Advertisement

Self-Assessment of Command Performance and Feedback in Multiforce Training

  • Angelo Mirabella
  • Guy L. Siebold
  • James F. Love

Abstract

The increasing prevalence of multiforce (multiservice, joint service, and multinational) operations highlights the need to better understand how to train and evaluate multiforce command staffs, especially for the planning phases of combat and peacekeeping operations at high echelons. Here the “dynamics of human interaction that constitute the essence of command” (Foster, 1988, p. 204) pose the most severe challenge to training Assessment of how well these dynamics are being shaped in training exercises poses an especially difficult and complex problem. In assessing combat planning, we have neither the structure (for example, standard operating procedures, software, and equipment) nor the hard data (for example, casualties and objectives reached) that are available in the execution phases of combat. Yet to effectively train people in combat planning skills, we need to link those skills to explicit training objectives, measure how well the skilss are performed, and use the measurement results to provide trainin feedback. Even more challenging is training for peacekeeping operations and assessing the human dynamics involved. Peacekeeping tasks and outcomes are less structured, more uncertain, and less well defined—and therefore more difficult to observe and measure—than combat tasks. Peacekeepers must plan operations involving a complex mixture of social, economic, and political tasks as well as supporting police or combat tasks. We need to find innovative ways to assess the skills and performance of there difficult‐to‐observe tasks.

Keywords

Training Exercise Subject Matter Expert Soft Skill Training Feedback High Echelon 
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. Bell, H H, Dwyer, D J., Love J. F, Mehza, L L, Mirabella, A, & Moses, F. L. (1997) Recommendations for planning and conducting multi-service tactical training with distributed interactive simulation technology. A four-service project (Research Product, AD-A32 8480) Alexandria, VA: U S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social SciencesGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, B, Wilkinson, S, Nordyke, J, Riede, D, Huyssoon, S, Aguilar, D, Wonsewitz, R., & Meliza L L (1997) Developing an automated training analysis and feedback system for tank platoons (Research Report 1708, AD-A32 8445). Alexandria, VA U S Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  3. Dominick, P G, Reilly, R R., & McGourty, J. W (1997) The effects of peer feedback on team member behavior Organization Management, 22(4), 508–520Google Scholar
  4. Dryer, D A. (1989). An analysts of ground maneuver concentration during NTC deliberate attack missions and its influence on mission effectiveness (AD-A219 884). Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CAGoogle Scholar
  5. Dyer, J L (1994) A comparison of information in the Joint Readiness Training Center archival records (Research Report 1659, AD-A27 7676) Alexandria, VA U S Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social SciencesGoogle Scholar
  6. Fedor, D B, & Buckley, M R (1987) Providing feedback to organizational members A reconsideration Journal of Business Psychology, 2(2), 171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fields, H T, Taylor, H G, Moore, B R, Mullen, W J, & Moses, F L (1997) Analysis of the function to coordinate, synchronize, and integrate fire support as accomplished by an army corps acting as a joint task force (Research Product 97–10, AD-A32 8260) Alexandria, VA U S Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  8. Foster, G D (1988) Contemporary C2 theory and research The failed quest for a philosophy of command Defense Analysis, 4(3), 201–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Halpin, S M (1996). The army command and control evaluation system (ACCES) (Research Product 96–04, AD-A31 7213). Alexandria, VA U S Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social SciencesGoogle Scholar
  10. Keesling, W, Ford, P, & Harrison, K (1994) Application of the pnnciples of training in armor and mechanized infantry unit In R F Holz, J H. Hiller, & H H McFann (Eds.), Determinants of effective unit performance Research on measuring and managing unit training readiness (pp 137–178) Alexandria, VA U S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social SciencesGoogle Scholar
  11. Klein, S B (1991) Learning principles and applications New York McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  12. Linstone, H A, & Turoff M (1975). Introduction In H A Linstone, & M Turoff (Eds), The Delphi method Techniques and applications (pp. 3–12). Reading, MA. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  13. Love J F (1998a) How to produce training guides from battlefield functions (Research Product 99–03) Alexandna, VA U.S Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  14. Love J F (1998b) Joint fires training guide for a corps JTF (Research Product 99–02) Alexandna, VAU.S Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social SciencesGoogle Scholar
  15. Love J F (1998c). Joint targeting planning training guide (Research Product 99–04). Alexandria, VA U S Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social SciencesGoogle Scholar
  16. Meliza L. L, & Tan, S C (1996) SIMNET Unit Performance Assessment System (UPAS) version 2 5 user’s guide (Research Product 96–05, AD-A28 5805) Alexandria, VA U S Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social SciencesGoogle Scholar
  17. Mirabella, A (1997) Analysts of battlefield operating system (BOS) statements for developing performance measurement (Technical Report 1062). Alexandria, VA U S Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social SciencesGoogle Scholar
  18. Mirabella, A., & Love J F (1998) Self-assessment based mini-after action review (SAMAAR) methodology. Developmental application to division artillery staff training (Technical Report 1086) Alexandria, VA U S Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social SciencesGoogle Scholar
  19. Mirabella, A, Sticha, P, & Momson, J (1997) Assessment of user reactions to the multi-service distributed training testbed (MDT2) system (Technical Report 1061) Alexandria, VA: U S Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social SciencesGoogle Scholar
  20. Pigeau, R, & McCann, C (1995) Putting “command” back into command and control The human perspective In Proceedings of the Command and Control Conference, September 26, 1995 Ottawa Canadian Defence Preparedness AssociationGoogle Scholar
  21. Stafford, C. A. (1990). The relationship between operational graphics and battlefield success (AD-A238338). Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.Google Scholar
  22. Sulzen, R H (1997) National Training Center research element Fort Irwin, California, 1986–1996 (Research Special Report 30, AD-A32 6056). Alexandna, VA U.S Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  23. United States (1996a). Joint training manual for the armed forces of the United States (CJCSM 3500.03). Washington, DC Joint Chiefs of StaffGoogle Scholar
  24. United States (1996b) Universal joint task list (CJCSM 3500 04A) Washington, DC Joint Chiefs of Staff.Google Scholar
  25. Weinstein, C E., Goetz, E T, & Alexander, P A (1988) Learning and study strategies. San Diego, CA: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  26. Zazams, M M (1998) Peer evaluations: What do they buy you? In 1997 in-house researcher colloquium (Special Report 35) (pp. 1–5) Alexandna, VA. U S Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social SciencesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angelo Mirabella
    • 1
  • Guy L. Siebold
    • 2
  • James F. Love
    • 3
  1. 1.United States Army ResearchInstitute for the Behavioral and Social SciencesAlexandriaUSA
  2. 2.United States Army ResearchInstitute for the Behavioral and Social SciencesAlexandriaUSA
  3. 3.Falls ChurchUSA

Personalised recommendations