Eliciting Tactical Knowledge and what happened next…. James W. Lussier, PhD Barbara A. Black, PhD US Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences 7-8 November 2006

To sleep, perchance to dream… William Shakespeare --from Hamlet (III, i, 65-68)

“66 Stories” Elicit knowledge from tactical/battle command experts Elicitation method –“Tell us a good story” –“What lesson did you learn?” Share knowledge and improve performance of: –Battalion Commanders –Brigade Commanders Use in School for Command Preparation at Fort Leavenworth

Story #22

What did we learn from 66 Stories? Lesson or concept tied only to one story is more difficult to generalize to new situations Need to categorize stories; to find common themes Need to find ways of training cognitive skills that are more interactive

Activities Specifically Designed to Improve Performance Deliberately Training Behavior Identify desired elements for expert form Learner performs while attending to element Coach notes discrepancies from expert form Behavior is repeated until habitual Performance without attending to element

Expert Patterns of Battlefield Thinking  Model a thinking enemy.  Consider effects of terrain.  Keep a focus on mission accomplishment and higher commander's intent.  Use all elements/systems available.  Include considerations of timing.  Exhibit visualizations that are dynamic and proactive.  Consider contingencies and remain flexible.  Consider how your fight fits into the bigger picture from friendly and enemy perspectives.

Cognitive Battle Drills Think Like a Commander Method Case-based Performance oriented Theme-based coaching Probes facilitate observation & measurement Repetitive performance - varying conditions Aimed at ingraining expert habits Allow officers to model their battlefield understandings, plans, visualizations, and decisions after expert tacticians’ thinking patterns.

reflect the cognitive acts characteristic of experts support the deliberate training of cognitive behaviors support transition to more engaging and more interactive training the right level of generality  Model a thinking enemy.  Consider effects of terrain.  Keep a focus on mission accomplishment and higher commander's intent.  Use all elements/systems available.  Include considerations of timing.  Exhibit visualizations that are dynamic and proactive.  Consider contingencies and remain flexible.  Consider how your fight fits into the bigger picture from friendly and enemy perspectives. Exemplar Tactical Themes: Characteristics of Useful Themes

Students select a vignette. 1 Battlefield situation is presented. 2 Tactical Thinking Training

Students list their considerations. Time limit begins at 15 minutes gradually reduced to 3 minutes. 3 Instructor leads group discussion. 4 Overview of the Training Method

Students score themselves on the indicators and receive feedback based on the themes. 5 Overview of the Training Method

Key Features of the Situation: Examples of Considerations If I have good success, can we still use PL DIME as the battle handoff? Will the movement delay affect my ability to accomplish my mission? How will the enemy try to exploit the brigade’s disrupted timing in its movements? Can I get division fire support to destroy the enemy between IOWA and DIME? Do I need additional engineers to prepare the passage lanes in time? Can I cross the LD prior to 0530 if the rest of the TF is not prepared? Will crossing the LD prior to 0530 create unacceptable risks to my flanks? How long will it take me to secure the passage lanes? How long before the other units arrive? Will I be asked to continue the fight north if there is little enemy resistance?

Theme-Based Training Method F(1, 23) = 19.62, p <.05

Measurement of Adaptive Thinking F(1, 134) = 7.619, p. <.05 NS Overall: F(1,134) = , p <.05 F(1, 134) = , p. <.05 NS

Adaptive Thinking Training Modes of Delivery Classroom Distributed (Internet) Instructorless (DVD/Internet)

Train a Variety of Topic Areas Tactical thinking (TLAC) Leadership at junior officer levels (Army Green) Crisis action planning and execution (Red Cape)

Army Green Process Researchers surveyed and/or interviewed 120 Lieutenants and 90 Captains “Describe a situation you felt ill-prepared to manage during your initial weeks or months as a Platoon Leader” Five Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) and two research psychologists analyzed the stories and developed 10 themes

Army Green Structure

Themes and Definitions Theme Definition 1. Be Proactive Strive to improve people, facilities, equipment, training, and resources. 2. Be Humble Be aware of strengths and weaknesses and seek self-improvement. 3. When In Charge, Take Charge Analyze a situation thoroughly and in a timely manner, determine what is important, and decide what needs to be done. 4. Be Approachable Exhibit humility, avoid a condescending attitude, and strive to understand individuals based on their own ideas, qualifications, and contributions. 5. Be Confident Believe in yourself and in your NCO’s. 6. Be Consistent Set expectations (set powerbase early) and reliably maintain standards. 7. Be a Good Communicator Listen carefully to verbal and non-verbal messages and ensure understanding of your intent. 8. Be a Learner Capitalize on experiences and heed (recognize the value of) constructive criticism for self-improvement and professional development. Be willing to innovate and adapt. 9. Be a Role Model Inspire and motivate by performing with personal courage, making ethical choices, and embodying army values and the warrior ethos. 10. Know Your Soldiers Understand their perspective and know their capabilities (use XO, NCO’s, and approach your Soldiers).

Training Method 1. Describe the problem ___________ 2. Describe the PL challenge _______ 3. What was best COA? ___________ 4. What is the best COA now? ______ Read vignette with a non-tactical problem Write answers to the non-tactical problem 1 2

Training Method 3 Experts rate (1-7) the participants’ answers 4 Expert Rater Ingrain themes through a series of realistic vignettes Discuss problem and theme-based solutions 3

Sample Vignette

Expert Solution The LT failed to balance Army standards with relationship development and safety. There could be a clinical reason the Soldier could not run. His safety and those around him can be at risk if this is not addressed before deployment. A full medical checkup was warranted. The LT did not understand his own influence on the promotion system. Once he indicated that the Soldier passed the APFT, the Soldier’s promotion status is out of the LT’s control. Barring a medical condition causing the poor performance, the LT did not know the Soldier well enough to be able to motivate him and did not use his NCOs, such as tasking for development of a remedial PT program. The LT did not provide fair and consistent treatment for each of his Soldiers, negatively impacting unit morale. Falsifying the report damaged his own credibility with unit and up chain of command also (if he will falsify report, what else will he do?). Now, the LT must counsel the Soldier indicating that future APFTs will not be falsified and that he has to embark on a program that will enhance his chances of passing. The LT should admit his mistake to the PSG and ask him to help with damage control. PSG will handle NCO’s. The lesson learned is to never compromise standards and commit to upholding standards from now on.

Crisis Action Planning (RedCape) Approach: ●Conducted elicitation sessions with experts using complex realistic situation snapshots (Over 75 elicitation sessions were conducted). ●Allowed participants to “leave their fingerprints on the vignettes,” that is, the elicitation procedure incorporated the ideas and assessments of participants. ●Developed methods to synthesize concepts and present conclusions. Partners in Development: ●The Indiana Army National Guard ●Indiana Department of Homeland Security/ State Emergency Management Agency ●Indiana Department of Environmental Management ●Indiana Department of Transportation ●Transportation Security Administration ●Bartholomew County Emergency Management Agency ●Marion County Emergency Management Agency ●Indiana State Police ●Columbus County Police Department ●Indianapolis Fire Department ●Fort Wayne Fire Department ●Columbus County Fire Department

Expert Themes for RedCape ●Maintain Focus on Mission Priorities. ●Keep Chain of Command Flexible. ●See the Big Picture. ●Plan for and Recognize Decision (Trigger) Points. ●Reprioritize as Necessary. ●Use All Available Assets. ●Think in Shades of Gray, not Black and White. ●Model a Dynamic Situation. ●Understand the Public Need.

Multimedia Vignettes with Expert Considerations 1. Power Grid Shutdown 2. Industrial Plant Explosion in Gary, IN 3. Dirty Bomb 4. Capital Punishment of a High Profile Criminal 5. Storm of the Century 6. Severe Earthquake along New Madrid fault 7. Sports Riot in University Town 8. Vehicle Accident with HAZMAT in a Rural Area 9. Prison Riot with Helicopter Crash 10. Nuclear Bomb in Shipping Container 11. Airplane Crash in Restricted Area 12. Animal Borne Disease in Stockyard 13. Industrial Plant Fire Explosion Near INANG Headquarters 14. Rail Yard Explosion 15. INANG Arrives in Theater

Cognitive Skills Training Process Elicit knowledge from experts using storytelling Identify themes Develop realistic vignettes (partial stories) Build in measures of performance Adapt to variety of media Apply to variety of topics Research ways to speed the process

References Lussier, J. W., & Shadrick, S. B. (2003). Adaptive thinking training for tactical leaders. Paper presented at the Human Factors & Medicine Panel Symposium on Advanced Technologies for Military Training. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Genoa, Italy. Lussier, J. W., Shadrick, S. B., & Prevou, M. I. (2003). Think Like a Commander prototype: Instructor’s guide to adaptive thinking (Research Product ). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavior and Social Sciences.* Shadrick, S. B. & Lussier, J. W. (2002). The application of Think Like a Commander in the Armor Captains Career Course. Presented at the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation & Education Conference, Orlando, Florida. Shadrick, S. B. & Lussier, J. W. (2004). Assessment of the Think Like a Commander training program. (ARI Research Report 1824) Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavior and Social Sciences.* * Can be obtained from the Defense Technical Information Center at

POCs James W. Lussier, PhD –ARI SCO Ft Bragg Barbara A. Black, PhD –ARI Unit Chief Ft Knox –DSN