Manprint pp 391-416 | Cite as

Integration of Training Systems and Analyses

  • Judy A. Oneal

Abstract

Training people in the use, maintenance, and support of complex operational systems and equipment is well recognized in both military and commercial applications as one of the most important elements of system performance. Too often efforts to provide effective training either come after the design and development of the operational system or overemphasize the hardware and technology aspects of training devices. In either case, the expected benefits from training for the costs invested have been disappointing. The Systems Approach to Training (SAT) has long been recognized as beneficial to making training programs more effective, but even in areas like weapons systems development where SAT is applied extensively, total integration has not occurred. MANPRINT offers an opportunity for the development of completely integrated training systems through a more comprehensive approach to the conduct of training analyses. This chapter describes (1) the background leading up to the MANPRINT approach applied to training system development; (2) a conceptual model and methodology for integrating training systems and analyses on a timeline matching operational equipment design and development; and (3) the effect of MANPRINT (through integrating training system development and analyses) on operational equipment and training system development.

Keywords

Training System Weapon System Operational Equipment Training Device Training Concept 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AMC/TRADOC Pamphlet 70–2 (26 March 1987). Materiel acquisition handbook. U.S. Army Materiel Command/U. S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.Google Scholar
  2. Army Regulation 602–2 (17 April 1987). Manpower and personnel integration (MANPRINT) in the materiel acquisition process. U.S. Department of the Army.Google Scholar
  3. Army Regulation 700–127 (18 January 1987). Integrated logistics support. U.S. Department of the Army.Google Scholar
  4. Baum, D. R., Riedel, S., Hays, R. T., & Mirabella, A. (1982). Training effectiveness as a function of training device fidelity (ARI Technical Report 593). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, R. J. (1982). Education and work: A historical perspective. In H. F. Silverman (Ed.), Education and work, Part II (pp. 1–14). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Beecher, R. G. (1988). Strategies and standards - an evolutionary view of training devices. Proceedings of the Tenth Interservice/lndustry Training Systems Conference, 528–553.Google Scholar
  7. Beyers, D. (1988, July/August). Contractors take over training and one another. Military Forum, 104–109.Google Scholar
  8. Bransen, R. K., Rayner, G. T., Cox, J. L., Furman, J. P., King, F. J., & Hannum, W. J. (1975). Interservice procedures for instructional systems development (5 volumes). Fort Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.Google Scholar
  9. Carnevale, A. P., & Schulz, E. R. (1988, November). Technical training in America: How much and who get it. Training and Development Journal, 18–32.Google Scholar
  10. Demers, W. A., & Kitfield, J. (1989, July). Training in Europe: fenced in. Military Forum, 46–53.Google Scholar
  11. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1985). The systematic design of instruction. New York: Scott Foresman.Google Scholar
  12. Dyer, J. L., Lucariello, G., & Heller, F. H. (1989, July/August). Implications of system test data for training resource decisions. MANPRINT Bulletin, 8–9.Google Scholar
  13. Feldman, M. (1985). The workplace as educator. In M. D. Fantini & R. L. Sinclair (Eds.), Education in school and nonschool settings (pp. 102–113). Chicago: Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Finley, D. L., Alderman, I. N., Peckham, D. S., & Strasel, H. C. (1988). Implementing embedded training (ET): Volume 1 of 10: Overview (Research Product 88–12). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  15. Galagan, P. A. (1989, January). IBM gets its arms around education. Training and Development Journal, 34–41.Google Scholar
  16. Garris, R. D., Mulligin, C. P., Dwyer, D. J., & Moskal, P. J. (1987). An experimental analysis of level of graphics detail and method of cue presentation on locator task performance for computer-based training and job aiding (NTSC IN87–034). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems Center.Google Scholar
  17. Hays, R. T., & Singer, M. J. (1988). Simulation fidelity in training system design: Bridging the gap between reality and training. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. Hughes, R. G. (1986, November). Aircrew training: The relative contribution of major training system resources to future readiness. Proceedings of the Eighth Interservice/lndustry Training Systems Conference, 197–204.Google Scholar
  19. Hull, S. (1988, November/December). A new owner. Military Forum, 5.Google Scholar
  20. Janosko, T. (1989, June 7). The role of test and experimentation in systems acquisition. A briefing presented to the Military Operations Research Society. Fort Leavenworth, KS.Google Scholar
  21. Lusterman, S. (1977). Education and industry. New York: The Conference Board.Google Scholar
  22. Majchrzak, A. (1988). The human side of factory automation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Naisbitt, J. (1982). Megatrends. New York: Warner Books, Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Oneal, J. (1988). Eliminating forced technology in military training - A conceptual model. Proceedings of the Tenth Interservice/lndustry Training Systems Conference, 340–351.Google Scholar
  25. Oneal, J. (1989, April). Personal notes. Nashua, NH: Oneal Brooks Associates.Google Scholar
  26. Stockton, W. (1988, March 29). Trouble in the cockpit. New York Times Magazine, p. 39.Google Scholar
  27. Thurman, M. R. (1989, March). Analysis counts. Phalanx, 4–8.Google Scholar
  28. TRADOC Pamphlet 11–8 (1985, February). Studies and analyses. U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.Google Scholar
  29. TRADOC Pamphlet 350–30 (1978). Interservice procedures for instructional systems development. U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.Google Scholar
  30. TRADOC Regulation 350–7 (1985, November). Systems approach to training. U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.Google Scholar
  31. U.S. Congress, House (1987, October 21).Duplicative threat simulators waste millions and compromise testing of vital weapons(House Report 100–529). 100th Congress, 2nd Session.Google Scholar
  32. Vaught, B., Hay, F., & Buchanan, W. (1985). Employee development programs - An organizational approach. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
  33. White, W. J. (1987). The great divide. Proceedings of the Ninth Interservice/lndustry Training Systems Conference, 99–105.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Van Nostrand Reinhold 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judy A. Oneal

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations