Simulation Systems and Applications, Inc.
10460 Roosevelt Blvd., PMB #301, St. Petersburg, Florida 33716-3821 USA
+1 727-544-4673  +1 727-544-6154 (fax)  Toll free: +1 877-4SIMSYS (474-6797)

Simulation Systems

Aircraft Systems

Network Technologies

Search Site

Contact Us

Customer Feedback

Privacy Statement

Y2K Statement

Employment

Home

The following papers were submitted for Chief of Naval Material security and Navy policy review.  They were not deemed appropriate for general public release.

Cost Analysis of ASW Tactical Training Ashore and Afloat

Ralph T. Davis, Jr.

Training Situation Analysis (TSA) and Training Program Development for Submarine Ship Control Training

Dr. J.C. Lamb and W.R. Bertsche

A Translative Technique for the Definition of Tactical Decision Training Requirements and Application of Laboratory Research

Thomas D. Mara and Thomas J. Hammell

Sonar Simulation Model for a Coordinated Tactics Trainer

C.J. Kaiser, J. Gibbon, S. Schwartz

COST EFFECTIVENESS OF TRAINING DEVICES

INTRODUCTION TO THE CONFERENCE

Dr. Hanns H. Wolff

Technical Director, Naval Training Device Center and Conference General Chairman

I want to welcome all of you to this Fourth NTDC/Industry Conference.  Our conferences have become an annual gathering point for everyone in Industry and Government who has a vital interest in anything that deals with training devices.  For the discussions we had in previous years have proven the need for a regular get-together to air our problems and to look at them from our different viewpoints.

The theme of this year’s conference is COST EFFECTIVENESS OF TRAINING DEVICES.

It has often been said that cost effectiveness has a different meaning to different people and that it would be necessary for us to precisely define the term, if we make it the main theme of our conference.

However, we felt that we should not limit our speakers to a specific and therefore narrow definition; especially since, I think, the main difference between different definitions rests only in the numerical values of the weighting factors different people assign to the many different parameters that have a controlling influence on the cost effectiveness in the broadest sense.  Moreover, I believe that these weighting factors have to be set individually for each case and cost effectiveness therefore is not a term that can be defined in generality without controversy.

This paper is available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website.

TRAINING DEVICES MAKE DOLLARS AND SENSE

Colonel Robert E. Phelps, USA

Commanding Officer, U.S. Army Participation Group

Naval Training Device Center

Gentlemen, in behalf of the personnel of the U.S. Army Participation Group here at the Naval Training Device Center, I want to add a warm welcome from all of us to all of you.  Together with our Navy colleagues, we are confident that this important conference will prove beneficial to all of us from a professional viewpoint.

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to address the conference again this year.  I have titled my presentation, “Training Devices Make Dollars and Sense.”  I selected that title for two reasons.  First, it is consistent with the conference theme, “Cost Effectiveness of Training Devices,” and second, it expresses the views of the personnel of the U.S. Army Participation Group regarding the important role of training devices in Army training and the maintenance of operational readiness.  However, the scope of my presentation will be wider than the title implies.

I will talk to you briefly about the U.S. Army Participation Group and how we interface with the Naval Training Device Center and with other Army Commands, discuss our rationale for expanding the use of training devices in the Army, and present our estimate of the Army training device development potential for the next few years.

This paper is available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website.

COST EFFECTIVENESS AND TRUE REQUIREMENTS

Lt. Col. R. R. Sheahan, USMC

Marine Corps Headquarters

"Services to Cut One Billion Dollars."  This headline was carried in well over 1,000 newspapers across the United States and reflected the cooling off of Government Expenditure within the Armed Forces community.  What it truly depicts is a change in philosophy from the dramatic build-up in Government expenditures over the past six years.  Cost effectiveness to many is a trite expression meaning that the ultimate in management is minimal expenditure per so.  Such could not be further from the truth as I'm sure you all are aware.  The term "cost effectiveness," as we believe it should be used, refers to appropriate expenditure of funds in keeping with the assignment at hand.  It does not infer "cheapness" nor does it allow for "gold plating."  It calls for stainless steel hardware and solid state electronics on one hand and paper mache and plywood on the other–dependent totally upon true requirement achievement.  It is in this area of cost as it applies to training devices and the true requirement for them that I should like to talk today.  Hopefully this approach will give insight to our industrial community and crystallize for the military, on where we are going conceptually within the training device world.

This paper is available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website.

Pages 20-27 intentionally left blank

THE APPLICATION OF AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT

TO TRAINING DEVICES

W. F. Rhodes

Senior Staff Engineer, Electronics Standards Office

Naval Electronic Systems Command, Department of the Navy

There are many concepts of and definitions pertaining to Automatic Test Equipment.  In order to intelligently discuss the possible application and benefits to be derived by the inclusion of Automatic Test Equipment or Techniques in Training Devices, it is necessary to accept or establish a minimum number of pertinent terms and definitions.  MIL-STD-1309, "Definitions of Terms for Automatic Electronic Test and Checkout," unfortunately did not define the single most important term–automatic test.  Therefore, I am going to define Automatic Test Equipment as "any (automatic) testing device which requires a minimum of human participation."  Within the confines of this definition I am including Built-in-Test (BIT), Built-in-Test Equipment (BITE), Self-Test, and Self-Check.

All automatic test equipment (ATE) and automatic test techniques must perform a minimum of two functions, performance monitoring and fault isolation.  For some reason these functions are frequently misunderstood and confused.  Performance monitoring consists of scanning a selected number of test points to determine if the unit under test is operating within specified limits.  A single failure could result in a number of test points being outside the predetermined limits.  Fault isolation is the act of locating a fault to a specific replaceable unit or major component.

This paper is available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website.

INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS TO PROCUREMENT SESSION

Commander L. T. Hughes, SC, USN

Director, Procurement Services Office

Naval Training Device Center

Does Contracting influence the cost-effectiveness decision?

Since this is the procurement session of the program, the obvious answer is yes.  The cost-effectiveness analysis results in a decision; but, in and of itself, this decision does not produce cost-effective hardware.

The decision must be implemented by the "Military-Industry Complex" we read so much about.  Rather than think of this complex as a Military-Industry Giant implying something to be avoided, let's think of it as a highly desirable team effort of the Naval Training Device Center and the Training Device Industry.  This group, the NTDC-Training Device Industry Complex, not only contributes to the cost-effectiveness analysis process and participates in the cost-effectiveness decision, but also has the prime responsibility for implementing that decision.

The demonstration of the accuracy of that decision rests with the Center and the selected contractor.  If we here at the Center fail to do our job properly, a good training device decision may end up as poor training device hardware.

This paper is available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website.

THE GOVERNMENT/INDUSTRY ROLE IN TRAINING DEVICE DEVELOPMENT–TRANSITION FROM REQUIREMENT TO HARDWARE

R. B. Chapman III

President, AAI Corporation

There are many agencies, companies, and individuals involved in the transition of a training device from requirement to hardware.  The government organization varies widely between services and from project to project within the serves.  The acquisition process is involved and also varies from service to service and from project to project.  Free and open exchange of information between the various participants is essential if we are to achieve the theme of this 4^th NTDC/Industry conference, "Cost Effective Training Devices."  The procurement system is basically inimical to the free exchange of data.  There are many pitfalls to be avoided at every step of the way.  Integrity, trust, and responsible action are required of all of us in this day of a "buyers market" and of the shouts of improper action on the part of the Military-Industrial Complex.

This paper is available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website.

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS, PREPARATION AND EXPENSE–

A GOVERNMENT VIEWPOINT

W. W. Lenox

Procurement Analyst

Procurement Services Office, Naval Training Device Center

All of you, I am certain, are familiar with this highly publicized slogan used by a well-known company:

“Progress is our most important product.”

Now, that slogan may be just fine for one company, but if you are a firm doing business with the United States Government, there is another slogan that is much more appropriate.  It should go as follows:

“The Proposal is our most important product.”

The reason for this statement is the simple fact that the proposal is the actual point of sale for the majority of contractors.  It is the major tool by which the contractor secures the contracts without which he would likely go out of business.  It is the means by which the company establishes its image and reputation, good or bad, among its Government customers.  Since the Government uses the proposal as the primary source of information upon which to base its selection of a contractor, the importance of the proposal cannot be overemphasized.

This paper is available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website.

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS, PREPARATION AND EXPENSE–

AN INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT

Arnold P. Klimke

Operations Manager

Marine Systems Center, Honeywell, Inc.

Before we can enter into any realistic discussion of the cost of proposal preparation and the influence of customer imposed requirements on this cost, we must set the stage or describe the scenario in which the proposal process takes place.

We will hypothesize, then, a training system procurement from NTDC, which may have some relevance to this audience.  Our hypothetical trainer is Device 1Z99, and is a new system to train crews in operation of the Zebra system.  Zebra has just become an operational system, involves sensors and weapons, and the inputs of a number of operators to lead to a decision to fire a weapon.  It will receive wide deployment and thus several training facilities will ultimately receive 1Z99’s.  However, the initial procurement is for development, installation and documentation of the first system only.

This paper is available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website.

UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS

J. J. Phelan

Deputy General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel

Department of the Navy

On July 11, 1969, the Comptroller General issued ruling in two cases involving "unsolicited Proposals."

In the first case (B-165369 and B-165947), the Defense Communications Agency (DCA)–because of France’s withdrawal from NATO–was interested in relocating its communication facilities which handle messages between Britain and the Continent.  The method it originally intended to use consisted of Troposcatter equipment over the English Channel and Line-Of-Sight Microwave equipment elsewhere.  Start here ^^^^

Lenkurt Electric independently studied the problem, informally briefed the air force on its findings and, finally, submitted an unsolicited proposal based on a complete Line-Of-Sight system.  This proposal included data on the cost savings and technical feasibility of the Cross-Channel Line-Of-Sight link as well as appropriate language restraining its use in developing a work statement for competitive procurement.  Air Force headquarters rejected making a sole source procurement of this total Line-Of-Sight System from Lenkurt and directed that it be procured competitively.  Lenkurt protested.

General Accounting Office’s decision pointed out that Lenkurt’s efforts had been limited to demonstrating the technical and economic feasibility of employing existing techniques for the Cross-Channel link.  The Air force conceded that Lenkurt’s effort had in fact influenced its decision to drop the idea of using the Troposcatter Cross-Channel link, but argued that there was nothing new or novel in the technological aspects of using Line-Of-Sight across the English channel.  They pointed out that before making their decision to go 100% Line-Of-Sight in this System, both Collins Radio and Philco had also submitted Unsolicited Proposals, which included Line-Of-Sight Systems.  Therefore, the air Force concluded, these companies should also be allowed to compete for the procurement.  The Comptroller General concurred in this view, and in denying Lenkurt’s protest concluded that:

“…The consequences which flow from the improper use of data relate back to technical information which constituted the very essence of the procurement . . .(Data relevant to the cost and technical reliability of the LOS approach) cannot be regarded as in the same category as manufacturing or design data.”

This paper is available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website.

FIRM FIXED PRICE CONTRACTING FOR DEVELOPMENT-A GOVERNMENT VIEWPOINT

LeRoy J. Haugh

Deputy Director, Procurement OASN (I & L), Department of the Navy

Twenty years ago the accepted method of acquiring a weapon system was to let a cost type contract for Research and Development, then a cost type contract for pilot production and a fixed price type contract for production.  Costs often greatly exceeded the original estimates then as now.  So about ten years ago, Defense attempted to control cost overruns by imposing ceilings on cost contracts and emphasis was place on using fixed price type contracts for the lesser risk programs.  One result was a dramatic reduction in the use of CPFF contract, and an expanded use of FFP contracts for development.  Perhaps the pendulum swung too far.  It does appear now to be swinging back again and more emphasis is being placed on use of cost type contracts.

It was not the intent of DOD in the ASPR rewrite of types of contracts to preclude the use of cost type contracts, or to require fixed price types for R&D.  The change in emphasis was designed to ensure that we don’t automatically equate R&D with cost type contracts.  Its purpose was to make people think.  There may be situations in which R&D work can very well be accomplished under a fixed price type.  The problem has been that too often the statistics took precedence over the facts of a particular procurement.

This paper is available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website.

FIRM FIXED PRICE CONTRACTING FOR DEVELOPMENT -- AN INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT

Arthur Ahlin

Director of Contracts, Orlando Division

Martin Marietta Corporation

You can all help me illustrate a point by participating in a Gallup-type poll.  Will you please raise your hand if you’ve stopped beating your wife?  There must be lots of sore wives at home!  A simple answer is not always the correct answer and this topic of fixed price contracting for development does not readily lend itself to a simple answer.  That appears to be my task, however, so I will try to resolve this topic into basic and simple issues, which even I can understand.  I’m reminded of President Calvin Coolidge who was noted for his brief and simple observations.  He had just come home from church one Sunday morning and was resting on the porch in his rocking chair.  He wife joined him and asked, “Did you enjoy the sermon, Cal?”

“Yep,” said Cal.

“What was it about, Cal?”

“Sin.”

“What did the preacher say about it, Cal?”

“He’s agin it.”

And that’s really what I’m going to tell you today about fixed price contracting for development.  I’m ‘agin’ it.  The theme of this conference is a most appropriate backdrop–cost effective training devices–and, in my view, should shed considerable light on the problems and limitations of fixed price development contracts.  These limitations can hurt you in your mission.

The key issue, of course, is the term "Development."  What does it mean?  In the context of this conference I think it means this -- "to bring out the possibilities and capabilities, to advance and promote growth."  In our business, development is usually characterized by an objective or specification.  Typically, the project or goal has not been successfully performed before.  This is the key point - the element of uncertainty.  The very nature of development must permit the possibility of failure.  It is just as important to find out what is not, as it is to find out what is.  All this requires risk - high risks for big payoffs or low risks for big payoffs or low risks for no payoffs.  In a word, then, my "Calvin Coolidge," or brief, definition of development is "to remove uncertainty through a risk venture."

This paper is available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website.

LETTER CONTRACTS AND CHANGE ORDERS, USE AND ABUSE

Captain D. G. Aitken, Supply Corps, United States Navy

Deputy Commander, Purchasing, Naval Supply Systems Command

The Armed Services Procurement Regulation (ASPR) defines a Letter Contract as a "preliminary contractual instrument which authorizes immediate commencement of manufacture."  Although it is "preliminary," it is a binding contractual document, but lacks some of the essential elements of substance, all of which would be necessary for a fully definitive contract.  These lacking elements are either not available or there has been insufficient time to conclude negotiations and obtain agreement between contractor and Government.  Usually a letter contract defines what we want and contains many of the terms and conditions but generally lacks agreement as to price.  Letter contracts which are expected to be definitized to a fixed price type frequently contain an absolute ceiling price; that is, an agreed price that temporary limits (called a limit of authorization) beyond which the Government is not obligated, pending final price agreement.

This paper is available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website.

A LOOK AT SYSTEMS EFFECTIVENESS MODELING IN TRAINING DEVICES

Paul R. Little

Head, Advanced Systems Engineering Department

Naval Training Device Center

In this article I will be talking of the application of Systems Engineering to development and, in particular, to training systems development.  However, in reading in various technical journals, I suspect my remarks may be more generally applied.  My friends have heard these things before and to some, I hope to spark new ideas.  I equate systems engineering, systems analysis, and management together because in practice they seem so closely related and utilize the same sphere of practices which, when rendered in mathematical form, is called System Modeling.

What I want to do is to discuss briefly a series of situations, which places the systems world against what I believe are some aspects of the real world.

This paper is available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM.

Order it from I/ITSEC’s Website.