In 2002, RAND Project AIR FORCE studied the data systems used by the Air Education and Training Command (AETC) to manage training costs and capacities. The schoolhouse model, developed to inform policy decisions regarding technical training pipeline issues, grew out of this study. The model examines resources used and training limitations encountered during the execution of a training program. At the same time, the AETC Studies and Analysis Squadron (SAS) built a similar set of planning and execution assessment tools. RAND and AETC SAS agreed to combine the schoolhouse portion of their efforts into one model. The purpose of this report is to provide front-end users of the schoolhouse model with a reference for collecting and implementing data; it also briefly describes the simulation model and its uses. The model is potentially useful for evaluating changes in production and resources, highlighting resource bottlenecks, providing insight into classroom details such as empty seats and the rate of individuals who prove ineffective in training, and changes in production resulting from changes in resources, course syllabi, and washback and attrition rates.
The Air Force typically trains 30,000 to 40,000 new airmen in some 300 specialties each year. It utilizes two methods for training its enlistees: centralized initial skills training (IST, or "schoolhouse" training) and decentralized on-the-job training (OJT). All too often, only IST costs are considered when "pricing" training, seriously underestimating the overall cost to train an airman. When all the costs are considered, including those of OJT, decisions related to the length of IST can be better informed. To determine the most cost-effective combination of IST and OJT, the authors developed a methodology based on a cost-benefit analysis of seven Air Force specialties. From a statistical analysis of data taken from surveys of senior enlisted personnel, they were able to assess how productivity changes when IST course length changes and to make recommendations concerning the IST course lengths that would produce the most productive airmen for the least possible cost.
Air Force members who do not routinely cross a defended perimeter when deployed may not have received sufficient training for doing so when they need to. The authors conducted surveys and interviews to determine the kinds of experiences airmen have had "outside the wire," worked with subject-matter experts to categorize them and suggest training levels, and developed a series of recommendations for course content and further areas for study.
The Air Force typically trains 30,000 to 40,000 new airmen in some 300 specialties each year. It utilizes two methods for training its enlistees: centralized initial skills training (IST, or "schoolhouse" training) and decentralized on-the-job training (OJT). All too often, only IST costs are considered when "pricing" training, seriously underestimating the overall cost to train an airman. When all the costs are considered, including those of OJT, decisions related to the length of IST can be better informed. To determine the most cost-effective combination of IST and OJT, the authors developed a methodology based on a cost-benefit analysis of seven Air Force specialties. From a statistical analysis of data taken from surveys of senior enlisted personnel, they were able to assess how productivity changes when IST course length changes and to make recommendations concerning the IST course lengths that would produce the most productive airmen for the least possible cost.
Air Force members who do not routinely cross a defended perimeter when deployed may not have received sufficient training for doing so when they need to. The authors conducted surveys and interviews to determine the kinds of experiences airmen have had "outside the wire," worked with subject-matter experts to categorize them and suggest training levels, and developed a series of recommendations for course content and further areas for study.
In 2002, RAND Project AIR FORCE studied the data systems used by the Air Education and Training Command (AETC) to manage training costs and capacities. The schoolhouse model, developed to inform policy decisions regarding technical training pipeline issues, grew out of this study. The model examines resources used and training limitations encountered during the execution of a training program. At the same time, the AETC Studies and Analysis Squadron (SAS) built a similar set of planning and execution assessment tools. RAND and AETC SAS agreed to combine the schoolhouse portion of their efforts into one model. The purpose of this report is to provide front-end users of the schoolhouse model with a reference for collecting and implementing data; it also briefly describes the simulation model and its uses. The model is potentially useful for evaluating changes in production and resources, highlighting resource bottlenecks, providing insight into classroom details such as empty seats and the rate of individuals who prove ineffective in training, and changes in production resulting from changes in resources, course syllabi, and washback and attrition rates.
The goal of this study was to help establish the strategic design for a comprehensive system to assess and manage the cost and capacity of the Air Force's pipeline for enlisted technical training. The study team concluded that such a system is useful only insofar as it supports the decision processes necessary for managing effective training. Therefore, this report examines training management and decision processes to determine the need for data to support informed decisionmaking. It briefly reviews training management systems and associated organizational arrangements in the other services and the private sector to draw insights for a model management system for the Air Force. The study identifies impediments to training planning and management in the current Air Force organizational structure that inhibit the flow of cost and capacity data and hinder effective decisionmaking. It also outlines analytic developments that could help convert raw data into information useful for decisionmakers.
The Air Force has a continuing interest in reducing high attrition and training-block failure (washback) rates, as both increase training and recruiting costs. This report describes research into these issues for nine career fields.
Examines educational approaches that would customize U.S. Air Force training to the individual, with the intent of minimizing time in training, focusing on the trainee's needs, and getting the trainee productive sooner, all leading to reduced costs. Recommends that the Air Force conduct some experiments with Air Force vocational training before implementation across Air Force training is considered.
Because test scores that are part of its enlisted promotion system are not standardized, the U.S. Air Force effectively emphasizes longevity and test-taking ability differently across and within specialties, and this emphasis varies randomly over time. The random aspects of the promotion reward system mean that the Air Force cannot be sure that it is selecting individuals with the highest potential to fill positions of increased grade and responsibility. Furthermore, not standardizing scores means that some specialties randomly produce higher percentages of senior non-commissioned officers. The authors discuss a range of outcomes that the Air Force could achieve by adopting various standardization strategies. They propose a modification that would not change the policy of equal selection opportunity but would affect selection outcomes within specialties. They recommend that the Air Force implement a standardization strategy that will produce predictable outcomes that are consistent with its personnel priorities and policies.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.