Technlc

~ 

Paper 294 A~

THE ASSIGNMENT MODULE: AN ELEMENT OF

AN EXPERIMENTAL COMPUTER.ENHANCED

CAREER COUNSELING SYSTEM FOR

ARMY OFFICERS

Robert F. Eastman

CAREER DEVELOPMENT & SOLDIER PRODUCTIVITY TECHNICAL AREA

I % - ~

-

0 L

___________ 

1918 : 1

U~~~L

~

LIL

~ 

L

~:

~

c

~IR_i A

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

June1978

Approved toi publEc rp(eesi , . (Jill! ut)(ltIO fl utillI fl h lpil

__ 

_ 

r

~

;o~~~~~y

~ ~ i OiL
U. S. ARMY RESEA RCH INSTIT UTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

W. C. MAUS

JOSEPH ZEIDNER COL, CS

Technical Director (Designate) Commander

I

’

~~~~

a

j..,,.__..~

.j NOTICES

DISTRIgUTION: Primary dinr.but,on of this report has been m.d. by ARI. Pies,. eddr,ss ~~~~~~~~~~~ concerning diltribution of r.pori s to: U. S. Army R.ee,rch Instituts for the B&t.yj~,al and Social Scianes,. ATTN P1 RiP , tiOOl Esasnhoeq, Avenue. Al.s.ndria , Virginia 2?333.

FINAt.. OI~~ OSA’flQf:~ This report may be destrpy,d whe n it 5 no longsr ns.dsd. Pls~ p do not return it to

the U. S. Army R.,s.rch inetitute I or thi Ø.ttsv,oq.l and Social Science.,

~Qfl Te h findings in ths rapo t as not to be construed as an o19,cIul Oep.rtm,nt of Ilte Army positit,n, unlais ee ds.ign.tsd by other auth orize d dncum.nu.

—~~ --~

----- 

-.-=-- ________________________ ~~~~~ -

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

Unclassified

SECUR ITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Btmn 0 a Bnt.r.d)

REDADT n ,iu~~~ irAftAaJ PA~ E R EAD INSTRUCTIONS i. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . “ I i

~ ’Pi ‘

~ BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

I. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION HO. 3. REC IPIENT’S CATALOG NUMBER

Technical Paper 294

4. TITLE (id Subtltl.) 5. TYP E OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

THE ASSIGNMENT MODULE : PN ELEMENT OF AN

EXPERIMENTAL COMPUTER-ENHANCED CAREER --

COUNSELING SYSTEM FOR ARMY OFFICERS 6. PERFORMINGORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(s) 5. COHTRA CT OR GRANTNIJMBE R(.)

Robert F. Eastman

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAM E AND ADDRESS , —‘ 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT , TASK AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences , 5001 Eisenhower Ave . 2Q762717A766

Alexandria, VA 22333

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

Deputy Chief of Staff for personnel , U.S. Army 

June 1978

Washington , DC 20310 13. HUMBER OF PAGES

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME a AOORESS(I1 dIf f .r.n t ftom ControlIIsi9 Offlc.) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of thi. r.porr)

—

~~ Unclassified

ISa, OECL ASSIFJ CAT1OPd/D OWNGRADING SCHEDULE 

—— IS. D STRIBUTION STATEMENT (of hi. R.port)

Approved for public release ; distribution unlimited .

17. DISTRIBuTION STATEMENT (of li. abstract ent.r.d In Block 20. If dtflsrsnt from R.porf)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

IS. KEY WOROS (Continu, on r.v.r.. .Id. If n.e..omy id identify by block ntm~b.r)

Computerized Career Counseling

Personnel Assignment

Assignment Algorithm

20. AU~~PIACT (Continua on ,.vars. aid. If n.c..wy id identify b7 block nomb.r)

‘

~

V A n experimental , computer—enhanced career counseling system has been designed to study systematic approaches to the career counseling and assignment

of Army officers . Within the assignment module, a policy—capturing program

calculates sets of utility scores for personnel. The scores reflect suitability for assignment within a set of job categories. All officers are

given a list of job assignments for which they are qualified. Officers can

then express preferences for job categories from the list of possible ‘—~~~~~

DO t ’2?~

,s 1473 F~~

5T10M OY t M0v 56~~~0 10LETE -a ti a i d

stcu~~

t1v CL, SSfFICA pAGE (Bu m Data Ent.r. .d)

j d

--r - ‘. — - —- -- — -
Unclassified

SECURITY CLAUIFICA1IOH OP THIS PAGZ(BuIW D~~a &itar.~~

20.

~~assignments . Final assignments to job categories are made by using three

personnel assignment algorithms representing varying degrees of oPtitflalitY.

\

Unclassified

— .—~~~~-

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

~~ — ..— __________ 

$ICURITY CLASSIPICATION OF til lS PAGS(PIsm Data tni.ee4) ________ ~

__~~~ I_.__ ---- -”._ — -~ . 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I

— - /

~

4) THE ASSIGNMENT MODULE:~~N ELEMENT OF

\

~\ AN~ XPERIMENTAL COMPUTER-ENHANCED /

/

cAREER c

~

,

OUNSELING SYSTEM FOR /

/

ARMY ~~FICERS. ~~~~~~~~

,

,/

0

~~~~Robert F. astman

Bertha . ory, nit Leader

Submitted by:

Cecil D. Johnson , Chief

CAREER DEVELOPMENT & SOLDIER PRODUCTIVITY TECHNICAL AREA , — . .5

Submitted as comp lete and Approved By:

technlcaHy accurate, by:

CecIl D. Johnson, E. Ralph Dusek, Director

Technical Area Chief INDI VIDUAL TRAINING &

PERFORMANCE LABORATORY

Joseph Zeidner,

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR (DESIGNATE)

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

Arm Cersor ProgressIon

Systems

Ai,proesd for public release; dI.tnbution unliMted.
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 pf a major phase of the task, formal recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

-‘

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

-— - -‘-

~~

—

~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ —
FOREWORD

The Career Development & Soldier Productivity Technical Area of

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

conducts research on Army officer and enlisted career progression systems, the role of women in the Army, and occupational qualifications and

measurement. Part of the technology base research on career progression,

in support of the Officer Personnel Management System (OPMS) , has been

the design of an experimental computer—aided career counseling system.

The present Technical Paper reports on the feasibility of a computeraided assignment system using the Infantry Branch as a prototype. Other

related reports include ARI Research Memorandum 77 -2 , which describes

the assignment algorithm used, and Research Memorandum 77-3, which explains the algorithm’s successful application to the Quartermaster Branch.

Field experiments also have shown that a computer-aided career information system is acceptable to samples of officer users for whom the system is intended. Continuing investigations focus on cost-benefit analyses

of this system. Work is done under Army Project 2Q762717A766, Manpower

Systems Management (FY 78); Task C, Career Progression Systems.

(Jo~ PH ZEI~*i

~~

- 

nical Director (Designate)

— -*— -- - --- -- - - - --1_---——-._- - . -- --—— ~ .A~~~~ ---
THE ASSIGNMENT MODULE : AN ELEMENT OF AN EXPERIMENTAL COMPUTER-ENHANCED

CAREER COUNSELING SYSTEM FOR AEMY OFFICERS

BRIEF

Requirement :

As part of the program to improve the Army system of career counseling and assignment for officers , this project tested the technical feasibility of (1) using a computer—assisted system to assign officers and

(2) quantifying the assignment policies and practices of a career branch.

Procedure :

Quantifiable aspects of assignment policies and practices in the

Infantry Branch were reproduced in a program that derived job utility

scores , which reflect suitability for particular types of assignments ,

from background variables in officers’ records. Three computer—assisted

assignment methods used the job utility scores to simulate assignment of

160 Infantry captains. The assignments made using these three methods

were evaluated by comparin g results with both actual ass ignments and

suitable alternate assignments recossnended by experienced branch

personnel.

Findings :

The three computerized methods agreed well (80-86%) with both the

actual assignments and the alternate assignments judged suitable by

branch personnel .

Using average utility scores as a measure of success in matching

officers and jobs , the three computerized methods achieved a significantly better fit of officers to job categories than did the manual

assignment method .

Where the computerized methods were not acceptable to branch personnel , the two principal causes were (1) inadequacy of input data from

the officers ’ records and (2) overweighting in the computerized methods

of the importance of officers ’ preferences.

.

~~ - .

.—~~ - . — 

-- - --— — ---—-.- -—- -- 

~~~~~--T _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- —-
Util~~ation of Findings :

A computer—assisted assignment systen that satisfies criteria used

by officer career branches is feasible.

Such a system has the following advantages: (1) speedier assignments to job categories, (2) simultaneous consideration of a large number of officers and available positions , (3) greater objectivity and

equity for officers, (4) mor~ available time for special cases, (5) assurance that relevant variables are not overlooked , and ( 6) greater

efficiency in file handling from using computerized files instead of

personnel folders.

Individual officers could be certain that their preferences had

an objectively consistent influence on final decisions about assignments.

The speed and efficiency of a computer-assisted system would let officers know their probable assignments with enough lead time to revise

preferences before final assignment.

-

- 

—

~~~--- —-—

~~~~

—----- .— - ___
THE ASSIGNMENT MODULE : AN ELEMENT OF AN EXPERIMENTAL COMPUTER-ENHANCED

CAREER COUNSELING SYSTEM FOR ARMY OFFICERS

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCT ION 1

METHOD 2

Development of Job Utility Scores 2

The Assignment Program 3

Pre liminary Adj ustment of Weights and Value s 4

Testing the Assignment Module 4

RESULTS 6

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 9

REFERENCES 13

APPENDIX A. CONSTRUCTING AN N x K MATRIX OF UTILITY SCORES . . 15

DISTRIBUTION LIST 17

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Computer-assisted assignments matched with actual

or alternate assignments of 160 infantry captains . . 6

2. Allocation averages for four methods of assignment . . 7

3. Allocation averages compared 8

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Possible utilization of the assignment module

with officer feedback 10

_______ — —--—- —— .- --..- —--— -- .- - .-- -

~~_--.r_. — —— - - -—— -- ---- - —-

_________________________________ 
THE ASSIGNMENT MODULE : AN ELEMENT OF AN EXPERIMENTAL

COMPUTER-ENHANCED CAREER COUNSELING

SYSTEM FOR ARMY OFFICERS

INTRODUCTION

Several stud Les have shown the need to improve career guidance

given to Army officers, particularly junior officers (Franklin et al.,

1968; U.S. Army War College , 1971; OERS Study Group , 1969). The diversity of career options, lack of a readily accessible central source

of up—to—date career information , rapid changes in career information ,

seeming disregard of officer assignment preferences , and absence of a

systematic approach to counseling and assignment have contributed to

costs in valuable manpower resources arid motivation loss that are unacceptable to today ’s military service .

An experimental computerized research facility was created at the

Army Research Institute to conduct experiments in these career counseling problem areas. Preliminary research (Macpherson et al., 1978) indicated that an important part of an improved counseling system, using

advances in computer-assisted counseling technology , would be the design of improved assignment methods that would benefit both officers

and Army management.

Much has been written about the optimum use of material and personnel resources (D’wyer, 1954 ; Gass , 1958). For enlisted personnel ,

assignment systems that use aptitude area test scores within existing

policy and practices are feasible and are superior to manual assignmen t

systems (Ha tch , 1972).

The objective of this research project was to apply past findings

to an experimental computer-assisted counseling system that could assign a large group of officers more efficiently and equitably.

The specific purposes were

1. To quantify and objectify the assignment policies and practices of an illustrative career branch ;

2. To determine if a computerized assignment system is both

feasible and efficient; and

3. To evaluate computer—assisted assignments, both by comparing

compu ter assignmen ts wi th the actual assignments and by having

experienced assignment officers rate the acceptability of the

computer placements .

1

-

— -- _ - _

~

____

~

__--. i_ -- -

~~

--

~~

- ——

~

--- -—.- -
METHOD

Initial r ’

~~e~~rc~ rj ri d~~.; 1qring an experimental ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~yst’~rn focused on Army ftr~ t lieutenants , captains , and maj ors. kr ~~~~~—

v~~loping an experimental assignment module , the target f-’c~

V~1ation w j~;

limited to Infantry captains.

A sample of Infantry captains (N=16O), comprising all members (

~f

an Infantry Officer Advanced Course for whom data were available , was

us’~d t r , evaluate the assignment module. The entire class had to be

assigned before graduation and therefore provided a convenient sample.

Development of Job Utility Scores

Background data on ind ividual officers were used to generate job

utility scores. These scores expressed the judgments of experienced

assignment off icers regarding suitability of individuals for several

job categories. During initial discussions with Infantry Branch assignment officers , sets of assignment categories and background variables

were identified . These sets were used in making assignments. Each assignmen t category represented a type of job assigned to an off icer

based on career needs , qualifications , and preferences . The background

variables formed the basis of determining an officer ’s career needs and

qualifications.

After a general assignment category was chosen for an officer , a

specific assignment was made on the basis of available requirements

and the officer ’s geographical preferences. The assignment officers

interviewed felt that their critical decisionmaking function was assigning an officer to the category that would most enhance the officer ’s

career development while serving Army needs.

Infantry Branch personnel assign officers to nine categories:

1. Military education (ME)

2. Civil education (CE)

3. Overseas long tour (LT)

4. Overseas short tour (ST)

5. CONUS conunand (CC)

6. CONUS staff (CS)

7. Service school instructor (I)

2

- ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ - - - - _______________ ______ ________ ______

_________ - - - ~~~~~~~~rL -.-,_ --

~~

---~ -_T ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_ _

~~~~ —
8. ROTC instructor (ROTC)

9. Vulnerable to a reduction in force (RIF) (CONUS assignment).

The following seven background variables, cons idered collectivel y,

were assignment category criteria:

1. Military education level (MEL)

2. Civilian education level (CEL)

3. Component (COMP )

4. Manner of performance (MOP )

5. Commissioned time in service (TIS)

6. Assignment history (MI )

7. Preference statement (PS).

After identification of the assignment categories and background

variables, three assignment officers were asked to rate on an 11—point

scale the importance of each variable for each assignment category on

the scale, 0 = not important , 5 = somewhat important , and 10 = very important. The raters were instructed to assign to each variable the

weight or importance it would be accorded in assigning an officer in

relation to the officer’s peers, given ample time for thorough review

of all available records.

After further discussion with branch personnel , negative or positive values were assigned to all possible levels of each background

variable for each assignment category. To express the policies and

jud gments of the personnel branch , an officer ’s coded background data

were converted to coded values. These values ranged from +10 to -10,

expressing the positive or negative values over which a background

variable can vary independent of the variable’s weight or importance

in determining job category assignment. A utility score resulted from

multiplying the appropriate job—specific weight by an officer ’s background datum (see Appendix A). These scores were then standardized

arid transformed to vary between values of 0 and 1,000, thereby permitting comparison among job categories (Macpherson et al., 1978).

The Assignment Program

The assignment program was designed to receive as inpu t an N x K

u t i l i ty matrix (generated by combining the K utility scores of N officers) and to provide the following capabilities:

3

- .— - __‘___: 

-

~

— -

~~--r ~

-- —---. ~~-‘- -- -—-- -- - -

~~~~~~

--- -
1. Officurs can be assigned accordiuq to their highest uti1~~t

~ scores.

2. Some members of the group can be assigned to their highest

scores and the rest can be assigned optimally by a li near

program.

3. The entire sample of officers can be assigned optimally.

Preliminary Adjustment of Weights and Values

The utility scores obtained from the ratings and interview staremerits of assignment officers had a high degree of face validity . The

assignment officers who participated in the experimental exercise were

part of the current system and represented the most knowledgeable source

of information available regarding assignment of Infantry captains .

Nevertheless, feedback and discussion about simulated assignmen ts

resulting from use of utility scores enabled assignment personnel to

refine and adjust their judgments , particularly when simulated and actual assignments differed .

A pilot , or preliminary, standardization group of 50 recently assigned Infantry captains provided an opportunity for branch personnel

to adjust theii judgments. Background data for this group were provided ;

then assignments based on utility scores were determined for group

members and compared with actual assignments already given the officers.

Discrepancies were discussed with branch personnel to determine if

weights and values should be adjusted or if the actual assignment was

non-optimal or atypical , e.g., a hardship case. The objective of reevaluation was to improve the quality of the utility scores, not to

match actual assignments . The agreement between the simulated and adjusted assignments was 75%, however , indicating considerable overlap

in the algorithm and the real system.

Testing the Assig~nment Module

The following three methods were used to simulate the assignments

of the 160 graduates of the Infantry Officers Advanced Course .

Assignment to Highest Score. Officers whose utility scores are

highest in an assignment category are assigned to that category within

limits imposed by job category quotas. This is an iterative method in

which the quota of one job category at a time is filled from rank—orc~ered

lists of officers with highest utility scores in that category. Residual

quotas are computed for the unsatisfied job categories, and new sets of

highest scores are computed for unassigned officers. The entire process

is repeated until all officers are assigned and all quotas are satisfied .

4

—- ., .

—. _ •_____ ___-4__~~ _ --- —--- -— ---~~ — - ‘-- - .-_- —-- -- ..

~~~~~. 

~~ -. ~~-

~~~~~ -- — - — -
Optimum Assignment. Optimum Assignment is a Ford-Fulkerson assignment algorithm (Ford and Fulkerson , 1957) in which the utility scores

are assigned to job categories so that the corresponding average utility

score for the entire group (the allocation average) is maximized .

Preselection. An officer is preselected for assignment to a job

category if the difference between the officer ’s highest and second

highest utility score is greater than a predetermined value . This value

was 100 in the present study, in which u tility scores could vary between

0 and 1,000 units. This method is used when a proportion of the total

quota for a job category has been allotted for preselection . The rationale is to “skim off” officers who are singularly suited to certain

job categories and to optimize the overall utilization of the rest of

the group. In the present project , approximately half the quota for

each job category was allotted for preselection .

The requirements or quotas for the var ious job categories are

major factors in the assignment of a large group of officers . For the

sample group of 160 officers, the following requirements were input to

the program :

Military education (ME) 0

Civil education (CE) 36

Overseas long tour (LT) 26

Overseas short tour (ST) 8

CONUS command (CC ) 63

CONUS staff (Cs) 3

Vulnerable to a reduction in force (RIF) 15

Service school instructor (I) 9

ROTC instructor (ROTC ) 0

The quota for ME was zero because the group was completing an ME assignment . No requirements for ROTC instructors occurred during this cycle

because of the academic calendar .

The three computer-assisted assignment methods were evaluated by

determining both the match with the actual assignments given independently

to the group and the suitability of computer—assisted assignments that

did not match actual assignments. The suitability of assignments is a

more meaningful measure of the effectiveness of computer-assisted methods

than is the match with actual assignments because more than one assignment may be suitable for an officer , and the actua l assignment may not

be the best choice . The suitability or acceptability of assignments was

determined by having branch assignment personnel recommend suitable additional alternate assignments for officers whose computer placements

did not match actual assignments. It was assumed that actual assignments

had met certain suitability criteria. Therefore, computer-assisted assignments that matched either the actual or the suitable alternate branch

personnel assignments were regarded as suitable matches.

5 

—
RESULTS

Table 1 shows the percentages of agreement between actual assignments made by branch personnel and computer—assisted assignments . The

percentages are presented as a measure of how well the assignment methods

reflect branch policies and practices. The percentage match between

actual assignments of advanced course graduates and results of the three

methods using the assignment module provides a first approximation of

the effectiveness of the computer—assisted method.

Table 1

Computer-Assisted Assignments Matched with Actual and Alternate

Assignments of 160 Infantry Captains

% match with

% match % match with either actual

Assignment with actual alternate or alternate

method assignments assignments assignments

Assignment to

Highest Score 58 24 82

Optimum Assignment 6]. 25 86

Preselection 58 22 80

The Optimum Assignment method had the highest percentage match

with actual assignment, 61%. Both the Assignment to Highest Score method

and the Preselection method obtained a 58% agreement with actual

assignments.

The percentage of agreement between actual and simulated assignments

is of limited usefulness because this measure does not consider suitability for other assignments based on career needs, qualifications, and

available requirements. The match of computer—assisted methods with

alternate assignments recommended by branch personnel provides a more

realistic measure of a method’s effectiveness.

The percentages of computer assignments that matched the alternate

assignments recommended by branch personnel are shown in Table 1. The

percentages for the methods of Assignment to Highest Score (24%), Optimum Assignment (25%), and Preselection (22%) indicate that many of the

computer—assisted assignments that differed from actual assignments

nevertheless satisfied branch criteria for successful placement.

6

L~~T i

~~~i~~’: -. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —~~-- -— — - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
The combined percentages of computer-assisted assignments that

matched either the actual or branch personnel alternate assignments are

shown in Table 1. The highest percentage of agreement with branch personnel assignments was achieved by the Optimum Assignment method (86%).

The Assignment to Highest Score method (82%) and the Preselection method

(86%) produced essentially the same percentage of matches .

The weights and values that generated the utility scores were provided by assignment officers under ideal conditions and after considerable discussion of pilot results. It was reasoned that the allocation

average (the average of utility scores), if maximized , would represent

the set of assignments most closely approaching the ideal. In Table 2,

the allocation average of the group for the assignments by branch personiiel are compared with allocation averages of assignment by the three

computer-assisted methods . Table 3 shows that the allocation average

for the actual assignments fell significantly below the scores for the

three computer-assisted methods.

Table 2

Allocation Averages for Four

Methods of Assignment

Assignment method Allocation average

Actual Assignment 739

Assignment to

Highest Score 801

Optimum Assignment 808

Preselection 799

The Preselection method assigned 48% of the sample to the job

category for which they had the highest utility score . The version of

the program used , however , was subject to chance order effects that

allowed preselection to a job category of individuals who had overall

utility scores lower than those of other qualified candidates. An improved version of the Preselection algorithm (Granda and McMullen ,

1974) corrects this problem.

7

-
Table 3

Allocation Averages Compared

Comparisons of

allocation averages t-value

Actual vs. Assignment

Highest Score 6.34 < .005

Actual vs. Optimum 7.39 < .005

Actual vs. Preselection 5.99 < .005

*Resed on a one—tailed test.

Discussion with branch personnel yielded three main reasons for

the lack of agreement in cases not suitably assigned by the thre. computer methods:

1. Requisite data had not been posted am the officer’ s tape

record,

2. The coded value in the record was not adequate for making

policy discriminations, and

3. Officer preferences were weighted high enough to offset a

disqualifying value .

The third source of disagreement is easily corrected because it

involves merely “tuningTM the weights and values in the assignment program. The first two causes of disagreement are more serious prableme.

They are a function of the input data, and the resulting mslassignment

therefore should not be regarded as a failure of the methodology of

computer-assisted assignment. However, these causes of disagreement

can be corrected by improving the system of online recordkeeping.

Computerized assignments not acceptable to branch personnel involved assignment of unqualified officers to Civilian Edu cation (CE)

and failure to assign volunteers to Overseas Short Tour (8?) . Within

an operatio na l system, the se malassignaents would not be serious. All

officers tentat ively assigned to CE have their personnel f ii. reviewed

by a Civilian Education Assignment Officer, and a list of officers who

volunteer for Overseas Shor t Tour is maintained by the Overseas Assignment Office. Both categories of assignment , therefore , would be reviewed independently before orders were issued .

8

- 

.- -—---

~~

-

~~~~~

——--—--- -

~~~~~

--

~ - - - - -——~~~~~~~ 

- - . — —--- ----
CONCLUSION S AND IMPL ICATIONS

As demonstrated , the assignment module can assign Infantry captains

in an optimal or near optimal way that satisfies criteria imposed by

branch policies and practices. The high percentage of assignments acceptable to the assignment officers suggests that assignmen t algor ithms

now can provide a useful ancillary source of information without including additional background items. The percentage of acceptable assignments would be even higher in an opera tional system , in which codes

would be tailored to system requirements. Special cases, such as fami ly

hardships or night school enrollment, which were not captured in the

present assignment algorithm would be pulled and assigned “by hand . ”

If the assignment module were implemented , addi tional data would

be included , and the fit of officers to job categories would be improved .

Even in final form , however , the assignment module is seen as only one

component in a computer—enhanced process. Final assignments generated

by the system would be reviewed , and the final decision to approve or

amend each assignment would be made by experienced branch personnel.

Some advan tages a computer assignment system can offer are as

follows:

1. Officers can be assigned to job categories with greater speed .

2. Assignment officers can consider a large number of officers

and available positions simultaneously.

3. Assignment of officers who cannot contact their branch regularly can be made more equitably and with greater objectivity.

4. Branch personnel can devote more time to special cases.

5. Automated evaluation of predefined background variables can

insure that relevant variables are not overlooked .

6. Computerized files can be handled more efficiently than can

bulky personnel folders.

To best use the capabilities of a computerized system , all the

background variables input to the assignment module should be readily

acce~;sible online from an officer master file . All file information

mii~ t be up to date and accurate . The background items used in the

present research are among the more important data items in an officer ’s

record and should be high—priority items in any file maintenance system.

The assignment program could be exercised in advance of assignment

deadlines to generate lists of two or three possible assignments for

each officer , as shown in Figure 1. These assignments, based on an

officer ’s utility scores, would be for jobs for which the officer was

qualified and would be consistent with the officer ’s career nL~ d~;.

9

-.

—- --

~

— ~~~~ .44
OFFICERS DUE I JOB

FOR REQUIREMENTS

REASSIGNMENT ]

/ E~~RCISE \ ( &ssic~

n~vr ‘)

\ PRoGRAN/

~~~~~

NOTIFY OFFICERS

OP

TEII’rATIvE

ASSIGNMENTS

RECEIVE

PIED1A~~ fl~~ O~~~CERS

J

’

~~~URCISE \

4~~

/ ~sstcm~

sirr ~

\

PRoG~~~~~/

4,

NOTIFY OFFICERS

OF FINAL

ASSIGNMENTS

Figure 1. Possible utilization of the assignment ~~~~~~~ with officer feedback .

10

— 

- •5. __ - - ~

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

~ — i . . s~~~ .—— -U— --— — ___________________ ~ ~ ~ gA
For the off icers, a clear advantage of the assignment module is

knowing that their preferences have a predetermined influence on the

final assignment decision. The speed and efficiency of such a system

also would permit feedback of an officer’s individual preferences among

possible assignments. Ind ividual preferences would become a more meaningful part of the assignment process.

In summary, research to date indicates that assignment policies

and practices of career branch personnel can be captured and implemented

in an assignment module designed to be part of a computer-aided career

counseling system. The results obtained with a sample of 160 Infantry

off icers suggest that a computer—aided system is a feasible approach in

matching officers to jobs whenever a large number of assignments must

be made simultaneously.

11

- ——- ——-‘--

- — • -::T- ——- -- - ~~~~~~ - 

~~

-—
REFERENCES

Dwyer, P. S. Solution of the Personnel Classification Problem With

the Method of Optimal Regions. Psychometrika, 1954, 19, 11-25.

Ford, L. R., and Fulkerson , D. R. Solving the Transportation Problem .

The RAND Corporation, 1957.

Franklin, D. L., Braybrook, W. M., Farber, A., Crawshaw, J. L., Stein ,

D. P., and Blair, J. F. Career Motivation of Army Personnel--

Junior Officer’s Duties. Technical Report 1-212 , Franklin Institute Research Laboratories, September 1968.

Gass, S. I. Linear Programming--Methods and Applications. New York :

McGraw—Hill , 1958.

Granda , T. M ., and McMullen , R. L. A Heuristic Approach to a Large

Personnel Assignment Problem . Paper presented at the ORSA/TIMS

National Convention, 17 October 1974.

Hatch, R. S., Nauta, F., and Pierce, M. B. Development of Generalized

Network Flow Algorithms for the Solution of Pe:sonnel Assignment

Problems. Decision Systems Associated , Inc., 1972.

Macpherson, D. H., Yates, L. G., and Eastman , R. F. Career Counseling

Attitudes and Opinions of Army Officers. ARI Research Memorandum

77—22, 1978.

OERS Study Group. The Officer Efficiency Reporting System--OERS. U.S.

Army Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, ODC~PER-CSD ,

25 June 1969.

u.s. army War College. Leadership for the 1970’s. Carlisle Barracks.

Pa.; 20 October 1971.

k

13

..~

- — — - . .

~ --TJ ~~~ .- -

~

--

~

- ~~
APPENDIX A

CONSTRUCTING AN N x K MATRIX OF UTILITY SCORES

The data for each individual on j background variables is expressed

as a vector- of n one—digit scores. Each score has a corresponding value ,

which may be positive or negative , for each job category. The values

corresponding to an individual ’s background scores are retrieved from a

look-up table which is part of the data input to the program stored in

memory. This results in a vector of n values for a specific job category .

An individual ’s utility score for a given job category is obtained

~y multip ’..ying the (1 x j) vector V of values described above by a

(j x 1) vector w of weights representing the importance of n background

variable for that job category .

V . x • W = U lj jl 11

This results in a matrix whose single element is the individual’s

utility score for one of the K job categories.

If this process is repeated for each of the K job categories a vector can be constructed which contains the individual’s utility scores

for all job categories , i.e.:

(u i

, U

2 , ... Il

K )

By combining the vectors of utility scores for N individuals an

N x K matrix S of utility scores results:

u11, u

12 , ... U1K

u21, U22 , ... U

2~

s =

tlNl~ u

N2~ ... UnK

This matrix contains the utility scores of N individuals for each of K

job categories .

Before input to the assignment algorithms, the utility scores of

the san~ 1e of individuals with each of the several job categories are

standardized by adding the absolute value of the minimwt~ score to each

score, then dividing the adjusted score by the possible range of scores.

The entire matrix of scores is then tran sformed to permit a possible

range of utility scores between 0 and 1000 .

-

~~~~~~~~~~~~ --~~~ - ~~~~
DISTRIB UTION

ARI Distribution List

4 OASO IM&RA) 2 HOUSACDEC, Ft Ord, ATTN~ Library

2 HODA (DAMI.CSZ) 1 HOUSACDEC, FtOrd,AT1’N: ATEC—EX --E—Hum Factors

1 HODA (DN’E-PBR 2 USAEEC. Ft Benjamin Harrison , ATTN: Library

1 HQDA (OAMA~

AR) 1 USAPACDC, Ft Benjemin Herriton, ATTN~ ATCP—HR

1 HODA (DAPE.HRE-POJ 1 USA Comm—Elect Sch, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: ATSN—EA

1 HODA (SORD-ID) I USAEC. Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL—CT—H DP

1 HODA (DAMI-OOT’C) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth , ATIN: AMSEL—PA—P

1 HODA (DAPC-PMZ.A) I USAEC. Ft Monmouth, A’fl’N: AMSEL—S?--C8

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

1 I’IQDA )DAPE.HRE) I USA Materials Sys Anal Agcy, Aberdeen, ATTN: AMXSY-P

1 HODA (DAPE-MPO-C) 1 Edgswood Arsenal, Aberdeen, ATTN: SAREA—B L--H

1 IIODA (DAPE-DW) t USA Ord Cti’ & Sch, Aberdeen, A’fl’N: ATSL -TBM—C

I I’IQOA (DAPE-HRL) 2 USA Hum Engr Lab, Aberdeen, ATTN: Library fDir

I HODA IDAPE CPS) 1 USA Combat Arms Tng Bd, Ft Benning, ATTN : Ad Supervisor

1 HODA )DAFD.MFA) I USA Infantry Hum Rsch Unit , Ft Banning, ATTN: Chief

1 HODA (OARD.AR$-P) I USA Infantry Bd, Ft Binning, ATTN: STEBC—TE’-T

1 NOVA (D,APC-PAS-A) 1 USASMA. Ft Bliss, AT1’N: ATss.-LRc

1 HODA (DUSA-OR) 1 USA Air Def Sch, Pt Bliss , ATTN: ATSA—CTD--ME

I HQDA (DAMO.RQR) I USA AIr Oaf Sets, Ft Bliss , ATIN: Tech Lib

1 HODA (DASG3 I USA Air Oaf Bd, Ft Bliss , ATTN: FILES

1 NOVA (DA1O.Pt ) 1 USA Alt Oaf Bd, Ft Bliss, ATTN: STEBD—PO

1 Ctsi.f, Consult Dlv (DA-OTSG), Adalpisi, MD 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College, Ft Leavenworth , ATTfJ : Lib

1 Mu Aist , Hum Re,, 000R&E. OAD (E&LS) 1 USA Cnsd & Genital Stf College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATSW-SE - L

1 HO USARAL, APO Seattle. A’Tl’N: ARAGP-R 1 USA Cmd & General Sd College, Ft Leavenworth , ATTN: Ed Advisor

1 HO Firat Army, ATT’N: AFICA.OI-TI I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: DepCd~ 2 HO Fifth Army, Ft Sam Mou,ton I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Div Act, Ft Leavenworth, AT’FN: CCS

1 Dir. Army Stf Studies Ofc, ATTN: OAVCSA (DSP) I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Div Act, Ft Luy.nworth, ATTN : ATCASA

1 Ofc Chief of 6sf. Studies Oft I USA Combined Arms Cmbt 0ev Act, Ft Leavenworth, A’fl’N: A1CACO-~ 1 DCSPER. ATTN: CPS/OCP I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act, Ft Leavenworth, AT1’N: ATCACC- -

~ I

1 ‘The Army Ub, Pintigon. A11’N: RSB Chief I USAECOM. Night Vision Lab, Ft Belvoir , ATTh: AMSEL—NV—S 0

1 The Army Lib, Pantigon, AT’TN: ANRAL 3 USA Compt,t.r Sy. Cmd, Ft Balvoir, ATTN: Tech Library

1 Oft. Met Sect of the Army (R&D) I USAMEROC. Ft Belvoir , ATtN: STSFB—DQ

I Tech Support Oft, OJCS I USA Eng Sch. Ft Belvoir , ATIN: Library

I USASA . Arlington, A’flN : IARO’T 1 USA Topo9tlpitiC Lab, Ft Belvoir , ATI’N: ETL—TD—S

1 USA Path Oft. Durham , AITN: Lit. Sciences Dir USA TopographIc Lab, Ft Selvoir, ATTN: STINFO Center

2 USARIEM. Netick. ATTN: SGRO-UE’CA 1 USA Topographic tab, Ft S.lvoir. ATTN: ETL—GSL

1 LJSAT’TC, Ft Clayto n, ATTN: STETC-leO.A I USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca , ATTN: CTD—MS

1 USAIMA , Ft Bragg. AT1’N: ATSU.CTDOM I USA (nadllg.nca CIt & Sets , Ft Huechuce, ATTh: ATS—CTD-MS

1 USAIMA . Ft Bragg, ATTN: Marques Lle 1 USA Intelligence Ce & Sch, Ft Huachuce , ATTN: ATSI—TE

1 US WAC Ct, & 5th, Ft McClellan, A’VTh; LIb 1 USA Intelligence Ce & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI---T Ex—GS

1 US WAC Cu S $ds. Ft McClellan, A’fl’N: T ug Dir 1 USA Intelligence CIt & Sch, Ft Huechuc.. A’Tl’N: ATSI—CTS--OR

1 USA Cetartarmeeter Scts , Ft L.a. ATTN ATSM.TE I LiSA Intelligence Cit & Sch, Ft Huactiuc., ATTN: ATSI—CTD-DT

1 Intelligence Meterlai Dry Oft, EWL Ft HoI~~jrd I USA intelligence Cit & 6th, Ft Huachuca, A’fl’N: ATSI—C’TD—CS

7 USA SE Signal Sds. Ft Gordon, ATTN: A’TIO~EA I USA Intelligence Ce & Sch, Ft Huactsuca, ATTN: DAS/SRD

1 USA Chaplain Ct, 55th, Ft Hamilton. AT1’N: ATSC.TE.R0 1 USA Intelligence Cit & 5th, Ft Huactsuca , ATTN : ATS 1—T EM

1 USATSCH, Ft EustIa, AT1’N: Educ Maiaor I USA Intelligence cc a Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: Library

I USA War College, Carti~Ie Betracite. ATTN: Lib 1 COP. HO Ft Huechuca, AT’TN: Tech Ref Div

2 WRAIR, N.urop,ychla?ry Dlv 2 COP. USA Electronic Prvg Grd, ATTN : STEEP—MT—S

1 DLI , SDA, Monterey 1 CDR . Pro)act MASSTER , A’rTN: Tech info Center

1 USA Concept Anal Agc’y, Bethesda, AT’l’N: MOCA.WOC 1 Ha MASSTER. USATRADOC. LNO

I USA Concept Anal Ages’. Betheada, ATTN: MOCA-MR 1 Rvieercts lnttitut e , HO MASSTER , Ft Hood

I USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethude, ATT’N: MOCA.JF 1 USA Recruiting Cmd, Ft Sherduan, AT1’N: U$ARCPM—P

I USA Attic TieS Cit. APO Saittie, ATIN: STEAC.MO’ASL 1 Senior Army Ads., USAFAGOD/TAC . Elgin AF Au* FId No .9

I USA Attic Test Cit. APO Seattle, ATTN: AM$TE-PL.TS 1 HO USARPAC , DCSPER , APO SF 96558, ATTN: GPPE -SE

1 USA Armam ent Cmd, Rathton. Arasnel, ATTh: ATSK.TEM 1 Stlmson Lib, Academy of Health Sciences, Ft Sam Houston

I LISA Armam ent Cmd, Rock Island , ATm : AMSAR.TOC I Marina Corps Inst., A’fl’N: Dean—M CI

I F AA-NAFEC, Atlantic CIty, A’rTN: Libr.ry 1 HOUSMC. Commandant, ATTh: Code MINT 51

1 FAA-NAFEC ,Atlantic Clty,ATTN: Hum Engr Sr I HOUSMC. Commandant. ATt N Coda MP I- 20

1 FAA A ronautical Csr, O5,I&som. City. AIIM: AAC-440 2 (JSCG Academy, New Londnr’. AIIM: Adrisisaion

2 USA Fid Arty Sets, Ft Sill , AT1’N: LIbrary 2 USCG Academy, New Lonuun, ATTh: Library

1 USA Armor Salt, Ft Knox . ATTN : Librery I USCG TraIning Ctr , NY , ATTN : CO

I USA Armor Salt, Ft Knee, ATT’N: ATSB-Ot.E I USCG Tralnrng Ctr, NY, ATT ”I- Educ Sec Ofc

I USA Armor Salt, Ft Knox, ATm: ATSS.OT.TP I USCG, Psychol Pit Ar , DC, ATIN: OP 1/62

I USA Armor Salt, Ft Knox, AiiM: A1’SS~

CD.AD I HO Mid—Rang. Br, MC Des , Ouant lco , ATTN: P&S Div

17 r

~

’ ”

~~~~”~ 

- 

~~~~~~ 

— - . ,. - -

— 

as i

~~ 

flIJ

~~ .

_ -I 

-

a _________

— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -“~

—~~~- ‘

~~~‘ ,N - ‘—v.. - - . . . . . 

“

~~~~ ‘-. — i_I -

- 

. - - . - ,

~~~~~

— ~~ ‘-
1 US Mai iv Corps Liaision Otc , AMC. Ateva nOria , AIIM: AMCGS—F 1 Dat & CivIl Inst of Ensito Medicine, Canad~ 1 USATHADOC , Ft Monroe , ATTN ATRO - ~~ 1 AIR CRESS. Kensington, AIIM: Into Sys Br

6 USATRADOC , Ft Monroe, AIIM: ATPFI -AD 1 Mllitaeriss~

ikoiogIsk Tjenssta. Copultagen

I USATRADOC , Ft Monroe, ATTN: ATT N— LA 1 Military Attach., French Embee,y, ATI’N: Doc Sec

1 USA Foeces Cmd, Ft McPherson , ATTN Library I Med.cln Chef. C,E.R.P,A.—Arsenal . Tou lon/Maval Ersoce

2 USA Aviation Test Sd, Ft Pucker , AIIN: STEBG—PO I Prin Scientific Off , Appi Hum Engr Path Din, Ministry

I USA Agcy for Aviation Safety , Ft Rucker , ATTN: Library ot Dafiflai. Hew Dethi

1 USA Agcy for Aviation Safety, Ft Pucker, ATIN: Educ ~~~~~ 1 Per, Rids Oft library. AKA . veal Defense Forces

1 USA Aviation Sch, Ft Pucker, ATTN . P0 Drawer 0 1 Minlsterla van Defansie. 000P/KI Aid Socisa l

1 HOUSA Aviation Sys Cmd, St Louis, AIIN: AMSAV—ZDR Piycfiolcgiachs liken, The Hague, Nethertandt

2 USA Aviation Sya Test Act., Edwards AFB. ATTN: SAVTE—T

I USA A,r Oaf Sch, Ft Bliss, AIIM: ATSA TEM

1 USA Air Mobility Pacts & Des Lab, Moffett FId , AIIM: SAVOL—AS

1 USA Aviation Soft , Ret Tng Mgi, Ft Pucker, AIIM: ATS’T—T—PTM

1 USA Aviation Soil, CO. Ft Pucker , ATIM: ATST—D—A

1 HO, DARCOM . Alexandria, AIIM: AMXCD—TI.

1 NO , DARCOM, Alexandria, AIIM: CDR

I US Military Academy, West Point, AIIM: Serials Unit

1 US Military Academy, West Point, AIIM: Ofc of MlIt Ldratsp

I US Military Academy. West Point, AIIM: MAOR

1 USA Standardization Op. UK , FPO NV , ATTN: MASE—OC

1 Ofc of Navel Pads . ArlIngton, AIIM: Cods 452

3 Ole of Navel Pacts , Arlington, AIIM: Cods 466

1 Otc of Navel Rich, Arlington. AIIM: Cods 460

1 Ofc of Naval Rids, Arlington, AIIM: Cods 441

1 Naval Airospc Med Psi Lab, Pensacola, AIIM: Aoeus Salt Div

1 Naval Aerospc Med Psi Lab, Pensacola, AIIM: Cods L51

1 Nasal Aeroipt Med Pu Lab , Pensacola, AIIM: Cod. LB

I Chief of NavPers , AIIM: Pers.Oit

1 NAVAIPS’l’A, Norfolk, AIIM: Safety Cit

1 Mis Oceanographic, DC, AIIM: Code 6251, Cluete & Tech

1 Center of Navel Anal, AIIM: Doc Ctr

I NavAirSysCorn, ATTN: AIR—5313C

1 Max Bulled, AIIM: 713

I MavHellcoptsrSubSqua 2, FPO SF 96801

1 AFHPL (FT) William APS

1 AFHRL ITT) Lowry AFB

1 AFH RLIAS ) WPAF B.OH

2 AFHRL (OOJZ) Brooka AFB

1 AFHRL IDOJNI Lackl~ ud AFB

1 HOUSAF (IMYSO)

I HOUSAF (OPXXAJ

1 AFVTG IRDI Randolph AFB

3 AMRL (HE) WPAFB , OH

2 AS Inst of Teds, WPAFB, OH, ATTT4: ENE/SL

I ATC (XPTD) Randolph AFB

1 USAF AeroMed Lib. Brooks ASS (SUL—4). AIIM: DOC SEC

1 AFOSA (MU, Arlington

1 AF Log Cmd, McClellan AFB, AT’TN: ALC/DPCRB

1 Air Force Academy, CO. AIIM: Dept of Sal Sen

5 MavPers & Div Cit. Sen Diego

2 Navy Mud Neuropsyctsietric Mach Unit , San Diego

1 Nay Electronic Lab, San Diego, AIIM: His Lab

1 Nay TrngCen, San Diego, AIIM: Cod. 9000~- Lib

1 NavPostGreSch, Monterey, AIIM: Code SSA.

1 NavPoitGreSch. Monterey, AIIN: Cods 2124

1 NavTrnqEquipCtr, Orlando, AIIM: Tech Lib

I US Dept of Labor , DC. AIIM- Manpower Admin

I US Dept of Juatic., DC, AIIM: Drug Enfort. Admin

I Nat Bur of Standards, DC, AIIM: Computer Into Section

I Nat Clearing Noue. for MM—Into, Rodevills

1 Denver Federal Cs,, Lakewood, ATIM: Bite

12 Defense DocumentatIon Centar

4 Dir P,tds, Army 14a.. Russell 0fes Canberra

1 Scsem.fic Advir. tell Sd, Army H

~, Russell Oft.. Cenber,.

1 tell and Air Attache, Austrian Einisesey

1 Centre tie Nechet che Des Factmjrs , Humaina di I.Deisna.

National., Brussels

2 Canadi an Joint Staff Waelsington

I C/Air Staff Royal Canadian AS, AIIM: Furs SM Anal Br

3 Chief, Cen.ctian 0.1 Rich Staff , AIIM: C/CRDSM)

4 BrItish Di Staff . British Emk ey, Waehlngton

18

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

~~

v.---~ --- - -

-~~~~~~