DTIC ADA282535: Computer-Based Training of Cannon Fire Direction Specialists

119 Pages·5.4 MB·English

by  Defense Technical Information Center

AD- A282 535 Best Available Copy
Computer-Based Training
of Cannon Fire Direction
Specialists
Hilary Farris, William L. Spencer,
John D. Winkler, James P.K ahan
\
....- LE T
I L% TF-
- #C
Arroyo Center
94-22930 ,
:2
0701111,
The research described in this report wat sponored by the United States
Arny under Contract MDA903-91-C.OC06.
Library of Congreu Cataloging In Publication Data
Computa-baued tamning of comm fire direction specialists / Hilay
Fans ... [et al.
p. cnL
'Papawd for die U.S. Army."
"MR-120-A."
Includes biliographicl refnamms.
ISBN 0-8330-1456-0
1. United States. Anny--.Fu conolmen. 2. Fzr control
(Cunney)-Conptr--=isted intmcton. L Feins, Hnmy
(Hilwy Holmu), 1949-. H. United States. Army.
UP848.C66 1993
623".558D076-dc2 93-21212
cw
RAND is a nonprofit institution that seeks to improve public policy through
research and analysis. Publications of RAND do not necessarily reflect the
opinions or policies of the sponsors of RAND research.
Published 1993 by RAND
1700 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
To nbtain information about RAND studies or to order documents,
call Distribution Services, [phone], extension 6686
Computer-Based Training
of Cannon Fire Direction
Specialists
Hilary Farris,W illiam L. Spencer,
John D. Winkler, James P. Kahan
PTqU7wwfbT the
United States Army
Approvd forpuble raSIS dWAbbuon runiud
iI
Preface
This report documents results of a research project entitled "Future Individual
Training Strategies.- The overall project objectives are to identify and assess
alternative training strategies that may be more efficent and affordable than
current techniques for conducing Army individual training, with special
attention given to resident training conducted in US. Army schools. Here the
authors present results of oe of three case studies of specialized skill training in
an Army military specialty. Each case study examines current job requirements
and training approaches, identifies alternative methods of conducting training
consistent with new Army training concepts, and analyzes resources, costs, and
potential of changes in training strategy.
The project has released five other publications.
R-4228-A, linking Future Training Concpts to Army Individual Tramining
Prgms,J ohn D. Winlder, Stephen J. Kirin, and John S. Uebersax, 1992.
N-3527-A, Te Army Miitary Oxuvatioal Specity Databse,S tephen J. Kirin
and John D. Winkler, 1992.
R-4224-A, How to Estimate the Costs of Changes in Army Individual Skill
Training,S usan Way-Smith, 1993.
MR-118-A, DistributedT raining of Armor Ocers, John D. Winkler, Susan
Way-Smith, Gary A. Moody, Hilary Farris, James P. Kahan, and Charles
Donnel 1993.
MR-119-A, Devo-Based Training ofA rmor Crewmen, Gary A. Moody, Susan
Way-Smith, Hilary Farris, John D. Winkler, James P. Kahan, and Charles
Donnell, 1993.
The results described in this report should be of interest to policymakers
concerned with military education and training, and to managers responsible for
the design and implementation of training program for specific Army military
specialties. The research was conducted in the Manpower and Training program
of the Arroyo Center and was sponsored by the Office of the Deputy Chief of
Staff for Training, US. Army Training and Doctrine Command.
Iv
The Arroyo Center
The Arroyo Center is the US. Army's fedemlly funded research and
development center (FFRMC) for studies and analysis operated by RAND. The
Arroyo Center provides the Army with objective, independent analytic research
on major policy and organizational cocerns, emphasizing mid- and long-tum
problems. Its research is carried out in four programs: Strategy and Doctrine,
Force Development and Technology, Military Logistics, and Manpower and
Training.
Army Regulation 5-21 contains basic policy for the conduct of the Arroyo Center.
The Army provides continuing guidance and oversight through the Arroyo
Center Policy Committee (ACPC), which is co-cired by the Vice Chief of Staff
and by the Assistant Secretary for Research, Development, and Acquisition.
Arroyo Center work is performed under contract MDA9OS-1-C-0006.
The Arroyo Center is housed in RAND's Army Research Division. RAND is a
private, nonprofit institution that conducts analytic research on a wide range of
public policy matters affecting the nation's security and welfare.
James T. Quinlivan is Vice President for the Army Research Division and
Director of the Arroyo Center. Those interested in further information about the
Arroyo Center should contact his office directly-
James T. Quinlivan"
RAND
1700 Main Street
P.O. Box 2138
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
V
Contents
Preface .............. .. ... ... .. .... .. ..... ii
*.......
Figurus ..... ............................................ vii
Tables . . . . . . ............................. ix
S ...U. m......................................... xi
A ck tn ........................................... xix
List oofs e. s and A ppos ......................... xxi
1. INTRODUCriON .................... 1
Bkground .............1..........
Reeac Objectives and Approach .............. 3
Plan of the Document .................................... 4
2. ANALYTICAL METHOD ................................. 5
Current Army Training Devebpment Procedures ................ 5
Job Analysis and Identification of Alternative POls ............... 6
Selection of Tasks ..................................... 7
Collection of Data ..................................... 8
Statistical Analysis of Tasks .............................. 9
Development of Alternative Training Progms ................ 9
Cost Analysis .......................................... 10
The Training Resource Analysis Method ..................... 11
Specify the Training Programs ........................... 12
Analyze Activities .................................... 13
Analyze Resources ..................................... 14
Calculate Specific Costs ................................. 14
Place Costs in Context .................................. 15
Case Studies of Training Changes ......................... 18
3. OPT1ONS FOR TRAINING CANNON FIRE DIRECTION
SPECIALISTS .......................................... 19
Selection of MOS 13E10 AIT Course for Case Study .............. 19
Description of MOS 13E10 AIT ............................. 19
Duties of MOS 13E10 Specialists ........................... 20
MOS 13E10 AiT Instructional Characteristics ................. 21
Analytical Issues..................................... 22
Analytical Method ...................................... 22
AOSP Measures ....................................... 23
Subject Matter Expert Ratings ............................. 25
Factor Analysis and Task Rankings ......................... 28
Factor Analysis Results .................................. 29
Frequent MOS 13E10 Tasks (Factor 1) ...................... 30
Urgent Combat Tasks (Factor 2) ........................... 30
Equipment Tasks (Factor 3) ............................... 33
vi
Interactive Teals (Factor 4) ............................... 33
Developing Alternative Pob for MOS 13M0 ................ 33
Identifying Trainin Co n.t. ........................... 36
Detaminng the Location and Timi of Training. 37
Identifying Alternative Media ............................ 37
Implications of Analysis for the MOS 13E10 AlT POI ............. 38
Potential for Changs in Content and Length of Resident
Training .......................................... 39
Potential for E Use of Tming Tedaokgks ............ 42
Con c..l.u..s..i.o..n..s. .............................. 43
4. COST OF TRAING OPTONS ............................ 45
Ana Stenpys cc.. ....................................... 45
Definition and Specification of the Changes in MOS 13110 AIT .... 45
Activity Analysis ...................................... 52
ReourceA s ..................................... 54
Cost Results ......................................... 55
Savings and Cost Results for All Alternative POls ............... 57
Comparisons of the Alternatives ........................... 57
Sizing the Costs and Savings ............................. 59
Trade-Offs ........................................... 59
5. CONCLUSIONS AND NPICATIONS ...................... 61
Training Programs Can Be Better Aligned with Job qui-ent .... 61
The Potential to Reduce Course Length Is Limited but Savings Are
Possble ........................................... 62
CBT Can Save Costs While Improving Training Efficiency ......... 62
Appendix
A. 13E Task Rankings ...................................... 65
B. Current and Alternative POls for MOS 13E AIT ................. 93
References ............................................. 99
vii
Figures
Z. Job a ed .................................. 7
2.. Training R urce Analysis M ....................... 12
2.3. TradeOffs and Risks in Camidering Training Cha ....n....g. 17
4.1. Break-Even A .................................. S8
4.2. Savings in Relation to USAPAS' FY 92 OMA Budget ........... 59
ix
Tables
2.1. Balance Sheet Ge neaF.o..r..m...a..t. ................ 13
2. Cost Model D em ................................. 15
2.3. Cost Templat ....................................... 16
3.1. Measures Used in the Analysis ........................... 23
3.2 General Dimensions of MOS 13E10 Tasks ................... 29
3.3. Results of Factor Analysis ............................. 29
3.4. Tasks with Highest and Lowest Ranking on Factor 1: Frequent
MOS 13E10 Tasks ..................................... 31
3.5. Tasks with Highest and Lowest Ranking on Factor 2 Urgent
Combat Tasks ....................................... 32
3.6. Tasks with Highest and Lowest Ranking on Factor 3: Equipment
Tasks .......................................... 34
3.7. Tasks with Highest and Lowest Ranking on Factor 4. Interactive
Tasks ........................................... 35
3.8. Decision Rules for Identifying Tasks for MOS 13E10 AlT ........ 36
3.9. Decision Rules for Suggesting Tasks for Resident and
Nonresident Training .................................. 37
3.10. Decision Rules for Suggesting Alternative Training Strategies ..... 38
4.1. Departmental Instructional Methods and Instructor Contact
Hour Summary for MOS 13E10 AIT 13 March 1989 POI ......... 47
4.. MOS 13E10 AlT Course Alternatives ...................... 47
4.3. Events Reduced in the "Shortened P01" Alternative ............ 48
4.4. Events Added in the "Add-In PO ........................ 48
4.5. Original Assumptions ................................. 49
4.6. New Assumptions .................................... 50
4.7. Activity and Workload Changes for CBT POI Under Original
Assumptions ........................................ 53
4.8. Activity and Workload Changes for CBT POI Under New
Assumptions ........................................ 53
4.9. CBT POI Catalogue of Cost-Causing Changes: Original
Assumptions ........................................ 54
4.10. CBT POI Catalogue of Cost-Causing Changes: New
Assumptions ........................................ 55
4.11. Results of Original Assumptions of CBT POI Option ........... 55
4.12. Results of New Assumptions of CBT POI Option .............. 56
4.13. Military Manpower Results: Original and New Assumptions ..... 56
4.14. Comparisons of Alternatives: Original and New Assumptions .... 57
A.1. Factor 1: Frequent 13E10 Tasks ........................... 65
A.2. Factor 2. Urgent Combat Tasks ........................... 72
A.3. Factor 3: Equipment Tasks .............................. 79
A.4. Factor 4: Interactive Tasks .............................. 86
B.1. 13E Baseline Case ..................................... 94
B.2. Shortened POI ....................................... 95
)d
Summary
In an era of declining training resources and budgets, the Army is searching for
more efficient training methods to use in individual trining programs.
Individual training conducted in-residence in the US.. Army school system
(generally termed "institutional trairdn) is very costly, encompassing a large
portion of the entire U.S. Army budget-5.7 billion in fiscal year 1992, for
example (epartment of Defense, 1992). Conducting this taining requires
numerous installations, facilities, equipment, and manpower (instuctors and
trainees) while conuming large quantities of ammunitio, fuel, and other
resources.
To meet Army training requirements and overcome restraints imposed by
declining resources, Army policymakers are considering initiatives that may
hndamentally change the nature of individual training. Doctrinal publications
have proposed, for example, sizable reductions in the length and scope of
resident training and expanded use of training technologies (U. Army Training
and Doctrine Command [TRADOCI, 1990a). Because of their potentially far-
reaching effects on soldier proficiency and Army capability, a thorough
evaluation of proposed new approaches is needed. Training policymakers need
to know which occupations and training courses would be affected, how such
changes would be specifically implemented, and whether such changes will
provide savings and prove feasible in practice. More generally, the Army needs
improved techniques for identifying alternatives to current training approaches
and assessing potential costs and consequences of changing its customary
training methods. Currently, there is no agreed-upon methodology for
identifying training approaches suitable for specific occupational specialties or
for evaluating the resource and cost implications of new training approaches.
Research Objectives
The overall objective of this research is to develop improved techniques for
identifying alternative approaches for conducting individual training and
analyzing their cost implications. We first analyze the characteristics of Army
occupations and link them with concepts for changing existing methods of