policy, management and readiness
“Knowledge Now” E-Learning and Knowledge Management
Integration
Application of MUVE Technology to Navy Training Policy
Implementation
Going Further with E-Learning: Factors Influencing
Persistence, Transfer and Intentions to Continue
FLIGHT SIMULATOR UTILIZATION TO AUGMENT OPERATIONAL
TESTING – ONE YEAR UPDATE
Successfully Upgrading Legacy Simulation Equipment Using
the Value Methodology
Using Open Industry Standards to Share Visual Simulation
Databases
System-Level Simulation Reuse on the Space Station
Training Facility
Proof-Of-Concept Acquisition Process
Transforming the Training of Warfighting Developers Using
a Blended Approach Outline
“SIMULATORS ARE FOREIGN TO ME” FOREIGN MILITARY SALES OF
SIMULATORS
Lessons Learned from the UH-60M Early User Demonstrations
|
|
“Knowledge Now” E-Learning and Knowledge Management IntegrationManager, E-Learning and Knowledge Management Program General Dynamics. 5200 Springfield Pike Dayton, OH 45431-1289 This paper describes how the Knowledge Now team integrated elements of eLearning within Knowledge Now to provide workforce learning at the point of need. The first section provides an overview of (Air Force Materiel Command) AFMC Knowledge Now. This robust, internet-based knowledge management system is designed to accelerate warfighter support by giving the AFMC workforce a mechanism for finding and accessing time-critical knowledge, training, and performance support resources. It is designed around “communities of practice” (CoP) and provides links to: Tools, Training and Education, Related Sites, Other Community Members, Policy and Direction, Other CoPs, AF Portal, and AFMC Portal. It also contains the following User-controlled Functionality: Community of Communities, Document Management, Discussion Forums, Community Calendars, Find a Mentor, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s), News Ticker, Tell a Friend, Alert Notifications, List Serves, Metrics Tracking, Surveys, Link Management, Membership Lists. The second major section discusses the process the Team followed to identify and assess how Knowledge Now might support the AFMC workforce find and learn from knowledge needed to accomplish the AFMC mission. In the “To-Be” environment, we want to be able to support learning that is everywhere, all the time, and tied directly to the job: removed from the constraints of job definitions that limit the ability of not only the person, but also the organization to fully leverage its human capital We want to be able to communicate leadership’s vision so that learning is present and the workforce can all act upon that vision as one. The results of this assessment provided a foundation from which the “to-be” vision, policies, and processes could be derived to interject new patterns into AFMC that continues our cultural shift toward meeting business needs and the needs of our people. Our ability to transform into a Learning Culture requires people to people interface and the “AFKN E-Learning Depot” is the mechanism by which we create this interface. We will describe how the Depot will support the AFKN Team work directly with the “CoP Champions” who work directly with their community members. It also allows CoP Champions to directly communicate with and share knowledge among communities. Finally, we will describe how learning objects are defined for use within the AFKN environment and how they are “connected” to other learning objects, CoPs, knowledge areas, and in some cases, within a “formal” course structure. This discussion will include how learning is accessed through enterprise searches, their direct association within CoPs, and the tracking of continuous learning points. The third section will provide information on the workforce response to the integrated eLearning environment and lessons learned. This paper is available on the 2003 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website
|
|
|
Application of MUVE Technology to Navy Training Policy ImplementationAnteon Corp Mystic, CT Task Force Excel catapulted the Navy “Training Revolution” into action. With full support from the CNO and CNET, now the Naval Education and Training Command (NET-C), numerous learning centers, multiple training initiatives, and a wealth of on-line resources emerged. However, the CNO’s Executive Review of Navy Training (ERNT) reported that, in spite of this new restructuring, “There is no central organization responsible for Navy training policy, planning, and general oversight.” In response, the Naval Personnel Development Command (NPDC), and later NET-C, emerged to implement the broad-scope organizational, managerial and policy change necessary to centralize and coordinate the efficient delivery of education and training. To date they have instituted a new Human Systems Model approach to training and further structured the Naval training community, yet to fully centralize the training infrastructure, the two organizations require a mechanism to enable the centralization and coordination of policy and resources. This paper recommends an application of Multi-User Virtual Environment (MUVE) technology, currently used for policy implementation, professional development, and organizational learning in the public education sector, to solve these organizational challenges. MUVE technology enables multiple participants to simultaneously access digital reference objects, communicate with other participants or computer-based agents, and create Communities of Practice through the aid of on-line synchronous and asynchronous collaborative tools. This paper first defines the organizational culture and hierarchy within the Naval training community, the key participants, and the most recent developments resulting from Task Force Excel. Second, an architectural design outlines the MUVE’s structure for distributing policy, learning, resources, and intellectual functioning across distance and time through combined synchronous, and asynchronous, mediated interaction within a central virtual location. Finally, the authors describe the benefits of implementing this technology: how placing a unifying structure over all other Navy resources facilitates the change process directed by the NPDC. This paper is available on the 2003 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website
|
|
|
Going Further with E-Learning: Factors Influencing Persistence, Transfer and Intentions to ContinueMajor Paul W. Thurston, Ph.D., USAF First Lieutenant Christopher C. Earnhardt , USAF Air Force Institute Of Technology Air Force Institute Of Technology Wright-Patterson AFB, OH Wright-Patterson AFB, OH Completion rates for web-based courses tend to lag behind their traditional classroom counterparts, sometimes as much as 40% (Carter, 1996; Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Zielinski, 2000). Thurston and Reynolds (2002) employed motivational constructs to explain why some people persist while others drop out of web-based courses. Their analysis of 8 web-based courses and responses from 497 e-learning students indicated that completion goals, off-task distractions, availability of feedback for self-regulation, and continued confidence were important factors that distinguished those who completed their courses from those who did not. One limitation for the 2002 study was its inability to assess the independent effects of these factors on persistence. This current study addresses this limitation, and then expands beyond persistence to assess the influence of motivational factors on both transfer of learning to the work environment and intentions to pursue e-learning courses in the future. We distributed an online survey to approximately 2000 active duty and civilian students who had initiated one of the 20 e-learning courses offered by the Air Force Institute of Technology’s Virtual Schoolhouse. Results were analyzed using the LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993) structural equation modeling program. Analysis of the 575 responses provided strong evidence for the hypothesized detrimental effect of off-task distractions and the beneficial effects of both completion goals and feedback on students’ continued confidence. Analysis also supported the hypothesized relationships of confidence with transfer of learning and intentions to pursue e-learning opportunities in the future. We also found additional independent effects of distractions, feedback, and completion goals on transfer of learning to the work environment that were not mediated through continued confidence. Completion goals also had an unmediated effect on intentions to pursue e-learning in the future. Practical implications of the research are discussed. This paper is available on the 2003 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website
|
|
|
Assessing the Effectiveness of A Networked Virtual Training Simulation: Evaluation of the Close Combat Tactical TrainerMYMIC LLC 200 High St, Suite 308 Portsmouth, VA 23704 PEOSTRI -Army Research Institute Simulator Research Field Office Orlando, FL NAVAIR Orlando Training Systems Division Orlando, FL The Army Research Institute (ARI) with contractor support surveyed users of the Close Combat Tactical Trainer (CCTT) to determine the training approaches they are utilizing and the role CCTT is playing in their overall training strategy. This survey provides information about how well CCTT has been assimilated into unit training programs and the value its users perceive they derive from its use. This effort was a first attempt to assess the perceived training value of CCTT to Army units and to tryout a cost-effective, practical alternative to an empirical evaluation. An empirical one-shot data collection effort suffers from serious problems in collective training environments. It is difficult if not impossible to collect data from enough units in a short period to obtain sufficient statistical power, costs are prohibitive, and controlling for all of the independent variables that impact on the effectiveness of an Army unit is difficult if not possible. This study explored survey and interview approaches to determine value and user satisfaction. The study obtained user feedback from Battalion Commanders through Platoon Sergeants. The primary source of conclusions reached from this study came from interviews and surveys of the leadership of six Close Combat Battalions at two CCTT fixed sites. This paper provides an overview of the methodology used to develop the data collection instruments, the results of that collective effort and the analytic results from assessments of that data. This paper is available on the 2003 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website
|
|
|
Distributed Mission Training Cost Comparison Analysis Commercial Training Simulation Services Versus Traditional AcquisitionTraining Systems Product Group Wright-Patterson AFB, OH “Can you tell me what it would cost if we used a traditional acquisition approach instead?” This is a question the Training Systems Product Group (TSPG) continually receives from potential customers when a Commercial Training Simulation Services (CTSS) approach is suggested. CTSS is an acquisition business strategy where Air Force simulators are built and owned by a contractor who in turns provides commercial services. A CTSS contract allows the Government to buy services (trainer time) versus a device. The contractor owns everything and is responsible for all trainer long-term logistics support as well as implementing any simulator concurrency and technology upgrades to match the latest aircraft configuration. CTSS contracts are normally firm fixed-price with a five or seven-year basic period of performance. This approach streamlines the acquisition process because there are fewer Government requirements, such as no milestone reviews; no oversight and less technical interchange meetings. The contractor is also motivated to field the system on time so that service payments can commence. Of course, there is a price to pay for these services. Customers will always ask how this price differs from a traditional acquisition, hence the question at the beginning of this paragraph. This paper is available on the 2003 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website
|
|
|
FLIGHT SIMULATOR UTILIZATION TO AUGMENT OPERATIONAL TESTING – ONE YEAR UPDATEDynetics, Inc. Shalimar, FL AAC/WMX Eglin AFB, FL The potential utilization of the USAF Distributed Mission Operation-Aircrew (DMO-A) initiative’s Mission Training Center (MTC) resources to augment the test activities of the Air Warfare Center’s 53d Wing (53WG) were discussed at I/ITSEC 2002. In this update to the 2002 paper, specific activities and utilizations of simulator assets by the F-15 Combined Test Force (CTF), the 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron, the 28th Test Squadron, and the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron that have occurred within the previous year are presented. Progress and lessons learned associated with the 53WG's implementation of a Design of Experiments (DoE) methodology are discussed, with emphasis on the role of simulator assets within the DoE implementation. Finally, the relative importance of using validated simulator models is re-examined, with an examination of the practice of using flight simulators for tactics development prior to formal validation activities. This paper is available on the 2003 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website
|
|
|
Successfully Upgrading Legacy Simulation Equipment Using the Value MethodologyPEO STRI SFAE-STRI-PS-Q Life Cycle Project Director 12350 Research Parkway Orlando, FL 32826 Modernization of computer based training and simulation systems are an ever-present concern as hardware platforms mature, and software-operating systems improve. The struggle to balance the considerable investment in the legacy systems against the possible enhancements achievable by inserting new technology is best evaluated by multi-disciplined teams including users, maintainers, planners and developers. The need for success validates the importance of conducting a focused work-study or workshop event to rapidly reduce complex problems/challenges to a workable solution. It demonstrates that teamwork provides the needed capabilities and achieves across-the-board acceptance, especially by those who have to implement the results. Use of the Value Methodology allowed several diverse ideas to be compared to one another. The teams looked at feasibility, risk, cost and life cycle considerations while maintaining focusing on the functions and meeting the customers needs and expectations. This paper is available on the 2003 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website
|
|
|
Using Open Industry Standards to Share Visual Simulation DatabasesUS Air Force Training System Product Group Hill AFB, UT MultiGen-Paradigm, a Computer Associates co. Plano, TX Traditionally, databases for Air Force simulators have been built to the unique needs of whatever particular image generator was being used on that particular program. Because image generators for flight simulation must have exceptional performance, these image generators were very unique and databases built for one particular image generator could not be easily used on a different image generator. As a result, the Air Force has built several databases of the same geographic areas of the world and continues to do so. Furthermore, the Air Force has traditionally purchased their databases as a finished product ready to run on an image generator. Databases in this form are difficult, if not impossible, to use on other image generators. But now, two factors are making it more feasible to share databases between programs. First, as computers have gotten faster and faster, image generator manufacturers are able to use more standard components, so image generators are not as unique as they used to be. Second, industry has developed de facto standards for almost all simulator database elements. Additionally, we can purchase a generic database at a point in its development such that most of the work has been accomplished, but it is still generic enough that it can be targeted to multiple image generators without significant rework. In light of these developments, the Air Force is doing a concept validation to see how easily an open database developed to de facto industry standards can be targeted to multiple image generators. We will be gathering information on the constraints, issues, etc. that are found in developing this open database with the objective of creating a guideline for future reference. This paper is available on the 2003 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website
|
|
|
System-Level Simulation Reuse on the Space Station Training FacilityRaytheon Technical Services Company Houston, Texas Raytheon Technical Services Company Houston, Texas Some of the best ways to enhance training system effectiveness, whether for the International Space Station Crew or the war fighter, are to make sure (a) the training systems fidelity meets the training needs, (b) the training capability is fielded on time, and (c) the simulation investment yields a corresponding improvement in performance. Reuse of system-level simulation models can be a major contributor to the successful development of cost-effective, high-fidelity training systems on an aggressive schedule. In this paper, three system-level simulation reuse case studies are presented based on experience to date in the development of NASA’s Space Station Training Facility (SSTF) at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. Case studies include (a) the Boeing/Rocketdyne-provided Electrical Power Simulation (EPSIM), (b) the NASA Automation and Robotics Division-provided TRICK robotics systems model, and (c) the Russian Space Agency-provided Russian Segment Trainer. In each case, there was an initial tendency to dismiss simulation reuse candidates based on an apparent obvious lack of suitability. A careful examination of reuse potential, based on a more structured assessment of architectural and requirements-oriented representations of the reuse candidates, revealed significant reuse potential. These assessments revealed a business case that pointed to a higher-fidelity end product, available on a faster timeline and at a fraction of the cost of “developing the system simulation models from scratch.” This paper describes the detailed objective assessment and the corresponding implementation and verification that resulted in major quality, schedule, and cost benefits for NASA. These concepts should be directly applicable for use in the development of military training systems. This paper is available on the 2003 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website
|
|
|
Proof-Of-Concept Acquisition ProcessProject Manager, Technology Requirements Branch Headquarters Air Education and Training Command (AETC) Randolph Air Force Base, Texas Program Manager, Technology Requirements Branch Headquarters Air Education and Training Command (AETC) Randolph Air Force Base, Texas Air Education and Training Command (AETC) has a funded program to do proof of concept studies to determine the actual training benefit of emerging technologies before committing to training system acquisitions. The Education and Training Technologies Application Program (ETTAP) is a technology demonstration program that enables AETC senior leadership to evaluate technology solutions of existing requirements in a corporate manner. The process seeks to prove that a technology is applicable in a particular application by measuring efficiency, effectiveness, and utilization in actual recruiting, education, and training environments. The process includes an analytical study providing an objective assessment to AETC staff for command-wide implementation consideration. Projects must solve needs documented in the AETC Master Plan, AETC Mission Area Plans, or local group level documentation. A corporate process, governed by AETCI 36-2218, ranks proposals against needs and projected return on investment and ensures proposals are not redundant with other projects or programs across the Air Force. This paper will describe the process model used to test emerging technologies, provide industry with knowledge of this process, and provide examples of currently funded programs to include: Virtual Reality PC Based Flight Simulation in F-15C training, Embedded, Electronic Warfare Simulation in C-130 training, Ground Theater Air Control System (GTACS) Distributed Mission Training (DMT) Technology, and others. The HQ AETC Technology Requirements Branch (HQ AETC/XPRT) manages the ETTAP program and the AETC Studies and Analysis Squadron, Technology Innovation Flight (AETC SAS/IT) provides the objective evaluation and analysis. This paper is available on the 2003 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website
|
|
|
Transforming the Training of Warfighting Developers Using a Blended Approach OutlineComputer Sciences Corporation Hampton, VA Computer Sciences Corporation Hampton, VA Transforming
The Training of Warfighting Developers Using Blended Technologies The
Army’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) plays the leading role in
designing, developing, and implementing the organization and operation of the
future Army. This responsibility
includes the development of warfighting concepts, to include doctrine and
training. In
response to current aging of the government employee sector and the resource
requirements to reorganize and outsource services and products, the Training
and Warfighting Developments Career Program-32 (CP-32) Army Civilian
Training, Education, and Development System (ACTEDS) Plan was revised to
include the professional development assignments, training, and education
that would enable the CP-32 Warfighting Developer to be a multifunctional
warfighting developer in support Army Transformation. An
in-depth Task Analysis concluded that a newly designed Combat, Training, and
Doctrine Developers Integration Course (CTDDIC) for CP-32 interns would act
as a catalyst for the futuristic vision of having multifunctional personnel
within the Army. Phase
I:
The CTDDIC design reflects a Program of Instruction (POI) architecture
for 144-hours of scenario driven Instructor-led Training (ILT) that includes
a 24-hour End-of-Course Integrated Concept Team (ICT) Exercise that provides
an experience of the interdependent combat, training, and doctrine
development processes Phase
II: The CTDDIC Distributed Learning
(DL) course, a redesign of the CTDDIC ILT, is a highly blended approach of
three types of technologies:
Interactive Multimedia Instruction (IMI), Web-based
Instructor/Facilitator Training (WBIFT), and Video Tele-Training (VTT). The
long-term goal is to build and sustain the corps of quality warfighting
developers by providing career enhancement opportunities and sustainment
training. The statistical results of career program study and the CTDDIC Instructor-led Training (ILT) provide the basis of this paper and a description of this new innovative training program and how it is preparing the Warfighting Developer to support Army Transformation. This paper is available on the 2003 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website
|
|
|
The “RED METL” ProcessDynamics Research Corporation Andover, MA The Universal Joint Task List (UJTL) and the Mission Essential Task List (METL) process has been part of the Joint World for almost ten years. In that time task analysis based upon the METL process has moved from helping to organize joint training to evaluating joint and service readiness. As commanders and their operations staffs become more familiar with thinking of military operations in terms of tasks to be accomplished, under certain conditions of their environment, to specified levels of performance, an opportunity arises to use the same approach to understand what the opponent is doing. If our side must deploy certain reinforcing units within four days (in the summer, and six in the winter), then it is because the potential opponent is expected to mobilize and move forward certain of their forces within two days (in the summer, and three and a half days in the winter). The Intelligence Community can increase its ability to support a commander and staff by presenting their analysis of expected enemy plans in a METL format. The intelligence personnel can determine the tasks the enemy needs to perform to achieve their aims, the conditions under which those tasks must be accomplished, and the standards to which those tasks need to be performed. The result should be a dialogue that evaluates the commander’s own METL in terms of the opponent’s METL. From embracing the Mission Essential Task List approach for its own training, the Intelligence Community should move to using the METL approach in describing the enemy, incorporating that approach in Joint and Service Doctrine. This paper is available on the 2003 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website
|
|
|
“SIMULATORS ARE FOREIGN TO ME” FOREIGN MILITARY SALES OF SIMULATORSChief, FMS Fighter Training Systems Branch Training Systems Product Group Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio The marketing and sale of fighter aircraft simulators to foreign governments necessitates unique processes and creates challenges entirely different from “stateside” acquisition. The Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process, as dictated in Air Force Manual 16-101, International Affairs and Security Assistance Management, requires different acquisition, contractual, and coordination requirements than typically executed under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). As an example, diplomatic and political considerations mandate that both the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF/IA) and the Air Force Security Assistance Center (AFSAC) play a leading role in any international simulator procurement. Contractually, different tools like the Letter of Request (LOR), Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA), and the Price and Availability (P&A) matrix must be used to execute simulator buys for foreign governments. In addition to these unique FMS processes, the “art” of dealing with a variety of international cultural, economic, and diplomatic considerations can be challenging as well. The different mind-sets, perspectives, and business practices of international customers are all an integral part of any simulator sale to a foreign government. The price negotiated can be influenced by everything from a country hosting the Olympic games that year to a natural disaster pulling funds away for relief efforts. Schedule can be slipped due to a change in government leadership, new elections, or a parliament recessing for three months. Performance considerations may be driven by NATO standardization requirements or the Gross National Product of the nation. This paper will describe the unique processes and techniques associated with the sale of a fighter simulator to a foreign government. The diplomatic and political requirements of a foreign military sale brings a whole new dynamic to the traditional acquisition process. This paper is available on the 2003 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website
|
|
|
Lessons Learned from the UH-60M Early User DemonstrationsUtility Helicopter Program Management Office Redstone Arsenal, AL ARL – Human Research & Engineering Directorate Fort Rucker, AL Science Applications International Corporation Huntsville, AL The Utility Helicopter Program Management Office (UH-PMO) tailored the acquisition strategy for the UH-60M BLACK HAWK through the establishment of Crew Station Working Group meetings and Early User Demonstrations to support the developmental test portion of the System Development program phase. This process provided the opportunity to influence the design of the cockpit early in the acquisition cycle and allowed significant user input to the acquisition process. A reconfigurable cockpit was designed to allow a variety of cockpit hardware and software configurations to be considered within an operationally relevant scenario. The cockpit was placed in the Battlefield Highly Immersive Virtual Environment (BHIVE). This allowed pilots and human factors experts to experiment with cockpit layout designs and perform cockpit and pilot performance evaluations based on situational awareness studies in a realistic operational environment. Tactical vignettes were developed using Modular Semi-Automated Forces (ModSAF) to provide the pilots with simulated missions representing several operational scenarios. The displays, cockpit and synthetic environment were modified appropriately during successive simulation events based on pilot and subject matter expert feedback to determine the optimum configuration for the UH-60M cockpit. Data collection methods were implemented to provide verification and validation of the simulation study results. The team employed a head and eye tracker system to gather quantitative data on elements within the pilot’s field of regard. The team designed a time-stamped audio and video capture system to correlate the head/eye tracker data back to the recorded events and implemented a Distributed Interactive Simulation Protocol Data Unit capture system to correlate the head/eye tracker data back to relevant events within the operational scenario. The use of this approach and the collaborative environment allowed the study team to rapidly define and execute a meaningful exercise that provided relevant, immediate and valuable results. The capability to provide early user involvement and feedback early in the design process was crucial to identifying and resolving key cockpit configuration issues for the UH-PMO. This paper is available on the 2003 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website
|
|
|
Organizational and Policy Considerations for Implementing Distributed Simulation in Operational EnvironmentsSimulation Technologies, Inc. Mesa AZ L-3 Communications Nellis AFB, NV Air Force Research Laboratory Mesa, AZ Over the past ten years, the US military, and specifically the US Air Force has been on the road to revolutionize training through the use of high fidelity simulation and Distributed Mission Operations (DMO). Both contractors and military have invested heavily in this technology with the expectation that providing the equipment and capability will naturally improve performance and provide a more highly trained combat force. The U.S. Air Force’s DMO initiative offers an advanced opportunity to examine the organizational characteristics and policy considerations that are likely to impact the level of success in the implementation, integration, and utilization of DMO in the operational training environment. Traditionally, military organizations have identified technological change needs without fully considering the specific organizational and policy associated with that technology and its implementation within operational contexts. Moreover, task and training requirements analysis tools do not afford military planners with implementation data to develop organizational concepts of operation related to the new technology. Typically, organizations obtain the technology and implement it as best they can. This leads to successful and unsuccessful implementations being driven by individual initiative as opposed to a systematic examination and consideration of the issues and policies impacted by the new capability. With the tremendous cost associated with advanced training technologies such as those within DMO, this delegation of ultimate success to an individual or a specific unit or base is troublesome. This paper describes and discusses the considerations, actions taken, and lessons learned in pioneering efforts of DMO installation and integration at the first operational site, Eglin AFB, FL. It also examines the adoption and utilization of DMO by a formal training program, the United States Air Force Weapons School in the same light. In addition, the paper will discuss recent work to develop and integrate briefing and debriefing enhancements and performance measurement instruments in DMO operational sites and potential considerations to ensure acceptable adaptation of these capabilities at operational units to structure DMO program implementation for maximum training benefit. The paper will conclude with a discussion of critical organizational and policy considerations for integrating and utilizing DMO in joint and multinational/coalition training environments. This paper is available on the 2003 I/ITSEC CD ROM. Order it from I/ITSEC'S Website
|
|
|