TSLC March 2010

[SWJED]

Army Learning Concept for 2015
by Martin Dempsey

Army Learning Concept for 2015 - Thinking Soldiers – Learning Army!

The operational environment is exceptionally complex with an expanding array of threats. Increased competitiveness is the norm. Recognizing that fact means that in order to prevail in future conflict we must first win in the competitive learning environment.

To that end, we are developing an Army Learning Concept to describe a 2015 learning environment that will be more effective in meeting the needs of our Soldiers and leaders. Derived from major themes of the Army Capstone Concept and the Army Leader Development Strategy, it will provide the basis for building and adapting our learning models and future information needs while ensuring we still deliver the high-quality content our Soldiers need and deserve.

The Army Learning Concept for 2015 will guide all Soldiers and leaders through a continuum of learning for the duration of their careers. We are going to cut the chaff and augment the most effective aspects of our current learning system while ensuring relevant and rigorous training and education is available and accessible, and not just on the institutional side of the Army. This is a shared responsibility between the operating and generating force as we lead the Army into a future characterized by its persistent learning environment.

SWJ Editor’s Note: The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command is conducting a Senior Leaders Conference this week. While invited, SWJ could not attend due to scheduling conflicts. That said, we’ve asked TRADOC to provide us short “snap-shots” from the SLC for posting here. General Martin E. Dempsey is TRADOC’s Commanding General.

[TheAdamBomb]

The TRADOC leadership is leaning forward in the saddle, and they are ensuring that their subordinate leaders are leaning forward as well. The Army Learning Concept just took one giant leap toward implementation at the recent TRADOC Senior Leaders Conference. GEN Dempsey set the stage with impassioned personal guidance and informative presentations by three members of academia.
The first of the three was John Rendon, a veteran of government service and consulting who has an in-depth understanding of our technologically driven culture and how it has impacted governments and militaries.
The second presenter was Ori Brafman, who spoke on the power of decentralized organizations, their genesis, and how a centralized organization might effectively combat them.
The last of the presenters was Tony Wagner, a lifelong educator and advocate of redesigning the entire educational system in the United States to focus on learning vice teaching.
Armed with the CG’s guidance and the ideas and information of the three speakers, the attendees broke into working groups to address various aspects of Army learning. Technology, blended learning, initial military training, captains courses, and even the Army War College were all put under the microscope and subjected to intense scrutiny by motivated leadership who are eager to improve how soldiers learn.
As we sat listening to the backbriefs from those break-out groups and heard about programs already underway, efforts already completed, and new ideas, you got the sense that this is not a flash-in-the-pan change effort. This is not something that will die on the vine when GEN Dempsey PCSs from Ft Monroe. This is institutional.
For instance, Initial Military Training (IMT) has already redesigned aspects of their training program to maximize short- and long-term learning of certain warrior skills, and this redesign has shortened Training Support Plans (TSPs), Terminal Learning Objectives (TLOs), and Enabling Learning Objectives (ELOs) documents. While this pilot program is just starting, and the first results will not be seen until June 2010, the Army has learned how to more effectively communicate what it wants of its students and instructors as evidenced by the shorter documents.
In another instance of the Army taking the bull by the horns is the pilot program which will put handheld devices (iPods, for example) into the hands of individuals in the Delayed Entry Program. These iPods will be filled with apps for warrior tasks and skills. The theory is that these individuals will learn the skill or task more quickly and completely than an individual who did not have access. If the pilot program is successful, it will become more widespread. Moreover, it will pave the way for the Army to include handheld devices as part of the basic issue in order to perpetuate the use of mobile technology as a battlefield multiplier.
TRADOC leadership understands the responsibility placed upon them by the American people: to train and develop soldiers and provide the necessary doctrine to allow America’s all-volunteer force to defeat its enemies. Anyone who sees the focused activity of these leaders will realize quickly that the Army is adapting in ways heretofore unprecedented. GEN Demspey said it best when he said, “Institutional adaptation is more than an aspiration; it’s an imperative.”

[Hacksaw]

Hmmmm....
Proof is in the execution...
It is far easier to assemble the flag officers and have earnest discussions than it is to move the "institution", but it is a start...
However, and I think this is critical, not sure any of the outcomes/initiatives described fall into the category of outcome based training/education...
I really wish I wasn't so skeptical, but I think I'll withhold my enthusiasm...

[Bill Jakola]

The TRADOC leadership is leaning forward in the saddle, .

Anyone who sees the focused activity of these leaders will realize quickly that the Army is adapting in ways heretofore unprecedented. GEN Demspey said it best when he said, “Institutional adaptation is more than an aspiration; it’s an imperative.”

Also of note the Senior Leader Conference again incorporated military bloggers to provide both transparency and gain additional points of view. Here is one video clip posted by Troy Steward blogging for YouServed.

http://www.vamortgagecenter.com/blog/2010/03/11/gen-dempsey-talking-about-the-brac-move-from-monroe-to-eustis/

[marct]

Bill, we're hearing a lot of talk about the Army Learning Concept but, outside of rhetoric, there isn't much in terms of conceptual details. Have any initial white papers been produced or are there any drafts in the For Comment stage that can be shared?

Cheers,

Marc

[TheAdamBomb]

I agree that the effort required to move a boulder is significant, but with teamwork and focused effort it can be done. Tony Wagner (one of the speakers at TSLC) said that change occurs incrementally, so we can expect incremental progress in this regard. But I submit that there is another way. Evolution did (does) not happen incrementally or on a steady glidepath. It occurs in fits and starts. For eons there will be a near-plateau effect of change, and then, for no discernible reason, lifeforms will make great leaps along the evolutionary path. I have not read any articles or findings that have revealed the nature of these leaps, but there had to have been some sort of catalyst.
I'm too old to be naive and too young to know everything, but who says that the catalyst for the evolution of Army Learning wasn't sitting in the room in Williamsburg earlier this week?
I welcomed the sight of so many leaders who were leaning forward through thought and action. The proof is, indeed, in the pudding, but we should all be eager to work on any program whose end goal is the improvement of a soldier's ability to learn.

[Bill Jakola]

Bill, we're hearing a lot of talk about the Army Learning Concept but, outside of rhetoric, there isn't much in terms of conceptual details. Have any initial white papers been produced or are there any drafts in the For Comment stage that can be shared?

Cheers,

Marc

The ALC white paper is due in about 90 days; but I will ask our writers to give us an early peek.

Bill Jakola

[marct]

Hi TAB,


Tony Wagner (one of the speakers at TSLC) said that change occurs incrementally, so we can expect incremental progress in this regard. But I submit that there is another way. Evolution did (does) not happen incrementally or on a steady glidepath. It occurs in fits and starts. For eons there will be a near-plateau effect of change, and then, for no discernible reason, lifeforms will make great leaps along the evolutionary path. I have not read any articles or findings that have revealed the nature of these leaps, but there had to have been some sort of catalyst.

I assume you are talking about a punctuated equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium) model of evolution here and it is, IMO, a minor possibility. The "changes" you refer to do happen for quite discernible reasons: fluctuating environments, parcellation and local extinctions being the main ones (cf W. Calvin, Six Essentials (http://cogprints.org/3217/1/1997JMemetics.htm)). Applying these to the current situation vis a vis "learning" / "education" within TRADOC is somewhat tricky.

The first catalyst, fluctuating environments, appears to have a certain amount of face value until you look at the actual environment in which TRADOC operates, i.e. competition between organizations for funding within the US governmental structure. Still, an argument can be made along those lines.

The second and third catalysts, parcellation and local extinction, are barely applicable to TRADOC in the current situation, although parcellation has more applicability than local extinction (for this, think about the fall of the Soviet Union).

What we are dealing with, at least in general, evolutionary terms, is a combination of these three catalysts operating on different time spans. Since cultural evolution operates differently than biological evolution, we have to be careful about extending the theory to it either really or rhetorically.


I'm too old to be naive and too young to know everything, but who says that the catalyst for the evolution of Army Learning wasn't sitting in the room in Williamsburg earlier this week?

A point mutation argument? Unlikely in the extreme unless there was a catastrophic event along the lines of a Road to Damascus conversion that hit the entire group assembled there :wry:. Far more likely that the event marked a slight "hardening" of selection criteria and, in all probability, only of positive selection criteria.


I welcomed the sight of so many leaders who were leaning forward through thought and action. The proof is, indeed, in the pudding, but we should all be eager to work on any program whose end goal is the improvement of a soldier's ability to learn.

I saw a similar attitude at the TSLC last August, and I have been using it as an excellent example of how to conduct cultural engineering inside an hierarchical organization. I would urge you, however, to beware of group think memes such as "we should all be eager to work" since that is, actually, counter to the stated thrust of the entire revamping of the PME system.

Cheers,

Marc

[marct]

The ALC white paper is due in about 90 days; but I will ask our writers to give us an early peek.

Bill Jakola

Thanks Bill, I appreciate it.

[wm]

I agree that the effort required to move a boulder is significant, but with teamwork and focused effort it can be done.
. . .

The proof is, indeed, in the pudding, but we should all be eager to work on any program whose end goal is the improvement of a soldier's ability to learn.

Mere focussed teamwork does not always yield success. Teamwork and effort must be focused rather specifically (AKA in the right way) in order to achieve the desired goal--a team of 10 whose members can each lift 100 pounds cannot lift a half ton boulder if each applies his or her lift power sequentially (sequential effort being one way of focusing effort). Nor can they lift the boulder working in unision (another way of focusing effort) unless they they can all get a good grip on the rock at the same time.

While working on a program with a noble goal may be satisfying, I think it is even more satisfying to work on a program whose method of attacking the problem has more likelihood than a snowball's chance in hell of attaining the desired goal. I have seen nothing yet that shows how, what is being bruited about the new Army learning system is, to quote Immanuel Kant, to be "by means of one’s representations, the cause of the objects of those representations." In other words I'm still waiting for some to show me how talking about the goal will actually get us to it. Even if we are clear about the nature of the problem, I am not so sure that this clarity will also disclose the way to solve the problem. Knowing that we have to move a rock that is mighty big does not quite tell us to get it moved. (And, yes, I am repeating my biggest criticism of FM 5.0 for those who were following that thread)

[TheAdamBomb]

Marc

Thanks for the update on evolutionary science. I'll peek into your hyperlinks (no inadvertent euphemysm intended) to start the learning.

One thought kept hitting me at the conference, and that was the collective desire to discover the answer to their stated problem. I will not go into the philosophy of "Have they asked the right question?" Let's assume they have.

I saw the focus of attention being either aimed at academia or aimed inwardly. Stated another way: our problem will be solved by smart, non-military personnel, by ourselves, or both. As a Marine, I vividly remember having to endure training evolutions where my mind and body were exhausted and tested. Physical tests had required goals; mental/leadership tests, on the other hand, had no stated goals. In fact, I'm pretty sure that those tests were designed to be un-winable.

I don't know how the Army's leadership and critical thinking training is any different than the Marine Corps', but it would seem to me that the Army would look at the playbook of the sister services to see if there's anything worth gleaning.

[Hacksaw]

I envy you your enthusiasm...

Perhaps I'm responding to what I consider (of course it is only an opinion) your hyperbole in describing a TSLC that doesn't appear much different than those I was privy to participate/observe in the past...:wry:

If you were to ask a sampling of SWC members and asked who is one of the more consistent/fair defenders of TRADOC, I would hazard a guess that I would be on most folks short list (short because there aren't too many taking up the TRADOC cause on this forum)...:eek:

I typically take up that stance because i know from experience that there are a lot people with the best of intentions attempting to support Soldiers needs to the best of their abilities...:D

and when I find that opinions based on experiences that are nearly a decade old are offered as fact - I'm usually the first to highlight how that opinion is in many cases out of date and not reflective of today's reality...

I note all this for no other reason than to make this one point...

What you have described is not in fact new... it may be (is) needed... it is welcome... but the fact that the commandants assembled in small groups and held a BOGSAT - Brainstormed some ideas, and then used the outbrief to highlight a particular initiative/pet project that they are working... does not constitute change much less a "giant leap" or "unpresedented"...:rolleyes:

and to characterize it as such does little but sound like fingernails on a chalkboard... and if the intent was to inform/generate support for the TRADOC CDR's direction/intent... give us fewer superlatives and more details

That felt harsher than intended... does prolonged exposure to SWC make you grumpier??? Ken WiLF???

[marct]

Hi TAB,


Thanks for the update on evolutionary science. I'll peek into your hyperlinks (no inadvertent euphemysm intended) to start the learning.

The Calvin article is probably the best I've ever come across in terms of abstracting crucial structures / ideas for evolutionary theory from biology to a wider application.


One thought kept hitting me at the conference, and that was the collective desire to discover the answer to their stated problem. I will not go into the philosophy of "Have they asked the right question?" Let's assume they have.

Hmmm, I do have problems with that assumption :wry:. Even if the have asked "the right question", it is only "right" at a particular point in space and time and, as things move away from that point, the validity of the question gets less and less. Same problem with the assumption that there is an answer (singular). Since we are actually dealing with a changing environment, even when we have a pretty good model of what the change trends are, both the question and answer need to be cast at a structural / processual level which, on the whole, tends to be selected against in the current bureaucratic environment.


I saw the focus of attention being either aimed at academia or aimed inwardly. Stated another way: our problem will be solved by smart, non-military personnel, by ourselves, or both. As a Marine, I vividly remember having to endure training evolutions where my mind and body were exhausted and tested. Physical tests had required goals; mental/leadership tests, on the other hand, had no stated goals. In fact, I'm pretty sure that those tests were designed to be un-winable.

Well, when I teach, I tend to try and teach people how to recast problems away from their assumptions; win/loose being one of those assumptions (zero-sum games rely on specific environmental characteristics which may not be applicable). For the past couple of months, I've been trying to apply that teaching model to look at how red teaming should be operating, and what sort of mental "shifts" would be necessary. It's been (and is) and interesting exercise :wry:.


I don't know how the Army's leadership and critical thinking training is any different than the Marine Corps', but it would seem to me that the Army would look at the playbook of the sister services to see if there's anything worth gleaning.

Probably. There's also some excellent work coming out of the Intelligence area as well on critical thinking skills, some of which I use in my courses. The one, truly neglected area I'm seeing is in the performance arts which, IMO, is a big error given our current opponents.

Cheers,

Marc

[TheAdamBomb]

Marc
With the absolute intent to sound flippant and snarky yet still wanting some insight, which aspects of the performance arts are being neglected as a source of study for the military? Are we to win the war through interpretive dance?

[TheAdamBomb]

I blog externally at my Google blogspot "The Adam Bomb."

[Ken White]

...does prolonged exposure to SWC make you grumpier??? Ken WiLF???Can't speak for Wilf, of course... :D

I agree that you're one of the more supportive folks with respect to TRADOC -- and I'm one of the least. I acknowledge it is needed and generally tries but do believe it is unduly bureaucratic and excessively cautious. After seven years of working in the environment (admittedly 30 years ago -- and it has not changed much in the intervening years...) I am very much in agreement with you:
i know from experience that there are a lot people with the best of intentions attempting to support Soldiers needs to the best of their abilities. and that is very true, good and is the saving grace IMO. OTOH, this is also correct:
What you have described is not in fact new...does not constitute change much less a "giant leap" or "unpresedented"...:(

[William F. Owen]

Can't speak for Wilf, of course... :D

I agree that you're one of the more supportive folks with respect to TRADOC -- and I'm one of the least.

Sorry for late on parade. Sabbath and all that.... :D

I have no real issue with TRADOC per se, except they have produced some very badly written, virtually incomprehensible documents, that do nothing to improve understanding or practice. The latest FM5-0 draft being a real doozy - Apart from that, I'm sure they must do a bang up job!

[Hacksaw]

Prolonged exposure to the SWC does make you less tolerant and more cranky :p

[marct]

Hi TAB,


With the absolute intent to sound flippant and snarky yet still wanting some insight, which aspects of the performance arts are being neglected as a source of study for the military? Are we to win the war through interpretive dance?

Not interpretive dance per se, but a study of poetry would be extremely useful to understanding the underlying narratives of most of our current opponents. In addition to that, a large number of AQ inspired engagements are quintessentially performative in that they are designed as performative acts for a broader audience than those in theatre (think diasporic communities). The problem with the engineering mindset that dominates most militaries is that you/they think in terns of immediate geographic effect, while most of our opponents are looking towards a much broader audience, hence the necessity to study performance arts.

[Ron Humphrey]

Hi TAB,



Not interpretive dance per se, but a study of poetry would be extremely useful to understanding the underlying narratives of most of our current opponents. In addition to that, a large number of AQ inspired engagements are quintessentially performative in that they are designed as performative acts for a broader audience than those in theatre (think diasporic communities). The problem with the engineering mindset that dominates most militaries is that you/they think in terns of immediate geographic effect, while most of our opponents are looking towards a much broader audience, hence the necessity to study performance arts.

Been searching for a simple way to explain exactly that and hadn't been able to do it.

[selil]

The problem with the engineering mindset that dominates most militaries is that you/they think in terns of immediate geographic effect, while most of our opponents are looking towards a much broader audience, hence the necessity to study performance arts.

Unfortunately they are willing to give a degree to just about anybody in the liberal arts so the engineers have to run things. :p

There is a human approach to engineering but the business school decided it wasn't profitable.

[marct]

Hi Selil,


Unfortunately they are willing to give a degree to just about anybody in the liberal arts so the engineers have to run things. :p

Given the quality of some engineering students I've met, that probably explains a lot about the current state of the world :D.


There is a human approach to engineering but the business school decided it wasn't profitable.

Probably because it's never a good idea to give 2D minds 3D models ;).

[Bob's World]

Could this spell the end for the "radical Colonels and Special Foirces officers" that Secretary Gates relies upon for such thinking??

Actually the irony of this approach is that it's such an inside the box approach to produce outside the box thinking.

The COG for driving inside the box thinking is the senior rater profile. Defeat that COG, and you can then start looking at how to then enable more flexible thinking. Leaving that COG in place and hoping to create flexible thinking is like Refusing to address and even protecting the illegitimacy of the Karzai government while attempting to conduct a population centric solution to the insurgency in Afghanistan.

We have to learn how to drop the pet rocks first. But I guess that is outside the box thinking at work.

[SWJED]

Army Learning Concept 2015 and the TSLC (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/03/army-learning-concept-2015-and/)
by General Martin Dempsey


In my last SWJ blog entry (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/03/army-learning-concept-for-2015/), I introduced the Army Learning Concept 2015 being “championed” by the TRADOC G3. Following up on that post, I want to briefly highlight our discussions on this subject during last week’s TRADOC Senior Leader Conference.

What resonated most clearly was the shared agreement that in order to increase rigor, maintain relevancy, and prevail in the competitive learning environment we have to change. Our current models have not kept pace with the rapid pace of change, the demands of Soldiers rotating in and out of the fight, and a continuous influx of Soldiers with significant “digital literacy.”

We all recognize the challenge and are working to adapt our learning models. We’re changing our assumptions to look at the problem differently, because we know we can’t afford to come up with the same solutions. We’re reaching out to those both inside and outside the military to help in this effort. I’ve asked the TRADOC G3 to draft a white paper that we’ll circulate among the communities of interest in the next 90 days. I welcome views from across the force on ways to ensure we get this right.

GEN M. Dempsey

[TheAdamBomb]

The most recent TRADOC Senior Leaders' Conference put the nascent Army Learning Concept under the microscope. While the 400-lb gorilla and a hotel full of 375-lb gorillas analyzed the need for, scoping of, and drafting of the Army Learning Concept into a reality, DCG-IMT (Initial Military Training) began manually moving the tectonic plates of basic training. Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills were revamped, streamlined so that recruits could be put through their paces...all with the goal of transforming the new generation of overweight first-shooter game enthusiasts into some semblance of the game avatar they fancy themselves to be. The initial analysis shows that these efforts are paying off. I eagerly await the second- and third-order effects, which, perhaps naively, I believe will show progress and be aligned with Army Leader Development Strategy, too.

While DCG-IMT is quietly making these improvements, HQ TRADOC is developing the Army Learning Concept document. They are treating this much like the Army Capstone Concept; they are crowdsourcing it. Currently, that crowd is an active-duty Army-only crowd -- not quite as large a crowd as had access to the Army Capstone Concept -- but a crowd nonetheless. This shift (I dare not use the term "paradigm shift," for as soon as I do, the world will backslide to spite me) signals an ever-so-slight open-kimono policy with the Army writ large and, to some extent, the military-centric online community. Hell, with the Marine Corps opening the YouTube flood gates on work computers, Operation Pandora is going to make for very interesting times.

As a jarhead who grew up with Mission Orders, commander's intent, and body-breaking physical fitness requirements (I blew out one knee and fractured both legs during OCS -- thus ending any dream of jumping out of an airplane), I like where the Army is going. Let's get these Soldiers in shape; let's improve marksmanship; let's train leaders how to incorporate commander's intent into their decicion-making process; let's get better at what we do so that we can kill more of the people who need killing (to paraphrase Gen Mattis).