Linking “Training and Readiness”
Dr. Laura Junor, the Defense
Readiness Reporting System director and scientific adviser for the Office of the Secretary of Defense Readiness Programming
and Assessment Division, wrote in Joint Forces Quarterly that DRRS is shifting the focus of force managers from tracking unit
readiness to understanding force capabilities. One of the major goals for the Training Transformation is to link training
with readiness. The key phrases “Mission Rehearsal” and “Training Transparency” reverberate throughout
the readiness through training linkages. DOD Directives clearly call for training in conditions resembling, as close as possible,
the circumstances and conditions a force will actually face in its future mission performance.
The Joint Training
System significantly assists commanders in articulating their mission performance requirements as METLs, building the training
programs to attain and sustain MET proficiency, and developing realistic simulations, stimulations and emulations via the
Joint National Training Capability (JNTC) relationships to enhance the joint context of service training and exercises. “Training
Transparency” means we “Train like we fight, and Fight like we train.” To make it more fully applicable
across the ROMO, we can say we practice our TTP the way we expect to operate when employed in the real world.
And since we are NMETL-based,
our training standards can be set to reflect our mission performance standards- and often they can be the same! So now, in
our mission rehearsal efforts, commanders will learn how to monitor their NMETs’ processes as well as their outcomes
and products. As leaders focus on attaining “efficient excellence,” their command perspective- from tactical to
operational to strategic- will be refined as they apply this systems-thinking approach to building mission readiness.
The DRRS Theory as “Confidence”
DRRS depends on expressing MET readiness in a manner that we can accumulate into Total Readiness. Commanders must
assess the readiness for their organizations to meet performance expectations for each NMET for every assigned mission. Therefore,
a need exists for a global system or process to maintain the “Expected Performance Status” of every NMET. One
way to say that might be “Readiness is an expression of ‘Confidence’ that when called on for a mission,
a unit will perform its mission-essential tasks to standards under the given conditions.” Anything we do to increase
that level of performance confidence, increases readiness: Training, Maintenance, more qualified or experienced Personnel,
better Doctrine… The improved performance and confidence can come along any “DOTMLPF-P” line.
A sample Cruiser (CG) CO’s NMET
evaluation for DRRS follows:
NTA 3.2.2 Attack enemy land targets.
Assessment: Yes (Green)
on the following:
- Ship recently demonstrated ability to meet all standards—and those standards
are traceable to COCOM mission requirements.
- No new DOTMLPF-P to incorporate.
- No changes
to “METT-TC” or watch teams. (Simplifies mission rehearsal.)
- Task performance
history shows continual success.
- Moreover, all ESORTS categories (Personnel, Equipment, Supply, Ordnance, Training and Facilities)
show no degradations affecting mission task performance.
Note that NMET standards (Mission performance requirements) drive resource (or DOTMLPF-P systems) requirements which
then lead to Human Performance Requirements!