C) 0CLs4

00.D CTOOT $LECTE9

Research Product 87-18

7 Training Requirements for theBattlefield Management System (BMS):

A Preliminary Analysis

ARI FipId Unit at Fort Knox, KentuckyTraining Research Laboratory

May 1987

__ __87 10 8 019U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE for the BEHAVIORAL and SOCIAL SCIENCES

Approved for public r6eese: distribuatiou enied.

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTEFOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCESA Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WM. DARRYL HENDERSONEDGAR M. JOHNSONCOITechnical Director Commanding

Technical review by

p Michael W. Adamson, Directorate of Combat Developments, Fort KnoxChristine R. HartelDonald R. LamptonJames W. Lussier Ac-ir o

INTiS CRA&Ii)',YIC TAB0

NOTICE$ L .eINAL nizaiziualN: This Aoearcn Product mnay be destroyed when it is no ionger needed. Poes, do notreturn It to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Se1havioral and Social Sciencess.

UDZ~t This Rtesearch Product Is not to be construed as an offliia oepartnwnt of the Army documnent In ItsPiesnt form.

UNCLASSIFIED

F -$ECUIlV CLASSIfICAIION OF THIS PA(A REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGEIs. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS

Unclassified2a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTIONIAVAJILABILITY OF REPORT

Approved for public release;2b. DECLASSIFICATION /DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE distribution unlimited.

4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) S. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

ARI Research Product 87-18

68. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b OFFICE SYMBOL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATIONU.S. Army Research Institute (If applicable) U.S. Army Research Institute for theField Unit--Fort Knox PERI-IK Behavioral and Social Sciences

6c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City, State, ard ZIP Code)

5001 Eisenhower AvenueFort Knox, KY 40121-5620 Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

Ba. NAME OF FUNDING /SPONSORING Sb. OFFICE SYMBOL 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBERORGANIZATION (If applicable)

Sc. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS

PROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK UNITELEMENT NO. NO. 2Q1627- NO. jACCESSION NO.62717A 17A790 3.5.1 13.5.1.H.1

1I. TITLE (Include Security Classification)

Training Requirements for the Battlefield Management System (BMS): A Preliminary Analysis

12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)Carl W. Lickteig

13a. TYPE OF REPORT 13b. TIME COVERED 14. DATE OF REPORT (Year. Month, Day) 15. PAGE COUNTFinal Report FROM 9186 TO 4187 May 1987 54

16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION

17. COSATI CODES 18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP Training reguirements Battlefield Management System

MANPRINT Battlefield information

Command, control, and communication19. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block numboi) &This product provides a preliminaryidentification of the training requirements for the Battlefield Management System (BMS). BMSis an integrated complex of technologies for the acquisition, processing, storage, and trans-mission of battlefield information, and is expected to partially automate the command, con-tfl, and communication (C3 ) of lower echelon, battaiion down, Armor units. For this analy-sis three cumulatively automated generations of BMS were projected, beginning with anintervehicular information system (IVIS) in the near term, a midterm upgrade referred to asBMS, and a far term, objective system enhanced by artificial intelligence (AI), BMS/AI.Training requirements unique to the functional capabilities of each of these systems werebased on a subjective analysis of the current task requirements associated with the platoon

leader position. Primary objectives of the analysis were to identify the range and natureof changes in platoon leader task performance anticipated for each of these three automatedC3 systems. Additional training requirements, such as training device configuration, train-

inp edia, training site, and personnel selection and training assignment, were also addresse

2C DISTRIS tIONIAVAILABItIT OF ABSTRACT -J21. ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION PM UNCLASSIFIEDAJNLIMITED 0 SAME AS RPT. o DTIC USERS Unclassified

22a NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b. TELEPHONE (include Area Code) 22c. OFFICE SYMBOLCarl W. Lickteig , ,i(502) 624-3450 1 PERI-IK=

DD FORM 1473384MAR 93 APR edition may be used untdi exhausted. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGEAll other editions are obsolete. UNCLASSIFIED

" v"", . "V'."7. 6M

Research Product 87-18

Training Requirements for theBattlefield Management System (BMS):

A Preliminary Analysis

Carl W. Llckteig

ARI Field Unit at Fort Knox, KentuckyDonald F. Haggard, Chief

Training Research LaboratoryJack H. Hiller, Director

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES5001 Eisenhower Avenue. Alexandia, Viginia 22333-5600

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for PersonnelDepartment of the Army

May 1987

Army Project Number Exploratory Development. Human Performance20182717A700 Effectiveness and Simulation

Approved for public releasel distribution unlimited.

FOREWORD

To ensure that the U.S. Army's future weapon systems are usable by oursoldiers, the Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences(ARI) performs behavioral research to provide guidelines and specifications formatching equipment designs with soldier capabilities and limitations. Withinthe ARI Field Unit at Fort Knox, the Future Battlefield Conditions Team con-ducts applied research to enhance soldier preparedness through identificationof future weapon systems and the methods for training to meet those systems.

This product by the ARI Field Unit at Fort Knox was prepared under Scienceand Technology Task 3.5.1, "Training Requirements for NBC and the Future Inte-grated Battlefield," at the request of the TRADOC System Manager (TSM) for theMIAI Block II. ARI's involvement in research on future battlefield conditionssupports the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between ARI and the U.S. ArmyArmor Center and School (USAARMC&S) on Land Battle Test Bed research signed9 January 1986. The results of this effort were briefed to COL Burgess (TSM-TANK) on 6 March 1987, and the report was provided to the TSM office in re-sponse to questions addressed in Tab D of the System MANPRINT Management Plan(Stat).

EDGAR M. JOHNSONTechnical Director

v

TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BATTLEFIELD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (BMS):A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .1

Emerging Systems ........ . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . .2Levels of Automationo . . . . . . . . . . .o . . . . . . .. .. .. 3

METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .** 6

Task Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6

Training Requirements.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Rating System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * . . * * * * 8

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .... . . . . . . . 10

Task Commonality* . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . 10

Task Difficulty....... . . . . . ... .. ... . . . . . . . 10Device Configuration.* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Additional Training Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * 12

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .* 14

APPENDIX A. PRELIMINARY TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR LOWER ECHELONC3 SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-I

LIST OF TABLES

Table lo Platoon leader's tasks by category. o . . . . a . . . . . 7

2. Description of training requirement ratings in Appendix A . . . 9

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure lo Prototyp B Mslasp. a. .. .. .. . . . . . . .. . 4

vii

TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BATTLEFIELD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (BMS):

A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

Background

For the current stage of product -improvements to the MiAl tank, the Armyhas authorized the production of a set of enhancements collectively labelledBlock II. Anticipated upgrades to any weapon system, however, may result inunanticipated complications, even system degradation, unless their design anddevelopment efforts systematically address product-related manpower and per-sonnel integration (MANPRINT) issues. The goal of the MANPRINT program,therefore, is to improve total system (soldier and equipment) performance bythe continuous integration of human factors engineering, mahpower, personnel,training, system safety and health hazard considerations throughout the mate-riel development and acquisition process. One important MANPRINT issue isthe timely identification of training requirements--what needs to be trained,when and where--associated with the system or subsystem under development.This report identifies training requirements associated with one of the BlockII components, a first-generation Battlefield Management System (BMS) whichis expected to partially automate the command, control and communication (C3)of lower echelons.

In support of MANPRINT, The Army Research Institute for the Behavioraland Social Sciences (ARI) has initiated a wide-ranging program to identify,test and revise MANPRINT support technologies. ARI's responsibility forproviding research and development (R&D) on MANPRINT-related analytical tech-nologies is part of ARI's mission as an element of the Office of the DeputyChief of Staff for Personnel (ODCSPER). ARI's approach to meeting MANPRINTrequirements has focused on defining the functional characteristics of asystem and viewing system operators as extensions of the system. This analy-sis of BMS training requirements is consistent with this approach and hasfocused on the functional characteristics of the antfcipated BMS system asrelated to the task requirements of a typical BMS operator.

Preliminary BMS training requirements, the subject of this report, wereidentified by ARI-Knox at the request of the MANPRINT Joint Working Group(JWG) for the MIAI Block II. The analysis was conducted to answer, at leastpartially, some of the training and personnel questions raised by the JWG intheir preparation of the System MANPRINT Management Plan (SMMP) for MIA1Block II.

In general, Block II enhancements to the MIAl include: enhanced surviv-ability, data bus, navigation system (POSNAV), C02 laser range finder (LRF),driver's and commander's independent thermal viewers (DTV, CITV), improvedcommander's weapon station, and intervehicular information system (IVIS)IVIS, a starter set for BMS, is expected to initiate the automation of Z4functions for lower echelon, battalion-down, Armor units.

As noted in the Operational and Organization (O&O) Plan for BMS, the paceof the Air Land Battle and the numerical superiority of opposing forces

(OPFOR) require significant improvements in the U.S. Army's command, control

and communication (C ) capabilities. Although the MIAI tank is generally

regarded as the most lethal and mobile armored weapon system in the world,its capability is severely constrained by repetitive, time consuming andmanual C3 functions. A primary goal of the immediate Block II additions to

the MIAl, therefore, is to significantly upgrade this weapon system's per-formance by technological enhancements in the areas of C

The training requirements for IVIS are the immediate concern of thisanalysis, and not the other 1lock II enhancements. Training requirements foreach of the Block II enhancements are anticipated and shall be integrated rwith the current findings by the JWG in their preparation of the SMMP.

This subjective analysis of BMS training requirements anticipated threesuccessive generations of lower echelon automated C3 systems that are antici-pated as a result of technological advances enabling EMS product improve- .1ments. In the near term, IVIS has been designated as the piecursor to BMS.

In midterm, BMS is expected to emerge with the addition of a digitized ter-rain data base to IVIS. In the far term, the addition of artificial intelli-gence (AI), with tactical d~cision making capabilities, to EMS is expected toculminate in an objective C system referred to in this report as BMS/AI.

Training requirements were identified by analyzing changes in the platoonleader's (PLT LDR) task reuirements associated with each of these threegenerations of automated C systems. The primary objectives of this analysiswere to Identify: the wide range of PLT LDR's tasks that may be affected bythese automated C3 systems; the extent to which the difficulty of trainingand performing these tasks might be increased, reduced or eliminated by auto-mation; and, the nature and configuration of training devices that might beneeded to meet these training requirements.

Emerging Systems

Lower echelon automated C3 systems such as IVIS and EMS are emerging

systems. Currently, IVIS is undergoing Engineering Pesign Tests by the con-tractor (EDT-C). Design specifications for IVIS have not been formulated,and the EDT-C version of IVIS is the first time that a prototype has been de-veloped to directly test IVIS-based C3 functions. With respect to BMS devel-opment, the O&O plan for EMS has yet to be approved by TRADOC. EMS designspecifications have not been established, but several prototype EMS systemshave been developed to assess user requirements. Most notably, Texas Instru-ments provided a prototype BMS that was used to identify user information

requirements (Jobe, 1986) and Lockheed developed another EMS prototype thatwas used to identify user interface requirements (Lickteig, 1986). ARI'sinvolvement with these prototypes, and the early formulation of automated C3

functional requirements at the lower echelon (Blasche and Lickteig, 1984),served as the basis for this preliminary analysis of EMS training require-ments.

Both the design and development of lower echelon automated C3 is itera-tive. The proposed EMS, as specified in the O&O Plan, is an ambitious con-cept that has already slipped well beyond the original developmental

milestones that projected BMS fielding in 1988. Monetary and technological

2

constraints have forced BMS combat developers to both lower their near term

requirements, and extend their projected acquisition schedule. IVIS, forexample, was initiated in response to these constraints as a BMS starter set,yet even IVIS is not scheduled for MIAI production cut-in until mid 1990. Inview of these contraints, and the complexities inherent in the materiel ac-quisition process, it was decided that the most useful analysis of BMS train-ing requirements would be one tailored to the successive generations, orlevels, of C3 automation anticipated.

Levels of Automation

For this preliminary analysis, training requirements unique to threecumulatively automated C3 systems--IVIS, BMS, BMS/AI--were identified. Be-fore describing each of these levels in some detail, it should be noted thatthe latter distinction between BMS and BMS/AI is not shared by all members ofthe combat developments community. A more commonly held assumption is thatthe tools of artificial intelligence will be sufficiently refined to meet thecurrently projected schedule of BMS development. But both commercial andmilitary ventures into AI have generated new respect for the informationprocessing capabilities of human intelligence, and in particular the complex-ity of perceptual and decision making processes. In the application of AI totactical information processing, this complexity is compounded by the turbu-lent and unpredictable conditions of the battlefield and the criticality ofmilitary decisions and operations. The current analysis, therefore, postu-lates AI decision making capabilities as a far term improvement, and BMS/AIas a distinct level of automated C3 systems.

The distinction made in this report between BMS and BMS/AI is arbitrary,and not intended to represent official policy of the Department of the Army.The purpose of the distinction is simply to ensure a more comprehensivefront-end analysis (FEA) of the differential training requirements that mayasise in the iterative development and acquisition of lower echelon automatedC" systems. More detailed descriptions of each of these three levels willnow be presented.

IVIS. IVIS, an Armor dedicated weapon subsystem, is an integrated com-plex of technologies for acquiring, processing, storing and transmittinglower echelon battlefield information. The automated C3 capabilities of IVISwill be supported by a 1553 data bus that allows continuous monitoring andupdating of information from the FM radio nets, the turret and hull networkboxes, and selected Block II components such as POSNAV, C02 LRF and CITV.This information should be made available to the user by way of a monochro-matic display panel, and presented in both graphic and alphanumeric formats.The display panel will be partitioned into a number of smaller display areaswith each area dedicated to distinct display features and control functions.The actual data and control fields available on IVIS have nct yet been speci-fied, nor has the overall configuration and format of the operator's displaypanel interface. With the exception of the digital terrain data, the proto-type BMS display presented in Figure 1 depicts the general display configura-tion and control functions anticipated for both IVIS and BMS.

3

22O130:0RESET oRECEIVE f

TEREBnL FER7URES

a SELECT any cmnTaTon

RoOaDEERS eVEGETSTIorl UAmESWRTER RRILROUSTOWnS POWERLiMES

ENTER

I~ (f~t) N B C ~E~~SEULD

b C d

Figure 1. Prototype BMS display (a = map display; b = automatic functionkeys; c = main menu keys; d - transmit key; e = variable menudisplay; f - message display; g = date and time display).

Current projections assume that digital terrain data will not be availa-ble for IVIS. The most likely alternative is that the "map" area designatedfor IVIS will display a military grid matrix. Withig this grid matrix theuser will be able to generate, receive, store, and transmit graphic data suchas operational overlays, control measures, and unit symbology. The gridreferencing system will provide correspondence between these overlays and thestandard paper copy maps. An alternative, and more effective IVIS systemwould store and provide digitized maps (not digital terrain data) and updatemap presentations by means of the grid referencing system. In either event,the assumption made for this analysis is that IVIS will not provide the"flexible" map expected for BMS, or the "smart" map anticipated for BMS/AI.

The submenu region of the proposed IVIS display will be primarily de-signed for textual formats. Alphanumeric data in the form of messages, re-ports, orders and alerts will be composed, transmitted and received in thisregion of the user's interface display. The input device, and use of pre-formatted versus free field entries, are Important training requirement fac-tors that have not been resolved, The assumptions made for this analysis arethat a touch-sensitive interface or mouse and trackball input device will beused, and that textual entries will be preformatted and menu-driven.

4

All IVIS-based communications, graphic and alphanumeric, will be trans-mitted and received by way of digital burst signals transmitted by frequencyhopping single channel ground/airborne radio systems (SINCGARS). IVIS stor-age and interface features will allow users to compose an entire order orreport before transmission, verify its accuracy, and then digitally transmitthe entire message in millisecond bursts. Both net access and Interferencewill be monitored automatically by IVIS, and call signs and authenticationprocedures should be automatically annotated and processed -for intervehicularcommunications.

BMS. A primary enhancement assumed for BMS, over IVIS, in the near termis the addition of digitized terrain data at 1:50,000 scale. Currently, De-fense Mapping Agency (DMA) data at Level 1 (1:50,000) are not available ex-cept for very limited regions of the earth's terrain. In addition, theMIL-STD-1553 data bus supporting IVIS is not powerful enough to process thisvolume of data. But when automated C systems Ire enhanced with digital ter-rain data, significant advances in automating C are projetted. These ad-vances are anticipated primarily because terrain visualization is one of themost difficult of all military tasks to perform (Barsam & Simutis, 1985;Rogers & Cross, 1981) and because battlefield geometry is fundamentally spa-tial, not textual, data. Consider the difficulty of giving someone direc-tions with or without the aid of a map or other graphic aids.

The geometry of the battlefield is a critical component of nearly all C3

communications, and a digital terrain data base will significantly automateand synchronize lower echelon map and operational overlay information. Ter-rain visualization will be, at least partially, automated by graded elevationshadings and horizontal or perspective views of the terrain. Map Interpreta-tion will be further automated by selective call-up and delete capabilitieswhich are critical for avoiding clutter on the relatively compressed size ofthe display interface. Selective call-up and delete features are also in-strumental in allowing BMS users to tailor their map displays with respect toboth individual and situational factors.

Finally, the digitized terrain data base will automate the process ofboth extracting and inserting tactical information., Line-of-Sight (LOS) andtrafficability algorithms, for example, will significantly automate terrainanalysis. Graphic presentations of both friendly and enemy weapon systemcharacteristics such as range, elevation and azimuth will greatly assist theexcecution of such tasks as the preparation of range cards, sector sketchesand fire control plans. This analysis of training requirements will moreexplicitly define the extent of this automation over a cross-section of PLTLDR tasks.

In conclusiou, it is noted that the aforementioned BMS manipulations ofdigital terrain data are achieved by algorithmic transformations of thedata base, and such transformations are not regarded as manifestations of ar-tificial intelligence.

BMS/AI. While currently high risk and even unforeseen technological ad-vances may be included in later BMS product improvements, this analysis an-ticipates that the most significant enhancement in long-term automated C3

will be artificial intelligence. In the area of automated C3, the capstoneof an AI system should provide an optimal tactical decision (e.g., plan of

5

action) that is based on integrated knowledge bases, expert rule-based proto-cols and real-time battlefield intelligence data. For a more complete discus-sion of the data-base and processing requirements for AI in an applied Armor

setting see Harris, Fuller, Dyck and Rogers (1985).

This tactical decision making capability of AI is significantly morecomprehensive and complicated than the piece-meal decision aids anticipatedfor BMS without AI such as the LOS and trafficability functions previouslydiscussed. Once a tactical decision has been formulated by.BMS/AI, the sys-tem should be able to automatically tailor and transmit this information(e.g., operations order [OPORD], fragmentary order [FRAGOI) in detail appro-priate to both lower and upper echelons. As the execution of this plan un-folds, such as the crossing of phase lines or contact with the enemy, the C3

system should be automatically monitoring, updating and re-analyzing thetactical situation.

4s the subsequent analysis of training requirements stggests, this levelof C' automation may significantly reduce the task load and training require-ments associited with the PLT LDR position. As stated previously, BMS/AI isa far term C system that is included in the present analysis to ensure amore comprehensive FEA an to more explicitly identify potential AI applica-tions for lower echelon Cj.

METHODOLOGY

Task Requirements

Training requirements must be based on task requirements. This analysisof BMS training requirements is based on the task requirements associatedwith the PLT LDR's position. The PLT LDRs position was selected for severalreasons. First, there has been considerable speculation that the actual"fighters" on the battlefield will have neither the time or inclination to

utilize automated C3 systems. It is assumed that as levels of C3 automationincrease, these front-line personnel will be relieved of their more burden-some C duties and thereby more capable of pressing the conflict. Secondly,as front-line personnel, PLT LDRs collectively possess a firsthand knowledgeof the combat situation that is critical to informed C3 . And finally, be-cause of front-line attrition and the relatively limited military backgroundof a PLT LDR the training requirements associated with this position are ofparticular importance.

The task requirements associated with the PLT LDR position were takenfrom MTP 17-15-1, The Tank Platoon Mission Training Plan (1985). While thisis both an individual and collective training plan, the tasks and standardsassociated with collec ive platoon performance are central to the PLT LDR'sresponsibilities for C'. This HTP provides a relatively complete list of thetactical training requirements associated with the platoon leader's position.This MTP was selected as the source document for this analysis because ofits emphasis on tactical training and its inclusion of training and evalua-tion outlines (T&EO) which list all tasks, subtasks, and supporting tasksrequired for mission accomplishment.

6

- - ~ .~I--

A representative cross-section of PLT LDR tasks, and all C' tasks, listedin 17-15-1 were selected for this analysis and are presented in Table 1. Thetasks in Table 1 are combined under three fundamental categories of maneuverwarfare: Command, Control and Communication; Force Movement; and Offensiveand Defensive Operations. For purposes of exposition, some of the originalcategories listed in 17-15-1 have been consolidatec under the Table 1 head-ings. For example, Perform a Nuclear Contaminated Area Crossing is presentedunder Force Movement rather than a separate NBC category, and Offensive andDefensive Operations are combined into one category.

Table 1

Platoon Leader's Tasks by Category

Command, Control Offensive/Defensive& Communication Force Movement Operations

Perform Platoon Leader Perform Tactical Road Execute a HastyReconnaissance March Attack

Provide C2 of a Platoon Execute Actions at a Perform AssaultPerform Tactical Planning Halt Force ActivitiesPerform Contact Point Execute Traveling Assault an OPFOR

Activities Perform a Nuclear Con- Position

Conduct Rehearsals for taminated Crossing Perform Consolida-Mission tion Activities

Occupy a BattlePosition

Training Requirements

Given the developmental nature of the lower echelon C3 systems, thisanalysis was based on the primary functional capabilities anticipated foreach of the three levels of automated systems under consideration -- IVIS,BMS, BMS/AI. Until design specifications are formulated and operable systemsare developed, a quantitative and objective task and skill analysis (TSA) ofthe human performance required on each sstem can not be prepared. Thispreliminary analysis has been based on C system functions and capabilitiesas previously discussed, user information and interface requirements obtained(Jobe, 1986; Lickteig, 1986) using BMS prototypes, and the automatedcapabilities projected in the BMS O&O Plan. This subjective analysis oftraining requirements was originally performed by ARI personnel and thenreviewed by subject matter experts (SMEs) from the Directorate of CombatDevelopments (DCD).

The primary objectives of this analysis were to identify the range andnature of PLT LDR tasks affected by these automated C3 systems and the extentto which the performance of these tasks might become easier, more difficultor at least partially eliminated by automation. The analysis also addressedthe issue of training devices by identifying which of the PLT LDR tasks af-fected by automated C3 could be trained by stand-alone training devices ver-sus which tasks would require an interactively, networked configuration of

7

C.f I

training devices. Other training requirements considered in this analysis,but not included in Appendix A, were training media, training site, andpersonnel assignment and selection.

Rating System

The results of this analysis for these primary objectives are presentedin Appendix A. Before presenting these results, a brief explanation of thetable headings and entries is provided below and summarized in Table 2. Thegeneral heading of Appendix A begins with the list of PLT LDR tasks in thefirst column. Subheadings within this column indicate, in succession, thefunctional category (e.g., C3 , Force Movement), the primary task being ana-lyzed, and finally the subtasks, standards and supporting tasks includedunder the primary task. The next three columns of the table heading specify,in order, the three levels of C3 systems addressed by this analysis--IVIS,BMS, and BMS/AI. The final column in the table heading addresses the issueof training device configuration, stand-alone or networked training devices.This issue of device configuration was not considered specific to any of thethree levels of C systems under consideration; the recommendations concern-ing training device configurations apply to all three levels of automated C

3

systems.

This preliminary analysis of training requirements for each of the pri-mary tasks listed in Table 1 also included all of the subtasks, standards andsupporting tasks required for execution of the primary task. Training re-quirements for all subtasks, standards and supporting tasks are thereforealso included in Appendix A. The wide range of tasks included in the inven-tory are expected to provide a representative sample of the tasks required ofPLT LDRs and an index of the pervasive impact of automated C3 at the lowerechelon.

The first requirement, COMMONALITY, indicates whether the training re-quirement for the task in question is the "same" (S,s) as conventional train-ing or "different" (D,d) do to the introduction of an automated C3 system.Tasks were rated as "different" when either the 3rocedures or the tools forexecuting a task were affected by an automated C system. The task of mapreconnaissance, for example, was rated as "same" under IVIS which does notprovide a digital map display. Platoon leaders equipped with IVIS muststill refer to their paper maps to perform map reconnaissance. Under BMS,however, this task was rated as "different" although the platoon leader mustanalyze the same terrain features currently considered for map reconnais-sance. But with the digital map display of BMS the platoon leader can selec-tively tailor his map to more directly and systematically analyze thetactical aspects of key terrain (e.g., line-of-sight, trafficability etc.).

Upper case letters in Appendix A indicate primary tasks and lower caseletters are used for all subtasks, standards and supporting tasks Ratingsfor the primary task are provided as a summary indicator of the P system'simpact across all subordinate and supporting tasks. When performance of atask has been completely automated by an advanced C3 system, this column hasbeen left blank to indicate that performance of the task has been eliminatedand, therefore, no significant training requirement may exist (except fordegraded modes).

8

W w

The second requirement, Difficulty, indicates whether the automated C3

system has made the task "easier" (E,e) or "potentially harder" (H?,h?) toperform, or if the task has been "partially automated" (PA,pa) or completely1automated" (A,a). IVIS, for example should make a number of PLT LDR taskseasier by providing check lists and initiating cues to facilitate task per-formance without actually automating or eliminating any of the task compo-nents. On the other hand, preparing textual portions of a report or orderusing message formats and menus may be more difficult than conventional voice(FM radio) procedures. To indicate that these tasks may increase task diffi-culty they are rated as potentially harder (h?) than conventional reportingrequirements. Finally, the graphic portions (e.g., operational overlays) ofa PLT LDR's order or report on IVIS will be manually generated but automatic-ally transmitted and, therefore, are listed as partially automated (pa). Whenthe task has been analyzed as the "same" under Commonality no entry was in-cluded under Difficulty, to more clearly indicate where changes in PLT LDRtraining requirements were anticipated.

Table 2

Description of Training Requirement Ratings in Appendix A

Requirement Rating Entry Issues

Commonality Same s Is the PLT LDRs task using anDifferent d automated C3 system, the same

or different than conventionaltask performance?

Difficulty Easier e Is the PLT LDRs task easier,Potentially Harder h? harder, partially automated orPartially Automated pa completely Iutomated using the

Automated a automated C system?

Configuration Stand-Alone * Can the PLT LDRs task beNetwork * trained using a stand-alone

automated C3 system, or mustthe C system be networked forintervehicular transmissions?

The final training requirement included in Appendix A, Configuration, in-dicates whether the task in question can be trained with an independent or"stand-alone" (SA,sa) training device or simulator, or whether training forthe task will require that a number of training devices be linked together toform a communication "network" (N,n). Tasks rated as "same" across all sys-tems, indicating no change in task or training requirements, were not as-signed a rating under this column.

9

%w 'I 1J *f N

Additional training requirements considered in this analysis such astraining media, training site, and personnel selection and assignment prob-

lems are discussed in the following section.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results are based on the training requirement ratings provided in Appen-dix A. All ratings were reviewed by SMEs from the Directorate 'of CombatDevelopments. Percentages are based on the relative frequency of a givenrating across all tasks, subtasks, and supporting tasks appearing in AppendixA. Results are limited to the tasks included in MTP 17-15-1 which focuses onthe tactical training requirements for platoons and platoon leaders.

Task Commonality

Automated command and control systems will affect a wide range of PLT LDRtasks and the training requirements for these tasks. Of particular Interestis the impact of automated C systems on the training requirements for thecategory of PLT LDR tasks specifically designated as C3. This analysis foundthat even a first-generation C system, IVIS, wll change the PLT LDR's taskand training requirements for over 50% of the C' tasks and subtasks listed inAppendix A. As the level of automation increases with BMS and BMS/AI, over90% of these tasks and subtasks will be affected.

This change in training requirements is clearly not limited to thosetasks formally included by 17-15-1 under the category of C3, but extends--albeit to a lesser extent--throughout the sample of tasks included under thecategories of Force Movement, Offensive Operations and Defensive Operations.The majority of all tasks considered under each of the PLT LDR functionalcategories will be performed differently when the more advanced C' systems,BMS and BMS/AI, are fielded. The pervasive impact of these more advanced Csystems on PLT LDR training requirements may be best summarized by notingthat only 10-15% of all tasks and subtasks listed in Appendix A were rated"same" or unaffected by the objective system, BMS/4I.

Task Difficulty

Automated command and control systems will significantly reduce the dif-ficulty of performing and training PLT LDR tasks, and the more advanced sys-tems will at least partially eliminate many of these tasks throughautomation. IVIS, for example, when considered across all categories of PLTLDR performance listed in Appendix A was found to make "easier" approximately252 of the task and subtask entries, and "partially automate" an additional25%. Tentative ratings of "harder" (h?) were projected only for a fewIVIS-based tasks, namely, the preparation of textual reports and orders. Onthe other hand, only one IVIS-based task, Determine a Location, was rated ascompletely "automated"--a function of IVIS's interface with the POS NAV sys-tem.

As the levels of automation increase with later-generation C3 systems,approximately 60% of the BMS-based PLT LDR tasks were rated as either

10

'V,1til

"partially automated" or completely "automated," and 80% of the BMS/AI PLTLDR tasks were rated as "partially automated" or completely "automated."More specifically, within the C3 category, the cumulative impact of theselater-generation C3 systems should actually eliminate a sizeable portion ofthe PLT LDR task requirements. The objective system, BMS/AI, may result inthe complete automation of the majority of all C1 tasks and subtasks listedin Appendix A.

The effect of these automated functions on training requirement mustaddress the issue of system operability. Assuming fully operable C systems,the training requirements would be significantly reduced for the majority ofall tasks, and eliminated for many additional tasks. Degraded C systems,per se, should not significantly impair conventional PLT LDR task performance(i.e., retention of voice FM nets), to the extent that PLT LDR's have beentrained for degraded conditions and have not become overly dependent on auto-mated capabilities.

Device Configuration

Many of thI tactical training requirements for the PLT LDR's utilizationof automated C systems can be met using stand-alone C3 training devicei.This issue of training device configuration is an important aspect of Ctraining requirements with respect to the allocation of training resources.In particular, the analysis suggests that tactical planning and report prepa-ration can be addressed by independent training devices. Within the categoryof C3 platoon leader tasks this analysis found that the majority of thesetasks can be Srained, at least at the earliest stages of training withstand-alone C devices.

Over all the Appendix A PLT LDR functional categories, however, only a-pproximately 25% of the tasks can be s:pported by stand-alone trainingdevices. At least 60% of these tasks will require that C3 training systems be"networked" to simulate intervehicular transmissions. Training requirementsfor the remaining 10-15% of the Appendix A entries, as previ usly noted, wererated as "same" or unaffected by the fielding of alqtomated C3 systems.

Additional Training Requirements

Key training requirement issues are the selection of training media andthe design and development 3f training devices. Given the computer-basednature of these automated C3 systems, an ideal training media would appear tobe computer-based instruction (CBI). Fortunately CBI is an integral compo-nent of the Automated Classroom concept which is currently being implementedby the US Army Armor Center (USAARMC). And many of the hardware resources forthis training media may soon be available at both institutional and reservecomponent training sites. As the analysis has indicated, however, traln ngfor many of the PLT LDR's tasks will require an interactive network oftraining devices and this is a resource intensive configuration particularlywith respect to supporting hardware Software and courseware packages forsimulating and training automated C' system functions must be anticipated,and are identified as important training requirement issues to be addressedby the SIMP.

11

#p

Embedded training, the integration of a training package into the actualweapon system, is also identified as a critical training requirement to beincluded in the SMMP. The instructional potential of computer-based systemsshould result in the design specification of embedded training for theseautomated C3 systems to support both unit and sustainment training. Thecost-effectiveness of both CBI and embedded training for reducing the needfor instructor and institutional resources provides additional support tothis requirement.

Another important training requirement issue is determining the locationor site in which training activities might take place. The current analysishas focused on a distinction between classroom versus field traininglocations. This analysis suggests that the majority of PLT LDR tasks consid-ered can be initially trained in a classroom or institutional setting. Morespecifically, all of the tasks listed under the C3 category, with the excep-tion of several tasks requiring ground reconnaissance or navigation, appearsuitable for at least initial training in the classroom. 'For the Offensiveand Defensive categories, PLT LDR tasks such as tactical planning, the issueof the plans, and the coordination of plans among echelons can all be ini-tially trained in a classroom equipped with C3 training devices. In general,tasks requiring field training sites are terrain and weapon system dependentsuch as the actual execution of movement, occupation and assault operations.

A final training requirement issue is the identification of potentialtraining anq assignment problems. As indicated in Appendix A the proposedautomated C systems may require that users submit and receive textual re-ports, orders and messa5es. To the extent that voice transmissions areeliminated, automated C systems may require substantially more training timenc 3and resources than conventional C3. While voice synthesis and recognitioncapabilities may be sufficiently advanced for integration into BMS andBMS/AI, they are not anticipated for IVIS. Directly related to this issue oftextual rather than vocal communication protocols, potential assignment prob-lems should be investigated. Whether personnel minimally meeting the currentverbal and reading ability standards will be able to compose accurate non-vocal reports using these automated C3 systems must be empirically resolved.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the tactical training requirements of the platoon leader's mis-sion training plan, MIP 17-15-1, this analysis has documented the pervasiveimpact of automated C3 systems on the current tasks, sub asks, and standardsassociated with platoon leader performance. Automated C systems will affectan increasing number of current platoon lea er task and training require-ments. And the impa t of these automated C1 systems is clearly not limitedto the category of C tasks, but extends to each of the fundamental catego-ries of lower echelon maneuver warfare included in MTP 17-15-1.

A primary conclusion of this analysis is that these automated C3 systemswill substantially reduce the current task and training requirements associ-ated with small unit leadership. This reduction will be accomplished byautomating, or at least partially automating, many of the time-consuming andrepetitive manual and cognitive tasks required for planning, monitoring, and

12

reporting combat operations at the lower echelon. In addition, this analysishas identified, in a general way, some of the unique training requirementsassociated with the operation and utilization of these automated C systems.

For nonresident training it is concluded that the computer-based natureof these automated systems provides an excellent medium for embedded trainingprograms. The initial priority of this embedded training is a tutorial pro-gram that provides users a clear and self-explanatory introduction to theutilization and capability of all display and control functions -provided bythe automated command, control, and communication system. A more comprehen-sive embedded training package should provide users the opportunity tointeractively practice the utilization of these C3 capabilities in the con-text of realistic mission scenarios and exercises.

It is also concluded that for residential training, computer-based in-structional (CBI) programs be developed in support of these automated C

3

systems. These CBI programs should include the training c60dponents describedabove for embedded training, but also provide a more comprehensive and adap-tive training package. In particular, this CBI should be tailored for vari-ous users and multiple levels of training, from preliminary to advanced.This computer-based instruction should also include such instructional fea-tures as self-paced and adaptive training, immediate feedback and knowledgeof results for users, and an evaluation of user proficiency for instructors.To reduce the system costs associated with these training requirements, it isnoted that this CBI could be developed to operate on the Electronic Informa-tion Delivery System (EIDS) which is the Army Standard for CBI.

Finally, it is recommended that the development of these automated train-ing systems should be pursued as quickly as possible. To proceed beyond thelevel of prelim inary analysis to a more formal set of training requirementsfor automated C systems, prototype systems must be extensively utilized andtested by both users and professional trainers. In particular, the issues ofinformational overload and personnel assignment and selection can only be

accurately assessed when operative systems are placed in the hands of poten-tial users and trainers. Automated training systems in residential and non-residential settings could then be used not only in sppport of training forcurrently fielded C3 systems, but also as a test bed for ensuring that bothuser and training Sequirements are included in the design and development offuture automated C systems.

By considering now the potential training requirements of future auto-mated C3 systems, the Army may better ensure that operator performance isoptimized and training requirements are minimized. The timely identificationof training requirements, such as those identified in this report, shouldresult in their explicit specification in these systems' source selectiondocuments and Required Operational Capabilities (ROC). The intent of thecurrent analysis, therefore, has been to identify a preliminary set of train-ing requirements th t must be continuously addressed and refined as BHS andrelated automated P systems for lower echelons move through the Life CycleSystem Management Model (LCSMM).

13

S . P P P S P 9

REFERENCES

Barsam, H. F., & Simutis, Z. M. (1984). Computer-based graphics for terrainvisualization. Human Factors, 26(6), 659-665.

Blasche, T., & Lickteig, C. (1984). Utilization of vehicle integrated intel-ligence (V(INT(2 )) system in armor units. ARI Research Report 1374.(AD A168 828)

Harris, D. H., Fuller, R. G., Dyck, J. L., & Rogers, S. P. (1985). ARIV(INT)2 SKI demonstrator: processing and expert rule based protocols.ARI Research Note 85-29.

Jobe, J. (1986). Information requirements for the battlefield management sys-tem. ARI Research Report 1424. (AD A178 502)

Kane, J. (1981). Personnel and testing subsystem integration in an armor svs-tem. Science Applications, Inc. Final Report 81-352-WA.

Lickteig, C. (1986). User interface requirements for the battlefield manage-ment system. ARI Research Product 86-25. (AD A174 811)

HANPRINT Bulletin (1986). HANPRINT what? why? who? Deputy Chief of Stafffor Personnel: HQ DA, No. 1.

Rogers, S. P., & Cross, K. D. (1979). Meeting the challenge of precise navi-gation during nap-of-the-earth flight. Paper presented at 35th AnnualNational Forum of the American Helicopter Society.

U.S. Army (1983, June). Tank platoon mission training plan. Training Circular17-15-1. Fort Knox, Kentucky: U.S. Army Armor School.

14

APPENDIX APRELIMINARY TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR LOWER ECHELON C3 SYSTEMS

A-1

co 0 go cc a co to 03 @3 w

A-ii

o c

400

A- 2

a1 c c 0 C w cc CD 0

w 0( 0 ) c 0 to o CI cc CID cc

AT

LnI

-4 .4 d o~

2~

AJA 3o

TS-unru mfl ~u p -~,w-a----.- -.-

'A-

(a co C3 ,

.1 .4

cj 9c

aJ a ca

Vj 0 raw 0

A~ A - ft11 'E 1c& I

1-4~

0 to

A- 5

u cc 0 0o m o COc o 0ic

-c-

En~ 92 -0co VU)In

4.J 8ciJ - -A

a 0~0,0

.~ 0 Co ~~ ILI -40

-4 ca. 1.0

A- 6

%rC )LC kC W-XRLL WYX FUl *% VWVWV V"'Jr.vw

C,,9

En2 2

a ca a a a

C) a 2a2 2-4t

5j U0) S.

4 w-w

"0 " 0

A- 7

14~

EL

-t4

a ~ -AjA

-A-

M Wg~lv Wlw NMAIM 1%Z

L

a

LFL

'-1

In,

i] I Qs

A- 9

i 4

(1z,

W Ai

-A 1

m -4L

a a a

A- --

ca

A- 1

o~~E EL . a

I-45n u 2oC

ti OwlC C~

li~ a~ 0-

cz. "o

CE 4 a)

A-12

2i. k, 196 laP

II

"r -1 t

a 1- 4-.

'-4o

c C6* - VV -~j

A-1

-0 a w

C)~ C))

'-4

LdiCl. j Aj (

(00

L4Z dJ

A-14J

Wfl~~~ -l -~ -~ - - -- -'w -n -i

*~~c ca" V V "

co "V

C Cr 0

Lzl

LI S? E

-A-1

I-wwrwwnw ir. 17ewt~v Wry FI nnNr - n

lb.

F- FL

"D v

a a a FL

to a a a

-3--

-4c

14 o 0

14 gQ.1 1 1

-. S, - -9 w

A-I16

a Wan V)t

to, CA (ACI, ~ w C

C-)

- -j - 5

J4 CWI w

A- 17

-4

g U)

R F

0 -4

-4 - I, -4 £

j (N

A- 18

J.&fq

4c it 4( -

Ea Fa Sa EL FLa

V V U2 - ~ to En V V

u ul 4) a ) cu ) W0)

-~r Q) 0)co) )0

-41

Vj V o V 4C V C

I~A 0.~ -

-E .~ - ki A

-A 1

4c14

14 -

-41

CC -4 >-

LA L4

vJA 20

-a a co to2. . . 2142

-4o

Aj

L4 0) A.) C) C

C)' C>- C) 0

-21B

L"

R aa

F- S-

Z-3 E

0-4 4. -4f l

V4- - - E cjL

c)5 9 -1E F1 .

Aj a~ a -C4

A- 22

V * " ..s W, T-pa qKE .1jTd" ~ .MJ ' wxM l WlWJI~W xL iJUulXJI- W7~uJ x:-w mKp-rx Kxww W' p rP~ j

- 7 C

ao w LO a La a a

A c a

49 U

14 - 0 41 -4 L4 4

)S41

a) C)t. 4

A~~4 L

~ ~ ~ coM.C

C cc 41I

A- 23

a to a

.4 E-4 W ) 0) 0

-4E

-0

JA-2

hz .

co co

14 0) (vc

C- 00

aaaW W

AA

A-25

-oe ewao- b

Pa "a a a a

~ 4'1

p4 0

.- A -4

-A-2

wKw J ~ j F% )(x r1ip Vii j IR W-X) 77 TO S.! C- V-6 -&-w UTU - 14MM UV PN MM s - Wn WOM P% FI- Wo wrI UU~nw F Ir wzwl

7 P

LI)a

coa

u.

-~ ~ aa

7 c (

LIi)g~C

A-27

4cc 4cic 4c4K

Ln a a aa

u <

a~~~~c aR a aa a

iz

(NI

01

Er c

00

A- 28

N- V V' 4 % ~ - -C1

a ~ 7 a" a aa a

2*.i

ato a aa'-.d

v v v--

Aj cca'~

0s S--~0C

Aj

00

A- 29

L.L

A03

ol

F-4m'

a a

fG5

C~CD

A-31--

'p1c

Lio

- go

0 *~. ~A-32

too

~~~ V ca- ~ -

a a a ~wLi

2 flW- 0 -,1 ca-1 *

ZF w &-j. -

88

....... , , . I . 'I14-. ~Ilk

tIto

i-Ii

V LO V f cJoCl U) VC.0

- ~ ~ ~ A V4 tojVV C~u V # C

u8 0

0 V 4 c) c4 Vf fC

co 0

0 0 :3 0to 4

s Z to

A- 3