INSTRUCTIONAL PLAN AND

PRESENTATION
JOSHUA CONNER
FEBRUARY 2, 2015
CUR 516
PROF. KATHRYN WYATT

AGENDA
Background
Problem Statement
Framing the problem
Course of action Develop a training course

Resources required
Implementation Timeline
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3

BACKGROUND
Military Commanders over the last 7 years have consistently
cited concerns with our forces ability to integrate Mission
Command Systems

Rapid fielding initiatives for new automated systems have

outpaced the training capabilities of our military schools

Field service representatives (FSRs) employed to mitigate

risks due to training and manning concerns

FSRs have been deployed heavily to Iraq and Afghanistan to

assist units with newly fielded systems, often to the
detriment of hands-on experience for soldiers

BACKGROUND (CONT)
Sequestration cuts have exposed our over-reliance on external
support and lack of training, as observed at the Combat Training
Centers (CTCs) and Warfigher Exercises (WFXs)

Approximately half of our force is still operating on software

block (SWB) 2 mission command systems, while the other half
has been upgraded to the next generation systems, SWB 11/12

Modular employment of brigades and task organizing forces

against mission sets has created requirements to integrate units
SWB 2 and SWB 11/12 into a single COP, further complicating
mission command system integration requirements

PROBLEM STATEMENT
How do we better improve the forces ability to integrate
mission command systems without external support?

FRAMING THE PROBLEM

Facts

Institutional instruction has not

kept pace with technological
requirements
Communicators unable to train
all systems on their own
Cost of setting up divisional
level exercises and above is
prohibitive (usually over $10
million)
Two BCTs with SWB 2 sets are
due to be upgraded before
2016

Assumptions

Sequestration cuts will not be

lifted soon, meaning most
units that are currently on SWB
2 systems will not be updated
to SWB 11/12 anytime soon
PEO-C3T can develop a
simulation model to replicate a
typical BCT topology that nests
with other common
simulations such as the
Caspian Sea scenario used by
the Combined Arms Center
SWB 2 server and system sets
can be recycled at little cost

FRAMING THE PROBLEM (CONT)

Facts

Current NDAA projects

additional sequestration cuts
in 2016

Assumptions

Lab space with sufficient

power and infrastructure
available at Fort Leavenworth
or Fort Gordon

COURSE OF ACTION OVERVIEW

Expand Field Service
Representative (FSR) support
Pros:

Create a new Mission Command Systems Integration course

Pros:

Provides immediate support to

commanders and their staffs

Alleviates manning concerns in
technical MOSs

Cons:
Exorbitant costs exceeding $50

million per year to support

every BCT and DIV HQ with
organic contracted FSR support

Provides increased
institutional training
opportunities
Increases organizational
knowledge
Can be started for less than
$1 million

Cons:

Time. Will take nearly one

year to establish course and
get graduates into the
operational force.

PROPOSED COURSE OVERVIEW

Hybrid course will occur in two phases

Phase 1: Facilitated online course, 5 weeks in length.

Students can complete while still performing normal duty

requirements.
Phase 2: Residential course, 5 days in length. Students
will have to travel for temporary duty to participate

Hybrid model allows for maximum use of

institutional simulation facilities while providing
minimal impact to manning requirements in the
operational force

RESOURCES REQUIRED
Phase 1:

Blackboard access for each 12-16 person class

Adobe Connect classroom dedicated to each class
No commercial text books required

Phase 2:

Three computer labs arranged to represent cells with each warfighting

functional staff component found in a BCT TOC with 20 workstations
each
Four Battle Command server stacks (two each SWB 2, two each SWB
11/12) configured as 1x division stack (simulation injection) and 3x
BCT stacks.
4x JNN simulation nodes

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The course will be implemented in three
phases:

Phase 1: Design, procurement, and strategic

messaging
Phase 2: Formative evaluation including pilot
testing, course registration
Phase 3: Live execution

TIMELINE PH 1
Ready to begin immediately
Instructional design can be completed with 30 man
days of labor. The simulation software modification
will take 5 to 6 months to reprogram.

Procurement for the labs will begin immediately,

and will take up to 6 months to complete. Lab build
out and testing will take another 20 days.

Strategic messaging initiatives can begin in 90 days

TIMELINE PH 2
Formative assessment will run concurrent with the instructional
design and extend through the end of a pilot execution.

Subject matter review of initial instructional design products can

begin within a week of beginning the instructional design phase.

Online phase can be run through a pilot phase approximately 60

days into the project.

Pilot for phase 2 will depend on timeline for building out the lab.
No earlier than 5 months after beginning of project, no later than 9
months.

Course can be registered in ATRRS (Army Training Requirements

and Resource System) for FY16

TIMELINE PH 3

Evaluate student feedback and integrate

lessons learned

Begin execution in FY 16 (February 2016 on

normal schedule, December 2015 if waiver
approved)

CONCLUSION
Supports one of the biggest training challenges in the Army
Hybrid distance-learning and resident model allows for
maximum impact for minimal cost

Will require senior leader support to implement and get

students to participate