r

~ 

~~ 

et

~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DEVELOPMENT OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

MATERIALS FOR THE G2 AIR OFFICER

Robert A. Vecchiotti and Joseph L. Berrey

McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company

Erwin W. Bedarf

Army Research Institute

BATTLEFIELD INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNICAL AREA

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

September 1978

Approved for public relea,e ; d,Uribut,ofl unlimited.

— —
F ~~~~~~ —

~~~~~~~

— - ——

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-.

- . .—~

. — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -*_ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

,

.

~

. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES F

A held Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WILLIAM 1. HAUSER

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel. US Army

Technical Direct or Commander

Research accomplished under contract

to the Depa rtn~ nt of the Army

McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company , Eastern Division

NOTICES

concerning distribution of reports to : U. S. Army Research Instit ute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

ATTN PEA l-P . 5001 Eisenho~~ r Avenue . Alexandria , Virginia 22333

j 

DISTRIBUTION Primary distribution ol this report has been med. by ARI . Plests address correspondence

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed tshlfl it is no lOnger needed. Pleats do not return it to

the U. S. Army Research I nstitut e for the Behaviora l and Social Sciences.

. 5

— IL Th. findings in thi$ report era not to be construed as en official DIp.rtm.nt of stie Army position ,

,riluI so designated by oth.r author ized document s.

ar -, . .

~~

.

______________________

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Line-i p~~c.-,f jAil

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (W7ien Data Rnt.red)

READ INSTRUCTION S REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

EPORT NUMBFR

technical Paper 333 ~‘ 12 

GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT ’S CATALOG NUMBER

(( TITLE (end S UbtSUj ~) 3 TYPE OF REPORT C PERIOD COVEREO

VELOPMEN’r OF souRCE~~~ NAGEMENT 7 Final Report

-i

~E G2 AIR OFFICERS / (D7-72 to 11-71~ - .

~~

• 

~~

r-”5 ’”’ sr~

i fl~~ 1~~T NUMBER

_____________________________________________________ SS—73—TB—~ 4 f _____________________________________________________ ONTRAI..i QA LAN ~~~UMBER (.~

)lRebert A.~ Vecchiotti.~~~6 Joseph L.IserreY

/tNUL....w..d L~ ugias y aridiE~~ in W.J

~ 

dal.

fj ~

J) ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~

C. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAM E AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT , PROJECT . TASK

REA & W ORK UNIT NUMBERS

McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company, St. Louis 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ t~ 63166 and U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences, Alexandria , VA 22 33

Deputy chief of Staff for Personnel SePt!z~~ ~~~78

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS ~~~~

Washington - NUMBER OF PAGES , DC 20310 44

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME B ADORESS(I1 dSlf.ome lena, Controllind Olflc.) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of flit, report)

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral Unclassified and Social Sciences (AR!) ___________________________

Alexandria, VA 22333 ISa . O E CLA 5SI F I C A T ION / D O W NGR AD ING SCHEDULE

IC . D I STRI BUTION STATEMENT (of Ale Report)

Approved for public release ; distribution unlimited. _____________

I?. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of its. ab.tracl .sl.r.d In Stock 20. II d iff er e n t frac. Report)

-

~~M~

:

~~J (

~~~~

T

~

J

~

’ IS. SUPPt.. EM EM TARY NOTES

b~~~~~~umb.r) 

—

IC. KEY WORDS (Continu. an r.v.ra . aid. II n.c..eats. end I d e n t if y by

Aerial surveillance and Han dbook Decision analysis

reconnaissance Data base Evaluation

G2 Air officer Functional tasks Automated version

Training Task analysis Indexing

On-the-job management materials Content ~ u~ 1ine

3

~ ABSTRACT f~~~~I

~~~as — ,.ee,es ~~~ If ..g.a. y d tduntlfy by block nu .(~(/~~~~~~ 

~ 

)

~~The Surveillance Systems Work Unit Area/

~ f t

~~ . . Army Research

for the Behavioral and Social Science~~~~~~3i~as been analyzing the Army ’s

aerial surveillance and reconnaissance p(~i&R))system , particularly with respect to the G2 Air ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Mãjor conclusion of a study of the

job requirements for G2 Airr

~and image interpretation personnel. (AR! Research

Report 1181) ~stressed the need to dir~ ct more attention to ~~~.Araining of

the G2 Air officer .’~ I’his present effort concentrated on diveloping reso

(cwiintinued~

DO ~~~~~~~~~~ W3 tDEtsOss 0? 5 NOV St IS OBSOLETE Unclassified

SSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (BTten Date m Isted)

__ 

...... ____ . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ .
~

1 ______- . — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :.~~~~~~ ~~~~~~

Llne- 1.AqCifj p d

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE OflIen Date Entered)

2O. (

~

,

~~~~+ A p

~~ management materials for the G2 Air officer that could be used for on-the-job

training and guidance in the performance _~~~~~~ ies and in intelligence school

cour2

~

s

~

.

~

) ç4 ~~ ‘

~__)

C~~~ Re source management materials were}compiled in the form of a handbook to

achieve the training objectives. The ‘tirst step involved gathering information

on tasks as performed by operationai(~~~~ 7units. preparing a comprehensive

study data base , and conducting fj eld_observ~~ i

~~~ and interviews to verify

the data base . <i~ i

~

t

~ a content outline of the handbook was prepared by integrating the field interview data with the existi~~ _d~ ta bas

~~~, Knowledgeable

personnel reviewed this outline. ~ trd I

~~~eparation of the handbook itself

took into account the various training techniques and aids appropriate for

on-the-job and school application. Step four consisted of conducting a

limited evaluation of the handbook to determine its usefulness, acceptance ,

and final structure. Next , a 4preliminary edition~ of the handbook used the

information derived from the evaluation . Finally, an automated demonstration

of a portion of the handbook illustrated how the materials could be used with

possible future computerized information systems.

I V ) /3

L Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGI(When Data Entered)

-~ - -—-- . - — —~~~ ---~ .-——- - .

~

—--

~ 

—-- — --- - 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~~~ . ~~~~~~~~
Technical Paper 333

DEVELOPMENT OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

MATERIALS FOR THE G2 AIR OFFICER

r

Robert A. Vecchiotti and Joseph L. Berrey McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company

and

Erwin W. Bedarf

Army Research Institute

BATTLEFIELD INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNICAL AREA

Submitted as complete and Approved By: technically accurate, by:

Edgar M. Johnson A.H. Birnbaum, Acting Director

Technical Area ,Ch let ORGANiZATiONS AND SYSTEMS

RESEARCH LABORATORY

Joseph Zeidner

TECHNiCAl. DIRECTOR

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

September 1978

— 

. 

Army Project Number Surveillance Systsms

20102106*721 DANC 19.73C.0007

Apprsy.~d to, public ruI~~se; distribution unIln~ted.

________

______ -—

— ‘
- — -

.

--- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~

--.---- —

ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and other research and military agencies. Any findings ready for

implementation at the time of publication are presented in the latter part of

the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

--

- .---

-

..

~~

.

5 ~ \

~~

. .

~‘\ - -

\

\

‘

~~~~~~~~~~~ -

~~~~~~~~~~~~ -—~~~ ~~~~ z

~r~~:: ~~~~~~~~ __________________ _____ T~

T ~~~~
- I - ------ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~

FOREWORD

The Battlefield Information Systems Technical Area is concerned

with the human resource demands of increasingly complex battlefield

systems that are used to acquire , transmit , process, disseminate , and

use information . This increased complexity places greater demands on

the operator using the machine system. Research in this area focuses

on human performance problems related to interactions within command

and control centers, as well as issues of system development. The research is concerned with such areas as software development, topographic

products and procedures, tactical symbology , user-oriented systems, information management, staff operations and procedures, decision support,

and sensor systems integration and use.

An area of special concern is the efficient, effective use of surveiflance and reconnaissance resources. The continued proliferation

of information-collecting equipment coupled with rapid technological

change and the demands of modern warfare have dramatically increased

the complexity of the surveillance and reconnaissance system. To ensure

use of these assets in a way responsive to command needs requires skilled

and knowledgeable users and collection managers. The tactical commander

must understand the capabilities and limitations of the surveillance and

reconnaissan ce system. In addition , the collection manager must understand user needs and procedures for planning , coordinating , and manag ing

these assets. Previous research by the Army Research Institute (ARt) ,

reported in Research Report 1181, identified signif icant deficiencies

in the ability of the G2 Air officer (now the Surveillance and Reconnaissance Officer) to effectively plan and manage aerial surveillance

and reconnaissance resources.

Th is report concerns the development of a handbook for the G2 Air

officer: “The Aerial Surveillance and Reconnaissance MANAGER. ” This

handbook has demonstrated its effectiveness in U.S. Army units and

schools located worldwide (ARI Research Memorandum 75-14) . The report

was not published at the time the handbook was distributed to user organizations because of the urgency of othe r requirements. Continued

inte rest in and requests for copies of the handbook have led to the publication of its development. Although some changes have occurred in

terminology and doctrine since the research was conducted , the functions

involved remain largely unchanged.

Research in the area of sensor systems integration and use is conducted as an in-house effort augmented by contracts with organizations

selected for their specialized capabilities and unique facilities. The

present research was conducted in conjunction with personnel from the

McDonnell ~~uglas Corporation (now McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Cornpany) under the program direction of Dr. Abraham H. Birnbaum. Research

~ 

- A
in this area is responsive to general requirements of Army Project 2Ql62lO6A72]. and to special requirements of the U.S. Army Assistant

Chief of Staff for Intelligence.

ènft~~~~~rector 

~~~~~~~~~~~ - TTI~

1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ iii ~~~~~~~~~~
DEVELOPMENT OF RESOU~~ E MANAGEMENT MATERIALS FOR THE G2 AIR OFFICER

BRIEF

Requirement :

To prepare materials to aid the G2 Air officer in the performance

of management duties and to conduct limited field testing to determine

their usefulness , acceptance , and final structure.

Procedure :

Information was gathered on tasks performed by operational aerial

surveillance and reconnaissance (AS&R) units. From this, a comprehensive study data base was created and verified by field observations

and interviews. A content outline for a handbook was prepared by integrating the field interview data with the existing data base . This

outline was reviewed by knowledgeable personnel. The handbook was then

prepared , taking into account the various training techniques and aids

that are appropriate for on-the-job and school application. The handbook went through a limited evaluation to determine its usefulness, acceptance , and final structure. The handbook was revised , using the

information derived from the evaluation. Part of the materials were

then programed for use in an automated demonstration .

Findings:

A usable set of materials, in the form of a handbook , was developed

to aid G2 Air officers in performing management duties.

Handbook feaLures , suci) as a functional task inventory , decision

analyses for preplanned and immediate missions, a section on management

quidelines, and indexes for functional tasks and key words, were found

to be acceptable and usable in a limited evaluation of the materials.

Demonstration efforts indicate that the materials can be programed

for use in an automated system that will permit the use of indexing

schemes , the seeking of information at various task levels, the presentation of graphic or pictorial information , the integration of data

base materials with other communication channels, and the updating of

the data base . 

~~~~~--- -
-.-- .----

Utilization of Findings;

The handbook is used by instructors in the U.S. Army Intelligence

Center and School , Aerial Surveillance and Reconnaissance (AS&R) Division , for lesson planning and practical exercises.

Various operational units have also received copies of the handbook for use and evaluation.

A more extensive validation of the handbook is planned, the outcome of which will further determine how the materials are to be used.

____

- -

~~~~~ -~~

-----

~ -
________________________________________ 

____

DEVELOPMENT OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MATERIALS FOR THE G2 AIR OFFICER

CONTENTS

Page

BACKGROUND 1

OBJECTIVE 2

DEVELOPME NTAL PROCEDURES 2

Phases of the Research Effort 2

Data Base 3

Content Outlin e and Indexing 7

OVERVIEW OF THE MANAGEMENT MATERIALS S

EVALUATION OF THE MATERIALS 11

Subjects 12

Data Collection Materials 12

Procedure 13

Results 14

Discussion 18

DEMONSTRATION OF AUTOMATED VERSION 19

Demonstration Plan 19

Hardware 20

Structure of the Demonstration 20

CONCLUSIONS 2 4

APPENDIX A. FUNCTIONAL TASK INDEX 27

B. STUDENT AND INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION RATING SHEETS

AND SUMMARIES 33

DISTRIBUTION 43

~

— ---- .

~~~~~~~~ - - -- .

-~~~ - —---~~~~~~ - . .-

~~ ~~~~~~-,- - -~~~~~~~ .-, —~~~~~~~ -

~~~- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- —

Page

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Major tasks and decisions of the G2 Air officer . . . 4

2. Overview of student evaluation study 15

3. Student performance summary for objective tests . . . 16

4. Student performance surmary for scenario tests 16

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Sample decision analysis 6

2. Sample overview 10

3. Frame depicting function level information 21

4. Example of frame depicting task level information . . 21

5. Example of frame depicting subtask level information 22

6. Example of frame depicting specific topic level

information 22

7. Example of frame depicting data element level

information 23

8. Example of frame depicting data element level

information 23

9. Frame indicating absence of data in data base 25

~ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _.

~~~~~____~~~~~~ :__ ~~~ . --~~~---— .- --————--~~~~—----- - .~ --~~~~~~~~~ - 

.

- .

— - ------.
F- -,- . -.- --—

~~~~

--------- .—--

~~~~~~~~

--,--—------.-

~~~~ 

DEVELOPMENT OF RE SOURCE MAN AGEMEN T MATERIALS

FOR THE G2 AIR OFFICER

BACKGROUN D

G2 Air officers have enjoyed only limited recognition for the job

they do for the field commander. Several reasons for this were identified in a previous research effort1 which established G2 Air officer and

image interpreter job requirements. Among the reasons identified were :

(a) forma l training given to aerial surveillance officers may not prepare them adequately for the G2 Air officer job of asset manager, (b) acceptance of the G2 Air officer by tactical commanders was limited , and

(c) officers we re inappropriately assigned into G2 Air officer slots.

The study suggested several means of alleviating the situation . The

present effor t focuses on creating and implementing more appropriate

G2 Air officer training. At this point, there is no specif ic training

for an officer assigned to the position of G2 Air officer from the current image interpreter officer position . The G2 officer must, and typically does , rely on on-the-job training to become acquainted with this

position .

The previous effort specified those tasks within the G2 Air officer

job that are of primary importance and for which training should be enhanced. Those areas of instruction that were considered most important

for the G2 Air officer were the G2 Air functions and duties, G2 Air duty

teams , map reading , intelligence collection and production , and exploitation of airborne sensors. More specific areas that were labeled as

requiring increased training emphasis included aerial surveillance and

target acquisition , image interpretation reports , camouflage principles ,

insurgency practical exercises , knowledge of information management,

and principles of visual observation . Thus , the G2 Air officer role

is mainly one of management Df resources in the performance of survei).-

lance functions. In addition , the G2 Air officer must have knowledge

of other areas of intelligence to insure the integra tion of surve illance

and reconnaissance into the overall intelligence picture .

Training specific to the details of day-to-day duties was needed.

Because there is no current course (nor time allocated for it) that

will give the G2 Air officer the appropriate training , research and development was undertaken to produce materials to provide the necessary

guidance and instruction .

1

Youngling E. W ., Vecchiotti , R. A., Bedarf , E. W., & Root , R. T. Job

Requirements of G2 Air and Image Interpretation Personnel. ARt Research

Report 1181, May 1974. (AD 780 815)

1
~~~~~ - - ~~~~ . - --~~~~ -- - -.— -~~~~~~~~~~- --— 

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the current effort was to produce materials that

the G2 Air officer can use for on-the-job training and guidance in the

performance of duties and in intelligence school courses. This dual

purpose warranted the development of a flexible document that could be

used in either a classroom or field environment .

The specific objectives of this effort were:

1. To prepare materials to aid the G2 Air officer in the performance of management duties.

2. To conduct limited field testing with the materials to determine their usefulness , acceptance , and final structure.

DEVELOPMENTAL P~~CEDURE S

Phases of the Research Effort

This research effort was carried out in six major phases :

1. Detailed information on tasks performed by operational aerial

surveillance and reconnaissance (AS&R) units was gathered.

This was accomplished by preparing a comprehensive study data

base and by conducting field interviews to verify the resource

data base .

2. A content outline of a handbook that would provide aids to the

G2 Air officer in the performance of management duties was

prepared. Field interview data were integrated with the existing data base to improve the applicability of the data base.

Knowledgeable personnel then reviewed the outline .

3. The handbook was prepared , taking into account the various

training techniques and aids that are appropriate for on—thejob and school application .

4. A limited evaluation of the handbook was conducted to determine

its usefulness , acceptance , and final structure. This was

done by using both instructors and students in the aerial surveillance field. The evaluation consisted of performance testing and the use of a questionnaire and interviews to determine

the format acceptance and the accuracy and completeness of the

materials.

• 5. A preliminary edition of the handbook was prepared using the

information derived from the evaluation.

2

L . i. :1.1 ~ .. .
~—-.,- ,-, - --—,------..---~~~~~~

6. An automated demonstration of a portion of the handbook was

prepared to illustrate how the materials could be used with

possible future computerized information systems .

Data Base

Management materials for the G2 Air officer were developed by applying systems analysis techniques in an iterative process over the duration of the effort. The initial phase of development required the review

and collection of detailed information on tasks performed by operational

AS&R units . This phase included review of 152 technical documents and

trai ning materials , and interviews of operational G2 Air officers at

Fort Bragg , N .C., and Fort Huachuca , Ariz.

The framework for the information collected was the Army air intelligence system. Verification was sought from the operational environment for the flow diagrams prepared in the earlier study and expanded

in the presen t effor t. In general , emphasis in the system analysis was

placed on the integration of substantive materials concerned with the

functions of the various AS&R subsystems and key personnel as found in

field manuals , formal training cour se materials , and field aids. Of

specific interest were the day-to-day activities of the G2 Air officer

and the unique context in which they were performed .

The expanded an a lyses focused on management tasks and decisions.

The management task analysis was designed to identify and categorize

the major management tasks of the G2 Air officer in performing the

duties of an asset manager. The analysis described specific behavior

listed as decisions/actions , as well as the information required to

carry out each behavior. Each of these behaviors was related specifically to the flow diagrams of the operational environment in which the

G2 Air officer performed the job. The ana).ysis provided a realistic

framework from which to interpret the major management tasks and prepare a content outline of resource management materials .

The expanded task analysis and preliminary decision analysis

focused on management duties. Decisions were subsequently analyzed

in greater detail as described in Table 1.

This listing of management tasks and decisions of the G2 Air officer was shown , for commen t and correct ion , to 27 senior G2 Air of fi—

cers in stateside units and the Intelligence School. The project team

was encouraged by the fact that no major revisions were suggested.

The majority of officers felt the task list was complete , realistic,

and accurate. The expanded flow diagrams were also reviewed. These

diagrams described the relationship of the G2 to the different G2

branches, the flow of requests from the requester to the appropriate

collection unit, and certain G2 Air management functions. In each case ,

the diagramed management operation or situation was a step-by—step

3 

—- . ---- -— - -- —~~

- ——.-

~~~~- . .- -~~
procedure that terminated in definite actions, decisions, responsibilities, or information products. The analysis could be described as a

complete situation analysis. Again , only minor revisions were suggested

from the field.

Tab le 1

Major Tasks and Decisions of the G2 Air Officer

Tasks Decisions

Participate in surveillance and Determine acceptability and

reconnaissance planning meetings correctness of request

Advise G2 officer and G2 staff on Determine whether request can

surveillance and reconnaissance be satisfied by enemy situation (ENSIT) file

Consolidate preplanned requests

Check master cover trace

Process immediate requests

Determine whether additional

Evaluate enemy air defense missions are required

Coordinate with G3 Air officer, Determine priorities

airspace control element , and

fire support element Select best sensor

Coordinate with collection agencies Approve mission

Integrate with G2 collection plans Cancel and reschedule

requests

Supervise image interpretation/

AS&R collection capability

Perform G2 Air officer supervisory

duties

Generate indicators to be obtained

by AS&R overall effort

The expanded decisions, shown in Table 1, deserve special note as

they were incorporated directly into the final management aid to cornplement the task index. As a management aid, listing major decisions

was thought to be insufficient for use in an operational setting. A

4

.. —-

~

---

~ 

---- 
- , -

~

.—-.- . . ,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

----. .,--- --- -

mere detailed decision analysis was required and was conducted simultaneously with the task analysis.

The purpose of the decision analysis was to identify the decision

processes and information requirements of G2 Air officers as they make

the eight major decisions outlined in the flow diagrams. This set of

decisions dealt almost exclusively with the functions of processing information requests and mission planning . Based on this, the decision

analysis dealt with the decision processes of the G2 Air officer for

both preplanned and immediate missions, examined from the receipt of

the information request to its final disposition.

A binary decision tree was used in analyzing these processes so

that all logical alternatives would be considered. The analysis stressed

completion of the requests whenever possible , considering the use of all

potential resources available . In addition to the basic decision flow,

the information/actions required to get data relevant to the decisions

and other tasks were derived . Both information input and output were

identified , specif ying information needed by the G2 Air officer , information generated by the G2 Ai~ officer for other service elements , arid

recordkeeping functions. This process resulted in a description of the

G2 Air officer ’s decision flow and the information environment in which

the officer operates. Figure 1 is a sample decision analysis. This

type of binary decision analysis (all decisions structured as yes-no

choices) was derived from a computer-type logic tree (described later)

and can be converted directly into a computerized flow with the required

information/action associated with each choice point.

This basic decision analysis was expanded to include personnel resources for each subelement with respe ct to both G2 Air staff and other

involved parties. The information/actions were analyzed, and information resources were outlined with respect to specific data sources for

technical data (charts and specific information), general and procedural

information (field and technical manuals) , and areas where additions

and improvements were required . This total analysis served as a working

document to define the specific job aids and review material to be included in the final resource management and procedures document. Further refinements identified specific content areas that needed emphasis

and developed or derived appropriate techniques for providing the re-

• quired information.

The technique for the decision flow was derived from a binary

logic tree similar to that used in diagraming computer programs. The

basic principle is simple, although the trees themselves can become

quite complex . The system to be analyzed is listed task by task, and

all decisions are identified. Each decision is structured to yield a

“yes ” or “no” response , with each response leading to a different course

of action and theoretically to a different outcome. If this occurred

in practice, a tree consisting of only 10 decisions could have 210,

or 1,024, possible outcomes. Fortunately , most trees were found to be

5

________________ 

~~~~~~~~~~

------. ---
MISSION SEGMENT: PREPLANNED MISSION

7. Cancel or Reschedule Requests

sc is ios A NALY S IS STAFF INYORIIAIION R(SmRCE.S

T.chnicit Data Sourde

o.cision P,o~ps

~ Inf orestion Action Cognizint Personnil and Aids —

Collect ~11 re.~ec ted requests 6-2 Air NCO

NO Is time uvailuele to No Do amy requirements on Revise request, turn- 6.2 Air NCO Requests fopin . SOP

follqu up request S inc~~~Ie t.d requests require around tie, to cancel Yes tha t they be fi lle d t his cyc le and resubei t

I I No Is priority i~s9b enough Rpvise (RIt y ond 6.2 Ii, Priority assigi~~nt

to me rit ,mdif ying SIR priority tharts . request fore

plan Section 9-3 I No Can requester be contact5d in 6-2 Air NCO Cop,rnasication net.

time to meet 015.5 requirements COnt ic t list

Yes

No is data ivuilu bi, Check data sources 6-2 Ri, NCO Contact list

fron othe r source in requesting unit

Yes

Cancel Log in 6-2 Air Journal 6-2 Air NCO Onsit file , 6-3.

request intArrogation reports

and notif y

~~~~~t.r ___________________ S Obtain missi ng data Obtiin dat. 6.2 Air ICO Contact list

No

P rocess request a. —ian the reque!t be rescheduled Reni,s~ ONLy 6-2 Air NCO Request fore , SOP . for neut SIR plan turnaround t ime hisYes tory. 6-2 AIr Jou rnal

.l

~~o So Is the re any other reason Reschedule for neot S RR plan Process request us Out- 6-i Air NCO Req uest fore

s~ ..~~ io ‘C)eCt request I in d in handbook

1Y.s

Piac~ utth the rejected tog in 6-2 Air Journa l 6-2 Air ACt

requests

Figure 1. Sample decision analysis.

6

- ~~~~~~~~ -.

---~ -—~~—-.--- , -

~~~~~~~ :-~~~~ .~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ . 

-
~~~ . .

~~ ~~~. -~~~~~~~

convergent , and a “no” decision leads to either a corrective action and

then a return to the main stream of effort , or a termination of effort

stopping that particular branch after one or two decisions. The pattern

or structure of this decision flow is for the “yes” responses to define

the major path, with the “no” responses relating to the absence of resources or blockages to reaching the goal. More effort or activity is

generally required after a “no” response than a “yes” response at a decision point. Like a computer program , the analysis covered all possible actions or paths and all possible outcomes as the G2 Air officer

goes through the task of processing an information request.

The detailed structure of the tasks required of the G2 Air officer

was obtained largely from Field Manual (FM) 30—5 , FM 30-20, and the

flow diagrams from the previous effort, “Establishment of G2 Air Officer

and Image Interpreter Job Requirements” (b ungling et al., 1974). The

tasks were outlined and a decision flow was derived from a logical analysis of the alternatives available to the G2 Air officer for fulfilling

the requirements specific to each task. The decisions were analyzed

and information requirements for making a proper decision were identified. The decision analysis was, therefore , tied directly to the major

documented sources of procedures for filling requests. Further validation by field personnel added to the accuracy , completeness , and realism of this effort.

The analysis provided a detailed breakdown of the type of subject

matter the G2 Air officer must make decisions about in task units approximating management functions. Decisions that were previously analyzed individually were grouped as multidecision tasks, and similar

tasks were grouped under more complex decision statements . The analysis was used to identify specific information areas to be considered

for inclusion as resource management aids. The result of this effort

was incorporated into the management materials as a major section and

was cross—referenced to the functional task index for easy use .

The accumulated information resulting from the task and decision

analysis formed a data base from which a content outline was developed.

The outline contained information the G2 Air officer needed to successfully perform his role as asset manager.

Content Outline and Indexing

Preparation of a preliminary content outline began with the identification of the information requirements of the G2 Air officer as part

of the expanded task analysis. A matrix format was used to identify

relevant documentation of each item in the content outline . For efficient use of the prepared management materials , the content outline

followed the task sequence identified in the task analysis. The outline was iterated several times by the project team and operational

officers. The final management materials, with the outline incorporated,

7

-

~~~ 

-
were prepared as the functional task index (see Appendix A). The preliminary outline was reviewed by the Army Research Institute (ARI ) prior

to the development of materials.

Because the management materials were to be computer compatible , information retrieval schemes were integrated with the materials being developed. These schemes were designed to allow the user or G2 Air officer

access to the materials needed to perform management duties by providing

a strategy for the categorization and retrieval of specific items needed

for a situation .

The indexing of the material followed the natural divisions of the

G2 Air officer ° s j ob as determined by system analysis. Twelve major

tasks were separated into the three functions of preparation, collection ,

and administration around which related materials were grouped. This

grouping resulted in a task index that was job-oriented. To facilitate

location of material concerning certain words and phrases , a key word

index was generated and included at the end of the document. This index

allowed the G2 Air officer to locate material concerning his job when

limited information such as a key word or phrase was available .

To further equip and assist the G2 Air officer, guidelines on management duties were included because the analysis of the job showed that G2

Air office rs managed assets in collection of intelligence data. The

material consisted of management techniques that were derived and refined

in other applications but could be applied to any management problem.

The techn iques we re grouped according to one of the following functions :

asseinbie resources, plan , organize, direct, and control. The functions

we re cross-referenced to the task index in the final document.

The resulting document contained a detailed description of the G2

Air officer’s job, the reference material to assist in making decisions,

and the contacts needed to accomplish the job . For reference use , the

document was indexed so that only the material needed for a specific

decision/action was located within the context in which it would be carried out.

OVERVIEW OF THE MANAGEMENT MATERIALS

The materials prepared were assembled into a document called

“Aerial Surveillance and Reconnaissance MANAGER (Man agement Aids and

Guidelines for Evaluating Resources).”2 The document consists of

three major sect~~~ s, The first section includes the detailed functional

task index , whichl.ists the 12 major management duties of the G2 Air

officer and the tasks and subtasks associated with each duty. Under

each task , substantive materials were included that specify procedures ,

2

Available from the Army Research Institute .

8

-4
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

information sources, and key contact personnel relative to the activities that must be performed to successfully carry out the major task.

The functional task index provides an outline of the materials included

in this section . Overviews are included as a part of each task section . The overviews present, in capsule or pictorial form , the essentials of each section as a quick reference . Figure 2 is a sample

overview . The overviews were enclosed in plastic sleeves, which can

serve as a writing surface . At the end of each task section , there is

a checklist to encourage a self-check that appropriate steps were taken.

Another feature is the flexibility to place checklists and overviews

into one sleeve , which could be remeved from the body of the document

for use as a handy reference at planning meetings and briefings.

The next major section of management materials was the final version

of the decision analysis. Overall , the decision analysis identified a

numbe r of critical areas where the G2 Air officer must make decisions

concerning the capability and allocation of assets, the relative priorities of missions, and the location of information resources. Techniques

for simplifying these decisions were identified. In developing the

analysis, consideration was given to decision task difficulty with a

goal of using aids to reduce all decisions as nea r to a simple binary

type as possible .

The analysis was divided into decisions for processing preplanned

and immediate mission requests. These decisions required few , if any ,

aids as they are shown in the hand.book . Of the decisions, 25% were of

the 100Dre complex evaluative type , requiring the selection of a correct

solution from several alternatives . By providing aids that defined

alternatives and decision rules , however , it was possible to reduce

these decisions to a series of binary-type decisions . Decision points

were also cross—re ferenced to the management task sections .

Another section was a compilation of management guidelines divided

into the classical listing of management fu nctions : assemble resource s,

plan , direct, organize , and control , This section included general

management principles applicable to subtasks listed under the major management task index. The major tasks were cross-referenced to the specific management function under which they belonged . Key factors to help

the user tailor the guidelines to his unique circumstances were included

where appropriate .

The three sections—-tasks , decisions , and management guidelines--

of the handbook were interrelated by cross-references when appropriate .

For greater ease of retrieving information, several indexing schemes

were incorporated as part of the handbook . The first scheme was a listing of major management tasks and subtasks with page references. The

task sequence represented a logical flow of events so that a user would

appreciate the context in which the task occurred and know which tasks

preceded and followed the particular task . The functional task index

permitted the matching of functional titles to the relevant information

and procedures needed to carry out the task,

9

_______________ - - .—- - - -
~ -

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OVERVIEW SECTION 2 EVALUATE S&R CAPASILITY

BASELINE SURVEILLANCE & RECONNAISSANCE CAPABILITY

THIS FIGURE SHOWS AN OVERVIEW OF THE StIR RESOURCES TYPICALLY AVAILA BLE TO THE C0?~

WANDER.

TYPICALLY , THE G—2 AIR OFFICER TASKS THE PERSONNEL IDENTIFIED IN COLUME 1 TO COLLECT

INFORMATION REQUIRED TO SATIS FY THE CDSMIANDERS NEEDS.

Contact Resources Capability

AH—16

Division HELICOPTER , ATTACK (HUEY COBRA)

Aviation ______

OH—IA ~~~~~~~~ 4 VISUAL AStIR D

Officer HELICOPTER , LIGHT OBSERVATION (CAYUSE) AIRBORNE PERSONNEL D/N

DETECTORS

HAND HELD CAMERA D

UH-1B/H ,

~~ •

~ 

-

HELICOPTER UTILITY/CARGO(IROQUOIS)

Organic to Army at Division Level

OV — lB 

-

G—2 Air VISUAL AStIR D

OV—IC/t)

PHOTOGRAPHIC SENSOR D Corps Sensor AIrcraft (Mohawk)

(MICAS) YO-3A ,,

~~~ 4 ~~~~~ NSOR

Obervation Aircraft

Organic to Army at Corps /FA Level

C) RF—4—B/C

G—2 Air PHANTOM

VISUAL AStIR 0

Corps RF ~~ 

PHOTOGRAPH iC SENSOR DIN — IR SENSOR DIN

(TAC VOODOO SLR SENSOR D/N

Reconnaissance

Support) (POSSIBLE OTHER

RF—8 A/G EXOTIC SENSOR)

CRUSADER

Typica l Tactica l Sensor Aircraft

Provided by Air Force, Navy or Marines

Figure 2. Sample overview .

10 - - --

_________________ - - . - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ... -~~~ —.
A second indexing system was included so the use r could follow 

the steps used in decisionmaking. This index was closely related to 

the functional task index and is essentially the end result of the 

decision analysis. The index was based on logical alternatives 

through the generation of binary logic trees. The decision index 

can be used independently of the task index. 

A key word index was also included with the materials. This index listed key words, some key phrases, and all acronyms used in the 

materials. It was designed for individuals not familiar with acronyms 

or who needed information about a specific term. The pages referenced 

for each item were selected because of their explanatory content relative to the specific term. 

An index of lesser importance helped use rs seeking information 

specifically related to management functions. The user could refer to 

ete management guidelines where, after reviewing factors included under 

each classical management function, he is then referred to the major 

management task representative of each management f unc tion in the overview for that section. Thus, the user can immediately tailor the factors in the management section to specific day-to-day task actions. 

The four indexes to the materials allow the us er to find information as quickly as possible. Each scheme reduced the chances for confusion and frustration because the user could e asily switch to the most 

appropriate index scheme for his current needs. 

The structure of the materials also made allowances for possible 

computerization. The logical development, binary decision trees, and 

indexing schemes were prepared with a view toward automation. The 

compatibility between the materials and computers allows for the flexibility to accommodate changes and revisions. Because the intelligence 

system involves constantly changing situations, the materials must be 

amenable to adjustment so as to be more useful and responsive to current requirements. 

EVALUATION OF THE ~ TE RIALS 

A limited evaluation of "AS&R MANAGER" was conducted at Fort 

Huachuca, Ariz., by McDonnell Douglas Corporation (MDC) and ARI personnel. The evaluation was limited, and more extensive f~eld testing 

and review was planned outside the scope of this effort. The pre~ent 

evaluation was conducted to provide a vehicle for making changes to 

the document, based on the use of the materials by a small number of 

personnel who were subsequently asked Lu evaluate the usefulness and 

acceptance of the materials. 

11 
Subjects

Subjects were students and instructors from the AS&R Division of

the U.S. Army Intelligence Center and School . Students were members

of a class in course 3A—9309. The course qualifies officers for Military Occupational Specialty ( MOS ) 9309 , aerial surveillance officer.

Thi s par ticular class was unusual for a basic course because it was

comprised of officers with over 4 years of experience on the average .

Several captains in the class had prior experience as intelligence

specialists.

There were 11 students in the sample . Students were divided into

two groups : Group A had five students and Group B had six. Both

groups were matched in terms of exper ience , with Group A averaging

4 years and Group B averaging 4.5 years . Several students possessed

?‘~

)S from combat arms schools.

There were 15 instructors in the evaluation sample . Instructors

were officers or senior sergeants . There were nine commissioned of fi—

cers , one warrant off icer , and five noncommissioned officers in the

sample . The average experience level for all instructors was 9.8 years

of total service .

Data Collection Materials

To cover as wide a range of evaluation processes as possible ,

eva luation materials included biographic information sheets for students

and instructors, a series of objective tests, four scenarios with questions, rating sheets , comment sheets, and recordings of individual and

group discussion sessions.

The biographic information sheets were taken from the G2 Air questionnaire used previously (Youngling et al., 1974). Specific items

covered were MOS , length of service , formal training, military assignments, civilian education , and name , rank , and branch . These sheets

we re given to students and instructors and served as background information against which responses were evaluated in relation to other

data collection items.

Objective test questions for the students were prepared by MDC

personne 1 and put into a question pool . Each test consisted of a group

of short—answer, fill-in , and multiple-choice questions . The study design required equivalent test forms , which were assembled by matching

questions from the pool in terms of content area and difficulty . Matching was accomplished by using MDC intelligence specialists to judge the

difficulty level of each question . The project staff assured that

answers to questiuns , especially for Sess ion I , were in the field manu—

als. Further , the project staff assured that questions covered a wide

colitent area of both the field manuals and handbook . Answers were

located within a few pages in eithe r the field manuals or handbook .

12
Four scenarios were prepared of comparable content and difficulty.

Each included a statement of a situation that could confront a G2 Air

officer. All relevant factors were given in the statement. Each student was required to answer questions about the situation . A “school

solution” was prepared , and each student’s score was the number of items

of the school solution included in his answer. Time measures of the

total time spent answering the objective test questions and scenario

items were taken .

Both students and instructors were asked to fill out evaluative

rating sheets and comment sheets. The rating sheets were used to evaluate user acceptance and judgments of the usefulness of materials measured by attitude scales developed specifically for this effort. These

scales consisted of a series of positive and negative statements relating to the content of “AS&R MANAGER.” For the acceptability scale ,

the participants rated statements of opinion on a 4—point scale ranging

from “not at all” to “very much so.” These statements related to personal feelings concerning the document. The usability scale presented

statements concerning the “AS&R MANAGER” in terms of ease of use , format , and technical accuracy , which were rated on a 5—point scale ranging from “strongly agree ” to “strongly disagree .”

Statements for both of these scales were developed in positive and

negative forms for each subject area investigated. One question from

each of these pa irs was assigned randomly to one of the two alternative

equivalent forms of the evaluation tests. This procedure was used to

control evaluator biases and to serve as a built-in response reliability

measure . The procedure also yie~1.ded two equivalent test forms for use

in Sessions II and III of the evaluation procedure.

Comment questions were prepared as a structured interview and

covered such areas as indexing systems , technical accuracy , uses of the

handbook , writing style , completeness , and format . Each interview session (with the participant’s permission) was recorded. Transcriptions

were made of all taped interviews . Essential ly the same areas were

covered in the interviews as in the evaluation sheets , but interviewees

were allowed more open—ended responses and expansion of ideas drawn

f rom their unique experiences.

Procedure

Student and instructor groups were given separate , brief orientations to the research that led to the handbook. The purposes of the

evaluation and the role of the participants were presented. Instructors

were asked to review the handbook in detail , write on the blank pages

in the handbook , and fill in the evaluation sheets . Individual inte rviews were conducted to assure that key areas of in terest were covered

in the evaluation . Interviews were scheduled with instructors during

the several days after the briefing. Eight instructors found time to

13

-

~

- -

~ 

. -
/

read the entire document. Seven others read at least the body of the

document (task inventory and 12 task sections) . All communicated their

commen ts and impressions about the handbook , and five were able to fill

in the overall rating sheets in the time allotted . Others focused on

detailed comments in the more open—ended portions of the evaluation

sheets and communicated their overall impressions in the interviews.

Three student evaluation sessions were held. During Session I

students were given the first set of objective questions and scenarios.

Al ternate forms were used for Groups A and B. Group A answered each

question without the aid of Field Manuals 30—20 , 30—5 , and Technical

Manual 30-245. Group B was allowed to search through these manuals.

In Sessions II and III , there were no diffe rences in procedure for the

two groups.

For Session II, which took place on the same day as Session I,

both groups were given a 10-minute briefing on the indexing systems in

the handbook. This briefing was followed by a 20—minute review of the

content of each indexing system focusing on the task inventory . Each

student was given the same amoun t of time to review the indexes. Following the review , the second set of objective questions and scenarios

was given to each group . Rating sheets were also given to measure initial impressions of acceptability and usefulness of the handbook . Finally , each student was asked to compare the confidence in answers given

in Session I with answers given in Session II.

Session III f ollowed a more thorough review of the handbook . Students kept the handbooks overnight . Upon their return the next morning,

students were given the last set of objective questions, scenarios , and

evaluation forms . Evaluation forms were extensive and covered indexing

systems , task sections , managemen t duties , decision analysis , and overall ratings of the acceptability and usefulness of the handbook . An

overview of the student evaluation study is shown in Table 2.

Re suits

The results of the performance testing of students is shown in

Tables 3 and 4. Table 3 shows the student performance on the objective

tests for each session . For each session the two groups scored equally

well on the objective tests, as indicated by the Mann—Whitney U Test

‘ .05 in all cases) . The time taken by each group to complete the

test was significantly different for Session I (Mann—whitney U Test

.01) but not for the other two sessions (ci > .05). A comparison

of the session-to—session scores for each group revealed a trend toward

higher performance scores with more exposure to the handbook (Friedman

~~o-Way Analysis of Variance : Group A , p .042; Group B, p = .0055) .

14
.--_-.- --- - ~~--~~~~~~~~~ ---_--_ _ ---

~

_ . _ - - _ -. —--~~_ _ - ~~--~-

~~~~~~~~

Table 2

Overview of Student Evaluation Study

Session Group A Group B

No manuals FM 30—20 , 30-5, and

TM 30—245

Objective questions Objective questions

Scenarios 3 and 4 Scenarios 1 and 2

II Brief 30—minute re— Brief 30—minute review of handbook view of handbook

indexes indexes

Objective questions Objective questions

Scenario 1 Scenario 3

III More detailed review More detailed review

of handbook of handbook

Objec tive questions Objec tive questions

Scenario 2 Scenario 4

15
Table 3

Student Performance Summary for Objective Tests

Group A Group B

(n = 5) (n= 6)

Mean % Mean time Mean % Mean time

Session correct (mm .) correct (mm .)

I Baseline 43.9 15.4 38.5 37.0

II Index only 64.5 260 a 75.3

III Greater use 79 8a 198a 81.1 21.8

a

Number of subjects in group was four.

Table 4

Student Performance Summary for Scenario Tests

Group A Group B

( n=5) (n = 6)

Session Mean items corre ct Mean items corre ct

I Baseline 7.4 5.8

6.2 7.7

II Index only 102 a 7 7 b

III Greater use 162 a 9.5

a

Numbe r of subjects in group was four.

b

Number of subjects in group was 5.

16

1

-

~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~-
-~ 

-

-~~ _ - -- _ - -_ _

The results of the objective tests seem to indicate that use of

the handbook enhances performance on the objective tests and that there

is no advantage to having prior (baseline) use of other manuals. The

eva lua tion was limited and did not, therefore, include sufficient controls to determine whether more exposure to test taking could have accounted for the increase in performance on subsequent tests.

The performance on the scenario tests is more difficult to assess.

The scores that were given for each scenario reflected the numbe r of

elements included in the answer tha t contributed to a successful approach

to solving the problem (“school” solution). Table 3 indicates the mean

items that are correct for each group in each session . Overall, there

appears to be an increase in correct items as a function of exposure to

the handbook .

Confidence levels rose with increased involvement with the handbook .

The re was no apparent difference in confidence between groups. Confidence was measured after Sessions II and III . Each student was asked

whether the conf idence he had in the answers increased , decreased , or

remained the same when compared to the previous session . They expressed

no decreases in confidence; all individuals who reported this information indicated their confidence increased or remained the same.

Students , in gene ral , tended to respond positively to acceptability

and usefulness-type items on the “overall” rating sheets. This response

held true for initial ratings made after a brief exposure to the handbook as well as for the final “overall” ratings . Ratings for Session

III tended to be slightly higher than for Session II. These ratings

are presented in Appendix B.

Rating sheets for instructors are also found in Appendix B. Here ,

too , responses were positive in terms of the acceptability and usefulness of the instructor ’s overall impressions of the handbook . A sample

of comments made about the handbook by the instructors follows :

“As an aid to the [on-the-job training ] OJT of G2 Air personnel ,

‘A S&R MANAGER’ could be broken down into a programed instruction type

of training .”

“In my view , the manual was outstanding in that you bring everything in one place , in one book that’s got to do with G2 Air , and it’s

terrific.”

“It would be an invaluable asset to a fellow coming into a G2 Air

post for the first time.”

“I know one thing about the structure of it; it’s kind of a bit

wordy and that tends to scare people off, particularly a person wanting

to read all the words.”

17
“I personally like the style it was written in and I like the detail that it went into in a specific--as you say in the book here--real

world type thing; most other FM’s that I’ve read kind of hedge around,

actually , who in fact is supposed to coordinate with whom. In fact you

get very , very specific.”

“This document is invaluable in setting up the G2 Air workshop . .

“

Discussion

The results of the rating scales clearly show that both students

and instructors definitely felt the handbook was acceptable and useful

as an aid to the G2 Air officer. Several comments that focused on a

few minor technical inaccuracies and additions we re considered in the

final revision .

The performance of students on the objective tests and scenarios

shows some interesting changes. The improvement in performance between

sessions is of special interest because it occurs after only a brief

exposure to the indexing systems. Additional improvement is observed

after some familiarity with the handbook. In Session I , the use and

nonuse of manuals did not seem to affect performance dramatically.

The time difference associated with the use of field manuals is explained

by the amount of time required to search for an answer. The nonmanual

group would simply move to the next question if the answer to a previous

question was not apparent from memory.

Other time differences tended to virtually disappear by the third

session, with both groups showing little difference in test performance

and time. Assuming adequate measuring instruments, the two groups became more homogeneous as a result of using the handbook. It should be

noted that the time includes only that portion during the evaluation

procedure and not time spent with the indexing systems or the 24-hour

familiarization.

It was concluded that the handbook was acceptable to a sample of

potential users. Furthermore , the handbook accounted substantially for

the observed improvement of students and the increased confidence they

placed in their responses. Its usefulness was also apparent. In addition to its primary use , several secondary uses were mentioned during

the evaluation. These uses were

1. As a supplementary reference during formal training,

2. For G3 training,

3. For G2 and G2 staff training,

4. As a workbook and take-home supplement to formal training ,

18
5. As a checklist for G2 Air officers,

6. For O,JT within intelligence,

7. For G2 Air staff O’JT, and

8. For combat officer training .

DEMONSTRATION OF AUTOMATED VERSI

~~

Demonstration Plan

The increased planning for and use of automated information systems

prompted the thought that the AS&R system might one day be linked to a

computerized information center. Indeed , the previous effort (Youngling

et al., 1974) took automation into account when forecasts were made

concerning the abilities and skills that would be required of AS&R personnel in the future . It was the intention of this demonstration to

take the existing materials, in manual form , and convert a portion of

them for use in ARI’s Training and Information Systems Facility (TISF) .

This was done to provide information about the flexibility of the handbook in serving as input for a more sophisticated data base.

It was believed that the information in the manual, as well as

serving an educational purpose on the job or in the classroom , could be

integrated with other data to form an interactive data base for G2 Air

personnel. Although the feasibility of this was not approached directly ,

some of the elements of the demonstration were seen as important first

steps in eventually determining such feasibility . The demonstration

was, therefore, meant to be illustrative and not comprehensive .

The objectives of the demonstration were

1. To illustrate the functional task indexing scheme of the

materials .

2. To permit the user to seek information at various task levels.

3. To illustrate the use of visual presentations with text.

4. To integrate the use of the data base with other communication

channels.

5. To illustrate the capability of updating the data base.

19 

___ ~~~~ -

~~~~~~~-~~~
Hardware

The basic TISF ha rdware used in the demonstration consisted of a

CDC 3300 computer , a cathode ray tube (CRT) , an IBM 1050 station , and

special viewing devices. Attached to the IBM 1050 station were a typewri ter , an IBM 1092 keyboard , a random access slide projector, and a

rear projection viewer. 3

When the system is in operation, the subject receives basic instructions via the CRT and selects what he desires to view in the data

base via the keyboard. The slide projector and rear projection viewe r

complement the CRT by presenting graphic and pictorial information .

The typewriter serves to present simulated information from the field.

Structure of the Demonstration

The material prepared for the automated demonstration contains general instructions that can be presented on the CRT frame by frame . The

subject is instructed to press the send button to proceed at the end

of each frame . Once beyond the general instructions, which include an

assignment , the subject is given the option of selecting what data base

material he wishes to see.

The initial frame of the data base is depicted in Figure 3. From

this frame the subject can select further data on preparation , collection , or administration functions. The lower portion of the frame instructs the subject how the options may be selected. If the subject

selects “preparation ,” for example , another frame (see Figure 4) appears

indicating the set of tasks unde r “preparation .” The subject then elects

to see more information under one of the preparation tasks or can return

to the function list or the previous frame (the latter two being the

same in this case). The subject can , thus , progress to the subtask ,

specific topic , and individual data element levels as indicated in

Figure s 5 , 6, 7, and 8. In each case, the subject can return to the

function list and start over on another search through the hierarchical

index or return to the previous frame to make a minor change in search

strategy.

Accompanying some of the frames are slides that are automatically

presented on a rear projection screen. These slides bear complementary

information , such as pictures and fixed specifications of the various

resources.

3

commercial designations are given only in the intere~ L of precision of

reporting . Their use does not constitute indorsement by the U.S. Army

Research Institute or the U.S. Army .

20
************************ ********************************************** * *

DATA ON THE FOLLOWING G2 AIR OFFICER FUNCT IONS ARE AVAILABLE :

( 1) PREPARATION

(2) COLLECTION

(3) ADMINISTRATION

* * * *

* *

* * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * *

* * * *

* * (-) ENTER NUMBE R OF ABOVE CATEGORY DESIRED AND PRESS SEND

BUTTON.

* *

* *

* * * * * * * * * *

* *

Figure 3. Frame depicting function leve l information .

********************************************************* ************* * * DATA ON THE FOLLOWING PREPARATION TASKS ARE AVAILABLE :

: (1) IMAGE INTERPRETER/AERIAL SURVEILLANCE AND RECONNAI SSANCE

COLLECTION CAPABILITY

: (2) EVALUATE 5+R BASELINE CAPABILITY

: (3) COORDINATE WITH COLLECTION AGENCIES

(4) COORD INATE WITH G3/AIRSPACE (ACE)/ARTILLER Y (FSE) CONTROL

(5) GENERATE INDICATORS TO BE OBTAINED BY S+R REPORT

(6) EVALUATE ENEMY AIR DEFENSE

* —— — —— —— *

*

* * (-) ENTER NUMBER OF ABOVE CATEGORY DESIRED , OR ENTER LETTER

OF ONE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS, AND PRESS SEND BUTTON .

* _ *

* *

A. RETURN TO FUNCTION LIST

B. RETURN TO PREVIOUS FRAME

* *

* * * * * *

* *

* * **********************************************************************

L

Figure 4. Example of frame depicting task level information .

21
-

* * * * * * DATA ON THE FOLLOWING SUBTASKS UNDER THE TASK *EVALUATE S+R

BASELINE CAPABILITY* ARE AVAILABLE:

(1) AERIAL SURVE ILLANCE AND RECONNAISSANCE RESOURCES

~ ( 2) ESTABLISH SENSOR COLLECTION CAPABILITY

: ( 3) ESTABLISH IMAGE INTERPRETATION CAPABILITY BY ECHELON

(4) ESTABLISH GROUND SENSOR COLLECTION CAPABILITY

(5) ESTABLISH S+R CAPABI LITY FOR SPECIAL STUDIES

* * * * * * * *

a 

* *

* * * * * * * (-) ENTE R NUMBER OF ABOVE CATEGORY DESIRE D , OR ENTE R LETTER

OF ONE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS , AND PRESS SEND BUTTON.

* * * * A. RETURN TO FUNCTION LIST

B. RETURN TO PREVIOUS FRAME

Figure 5. Example of frame depicting subtask level information .

* * * *

DATA ON THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC TOPICS UNDER THE SUBTASK

* *ESTASLI5H SENSOR COLLECTION CAPABILITY* ARE AVAILABLE :

ESTABLISH DATA COLLECTION CAPABILITY OF :

(1) PHOTOGRAPHIC SENSORS

: ( 2) IR SENSORS

(3) SLAR SENSORS

(4 ) OTHER SENSORS

(5) ESTABLISH TOTAL AIRBORNE SENSOR DATA COLLECTION

CAPABILITY

* * * * * (-) ENTE R N UMBER OF ABOVE * CATEGORY DESIRED , OR ENTER LETTER

OF ONE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS , AND PRESS SEND BUTTON .

* * * *

A. RETURN TO FUNCTION LIST

B. RETURN TO PREVIOUS FRAME

* *

Figure 6. Example of frame depicting specific topic leve l information .

22
* * * *

**SEE SLIDE FOR DATA ON PHOTOGRAPHIC SENSORS**

* * * * DATA ON ASSOCIATED AIRCRAFT UNDER THE SPECIFIC TOPIC

*PHOTOGRAPHIC SENSORS* ARE AVAILABLE BY ECHELON :

(1) DIVISION

(2) CORPS

(3) OTHER SERVICES SUPPORT

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * (-) ENTER N UMBER OF ABOVE CATEGORY DESIRED , OR ENTER LETTER

OF ONE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS , AND PRESS SEN D BUTTON .

* *

* * A. RETURN TO FUNCTION LIST

B. RETURN TO PREVIOUS FRAME

* * * * * * ***********************************************************************

Figure 7. Example of frame depicting data element level

information .

* * * * * **SEE SLIDE FOR DATA ON AIRCRAFT**

* * * *

RESOURCES AVAILABILITY - DIVISION

* * * * AIRCRAFT TO+E OPERATI ONAL

* *

* *

OH-6A ( CAYUSE) 34 30

* *

AN-1G ( HUEY COBRA) 15 14

: UH—lB/H (IROQUOIS) 39 37

* * * * * * (-) ENTER LETTER OF ONE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS , UPDATE

RESOURCES AVAILABILITY ABOVE IF “X” OPTION CHOSEN , AND

PRESS SEND BUTTON .

* *

* A. * RETURN TO FUNCTION LIST

B. RETURN TO PREVIOUS FRAME

X. UPDATE RESOURCES AVAILABILITY

**************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** *

Figure 8. Example of frame depicting data element level

information .

23
Some of the frame s that are presented can be updated (see Figure 8).

Information coming in on the typewriter can simulate messages indicating

change s in the status of available resources. These changes can be entered in the data base by selecting the “X” option , typing the new informa tion over the old , and pressing the send button . Future reference

to that frame will then bear the updated information .

For the purposes of this limited demonstration , the entire han dbook

is not included in the automated version . Thus, only a sample of the

individual data elements is included. If the subject seeks data elements

that are not programed , he receives the message depicted in Figure 9.

All of the objectives of the automated demonstration were met. It

must be remembered that to implement fully such a system, i.e., to include all the data elements in an automated data base , would entail a

great deal of effort and would present many additional probleme . This

demonstration serves to indicate what approach and format is possible

when considering such a system.

CONCLUS IONS

The present effor t has produced the following products and results:

1. A handbook , “Aerial Surveillance and Reconnaissance MANAGER ,”

was prepared for on-the-job and school application , with the

aid of existing Army manuals and input from the field. The

major sections of the handbook include a functional task inventory , decision analyses for preplanned and immediate missions, a section on management guidelines , and indexes for

functional tasks and key words .

2. This handbook has undergone a limited avaluation by instructors

and students at the Division of the U.S. Army Intelligence

Center and School. The results have encouraged use of the

handbook at the school and in the field.

3. An automated demonstration of portions of the handbook has

been prepared to illustrate possible future use of the materials under compute r control .

. 4

I.-
-- V— --

* * * * * * DATA WOULD NORMALLY BE PRESENTED HERE.

* * * * HOWEVER, SINCE THIS IS A LIMITED DEMONSTRATION , THE DATA HAVE

NOT BEEN ENTERED INTO THE DATA BASE .

* * * * THE DATA WH ICH WOULD APPEAR HERE ~ )ULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE IN

PROVIDING THE INFORMATION WHICH YOU ARE SEEKING.

* * * *

* * * * * * * *

* * *

* * * * * (-) ENTER LETTER OF ONE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS AND PRESS

SEND BUTTON .

* * * * A. RETURN TO FUNCTION LIST

B. RETURN TO PREVIOUS FRAME

* *

Figure 9. Frame indicating absence of data in data base.

H 

1

: 

:iz1 _
_______________ _______-

~~~~~

APPENDI X A

FUNCTI ONAL TASK INDEX

Tasks

I. Preparation Function (Sections 1 through 6)

1. Identify Image Interpreter/Aerial Surveillance and k(econnaissance

System

1:1 Identify II/AS&R Assets

Imagery Interpretation Capability

AS&R Capability

Supporting Forces

Ground Sensor Capability

1:2 Establish Supervisory Channels

II Contact Points

AS&R Contact PointS

Ground Sensor Contact Points

1:3 II/AS&R Supervisory Requirements

II Supervision Tasks

AS&R Supervision Tasks

1:4 Establish Procedures for Information Exchange with Other

Branch Chiefs

G2 Branch Contact Points

Establish Coordination Meetings

1:5 Define G2 Air Direction Responsibility

II Direction

AS&R Direction

Ground Surveillance and Reconnaissance (S&R)

2. Evaluate S&R Baseline Capability

2:1 AS&R Resources

Division Helicopters

Aircraft at Corps

Tactical S&R Support from Other Sources

Consolidated AS&R Aircraft Type List

2 :2 Establish Sensor Collection Capability

Establish Data Collection Capability of Photographic

Sensors

Establish Data Collection Capability of Infrared

Sensors

Establish Data Collection Capability of SLR Sensors

Establish Data Collection Capability of Other Sensors

Establish Total Airborne Sensor Data Collection

Capability

2:3 Establish Image Interpretation Capability by Echelon

2:4 Establish Ground Sensor Collection Capability

Visual S&R Capabilities of Observation Posts and

Forward Observers

27
Establish S&R Capability of the Armored Cavalry

Squadron Ground Radar S&R Capabilities

Establish Electronic S&R Capability (Unattended Ground

Sensors and Army Security Agency)

Establish Total Ground Sensor Collection Capability

2:5 Establish S&R Capability for Special Studies

3. Coordinate and Communicate with Collection Agencies and

Requesters

3:1 Establish Communication Interface Points with S&R Units

3:2 Develop Collection Communication SOP

3:3 Establish Communication Channels

Verify G2 Air Commun ication SOP with S&R Units

Establish Feedback Point to G2 Air

Establish Periodic Communication Channel Verification

Update G2 Air Communication SOP as Necessary

3:4 Communications for Dissemination

4. Coordinate with G3 Airspace (ACE), Artillery (FSE) Control

4:1 Establish Coordination Channels

Establish Aviation Of ficer In terface Poin t and

Responsibility

Determine Interface Point with ACE and ACE Area of

Airspace Control

Establish Mission Lead Time Requirements

Establish FSE Interface Point and Coordination Channels ,

Area of Responsibility for Support Fires and Request

Lead Time

4:2 Establishment of Mission Priorities

Determine Mission Request/Threat Area Value to Establish

AS&R Priority Scale

Coordinate with G3 Operations

Determine Mission Request/Airspace Request Value to

Establish AS&R Priority Scale (Mission Request

Priority , Airspace)

Coordinate with ACE

Determine Mi ssion Request/Fire Suppor t Value to

Establish AS&R Priority Scale (Mission Request

Priority , Fire Support)

Coordinate with FSE

Establish Integrated Mission Request Priority Scale

(Mission Request Priority)

Coordinate Mission Request Priority Scale with

G3/ACE/FSE

4:3 Establish G3/ACE/FSE Coordination Procedures

Integrate Coordination and Priority Procedures into

SOP for Processing Mission Requests (Mission Request

Priority SOP)

Coordinate and Finalize SOP for Processing Mission

Request with G3/ACE/FSE (G3/ACE/TOC Coordination SOP )

Submit Mission Request Processing SOP to G2 for

Approval

28
Issue Mission Request Processing SOP to G2 Section

Branches and G3/ACE/FSE

5. Generate Target Features To Be Obtained by S&R Effort

5:1 Determine What Information Is Required to Answer G2

Essential Element of Information (EE l) and Other

Information Requirement (OIR)

Evaluate EE l’s and OIR ’s

5:2 Determine What Features Will Provide Required Information

Determine Which Features Are Associated with Specific

Items of Information

Determine Which Features Can Be Recorded by Sensors

Determine Required Features

5 :3 Formulate S&R Collection Effor t Requiremen ts

Select Features That Can Be Recorded by Organic S&R

Capability

Select Features Tha t Can Be Recorded by Support S&R

Capability

Select Features/Sensors That Will Yield Most Data

Under Tactical Operating Conditions

6. Evaluate Enemy Air Defense

6:1 Define Order of Battle (OB) in Area of Interest

6:2 Determine Enemy Antiaircraft Artillery ( AAP.) Capability

for AS&R Area of Interest

6:3 Determine Enemy Airborne Defense Capability

6:4 Determine Total Enemy Air Defense

6:5 Determine Threat Values for S&R Missions

6:6 Establish S&R Threat Value Review Cycle

II. Collection Function (Sections 7 through 11)

7. Participate in S&R Planning Meeting

7 :1 Determine Enemy Air Defense Capab ility

Review Enemy OB

Review Enemy Table of Organization and Equipment (TO&E)

for AAA and Aircraft Units

Evaluate Enemy Air Defense Capability

7:2 Evaluate Terrain Within Area of Responsibility

Analyze Map Coverage of Area

Analyze Basic Coverage (Imagery) of Area

Evaluation of Terrain Analysis

7:3 Establish Weather Probability for Area of Responsibility

Review Regional , Seasonal Weather History

Review Long-Range Weather Forecast

Review Immediate Area of Concern Short-Term Weathe r

Forecast Reports

Analyze Weather Review and Forecast

7:4 Establish Current AS&R Resources

Determine Organic Aircraft (A/C ) Resources (Visual AS&R)

Determine Dedicated A/C Resources

Determine AS&R Sensor Resources

Consol idate AS&R Resources

29
7:5 Establish Current Ground S&R Resources

Determine Organic Ground Sensor Assets

Determine Organic Ground S&R Sensor Status

Determine Ground Sensor Data Acquisition Capability

Establish Ground Sensor Assets Capability

7:6 Evaluate Air/Ground Integrated S&R Capability

Specify Areas Where Air/Ground S&R Can Be Accomplished

7 :7 Evaluate AS&R Workload

Review Unfilled Information/Mission Requests Backlog

Estimate Information/Mis sion Requests for Curren t Cycle

Estimate S&R Assets Requirements to Fill Requests

7:8 Final Preparation for Planning Meeting--Information Needs

Review Backlog and SOP Requirements

Review Availabl’

~ Assets

Consolidate S&R Information Requiremen ts and Assets

7:9 Partici pate in Developmen t of G2 Collection Plan

New Requirements from ‘2 and Other Branch Chiefs

Consolidate Preplan/Asbets and New Requirements

Develop S&R Portion of Collection Plan

8. Develop Integrated Collection Plan

8:1 Analyze G2 Collection Plan

8:2 Analyze Overall G2 Air Collection Capability

8:3 Evaluate G2 Air Capability to Participate in G2 Collection

Plan

8:4 Determine if Participation in G2 Collection Plan Conforms

to G2 Air SOP

8:5 Determine G2 Air Information Requirements

8:6 Consolidate Information Requirements

8:7 Task Appropriate Collection Units

9. Develop AS&R Preplanned Collection Effort

9:1 Determine if Request Conforms to SOP

9:2 Determine if Request Can Be Filled from Existing

Information

9:3 Establish Mission Request Priority

9:4 Determine Resources Available

9:5 Consolidate Preplanned Requests into Mission by Priority

9:6 Execute Mission Plan

9:7 Perform Necessary Coord ina tion to Support Miss ion

10. Process Immediate Request

10:1 Determine if Request Can Be Acted Upon at This Level

10:2 Determine if Request Can Be Filled from Existing Data

10:3 Determine if Request Can Be Filled by Organic Resources

10:4 Process Request and Notify Requester

10:5 Perform Necessary Coordination to Support Mission

11. Advise G2 and G2 Staff on S&R

11:1 Identify G2/Staff Information Needs

11:2 Inform G2/Branch Chiefs of S&R Resources

11:3 Integrate Resource Utilization into S&R SOP

30

L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

- — 

-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

III. Administration Function (Section 12)

12. Perform G2 Air Officer Supervisory Duties

12:1 Prepare and/or Update SOP when Necessary

12:2 Prepare Organization Charts

12:3 Prepare Reference Material

Author-Title—Source

Subject Cross-Reference System

12:4 Perform Liaison with Other Echelons

12:5 Prepare Reports and Correspondence

12:6 Requisition Materials

12 :7 Prepare and Maintain G2 Air Journal

12:8 Update Priority Assignment Cycle when Necessary

12 :9 Prepare Personnel Qualification and Information

Summary

12:10 Evaluate Performance of G2 Air Personnel

12:11 Counsel G2 Air Personnel

12:12 Supervise On-the—Job Training

12:13 Establish Work Procedures

12:14 Organize Special Work Teams

12:15 Manpower Forecasting

31
— .—. .

~~~~

— -.-

~

---

~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

APPENDIX B

STUDENT AND INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION RATING SHEETS AND SUMMARIES

Student Rating Sheet Summary

Form A

Usefulness of “AS&R MANAGER ”

Legend : 1 — Strongly agree

2 — Agree

3 — Not sure

4 - Disagree

5 — Strongly disagree

Average Rating

II III

A B A B

1. It would take more time to use this handbook

than the time it might save. 3.7 3.3 4.5 4.0

2. The multiple indexes were difficult to

understand and use . 3.7 3.3 3.5 4.0

3. Needed a more general treatment of the G2

Air job. Too much emphasis on specific

tasks. 4.3 3.7 4.0 4.5

4. The handbook concentrated on too much

trivia. Many items are just commonsense

and could be left out. 4.3 3.3 3.5 4.5

5. This handbook would be of use as a supplement to the formal school. 1.7 2.0 3.0 1.5

6. This handbook would be a valuable source

of material for on—the—job training . 2.3 2.0 2.5 1.5

7. This material is not really relevant to

the G2 Air officer ’s real duties. 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.5

8. Using this handbook would not increase

the effectiveness of the G2 Air officer . 4.3 3.7 4.0 4.0

9. Needed more examples of overall situations and the way to handle them to be of

real use. 2.7 2.7 3.0 3.5

~

: •

~

33

j
Average Rating

II III

A B A B

10. The material was a waste of time. All

the stuff is covered in other handbooks. 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5

11. More information could be obtained from

the handbook if it were written in a

standard military form. 3.3 4.0 3.0 4.0

12. This handbook would be used very seldom

in a field situation . 4.3 3.7 5.0 4.0

I

34
Student Rating Sheet Suninary

Form A

Acceptance of “AS&R MANAGER”

Legend : 1 - Not at all

2 - Somewhat

3 - Moderately so

4 - Very much so

Average Rating

II III

A B A B

1. I would like a copy of this handbook if I

were ever assigned as a G2 Air officer. 3.7 3.7 3.0 4.0

2. Following the work outline in the handbook , I would not have time to effectively do the actual work required. 2.0 1.7 2.0 1.5

3. I felt organization of the handbook was

logical and easy to understand. 2.7 2.7 3.5 2 .5

4. I found it difficult to follow the

table of contents. 2.0 1.3 3.5 2.0

5. I found the writing style boring and

repetitious . 1.3 1.7 2.5 2.5

6. I thought that many of the most important G2 Air jobs were left out. 2.0 1.7 1.0 2.0

7. I think the personal touch of addressing

the G2 Air directly was good. 1.7 2.3 3.0 2.5

8. After reading this book I still don ’t

know what the G2 Air officer really

does. 2.0 1.0 2.5 1.0

9. I feel the emphasis on information not

found in other handbooks is a good thing. 2.7 3.3 2.5 3.5

35

_________ -~~~~~~~~~~~~—~~~---.-,
r

Student Rating Sheet Summary

Form B

Usefulness of “AS&R MANAGER”

Legend : 1 - Strongly agree

2-Agree

3 — Not sure

4 — Disagree

5 - Strongly disagree

Average Rating

II III

A B A B

1. On—the—job training is too complex to be

helped by the use of this handbook . 4.5 3.7 4.0 4.3

2. The handbook would increase the G2 Air

officer ’s capability to meet severe timeliness requirements. 2.0 2.7 2.7 2.5

3. The task-by-task breakdown would be very

helpful as a reference in doing the G2

Air ’s job. 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.0

4. This handbook would be very useful to

have in the field . 1.5 2.0 2.3 2.0

5. The level of detail was small enough to

be of real assistance in perf orming the

G2 Air officer ’s job. 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.3

6. This handbook would increase the eff i—

ciency with which the G2 Air officer

does his job. - 1.5 2.0 2.3 2.0

7. The multiple indexing made it very easy

to find a specific piece of information. 4.0 2.7 3.0 2.5

8. The material covered can give new insight into the complexities of the G2

Air officer ’s job. 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

9. This document would be useful in fulfilling the G2 Air officer ’s job. 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.0

10. The material in the handbook does not

lend itself to use in the formal course

of instruction. 4.0 4.3 3.7 4.0

36
w— .

~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -.

Average Rating

II III

A B A B

11. Enough specific information was given so

that more examples were not needed. 4.0 3.0 2.7 3.0

12. The absence of the usual militaryhandbook-style made the handbook a more

eff ective job aid. 3.5 2.0 3.3 3.0

37
~ .. — .—---- .--- - .

Student Rating Sheet Summary

Form B

Acceptance of “AS&R MANAGER”

Legend: 1 - Not at all

2 - Somewhat

3 — Moderately

4 - Very much so

Average Rating

II III

A B A B

1. I got a good appreciation of the things

the handbook covered from the table of

contents. 2.5 2.3 2.0 3.5

2. I think that the handbook has given me

a greater understanding of the G2 Air

officer ’s responsibilities . 3.5 3.0 2.7 1.8

3. I felt the indexing system was overly

complex . 2.0 1.7 2.3 1.3

4. I felt content needs to be presented in

a more formal fashion. 3.0 1.3 1.7 1.8

5. I think organization of the handbook was

confusing ; too many ways of saying the

same thing . 2.0 1.7 2.0 1.3

6. I felt that the coverage of the G2 Air ’s

job was very thorough . 3.5 2.7 2.3 2.8

7. I think this handbook would increase my

effectiveness as a G2 Air officer . 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.0

8. I don ’t think enough stress was placed

on intelligence doctrine and material

from other military handbooks. 2.5 2.0 1.3 2.5

9. The informal style of writing held my

interest. 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.0

t ~~~~~~~~~~~

. 

38 

- - ,- --~~~~----——--~~~~ --——
V’ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Instructor Rating Sheet Summary

Form A

Usefulness of ‘AS&R MANAGER”

Legend: 1 - Strongly agree

2 - Agree

3 - Not sure

4 — Disagree

5 — Strongly disagree

Average Rating

1. It would take more time to use this handbook than

the time it might save . 3.6

2. The multiple indexes were difficult to understand

and use. 3.4

3. Needed a more general treatment of the G2 Air job.

Too much emphasis on specific tasks. 4.4

4. The handbook concentrated on too much trivia . Many

items are just commonsense and could be left out. 4.4

5. This handbook would be of use as a supplement to the

formal school. 1.6

6. This handbook would be a valuable source of material

for on—the-job training. 2.4

7. This material is not really relevant to the G2 Air

officer ’s real duties. 4.0

8. Using this handbook would not increase the effectiveness of the G2 Air officer. 4.0

9. Needed more examples of overall situations and the

way to handle them to be of real use . 3.8

10. The material was a waste of time. All the stuff

is covered in other handbooks . 4.2

11. More information could be obtained from the handbook if it were written in a standard military form. 4.2

12. This handbook would be used very seldom in a field

situation. 3.8

39

_____
Instructor Rating Sheet Summary 

Fora A 

Acceptance of •AS,R MANAGER" 

Legend: 1 - Hot at all 

2 - Scaewhat 

3 - Moderately so 

4 - Very much so 

1. I would like a copy of this handbook if I were 

ever assigned as a G2 Air officer. 

2. Following the work outline in the handbook, I 

would not have time to effectively do the actual 

work required. 

3. I felt organization of the handbook was logical 

and easy to understand. 

4. I found it difficult to follow the table of 

contents. 

5 . I found the writing style boring and repetitious. 

6. I thought that many of the most important G2 Air 

jobs were left out. 

7. I think the personal touch of addressing the G2 

Air directly was good. 

8. After reading this book I still don't know what 

the G2 Air officer really does. 

9. I feel the emphasis on information not found in 

other handbooks is a good thing. 

40 

Average Rating 

3.6 

2.4 

3.0 

1.0 

1.4 

1.8 

3.2 

1.0 

3.8 
Instructor Rating Sheet Summary

ForTfl B

Usefulness of “AS&R MANAGER”

Legend : 1 - Strongly agree

2 - Agree

3 - Not sure

4 — Disagree

5 — Strongly disagree

Average Rating

1. On-the-job training is too complex to be helped

by the use of this handbook. 4.0

2. The handbook would increase the G2 Air officer ’s

capability to meet severe timeliness requirements. 2.6

3. The task-by-task breakdown would be very helpful

as a reference in doing the G2 Air ’s job. 2.0

4. This handbook would be very useful to have in the

field . 1.8

5. The level of detail was small enough to be of real

assistance in performing the G2 Air officer ’s job. 2.0

6. This handbook would increase the efficiency with

which the G2 Air officer does his job. 2.0

7. The multiple indexing made it very easy to find a

specific piece of information . 2.0

8. The material covered can give new insight into

the complexities of the G2 Air officer ’s job. 2.4

9. This document would be useful in fulfilling the

G2 Air officer ’s job. 2.0

10. The material in the handbook does not lend itself

to use in the formal course of instruction . 4.2

11. Enough specific information was given that more

examples were not needed. 2.4

12. The absence of the usual military—handbook—style

made the handbook a more effective job aid . 2.2

41
___ _________ - 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Instructor Rating Sheet Summary

Form B

Acceptance of “AS&R MANAGER”

Legend: 1 — Not at all

2 - Somewhat

3 — Moderately

4 — Very much so

Average Rating

1. I got a good appreciation of the things the handbook covered from the table of contents. 2.4

2. I think that the handbook has given me a greater

unders tanding of the G2 Air off icer ’s

responsibilities. 3.0

3. I felt the indexing system was overly complex. 2.0

4. I felt content needs to be presented in a more

formal fashion . 1.6

5. I think organization of the handbook was confusing ;

too many ways of saying the same thing . 1.8

6. 1 felt that the coverage of the G2 Air ’s job was

very thorough . 3.2

7. I think this handbook would increase my effectiveness as a G2 Air officer . 4.0

8. I don ’t think enough stress was placed on intelligence doctrine and ma ter ial from other mil itary

handbooks . 2.2

9. The informal style of writing held my interest. 3.4

42

_ 

I
r - ‘ - 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -

DISTRIBUTION

ARt Distribution Lust

4 OASD IM&RA ( 2 HOUSACOEC , Ft Ord , ATTN ~ Lib r ary

2 HODA IDAM I-CSZ ) I HOUSACDEC . F t0rd . ATTN I ATEC ’-EX-- E--Hum Fac tors

1 HODA IDAPE - PBR 2 USAEEC , F t Benjamin Harr ison , ATTN : Library

1 HODA (DAMA •AR ) 1 USAPACOC, Ft Benjamin Harrison , ATTN : ATCP—HR

1 HODA (DAPE HRE -POI 1 USA Comm—Elec t Sch, F t Monmouth , ATm: ATSN—EA

1 HODA (SGRD -ID ) 1 USAEC , F t M onmou th , ATTN : AMSEL—CT- HOP

1 HOD .\ IDAMI .DOT .C) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmou th , ATT N AMSEL—PA - P

1 HODA IDAPC .PMZ .A ( 1 USAEC , Ft Monmouth , ATTN : AMSEL -SI--CB

1 HODA (DACH PPZ.A) 1 USAEC , Ft Monmouth , ATTN : C. Fad Des Br

1 HODA (DAPE -HRE ( 1 USA Materials Sys Anal Agcy, Aberdeen , ATTN : AMXSV—P

1 HQDA IDAPF - MPO .C) 1 Edgewood Arsenal . Abe rdeen , ATTN. SAREA-- BL-H

1 HODA IDAPE -OW) 1 USA Ord Ctr & Sch, Aberdeen , ATIN: ATSL—TEM—C

1 HOOA IOAPE .HRL) 2 USA Hum Engr La b. Aber deen, ATTN: Library/Dir

1 HODA (DAPE -CPS I 1 USA Combat Arms Tng Bd , Ft Ben ning , ATTN: Ad Supervisor

1 HODA (DAFO MFA I 1 USA Infantry Hum Rsch Unit Ft Berining. ATTN: Chief

1 HODA IDARD-AR S~Pl 1 USA Infantry Bd, Ft Banning . ATTN STEBC—TE -T

1 HODA (DAPC PAS~

A) 1 USASMA . Ft Bliss , ATTN: ATSS—L RC

1 HODA lDUSAOR~ 1 USA Air Oaf Sch, Ft Bliss , ATTN: ATSA -CTD -- ME

1 HODA IDAM O-RORI 1 USA Air Oaf Sch, Ft Bliss , ATTN: Tech Lib

I HQDA (DASGI 1 USA Ai r Del Bd , Ft Blis s . ATT N FILES

1 HODA IDA 1O-Pl) 1 USA Air Oaf Bd , Ft Bliss , ATTN: STEBD—PO

1 Chief , Consult Div (DA-OTSG). Adeiph . MD 1 USA Cmd & General Stt Coll ege . Ft Leavenworth , ATTN : Lib

1 Mi) Asst. Hum Res , ODOR&E , OAD (E&LS I 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College , Ft Leavenworth . ATTN: ATSW—SE-~L

1 HO IJSARAL , APO Seattle . ATTN: ARAGP .R I USA Cmd & General Stf College , Ft Leavenwo rth , ATTN: Ed Advisor

1 HO First Army, ATIN: AFKA-OI TI 1 USA Combined Arms Cmt it Dcv Act . Ft Leavenworth . An N: DepCdr

2 HO Fifth Army, Ft Sam Houston 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt 0ev Act , Ft Leavenwor th . ATTN: CCS

1 Dir . Army Stf Studies Ofc , ATTN: OAVCSA (DSP) I USA Combined Arms Cmbt 0ev Act . Ft Leavenworth , ATTN : ATCASA

1 Ofc Chirl of Stf , Studies Ofc I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dcv Act , Ft Leavenwort h. ATTN: ATCACO— E

1 DCSPER . ATTN: CPS/OCP 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act , Ft Leavenworth , ATIN: ATCACC--Ci

1 The Arm y Lib , Pentagon , ATTN: RSB Chief 1 USAECOM , Nig ht Vis ion Lab , Ft Belv oir , ATTN: AMSEL—NV—SD

I The Army Lib , Pen tagon, ATTN: ANRAL 3 USA Computer Sys Cmd , Ft Bets j r ATTN: Tech Library

1 Ofc , Asst Sect ol the Army lR&0I 1 USAMEROC , Ft Belvoir . ATTN : STSFB—DO

1 Tech Support Ofc , OJCS 1 USA Eng Sch. Ft Belvoir , AT1’N: Library

1 USASA , Arli ngto n , ATTN lARD T 1 USA Topogr aphic Lab , Ft Belvo ir , ATTN: ETL TO—S

1 USA Rsch Ofc , Durham , A UN: Life Sciences Dir 1 USA Topograp hic Lab , Ft Belvoir , ATTN: STINFO Center

2 USARIEM , Natick , ATTN: SGRD• UE-CA 1 USA Topograph ic Lab , Ft Belvoir , ATTN: ETL—GSL

1 USATTC , Ft Clayton , ATTN STETC MO A I USA Intelli gence Ctr & Sch, Ft Hirachuca , ATTN: CTD- MS

1 USAIMA , Ft Bragg, AUN: ATSU-CTD-OM 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Schu . Ft Huach uca , ATTN: ATS—CTD—MS

1 USAIMA , Ft Bragg . ATTN: Marqua l Lib 1 USA Intelli gence Ctr & Seb . Fr Huachuc a . ATTN: ATS I—TE

I US WAC Ctr 8

~ Sch , Ft McClellan . AnN: Lib 1 USA Intelli gence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachuca . ATTN: ATS)—TEX—GS

1 US WAC Ctr & Sch . Ft McClellan , ATTN: Tng Dir 1 USA Intelli gence Ctr & Sch . Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATSI~

-CTS—O R

1 USA Quartermaster Sch. Ft Lee , ATTN : ATSM~

TE 1 USA Intelli gence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachuca , AUN: ATS I—CTO— DT

I Intellig ence Material 0ev Ofc , EWL , Ft Holabird 1 USA Intelli gence Ctr & Sctr , Ft Huachu ca , ATTN: ATSl—CTD~

—cS

1 USA SE Signal Sch , Ft Gordon . ATTN: ATSO.EA 1 USA Intelli gence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachuca , ATTN: OAS/SRD a I USA Chaplain Ctr & Sch . Ft Hamilton . ATTN: ATSC.TE.RD 1 USA Intellig ence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huacnuca. AUN: ATS I—TEM

1 USATSC H. Ft Eus ti s , ATTN: Educ Advisor 1 USA Intell igence Ctr & 5th , Ft Huachuca . ATTN: Library

1 USA War College , Cirtis le Barracks , ATTN: Lib I CDR . HO Ft Huachuca . ATTN: Tech Ref Div

2 WRAIR , Neurop tychiet ry Die 2 CDR . USA Electronic Prvg Grd , AUN: STEEP—MT—S

1 DLI , SDA . Monterey 1 CDR , Project MASSTER , AUN: Tech Info Center

I USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda . ATTN: MOCA-WGC 1 Hg MASSTER , USATRADOC . LNO

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy , Bethesda . ATTN: MOCA.MR 1 Rewarch Inst itute , HO MASSTER , Ft Hood

I USA Concept Anal Agcy , Bethesda . ATTN: MOCA-JF 1 USA Recruiting Cmd , Ft Sherc lian , ATTN. IJSARCPM— P

1 USA Arti c Test Ctr , APO Seattle . ATTN STEAC MO-ASL 1 Senior Army Ads ,, USAFAGOD/TAC , Elgin AF Aua Fid No. 9

1 USA Arti c Test Cu, APO Seattle . ATTN: AMSTE.PL-TS I HO USARPAC , DCSPER , APO SF 96558, ATTN : GPPE—SE

1 USA Armament Crnd . Redstone Arsenal . ATTN : ATSK.TEM 1 Stimson Lib , Academy of Health Sciences , Ft Sam Houston

1 USA Armament Cmd , Rock Island . ATTN: AMSAR TOC 1 Marine Corps Inst ., ATTN: Dean— MCI

1 FAA NAF EC, Atlantic City. ATTN’ Library 1 HOUSMC. Commandant , ATTN: Code MTMT 51

1 FAA .NAFEC , Atlantic Cit y , ATTN: Hum Engr Br I HOUSMC. Comm andant . A’rTN : Code MPI - 20

1 FAA Aeronautical Ctr . Oklahoma City , ATTN: AAC~44D 2 USCG Academy. New London , ATTN: Admission

2 USA Fid Arty ScPu , Ft Sill . ATTN: Library 2 USCG Academy, New London , ATTN: Library

1 USA Armor 5th. Ft Kno s , ATIN: Libr ary 1 USCG Training Ctr , NV , ATT N~ CO

1 USA Armor Sch , Ft Knox . ATIN: ATSB~

DIE I USCG Training Ctr . NV, ATTN: Educ Svc Ofc

1 USA Armo r Sch, Ft K nox , ATTN ATSB.DT.TP 1 USCG. Psycho l Ret Br , DC, ATIN; GP 1/62

1 USA Armor Sctr , Ft Kno,r ATTN ; ATSB.CD.AD I HO Mid-Rang e Br , MC Det . Ouantico , AUN; P&S Div

43

_________ -—‘- , . --—- ---- —---- 
1 US M• ine Co<ps Lilision Ofc, AMC, Altxandril, AlTN: AMCGS-F 

I USATRADOC, Ft Monr011, ATTN: ATRO- ED 

6 USATRADOC FtMo~ ATTN ATPR-AD 

1 USAYRADOC Ft~ ATTN ATTS-EA 

1 USA Forces Cmd, Ft Mc:fltwnon, ATTN: Ubrlrv 

2 USA Aviation Tilt Bd, Ft R~~~:ker, ATTN: STEIG-f'O 

1 USA /lq:y for Aviation Slfety, Ft Rucbr, ATTN: Ubrlrv 

1 USA /lq:y for Aviation S.flty, Ft Rucbr, ATTN: Edllc Advilor 

1 USA Aviation Sc:to, Ft Rucker, ATTN: PO Of-0 

1 HOUSA Aviation Sys Cmd, StLouis, ATTN: AMSAY-ZDR 

2 usA Avlattolt 5¥1 TWit Act., Edwards AFI, AnN: SAYT£-T 

1 USA Air Def Sc:to, Ft Bliss, ATTN: ATSA TEM 

1 USA Air Mobility Rsch. Dev Lib, Moffm Flcl, ATTN: SAYDL-AS 

USA Aviation Sc:to, R11 T 9 Mgt, Ft Rucker, ATTN: ATIT-T-RTM 

USA Avi1tion Sc:to, CO, ·tRucker, ATTN: ATST-C' -A 

HO, DARCOM, Altundria, ATTN: AMXCD-TL 

HO, OARCOM, Alu iOdria, ATTN: COR 

US Mllitwy Academy. West Point. ATTN: Seri111 Unit 

US Milir.ry Academy, West Point, ATTN: Ofc of Milt L.clntlp 

US Military AcaiMmy, West Point, ATTN: MAOR 

USA Standlrdiu tiQn Gp, UK, FPO NY, ATTN: MASE-GC 

1 Ole of Naval Rsct!, Arlington, ATTN: Coct. 452 

3 Ole of Naval Rsctl, Arlington, ATTN: Coct. 4&1 

1 Ofc of Naval Rsch, Arlington, ATTN: Codl4110 

1 Ole of N1val Rsctl, Atlingtoo, ATTN: Coct. 441 

Naval Aerospc Med Res L_,, Penucolll, ATTN: ~Sdl D1w 

Naval Aerospc Med Res Lab, Pensacola, ATTN: Coct. Ll1 

Naval Aerospc llo't d Res Lab, Penucolll, ATTN: Coct. L6 

1 Chie l of NavPer . ATTN: Pe<l·OR 

1 NAVAIRSTA, Norfolk , ATTN: S3fety Ctr 

1 Nav Octanogrll)hic, DC, ATTN: Code 6261.'Chlftl. Tedl 

I Center of Naval Anal, ATTN: Doc Ctr 

1 N:wAirSysCom, ATTN: AIR- 5313C 

1 Nav BuMed, ATTN: 71:.! 

1 NIVHelicopterSubSoua 2. FPO SF 98601 

1 AFHRL CFTI William AFB 

I AFHRL ITT! Lowry AFB 

1 AFHRL IASIWPAFB, OH 

2 AFHRL IOOJZI Brooks AFB 

1 AFHRL IDOJNI Lackland AFB 

1 liOUSAF (INYSDI 

I HOUS/\f (OPXXAI 

1 AFVTG IRDI Randolph AFB 

3 AMRL (HEI WPAF8, OH 

2 AF lnst of Tech, WPAFB, OH, ATTN: ENEJSL 

I ATC CXPTOI R;mdolph AFB 

USAF ~roM ll Lib, Brooks AFB ISUL-41, ATTN: DOC SEC 

1 AFOSR CNLI. Arlington 

1 AF Log Cmd, McClellan AFB, ATTN: ALCIOPCRB 

1 Air Force AcacJemy, CO, ATTN: Dept of Bel Sen 

6 NavPers !t OIV Ctr, San Diego 

2 Navy Mt!d Neuropsychiatric RICh Unit, San Oligo 

1 Nav Electronic Lab, San Diego, ATTN: R11 Lab 

Nav Trll!J(An, San Oligo, ATTN: Codi9000-Lib 

NavPostGriSd'o, Monterey, ATTN: Coct. 56Aa 

NavPostGraSch, Monterey, ATTN: Codl2124 

N;wTrngEquipCtr, Orlando, ATTN: Tech Lib 

US Dept of Labor, DC, ATTN: Manpower Admin 

US Dept of Justice, DC, ATTN: Drug Enforce Admin 

Nat Bur of Standards, DC, ATTN ~ Info Section 

Nat Cte:ll'ing HO\M for MH- Into, Rockville 

1 Denver Federal Ctr, lab\Vood, ATTN: BLM 

12 Oefentl Document.tlon Center 

4 Dlr Psych, Army Hq, Ru.tll Ofcs, eant.rra 

1 Scientific Advsr, Mil Bd, Atrny Hq, Russell Ofcs, CanMrre 

1 Mil and Air Attache, Austrian Embassy 

1 Centre de Rechefche Des facteurs, HU!Nine dt le Olflfttl 

Nationale, Brusals 

2 C•nldian Joint Staff Withington 

1 C/Ah St•"· Royal ...tian AF, ATTN: PlnStd ANI 1r 

3 Chief, Canldi•n Dei · 8ft, ATTN: CJCIIIDSCWI 

4 British Dei Staff, British Emt..y, Wllhinllon 

44 

1 Olf. ClwiiiMt of Elwiro ....... c:.n. 

1 AI IIIII CR-. .......... AnN: lnle ~ 1r 

1 Mlll•••••utaah' TJINIIe, Cap•....,• 

1 Mllltr( Attlalle, FNndt El'llllllly, ATTN: Doc Sec 

1 Medecln a.t, C.E.fii.A.-"'-"', T~ F.-.a 

' flrln lciiMtftc Olf. ~ ........... Dlw, Miflillry 

of o.t.r., .... Delhi . 

1 ,_.RICh Ofc Ulnry, AKA,Inet De'- Fon::es 

1 Mlnldlril,. ,.,_, DOOP/KL Afd Socilel 

P'lydll.+ a'nh liMn, Tile ...... NltMJIIIIIII 

..