OSD Readiness and Training CE2T2 Assessments JAEC Assessment Working Group WJTSC 09-1 23 Mar 2009

1. OSD Readiness and TrainingCE2T2 AssessmentsJAEC Assessment Working GroupWJTSC 09-123 Mar 2009 This briefing is UNCLASSIFIED Joint Assessment and Enabling Capability OSD Readiness and Training Policy and Programs AS OF 17 MAR 2009

2. Agenda 0800-0815 Introduction 0815-0845 Meeting objectives & assessment overview 0845-0900 Data collection process 0900-1015 Framework & metrics Gaps Improvement plans Input from community 1015-1100 Way ahead, wrap-up

3. Introductions • Please update the contact list as necessary • Request SIPRNet email for at least one person each organization • Blank lines on last pages • Around the room • Analysts who support JAEC assessment

4. Meeting Objectives • Improve data processes • Discuss changes to metrics • Changes would have to be approved by leadership • Identify issues for other meetings • 1-on-1 with JAEC analysts at WJTSC • Other options: monthly update telcon, ad hoc telcon • This isn’t an IPR • We will focus on process and metrics instead of analysis • Major discussion topics may be noted for other meetings

5. CE2T2 Assessment Purpose Sep 2008 Brief to T2 Leadership Purpose of CE2T2 Assessments • Communicate goals and performance to members of the enterprise • Help all members of the enterprise track performance • Inform T2 and CE2 leadership of significant trends and the impact of training programs • Support key enterprise decision making • Provide key information on the program to support dialogue with professional congressional staff members Enterprise assessment will identify trends across the Services and COCOMs to demonstrate relevance and impact of joint training

6. Leadership Priorities Six leadership priorities focus our assessment: • Joint training accomplished prior to combat deployment • Irregular warfare training • Whole of government and international training • Impact of joint training • Impact of joint training enablers • Implementation of joint training

7. Build Framework to the Enterprise View Effectiveness of training in improving mission performance Level of Metric HIGH LOW Ease of Quantifying HARDEST EASIEST Best Source of Data OPERATORS TRAINERS PROGRAMMERS Exercises accomplished Individual training accomplished • Setting up exercises that provide training in the priority areas: • - joint • - irregular warfare • - whole of government • - multinational Process for funding and managing CE2T2 Funding of software/hardware enablers for CE2T2 Providing resources for exercise training • Our assessment is focused at the enterprise level - we want to get as close to the top as possible using the best available metric • A metric without the data is not useful

8. Assessment Framework & Lead Analysts

9. Data Collection Process

10. Data Collection Process • Goal: use existing data sources to the maximum extent (JTIMS, other sites, deployment schedules, training schedules, etc.) • Reality: JAEC has found value in Service and COCOM review of data - Verification and Validation (V&V) • Actions • JAEC continues to gather data approx 1/20, 4/20, 7/20, and 10/20 • JAEC emails preliminary data to Services and COCOMs for review, makes corrections, and establishes business rules Individual organization concerns – see Mr. Tony Handy

11. Reference: JTIMS Event Module Data Elements for CE2T2 Assessment (1)

12. Reference: JTIMS Event Module Data Elements for CE2T2 Assessment (2)

13. Analysis Topics

14. Assessment Framework & Lead Analysts

15. 1. JNTC-Accredited Unit Joint Training Accomplished Prior to Deployment Metric Percent of units deployed to combat operations that participated in JNTC-accredited Service joint training prior to deploying Notes: Unit = commanded by an O-5 or above Top-level metric shows active duty combat units, but JAEC also has data for CS and CSS, and RC Active Duty Combat Units Target (Annual) Quarterly Findings Participation rate continues to exceed target levels • Potential Future Developments • Address operational deployments in addition to combat deployments • Verify accuracy of RC data for inclusion and analysis

16. 2. Joint Task Force Headquarters Staff Collective Training Potential Future Development Expand analysis to rotational and operational JTF HQ reporting in DRRS Metrics a. Percent of deployed JTF HQ* that participated in Unified Endeavor (UE) mission readiness exercise (MRX) b. Status of JTF-capable headquarters reporting readiness in DRRS *JTF HQ: Joint Task Force Headquarters • Findings • 100% of units deployed as rotational JTF HQ participated in UE MRXs • b. Of the 8 certified JTF-capable headquarters: • 6 have current reports in DRRS • 3 commented that readiness ratings were verified/certified by performance in training exercises • 2 stated concern over preserving staff training level and expanding staff and individual training opportunities * From the Draft JTF HQ CONOPS: JTF-capable: A Designated Service HQ that has achieved and can sustain a level of readiness to stand up as a JTF HQ, which is acceptable to the supported/assigned Combatant Commander.

17. 3. Joint Task Force Headquarters Staff Individual Training (JKDDC Contribution) Metric Percent of JTF staff receiving theater-focused JKDDC training before deployment - Initial pilot study addressed CJTF-HOA* * Combined Joint Task Force - Horn of Africa Findings Initial findings indicated relatively small percent of CJTF-HOA staff trained in JKDDC; however, more recent findings show dramatic increases • Potential Future Development • Expand analysis beyond CJTF-HOA; options include: • Cooperation of other JTF HQ J1s • Use DMDC data to identify assigned personnel

18. 4. Irregular Warfare and Stability Operations at Service Training Centers Metric Percent of service units training in irregular warfare and stability operations (IW/SO) at major service training centers Note: Unit = commanded by an O-5 or above • Findings • Continuing into FY09, Service data indicate training centers exceed targets • Each Service has a different target, driven by the contemporary operating environment. • Percentage of events at Service training centers that included IW/SO: Potential Future Developments Leave as is?

19. Metric Percentage of joint training events that include participation by interagency personnel Note: events are JNTC-accredited Service training events and COCOM events supported by CE2 or T2 funding 5. Whole of Government Training • Findings • General trend has been slightly declining participation • Differences between COCOMs and Services (only recently disaggregated) may represent differing requirements • Potential Future Developments • Identify requirements and performance targets (RTPP lead) • Improve definitions • JAEC understand each organization’s JTIMS reporting practices

20. 6. International Participation in Training Exercises Metric Percentage of joint training events that include participation by international personnel Note: events are JNTC-accredited Service training events and COCOM events supported by CE2 or T2 funding • Findings • General trend has been slightly increasing participation • Differences between COCOMs and Services (only recently disaggregated) may represent differing requirements • Potential Future Developments • Identify requirements and performance targets (RTPP lead) • Improve definitions • JAEC understand each organization’s JTIMS reporting practices

21. 7. Enterprise View of Joint Training Outcomes Metrics a. Portion of COCOM tasks trained in COCOM and Service exercises, and training proficiency assessments of performance on those tasks b. Common strengths and weaknesses across the enterprise • Findings • a. 48% of JMETs had published assessments in JTIMS (Data manually extracted from COCOM Joint Training Plans (JTPs) published at the end of FY08) • b. Assessments showed some strengths and weaknesses that were common across the COCOMs, as well as some striking deficiencies that were more local • Specific findings available in classified forum Potential Future Development Automate process to provide semi-annual or quarterly updates (JAEC and JTIMS Program Office action)

22. 8. CE2T2 Impact on Qualifying Joint Officers Metric Fraction of Joint Qualified Officer (JQO) points generated by JKDDC-provided individual training • Findings • Points awarded through distributed learning up 58% from the third quarter of FY 2007 • As of November 2008 163 Joint Qualified Officer Points have been available through JFCOM-certified courses • 129 through institutional courses • 34 using distributed learning (1 blended course) • 1 point per 40 hours of training • Points are also awarded for joint experience Potential Future Development Working with JS J1 to complete the chart

23. 9. Distributed Network for Joint Training Metric Joint Training and Experimentation Network (JTEN) usage in CE2T2 exercises as reflected by the following data (PBR 821) • Findings • Almost every metric indicates increasing JTEN usage from FY06 to FY08 • Prorated Q1 FY09 data (4X) suggests that increases will be sustained into FY09 • (Table in backup) Potential Future Development None planned

24. 10. Research and Development for Joint Training Metrics Value of R&D programs as determined by the following data (PBRs 718 and 721): a. Status of accomplishing 13 certifications and 17 assessments (PBR 718) b. Number of times virtual AC-130 simulation was integrated into National Training Center (NTC), MAGTF Training Center (Mojave Viper), and Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) rotations in FY09 (PBR 721) Findings Data are collected and reported by JATTL as part of the PBR process Potential Future Development This is based on PBR measures of effectiveness submitted in 2008

25. 11. Implementation of Joint Training Information Management System • Findings • a. All COCOM CE2T2 events in JTIMS, minority of events provide training objective or audience data b. • 6 of the 10 COCOMs had Approved Training Assessments in JTIMS • ~ 40% of Core Mission, Command-Level JMETs have published assessments (Tables in backup) Metrics a. Percentage of COCOM CE2T2 events that provide specific data* in JTIMS b. Percentage of COCOMs publishing assessments in JTIMS * Data: training objective or audience Note: JTIMS is funded by PBR 11001. Potential Future Development None planned

26. 12. Implementation of Joint Lessons Learned Information System Metric/Statistics Use of the Joint Lessons Learned Information System (JLLIS) as indicated by the following data: Since 1 Oct 07, 27 organizations have signed up to use JLLIS Joint Staff 1 COCOMs 10 3 Services + NGB 4 CSA-4, Interag’cy-3 7 Other organizations 5 Number of JLLIS Users Number of Active Lessons • Findings • Trend analysis requires dedicated analysts; currently no automated tool. • The USMC Center for Lessons Learned, USAF, and USN have been instrumental in the outstanding progress JLLIS has made over the past 18 months. • Potential Future Developments • By Oct 09, JLLIS should be FOC with all COCOMs using and sharing data via JLLIS and all legacy data imported into the system. • As JLLIS establishes linkages between its stakeholders and other systems, the current statistics can be expanded to provide better metrics on the integration of JLLIS data in DOTMLPF programs. (PBR 11007)

27. 13. Impact of CE2T2 on Meeting Service Event Requirements Metrics a. Percent of training objectives* addressed by JNTC-accredited Service training programs b. Number of events impacted by the Joint Training Coordination Program (JTCP) (PBRs 2306, 921, 903B, and 903A) • Findings • a. 29 objectives (24%) are addressed by JNTC-accredited tasks trained in program • b. *JFCOM JTP identified 121 unique training objectives, derived from 16 training priorities identified in OSD published guidance. Each objective comprises one or more UJT, relevant conditions, and a training standard. Potential Future Development TBD

28. 14. Impact of CE2T2 on Meeting COCOM Event Requirements Metric Percent of COCOM training requirements addressed by CE2T2 training events • Findings • “Training requirements” defined by command-level JMETs in COCOM JMETLs • The results indicate that the 25 CE2T2 events that occurred in Q1 FY2009 trained about ¼ of the COCOMs’ training requirements as defined • Potential Future Development • TBD

29. 15. Impact of CE2T2 on Meeting Individual Joint Training Requirements Metric Percent of COCOM joint mission essential tasks (JMETs) addressed by JKDDC courseware – command and supporting • Findings • Potential Future Development • TBD LAST ANALYSIS TOPIC SLIDE

30. CE2T2 Assessment Way Ahead Next 60 days • Exploit existing qualitative data sources • Examples: News You Can Use, JNTC SE Event Summaries • Expand use of DRRS • Training-related comments • Pending business intelligence tool should help • Publish planned documents • Collection plan: “reference” for the community • DoD Instruction: assessment portion • If necessary, JSAP as a temporary measure until DoDI is published (AO-to-AO) • Develop or refine performance targets where appropriate • Collaborate with community, approved by leadership Longer term Pursue identified Potential Future Developments Prepare and vet FY2009 annual assessment; initial draft at WJTSC 09-2

31. Questions? Contacts: David Baranek, JAEC analyst: David.Baranek.ctr@osd.mil Tony Handy, JAEC JTS Specialist: Anthony.Handy.ctr@osd.mil John Ross, JAEC analyst at JFCOM: John.Ross.ctr@jfcom.mil 31

32. FY09 Q1 Summary Assessment (1) Presented at T2 JIPT, 23 Feb 2009 • Joint training accomplished prior to deployment • Unit participation in accredited training events continues to exceed goals • Deployed JTF HQ staff training (MRXs) appears to meet requirements • Comments in DRRS on collective training for JTF-capable HQ reveal concern over maintaining currency • Irregular warfare and stability operations training • Training exceeds goals • Whole of government and international training • OSD(RTPP), Joint Staff J7 (JETD) working on developing definitions and requirements

33. FY09 Q1 Summary Assessment (2) Presented at T2 JIPT, 23 Feb 2009 • Impact of joint training • Results showed some strengths and weaknesses that were common across the COCOMs, as well as some striking deficiencies that were more local – details are classified • JKDDC/JS J7 contribution to Joint Qualified Officer program is increasing • Impact of joint training enablers • Almost every metric indicates increasing Joint Training and Experimentation Network (JTEN) usage since FY2006 • Initial data from Joint Lessons Learned Information System (JLLIS) show steep increase in number of users and active lessons • Other metrics rely on data not yet available, including PBR measures of effectiveness

34. FY09 Q1 Summary Assessment (3) Presented at T2 JIPT, 23 Feb 2009 • Implementation of joint training • JNTC-accredited Service training programs addressed 24% of the 121 training objectives identified by USJFCOM* • CE2T2 events in Q1 FY09 trained about ¼ of command-level JMETs in COCOM JMETLs • JKDDC online resources addressed 24% of JMETs in COCOM JMETLs, an increase from 15% end of FY07 *The JFCOM Joint Training Plan, Tab H, lists 16 priorities derived from strategic guidance and COCOM inputs, divided into 121 training objectives. The objectives themselves comprise one or more UJTL tasks, relevant conditions, and a training standard.

35. Analysis Topic 2b: Joint Task Force Headquarters Staff Collective TrainingAssessment Reporting by JTF-Capable Headquarters Plan to certify five additional headquarters in FY2009: 7th Army, III MEF, 20th Support Command, 5th Fleet/USNAVCENT, 3rd Army/USARCENT

36. Analysis Topic 9. Distributed Network for Joint Training

37. Analysis Topic 11a. Implementation of Joint Training Information Management System Percentage of COCOM CE2T2 Events that Provide Certain Data in JTIMS

38. Analysis Topic 11b. Implementation of Joint Training Information Management System Approved Training Assessments in JTIMS As of 5 Jan 2009 • Ref: CJCSI 3500.01E, dated 31 May 2008, enclosure D, Joint Training Guidance, paragraph 2e • JTIMS: Joint Training Information Management System