but I do think he gives the "very precise system" far more credit than it possibly deserves. In my observation it has never been that precise and every step he mentions:

Rob, we already have what you are asking for. There is a very precise system for determining exactly what we should train, how long it will take to train soldiers and units in those tasks, how we can evaluate their expertise, the resources it will require to execute the training, what should be taught in schools and in the field, how long courses should be, how many course should be run, etc ad nauseum...
has human fallibility problems. Take the issue of selecting what should be taught in schools versus what is to be taught in the field. I know from sad experience that a portion of that distribution is based on 'Go' rates (those with low rates are 'better taught in the unit...' Heh.) and instructor contact hours required (more is better). I have been on too many POI task selection boards and watched the input from Commanders in the field with respect to what is to be taught where get scant if any attention.

In other words, it is extremely difficult to significantly improve training quantity or quality, Army-wide, under the current system. It was designed when the mission was "Enter the continent of Europe..." or "Delay the 3rd Guards Shock Army..." and served its purpose well for four or five decades. Now it is a creaking bureaucratic collossus that, like its evil twin in Alexandria, is the greatest obstacle to improving the quality of our Army today.
Absolutely correct. The system tries, it really does -- and most people mean well and make it work in spite of the impediments. We just need to remove the impediments and get serious about training. Unfair statement; most of us ARE serious about it -- however, we need to give the problem more thought and do a better job of getting the basics down for new entrants of whatever rank.