Military Transformation
Progress and Challenges for DOD's Advanced Distributed Learning Programs
Gao ID: GAO-03-393 February 28, 2003
The Department of Defense (DOD) spends more than $17 billion annually for military schools that offer nearly 30,000 military training courses to almost 3 million military personnel and DOD civilians. DOD is transforming its forces, including the way it trains, to favor more rapid and responsive deployment. DOD's training transformation strategy emphasizes the use of advanced distributed learning (ADL) programs, such as Internet-based training, as critical to achieving its training and overarching transformation goals. ADL is instruction that does not require an instructor's presence; can use more than one media; and emphasizes the use of reusable content, networks, and learning management systems. Because of ADL's importance to DOD's transformation efforts and pursuant to GAO's basic legislative responsibilities, we initiated this review to create a baseline document that describes the status of DOD's ADL programs. GAO reviewed these programs to determine (1) DOD's expectations for the programs; (2) the implementation status of those programs; and (3) major challenges affecting program implementation. GAO did not assess the programs' effectiveness at this time because most are in the early stages of implementation.
DOD has set high expectations for ADL. They expect the programs to provide new learning opportunities and technologies across a wide range of training areas. Ultimately, a key benefit of ADL is expected to be improved readiness through re-engineering of training and enhancing service members' skills. DOD, the services, and Joint Staff are generally in the early stages of implementing their ADL programs and have made progress in several areas. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), with its three ADL co-laboratories; the services; and the Joint Staff chose an industry-wide ADL standard for content interoperability and collaboration across the services. They promoted experimentation with new technology and working with private industry. The services' programs generally focus on distribution infrastructure and service-specific content development. According to ADL program officials, OSD, the Joint Staff, and the services have achieved some ADL successes. For example, OSD, in collaboration with the co-laboratories, developed successful course content prototypes; and the Army's Battle Staff Noncommissioned Officer course resulted in annual savings while maintaining student performance. However, it is too early to fully assess the extent of each program's effectiveness. DOD faces cultural, technological, policy and financial challenges that affect the ADL programs' ability to fully achieve the benefits of enhanced learning and performance and of improved readiness.
GAO-03-393, Military Transformation: Progress and Challenges for DOD's Advanced Distributed Learning Programs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-393
entitled 'Military Transformation: Progress and Challenges for DOD's
Advanced Distributed Learning Programs' which was released on February
28, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
February 2003:
MILITARY TRANSFORMATION:
Progress and Challenges for DOD‘s Advanced Distributed Learning
Programs:
GAO-03-393:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-393, a report to Congressional Committees:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of Defense (DOD) spends more than $17 billion
annually for military schools that offer nearly 30,000 military
training courses to almost 3 million military personnel and DOD
civilians. DOD is transforming its forces, including the way it trains,
to favor more rapid and responsive deployment. DOD‘s training
transformation strategy emphasizes the use of advanced distributed
learning (ADL) programs, such as Internetbased training, as critical
to achieving its training and overarching transformation goals.
ADL is instruction that does not require an instructor‘s presence;
can use more than one media; and emphasizes the use of reusable
content, networks, and learning management systems.
Because of ADL‘s importance to DOD‘s transformation efforts and
pursuant to GAO‘s basic legislative responsibilities, we initiated
this review to create a baseline document that describes the status
of DOD‘s ADL programs. GAO reviewed these programs to
determine (1) DOD‘s expectations for the programs; (2) the
implementation status of those programs; and (3) major challenges
affecting program implementation. GAO did not assess the programs‘
effectiveness at this time because most are in the early stages of
implementation.
DOD reviewed a draft of this report and concurred with its contents.
What GAO Found:
DOD has set high expectations for ADL. They expect the programs to
provide new learning opportunities and technologies across a wide
range of training areas. Ultimately, a key benefit of ADL is expected
to be improved readiness through reengineering of training and
enhancing service members‘ skills.
DOD, the services, and Joint Staff are generally in the early stages
of implementing their ADL programs and have made progress in several
areas. OSD, with its three ADL co-laboratories; the services; and the
Joint Staff chose an industry-wide ADL standard for content
interoperability and collaboration across the services. They promoted
experimentation with new technology and working with private industry.
The services‘ programs generally focus on distribution infrastructure
and service-specific content development. According to ADL program
officials, OSD, the Joint Staff, and the services have achieved some
ADL successes. For example, OSD, in collaboration with the
colaboratories, developed successful course content prototypes; and
the Army‘s Battle Staff Noncommissioned Officer course resulted in
annual savings while maintaining student performance. However, it is
too early to fully assess the extent of each program‘s effectiveness.
DOD faces cultural, technological, policy and financial challenges
that affect the ADL programs‘ ability to fully achieve the benefits
of enhanced learning and performance and of improved readiness. Key
challenges are summarized below.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-393.
To view the full report, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Neal P. Curtin,
at (757) 552-8100 or e-mail curtinn@gao.gov.
Contents:
Letter:
Briefing Section I: Background on DOD‘s Advanced Distributed
Learning Programs:
Briefing Section II: DOD‘s Expectations for Advanced Distributed
Learning Programs:
Briefing Section III: Implementation Status of DOD‘s Advanced
Distributed Learning Programs:
Briefing Section IV: Major Challenges Affecting DOD‘s Advanced
Distributed Learning Programs:
Briefing Section V: Conclusions:
Briefing Section VI: Army‘s Advanced Distributed Learning Programs:
Briefing Section VII: Navy‘s Advanced Distributed Learning Programs:
Briefing Section VIII: Marine Corps‘ Advanced Distributed Learning
Programs:
Briefing Section IX: Air Force‘s Advanced Distributed Learning
Programs:
Briefing Section X: Joint Staff‘s Advanced Distributed Learning
Programs:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Timeline of Key Events, Directives and Guidance for DOD‘s
ADL Programs:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Abbreviations:
ADL: Advanced Distributed Learning:
AEC: Automated Electronic Classrooms:
AETC: U.S. Air Force Air Education and Training Command:
AFIADL: Air Force Institute for Advanced Distributed Learning:
BA3: Budget Activity 3:
CBT: Computer Based Training:
CNET: U.S. Navy Chief of Naval Education and Training:
C4I: Command, Control, Communications, Computers and
Intellegence:
DAU: Defense Acquisition University:
DL: Distance Learning:
DLRC: Deployable Learning Resource Centers:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DTF: Digital Training Facilities:
DTTP: Distributive Training Technology Project:
DUSD®: Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Readiness:
ECP: Extension Course Program:
ETSC: Education and Training Steering Committee:
IRR: Individual Ready Reserve:
ITV: Interactive Television:
JCLE: Joint Collaborative Learning Environment:
JPME II: Joint Professional Military Education II:
LMS: Learning Management System:
MC: Marine Corps:
MCDLP: Marien Corps Distance Learning Program:
MOS: Military Occupational Specialty:
NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization:
NCO: Noncommissioned Officer:
NIPRNET: Non-Classified Internet Protocol Router Network:
NG: National Guard:
NGB: National Guard Bureau:
NMCI: Navy and Marine Corps Intranet:
NSIAD: National Security and International Affairs Division:
O&M: Operations and Maintenance:
OSD: Office of the Secretary of Defense:
PME: Professional Military Education:
POM: Program Objective Memorandum:
QDR: Quadrennial Defense Review:
R,D,T&E: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation:
SCORM: Sharable Content Object Reference Model:
SIPRNET: Secret Internet Protocol Router Network:
TADLP: The Army Distributed Learning Program:
TFADLAT: Total force Advanced Distributed Learning Action Team:
TRADOC: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command:
VTC: Video Teleconference:
VTT: Video Teletraining:
This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain
copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce
copyrighted materials separately from GAO‘s product.
February 28, 2003:
The Honorable John Ensign
Chairman
The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate:
The Honorable Joel Hefley
Chairman
The Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Readiness
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives:
The Department of Defense (DOD) spends more than $17 billion[Footnote
1] annually for military schools that offer nearly 30,000 military
training courses to almost 3 million military personnel and DOD
civilians, much of it to maintain readiness. [Footnote 2] To better
meet the diverse defense challenges of the future, DOD is transforming
its forces, including its training, for a post-Cold War environment
that favors more rapid deployment and responsiveness. DOD‘s Training
Transformation Strategy[Footnote 3] emphasizes the use of advanced
distributed learning (ADL) programs such as Internet-based training, as
critical to achieving the department‘s training and overarching
transformation goals and to deliver the highest quality training cost-
effectively anytime, anywhere, whether active duty, reserve, or
civilian personnel. ADL is instruction that does not require an
instructor‘s presence; can use more than one media; and emphasizes the
use of reusable content, networks, and learning management
systems.[Footnote 4]
We initiated this review of DOD‘s ADL programs, pursuant to our basic
legislative responsibilities, because of the importance DOD has placed
on them as a key to achieving the department‘s transformation efforts.
Specifically, we addressed the following questions: (1) What are DOD‘s
expectations for the programs? (2) How is DOD managing ADL and what
progress is being made in implementing the programs? (3) What major
challenges are affecting the programs‘ implementation? We did not
assess the effectiveness of the programs at this time because most are
in the early stages of implementation; thus our objective was to
provide a baseline document concerning the focus, status, and magnitude
of DOD‘s ADL programs.
In late August and early September 2002, because of your continuing
interest in the readiness and training of U.S. armed forces, we briefed
your offices and those of Representatives John McHugh and Adam Smith on
the results of our work. This report summarizes and updates the major
observations provided at our briefings. (See briefing sections I
through X.):
We conducted our review from February 2002 through August 2002 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix I describes our scope and methodology.
Background:
The increased rate of deployments in recent years of DOD‘s forces,
which often involve rapid, unplanned movements to locations around the
world, highlights the need for the services to provide training on
demand to soldiers and units deployed worldwide. Accordingly, because
of more demanding deployment criteria and other time-sensitive
constraints, DOD recognized that yesterday‘s framework ’right time,
right place“ learning, with its use of set times and places for
training, may not meet future military requirements. It also recognizes
that providing ’anytime, anywhere“ instruction is essential to
maintaining military readiness in the information age, where future
forces and their support activities need to be highly adaptive to meet
threats effectively and rapidly.
In response to the DOD 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review,[Footnote 5] the
department developed a DOD-wide strategy to use learning and
information technologies to modernize education and training. The
initial effort in that development was the ADL Initiative. Its intent
was to set forth a new framework to provide DOD personnel access to
high quality education and training, tailored to individual needs and
delivered cost-effectively, whenever and wherever it is required. DOD
envisioned using the Internet and other virtual or private wide-area
networks, distributed learning experts, learning management, and
diverse support tools to ensure a ’learner-centric“ ADL system that
delivers high quality training, education, and job performance aiding.
DOD sees ADL programs as part of a continuum[Footnote 6] of learning
that encompasses many learning methodologies, as shown in table 1.
Table 1: Continuum of Learning Methods:
Right time, right place: Classroom
delivery method: *Instructor-led training; Right time, right place:
Distance/distributed learning delivery methods: *Video tele-training;
*Embedded training; *Computer conferencing; *Interactive television;
*Electronic classrooms; *Interactive multimedia; *Computer-based
training; *Audio-graphics; *Audiotapes/videotapes; *Correspondence
courses; Anytime, anywhere: Advanced distributed
learning delivery methods: *Integrated networked systems; *Integrated
platforms; *Reusable learning objects; *Widespread collaboration;
*Global knowledge databases; *Intelligent tutoring systems;
*Performance aiding; *Digital knowledge repositories; *Internet-based
instruction; *Virtual libraries; *Simulations; *Virtual classrooms.
[End of table]
Source: Defense Acquisition University.
Note: The data displayed in the table is based on data provided in the
Defense Acquisition University‘s Strategic Plan 2002-2009 Training
Transformation (T2), The DAU Road Map for e-Learning and On-line
Performance Support.
In April 1999, DOD issued its ADL strategy[Footnote 7] in response to
the 1997 DOD Quadrennial Defense Review. The strategy also responded to
(1) the directive in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1999[Footnote 8] for DOD to develop a strategic plan to guide and
expand distributed learning initiatives and (2) Executive Order
13,111[Footnote 9] that tasked DOD to provide guidance to Defense
agencies and advise civilian agencies in developing and implementing
collaborative distance learning standards. DOD‘s strategic plan defined
ADL as a way to leverage the power of computer, information, and
communication technologies through the use of common standards in order
to provide learning that can be tailored to individual needs and
delivered anytime, anywhere, in either training or education
environments. It also includes establishing an interoperable ’computer-
managed instruction“ environment to support the needs of developers,
learners, instructors, administrators, managers, and family. An ADL
implementation plan followed in May 2000 to provide a federal
framework. It described the department‘s approach to carrying out its
strategic plan and provided an update on each of the services‘ and the
Joint Staff‘s programs. [Footnote 10] Since 1995, OSD, the services,
and the Joint Staff have established ADL programs in concert with key
executive, congressional, and departmental guidance discussed above.
See appendix II for a timeline of key events.
OSD‘s March 2002 Training Transformation Strategy emphasizes the use of
ADL programs as critical to achieving the department‘s training and
overarching transformation goals and ensuring that training is readily
available to both active and reserve military personnel, regardless of
time and place. The training transformation strategy and soon to be
released implementation plan are intended to reengineer training;
enhance service members‘ skills; and provide capabilities-based
training to support service, joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and
multinational operations.
Summary:
Officials from OSD, the services, and the Joint Staff have set high
expectations for ADL. They expect the programs, which include the
various delivery methods cited in table 1, to provide new learning
opportunities and technologies and improved readiness. In terms of new
learning opportunities and technologies, DOD expects:
* increased accessibility to training for personnel,
* interoperability of instruction components in varied locations by
different services,
* reusability in multiple applications,
* durability, despite changes in technology, and
* affordability.
With regard to improved readiness, DOD expects ADL to improve readiness
by:
* supporting the training transformation initiative and the combatant
commanders,
* enhancing training opportunities for joint assignments,
* enhancing training opportunities for reserve personnel,
* improving mission performance through anytime, anywhere, and just-in-
time assignment-oriented and job performance enhancement training, and
* improving manning by reducing personnel‘s nonavailability and unit
turbulence and reducing time for in-resident training with large
return-on-investment for temporary duty costs, while increasing
retention and quality-of-life enrichment. (See briefing section II.):
OSD, the services, and the Joint Staff are generally in the early
stages of implementing their ADL programs and have made progress in
several areas. OSD‘s Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Readiness provides executive policy and programmatic oversight and
guidance for the department‘s ADL implementation. That office also
leads a collaborative effort to produce ADL policy, plans, and
procedures for developing and implementing ADL technologies across the
department. This collaboration involves the services, Joint Staff,
other DOD components, the ADL collaborative laboratories (co-labs), the
Coast Guard, and the Department of Labor. For example, OSD in
collaboration with its partners, chose an industry-wide ADL standard
for content interoperability to be used throughout DOD, which allows
for collaboration of course content across the services. The standard,
Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM), is an evolving set of
technical specifications designed to ensure the interoperability,
accessibility, and reusability of on-line courseware. The Joint Staff
and the services agree that future course content will be designed to
conform to SCORM. OSD, with the National Guard Bureau (NGB) and the
Department of Labor, established three ADL co-labs to experiment with
new technology and leverage experience between private industry and
military components. It also participates in an international
partnership co-lab in Telford, England, to promote collaboration and
global e-learning. The services‘ and Joint Staff‘s programs--individual
programs designed by and tailored for the specific needs of each
service or joint position--share a similar vision of providing learner-
centric (i.e., on demand, ’anytime, anywhere“) training and focus on,
among other aspects, distribution infrastructure and service-specific
content development. (See briefing section III.):
OSD, the Joint Staff, and the services note that they have achieved
some ADL successes, such as the following:
* OSD--with the co-labs, military services, Joint Staff, and co-
sponsors--developed successful content prototypes, including one joint
professional military education course.[Footnote 11]
* The Joint Staff‘s Joint Collaborative Learning Environment prototype
established an initial joint personnel tracking and portal capability.
* The Army‘s Battle Staff Noncommissioned Officer course conversion to
an ADL format resulted in a $2.9 million annual cost avoidance while
maintaining student performance.
* The Navy--to promote interoperability, ease of access to DOD Internet
sites, and reduce training time--established both .mil and .com access
to ADL courses.
* The Marine Corps‘ distance learning application in terrorism
awareness reduced training time from 11 hours to 6 hours and increased
the average exam scores by 7 percentage points.
* The Air Force developed CD-ROM training for hazardous material
incident response for DOD firefighters and law enforcement personnel
that reportedly resulted in a significant increase of certified
responders and a projected $16.6 million cost avoidance.
Additionally, the Defense Acquisition University‘s (DAU) ADL program is
cited by DOD ADL program officials as a success and an example of ’best
practices.“ [Footnote 12] According to university officials, since 1998
on-line instructional time increased from 15,750 hours to 1.4 million
hours; graduates attending on-line training courses increased 38
percent; and the on-line program management curriculum reduced annual
student training weeks from 36,120 to 10,000--a real savings of 300
annual work years or $17.4 million. The university‘s program was
awarded the U.S. Distance Learning Association Award for Excellence in
Government in 2001 and 2002 for the quality of its on-line offerings.
A number of cultural, technological, policy, and financial challenges
affect OSD‘s, the services‘ and the Joint Staff‘s ability to execute
programs that achieve the attainable benefits of enhanced learning and
performance and improved readiness in concert with DOD‘s ADL vision and
training transformation strategy. According to DOD officials, there is
a strong interrelationship among the challenges and that a solution for
one challenge may have an impact on the others.
Cultural:
A major cultural barrier, according to DOD ADL program officials, is
the varying level of commitment of senior military and civilian
leadership in the military. The consensus view of the ADL program
officials we contacted was that not all senior military and civilian
leadership is committed to ADL, preferring the traditional,
schoolhouse-focused approach to learning. Hesitance to embrace ADL is
also explained as a function of less familiarity and comfort by senior
officials with computers, advanced technologies, and emerging policies.
Similarly, ADL program officials told us that the military services‘
schoolhouses are reluctant to change, in large part because their
funding and infrastructure are tied so closely to the number of
students actually trained on-site.
Technological:
According to DOD officials, the services are all moving toward Web-or
Internet-based access to course content in support of DOD‘s vision of
’anytime, anywhere“ delivery of training. The officials stated that
much progress has been made to enable this type of access. However,
according to OSD and service officials, bandwidth is generally
insufficient to support interactive, multimedia learning content and
simulations; and unresolved network security concerns stifle utility.
For example, we recently reported that the National Guard Bureau cannot
ensure that GuardNet[Footnote 13] will perform as intended or provide
its users with reliable and secure services because the requirements,
configuration, and security processes for managing the network are
ineffective. [Footnote 14] DOD ADL officials acknowledge the same issue
exists throughout DOD. Perhaps more significantly, the development of,
fielding of, and access[Footnote 15] to military skills-related course
content that could most positively impact readiness continue to be more
difficult than anticipated, leading to higher costs and slower content
availability than forecasted.
Policy:
Some of DOD‘s training policies are obsolete; consequently, some of the
military services‘ training regulations do not reflect the availability
or use of new ADL technologies. [Footnote 16] For example, according to
DOD officials, DOD is in the early stage of formulating policy that
specifically addresses the use of ADL. DOD officials believe that
without an OSD-specific ADL policy, many of DOD‘s policies and guidance
documents will require updating, so as to provide a requirement for the
military service‘s in turn, to update their training and education
regulations that address the use of ADL. Also, the Army‘s primary
training regulation[Footnote 17] has been awaiting revision for 3
years, in part, due to a lack of consensus on integrating new
technologies, including ADL, with traditional training approaches.
Financial:
Funding and budgeting issues similar to those we reported for DOD‘s
distance learning programs in 1997 remain unresolved.[Footnote 18]
Funding allocations of more than $431 million for fiscal years 1999
through 2002 (less than 1.3 percent of its training budget during that
period) did not always meet program requirements, which were difficult
to determine for a new program where standards were evolving and the
technology changing rapidly. It is not likely that planned funding
levels will meet future expected requirements. DOD program officials
project that over $2.2 billion will be needed for ADL programs through
fiscal year 2007 but currently have programmed about $1.6 billionæa
more than $600 million funding gap. Furthermore, according to DOD
program officials, in some cases, anticipated training savings
attributable to ADL implementation were removed from the budget as
savings before they were realized. According to service officials, some
training facility commanders continue to be concerned that ADL will
reduce their resources because of the decrease in the number of
students receiving traditional schoolhouse training. Finally, the Joint
Staff and the services are still considering how to budget for the
long-term use of ADL. (See briefing section IV.):
Agency Comments:
The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Readiness) provided written
comments on a draft of this report, which are reprinted in their
entirety in appendix III. In its comments, DOD concurred with the
content of the report. DOD also provided technical comments to the
draft, which we have incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to Representatives John McHugh and
Adam Smith and other congressional members as appropriate. We will also
send copies to the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army,
the Navy, and the Air Force; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. We
will make copies available to others on request. In addition, the
report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://
www.gao.gov .
If you or your staff have any questions, please call me on (757) 552-
8100 or Clifton Spruill, Assistant Director, on (202) 512-4531. Major
contributors to this report were Claudia Dickey, Arnett Sanders, James
Walker, M. Jane Hunt, Susan Woodward, and Scott Gannon.
Signed by Neal P. Curtin:
Neal P. Curtin:
Director, Defense Capabilities
and Management:
[End of section]
Breifing Section I: Background on DOD‘s Advanced Distributed Learning
Programs:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Source: Washington Headquarters Service Directorate for Information
Operations and Reports and Defense Manpower Data Center.
Notes:Data is as of Apr. 2002.
Reserve Component numbers include Selective Reserve Personnel,
Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) and Standby Reserve personnel.
[End of section]
Breifing Section II: DOD‘s Expectations for Advanced Distributed
Learning Programs:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Breifing Section III: Implementation Status of DOD‘s Advanced
Distributed Learning Programs:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Source: DOD.
Note:GAO analysis of OSD, Joint Staff, and military service data.
The Joint Staff reportedly added $650,000 per year to its fiscal years
2003 through 2007 POM after we completed our audit work.
[End of section]
Breifing Section IV: Major Challenges Affecting DOD‘s Advanced
Distributed Learning Programs:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Source: DOD.
Notes:GAO analysis of OSD, Joint Staff and the military service
budgetary data.
Total Training amount includes all component O&M training funding
allocated as reported in the DOD budget for Budget Activity 3 (BA3) for
the indicated fiscal years. Budget Activity 3 funds all training and
recruiting programs.
Reserve component funding is included within the active duty component
totals.
Source: DOD.
Notes:GAO‘s analysis of OSD, Joint Staff, and military service
budgetary data.
Reserve component funding amounts were included with the active
component
funding data.
Source: DOD.
Notes:GAO analysis of OSD, military service, and Joint Staff budgetary
data.
The DOD bars reflect the total requirements of the services, OSD and
Joint Staff.
Total requirements include both infrastructure and content
requirements.
Joint Staff requirements are included in the ’OSD and Joint Staff“
total because Joint Staff
receives, funding for ADL projects from the funds allocated to OSD for
ADL projects. The Joint Staff, along with the military services,
competes for funds allocated to OSD for ADL prototypes projects.
[End of section]
Breifing Section V: Conclusions:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Breifing Section VI: Army‘s Advanced Distributed Learning Programs:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Breifing Section VII: Navy‘s Advanced Distributed Learning Programs:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Breifing Section VIII: Marine Corps‘ Advanced Distributed Learning
Programs:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Breifing Section IX: Air Force‘s Advanced Distributed Learning
Programs:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Breifing Section X: Joint Staff‘s Advanced Distributed Learning
Programs:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
We reviewed the Department of Defense‘s (DOD) Advanced Distributed
Learning (ADL) programs to determine the programs‘ expectations,
implementation status, and major challenges. We collected, reviewed,
and analyzed relevant program information and conducted interviews with
DOD officials responsible for distance learning programs and from the
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Readiness and
Training; Advanced Distributed Learning Co-Laboratory, Alexandria,
Virginia; Joint Advanced Distributed Learning Co-Laboratory, Orlando,
Florida; Department of the Army, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations-
-Training; the Army Distance Learning Program, U.S. Army Training and
Doctrine Command; U.S. Army National Guard Bureau, Distributed Training
Technology Project; Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of
Naval Operations--Education; U.S. Naval Education and Training Command,
Office of Naval Education and Training; U.S. Marine Corps Training and
Education Command, Distance Learning Center; Department of the U.S. Air
Force, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Learning and
Force Development; U.S. Air Force Air Education and Training Command,
Air Force Institute for Advanced Distributed Learning; U.S. Air Force
Office of Air Force Reserve, Education, Training, Readiness Policy;
U.S. Air National Guard, Distributed Learning Program; Office of the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Doctrine Education and
Training Division; and Department of Defense, Defense Acquisition
University.
To determine DOD‘s expectations for its programs, we reviewed
executive, congressional and departmental guidance related to
developing DOD-wide ADL programs. We reviewed and analyzed the Office
of the Secretary of Defense‘s (OSD), the military services‘, and the
Joint Staff‘s ADL strategy and implementation plans and OSD‘s Training
Transformation Plan. We interviewed OSD, service, and Joint Staff ADL
program personnel to obtain their views about OSD‘s and their service-
or Joint Staff-specific ADL program expectations.
To determine the implementation status of OSD‘s, the services‘, and
Joint Staff‘s ADL programs, we provided OSD, service, and Joint Staff
ADL program officials a detailed list of questions concerning program
vision, strategy, implementation status, number of ADL courses, program
successes, and challenges. We reviewed their written responses, if
provided, and followed up with face-to-face interviews to clarify or
obtain additional information if necessary. We reviewed, and compared
OSD‘s, the services‘, and Joint Staff‘s ADL strategies and
implementation plans. We interviewed ADL program officials and
collected other documents as necessary to determine the status of the
programs as compared to their ADL program implementation plans.
Additionally, for fiscal years 1999 through 2002, we obtained,
analyzed, and compared information about the amount of funding OSD, the
services, and the Joint Staff reportedly received for their ADL
programs. For the same fiscal years, we obtained and reviewed the
amount of funding DOD and the services received as reported for Budget
Activity 3 in each of the components Operations and Maintenance budgets
(BA3 funds all training and recruiting programs) and compared the
overall training budgets to the amount of funding each reportedly
allocated for ADL programs. In addition, we obtained and analyzed the
amount of funding that OSD, the services, and the Joint Staff reported
that they need and have programmed for future ADL requirements for
fiscal years 2003 through 2007. We compared the amounts reported as
needed to implement program plans with the amounts included in OSD‘s,
the services‘, and the Joint Staff …s program objective memorandums for
fiscal years 2003 through 2007. The dollar amounts shown in this report
are as of August 31, 2002. We did not independently verify the dollar
amounts reported in OSD‘s and the services‘ budgets, nor did we
independently verify the amount of funding OSD, the services, and the
Joint Staff reportedly allocated for their ADL programs.
To determine major challenges affecting OSD‘s, the services‘ and the
Joint Staff‘s ADL program implementation, we provided ADL program
officials a detailed list of questions that included specific questions
related to challenges ADL program managers face that affect their
ability to execute programs that achieve their expectations. We
reviewed their written responses, if provided, and followed up with
face-to-face-interviews to clarify or obtain additional information as
necessary. We did a comparative analysis of the comments they provided.
We compiled a list of challenges for OSD, each service, and the Joint
Staff. We provided the lists to each for their review and verification.
The challenges cited by ADL officials were grouped into four basic
categories. During our exit briefing, we provided ADL representatives
from OSD, the services, and the Joint Staff with a summary of the
challenges noted during our review and asked for their comments. It was
the consensus of those ADL program officials that the challenges we
identified are valid.
We did not assess the effectiveness of the programs at this time
because most are in the early stages of implementation.
[End of section]
Appendix II; Timeline of Key Events, Directives and Guidance for DOD‘s
ADL Programs:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense:
PERSONNEL AND READINESS:
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 4000 DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-4000:
February 20, 2003:
Mr. Neal P. Curtin:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
US General Accounting Office Washington DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Cumin,
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the General
Accounting Office (GAO) draft report, GAO-03-393, ’MILITARY
TRANSFORMATION: Progress and Challenges for DOD‘s Advanced Distributed
Learning Programs“ dated January 24, 2003. The Department concurs with
the draft report as presented.
Your report closely captures the present baseline of Advanced
Distributed Learning (AD L) for the Office of the Secretary of Defense
and Services. While concurring with the report, the Department makes
the following observations:
* ADL is an evolving program and is a critical enabler for transforming
DoD training.
* Beyond the successes identified in the report, there are numerous
excellent ADL projects that are ongoing within various DoD Components
and Agencies.
* The ADL effort has been recognized by national organizations with
awards for its leadership role in establishing a new distributed
learning framework for government, industry, and academia.
The Department appreciates the evaluation team‘s inclusion of our
previously provided informal comments and this opportunity to provide
further comments on the draft report. Technical comments were also
provided to the GAO for consideration in the final report.
Sincerely,
Signed by Paul W. Mayberry:
Paul W. Mayberry Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Readiness:
FOOTNOTES
[1] This amount includes the cost of conducting school training,
including instructor‘s pay; classroom availability and operation;
course development; and student‘s military pay, billeting cost, and
temporary duty costs.
[2] Generally, formal military training and education occurs at
centralized training facilities and lasts weeks or months.
[3] Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, Strategic Plan for Transforming DOD Training, March 1, 2002.
In this plan the definition of ’training“ is expanded to include
training, education, and job performance aiding. OSD‘s training
transformation implementation plan should be completed by March 2003.
[4] Reusable content includes, but is not limited to, courseware,
tutorials, and case studies; networks are Intra-or Internet based; and
learning management systems are operating systems that provide access
to ’content objects“ and help register, track, and administer courses
to a given student population.
[5] William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense, Report of the Quadrennial
Defense Review, May 1997.
[6] A continuum is defined as a whole characterized as a collection,
sequence, or progression of elements varying by minute degrees.
[7] Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, Report to the 106th Congress, Department of Defense
Strategic Plan for Advanced Distributed Learning, Apr. 30, 1999.
[8] Public Law 105-261, sec. 378, Oct. 17, 1998.
[9] Exec. Order 13,111, Using Technology to Improve Training
Opportunities for Federal Government Employees, sec. 4 (c), Jan. 12,
1999.
[10] Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Readiness),
Director for Readiness and Training, Department of Defense
Implementation Plan for Advanced Distributed Learning, May 19, 2000.
[11] Joint professional military education is a Joint Chief of Staff-
approved body of objectives, policies, procedures, and standards
supporting the educational requirements for joint officer development.
[12] Defense Acquisition University, the ’corporate university“ for
DOD, provides the acquisition, technology, and logistics community with
learning products and services. Its distance learning program currently
provides 19 on-line courses.
[13] National Guard Bureau‘s GuardNet, the NGB‘s wide-area network, was
initially established to support Web-based distance learning for its
units in the states, the U.S. territories, and the District of
Columbia. GuardNet, a network of interconnected federal and state
military networks across the United States, can connect to a defense
network operated by the Defense Information Systems Agency, and through
this network to the Internet. GuardNet has recently been used to
support homeland security activities such as emergency command and
control functions, airport security activities coordination, and public
service announcements.
[14] U.S. General Accounting Office, National Guard: Effective
Management Processes Needed for Wide-Area Network, GAO-02-959
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 24, 2002).
[15] For this report, access refers to the availability and ability to
access computer hardware, sufficient bandwidth to support multimedia,
interactive course content, and/or available duty time to accomplish
ADL.
[16] DOD policies and regulations include, but may not be limited to,
Department of Defense Directive 1200.16, Contracted Civilian-Acquired
Training (CCAT) for Reserve Components, May 30,1990; Department of
Defense Directive 1322.18, Military Training, Jan. 9, 1987; Department
of Defense Directive 1430.13, Training Simulators and Devices, Aug. 22,
1986; Department of Defense Directive 8320.1, DOD Data Administration,
Sept. 26, 1991; Department of Defense Directive 8000.1, Management of
DOD Information Resources and Information Technology, Feb. 27, 2002;
and Department of Defense Instruction 5200.40, DOD Information
Technology Security Certification and Accreditation Process, Dec. 30,
1997.
[17] Department of the Army, Army Regulation 350-1, Army Training, Aug.
1, 1983.
[18] U.S. General Accounting Office, Distance Learning: Opportunities
Exist for DOD to Capitalize on Services‘ Efforts, GAO/NSIAD-98-63R
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 18, 1997). We reported that the resolution of
funding and budgeting issues would benefit the services‘ distance
learning initiatives. These issues are the (1) extent of investment
that will be needed to convert selected courses and delivery
infrastructures; (2) dollar savings that can be realized; (3) impact on
the current training infrastructure, in terms of requirements for
instructors, training developers, training equipment, course
maintenance, and training facility operations; and (4) process for
budgeting for long-term use of distance learning. Distance learning is
structured training that can take place almost anywhere and anytime
without the physical presence of an instructor and may use one or more
media but, unlike ADL, does not emphasize the use of reusable objects,
networks, and learning management systems.
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548: