Simulation Training

Management Framework Improved, but Challenges Remain Gao ID: NSIAD-93-122 May 10, 1993

Congress has supported increased use of simulation technology but has had some concerns about the Defense Department's (DOD) management in this area. This report describes the evolving coordination of simulation activities under the auspices of the Defense Modeling and Simulation Office. Specifically, GAO reviews the Army's acquisition plan for the Close Combat Tactical Trainer--a simulation system to train armor and mechanized infantry forces--to determine whether it provides for (1) high-level management oversight, (2) system interoperability, and (3) adequate integration of the system with more traditional forms of training for greater cost-effectiveness.

GAO found that: (1) in June 1991, the Defense Modeling and Simulation Office (DMSO) was created to coordinate and provide guidance for simulation issues throughout DOD; (2) DMSO has made progress in responding to its mandate, but has been unsuccessful in obtaining permanent staffing authority and hiring a civilian director; (3) the Army has recently reorganized its command structure for acquiring simulations so that it can acquire CCTT and subsequent simulations in the Combined Arms Tactical Training System as a major system; (4) CCTT was approved in October 1991, but the system's cost and training effectiveness are scheduled for reassessment before the Army proceeds with full-rate production; and (5) modeling and simulation responsibilities are shared by several joint staff directorates, which has resulted in some duplication of effort.

Recommendations

Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

Director: Team: Phone:


The Justia Government Accountability Office site republishes public reports retrieved from the U.S. GAO These reports should not be considered official, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Justia.