A Task Analysis of U.S. Army War-Gaming: Implications for Assessing the Performance of Combined Arms Task Force Battle Staffs

Abstract

To inform ongoing efforts to assess war-gaming performance, we sought to identify, develop, and validate techniques for assessing the war-gaming effectiveness of U.S. Army National Guard officers in training. Through extensive literature review, consultation with subject matter experts, and observation, we have achieved a more in-depth understanding of the war-gaming process than has previously been accomplished. We have identified what individual and team competencies should be targeted to assess student war-gaming and to diagnose performance deficits in a variety of instructional settings. We have developed assessments to capture a subset of these competencies and have administered these assessments to National Guard officers enrolled in the distance-learning version of the Armor Captains' Career Course, taught through the U.S. Army Armor School. Qualitative analysis of the data collected tentatively suggests that our assessments are valid and that the competencies we measured may be those used to make intuitive, expert judgments of student performance.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cannon-Bowers

J. A.

Tannenbaum

S. I.

Salas

Volpe

C. E.

(1995). Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. In Guzzo

R. A.

Salas

Associates Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations(pp. 333–380). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL). (1998). NTC trends compendium: 1QFY98 through 2QFY98. Fort Leavenworth, KS.

Crain

W. F.

(1989). Battle staff operations: Synchronization and planning at battalion and brigade level. Unpublished Master's thesis. U. S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS.

Endsley

M. R.

Smolensky

M. W.

(1998). Situation awareness in air traffic control: The picture. In Smolensky

M. W.

Stein

E. S.

Human factors in air traffic control(pp. 115–154). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Fowlkes

J. E.

Lane

N. E.

Salas

Franz

Oser

(1994). Improving the measurement of team performance: The TARGETS methodology. Military Psychology, 6(1), 47–61.

Glenn

H. C.

III (1996). Building the tactical nerve center: Enhancing battalion commander and staff performance in the tactical decision making process. Monograph of the School of Advanced Military Studies, U. S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS.

Mullen

W. J.

III Kemper

T. R.

Harrison

K. E.

Bartkoski

T. P.

(1997). Plan for combat operations (Battlefield Function 18) as accomplished by a heavy brigade(Vol. 2, Assessment Package, Research Product No. 98–04). Alexandria, VA: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral & Social Sciences.

Olmstead

J. A.

(1992). Battle staff integration (IDA Paper P-2560). Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analysis.

Sanders

W. R.

(2002). Collective staff training in a virtual learning environment (Research Report No. 1788). Washington, DC: U. S. Army Research Institute of the Behavioral & Social Sciences.

10.

Tesluk

Mathieu

J. E.

Zaccaro

S. J.

Marks

(1997). Task and aggregation issues in the analysis and assessment of team performance. In Brannick

M. T.

Salas

Prince

Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, research, and applications(pp. 197–224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

11.

Weil

S. A.

Hussain

T. S.

Diedrich

F. J.

Ferguson

MacMillan

(2004). Assessing distributed team performance in DARWARS training: Challenges and methods. Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference, Orlando, FL.