Training Device Operational Readiness Assessment Capability (DORAC): The Concept and Its Implementation

Abstract

Army operational forces are required to report once a month on the readiness of their units for combat. The most difficult and subjective of the ratings going into this report is the one concerning personnel readiness. The problem is one of insufficient and outdated data concerning the current skill levels and training deficiencies of unit personnel. DORAC may provide a partial solution to this problem. This paper presents the concept and research issues; describes a cost-benefits method developed to provide training device proponents and developers a means to determine if and how to implement DORAC in the design and utilization of a specific device; describes the results of applying the method to exemplary training device design and usage options; and, presents findings regarding the extent to which one device represents a DORAC.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bedford

N. M.

, & Onsi

Measuring the value of information-An information theory approach. Management Services, 1966, 1, 15–22.

Hawley

J. K.

, & Dawdy

E. D.

Cost and Information Effectiveness Analysis (CIEA): A Methodology for evaluating a training Device Operational Readiness Assessment Capability (DORAC) (ARI Technical Report). Alexandria, Va.: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, February 1981.

Johnson

E. M.

, & Huber

P. G.

The technology of utility assessment. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1977, SCM-7, 311–325.

Kazanowski

A. D.

A standardized approach to cost effectiveness evaluation. In English

J. M.

(Ed.), Cost-Effectiveness. New York: John Wiley, 1968.

Keeny

R. L.

, & Raiffa

Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade-offs. New York: John Wiley, 1976.

Raiffa

Decision analysis. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968.

Schendel

J. D.

, & Heller

F. H.

Use of Weaponeer marksmanship trainer in predicting M16A1 qualification scores (ARI-Benning Working Paper). Alexandria, Va.: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, in preparation.

Shelnutt

J. B.

, Smillie

R. J.

, & Bercos

A consideration of Army training device proficiency assessment capabilities (ARI Technical Report, TR-78-A20). Alexandria, Va.: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, June 1978.

Smith

, Thompson

T. J.

, Evans

K. L.

, Osborne

A. D.

, Maxey

J. L.

, & Morey

J. C.

Effects of down-range feedback and the ARI zeroing target in rifle marksmanship training (Research Report 1251). Alexandria, Va.: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, June 1980.