Electronic Publications

[Schmedlap]

Too often similar occurrences are due mostly to the system deciding that the NCOs are incompetent and bypassing them by having an Officer do 'stuff.' That trend started in Viet Nam in the late 60s and is endemic. The symptom that hurts is that the NCOs perceive, rightly or wrongly that they aren't trusted and the reaction of most is to get their feelings hurt say 'No prob, I can sit on my a$$.' The solution is to let them do their jobs.

Ken, the only reason that I know you were not my first Platoon Sergeant is because you are posting under your real name. Other than that, what you just typed sounds word for word exactly like the analysis of the situation that my first PSG explained to me. Agree completely.

... most want to do their job but they're human, can be lazy and are generally very practical -- they see no sense in doing a job themselves if you're going to do it for them...That is not a criticism of anyone and particularly not of Schemdlap...

No offense taken. I agree completely. In fact, my Bn XO was frustrated that my response was not to micromanage even more. My explanation to him was (paraphrasing), "sir, I'm not going to treat them like kids. They're going back to Iraq in less than 6 months. They need to grow up. They told you a blatant lie because they thought they could get away with laziness and I called them out for being limp dicks in front of you. If I need to do more than that, then I'll address it when it arises. That's their freebie." That wasn't what he wanted to hear, but there wasn't a whole lot he could do about it. I'm not saying I was the best XO ever, but I was good at my job and I think his plate was a bit too full to try to find a replacement for me. After all, he had 6 other companies to micromanage.

But, back to the e-reader / electronification of stuff issue, I found digitized streamlining of processes like this to be really helpful. One thing that I created as an XO was the mother of all databases that I used to track maintenance. All I had to do was decipher the chicken scratches on the 5988Es and type it into a form in the database. I could then instantly verify whether the faults were 1) real faults (as opposed to the random crap that some Soldiers would scrawl on the sheet like "road wheel is old" - wtf?); 2) checked in the correct order (there's a reason for the order); 3) if the faults from the prior PMCS were still there; 4) if so, whether the part had been received (which meant the crew either didn't get it or failed to replace it); 5) quickly cross-check all faults with orders and order status so that I could gripe to Bn about parts not showing up, not getting ordered, etc; and various other consideration that have since faded from memory. This is essentially technical work. If it can be streamlined electronically, then frees up leaders for actual leadership stuff.

[Entropy]

Sounds like a great idea. I suspect, however, that it would only delay the already overly-long process of producing doctrine and training materials. It would also require some expertise on multimedia production which is probably lacking at present. Not insurmountable obstacles, but significant considering the state of our military bureaocracy.

[pup]

early in the thread, the idea of inserting videos and animation was to allow a soldier to follow the video in the execution of his duties. Sounds like a great idea if we were training the local Jiffy Lube attendent. The problem is we are not.

We need soldiers, regardless of thier job in the army to be capable of solving problems and adapting to unique situations. That is what will save lives in combat and ensure we are meeting the national interests in the current operations we are facing.

Much like emersive language training, the way to do that is to force problem solving and actual thought in everything that we do. Instead of giving a video of what to DO, i would insert a video or animation of HOW it works, and then show what could go wrong. that would actually educate the soldier and allow him to then solve the problems and THINK. Skills that he will need once that vehicle is rolling.

It is nice to think of making life easier in the motorpool, but that same mechanic will need to have that same skill under a moonlite night in some dark desert where the light from his KINDLE screen will attract attention from the nearest enemy force. lets not forget why we are training them in the first place.

[Chris jM]

Sounds like an appalling idea. While powerpoint now rules the military classroom do we really want animated kindles to rule the world of publications?

If the idea being presented is not concise enough to convey through text or a diagram (or series thereof), then the problem may be with the message and the medium will not help - more likely, a more complicated medium will make it worse.

[OfTheTroops]

you can hardly get a paper copy today!

you just can't carry 'em around. stuck in laptops or desktops

democratizing information should be a win/win and the more i think about it the better i like it.

Pull out your smart book Troops.

[Chris jM]

democratizing information should be a win/win and the more i think about it the better i like it.

Pull out your smart book Troops.

I do agree with your points. Perhaps I was a little extreme in saying it was an appalling idea, as I agree that e-pubs are the status quo nowadays - and the search and index function can be extremely useful. Further, I imagine having a library of pubs in your hand that are linked through (i.e. jumping from a generic 'Operations' pub into a 'Mission Appreciation' pub if you select a link for more detailed information) would be beneficial.

I still believe that animation and technology intensive references won't equate to better material. A concise, relevant and applicable piece of doctrine or tactical note wouldn't need animation to explain itself - a diagram of room-clearing or tactical movement would be a 'nice to have' but without considerations and the reasons behind the drills explained in text it would be nugatory.

[Schmedlap]

early in the thread, the idea of inserting videos and animation was to allow a soldier to follow the video in the execution of his duties. Sounds like a great idea if we were training the local Jiffy Lube attendent. The problem is we are not.

A TM is not a training document. It is a reference document and it is to be referenced when doing PMCS, no matter how proficient or competent and no matter how many times you've done PMCS.

We need soldiers, regardless of thier job in the army to be capable of solving problems and adapting to unique situations. That is what will save lives in combat and ensure we are meeting the national interests in the current operations we are facing.

No disagreements there, but I don't think anyone is proposing that we create doctrinal publications on the assumption that Soldiers will be "reading along" as they fight. And much of what we've discussed pertains to technical manuals, which are technical references that we expect and demand that Soldier refer to even while deployed (but while in secure areas).

Much like emersive language training, the way to do that is to force problem solving and actual thought in everything that we do. Instead of giving a video of what to DO, i would insert a video or animation of HOW it works, and then show what could go wrong. that would actually educate the soldier and allow him to then solve the problems and THINK. Skills that he will need once that vehicle is rolling.

That sounds like the practical exercise that we do after reading the doctrinal publications.

It is nice to think of making life easier in the motorpool, but that same mechanic will need to have that same skill under a moonlite night in some dark desert where the light from his KINDLE screen will attract attention from the nearest enemy force. lets not forget why we are training them in the first place.

I don't see why we have to choose one or the other. In those conditions, I wouldn't have my Soldiers filling out their 5988E or flipping through the pages of the TM, either. They would be doing field-expedient quick fixes and/or improvising until the vehicle can be moved to a secure area or until the area where the vehicle is at can be secured. The e-pub idea is a garrison and secure area idea to streamline technical tasks and make the process of interacting with the supply system easier and faster - to reduce the amount of time Soldiers spend on those tasks and reduce the amount of attention that leaders pay to technical work rather than hands-on leadership.

I still believe that animation and technology intensive references won't equate to better material. A concise, relevant and applicable piece of doctrine or tactical note wouldn't need animation to explain itself - a diagram of room-clearing or tactical movement would be a 'nice to have' but without considerations and the reasons behind the drills explained in text it would be nugatory.

I suspect that many made similar points about adding graphics to publications when that technology was first available. Heck, Socrates was opposed to writing!

I don't think anyone is suggesting substituting videos and eyewashes in lieu of ideas and concepts. I think we're just finally realizing that technological advances could help to make some things clearer. In other words, they are, as you put it, "nice to have." And since implementing them would be of negligible costs, in the long run, why not do it? After all, it's nice to have.

[Pete]

We didn't have DA Form 5988-E when I was in the Army. Is it sort of like a computer-generated DA Form 2404, except that it also has a section for parts on order?

[Schmedlap]

We didn't have DA Form 5988-E when I was in the Army. Is it sort of like a computer-generated DA Form 2404, except that it also has a section for parts on order?

Yeah, it combines the worst of both worlds. If by "computer generated" you mean that the information is maintained on a 386sx computer with a green monitor, updated with information on 3.5" or maybe even 5 1/4" floppy disks, and then the form is spit out on a dot-matrix printer that is still using ink ribbons... then yes. It is "computer generated" but new faults are manually entered into the system. Crews hand write faults on the form, just like with a 2404. The handwriting is then manually entered into the system by clerks who may or may not know what the stuff on the form means. Then when the updated form is sent to you and it is dicked up 8 ways to Tuesday, and you point out that it is either not up-to-date or not correct, the clerks/technicians always fall back upon the fact that "this is what is in the system" as if "the system" is foolproof and not prone to the human error of the clerks who input the information into the system (even after you show them photocopies of the forms that they incorrectly recorded in "the system").