DTIC ADA415389: Gateway Newsletter. Volume 14. Number 1, 2003

19 Pages·1.3 MB·English

by  Defense Technical Information Center

Volume XIV: Number 1 (2003) inside:
Human Systems IAC
G
ATEWAY
inside:
Special Issue:
Training
Published by the Human Systems Information Analysis Center
3 Transitioning
Perspectives to
Optimize Advanced
Training Designs
6 Future Combat Systems
Manpower, Personnel, and
Training (MPT):
The Challenges and
Paths Forward
8 Calendar
10 Training in
the 21st Century:
A Human Systems
Integration Perspective
12 The Advanced
Distributed Learning
(ADL) Initiative
Challenges of Advanced Training 17 Products
Technologies and Techniques:
Beginning the Dialog
Judith A. Johnston ESTNEECFLELNECHCEEXENDIINCIANFLORINMAFTOIORRNMEATECSEIVRTNIEOCN
The increased rate and complexity of of training challenges to the mix. How
computaferdorvsm—an pcureendsm etneatcn hnane odlv oagvriieeehst yibc leeoisnf g ttrdoae ivnweinleogap reaadbn—lde ciatadyne? qwHueoa twtee acpcaehnr f motrruamlitnai-intnacgse k bianeng dd a enesdvig anfllueedxati bifooilnr- aDC eeUnfTnethneiterse edaH dIuSnmmtfaoinatrenimss t SaeDtyrieesopdtnea mbrAEtSTNyEEmnCsFLELNECHC EEXENa DtIINeIChlIANAynFLeORsCItNM A FDiTO IosORRiNMesE fATECSEIVRTN IEOf CNense
personnel challenges. How can we streamline of individuals in a team environment?
Technical Information Center, Fort
the training design and development process in These questions merely scratch the sur-
Belvoir, VA, technically managed by
corder to keep pace with the rapid development of face of those currently facing technol- The Human Systems IAC is a
a the Air Force Research Laboratory
sitechnology? How much knowledge of technology ogy mediated learning specialists. UHnuimteda nS tEaftfeesc Dtievpeanretmsse nDt ioref cDteofreantsee,
Information Analysis Center
/hshould be considered as a baseline for training Preparing individuals to understand aWdrmiginhist-tPeraetdt ebrys othne ADierf eFnosrec eT eBcahsneic,a l
iloperators of systems of systems? The desire of our and perform their jobs and to use tech- IOnHfo,r manadti oonp Ceernatteerd, Fboyr t BBoeolvzo iAr,l len
m
military services to exploit the advantages of tech- nology in support of such efforts has VHAa,m teilcthonnic, aMllyc Lmeaanna,g VedA .by the Air
.
cnology to support its members present training reached a level of complexity that no Force Research Laboratory Human
dtichallenges as well. What kinds of problem solving longer fits neatly into an instructional EffeTchtivee anpespse aDriraencctoer aotfe ,a Wn raigdhvte-r-
Patterson Air Force Base, OH, and
c.skills can be anticipated for the use of advanced design model or training requirements. otipseermateend tb iyn Btohoisz Anlelewns Hleatmteirlt odno,e s
a not constitute an endorsement by
technologies? What tools and motivation should As trainers and educators struggle to McLean, VA.
//itrainers provide to encourage self-initiated learn- find immediate workable solutions, theT Dhee paaprptemareanntc eo fo fD aenf eandsvee rotisr etmhee nt
p: iHnS thIAisC n.ewsletter does not constitute
ing? The Training Transformation strategy of the we also try to take a step back from
t an endorsement by the Department of
t
hDepartment of Defense (DoD) adds another set our daily endeavors in order to under- Defense or the HSIAC.
continued on next page…
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE FormApprovedOMBNo.
0704-0188
Publicreportingburderforthiscollectionofinformationisestibatedtoaverage1hourperresponse,includingthetimeforreviewinginstructions,searchingexistingdatasources,gatheringandmaintainingthedataneeded,andcompleting
andreviewingthiscollectionofinformation.Sendcommentsregardingthisburdenestimateoranyotheraspectofthiscollectionofinformation,includingsuggestionsforreducingthisburdertoDepartmentofDefense,Washington
HeadquartersServices,DirectorateforInformationOperationsandReports(0704-0188),1215JeffersonDavisHighway,Suite1204,Arlington,VA22202-4302.Respondentsshouldbeawarethatnotwithstandinganyotherprovisionof
law,nopersonshallbesubjecttoanypenaltyforfailingtocomplywithacollectionofinformationifitdoesnotdisplayacurrentlyvalidOMBcontrolnumber.PLEASEDONOTRETURNYOURFORMTOTHEABOVEADDRESS.
1.REPORTDATE(DD-MM-YYYY) 2.REPORTTYPE 3.DATESCOVERED(FROM-TO)
01-01-2003 Newsletter xx-xx-2002toxx-xx-2003
4.TITLEANDSUBTITLE 5a.CONTRACTNUMBER
GatewayNewsletter 5b.GRANTNUMBER
XIV
5c.PROGRAMELEMENTNUMBER
1(2003)
Unclassified
6.AUTHOR(S) 5d.PROJECTNUMBER
Johnston,JudithA; 5e.TASKNUMBER
Hannafin,KathleenM;
5f.WORKUNITNUMBER
Hannafin,MichaelJ;
Kawley,JohnK;
Hettinger,Larry;
7.PERFORMINGORGANIZATIONNAMEANDADDRESS 8.PERFORMINGORGANIZATIONREPORT
HSIAC NUMBER
AFRL/HEC/HSIAC
2245MonahanWayBldg29
WPAFB,OH45433-7008
9.SPONSORING/MONITORINGAGENCYNAMEANDADDRESS 10.SPONSOR/MONITOR'SACRONYM(S)
, 11.SPONSOR/MONITOR'SREPORT
NUMBER(S)
12.DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITYSTATEMENT
APUBLICRELEASE
,
13.SUPPLEMENTARYNOTES
14.ABSTRACT
Thisnewslettercontainsthefollowingarticles:TransitioningPerspectivestoOptimizeAdvancedTrainingDesigns;FutureCombatSystems
Manpower,Personnel,andTraning(MPT):TheChallengesandPathsForward;Calendar;Traininginthe21stCentury:AHumanSystems
IntegrationPerspective;TheAdvancedDistributedLearning(ADL)Initiative;Products
15.SUBJECTTERMS
Training;TrainingDesigns;CombatSystems;Manpower;Personnel;HumanSystemsIntegration;AdvancedDistributedLearning;HSIAC
collection
16.SECURITYCLASSIFICATIONOF: 17.LIMITATION 18. 19.NAMEOFRESPONSIBLEPERSON
OFABSTRACT NUMBER Darrah,Sara
SameasReport [email protected]
(SAR) 18
a.REPORT b.ABSTRACT c.THISPAGE 19b.TELEPHONENUMBER
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified InternationalAreaCode
AreaCodeTelephoneNumber
DSN
StandardForm298(Rev.8-98)
PrescribedbyANSIStdZ39.18
…continued from previous page
stand what we need to do in order to at personnel and training issues emerging from the
address not only current but also future Army’s development of the Future Combat System
challenges that emerge when develop- (FCS). Larry Hettinger discusses the significance
ing training for the effective use of of training as a part of the human systems integra-
advanced technologies. tion process, and Dexter Fletcher and Phil Dodds
This issue of Gateway brings together describe the development and implementation of
thought leaders in the domains of edu- Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL), as well as
cational and advanced training tech- current performance research involving ADL.
nology who share their ideas on some These articles represent the tip of the iceberg
of the issues and possible solutions regarding advanced training technologies and
regarding learning and training with techniques. They provide a way to sort through
advanced technologies. Michael and some of the complexities surrounding problems
Kathleen Hannafin identify transitions and solutions and, it is hoped, a foundation for
we might adopt that have the potential a rich and fruitful discussion among all those in
to advance research, development, and our community who are touched by the need for
implementation of advanced training effective training and learning with and about
design. John Hawley takes a careful look advanced technologies. n
c h
a t
si tp
h :
/
/ /
l i
i a
m
c
c. .d
i t
t i
d c
c. .m
a
i
i l
/ /
/ h
:
p s
tt ia
h c
2 Human Systems IAC GATEWAY Volume XIV: Number 1 Human Systems IAC GATEWAY Volume XIV: Number 1 3
Transitioning Perspectives to
Optimize Advanced Training Designs
Kathleen M. Hannafin
Michael J. Hannafin
Learning & Performance Support Laboratory
University of Georgia
Recent interest in next-generation training pervasive and powerful design factors. Kathleen Hannafin is a
systems has focused much attention on This is both unfortunate and frustrating Research Scientist in the
emerging technologies. Still, relatively few to many for whom technology seem- Learning & Performance Support
efforts have challenged our conceptions of either ingly offered the ultimate “best way” to Laboratory at the University of
training design or delivery. While legitimate rea- accommodate the myriad of individual Georgia, Athens, GA. Kathleen
sons exist for continuing current methods, and differences evident in any population received her Ph.D. from the
re-hosting to new technologies, we believe that More recently in AI research, advo- Pennsylvania State University
opportunities to transform our conceptions as cates have studied and adapted instruc- in Instructional Systems. Her
well as methods may be lost. The risks are espe- tion based upon individual learner mod- current research interests focus
cially great as we see emerging interest in object els. While much work continues, these on learning and cognition issues
economies (learning objects, knowledge objects), efforts have also proven frustrating to with emerging technologies.
Web-based instruction and training, and grounded those interested in everyday issues relat-
distance-based practices. These developments out- ed to learning and performing. Often Michael Hannafin is Director
pace the capacity of current design approaches to the models are not stable, scalable or of the Learning & Performance
optimize advanced training designs. In this paper, cost-effective for field implementation. Support Laboratory at the
we identify and describe four key transitions (T1, For training applications, even key ATI University of Georgia and he
T2, T3, T4) with the potential to advance different and learner model differences are often is the university’s Endowed
training practices—research, development, and impractical to act upon; the excessive Chair and Eminent Scholar in
implementation. For each, we discuss roles tech- cost, time and effort required to adapt Technology Enhanced Learning.
nology might play, or is playing, as an engine for training systems renders the findings of Michael received his Ph.D. from
the transition. little practical consequence. Arizona State University. His
Given recent advances in emerging current research focus is design
T1: Abandon pursuit of the elusive “best way” technologies and the lessons learned of advanced and open learning
to improve individual learning or perform- from past approaches, it seems appro- environments.
ing. priate to shift our focus to address
From: Can we adapt instruction, training, and some basic but critical questions: What Contact:
support to address individual differences? factors contribute most to learning and Learning & Performance
To: Which factors contribute the most to performing? How can or should these Support Labortory
learning and performing and how can we factors be amplified? Of the thousands University of Georgia
amplify those? of possible influences, relatively few 614 Aderhold Hall
will exert a controlling influence; most Athens, GA 30602
c During the past forty years, significant R&D will not account for much performance h
a t
si effort has been focused on Aptitude-Treatment as part of an inclusive training system. Kathleen Hannafin tp
h Interaction (ATI) research, and development of Even accounting for the capabilities 706/542–3951 :/
/ /
il associated designs, that isolate and optimize learn- of emerging technologies, relatively 706/542–4321 (fax) ia
m
c
ing factors presumed to differentiate learning and few individual and design factors will [email protected]
c. performing. Unfortunately, while isolated research yield large payoffs—improved effective- .d
i t
t i
d findings have confirmed such interactions, ATI ness, portable and extensible training Michael Hannafin c
c. research has proven largely fruitless in guiding designs, and so forth. Rather, it seems 706/542–3157 .m
a
i practice (see Cronbach & Snow’s 1970 review). prudent to harness technology’s capa- 706/542–4321 (fax) il
/ /
:/ Even where reliable differences in isolated factors bilities to instantiate these powerful [email protected] h
p s
tt have been found in controlled studies, they are of factors into new training designs. For ia
h comparatively little influence in the face of more example, specialized features, func- c
2 Human Systems IAC GATEWAY Volume XIV: Number 1 Human Systems IAC GATEWAY Volume XIV: Number 1 3
tions, and tools designed specifically to durable, transferable skills and knowledge that are
support knowledge and skill building better connected to the individual’s own experi-
as well as account for task complexity ence. Initial research findings from John Bransford
and expertise development. In order to and others on contextualized and situated learning
optimize advanced training systems in show great promise for improving initial acquisi-
practice, we must shift from ‘the new tion, longer-term retention and transfer to similar
best way’ to designs that instantiate tasks. With the “maturity” of digital capabilities
the most effective research principles. designers can more easily contextualize and situ-
Pursue “new best ways” in the research ate training in authentic performance contexts.
environment, but amplify truly power-
ful strategies in everyday practice. T3: Deepen understanding.
From: How does our instruction, training,
T2: Focus on the knowledge, skill, and support effect the acquisition of
and performance that really knowledge and skills?
matters. To: How can our methods improve under-
From: What knowledge and skills standing about and utility of key ideas,
must people acquire, and how concepts, and procedures?
can we isolate and teach, train,
and support them efficiently? A third transition focuses on promoting deeper
To: In what context do critical understandings while acquiring skill. As described
knowledge and skills emerge? previously, many past approaches have focused on
How can we reflect situation mastery of declarative knowledge and procedural
complexity in teaching, train- knowledge and skill. There is a great deal of evi-
ing, and supporting? dence that suggests these methods create “inert”
knowledge—islands of information of little appar-
A second transition in research and ent value to existing knowledge and little pros-
training approaches is to reflect situ- pects for transfer. While not all individuals need
ation complexity rather than simplify to develop deep understanding of all things, some
unnecessarily. Traditional designs focus knowledge and skills are more important than
on developing “efficient” training—need others and should be understood more deeply.
to know versus nice to know—training Some have known relevance across other contexts
that is clearly focused and relatively or tasks; others are fundamental to basic problem
simple to develop, assess, and sup- solving related to the task or context.
port. Often these designs isolate “to Emerging technologies, and methods, offer many
be learned” knowledge and skills (e.g., ways to deepen understandings. For example, sys-
facts, procedures) from the contexts in tems can provide multiple demonstrations of task
which individuals learn and perform. applications or allow end-users to manipulate and
Rather than viewing a task as embed- test variables to better understand their individual
ded within a piece of equipment, for effects. Deep understanding can also be instanti-
example, the component knowledge ated in team training contexts, where models
and skills of the task are extracted and frameworks for understanding and problem
and ordered hierarchically, prerequisite solving can be represented, clarified, refined, and
knowledge mapped, and sequences elaborated. Contextualization promotes knowl-
created to “impart” the requisite learn- edge and skill acquisition, rapid application, and
ing. All the trainee must do is transfer flexibility in implementing and trouble-shooting.
the resulting knowledge or skills to the
c actual problem and problem context. T4: Embrace complexity (rather than simplifi- h
a t
si In many cases, these methods have cation). tp
h proven ineffective—and we know it. From: What requisite knowledge or skill needs :/
/ /
il We are all too familiar with the prob- to be taught and trained prior to higher- ia
m
c
lems associated with limited retention, level learning and performing?
c. meaning, and transfer, yet the approach To: How can individuals acquire presumed .d
i t
t i
d continues to dominate training design. requisite knowledge and skill by engaging c
c. In truth, evidence questioning the wis- in more complex tasks? .m
a
dom of decontextualized training is at i
i l
/ /
/ least as persuasive as that to continue Traditionally, designs have focused on part- h
:
p s
tt it. There are other approaches, and to-whole hierarchical models of learning and ia
h technologies well-suited to support performing. These approaches posit a necessary c
4 Human Systems IAC GATEWAY Volume XIV: Number 1 Human Systems IAC GATEWAY Volume XIV: Number 1 5
dependence between presumed prerequisite
Sponsor Needed
knowledge and skill and more advanced knowl-
edge or skill. Although this approach provides a NASA TLX for WINDOWS
reliable design technology and a predictable meth-
odology, it over generalizes a basic tenet of Gagne’s The Human Systems Information Analysis Center (HSIAC) is look-
Events of Instruction: whereas individuals may ing for a sponsor to help defray the cost of converting the NASA
be taught effectively using hierarchical methods, Task Load Index (TLX) program from its current DOC configuration
they learn very differently. Little of what everyday to a WINDOWS operating environment. Even though the NASA TLX
people encounter is explicitly organized accord- is DOS based it is still one of the best known and used subjective
ing to hierarchies and sequences. We know that workload assessment tools. NASA TLX allows users to perform sub-
it is not necessarily how people learn things. Our jective workload assessments on operator(s) working with various
auto mechanics dive in and become facile through human-machine systems. NASA TLX is a multi-dimensional rating
immersion; even our use of computer manuals procedure that derives an overall workload score based on a weighted
typifies immersion in use over the orderly accu- average of ratings on six subscales. These subscales include Mental
mulation of facts and procedures. Few of us read Demands, Physical Demands, Temporal Demands, Own Performance,
or study procedure manuals anymore; for better Effort, and Frustration. It can be used to assess workload in various
or worse, we dive in headlong, using the manual human-machine environments such as aircraft cockpits; command,
to resolve problems as they emerge rather than as control, and communication (C3) workstations; supervisory and pro-
a body of prerequisite knowledge. Similarly, indi- cess control environments; simulations, and laboratory tests.
viduals use a range of strategies to make sense of The selected sponsor will be given a free full-page ad for one year in
everyday things they encounter, resolve problems, our very popular quarterly newsletter Gateway. Gateway has a world-
and generate new strategies. wide distribution of approximately 9,000. We will also identify the spon-
The widespread examples of problem-based sor on all copies of NASA TLX distributed, and on our web page listing
learning in medical education and case-based of products. If interested contact Tom Metzler HSIAC Director at (tom.
reasoning in the study of law are perhaps the best [email protected], 937/255–4842 ext. 213) or Paul Cunningham at
examples of institutionally-embraced and widely ([email protected], 937/255–4842 ext. 206)
installed inductive design. While many institu-
tions continue to use situated problems and cases
to test student transfer of knowledge, an increas-
ing percentage use them as the means to teach,
and encounter, knowledge and skills in problem
contexts. Participants learn both the activities and
problems associated with the setting; they acquire
important knowledge and skills by engaging the
problem. Such designs can quickly engage trainees
at appropriate levels of task complexity while pro-
viding guidance and support consistent with the
work context, at varied expertise levels and across
task applications.
Conclusion
It is apparent that the truly big breakthroughs
will not come from the next generation technolo-
gies, but from shifts in mindsets and approaches
in their use. Some transitions require going back
to our future and re-focusing on things that really
c make a difference; others require more fundamen- h
a t
si tal changes in how we think about training and tp
h technology to unleash potential not yet tapped. We :/
/ /
il have no single “best way” of our own to offer—no ia
m
c
silver bullet to address all needs and constraints
c. through new, and emerging, technologies. In the .d
i t
t i
d final analysis, it is more about changing how we c
c. view training and education than waiting for the .m
a
miracle cure. n i
i l
/ /
/ h
:
p s
tt ia
h c
4 Human Systems IAC GATEWAY Volume XIV: Number 1 Human Systems IAC GATEWAY Volume XIV: Number 1 5
Future Combat Systems
Manpower, Personnel, and Training (MPT):
The Challenges and Paths Forward
John K. Hawley
Army Research Laboratory Human
Research and Engineering Directorate
John K. Hawley, Ph.D., is Driven by technological poten- es for combat. It has been observed, for example,
an engineering psychologist tial, operational demands, that FCS UA might resemble Special Operations
with the Army Research and an evolution of military Forces (SOFs) with small, non-hierarchical teams
Laboratory’s Human Research thinking, the Army is undertaking consisting of carefully selected, highly trained
and Engineering Directorate. a broad-based modernization effort personnel operating in a widely dispersed area of
He is co-lead of the FCS Human termed “Transformation”. The newest operations but capable of producing far-reaching
Dimension IPT. component of Transformation is the results—as we have recently seen in Afghanistan.
Future Combat Systems (FCS), a light The SOFs operational model is only part of the
Contact: and deployable but lethal and surviv- vision, however. FCS UA are also intended to
John Hawley able weapons concept. In essence, engage more conventional adversaries. And the
ARL-HRED the Army’s Transformation response key to success in these near peer engagements is
Bldg. 459 involves fielding FCS-equipped com- what is termed information-centric warfare—using
APG, MD 21005 bined arms battalions organized into information technology (IT) to detect and engage
410/278–5867 mission-tailored, brigade-equivalent conventional opposing forces before they are able
[email protected] entities called Units of Action (UA). to close with the lighter FCS UA. Information dom-
UA are further organized into tailored inance is envisioned as central to the success of
expeditionary organizations called FCS UA in conventional engagements. In essence,
Units of Employment (UE). UE will we are replacing armor tonnage and traditional
also contain FCS-compatible systems punch with information superiority.
and units intended to round out their A key question at this point in the discussion is:
combat capability. The resulting entity what is necessary to make information-centric war-
is melded into an effective whole using fare a reality? The obvious direction for the FCS UA
an advanced battle command capability. is a massive infusion of IT. Evidence from a vari-
Collectively, the FCS and UA are referred ety of sources suggests, however, that technology
to as FCS-equipped UA, or FCS UA. alone will not be sufficient to realize anticipated
The FCS UA developmental effort has gains in organizational effectiveness. Technology
been termed the largest and most com- must be accompanied by new organizational forms
plex materiel, organizational, and doc- and modified human resources practices.
trinal transformation ever attempted by
the Army. In terms of complexity and FCS MPT Challenges and Paths Forward
scope, comparisons have been made to New Organizational Forms
c fielding airmobile divisions in the 1960s Based on the experience of the past several h
a t
si or the development of panzer organiza- decades, the impact of IT on using organizations tp
h tions and associated Blitzkrieg doctrine is clear. In general, IT flattens organizational struc- :/
/ /
il by the German army during the 1920s ture, reduces the need for centralized operations, ia
m
c
and 1930s. In both cases, the synergy of and results in a greater reliance on teams. For
c. the new whole was critical to fielding a example, special operations units exhibit all of the .d
i t
t i
d military organization having consider- organizational characteristics noted above, and c
c. ably more lethality than what had gone much of the personnel-related program documenta- .m
a
before. tion for the FCS UA reads like a call to reorganize a i
i l
/ /
/ Realizing the potential inherent in the large segment of the Army along special operations h
:
p s
tt FCS UA might require a similar change lines. However, special operations personnel are ia
h in the way the Army fights and organiz- carefully selected, highly motivated, and rigorously c
6 Human Systems IAC GATEWAY Volume XIV: Number 1 Human Systems IAC GATEWAY Volume XIV: Number 1 7
trained on a continuing basis to accomplish a mis- larly highly skilled. This industrial-age
sion very different from the FCS UA. The question job model adapted from assembly line
that must be answered before pushing the SOFs thinking—is the basis for the Army’s
argument too far is: to what extent can the SOFs present occupational structure. The
model be generalized to the Army at large? Army also pursues an up-or-out per-
Beyond the SOFs issue, two topics directly sonnel management policy in which
relate to the organizational impact of IT on FCS enlisted jobholders move up and are
UA. These are combined arms at lower levels and promoted out of hands-on technical
leader development. roles. The fast track for officer promo-
tions also favors generalists over techni-
Combined Arms at Lower Levels cal specialists.
Much of the FCS UA’s appeal stems from its The FCS UA organizational concept
ability to operate as a combined arms force at the in conjunction with information-cen-
company level. In essence, companies become tric warfare will work to overturn this
mini-battalions. While this feature is appealing, system. First, there will be fewer sol-
the reality is that we do not really train junior diers available perform a wider spec-
officers, or non-commissioned officers (NCOs) in trum of more complex job functions.
combined-arms operations. Moreover, we do not Developing what has been termed
have the structures in place to support combined multi-skilled soldiers (MSS) will thus
arms operations at the company level. Companies be a necessity. The increased prolif-
do not have formal staffs such as exist at the bat- eration of complex IT hardware will
talion and brigade levels. also demand an increase in technical
To make combined arms operations at lower specialists with state-of-the art techni-
levels a reality, the Army must revamp junior offi- cal knowledge. Military Occupational
cer and NCO training to address combined arms Specialty (MOS) reform and the devel-
operations and address the lack of staff capabilities opment of MSS will thus be the leading
at the company level. This latter issue primarily human resource challenges for the FCS
involves ensuring that adequate information pro- UA. These changes will also produce a
cessing and decision-making capabilities are pres- requirement for training reform.
ent at that level.
Job Structure Reform
Leader Development Over the past several decades, the
FCS UA program documentation comments proliferation of complex equipment has
repeatedly that the concept’s success depends in resulted in a corresponding propaga-
part on adaptable and flexible leaders. Adaptability tion of complex MOSs that because of
and flexibility have always been essential for suc- low personnel densities present both
cess in military operations. The real issue here is a personnel management and train-
one of degree. Achieving the potential inherent in ing problem. The Army’s stove-piped
the FCS UA concept will require more of these branch structure exacerbates the situa-
characteristics than has been necessary in the tion by creating partial skill redundan-
past. Decentralized operations will also place a cies across MOSs that are similar in
greater premium on aggressive, flexible leadership skill content but have different branch
a lower levels. proponents and are thus maintained as
The leadership literature suggests that charac- separate jobs. Adding the FCS UA to the
teristics such as flexibility and proactivity can be force will make this problem worse.
developed through experiential training with feed- One potential solution to the prolif-
c back. However, the question of whether good lead- erating number of MOS is to organize h
a t
si ers are born or made remains. The best answer jobs around skill commonalities rather tp
h likely is that it takes a little of both—personal than systems or branches. Families :/
/ /
il characteristics along with the right shaping experi- of systems often have associated skill ia
m
c
ences—to produce a capable leader. commonalities. And it might be pos-
c. sible to use these commonalities to .d
i t
dt Modified MPT Practices identify core sets of skills that define ic
c. The Army’s current human resources system is jobs. One could then build upon this .m
a
an artifact of the industrial age. Aptitude and train- core set of skills to effectively enlarge a i
i l
/ /
/ ing requirements are controlled by breaking down jobholder’s span of competencies, thus h
:
p s
tt a unit’s functions into a relatively large number also making it easier to develop MSS. A ia
h of job categories, many of which are not particu- continued on page 15… c
6 Human Systems IAC GATEWAY Volume XIV: Number 1 Human Systems IAC GATEWAY Volume XIV: Number 1 7
calendar of events
may San Antonio, TX, USA. May 4–9, 2003
74th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Aerospace Medical Association
Contact: Aerospace Medical Association, 320 South Henry Street, Alexandria, VA 22314–3579
Tel: [phone] • Fax: [phone] • URL: http://www.asma.org/
Munich, Germany. May 7–9, 2003
XVII International Annual Occupational Ergonomics and Safety Conference
URL: http://www.munich2003.com
Augusta, GA, USA. May 12–15, 2003
Department of Defense Human Factors Engineering Technical Advisory Group
Contact: Sheryl Cosing, 10822 Crippen Vale Ct., Reston, VA 20194
Tel: [phone] • Fax: [phone] • E-mail: [email protected]
URL: http://dtica.dtic.mil/hftag
jun Montreal, Canada. June 16–19, 2003
SAE Digital Human Modeling for Design and Engineering Conference and Exhibition
Contact: John Miller, 755 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 1600, Troy, MI 48084
Tel: [phone] • Fax: [phone] • E-mail: [email protected]
URL: http://www.sae.org/dhmc
Denver, Colorado. June 22–25, 2003
Safety 2003 Sponsored by the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE)
Contact: Jeff Naccarato • Tel: [phone], ext. 7916 • E-mail: [email protected]
URL: http://www.asse.org
Johnstown, PA, USA. June 22–26, 2003
9th International Conference on User Modeling
Contact: Peter Brusilovsky, School of Information Sciences,
University of Pittsburgh, 135 North Bellefield Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Tel: [phone] • E-mail: [email protected] • URL: http://www2.sis.pitt.edu/~um2003/
Crete, Greece. June 22–27, 2003
HCI International 2003: 10th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction jointly
with Symposium on Human Interface (Japan) 2003 5th International Conference on Engineering
Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics and 2nd International Conference on Universal Access in
Human-Computer Interaction
Contact: Maria Papadopoulou, ICS-FORTH • E-mail: [email protected]
c URL: http://www.hcii2003.gr h
a t
si tp
h Tysons Corner, VA, USA. June 23–25, 2003 :/
/ /
l Human Systems Integration Symposium: Enhancing Human Performance in Naval & Joint Environments i
i a
m
Contact: American Society of Naval Engineers, c
c. Attn: HSIS 2003, 1452 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 .d
ti Tel: [phone] • Fax: [phone] • E-mail: [email protected] ti
d c
c. .m
a
i
i l
/ /
/ h
:
p s
tt ia
h c
8 Human Systems IAC GATEWAY Volume XIV: Number 1 Human Systems IAC GATEWAY Volume XIV: Number 1 9
calendar of events
New York, NY, USA. July 8–10, 2003 jul
Eastern Ergonomics Conference and Exposition (EECE)
Contact: Lenore M. Kolb • Tel: [phone], ext. 23 • E-mail: [email protected]
URL: http://www.ergoexpo.com/index.asp
Seoul, South Korea. August 24–29, 2003 aug
The XVth Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association
URL: http://www.iea2003.org/
St. Louis, MI, USA. September 23–25, 2003 sep
5th Annual Technologies for Public Safety in Critical Incident Response Conference & Exposition
Contact: Center for Technology Commercialization, Public Safety Technology Center
P.O. Box 11344, Alexandria, VA 22312
Tel: [phone] • Fax: [phone] • E-mail: [email protected]
URL: http://www.nlectc.org/conf/nij2003.html (beginning 5/01/03)
Denver, CO, USA. October 13–17, 2003 oct
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 47th Annual Meeting
Contact: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, P.O. Box 1369, Santa Monica, CA 90406–1369
Tel: [phone] • Fax: [phone] • E-mail: [email protected]
URL: http://www.hfes.org/
Memphis, TN, USA. November 2–4, 2002 nov
The Second International Conference on Mobile Health
Contact: International Mobile Health Association
1058 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117–3109
URL: http://www.intlmobilehealthassn.org
Las Vegas, NV, USA. December 8–11, 2003
dec
National Ergonomics Conference and Exposition (NECE)
Contact: Walter Charnizon, President, Continental Exhibitions
c 370 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017 • Tel: [phone] • Fax: [phone] h
sia URL: http://www.ergoexpo.com/index.asp ttp
h :
/
/ /
l i
i a
m
c
c. .d
i t
t i
d c
c. .m
a
i
i l
/ /
/ h
:
p s
tt ia
h c
8 Human Systems IAC GATEWAY Volume XIV: Number 1 Human Systems IAC GATEWAY Volume XIV: Number 1 9