Training Transformation (T2) Overview

1
Training Transformation (T2)Overview

• Fred Hartman
• Director, JAEC
• OUSD (PR)

2
The Training Challenge in Todays Security
Environment

• Dynamic, complex security environment
• World of uncertainty and surprise
• Adaptive enemies
• Employ asymmetric approaches
• Non-traditional environments
• Skill set war fighter - diplomat

3
Training Transformation Vision and Capabilities
4
Training Transformation References
5
T2 Direct Connect

• To learn more about Training Transformation,
  please attend the afternoon session featuring Mr.
  Dan Gardner, Director of Readiness and Training,
  Policy Programs, OUSD (PR).
• Transforming DoD Training
• Observations, Direction, Challenges
• You are invited to attend and participate in the
  Mini-Symposium and Workshop (see www.mors.org) 
• Training Transformation
• Analysis and Assessment in New Operational
  Environments
• September 28-30, 2004
• McLean, VA
• Visit www.t2net.org for todays presentations and
  others

6
Training Capabilities Analysis of
Alternatives(TC AoA)
MORSS WG 22 23 June 2004
Fred Hartman Director JAEC, OUSD(PR) FOUO
Draft
7
Outline

• Background
• Study Schedule
• AoA Process
• Discussion

8
Background

• Directed by Program Decision Memorandum 1, 12 Dec
  02
• Conduct an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)
  beginning in FY03
• Complete in 12 months
• Identify cost-effective methods for Joint
  Service Training
• AoA Guidance signed by USD, Acquisition
  Technology and Logistics (ATL) Jul 03.
• Senior Steering Group (SSG) Co-Chaired by USD
  (PR) and JFCOM
• Senior Steering Group (SSG) representatives from
  offices that monitor and evaluate joint and
  service training performance (OSD, Services,
  Joint Staff, and Intelligence Agencies)
• Provide a Final Report by 1 Aug 04

9
OSD AoA Guidance

• Develop a business case to assess whether
  simulation tools can resolve existing or
  projected training gaps and deficiencies or
  enhance capabilities.
• Consider a broad range of alternatives
• The base case current live, virtual, and
  constructive training systems.
• Common joint tool based on the Department of
  Defense standard. architecture.
• Separate joint service systems developed
  independently to a standard architecture.
• Privately-funded initiatives to develop a
  training solution(s).
• Use of commercially available products and
  gaming/sim technology.
• For each simulation alternative provide
  reasonable candidate technology, cost-benefit
  analysis, training effectiveness and cost
  factors.
• Each alternative must support joint and service
  training.

Source USD(ATL) memo of 17 Jul 03, AoA guidance
for Cost Effective Methods of Meeting Joint and
Service Training Requirements
10
Study Organization
Senior Steering Group
Co Directors
Special Advisors (Army/AF/USMC)
Team Lead Integrator
Cost Panel (OSD)
Training Panel (USJFCOM)
Effectiveness (JWFC)
Capabilities (Army)
Contract Support
Services, JFCOM, and Intel Agencies provide
functional support for Panels
11
Outline

• Background
• Study Schedule
• AoA Process
• Discussion

12
Schedule
You are here
Business games Senior Steering Group
meetings

• AoA Schedule to completion
• Complete Final AoA Report for coordination
  mid-July 04
• Deliver AoA Report to OSD (ATL) NLT 1 Aug 04
• Complete programmatic details of 3 June SSG
  Decisions for budget process

13
Outline

• Background
• Study Schedule
• AoA Process
• Discussion

14
Business Case Gaming

• Pre-Game Activity
• Interview of principals prior to first game
• Alternatives/Methodology Game 14-16 January
  2004.
• Purpose Approve identified alternatives and
  methodology
• Desired Outcome
• Consensus on measures of effectiveness and
  performance
• Consensus on training requirements and needs
• Industry Strategy Game 11-13 February 2004.
• Purpose Strategize with Industry on cost
  effective methods to meet alternative solutions
• Desired Outcome Identify key business strategies
  to achieve alternatives
• Decision Game 8 April 2004
• Purpose Review the Analysis of Alternatives
  (AoA) study alternatives, methodologies used,
  recommendations, and strategies from industry
• Desired Outcome Consensus on recommended
  alternative(s)

15
Findings Observations

• TC AoA more like a Mission Area Analysis (MAA)
  than an AoA due to scope and level of detail
• Management oversight more than technology has
  caused failure of previous joint training
  simulation efforts
• Current joint training has been largely based on
  training exercises supported by simulations
• Not all training issues are cost effective for
  large scale simulation applications
• Alternative training methodologies may provide
  more cost -effective solutions
• COCOMs not directly funded to conduct SJFHQ(Core
  Element) and COCOM/JTF HQ Staff training
• Many COCOM training requirements are not filled
  by joint exercises and large simulations
• Intelligence must be part of training audience
  vice training aid
• Not all training issues can be resolved within
  time and resources allotted to the AoA Team
• Cost estimates in AoA Report with programmatic
  details to follow implementing actions from SSG
  decisions

16
SSG Decisions

• Management Decisions
• JFCOM leads Joint Requirements Office
  (simulations)
• Transition SSG Oversight to T2 Exec Steering
  Group
• Simulation Options
• Constrained enhancements to Base Case FY 06-11
• Re-engineer Training Options
• Re-engineering Study with Prototyping in two
  COCOMs
• Acquisition Prototype Options
• One year base contract with two option years to
  mature capability
• Include Intelligence as partner in future joint
  training
• Working constructive simulation federation
  content and funding with JFCOM

17
Way Ahead

• SSG Decision Recap
• Blended Course of Action for future training
• Agree to content/structure of Final Report
• Complete AoA Report for final review and staffing
  NLT 15 July
• Deliver AoA Report to USD (ATL) NLT 1 August
• Schedule next SSG or T2 ESG update in Aug 04
• Develop programmatic level detail for FY 06-11
• Reengage program review process later this year
• Initiate draft Program Change Proposal (PCP)
• Respond to brief Congress within 90 days

18
Questions Discussion
19
Other SSG Actions

• Need Intelligence Community as full partner in
  Joint and Service training
• USD(I) leading effort for JNIF, renamed Joint
  National Intelligence Training Federation (JNITF)
• Requirements Lead JFCOM J7 (JRO)
• Software Integration Lead JWFC SSF
• Roadmap and Exec Agent Decision Support Center
  for USD(I)
• Governance ISR Integration Council (ISR Roadmap
  MS Annex)
• FY 05 funding issue
• Related issues highlighted but not solved in
  AoA
• Multi-Level Security for training systems
• Full Global Information Grid (GIG) Integration to
  include Training Enterprise Services

20
Bounded Scope
Strategic
1
Combatant Commander/Staff
0
Joint Task Force CDR/Staff
Operational
Functional Component CDRs/Staffs
-1
ARMY
NAVY
USMC
AIR FORCE
SOCOM
-2
INTEGRATION OF JOINT COMBINED EFFECTS /
SYSTEMS TO LOWEST LEVEL
Tactical
21
Senior Steering Group (SSG)
22
Joint Requirements Office

• JFCOM establishes a Joint Requirements Office
  (JRO) funds joint training development
  activities
• JRO establishes and maintains joint training
  requirements and standards, and verification of
  joint interoperability compliance
• The JRO charters a Joint Requirements Control
  Board (JRCB) and Joint Configuration Control
  Board (JCCB), chaired by JFCOM
• Includes representatives from COCOMs, Services
  and Combat Support Agencies (CSA)
• Business strategy
• Centralized research. JFCOM serves as a focal
  point for research into new joint training
  functionality
• Decentralized Development. Development of new
  joint functionality is decentralized to the
  organization responsible for the simulation
• Centralized integration and maintenance. The
  Joint Development and Integration Facility (JDIF)
  integrates new development and maintains joint
  models and federations
• Inherent Database Development Capability. JFCOM
  maintains the capability to develop new data sets
  or modify existing data sets, as required to
  conduct joint exercises and mission rehearsals

The JRO focuses on customer needs, as presented
by the COCOMs, Services, Combat Support Agencies
and multi-national partners
23
Alternative 3 Joint Simulation Toolkit

• Flexible
• Composable
• Distributable
• Interoperable
• Leverages Existing Technology

Portable
24
Joint Training Continuum
Functional
General
Certification
Familiarization
Execution
Education
Individual Training
Preparation
Operations
Collective Training
Integrated and disciplined preparation to defined
performance standards
Mission Rehearsal
Experience
Staff Training
Individual Learning
Qualification
Indoctrination
Validation
Time
25
Joint Training Continuum COA 2

• Training Reengineering Study with Proof of
  Principle Activities
• Conduct study and include prototyping activities
  for two COCOMs
• Includes Study from COA 1
• Focus prototyping on 2 COCOMs in near to mid
  term (FY06-08)
• Prototyping would provide practical insights to
  chart way ahead for all COCOMs, as well as some
  actual tools to address SJFHQ and JTF training
  requirements of the 2 COCOMs
• Development oversight by JFCOM (fenced from
  exercise dollars)
• Timeline FY05 Study, FY06-08 prototyping
  activities, FY 09-11 hardening/sustainment
• Prototyping Activities
• Provide dedicated O/T support to two COCOMs
  through JFCOM
• Develop/test MMP for two COCOM applications by
  leveraging the Army Asymmetric Warfare
  Environment (AWE) STO
• Develop/test use of lightweight federation for 2
  COCOM applications by leveraging DARWARS project
  and existing COTS/GOTS
• Develop and test two story-drive applications
  (Pol-Mil, Seminar gaming, etc.) by leveraging
  JKDDC effort and existing Service/Industry/Academi
  c efforts
• Includes instructor support tools for building
  training scenarios and conducting AARs
• Includes training effectiveness studies for
  various training modes/products

26
Alternative 4 New Business Process

• TRAINING EXERCISE OPERATIONS
• Training purchased by houror exercise
• Firm Fixed Price contracts
• Multiple TSPs compete byevent or program
• TSP configures event from items purchased from
  toolbox

• DEVELOPMENT
• Receives requirements
• Populates toolbox
• Licenses tools to TSP
• Vendors differ from TSPsOCI in place

USERS Training Headquarters/Training Audience
Users
Market Maker

• MARKET MAKER
• Stimulates Development
• Makes Investments topopulate toolbox
• Technical architectureand standards
• Compliance test VVA
• Government, industry,and service members

GOVERNANCE

• GOVERNANCE (Includes Users)
• Develop and enforce policy
• Allocate resources between ops. and dev.
• Establish and track performance metrics
• Provides oversight, government functions
• Continuously review/improve business model

27
Acquisition Prototype Result

• Acquisition strategy that provides rapid fielding
  of operational Joint Close Air Support (JCAS)
  Training and Mission Rehearsal capabilities
• JCAS Mission Readiness
• Demonstrate a viable innovative business model
  for future application to acquire Joint Training
  and Mission Rehearsal capabilities.