TRADOC Training Requirements
MT2 2011 Volume: 16 Issue: 8 (December)
TRADOC annually determines its requirements for key training positions, but limitations exist in its underlying approach, such as the use of outdated personnel requirements models. From fiscal years 2005 through 2011, TRADOC’s requirements for instructors, training developers and training support personnel have remained relatively steady while the student workload has increased by about a third. To determine personnel requirements, TRADOC uses various models involving formulas that rely on a range of assumptions and inputs. Army guidance requires Army commands to update models at least every three years, but TRADOC has not updated its model for determining the number of instructors it needs since 1998. As a result, assumptions and inputs used in the model may not reflect changes in how training is currently provided, such as the greater use of self-paced computerized learning in place of classroom instruction. Such changes could affect the number of instructors required to teach a course. In addition, TRADOC has used the same number, with minor modifications, for training developer requirements for the last three fiscal years. TRADOC officials recognize that using the same number for training developer requirements is not a valid approach and that an updated model is needed; however, they are unsure when they will be able to update the model. Lastly, TRADOC has not conducted an assessment to determine the optimum mix of military, Army civilian and contractor personnel to use to execute its training mission. Without the benefit of models that are updated to more closely reflect current training conditions and without conducting a mix analysis, TRADOC does not have a sound basis for accurately identifying the number and types of personnel needed for key training personnel and making the most cost-effective use of training resources.
TRADOC has taken various workforce management actions in order to execute its training mission, but its quality assurance program does not collect certain information needed to evaluate the impact of these actions on the quality of training. Among other things, TRADOC has increased the number of students that an instructor teaches, relied on more contractors as instructors, and reassigned doctrine and training developers to serve as instructors. Through surveys and other tools, TRADOC evaluates factors such as students’ knowledge of course materials and whether an instructor is teaching from the curriculum, but it does not systematically collect the data needed to evaluate the impact of changing the student to instructor ratio or the type of instructor on the quality of training. TRADOC officials expressed mixed views about the impact of using contractors on the quality of training. Some believed that more military trainers are needed because these personnel have the knowledge and credibility gained from combat experience to teach soldiers, while others stated that contractors provide the same quality of training as military personnel. GAO noted that TRADOC’s use of doctrine and training developers to serve as instructors is among the factors that have led to a backlog in updating doctrine and curricula, which could affect the quality of training. Doctrine should be reviewed at least every 18 months because it determines what soldiers are trained on. As of May 2011, there was a backlog of 436 man-years in doctrine development. TRADOC officials stated that as a best practice, curricula should be updated every three years. However, as of April 2011, TRADOC had a backlog of 204 man-years for developing, updating, and reviewing curricula and has not established a plan to address this backlog. In some cases, instructors, with approval from the head of the school, adapt the curricula to incorporate more current data. If curricula are not kept current, students may not be trained on the most recent information and information is not being institutionalized for future instruction.
GAO Recommendations and DoD Response
Recommendation 1: TRADOC develop a plan with specific implementation milestones to update its personnel requirements models for training, including updating models for instructors and training developers and developing models for field training and classroom personnel not covered in the training support personnel model, and adjust requirements accordingly.
DoD Response: Concur. TRADOC is currently taking an indepth review of instructor and training developer functions that will establish new staffing criteria. The Army Learning Concept (ALC) 2015 introduces significant changes to traditional Army training strategies, technologies and delivery methods. TRADOC and the ALC 2015 proponents are working to redefine instructor and training developer roles in preparation for onsite workload measurement. The ALC 2015/instructor review is targeted to be completed in the summer of 2012.
This study will determine manning requirements for field training; development of the other field training model referenced in the GAO report (Ammunition Delivery/Recovery) has been completed since the last correspondence with GAO in June 2011. Documentation for this new model is now being prepared for commandwide staffing to assist HQDA [Headquarters, Department of the Army] in revising manning models. This instructor function will be included in the ALC 2015/instructor review described above, and no separate model/study is necessary.
Recommendation 2: TRADOC perform an assessment to determine the right mix of military, civilian and contractor personnel needed to accomplish the training mission and make necessary adjustments to the current mix.
DoD Response: Concur. Due to the different standards and requirements for divergent courses, there is no single standard for a mix of cadre across TRADOC. The department agrees that some type of study is needed; TRADOC will conduct this analysis and include the results in their programs of instruction (POIs). TRADOC will also examine the potential to include an optimum instructor analysis within each POI. This data would allow the command to better articulate to HQDA the true needs and to understand the potential to rebalance the existing instructors across courses in support of new training load.
Recommendation 3: TRADOC establish metrics within its quality assurance program to enable TRADOC to evaluate how its workforce management actions, such as increasing reliance on contractors, impact the quality and use the data collected from these metrics to make adjustments to training as needed.
DoD Response: Concur. As the Army’s Executive Agent for the Army QA (Quality Assurance) Program, TRADOC will implement initiatives to develop metrics and collect data that will enable it to evaluate its workforce management actions while assisting TRADOC and HQDA in assessing training effectiveness. However, establishing metrics within TRADOC’s QA Program is contingent upon availability of resources and funding. Specifically, the QA Program must maintain the personnel required to collect the data as well as acquire statisticians to analyze the data for management decisions. If resourced to conduct this analysis, TRADOC anticipates developing the metrics by August 2012.
Recommendation 4: TRADOC establish a plan to enable TRADOC to develop, review and update doctrine and curricula by setting additional priority areas beyond initial military training on which doctrine and training developers should focus and identifying timelines by which these reviews should be completed.
DoD Response: Concur. The department agrees with TRADOC establishing a plan to develop, review and update doctrine and curricula. TRADOC’s doctrine and curriculum update priorities are established to meet operational requirements that change based on the needs of the force. For the past decade, doctrine and curriculum update requirements accelerated at an unprecedented rate. TRADOC has updated doctrine and curriculum at an unmatched rate and quality and is diligently working to reduce the backlog.
HQ TRADOC publishes annual priorities and guidance in a FY TRADOC Campaign Plan. The Commanding General, Combined Arms Center serves as the lead for the doctrine core function within TRADOC and publishes specific FY 2011 Doctrine Priorities and Guidance. This provided guidance to assist doctrine proponents in prioritizing and forecasting TRADOC’s limited resources to support the most important doctrine development needs of the Army. Once TRADOC updates the manpower model for training developers, HQDA will be able to determine manpower requirements to meet training requirements. ♦