs

Prior to developing COAs, issues and needs associated with distributed training

development activities were identified using the previously described methodology. A detailed

discussion of these issues and needs is at Appendix B. The issues and needs are summarized as

follows:

1. Issue: Distributed training development activities and the five phases of SAT

Need: A requirement exists for a clear definition of which SAT phases should be

distributed, to whom they should be distributed, and how this should be done.

Distribution of all phases of SAT can take advantage of technology-based solutions.
2. Issue: Varying approaches to training development

Need: Meeting needs for effective Army training products requires adherence to a

development process, like SAT, that is known to be effective and is reasonably

standardized. These needs include the fielding of new systems.

3. Issue: Distributed training development tools, agencies, and information flow

Need: A complete management system architecture, which includes hardware, software,

policy, and regulatory guidance, is needed to facilitate the interaction among all Army

organizations involved in training development. This system should also facilitate the

accessing of off-site SMEs during training development activities.

4. Issue: Distributed training development activities in support of unit requirements

Need: Units need additional training tools specific to their needs such as the

Commanders' Integrated Training Tool ([CITT], see Glossary). Unit leaders also need

training in appropriate portions ofthe SAT process.

5. Issue: Future requirements for distributed training development activities

Need: A flexible and responsive training development capability should be available to

support short-term surge requirements and possibly training development backlogs.

Courses of Action

Four COAs were derived from the analysis ofthe interview data, literature, and issues and

needs. These issues and needs are complex and overlapping. As a result, the COAs identified

below are also complex and certain implementation considerations are common among them.

This commonality includes such interview-identified requirements as updating regulatory

guidance and updating tools used to support distributed training development activities.

However, the basic elements of the COAs are quite different in terms of how they address the

fundamental requirements associated with these activities. These fundamental requirements

include resourcing and use of existing training development infrastructure. The COAs were also

developed with the understanding that it is unlikely that the Army will implement any of these

COAs exactly as written. More likely, the Army's approach to addressing the challenges

identified in this study will include some aspects of all the COAs. The COAs considered at any

given time and the features selected will probably be situation-dependant and tailored to meet

requirements as they become apparent.

COA 1 Maintain the Status Quo

Description: Take no major actions to address the issues and needs associated with

distributed training development activities. This COA conserves resources by accepting the

current situation as it relates to distributed training development activities. As the Warrior-T

Office continues its mission for the next two to three years, plans are made for returning all
training development activities performed by that office to the proponents. Plans for the

redistribution of personnel and other Warrior-T Office assets are also to be developed during this

time.

Discussion: The tools and references required to support distributed training development

activities are available, but some gaps in compliance with the regulation-mandated processes and

procedures exist. Strengths of the existing system identified in ITDATE study interviews

include tools such as ASAT, certain commercial training development software, and references

such as TRADOC Regulation 350-70 (DA, 1999c). These tools and references may or may not

be adequate to support distributed training development activities, but as indicated in interviews,

the lack of universally applied training development standards suggests that an over-arching

management system is needed.

The PMs and Program Executive Officers (PEOs) develop training as part of their mission

of fielding new equipment and systems. However, the results of ITDATE study interviews

indicate that some of the training developed by PMs and PEOs does not conform to TRADOC

standards. The AR 350-1, Training and Education: Army Training and Education (DA, 1983), a

logical forum to address this type of cross-command coordination, is almost 19 years old. A

recent draft update of this regulation (DA, 1999e) does discuss new equipment training (NET)

and associated responsibilities, but it does not identify detailed training development

responsibilities associated with the new equipment. This draft regulation does say that NET

managers must "develop new equipment training products in accordance with the Army's

Systems Approach to Training and Army training products standards" (p. 295). If this statement

is intended to mandate PM use of the SAT process, applying it to training development work

done by contractors for PMs may be difficult since this guidance appears to be in contradiction

of Department of Defense acquisition policy (U.S. Army Materiel Command [AMC], 1997) that

discourages the use of contracts requiring processes and standard management approaches.

Some interview data indicated that at the end of the Warrior-T Office's two to three year life

span, TRADOC proponents would be in a position to conduct training development activities to

support new equipment fielding and other requirements. Tools such as ASAT and SATS,

perhaps with some future upgrades, were suggested as means to facilitate and expedite training

development.

Long-term considerations: Long-term implementation of this COA is unlikely since the

status quo has not been maintained even during the relatively brief duration of this study.

Changes include the consideration of the brigade set fielding (BSF) concept (which will be

discussed in greater detail as part of COA 4), revised regulations, and DA reconsideration of

Strike Force missions and stationing. However, for the purposes of this report it is useful to

consider the long-term implications of this COA. It is reasonable to believe that those tools such

as ASAT and certain commercial training development software, and references, such as

TRADOC Regulation 350-70 (DA, 1999c), will most likely be further refined during the longterm. These refinements, along with possible upgrades to the computer hardware and software,

would no doubt facilitate distributed training development activities. One of the major

limitations of maintaining the status quo, however, is the current limited resource level. A major

10
problem associated with distributed training development, the existing training development

backlogs, would therefore probably continue to grow.

COA 2 Additional Warrior-T Offices

Description: Establish Warrior-T Offices at key locations to conduct distributed training

development activities in support of proponents. As part of the establishment of these new

Warrior-T Offices, regulations and other guidance defining their relationship to proponents,

PMs, and other agencies with distributed training development interests, would be created and

published.

Discussion: During several interviews it was noted that the establishment of the Warrior-T

Office at Fort Hood was intended to "jump start" training development associated with the first

digital division there. Most of the work done by the Warrior-T Office to this point is part of the

analysis phase of SAT. However, this office could perform all phases of the training

development process if that was desired by the proponent schools and appropriately coordinated.

This capability to support units, PMs, and proponent schools makes the concept of Warrior-T

Offices at other locations quite attractive. Locations mentioned as potential sites for similar

training development cells included Fort Drum, New York; Fort Polk, Louisiana, and implicitly,

Europe. Costs associated with this COA would include increased personnel to staff additional

Warrior-T Offices and possibly new facility requirements at some installations.

Long-term considerations: As previously noted, the Warrior-T Office was intended to

jump-start training associated with the first digital division at Fort Hood. Presumably the

Warrior-T Offices established at other locations would have a similar mission with a similar

duration. This mission was viewed as being two to three years in duration. However, most of

those interviewed indicated that they could envision missions that would be appropriate for this

type of organization after the two to three year time frame. These future missions might include

NET and support for contingency operations-missions identical to those discussed later in this

report for the COA 3 mobile surge team.

COA 3 Mobile Surge Team

Description: Establish a mobile organization, headquartered at an appropriate location, with

the mission to perform rapid "surge" training development missions at varied locations in

support of proponents and unit requirements.

Discussion: This COA envisions a mix of military, civilian, and contractors, similar to the

existing Warrior-T Office, which would expand to address other training development

requirements. The team's personnel would include seasoned training developers with SAT

experience. Representatives from proponent schools must also be part of this team. This team

would be equipped with portable computers, laptops or notebooks, and other items that would

facilitate training development in remote locations. Expansion would be accomplished by

augmenting the team with temporary-hire civilian contractors who are qualified training

developers.

11
Current Products

or Services

New Products

or Services

Current Customers New Customers

or Clients or Clients

Quadrant 1 Quadrant 2

T7

*

*

Quadrant 3 4 * Quadrant 4

•

•

<-

Figure 4. The "Z" Model for business expansion, one technique that could be used to identify

risks associated with "mission creep."

COA 4 Unit Set Fielding

Description: Perform required distributed training development activities in conjunction

with the integrated fielding of new equipment and systems. This COA is based on the concept of

fielding to units equipment, doctrine, and required NET as a complete package. It also assumes

that a robust training development capability is part of a unit-based systems fielding effort. The

fielding effort's training development capability would include the ability to perform parts of all

five phases of the SAT process, in coordination with appropriate proponents. The training

development requirements associated with this COA would also include providing input to

doctrine writers at proponent schools, and developing supporting TSPs. This COA may also

assist in reducing the existing training development backlogs by developing new training

materials as new systems are fielded.

Discussion: During one ITDATE interview, the 21st Cavalry Brigade (Air Combat) was

identified as an organization currently conducting new equipment fielding and training in unit

sets. This is a Forces Command unit with a TRADOC-type training and training development

mission related to new equipment fielding. Aviation battalions and squadrons are rotated

through this organization to conduct Apache Longbow fielding in unit sets along with the

associated training. In addition to conducting new equipment fielding, this organization also

conducts training development using all phases of SAT. On occasion this organization

coordinates with the Aviation School for the approval of new tasks it identifies as part of its

13
training development work. During another interview, a similar method of fielding equipment

and developing NET was recommended as appropriate for armor and mechanized units. This

recommended method is similar to the 21 st Cavalry Brigade (Air Combat) approach in that it

involved bringing units to Fort Hood to receive new equipment and the associated training. A

similar strategy has recently been proposed by the Army in the form of BSF. The June 1999

Brigade Set Fielding Information Briefing by the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans

(DA, 1999a) suggests that training development may be a consideration in fielding brigade sets.

Unlike the 21st Cavalry Brigade (Air Combat) approach, BSF may move to some unit locations

for equipment fielding, as opposed to bringing all units to the same installation. In support of

unit, organization, and installation requirements during BSF, the briefing recommended the

development of comprehensive TSPs. A concept similar to BSF, Total Package Fielding, is

described in Army Development, Acquisition and Fielding Strategy (DA, 1999b). Resource

requirements associated with this option are increased personnel, some facilities, and possibly

extensive travel and transportation costs.

Long-term considerations: Unit set fielding, ifit follows the schedule for BSF, would occur

primarily as a long-term action. Although the short-term would see BSF with some

organizations, the bulk of this effort would occur during the long-term of three to seven years.

Should BSF proceed as described in the June, 1999 information briefing (DA, 1999a), not all

new systems will be fielded as part of this effort. These units would experience additional new

equipment fielding after BSF. This suggests some aspects of new equipment fielding would

remain incremental, as it is today, and further requirements would exist for training development

support for these units after they have completed BSF.

Course of Action Analysis

In assessing the COAs identified above, the ITDATE team identified criteria that seemed

appropriate for evaluating the feasibility of each COA. The criteria were largely derived from

data collected during the interviews, the original Statement of Work ([SOW]) ARI, 1998), and

requirements identified in references, such as TRADOC Regulation 350-70 (DA, 1999c). The

specific criteria are:

• Cost: Implementation cost must be reasonable. Sources such as this study's SOW and

the TRADOC status report previously cited, clearly indicate that this is an age of

diminishing resources. Although a detailed cost/benefit analysis is outside the scope of

the ITDATE study, by making assumptions the team can draw some conclusions about

the relative costs of the COAs.

• Completeness: ITDATE study interviews showed that there are a variety of issues and

needs associated with distributed training development activities. The results of the

interviews also indicate that many of these issues are interrelated. The four COAs are

designed to address each of the needs. However, the COAs are not equally effective in

terms of how completely they address the needs.

• Integration potential: Compatibility with the existing training development

infrastructure is desirable. This infrastructure includes the capability to manage training

14
development activities by using existing organizations and policy. Important tools and

references required for distributed training development activities were identified during

interviews as being TRADOC Regulation 350-70 (DA, 1999c), several types of

commercial off-the-shelf software, and ASAT. Although the interviews also found a

need for a complete management system architecture, which includes hardware,

software, policy, and regulatory guidance, short-term requirements for training

development can be satisfied with the existing tools and references.

• Flexibility: Responsiveness to the rapid fielding of new systems and unit needs is

essential during both the short-term and the long-term. The BSF concept briefing (DA,

1999a) indicates that in some divisions some equipment will be fielded after the BSF

effort is completed. Late fielding of some equipment suggests that in order to be viable,

a COA must be responsive to the rapidity, as well as discontinuities and delays, in

fielding new systems.

Analysis Results

The assessment of the four COAs is not intended to result in the recommendation of a

preferred COA. As noted previously, the expectation is that the Army will consider all of the

COAs, and implement portions of all or some of them, depending on the variables of the

situation under consideration. The analysis below is presented to assist in identifying the

strengths and weaknesses of the components of each COA. In assessing the COAs against the

criteria, the ITDATE team's major goal was to be as objective as possible. However, the

qualitative nature of this study does not lend itself to complete quantification. Using a simple

assessment system of plusses, minuses, and zeros, which represent neutral value, the team was

able to evaluate the COAs in the most objective manner possible. Analysis of each COA against

the identified needs, which are also the completeness criteria, is at Table 1. The Table 2 data are

based on the four criteria, above. Both tables are presented after the analysis descriptions.

COA 1 Maintain the Status Quo

Cost. This COA's most obvious strength is that it requires no additional resources, if the

Army is willing to accept the existing training development backlogs. It can be argued that

doing nothing creates greater future costs at some point to eliminate the backlogs, or the Army

must be prepared to accept the cost ofinadequately trained soldiers and unit. However, this

COA assumes that TRADOC and the Army are willing to accept these backlogs and any

associated training inadequacies.

Completeness. This COA can be expanded with new policy and guidance to satisfy the first

and second needs. Although policy and guidance are a part of the third need, the critical

software and hardware aspects of the third need are not addressed. This COA does not address

the fourth and fifth needs.

Integration potential. This COA's neutral assessment in the criterion of integration is based

on the existing ambiguous state of the training development infrastructure. Tools such as

TRADOC Regulation 350-70 (DA, 1999c), various commercial off-the-shelfsoftware, and

15
ASAT are currently being used to facilitate training development activities, whether distributed

or not. On the other hand, the unit tool SATS is not being used to its full potential and there are

gaps in the existing policy guidance as it relates to training development responsibilities.

Flexibility. The existing training development backlogs suggest that this COA lacks the

flexibility required to keep pace with the rapid fielding of new systems and other emerging

doctrine. Although the establishment of the Warrior-T Office shows that the current situation

includes at least partial solutions, personnel decrements and training development backlogs

identified in the TRADOC status report (DA, 1999d) indicate that the existing status quo lacks

the flexibility to keep pace with rapid fielding of new systems.

COA 2 Additional Warrior-T Offices

Cost. This COA will require increased costs in the form of additional personnel and

facilities, and thus cost is assessed as a negative factor.

Completeness. The COA can also be easily expanded to include the policy guidance

suggested by the first need, the second need, and part ofthe third need. Since the COA involves

stationing Warrior-T Offices at several locations, presumably making training development

support more accessible to units, it partially satisfies the fourth need. It also satisfies the shortterm surge aspect of the fifth need.

Integration potential. The COA received a positive rating based on the way the existing

Warrior-T Office is able to use and apply the existing tools and references associated with

distributed training development activities. The assumption is that if one office can apply these

tools, then it would seem to follow that several others would also be able to effectively apply

them.

Flexibility. The COA is assessed as neutral in terms of its effectiveness supporting the rapid

fielding of new systems. The Warrior-T Office at Fort Hood, which is the model for the

additional offices, is supporting the fielding of new systems and it has clear potential to provide

further effective support. However, it is not clear that geographically dispersed offices would be

effective in supporting Army-wide rapid fielding of new systems with training development.

Specifically, it might be difficult for the proponent schools to exercise their training development

responsibilities when dealing with several different Warrior-T Offices.

COA 3 Mobile Surge Team

Cost. This COA is also assessed as negative in this area since it will require some increased

costs in the form of additional personnel and facilities. Although these costs are not as extensive

as those in COA 2, this COA clearly requires additional resources.

Completeness. COA 3's completeness is similar to that of COA 2. It can also be adapted

with new policy and guidance to satisfy the first need, the second and part of the third. Because

the COA has the capability to expand and surge to meet varied requirements, it partially satisfies

the fourth need and all of the fifth need.

16
Integration potential. The COA received a positive rating based on its tools, such as ASAT

access, and a command and control structure, which would place it under the control of the

appropriate proponents during some training development work.

Flexibility. The capability to expand, surge, or contract as needed, suggests that this COA

would be quite effective in supporting the rapid fielding of new systems.

COA 4 Unit Set Fielding

Cost. Costs associated with this COA have clear potential to be quite high. Transportation

of equipment and travel costs associated with personnel could be significant depending on how

this COA is implemented. Equipment transportation would be excessive if this required all units

to come to one installation to receive their new systems, like the 21st Cavalry Brigade (Air

Combat). Conducting unit set fielding at the home stations of the units receiving the new

systems would result in high personnel travel costs.

Completeness. This COA is almost evenly split between plusses and minuses in this

criterion. It can be expanded to satisfy the first need, the second need, and some portions of the

third and fourth needs. It cannot be determined whether or not this COA can support the unit

aspects of the fourth need. This COA does not address the fifth need.

Integration potential. This COA's positive assessment on the criterion of integration is

based on an assumption that the training development capability associated with this COA would

be able to effectively use the existing training development infrastructure.

Flexibility. Since some of the existing training development backlogs are attributed to the

fielding of new systems, integrating training development with new systems fielding appears to

give this COA an advantage in the area of flexibility.

Discussion of Implementation Considerations

In implementing a COA, or portions of multiple COAs, there are several important

considerations, or guidelines, that must be addressed in order to ensure complete resolution of

issues and needs related to distributed training development activities. These guidelines are

addressed below as short-term and long-term implementation considerations, and they are

intended to complement the analyses.

Short-term implementation considerations consist of fairly straightforward actions which

can be accomplished over the next two to three years. The two long-term considerations will

require more time to implement, perhaps three to seven years, and they will involve the

significant commitment of new resources; therefore in all cases, it is recommended that

implementation be preceded by further study to identify all possible costs and benefits.

17
Table 1

Course of Action and Needs Comparison

COA1 COA2 COA3 COA4

Maintain the Additional Mobile surge Unit set

status quo Warrior-T Offices team fielding

Needl

Defines phase to distribute + + + +

Established responsibilities + + + +

Need 2

Applies Systems Approach to 4- + + +

Training (SAT)

Need 3

Hardware/software requirements - - - -

Overarching policy + + + +

Need 4

Unit requirements - + + 0

Leader training in SAT - - - -

Need 5

Short-term surge - + + -

Backlogs - - + -

Total - +++ +++++ 0

Note: In this assessment (+) represents a positive value, (-) represents a negative value, and

(0) represents a neutral value.

Table 2

Course of Action Analysis

Criteria COA1

Maintain the

status quo

COA2

Additional

Warrior-T

Offices

COA3

Mobile surge

team

COA4

Unit set fielding

Cost

Completeness

Integration potential

Flexibility

+

0

+

+

0

+

+

+

0

+

+

Total - + ++ +

Note: In this assessment (+) represents a positive value, (-) represents a negative value, and

(0) represents a neutral value.

18
Short-Term Implementation Considerations

Culture

Several persons interviewed emphasized the importance of culture in dealing with the

challenges of distributed training development. Implementation of COA 2, COA 3, and possibly

COA 4 requires that careful consideration be given to organizational culture, particularly in the

context of command and control. Goodstein et al. (1993) describe organizational culture as "the

way we do things around here," and the values, beliefs, and assumptions common in an

organization. They also describe instances where cultural mismatches within an organization

have resulted in problems with mission accomplishment.

Establishing Warrior-T Offices at various installations, COA 2, may present the risk of the

new Warrior-T Office assuming the local culture. While this could serve to enhance the offices'

unit (customer) focus, it could work against the training policy and regulatory interest of

TRADOC DCST. As a matter of necessity, the COA 3 mobile surge team will be "subcontracted" to units and agencies with training development requirements. This suggests that the

parent organization ofthe mobile surge team must be.flexible and customer-oriented. The

ATSC, with its focus on providing services and products to various Army customers, is a choice

to be the higher headquarters. Important issues related to regulatory guidance and other policy

would come from TRADOC DCST, the higher headquarters of ATSC. Implementation of COA

4 may tie the training development associated with new equipment fielding to organizations that

tend to operate as process cultures. A process-focused organization is good in terms of its

adherence to important policy and regulations, but it may not be responsive to unit (customer)

training development needs.

References

Distributed training development activities impact organizations other than TRADOC.

Army-wide standards are needed to ensure quality training development throughout the force.

Specifically, AR 350-1 (DA, 1999e) must be revised to clearly define PM-TSM and other

coordination responsibilities. The complexity ofthese relationships suggests clear language and

diagrams reflecting responsibilities and actions would be most helpful. That regulation should

also require the use of SAT during the development of new equipment and systems.

Additionally, TRADOC Regulation 350-70 (DA, 1999c) and AR 350-1 should define the SAT

phases which are appropriate for distributing, and assign responsibilities for training

development distribution.

Unit requirements

Although there is no indication TOE units need to perform complete training development

activities in the manner of proponents, there are some indications that SAT has some

applicability to units. Noncommissioned officers (NCO) and officers might receive training in

SAT at schools such as Advanced Noncommissioned Officer's Course and the Captain's Career

Course (formerly known as the Advanced Course), or this training could be done on a distributed

basis via the Internet. TRADOC should also identify what phases of SAT are applicable to TOE

19
units and how they should be applied. Automated tools for unit use appear to be a "mixed bag."

The developmental CUT shows promise in terms of facilitating the ability of units to easily

tailor training to meet their objectives. CITT, a developmental project, is intended to allow unit

trainers to access and tailor via the Internet TSPs to support training with the Close Combat

Tactical Trainer virtual simulation (Gossman et al., 1999). SATS is another on-line tool

intended for units, but at this time, units appear reluctant to use it as a training management tool.

Tools

TRADOC should continue to develop and refine tools to facilitate distributed training

development activities. The goal of further development and refinements should be two-fold:

First, the propagation and promulgation of doctrine throughout the Army, particularly collective

and individual tasks; second, the facilitation of the development of tailorable TSPs which meet

the needs of a variety of users.

Tools such as ASAT and the General Dennis J. Reimer Training and Doctrine Digital

Library are perceived as being effective, but somewhat cumbersome. As previously mentioned,

units seem reluctant to use SATS, or they use it only as a scheduling system. Continued

software and hardware improvements will no doubt further enhance the value of these tools. The

CITT is an example of such a tool.

TRADOC Systems Manager Training

TRADOC should initiate a training development effort intended to result in an appropriate

training course for TSMs. The broad scope and complexity of TSM duties suggest that this

would be an extensive training development effort. Given the importance of TSMs in the

fielding of new systems, it could be argued that their training merits consideration equal to that

of attendees at the Pre-Command Course. Some portions of such a course might also be

appropriate for PEO and PM attendance. The results of some interviews indicated that many of

the problems associated with new systems could be attributed to the lack of interface between

PMs and TSMs. Other interview data indicated that TSMs receive no training in preparation for

their important and complex duties. Other key TRADOC staff officers might also benefit from

this training.

Long-Term Implementation Considerations

Directorate of Evaluation and Standardization Restoration

TRADOC should restore a robust and independent Directorate of Evaluation and

Standardization (DOES) in the proponent schools. Although DOES restoration has great

potential for increased costs, anecdotal evidence gathered by this study suggests that the benefits

may outweigh these costs. During several interviews the absence of this function in the

proponent schools was cited as a potential threat to distributed training development activities.

Specifically, the absence of an effective DOES in the proponent schools could limit their ability

to conduct the evaluation phase of SAT during distributed training development activities.

Although the latest version of TRADOC Regulation 350-70 (DA, 1999c) refers to proponent

20
schools DOES in Part HI, this is qualified with the phrase "or functionally equivalent

organization which implements these measures for the proponent school commandant"

(p. III-0-1). Some schools have restored a DOES office to their organization, but most of these

do not appear to be resourced as fully as the agencies of some years ago.

Products of the Systems Approach to Training Process

TRADOC should conduct a detailed review of SAT to determine, in as specific terms as

possible, the desired products and outcomes of this process. Examples of products and outcomes

might include desired training techniques, requirements forjob aids, and identification of proper

training site. Although TRADOC regulation (DA, 1999c) addresses these outcomes in a general

manner, specific considerations relative to the type of training may be essential in the future.

Insight gained from this review should then be used to define training development standards

applied to training development contracts. Although some interviews suggested that SAT was

very cumbersome, most indications suggest that it is an important and viable process for

developing quality training. Some interviews indicated that the contractors not being required to

use SAT when developing training for new systems resulted in a substandard product. However,

Department of Defense level acquisition guidance (AMC, 1997), which has been distributed

throughout the AMC, indicates that contractual requirements for processes and standard

management approaches should be avoided. This policy suggests that although some PMs now

require the use of this process for training development, in the future PMs may not be able to

require contractor adherence to SAT.

Conclusions

When applying the results of this study, proposed actions will need to be evaluated in terms

of the conditions that exist at the time of implementation decisions. This study did not

recommend implementation of any specific COA. In that context, the findings of this study

should be viewed as a guide. However, decision-makers must also recognize that study analysis

suggests clear differences in COA effectiveness. The analysis results indicated that COA 3, the

mobile surge team, is the most effective COA.

While the other COAs do not appear to be as capable as the mobile surge team described in

COA 3, all except the apparently inadequate first COA, may be appropriate in certain situations.

The effectiveness of the first COA, maintaining the status quo, is minimal when it is assessed

against the study-identified needs and the criteria used to analyze the COAs. It completely

satisfies only two of five needs, partially satisfies one, and it was assessed as positive in only one

of the four assessment criteria-cost. Additional Warrior-T Offices, COA 2, appears to lack the

capability to address the training development backlogs, and its ability to support the rapid

fielding of new systems, a critical future concern, could not be assessed during study COA

analysis. However, COA 2 may be an effective way to focus training development in support of

an important effort. In addition to the strengths described elsewhere in this study, COA 3

implementation may provide a means for DCST to address its other short-term needs. Although

the needs comparison results ofCOA 4, unit set fielding, suggest it is only slightly more

effective than COA 1 in satisfying study-identified needs, its application might result in a fully

integrated and highly effective NET effort.

21
The application of these study findings by TRADOC, in coordination with other affected

agencies, will provide a framework to guide decisions. Decision makers and planners at

TRADOC should find that when the study results presented here are tempered to reflect local

conditions and emerging requirements, they provide a useful tool for identifying requirements

and actions to enhance distributed training development activities. Implementation of any COA,

or combination of COAs, is likely to require further study and analysis. For example,

establishment of a mobile surge team will require more detailed staffing and cost analysis than

that accomplished by this study. Further study of specific technologies which can support

specific aspects of distributed training development activities is also needed. One example is the

use of technology to conduct task analysis with training developers and SMEs at different

locations.

22
References

Army Training Support Center (1999a). AS AT Home Page. [On-line]. Retrieved September 20,

1999 from: http://www.asat.army.mil7

Army Training Support Center (1999b). [Slide Briefing]. Presented at Warrior-T Conference at

Fort Hood, Texas.

Department of the Army (1983). Training and education: Army training and education

(Change 1 to Army Regulation 350-1 dated 1 August 1981). Washington, DC:

Headquarters, Department of the Army.

Department of the Army (1988). Training the force: Soldiers, unit, and leaders (Field Manual

25-100). Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army.

Department of the Army (1990). Training theforce: Battalion and company soldiers, leaders,

and units (Field Manual 25-101). Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the

Army.

Department of the Army (1993). Operations (Field Manual 100-5). Washington, DC:

Headquarters, Department of the Army.

Department of the Army (1999a). Brigade setfielding information briefing. Washington, DC:

Headquarters, Department of the Army.

Department of the Army (1999b). Development, acquisition andfielding strategy 1999.

Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army.

Department of the Army (1999c). Systems approach to training management, processes, and

products (TRADOC Regulation 350-70). Fort Monroe, VA: Headquarters, U.S. Army

Training and Doctrine Command.

Department of the Army (1999d). TRADOC status report, 3rd/4th quarters FY98: Readiness

posture. [On-line]. Available FTP://ftp-dcst.monroe.army.mil/TSR/outbox/ tsr3&4~l.ppt

Department of the Army (1999e). Training and education: Army training and education

(30 April 1999 Final Draft, Army Regulation 350-1). Washington, DC: Headquarters,

Department of the Army.

Deputy Chief of Staff for Training (1996, June 11). Army Training XXI campaign plan (Draft).

Fort Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. Retrieved September 27,

1999 from the World Wide Web: http://www-dcst.monroe.army.mil/atxxi/cp-txt-web.htm

Deputy Chief of Staff for Training (1998, October 17). Army Training XXI white paper. Fort

Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. Retrieved September 27,1999

from the World Wide Web: http://www-dcst.monroe.army.mil/atxxi/atcplans.htm

23
Ford, L. A., Campbell, R. C, & Cobb, R. M. (1998). Analysis of emerging digital and back-up

training requirements (ARI Study Report 98-07). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Goodstein, L., Nolan, T., & Pfeiffer, J. W. (1993). Applied strategic planning: How to develop

a plan that really works. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Gossman, J. R., Beebe, M. E., Bonnett, M, Forrest, D., Shadrick, S. B., Dannemiller, B., Mauzy,

R. P., and Bonnett, M (1999). The commanders' integrated training toolfor the close

combat tactical trainer: Design, prototype, development, and lessons learned (ARI

Research Report 1739). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences.

U.S. Army Materiel Command (1997, September 18). Requiring process on contract. Fort

Monroe, VA: Author. Retrieved September 29,1999 from the World Wide Web:

http://www.amc.army.mil/amc/rda/rda-ap/processmemo.html

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (1998). Integration of

training development among schools and distributed training environments (ITDATE)

(Statement of Work). Fort Knox, KY: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences. (Available from the U.S. Army Research Institute, Armored Forces

Research Unit, ATTN: PERI-IK, Fort Knox, KY 40121).

24
Appendix A

Acronym List and Glossary

Acronyms

ABCS Army Battle Command System

AFATDS Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System

AFRU Armored Forces Research Unit

AIMS-R Automated Instructional Management System-Redesign

AMC U.S. Army Materiel Command

AMT Army modernization training

AR Army Regulation

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

ASAS All Source Analysis System

ASAT Automated Systems Approach to Training

ATIMP Army Training Information Management Program

ATSC Army Training Support Center

BSF brigade set fielding

CATS Combined Arms Training Strategies

CG commanding general

CITT Commanders' Integrated Training Tool

COA course of action

COR contracting officer's representative

COTR contracting officer's technical representative

CTC Combat Training Center

CTSF Central Technical Support Facility

DA Department ofthe Army

DCST Deputy Chief of Stafffor Training

DOES Directorate of Evaluation and Standardization

DTDD Directorate of Training and Doctrine Development

FBCB2 Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below

FM field manual

FORSCOM Forces Command

G3 division operations officer

HumRRO Human Resources Research Organization

ID infantry division

ITDATE Integration ofTraining Development Among Schools and Distributed

Training Environments

A-l
LTC lieutenant colonel

MCS

NATO

NCO

NET

NSTO

PEO

PEOC3S

PM

SAG

SAT

SATS

SME

SOW

Maneuver Control System

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

noncommissioned officer

New Equipment Training

New Systems Training Office

program executive officer

Program Executive Office Command, Control, and Communications Systems

project or program manager

Study Advisory Group

Systems Approach to Training

Standard Army Training System

subject matter expert

statement of work

TASS Total Army School System

TOE Table of Organization and Equipment

TPIO TRADOC Program Integration Office

TRADOC U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command

TSM TRADOC Systems Manager

TSP training support package

A-2
Glossary

Army Training Information Management Program (ATIMP). The ATIMP integrates over 25

Army training information systems that support institutional training, unit training, and training

support. The ATIMP provides:

• A management support infrastructure to enhance the coordination of system, process,

and data integration and to preclude the development of unnecessary or redundant

training business processes, business rules, and information systems.

• A coordinated system of change management to ensure all related functional user

requirements are considered prior to effecting changes.

Automated Systems Approach to Training (ASAT). Army-wide system for automated training

and doctrine development; the proponent-based tool for developing and producing training and

doctrine information and products. The ASAT supports both Warrior XXI and Warfighter XXI

through its total Army task-based training and doctrine database. This database provides the

foundation for both the Automated Instructional Management System-Redesign (AIMS-R) for

institutional training and the Standard Army Training System (SATS) for unit training.

Combat Training Center (CTC) Program. An Army program established to provide realistic

joint service and combined arms training in accordance with Army doctrine. It is designed to

provide training units opportunities to increase collective proficiency on the most realistic

battlefield available during peacetime. The four components of the CTC Program are:

• The National Training Center

• The Combat Maneuver Training Center

• The Joint Readiness Training Center

• The Battle Command Training Program

Combined Arms Training Strategy (CATS). The Army's overarching strategy for the current

and future training ofthe force. This strategy: describes how the Army will train the total force

to standard, consists of unit, individual, and self-development training strategies; identifies,

quantifies, and justifies the training resources required to execute the training.

Commanders' Integrated Training Tool (CITT). The CITT is a fully integrated training and

training management system that supports all features of unit training in the Close Combat

Tactical Trainer. It includes exercise selection and development, extensive supporting

information and help, navigation aids, and exercise management functions for a variety of users.

Distance Learning. The application of multiple means and technology to deliver standardized

training (individual, collective, self-development) to soldiers and units at the right place and right

time.

A-3
Distributed Training Development Activity. A process, or activity, in which selected phases of

the Systems Approach to Training (SAT) process, or actions in support of the SAT process, are

performed at more than one location with the guidance and oversight of appropriate proponents.

Information and products associated with this process can be exchanged using electronic

technology (e.g., the Internet) and other means.

General Dennis J. Reimer Training and Doctrine Digital Library. An on-line reference system

that allows trainers, trainees, training developers, and doctrine writers to store and retrieve

training products and materials via the Internet and personal computers. Its features include an

electronic card catalog or pointer (transparent to the users) to doctrinal and training information

and products stored in various databases/repositories.

Project or Program Manager (PM). Individual who provides centralized, intensive project and

program management; serves as central acquisition management authority for directing and

controlling a specific materiel item or system.

Proponent Agency. An Army organization or staff that has been assigned primary responsibility

for materiel or subject matter experts in its area ofinterest.

Proponent School. The TRADOC school designated by the Commanding General (CG),

TRADOC, or appropriate Major Army Command as training proponent to exercise supervisory

management of all combat/training development aspects of a materiel system, functional area, or

task. It analyzes, designs, and develops training/training products for proponency area.

Systems Approach to Training (SAT). A logical process for effectively and efficiently

determining what, where, when, and how tasks should be taught. It consists of five interrelated

phases of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation.

TRADOC Program Integration Office (TPIO). Office that serves as the Army's centralized

manager and integrator of a specific system to ensure horizontal and vertical information flow

across the battlespace at each echelon. Additionally, it defines and/or integrates all requirements

and responsibilities from the theater Army to the individual soldier or platform.

TRADOC System Manager (TSM). An individual appointed by the CG, TRADOC, responsible

for coordinating the combat/force developer, user, and trainer efforts in the life cycle

management of the assigned system. This individual also is responsible for doctrinal and

organizational standardization and interoperability with North Atlantic Treaty Organization

(NATO).

Training Developer. The individual whose function is to analyze, design, develop, and evaluate

training and training products, to include development of training strategies, plans, and products

to support resident, non-resident, and unit training. Any individual functioning in this capacity is

a training developer regardless ofjob or position title. In developing systems, the command or

agency responsible for the development and conduct oftraining which will provide the tasks

necessary to operate and logistically support the new materiel system.

A-4
Training Development. The Army's training development process is a systematic approach to

making collective, individual, and self-development training decisions for the total Army. It

determines whether or not training is needed; what is trained; who gets the training; how and

where the training is presented; and the training support/resources required to produce, distribute,

implement, and evaluate those products. The process involves five training related phases:

analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. (Note: Do not confuse the

overall training development process with the particular SAT phase called "development," which

is related specifically to the development of training and training products following analysis and

design.)

Training Development Management. The process proponents use to plan training development,

determine and allocate training development resources, schedule training development, and

ensure quality training products are produced.

Training Support Package (TSP). A complete exportable package integrating training products,

materials, and/or information necessary to train one or more critical tasks. Its contents will vary

depending on the training site and user.

Warfighter TSP. A task-based information package that provides a structured situational training

scenario for live, virtual, or constructive training and assists the commander in conducting and

assessing unit training.

Warfighter XXI. Warfighter XXI focuses on unit training. It provides the concept for total

Army training in the 21st century. It is integrated in all future developments and initiatives to

produce a coherent training system for the power projection Army of today and tomorrow.

WarMod TSP. A package of training products/materials used to initially train individual

operator/maintainer/repairer, battle staff, or collective tasks for new equipment/systems. It

provides the means to deliver training anywhere in the world, to include in the institution, at the

unit, or at the contractor facility. Training may be conducted via formal instruction or distance

learning in a live, virtual, or constructive environment. It will be used for Instructor and Key

Personnel Training and may include doctrine, tactics, techniques, and procedures training.

WarMod XXI. The Army modernization training (AMT) effort which provides training and

training products to support the fielding of new equipment. As the training piece of equipping

the force, WarMod XXI supports Warfighter XXI and Warrior XXI.

Warrior-T Office. A Fort Hood, Texas-based TRADOC Deputy Chief of Staff for Training

(DCST) office with the mission to ensure AMT supports the objectives of Force XXI. The

Warrior-T Office does this by leveraging Program Executive Office Command, Control, and

Communications Systems, PM, and 4th Infantry Division/IH Corps experience and knowledge.

The office assists PMs and proponents in incorporating digital lessons learned; in improving

interaction among training, combat, and materiel developers; and in delivering quality,

standardized, timely doctrine and training to soldiers.

A-5
Warrior TSP. A package of training products/materials necessary to train one or more critical

individual tasks anywhere in the world, to include in the institution, at the unit, or in a soldier's

home. Training may be conducted using formal instruction, self-study, or distance learning in a

live, virtual, or constructive environment.

Warrior XXI. Warrior XXI defines the future training activities in the Table of Distribution and

Allowances Army. It provides a future architecture for the development of training products and

policies. The eight major initiatives that comprise the Warrior XXI vision are Total Army

School System (TASS), Clusters and Satellites, Classroom XXI, Distance Learning,

Automation/Digitalization, Training Development Revitalization, Diagnostics, and Advanced

Training Strategies.

A-6
Appendix B

Issues and Needs

The environment of this study, as it relates to the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine

Command (TRADOC), could appropriately be described as one of diminishing resources and

increasing requirements. The TRADOC status report for the third and fourth quarters of Fiscal

Year 1998 (Department of the Army [DA], 1999d) shows that training developer and doctrine

developer authorizations in TRADOC decreased from 2,789 in 1988 to 978 in 1998. During the

same period combat developer strength decreased from 2,396 to 963. Concurrent with these

personnel decrements, training development requirements have increased as a result of the

Army's military occupational specialty consolidation efforts and new equipment fielding.

Examples include the Army Battle Command System (ABCS) including Maneuver Control

System (MCS), All Source Analysis System (ASAS), and Force XXI Battle Command Brigade

and Below (FBCB2). Not surprisingly, the TRADOC status report cited previously rated

training development as C4, the lowest rating.

In addition to training developer decrements, the Integration of Training Development

Among Schools and Distributed Training Environments (TTDATE) study interviews suggest that

TRADOC's ability to conduct training development is further negatively impacted by the

elimination of the Directorate of Evaluation and Standardization (DOES) function in proponent

schools. Some interviewees held the opinion that distribution of training development activities

had the potential to reduce the existing training development backlog. Personnel interviewed by

the ITDATE team were in near unanimous agreement that distributed training development

activities are common throughout TRADOC. The study also found cases of distributed training

development activities happening in Army organizations other than TRADOC. This was usually

described as being beneficial since it facilitates training developer access to subject matter

experts (SMEs) in the field.

1. Issue: Distributed training development activities and the five phases of Systems

Approach to Training (SAT)

Discussion: Although the interviews conducted suggested near-universal agreement on the

existence of distributed training development activities, there is a wide range of opinions on what

parts of SAT should be distributed. Although all phases of SAT were mentioned by some

respondents as being appropriate for distributed training development, the strongest opinions

involved analysis and design. Analysis was identified as the phase that could be most

appropriately distributed since the associated technology would facilitate SME and training

developer coordination. The application of technology to support distributed analysis activities

is likely to become increasingly important as TOE units are staffed at full strength and

proponents are not. Several interviews indicated that decisions concerning resources, such as

training locations, training methods, and media, do not lend themselves to distribution; therefore

design was perceived as being the least appropriate to distribute. Evaluation, implementation,

and development were less frequently identified as candidates for distribution. However,

implementation is commonly distributed in the form of unit training based on doctrine such as

Mission Training Plans and Soldier Training Publications. Some of the interviews emphasized

the importance of appropriate SME support in training development. This would suggest that

B-l
distributed techniques could be important during the development phase in areas such as

validating the training materials and instructor training. As implementation is distributed,

evaluation, or the gathering of feedback on the results of training, is by nature distributed. This

function is not being accomplished adequately in TRADOC due to the elimination of the DOES.

Related Questions:

• What phases of SAT are most appropriate for distribution?

• Are there phases (e.g., design) that should not be distributed?

• If some phases of SAT cannot be distributed now, will emerging technology eventually

facilitate the distribution of all phases?

Need: A requirement exists for a clear definition of which SAT phases should be

distributed, to whom they should be distributed, and how this should be done. Distribution of all

phases of SAT can take advantage of technology-based solutions.

2. Issue: Varying approaches to training development

Discussion: The ITDATE study interviews indicate that training development methods and

standards are prescribed in TRADOC Regulation 350-70 (DA, 1999c), but the application is not

universal. In one case, the study found a Forces Command (FORSCOM) training activity

applying the standards of TRADOC Regulation 350-70 to its training development requirements.

In another case, the study encountered indications of training development not being done to any

particular standard. It is not surprising then that some interviewees expressed concern that

without proper policy and management oversight distributed training development activities

might not meet appropriate standards.

Related Questions:

• How do TRADOC standards/regulations get applied to non-TRADOC organizations?

• What methods are appropriate for accomplishing and managing distributed training

development activities?

• How do proponent schools coordinate with Program Managers (PMs) and Program

Executive Officers (PEOs)?

• What is the role of the TRADOC Systems Manager (TSM) or TRADOC Program

Integration Office (TPIO) in the training development done to support new equipment

fielding?

Need: Meeting needs for effective Army training products requires adherence to a

development process, like SAT, that is known to be effective and is reasonably standardized.

These requirements include the fielding of new systems.

B-2
3. Issue: Distributed training development tools, agencies, and information flow

Discussion: Many of the personnel interviewed cited TRADOC Regulation 350-70 (DA,

1999c) as a key source of information for training development policy. Important tools required

for distributed training development activities were identified as being commercial off-the-shelf

software and Automated Systems Approach to Training (ASAT). Although ASAT was often

identified as being cumbersome, in two cases the ITDATE team found complex training

development being done-in part, distributed-using ASAT. These tools may or may not be

adequate or sufficient. What appears to be lacking is an over-all management system.

Related Questions:

• How do agencies accomplish distributed training development activities?

• Who, or what offices or agencies, should be involved?

• At what point in the training development process should these offices and agencies be

involved?

Need: A complete management system architecture, which includes hardware, software,

policy, and regulatory guidance, is needed to facilitate the interaction among all Army

organizations involved in training development. This system should also facilitate the accessing

of off-site SMEs during training development activities.

4. Issue: Distributed training development activities in support of unit requirements

Discussion: Although the ITDATE team found indications ofrequirements for training

development expertise in Table of Organization and Equipment organizations, no formalized

means of routinely providing this expertise was identified, except in one case where the team

observed a FORSCOM organization with a training mission. In order to be prepared for a

variety of contingency operations, units increasingly need to tailor available training support

packages. They also need to share and benefit from one another's training experiences and

materials. The Commanders' Integrated Training Tool (CITT) for the Close Combat Tactical

Trainer provides a prototype for meeting these needs.

Related Questions:

• What are the unit training development requirements?

• Which of these requirements, and to what degree, can be met by unit training

development activities?

• How can unit officers and NCO leaders be trained in appropriate aspects of SAT?

B-3
Need: Units need additional training tools specific to their needs such as the Commanders'

Integrated Training Tool (CITT). Unit leaders also need training in appropriate portions of the

SAT process.

5. Issue: Future requirements for distributed training development activities

Discussion: The Warrior-T Office at Fort Hood, Texas, was intended to be a short-term

effort to meet "surge" requirements generated by training development related to digitization.

The team found that among the personnel interviewed it was understood that Warrior-T would be

in place for only two to three years. However, most of the people interviewed expressed the

opinion that there were many viable missions, now and in the future, for a cell such as

Warrior-T. Such a cell could address training development backlogs and contingencies related to

deployment or the introduction of new equipment.

Related Questions:

• How can TRADOC maintain a ready short-term surge training development capability?

• What would the appropriate command and control mechanism be for such an

organization?

• Could such a capability assist in reducing TRADOC's training development backlog?

• How can distributed training development activities support emerging contingency

requirements?

Need: A flexible and responsive training development capability should be available to

support short-term surge requirements and possibly to address training development backlogs.

B-4
Appendix C

Selected Interview Responses

These responses to the Integration of Training Development Among Schools and

Distributed Training Environments (ITDATE) study questions represent a selection of the more

insightful and useful comments gathered during the initial phase of study data collection.

Respondents included personnel from various U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command

(TRADOC) elements, proponent schools, contractors, and others with distributed training

development experience.

1. Are training development activities becoming more distributed throughout the Army?

a. Yes, it's not new. Some time ago I used the phrase distance training

development.

b. Well, they are through Warrior-T and through the subcontractors. I mean,

now we have contractors who are working on FBCB2 tasks at the same time

that we are, so that's a form of distributed training development. And that is

in addition to what they are doing at Warrior-T.

c. I think in a broad interpretation of the question, most definitely yes; because

even though we've always used contractors for the different phases of the

development, the training development, process, I think you find more and

more that happening. Now, even though the proponent theoretically controls

that contractor and the work, the fact that it is being done outside of the

proponency per se, I would classify as distributed.

2. Is the current level of distributed training development activities appropriate?

a. I think it is very appropriate. I don't think the current level is nearly sufficient.

b. I think we could increase it. The work done in the Warrior-T cell is essentially

distributed.

c. Not really. The training development activity level is not appropriate or sufficient.

(Distributed training development activities) cannot be good without more training

development expertise.

d. I think the technology is there to allow more of it to be done. I think more of it could

be done by linking directly to units, maybe through their division operations officer

(G3) office or whatever, especially on the doctrinal side.

e. Our training development is broken. Schools are at 50 percent. We are assuming

new systems, and in this case, taking new systems without going through a process

that we have really anchored over many years.

C-l
3. What specific advantages and disadvantages are associated with distributed training

development activities?

a. Any change is going to have some resistance to it. But that's not necessarily a

disadvantage associated with the activity. It can be any activity. Any change is going

to cause that. I think we've got, just to go in order, the specific advantage I see, one

of the prime advantages, is that quick information feedback turnaround from a

number of sources. Saying that, the disadvantage to that, is the quality of that

information.

b. I think distributed training development can help build a much more comprehensive

overall training system. Because it blurs those lines we currently have between

individual and collective training, and between training and mission rehearsal. We

have this split, a chasm that exists, that I just don't see as productive, and it's not an

effective way of doing business. So, this I see as a potential way to really bring those

together. Then the second thing is, I really believe that this is a way for training to

make a greater contribution to readiness.

c. We may give up some quality for quick access, for some tailoring, for some

modularity.

d. I think that the quality control and the quality assurance sometimes tends to be less

when a contractor is doing it than when you are doing it yourself.

e. (Distributed training development needs) some type of evaluation process. It's the

fox watching the henhouse. They pass out some questionnaires. Soldiers are

conditioned that ifthe Army gives it to them, it must be OK. And you know this as

well as anyone else. So if you ask a soldier a question the right way: Did you enjoy

this? That's touchy-feely, that's not objective. What you're asking, would you rather

be in the classroom, an air-conditioned, or environmentally controlled classroom, or

out in the field learning this. You can make an evaluation. You tell people you're

giving one, but if you don't design it properly, and you are going to prep the answers

and you are going to get them back.

4. What part(s) of Systems Approach to Training (SAT) should be distributed?

a. Some of the task analysis and some design and development would be good.

b. All phases of SAT are applicable, however they must be adapted for use in a

distributed environment.

c. I think that SAT process that stands to gain the most by being distributed is the

analysis.

C-2
d. Because the development part just really means filling in the blanks. You need that

proponent to determine, for example, you've got to have a management training

sequence. You can't distribute that.

5. What agencies should be involved in distributed training development activities?

a. Broad scope: Schools and units must be involved. Combat Developers from schools

and labs, ensure NET training adequate force development, Contractors supporting

new equipment-to get needed equipment data.

b. Proponents and TSMs. The TSM should definitely take the lead when it comes to

training development; however they must be given the assets to do this. In most cases

the TSMs have authority to oversee the development of training, but have no

resources to accomplish this (i.e., they theoretically can tell people what to do but

really don't have the authority since the people developing the training work for the

proponent and not for the TSM).

6. What references and tools are currently available? What additional tools and references are

needed?

a. The primary tools that I see are your automation tools, that's going to have more

impact on how things look, how the processes are done, and how they are distributed

than anything else

b. 350-70, ASAT software, Designer's Edge® software.

c. TRADOC Regulation 350-70,350-70-2, Designer's Edge® and Toolbook® software.

7. How should distributed training development activities be controlled or managed/guided?

a. Very carefully. Otherwise the effort and assets will be absorbed and we will not get

any benefits.

b. Distributed training development should be managed by the TSM who should have

control of or at least authority over the New Systems Training Office (NSTO).

c. The schools have the charge. If they have mechanisms and tentacles out as they

should, as was designed, that's even better. But the schools have the charge until they

have it taken away by TRADOC. And I don't think that's likely to happen.

8. Describe your office's specific role in distributed training development activities.

a. Our office will get feedback from material developers and users and pass this on to

the proponents. They will develop limited training products and staff them with both

the proponent and users for approval.

C-3
b. Team interacts closely with (training development agency) at (proponent school).

School provides generalized guidance as to training development standards but allows

the contractor a lot of latitude in design and development decisions. The team also

deals in some respects with just about every PM. This is necessitated by the type of

training they are developing (staff collective). Primary interface seems to be with PM

and TSM.

What general improvements are needed to facilitate distributed training development

activities?

a. First and foremost find a smart colonel (06) who is knowledgeable about the

TRADOC training development process and give him control of all collective

training development. Centralize the control of funding efforts so that funding

priorities can be set rather than "salami slicing" of funds. Re-look the doctrine

development process and ensure that the end users are in the loop. Ensure that

contracting CORs and contracting officer's technical representative (COTRs) are

knowledgeable about their projects and have sufficient stability to see the project

through to completion. Finally, form a digital NET team which would be composed

of the most knowledgeable military personnel and civilian contractors. The concept

would be that this NET team would travel to digital equipment fielding locations and

execute fielding in all areas from installation to individual and collective training to

validation of unit competency to use their new digital equipment. This team would

have already developed training packages which it would use to train all units.

b. Heal that broken line between PMs and TRADOC. (Respondent supplied figure in

explanation. See Figure C-l.)

c. Train proponents to function in a distributed training development environment.

Specifically how distributed training development is done, the benefits of using

distributed training development, and the responsibilities that proponents have in the

process.

d. The schools need to create a separate evaluation cell, not under the directorate of

training. And I think that will help to have (to have a DOES-like organization).

Because right now, especially if you start distributing this work out, you've got to

make sure people follow the same process. The other thing that's important, too, is

standardization and format.

e. If I was going to change anything, I would ask TRADOC to look at better educating

the officers in the basic and advanced courses in training development and training

development techniques. At least understanding the process. I can't think of any

time I was ever taught that in any ofthe schools I went to. Certainly you can't turn

everybody into training developers. But, ifthey understand what the idea behind it is,

training is better. Everybody's a great trainer. But, there's a difference between

going out and doing a movement to contact, kind of with that being the objective, as

opposed to breaking it down into smaller tasks and objectives, and key events on that,

C-4
to really narrow your focus on what you are trying to train and how you evaluate what

it is you are doing.

C TSM J /

Broken Lines

r

Near-term

/

^f PM J)\

-]Fort Hood/

ycrsF /

/^/'ProponenTx

/ / V. School >A-^

\ /"Director of\\ \

\ ( Combat ) /C~~^S \\ T* * . // Director \\pevelopment// ,

N. \Training,

(jvrsc) /

"(TADSS/TSF) /

\\ / (DCST)

y\_ Warrior-Tj

Figure C-l. "Broken lines" associated with distributed training development activities in an

interview subject's drawing of distributed training development interaction.

C-5
Appendix D

Related Reading

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

Training the digitalforce (ARI Study Report 98-06). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Department of the Army (1996). Guideforproducing collective training products (TRADOC

Pamphlet 350-70-1). Fort Monroe, VA: Headquarters, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine

Command.

Department of the Army (1998). Army distance learning program [On-line]. Available:

http://www-dcst.monroe.army.mil/adlp/distancelearning/opsdir/OPD_CDR.htm

Department ofthe Army (1998). Force development requirements determination (TRADOC

Pamphlet 71-9). Fort Monroe, VA: Headquarters, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine

Command.

D-l