Research Product 98-32 Development of Brigade Staff Tasks for the COBRAS IIB rigade Staff Exercise Daniel E. Deter, Roy C. Campbell, and Laura A. Ford Human Resources Research Organization Kathleen A. Quinkert U.S. Army Research Institute 1998B0415 134 January 1998 Armored Forces Research Unit U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences A Directorate of the U.S. Total, Army Personnel Command EDGAR M. JOHNSON Director Research accomplished under contract for the Department of the Army Human Resources Research Organization Technical Review by Franklin L. Moses Margaret S. Salter NOTICES FINAL DISPOSITION: This Research Product may be destroyed when it is no longer needed. Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. NOTE: This Research Product is not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents. REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. REPORT DATE 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (from... to) 1998, Janua Final July 1996-March 1997 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER DASWO1-94-D-00 11 Development of Brigade Staff Tasks for the COBRAS H Brigade Staff 5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER Exercise 0602785A 6. AUTHOR(S) 5c. PROJECT NUMBER A791 Daniel E. Deter, Roy C. Campbell, and Laura A. Ford (HumRRO); 5d. TASK NUMBER and Kathleen A. Quinkert (ARI) 2228 5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER ________________________________ R05 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER Human Resources Research U.S. Army Research Institute for the Organization Behavioral and Social Sciences 66 Canal Center Plaza, ATIN: TAPC-ARI-IK Suite 400 2423 Morande Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Fort Knox, KY 40121 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. MONITOR ACRONYM U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences ARI ATTN: TAPC-ARI-IK 5001 Eisenhower Avenue 11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 Research Product 98-32 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES COR: Kathleen A. Quinkert 14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): This research and development effort was to design simulation-based training for selected members of the staff of a conventionally equipped armored brigade. This included a detailed analysis of the performance requirements for the staff members. The resulting products were lists of task statements for the chosen training audience. These task lists support the staff exercise run in the Brigade/Battalion Battle Simulation (BBS) called Combined-Arms Operations at Brigade Level, Realistically Achieved Through Simulation (COBRAS II). They expand the task lists which were a product of an earlier effort--COBRAS I, accounting for additions to the training audience. 15. SUBJECT TERMS Brigade staff Brigade/Battalion Battle Simulation (BBS) FXXITP Task Analysis COBRAS Milit Decision Makin Process (MDMP) Brigade staff task lists .................. ..... M"'. 19. LIMITATION OF 20. NUMBER 21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON 16.REPORT 17.ABSTRACT 18. THIS PAGE ABSTRACT OF PAGES (Name and Telephone Number) Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unlimited 86 Kathleen A. Quinkert, COR Research Product 98-32 Development of Brigade Staff Tasks for the COBRAS II Brigade Staff Exercise Daniel E. Deter, Roy C. Campbell, and Laura A. Ford Human Resources Research Organization Kathleen A. Quinkert U.S. Army Research Institute Armored Forces Research Unit Barbara A. Black, Chief U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600 January 1998 Army Project Number Education and Training Technology 2026785A791 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Preceding Page/Blank 111 FOREWORD In 1994 the U.S. Army embarked on a widespread training effort known as the Force XXI Training Program to meet the challenges of decreasing resources and increasing performance expectations. In mid-year, a Memorandum of Agreement was signed between the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) and the U.S. Army Armor Center and Fort Knox (MG Larry Jordan, Commanding General) that established the virtual brigade training program (VBTP). As part of the VBTP, the ARI Armored Forces Research Unit at Fort Knox, the Directorate of Training and Doctrine Development-Force XXI, and Fort Knox joined forces to sponsor and conduct research and development of simulation-based training for the conventional mounted brigade staff. The work was performed under a project called Combined Arms Operationsa t Brigade Level, RealisticallyA chieved Through Simulation (COBRAS). The training products developed under COBRAS were designed to provide practical experience for battle staffs at brigade level in a scenario-based tactical setting, facilitated by the use of simulation to generate tactical information and cues. Central to the development effort was an analysis of performance requirements encompassing the full spectrum of staff activities: planning, preparation, execution, and post-mission sustainment activities. Initial analysis of performance requirements in existing documentation revealed that the performance specifications were not sufficiently detailed for brigade battle staffs. Significant gaps exist in the descriptions of the integration of activities across the planning and execution spectrum and across missions. The documented tasks, as represented primarily in the Mission Training Plan, provide a general overview of the type of activities performed by staff members. However, this source is not sufficiently detailed, nor does it focus on the continuous nature of staff activities. Therefore, a new effort of front end analysis was initiated as a part of the COBRAS project. The preferred approach was to base the analysis on actual performance. Analyzing brigade staffs in action was not a viable choice because of restrictions on time, personnel, and availability of expertise. In response, a new approach was developed, the Staff PerformanceA nalysis (SPA). The SPA is an event-driven, experiential approach to systematically explore occurrences as they are performed. In prior work, experienced roleplayers replicated the brigade staff in a controlled environment, performing mission-required activities. The SPA was conducted for three missions: movement to contact, area defense, and deliberate attack. The outcome of the analysis was an extensive list of staff tasks for a selected set of brigade staff officers. The tasks depict necessary behaviors, cues, interactions, and products. That product was described in a prior COBRAS publication. This Research Product describes how a modification to the methodology was used to define tasks for an expanded set of brigade staff officers. It documents the process used to develop the additional tasks for the expanded training audience and adjusts the tasks of the original staff officers to reflect the presence of those additional staff officers. The work was performed on a follow-on project to COBRAS, known as COBRAS II. v The Research Product is intended for use by training designers and developers, as well as training program reviewers and proponents. It should help them understand the approach taken, and assess its potential applicability to other training programs requiring detailed task documentation. Further, it should help to assess the utility of tasks in this form for supporting structured, simulation-based training. Examples of the expanded task lists are included as an appendix. ZITA M. SIMUTIS Technical Director vi DEVELOPMENT OF BRIGADE STAFF TASKS FOR THE COBRAS II BRIGADE STAFF EXERCISE CONTENTS Page Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Overview ................................................................................................................................... 1 Structured Training ............................................................................................................ 1 COBRAS Program Characteristics ...................................................................................... 2 Analyzing Performance Requirements ................................................................................ 4 Modifying the Methodology for COBRAS II Performance Requirements ......................... 4 The Revised Brigade Staff Tasks ................................................................................................ 6 Use and Evaluation of the COBRAS II Task Lists ............................................................. 7 Observations and Lessons Learned ............................................................................................. 7 Consistency with Existing Army Task Lists ........................................................................ 7 Task Lists as Surrogate Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures ............................................. 8 Evolving Doctrine ............................................................................................................ 9 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 9 Areas for Future W ork ........................................................................................................ 9 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 11 APPENDIX A. Sample COBRA S Brigade Staff Tasks ........................................................ A-1 B. ACRONYM S and ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................... B-1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The components of structured training .................................................................. 2 2. Selected training audience for the COBRAS brigade staff .................................... 4 vii DEVELOPMENT OF BRIGADE STAFF TASKS FOR THE COBRAS II BRIGADE STAFF EXERCISE Introduction Overview Military forces of the twenty-first century will face challenges very different from those of the cold war years. New threats predominate, mission requirements are changing, force projection is replacing forward stationing of forces, new warfighting technology is transforming the battlefield, and troop ceilings are falling. Responding to these and other changes, the Army leadership has established a far-reaching program to prepare its forces for the future. The program is known as Force XXI (Sullivan, 1994), and it is heavily dependent on leveraging information age technologies. A major Force XXI thrust, the Force XXI Training Program (FXXITP), is to update the Army's training doctrine and capabilities. The FXXITP capitalizes on simulation technologies to enhance training realism while containing costs. Among the FXXITP initiatives is the project effort known as CombinedA rms Operationsa t Brigade Level, RealisticallyA chieved through Simulation (COBRAS). Contracted by the Armored Forces Research Unit of the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI), FXXITP-COBRAS was a training research and development effort. The intent for the FXXITP-COBRAS project was to design and develop structured training packages for the commander and selected staff officers at the brigade level. The first FXXITP-COBRAS work was followed by an expansion effort known as COBRAS II, which provided training support packages for a wider target audience within the brigade staff. Like FXXITP-COBRAS, the COBRAS II effort was focused on the development of structured training. Structured Training "Structured training" refers to systematically designed and developed training that focuses on predetermined objectives (see Figure 1). Brown (1993) defines structured training as the "...totality of training development, training support, and guidance for effective application/use within the unit or institution" (p. 2). The concept incorporates several key features, including a focus on selected critical tasks, provision of realistic scenario-based conditions, standardized exercise control and measurement procedures, and support of exercises by means of comprehensive training materials (Campbell, C., Deter, & Quinkert, in press). For the COBRAS' effort, this means the training is: * Task-driven-focus on critical tasks in a planned sequence of performance that reinforces learning and builds proficiency through practice, Throughout this Research Product, "COBRAS" refers generically to the original FXXITP-COBRAS project and the COBRAS II project. Where the distinction between the two projects is significant, the appropriate project short name is used (COBRAS I or COBRAS II). "* Scenario-embedded-training environment of realistic scenarios and conditions, "* Standardized-conditions and cues stimulate performance and enable observation and evaluation of tasks, and " Supported-training support packages (TSPs) that guide preparation for training, observation and coaching during implementation, and the preparation and delivery of feedback sessions. f TSP CUES - Event Drivers Scenario Materials Critical TRAINING EXERCISE Tasks Ti Training T2 Objectives CriticalT asks T2T T3|T T3 Train the * Trainer MonitoredP erformance * Guides ~Observation AARI of tasks FEEDBACJK Figure 1. The components of structured training. COBRAS Program Characteristics The COBRAS training development efforts were part of the larger overall FXXITP. As a result, there were requirements for compatibility with the overall FXXITP plan for brigade level training, exportability, scenario, and training activities. Some of the requirements for the original COBRAS I work were unchanged for COBRAS II, while others were modified to satisfy the project objectives. Briefly, the design and development requirements included: " Exportable. The COBRAS program is designed to be exported to and administered by user units at their home station and within the personnel and physical training resources found there. It is not intended to be used only at some central training facility. This requirement included the limitation that the training observers who would provide feedback on performance would also have to be locally available personnel. The requirement remained unchanged for COBRAS II. " Scenario. COBRAS had to be compatible with the scenarios of earlier virtual training efforts that addressed lower echelon training for platoon through company and with an ongoing brigade staff training project which addressed the execution phase of the battle (described in Hoffmnan, Graves, Koger, Flynn, & Sever, 1995). It was deemed essential 2 at this point that the tactical setting and situation be congruent over all of the FXXITP projects. Thus, the mission, enemy, terrain and weather, troops and time (METT-T), for the three missions of movement to contact (MTC), area defense (AD), and deliberate attack (DATK), were essentially defined at the start of the COBRAS I analysis and (with exceptions for changes due to the expanded training audience) remained unchanged for COBRAS II. "Training Audience. The divisional brigade headquarters consists of over 80 people. Additionally, there are numerous other soldiers who are part of the divisional supporting slice and who operate in and about the brigade headquarters. As a limited staff exercise, there was no intent that the COBRAS program provide full headquarters training. Instead, COBRAS was designed to serve as stepping-stone training in the staff process. The first year's effort, COBRAS I, addressed the activities of the commander, the principal staff officers, and those specialty staff officers who represent division support in logistics, fire support, mobility/countermobility, and air defense. COBRAS II expanded that list to also include the military police, signal, intelligence and electronic warfare, chemical, and army aviation representatives. This expansion resulted in a training audience of 16: commander, executive officer (XO), operations officer (S3), intelligence officer (S2), adjutant (S I), logistics officer (S4), brigade engineer (BDE ENGR), fire support officer (FSO), fire support coordinator (FSCOORD), air defense coordinator (ADCOORD), forward support battalion commander (FSB CDR), military police platoon leader (MP PLT LDR), signal officer (SIGO), military intelligence company commander (MI Co Cdr), assistant S-3/chemical officer (CHEMO), and army aviation liaison officer (AVN LNO). These individuals and their relationship within the rest of the brigade staff are depicted in Figure 2. "* Training Activities. Previous virtual simulation exercise development activities had all concentrated on the execution portion of the mission. The requirement for the COBRAS training was that it be expanded beyond execution to include also the phases of planning, preparation, and post-execution activities. The training on the planning phase would include an opportunity to practice a deliberate decision-making process (DDMP) and a time constrained decision-making process, called in COBRAS a modified decision-making process (MDMP).a 2As the COBRAS efforts progressed, the Army's terminology for the various decision-making processes continued to evolve. The Army's decision was that there is one military decision-making process, and it is the deliberate decision-making process. There are no doctrinally prescribed abbreviations or accelerations of that process. It is still the military deliberate decision-making process whether it is done with adequate planning time, or has to be done within a time constrained planning window. The timing of that guidance precluded changing the terminology selected for COBRAS I and II. Therefore, throughout the supporting materials and in this description, COBRAS retained DDMP as the term for planning done within doctrinal norms for mission planning time and MDMP as the term for planning done under significant time limitations. 3