TRADOC News! Congress approved the standup of Deputy Commanding General for Initial Military Training (IMT) on 29 SEP 2009 with Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling in this new position. This organization will standardize some areas of training, reinvigorate others, and evolve the way that initial entry Soldiers and recently commissioned junior officers prepare for their first unit of assignment. One of the goals of IMT is to support more efficient and effective Army Force Generation, while shaping Soldiers and recently-commissioned leaders with the skills ready to contribute in a constantly changing operational environment. Lt. Gen. Hertling and his expanding team are working on several initiatives that will evolve training to meet the demands our Soldiers face, incorporating new methods, methodologies and training techniques that are geared on addressing the evolving nature of conflict and changing human and societal dynamics.
Read more about IMT’s set up here and view photos from Lt. Gen. Hertling’s promotion here
What are your thoughts on IMT? What questions do you have for Lt. Gen. Hertling and his team?
This sounds like a promising technique – getting back to basics is a good idea. Hammering out the fundamentals will probably make new soldiers more prepared.
Sir, I would like if your team has considered intergrating Wiki or wiki doctrine training in this transitional phase?
Does this reorg address some failings or inefficiencies of the previous org? How?
Sir I applaud the IMT initiative to reduce the 32 Warrior Tasks and 12 Battle Drills to 15 and 4 respectively, this will be a great example for Army forces to follow as we all try to better prepare our Soldiers and Leaders for IW in today’s era of persistent conflict. My question is that I recognize our task–base training focus we apply for individual Soldier and unit collective training made (makes) our forces very effective in MCO, but with the new hybrid threats young Soldiers will face in the full spectrum operational environment they can step into on the first day of arriving to our units, how and where is IMT going to apply a training method that will develop adaptability in a Drill Sergeants method of instruction and in our inexperienced Soldiers before they arrive to our units? Thank you
Sir-
Technology is moving fast and forever changing.
I have one recommendation and it will transform the Army. This is the decisive point for the Army/TRADOC Campaign Plan. This will provide a measurement for Lean Six Sigma. Just like the industry. This is nested with your priorities.
1. Software USERS rating Web Site for new and current products for leaders. Closed loop process, controlled by military senior leaders only.
If we developed this one process the Army will save Billions!! Products will last longer. We won’t wait until millions are spent to deduce we went the wrong way or the COR had no clue what he was doing. The users raise the red flag immediately. Currently we produce software using what the chain of command thinks, not the consumer.
Last term in college my son took his final in User Interface and Design Methods and made a 92. Three years ago I took the same class. I made a “B” I picked up his book and started reading. In three years we have gone through 3 editions. While reading, something jumped out at me and I want to share this with all Army leaders ASAP.
REF:
http://www.amazon.com/Systems-Analysis-Methods-Jeffrey-Whitten/dp/0073052337
Page 615 last paragraph
o Understand your users and their “TASK” This becomes increasingly difficult as we extend our information systems to implement business-to-consumer (B2C) and business-to-business (B2B) functionality using the web.
Page 616 first paragraph
o Involve the user in the interface design. Find out what the users like and dislike in their current applications. Involve them in screen design and dialogue from the beginning. The commandment is enabled with today’s PC- technology.
o Test the system on actual users. Observation and listening are the key skills here. After initial training try to avoid excessive coaching and forcing user to learn the system.
o Practice iterative design. The first interface will be unsatisfactory. Expect any interface design to go through multiple design iterations and testing. When is the iteration finished, never? Probably never? 95 percent of the typical user can perform the intended task with-out difficulty or help.
Human Engineering Guidelines another great section.
The system user should always know what to do next. USERS are the key any successful product. Establish a minimum standard and do not except moving backwards. Turbo TAX should be the minimum standard for the Army for web driven data-base. If you have to hire TURBO-TAX staff just do it!
My goal is to have a waiver in the no hooah zone! (RET) SFC Hughes: Exception to Policy. He can say hooah when present. For more information about me please see my AKO Profile.
V/r
Jeff
Sir-
Finally congress approved! Mark Hertling is a true leader and respectable person; this will work out great. Thanks for the post
Fantastic analysis of the problems associated with software development, particularly the end user feedback. To often new programs are designed and built in a bubble without the Soldier or DOD civilian input. I worked on a NET Team at Fort Leavenworth in developing the Maneuver Control System (MCS) many moons ago. The only input was from contractors and program managers that had personal vested interest in a products success. An example is the one-star at CAC-CD retired and went to work for Loral Corp the next day. To many O-6’s waiting on a star or retiring into a civilian contractor role are making decisions that do not support the Service-members.
I can see this as a positive lean six sigma venture where it is mandatory that a free text, user feedback, and survey be applied under the Help function on all software. This should be part of the public record and be available as an audit trail. Look at how private companies allow for beta testing and feedback. This is not happening and the end users are stuck with poor-products for years to come after the program managers have retired for a second time.
As I reflect on MCS, I see all the problems replicated in DIHMRS. In a briefing to Gen Franks, seven battlefield operating systems had 11 different programs under development and none of them provided for interoperability. I see the same thing with that 20 year project.
Recently a program was solicited to an installation trying to get buy-in from the command to ask the Army to purchase a program. The vendor made numerous claims about functionality and interoperability that were absolutely false; however, because they have a well known retired officer as the companies front man, it will likely proceed and the taxpayers and the end user will be stuck with a product that does not work.
I concur that you must involve the user in the interface design, test the system on actual users and practice iterative design. The following regulatory requirement seems to go unfilled…
DoD Net-Centric Data Strategy 18
3.7.2 Establish a Process To Enable User Feedback COIs, under the DoD CIO Enterprise-wide net-centric governance process, will establish processes to evaluate and refine the user experience. Users may provide ratings for data sources, catalogs, or services, and content metadata usability. Ratings may include factors such as ease of use, applicability, or quality. These ratings will be published Enterprise-wide and used to promote participation in posting, identifying, and sharing data assets. Overall, this Departmentwide feedback and ratings process, coupled with improved data asset visibility, will increase the integrity and quality of data. In addition, the feedback process allows COIs and data producers to identify previously unanticipated users and applications.
To improve Enterprise data visibility, the process may allow users to identify needed data by publishing a “data want ad” to a community or Enterprise collaboration space. In some cases, the data may be available but not currently visible or accessible. Hence, the source may choose to make it visible or accessible to the user or application. In other situations, providing the data may not be available or cost-effective, and the user’s “want” will remain unfilled.
BLUF: Is the progam DCG-IMT user ready?
CPL STRACK
I offer a prayer of appreciation to Jeff and all those who support more user focus in new software systems. I’ll extend the thought to Army’s use of networked systems as whole. Rightly or wrongly, it’s not difficult to get an impression Army’s technology offices take little or no stake in whether or not their “services” are actually serving their customers needs for more than just email, web browsing, and some file sharing. I’ve given up trying to keep track of the emerging capabilities of many COTS applications that require months just to get an approval that MIGHT allow users to begin capitalizing on the features.
Everyone understands the need for good network security. However, we are in a period of so much security as to be paralyzed when it comes to exploiting or testing new applications. Apologizing for my ignorance, I do not know of a legitimate and timely way for schools or agencies to buy testing copies of COTS software for USER testing. In many cases, the process for buying a test copy seems to follow the same CON process as buying the apps for production.
ONE SIZE FITS ALL: Sadly, many IMOs and network administrators tend to follow this adage in deciding what hardware and software will run on PCs in their network. Understandably, they want to standardize those hard drives and networked apps to minimize the amount of separate maintenance required. Unfortunately, this practice also slams a door on ideas for the use of needed or useful vertical market software.
ONE SIZE FITS ALL IN TRAINING: I applaud the reduction in the number of WT&BD tasks as a huge step in a productive direction. Nonetheless, I have serious doubts about where in the pipeline we place the training that completes, “All soldiers will…” In too many cases IMT technical training is injected into AIT or BOLC-B courses where schools do have access to the kinds of ranges, weapons, and simulators needed to do them effectively. Ironically, these resource sometimes exist on post but not in quantities great enough to make them routinely available except with rather draconian priorities creating “have and have not” situations.
Since the knee jerk reaction of pushing this common training into basic training is not likely to be that much better for resourcing, perhaps training installations could be permitted to create a 21st Century version of the old “School of the Soldier” concept?
INTERACTIVE DIGITAL TRAINING DEVELOPMENT: It appears that all but the larger schools must rely on competing for the fabulous sums of money required to fund conractor developed training applications. The voluminous amounts of time and effort involved in verbalizing the requirement for every clip, menu, jot, and tittle to be included would likely be better invested in having training developers in the appropriate functional areas develop prototype applications to demonstrate the desired functionality. If the prototype product works at reasonable cost that mission could be complete. This will require rethinking skill sets among training developers and streamlining processes that support acquisition of authoring software.
ALIBI: I’d like to correct sentence in my recent post that makes no sense as written.
Instead of this sentence, “In too many cases IMT technical training is injected into AIT or BOLC-B courses where schools do have access to the kinds of ranges, weapons, and simulators needed to do them effectively.”
I intended to say something more like this:
In too many cases IMT technical training is disrupted by injections of common soldier training with the well intended motive of providing repetition of critical drills. When IMT schools develop these courses they try to include whatever is current in ways that make sense to trainers and trainees. When these common soldier tasks changes as dynamically as they have been, the planned training flow is disrupted, sometimes new or different resources are required, and the existing training becomes a dysfunctional caricature of itself. Perhaps it would be better to keep some of the repetitions and refresher training in separate phases of scheduling and delivered in sites and ranges intended to be more receptive to the degree of change deemed necessary.
Stan thank you for your comment and prayer!
I’m a blessed retired NCO that the system has and is working well for.
What reaches the DCG-IMT so he can make a well informed decision?
“Knowledge is Power Only When Shared. “
Before you buy a new car we all do some research. Right? We have no user reviews for software. Senior leaders need a closed loop process. ASAP!
The department is heading to achieve interoperability. We are headed towards web software standardization. Just like in the 90’s. We had too many different programs that required a program to read the other programs work. Some real smart person suggested using an enterprise solution. The Army compared all the systems and we now have MS Office on all systems. We can shoot fast move fast and communicate. We will do the same with web driven databases in the near future.
The DCG-IMT is currently reviewing 2 software programs. Both do not meet what I consider Industry standards. Program A and Program B. Program A needs new hardware the software is great! Program B needs to be the Army’s example of how not to build web driven database. The vendor of program B downloaded free software that has over 1400 issues, some critical defects. Program B software has no support or warranty, use at your own risk. Program B uses a program disapproved by NETCOM. But, he/she TRADOC G-6 said it was OK. (Dinosaurs) I have provided the NETCOM/TRADOC-G-6/DCG-IMT/ all the facts. What a mess we have. Again! Does the DCG-IMT know? Politics!
When I taught young OCS candidates, I would tell them. The difference from a great officer and a good officer was simple. A great officer gets in the foxhole and ensures your weapon is correctly covering the fields of fire and has interlocking fields of fire with the sector sketch. He gets dirty!
Today’s technology should tell users what to do!! Soldiers at all levels are too busy and the Army’s opt -tempo is too fast. If the software does not, simply find one that does. There are absolutely no reasons the Army and Soldiers should settle for second best. Most of us want the very best for our Army! I do!
Again! Will this reach the DCG-IMT so he can make a well informed decision by 1300 today?
V/r
Jeff
This is great news, a long time coming! And this is coming from an Air Force veteran.
I think Lt. Gen. Hertling will do a great job.
What should be done for soldiers who are at AIT installations 20 weeks or greater; but, course length is less than 20 weeks? Specifically, the soldiers who are held over prior to class start and have family.
If these soldiers were at an 20 week AIT starting immediately they would have been authorized family movement. This should be clarified in AR 614-200 Chapter 4 Section 5. The holdover status should be classified as a course or count toward the cummulative time on station.
The incomming troops are already facing up to 24 months of time away from their families for Operational Deployments. Tacking on the additional 8 months of IET means a possible 32 out of the most common 36 month contatracted AD time. There is a greater risk of alienation and distancing from the family unit that could be avoided.
Thank you for your time,
John B. Glassie
Sir-
Jeff is not the only person thinking or wondering why the Army Software
development is behind the industry. Help is on the horizon. Look at what the
Vice Chief of Staff of the Army said on his video.
http://www.army.mil/leaders/VCSA/ Even better, take a look at the
”National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010; 2647 Section 804
SEC. 804. IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW ACQUISITION PROCESS FOR INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS.
(a) New Acquisition Process Required- The Secretary of Defense shall develop
and implement a new acquisition process for information technology systems.
The acquisition process developed and implemented pursuant to this
subsection shall, to the extent determined appropriate by the Secretary–
(1) be based on the recommendations in chapter 6 of the March 2009 report of
the Defense Science Board Task Force on Department of Defense Policies and
Procedures for the Acquisition of Information Technology; and
(2) be designed to include–
(A) early and continual involvement of the user;
(B) multiple, rapidly executed increments or releases of capability;
(C) early, successive prototyping to support an evolutionary approach; and
(D) a modular, open-systems approach.
(b) Report to Congress- Not later than 270 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
a report on the new acquisition process developed pursuant to subsection
(a). The report required by this subsection shall, at a minimum–
(1) describe the new acquisition process;
(2) provide an explanation for any decision by the Secretary to deviate from
the criteria established for such process in paragraphs (1) and (2) of
subsection (a);
(3) provide a schedule for the implementation of the new acquisition
process;
(4) identify the categories of information technology acquisitions to which
such process will apply; and
(5) include the Secretary’s recommendations for any legislation that may be
required to implement the new acquisition process.
If I were developing Software for the Army, I would recommend using the Army
new Software collaboration tool SoftwareForge.
What is SoftwareForge?
SoftwareForge is the first component of Forge.mil to be deployed.
SoftwareForge enables the collaborative development and distribution of open
source software and DoD community source software. For open source and
community source development projects within the DoD, SoftwareForge provides
software development tools such as software version control, bug tracking,
requirements management, and release packaging along with collaboration
tools such as wikis, discussion forums, and document repositories to enable
collaborative development amongst distributed developers. SoftwareForge is
currently built on the open source Subversion version control system and
CollabNet SourceForge Enterprise application lifecycle management tool.
This tool will help everyone. This will give senior leaders the Lean Six
Sigma data Jeff mentions. Quantifiable data finally! If they use it,
and break away from PowerPoint. Hopefully this tool will be mandatory
for all Software development in the Army/TRADOC.
William
Great to know that the congress approved! Mark Hertling is a great leader and this should work out great. Thanks for the blog posting
I became a member of the milbook. I never used facebook or anything like it. Like most of you my college kids do. (They are 22&24) Milbook and softwareforge are excellent! William could have put the links in his comments. Here they are:
https://software.forge.mil/
https://www.kc.army.mil/book/index.jspa
I contacted the Softwareforge developers. I asked them to review my comments on LTG Sorensen Blog and LTG Hertling Blog. They responded by saying my comments are spot on. In a near future release, they will add a rate the product feature.
Effective immediately no more PowerPoint Software briefings, PM’s/Staff’s must use Softwareforge or validated quantifiable lean six sigma data with the newest Soldier and the actual product.
/Approved/
By:
Jeff
Lt. Gen. Hertling is a good man and officer and is a great choice. He will be a great leader.
As a member of TCM-IBCT, one of our functions is interviewing re-deploying IBCTs for needs/deficiencies. One complaint we hear from leaders with enough frequency to label as a trend is that new Soldiers are ariving to units unfit for duty. These complaints are heard across the board: BN/CO Cdrs, CSM/1SG, PSG/SL. It includes all MOS arriving from all COEs. Complaints are of Soldiers being unfit physically, technically, and morally. Too many new Soldiers are being Chaptered. One could go on BCKS NCO Forum’s Drill Sergeant Blog to hear them speak of their disatisfaction in knowing Basic Tng was not preparing Soldiers for assignment.
It is gratifying to see TRADOC has recognized the problem and stood up IMT under LTG Hertling to address the issue. I noted LTG Hertling / IMT did go to the NCO Forum for DS feedback and shortly after the revised Warrior Task List was instituted which appears to inculcate that feedback. In focussing on Individual Tasks and Soldier Resiliency/Army Values (Task #15), it appears LTG Hertling has made great strides in addressing these problems. The last ten yards will be the ability of the Training Brigades in the COEs to implement training based on the revised Warrior Task List and insure standards are met. The operational tempo of the Army has put pressure on the system to produce enough bodies to man our BCTs. If a unit has to take time and effort to Chapter the unsuitable, better they not have been sent forward to begin with.
There is a big problem with de-conditioning after OCONUS service, yet there seems to be a major issue on how to re-condition once returning and especially returning and changing to another unit. I have seen to much of quality soldiers working to re-condition only to be belittled during the process. They self medicate with alcohol, quit the force, or commit suicide. This is especially magnified when you have an “outside the wire” veteran dealing with a “fobbit” or “slick sleeve” Sr NCO or Commander.
Re-conditioning takes times, APFT is not supposed to be given as record until 6 months out of country, yet an APFT is given many times 1 – 2 months after coming to new unit, with no concern of the soldier’s condition or maybe some of the ghost he/she has brought back with them from combat zone service. Yet the resiliency NCO position in most units remain vacant or staffed with “fobbit” or non-veteran PT Studs.
On BCT/IAT side of things, what happened to the PFU? Is this not done any more? I know when I recently re-classed we had about 25% right form Basic (BCT) that not only could not pass PT tests, but not even close. Yet the other thing I noticed is the TRADOC Forced PT program was injuring the AIT students with exercises that didn’t even make sense. Five days of pt every morning, no recovery, no training on diet, little to no stretching, and regimens loaded with fast choppy spastic movements that over extended Range of Motion.
Units need to get back to focused loading endurance, range of motion, flexibility and distance endurance. Three days a week good warm up stretch, core plyometrics, push ups and triceps/chest development, and distance of at least an hour. Indian runs work best for platoon elements for High Intensity Distance Training (HITTs). At least once a month 5 mile release run. At least once a month 6.2 ruck march with a pack that is 20% of person body weight or 35lb min., this will fix the issue in 30 to 60 days unless there is another underlying medical issue.
For the folks missing the run by more than 2 minutes; they will need to double up on distance endurance in the evenings and monitored diet if that is found to the issue. For the folks missing the Push up they need to supplement by focused weight training to build up upper chest strength and shoulder strength. For folks having trouble with sit-ups, extra 2 times a day with the incline bench.
SGT E Foss, Certified Master Fitness Trainer
I know Lt. Gen. Hertling and I can tell you without a doubt that if anyone can do an excellent job with IMT, he can. Great choice!
Mark Hertling is a true leader and respectable person; this will work out great. Thanks for the post
Sir-
Someone is reading your blog…Users, rate the product during developement. WOW! I am impressed.
How is program A and B coming from above? Still slow? Go ahead start over save the time and money. The key word is modular web site and include the users feedback. The app will run fast and are last forever, like ATRRS.
V/r
Jeff
Introducing The U.S. Army Marketplace! http://architecture.army.mil/technical-view/applications/applications.html
Last Updated on Mon, 02 Aug 2010 10:19 The Army is moving to customer-centric, agile, continuous processes for application development. This approach relies on preapproved software development toolkits and automates submission, testing, and certification in order to get applications to the field more quickly and efficiently. The Army Application Marketplace will bring developers and end-users together to collaborate on innovative solutions to Army problems, level the playing field for all vendors and increase competition in order to provide the best and most relevant apps for use by our Soldiers.
DoD Storefront
The U.S. Army Marketplace is a site to discover, publish, rate, and discuss applications. A component of the Army Software Transformation, future iterations of the Marketplace will also drive the changes needed to radically speed the delivery of relevant apps by providing a single access point to automated workflow, on line development and test environments and social networking tools to enable closer collaboration between users and developers. The Marketplace is currently a pre-production environment that provides operational capability, but is not (yet) a “finished” product, and will be enhanced as we gain experience operating a software marketplace.
Partnerships
Marketplace is a combined effort of the U.S. Army CIO/G-6, the Office of the DoD Chief Information Officer, and the Defense Information Systems Agency. The U.S. Army Marketplace is also the initial face of the DoD Storefront project, which will provide application discovery services to the broader Department of Defense.
Public Access
The U.S. Army Marketplace is a U.S. Government system developed for use by military personnel, and contains applications developed for military personnel and potential military personnel. For pragmatic reasons and technology limitations, some of the smartphone applications have been approved for public release and are currently accessible by the general public, but access to comments and rating features require login with DoD PKI credentials.