Information Security Warfare Systems - CTC Bremerton Instructional ...

ADL SCORM 2004 Demonstration
Information Security Warfare Systems
(ISWS) Course Conversion
Lessons Learned
May 14, 2004
®
Concurrent
Technologies
Corporation

ADL SCORM 2004 Demonstration: ISWS Course Conversion Lessons Learned
1.0 BACKGROUND
During the summer of 2003, the Bremerton, Washington office of Concurrent Technologies
Corporation (CTC) converted a CD-ROM based course to a Web-based SCORM 1.2 conformant
course.
The course is part of Information Security Warfare Systems (ISWS) training at the National
Defense University (NDU). The content serves as a supplement to a classroom-based course
(either group or lab setting) for network security professionals. It contains approximately 4-5
hours of training on appropriate responses to cyber attacks, including protection, detection,
assessment, recovery, and treatment.
The conversion team explored and documented instructional design and technical issues
associated with converting the course to a SCORM 1.2 conformant Web format. In addition, the
team identified interoperability issues associated with running the course on multiple Learning
Management Systems (LMS).
2.0 PROJECT SCOPE
In the spring of 2004, CTC undertook a project to convert the previously developed SCORM 1.2
conformant ISWS training to SCORM 2004. In addition to producing SCORM 2004 conformant
content for demonstration purposes, the CTC team agreed to analyze and document technical,
instructional, and project management issues noted during the project. Primarily a research and
development task, the goal was to provide the SCORM development community with sample
content illustrating sequencing specification, and a discussion of development issues impacting
the process. As with the previous conversion, one of the objectives was to accomplish the
SCORM 2004 conversion with minimal retrofit to the content itself.
This document contains the discussion of development issues, specifically focusing on lessons
learned during the project. It is intended to provide practical advice about the design and
development of SCORM 2004 conformant training content to instructional designers,
developers, and project managers.
3.0 SCORM 2004 DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT
The CTC project team in Bremerton, Washington, is representative of project teams in the
current SCORM development community. The team has had successful experience in
developing for previous versions of SCORM for a variety of projects. A case study of one of
these projects, Systems-level Oil Spill Prevention Training, is available on ADLNet.
Conversion of the ISWS course was the project team’s first experience in developing for
SCORM 2004, providing a representative example of what a team in the development
community might experience when first encountering the 2004 specification, whether for the
purpose of converting existing content or creating new content.
While this document outlines the experience of one development team for the benefit of others, it
should be noted that the environment necessary to support the delivery of SCORM 2004
CTC Bremerton, May 14, 2004 2

ADL SCORM 2004 Demonstration: ISWS Course Conversion Lessons Learned
conformant content is still evolving. Consequently, no immediate, sweeping impact is expected
in the SCORM development community. Compatible LMSs are still maturing at the time of this
project, and when SCORM 2004 conformant LMSs are released, it is anticipated that they will
have the capability to support previous versions of SCORM. However, it is reasonable to expect
that many organizations, responding to business needs over time, will want to convert existing
training content to be SCORM 2004 conformant.
4.0 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
For this project, the development team slightly modified their standard design and development
process. The scope of work specified the existing training content, which eliminated the need for
some of the usual analysis and design activities concerning audience, content, and context. The
focus was on modifying the instructional design of the SCORM 1.2 version in order to benefit
from the capabilities of sequencing in SCORM 2004.
Instructional design and development followed an iterative cycle. The development followed the
requirements outlined in the instructional design. This design was reviewed and revised at
several points in the process, impacting the development. At each of these points, increased
understanding of SCORM 2004 allowed for quality improvement and refining of the product.
Since this project converted existing content, the manifest was the focus of the development
effort. The SCORM 2004 documentation was the main guide; ADL team members supplied
additional expertise as needed. A content-free prototype, using placeholders for the SCOs and
Assets, was created to test the sequencing outlined in the manifest. SCOs and Assets containing
the content were developed independently and later mapped to the completed manifest. The
entire training package was then tested and refined into a final version.
5.0 LESSONS LEARNED
The lessons learned are presented in an order that reflects the design and development process
followed during the project.
1. No matter what their role, all team members should know and understand issues related to
all parts of the design and development process.
This may appear obvious, as it also applies to projects that aren’t designed to SCORM.
However, understanding the issues related to designing and developing for SCORM is especially
critical to instructional integrity because SCORM defines a set of requirements previously left to
individual organizations, affecting both design and development. Instructional designers need a
working knowledge of the technical capabilities of SCORM and the relevant LMS(s) in order to
create activities that will work in those environments. Developers have to become more
involved in the design, in order to provide expertise and suggestions for functionality. Designing
and developing to SCORM 2004 can vary the way resources are allocated to a project, requiring
project managers to understand how SCORM requirements can impact cost and schedule. For
instance, more time tends to be required to design context-neutral pieces of content in
conjunction with pieces that add the necessary context to tie a program together.
CTC Bremerton, May 14, 2004 3

ADL SCORM 2004 Demonstration: ISWS Course Conversion Lessons Learned
2. Content examples are an efficient tool for learning and assimilating SCORM, particularly
the more complicated aspects like sequencing. They can also serve to jump-start the
development process by providing source code.
Before beginning the project, the project team reviewed the SCORM 2004 Photoshop Examples
Version 1.0 available on ADLNet and another content example demonstrated at PlugFest 8. The
examples demonstrated the different possibilities for sequencing and provided code that could be
dissected for greater understanding of how sequencing works. Viewing and discussing the
examples also led to a deeper understanding of the ways SCORM can be used. For instance, the
team noted that any content that didn’t need to communicate with the LMS defaulted to being an
Asset, resulting in fewer SCOs.
Working through the content examples as a group prompted solid discussion about the content
organization of the ISWS course, resulting in the definition of basic sequencing rules and an
activity tree. The content examples also established a basis for the design of the manifest.
The creation of more content examples and sequencing models geared towards the development
community is anticipated. As a library of models and examples emerges, and developers find it
easy to adapt a wide variety of existing code to their own needs, new applications of SCORM
2004 will proliferate in the development community.
3. Determining the course structure is a collaborative process that starts with logical rules
and gradually incorporates the technical requirements related to SCORM.
Drawing from their previous design and development experience and the experience with the
SCORM 2004 content examples, the project team developed the ISWS course in a series of
iterations. Solid instructional design was the first consideration for the organization of the
content. The next consideration was how the learner would experience that content, dictating
how the pieces of content would interact with each other. At this point, it was necessary to start
examining the available sequencing options and defining SCOs and Assets.
In essence, the activity tree became a storyboard for sequencing. At the beginning of the project,
the team thought two versions of the course activity tree should be developed. One would
contain the logical structure and rules and would be the activity tree the project team would agree
on and work from. It would also be used to communicate with clients and stakeholders and
would be included in design documentation. The second version of the activity tree would take
the logical rules and translate them into the technical rules and structure required by SCORM. It
was thought that this activity tree would be used primarily for development, but could also be
included in design documentation, depending on the requirements of the project.
As development progressed, however, the team realized that the manifest itself really became the
documentation, and reference was rarely made to the technical activity tree. So while the logical
activity tree still has value, one that defines all the technical rules may not be necessary.
Nevertheless, a technical activity tree is a useful learning tool for developers and has therefore
been included as a supplement to this document.
CTC Bremerton, May 14, 2004 4

ADL SCORM 2004 Demonstration: ISWS Course Conversion Lessons Learned
Definition of the technical rules, through the manifest or an activity tree, may necessitate review
of or changes to the logical rules. For the ISWS course, several iterations were required before
the project team felt that they met both the intended instructional design and the functional
requirements of SCORM. The resulting activity trees are included at the end of this document.
4. While the whole team needs a solid understanding of the SCORM specification, the
instructional designers and developers in particular need to collaborate very closely, right
from the beginning of the design phase.
The team repeatedly discussed the question of how thoroughly instructional designers need to
understand the technical rules related to sequencing and SCORM 2004. After developing the
first iteration of the activity tree, the perception was that instructional designers need to have a
comprehensive knowledge of the functions and applications of sequencing rules. Later on, it
appeared to be possible for instructional designers to simply define logical rules in natural
language and hand them off to the developers, who would translate them into technical
sequencing rules.
The general consensus by the end of the project was that an early and healthy collaboration needs
to be established between instructional designers and developers, much as in any design and
development project. From the instructional design perspective, the level of technical know-how
needed to design for SCORM 2004 shouldn’t be any different than the level needed to design for
other delivery methods. For example, in writing a video script, instructional designers need to
understand basic camera angles, editing transitions, and other technical skills related to video
work, even if they won’t be shooting or editing the video themselves. An understanding of how
the developer will work with the content is necessary for an effective instructional design. The
greater this knowledge is, the more efficiencies are likely to be gained.
From the development perspective, including developers in the design phase and encouraging
their input on how to use the media, is already standard in a progressive ISD team environment.
The conclusion was that this is especially crucial with SCORM 2004, as experienced developers
will understand the complexities of sequencing. If they are in close communication with
instructional designers, they can influence the design decisions that will drive the use of the
specification.
Eventually, tools that bridge the gap between instructional design and the technical requirements
of SCORM may serve the same purpose, but in the meantime, collaboration from the early stages
of design may result in significant efficiencies.
5. Taxonomies can be designed to increase potential flexibility and reusability.
ADL has purposefully refrained from referring to course structure using terms like “modules,”
“lessons,” or “sections.” This gives designers the flexibility in structuring and naming
components of courses. It also allows the context-neutral content to be reassembled in a number
of different structures. This approach is demonstrated in ISWS, driven by the goal of having
smaller pieces of content and more flexibility in the way the pieces could be potentially be
reused. The naming conventions used in the ISWS taxonomy refer to the content itself, using
CTC Bremerton, May 14, 2004 5

ADL SCORM 2004 Demonstration: ISWS Course Conversion Lessons Learned
terms such as “ISWS,” “Attack Class,” and “Attack.” Consequently, a piece of content that was
part of a lesson in this course could be reused as part of a module, a quiz, or a section in another
course. The structure of this taxonomy is shown in the activity tree.
6. To take full advantage of sequencing functionalities in SCORM 2004, content needs to be
as granular as possible, though any redesign to achieve this in a conversion project will mean
additional development costs.
During the design of the ISWS course to the SCORM 2004 specification, the project team grew
to understand the flexibility that sequencing provided. In contrast to the SCORM 1.2 version,
the SCORM 2004 version was redesigned to have fewer SCOs and more Assets, providing for
increased reusability. The only SCOs in the training content consist of test questions, which
must communicate with the LMS to track learner performance.
Redevelopment of the SCOs and Assets to accomplish this fuller use of sequencing requires
additional development resources. In addition, having more pieces of content creates more effort
for the development of metadata and the manifest. Such decisions should be driven by business
need.
7. Objectives, while responsible for providing structure to the course instructional design and
the learner experience, can also function as technical requirements.
With SCORM 2004, objectives can become critical to sequencing and navigation. In non-
SCORM 2004 content, the objective would normally guide the development of the content and
assessment items, but remain essentially a reference point for the instructional design. In
SCORM 2004 development, they may be used as milestones critical to tracking student progress.
In this case, if the sequencing model dictates that the satisfaction of an instructional objective
signals completion, the objective itself has a technical role to play in the manifest.
There is no requirement for instructional and technical objectives to match. In fact, in this
conversion, the stated learner objectives are different from the technical objectives that track
learner progress. This is a function of the retrofit. In the creation of new training, instructional
soundness will result from technical objectives that are a direct reflection of instructional
objectives.
8. The learning curve for sequencing is significant, even for those experienced in previous
versions of SCORM.
Powerful capabilities come at the price of increased complexity. It took time to not only
understand the sequencing rules, but how they are applied and interact with each other and the
LMS. Much of the terminology, which is based on Boolean logic, was new to several team
members. As with any learning curve, development will become increasingly efficient as these
concepts are mastered. It’s expected that tools will evolve to assist in the development process.
CTC Bremerton, May 14, 2004 6

ADL SCORM 2004 Demonstration: ISWS Course Conversion Lessons Learned
9. Adding context to otherwise context-neutral content requires ingenuity.
During the conversion, the SCOs and Assets for the ISWS course were broken into small, almost
completely context-neutral pieces of content, containing no information related to the course
structure. In addition, many of the Assets are reused at multiple points within the ISWS course.
Consequently, the directory structure became the default mechanism for providing feedback
about a learner’s location in the course.
Since no SCORM 2004 conformant LMSs were available at the time of this conversion project,
the product was tested in the ADL Sample Run-Time Environment (RTE). The RTE does not
provide highlighting, bolding, or any other indication within the directory structure itself that
would alert learners to their location in the training. To add to the problem, every time learners
click on an item in the directory structure, the directory refreshes back to the top. In addition, if
learners satisfy an objective during the pretest, they won’t see the related training. The original
design called for the titles of the satisfied material to be displayed in the directory structure, but
grayed out. This was intended to provide the learners with the overall content structure.
However, sequencing functionality did not allow for items to be grayed out – they had to
disappear entirely. As LMS vendors develop SCORM 2004 conformant products,
redevelopment of the manifest may be necessary in order to accommodate navigation differences
between LMSs.
The result of these situations is understandable confusion for learners who do not already
understand the content organization, or those who choose a non-linear path through the training.
In the case of the ISWS course, the challenge of providing context was compounded by the fact
that several of the Assets were reused within the course. While this demonstrates true
reusability, it added to the confusion.
In an effort to provide context, two strategies were employed. First, a new course introduction
was developed to explain how the course works and list all the content covered. Learners may
return to that introduction at any time to review the entire content list. Second, titles were added
to the onscreen presentation of the SCOs and Assets by calling parameters from the manifest.
These “dynamic titles” display the content hierarchy directly in the content. The titles were not
part of the original design, but during testing it became apparent that the lack of context
detracted from the quality of the training. Consequently, the necessary resources were applied to
add the parameters.
10. Getting the exact sequencing behavior desired may take a little creativity.
The instructional design required learners to complete the introduction upon entering the course.
The introduction consists of two parts – an explanation of how the course works, and a list of the
content. The project team had determined that learners needed to be able to return to the
introduction at any point. This created a bit of a challenge as the sequencing rules did not allow
learners to easily return to the required introduction once it had been completed. The solution
was to add a duplicate introduction to the content cluster that is automatically skipped, but still
available to learners as an item in the directory structure.
CTC Bremerton, May 14, 2004 7

ADL SCORM 2004 Demonstration: ISWS Course Conversion Lessons Learned
11. Content-free prototypes provide value by creating efficiencies in the development of new
sequencing strategies.
The project team decided to create a content-free prototype to test the SCORM 2004 manifest.
The addition of sequencing added a great deal of complexity and it was desirable to separate it
initially from the content. Thus, content-free placeholders were used in the initial versions of the
product.
The process turned out to be very practical and resulted in a number of efficiencies. First of all,
it allowed the developers to focus on the manifest without complications from the content. A
side effect was a reduction in the learning time for sequencing and navigation. Because the
content-free SCOs and Assets were simple html pages, there was also a significant reduction in
the development time required for testing and quality assurance. Once the content was added,
the testing and quality assurance time associated with the manifest increased dramatically.
The manifest is a reflection of the instructional design in the activity tree. That being noted, if an
organization develops sequencing models, the benefits of content-free prototypes would diminish
as bugs are worked out of the system. Those who choose to work with content-free prototypes
should also allow for sufficient testing of the product with the content, which can have its own
issues.
12. Instructional designers and developers can work in parallel.
Once the initial course structure is created, and the sequencing strategy defined, it’s possible for
instructional designers and developers to start working in parallel. For example, while
instructional designers are writing the content, developers can be developing the manifest and
creating and testing a content-free prototype.
13. Navigation is no longer entirely at the discretion of the development team, and
consideration must be taken to ensure learners have a satisfying experience.
SCORM 2004 has a significant impact on end users, compared to previous versions where
SCORM was relatively transparent to the learner. Historically, developers of computer-based
training have designed and controlled the way in which a learner navigates through a course.
With sequencing and SCORM 2004, much of the navigation is controlled by the LMS. SCORM
does not define how this is to be done, and so the same training may be displayed very
differently in different LMSs. It is reasonable to predict that navigational standards will be
developed in the future, but until that time, developers of SCORM conformant courses must pay
particular attention to navigational issues to ensure the learners both context and a smooth
navigational experience. If teams are developing to a known and familiar LMS(s), this could be
relatively simple. It will grow more complex as the number of LMSs to be designed for
increases, or when content must be designed but the LMS is unknown.
Conversion of pre-existing content may require a retrofit of navigation in order to prevent learner
confusion. An objective of this particular conversion was to minimize alterations to the original
content. This resulted in two navigational schemes: the one already incorporated into the SCOs,
CTC Bremerton, May 14, 2004 8

ADL SCORM 2004 Demonstration: ISWS Course Conversion Lessons Learned
and the one in the RTE. User testing revealed the criticality of coping with this issue. A
workaround was created for this particular project, but project teams will want to address the
interaction of dual navigational schemes early in the process. It is not recommended that
navigation internal to SCOs be eliminated altogether, because this navigation frequently provides
options for interactivity and gives the project team more control over the user’s experience.
14. Training should be designed and developed to the LMS(s), not the RTE.
The RTE is an extremely useful tool developers can use to test the operation of their code, but its
purpose is not to simulate an LMS. Since many elements, such as interface and navigational
components, are controlled by the LMS, developers should be careful to design for and test these
elements in the relevant LMS(s).
15. The return on investment (ROI) associated with sequencing will likely come more from
the flexibility and capabilities that sequencing can provide, rather than from an actual costsavings.
The level of effort associated with sequencing is significant. Development time is increased any
time media becomes more complex. The project team found that the ROI inherent to the
previous ISWS SCORM 1.2 version was readily apparent, as it was derived from the reusability
of the content. The majority of development time was spent on the SCOs and Assets. In
contrast, a larger proportion of the development time for the SCORM 2004 version was spent
building and testing the manifest. The sequencing that can be built into a manifest increases
flexibility, options, and allows the implementation of more complicated designs. However, it
also results in a manifest containing a higher ratio of code to actual course content than previous
versions of SCORM. Rather than expecting a development cost savings, the payback from
added complexity should be assessed from other measures, such as training efficiencies, the
meeting of training requirements, or increased training effectiveness. It should also be noted that
some clients or organizations might not desire complex sequencing strategies.
There are many factors that influence the ROI on sequencing. For this particular project, the
learning curve increased the development time. As project teams become more experienced in
sequencing, and development tools are more readily available, that learning curve will gradually
diminish. Another influencing factor is the potential for reuse of a manifest, or portions of a
manifest. Organizations that borrow or create sequencing models are likely to reap a much
higher return on their development efforts.
6.0 SUMMARY
The SCORM 2004 sequencing specification is a robust tool for designers and developers of
instructional training content. A simple conversion from SCORM 1.2 to SCORM 2004, without
applying sequencing, would be fairly straightforward. As this was a research and development
project, the team explored the challenges of redesigning the course structure, determining
content-appropriate sequencing models, and exploring the capabilities of the specification.
However, in applying the new sequencing, the project team experienced a steep learning curve;
at the same time the full potential of sequencing became more and more apparent.
CTC Bremerton, May 14, 2004 9

ADL SCORM 2004 Demonstration: ISWS Course Conversion Lessons Learned
Consensus of the team is that the functionalities inherent in SCORM 2004 will prove to be
extremely beneficial as the development community matures in its understanding of the
specification and LMSs, tools, and models that can support SCORM 2004 become more
plentiful. In the future, databases of content, in the form of SCOs and Assets, will populate
manifests – change the manifest, and you change the course. The power of this instructional tool
in appropriate training situations will be significant.
In summary, this conversion of the SCORM 1.2 conformant ISWS course to SCORM 2004
demonstrates both the complexity and the power of the new specification, advancing ADL’s goal
of creating tools and a development environment that still stimulate conversion of existing
content and creation of new training content.
Contact Information
Design Lead
Rebecca Bodrero, CTC, Boise State University
360-782-5573
bodrero@ctc.com
Technical Lead
Bill Bandrowski, CTC
360-782-5526
band@ctc.com
CTC Bremerton, May 14, 2004 10

ADL SCORM 2004 Demonstration: ISWS Course Conversion Lessons Learned
LOGICAL ACTIVITY TREE PART I
Exit the course if all test scenarios have
been passed in the pretest or posttest.
Pre or posttest satisfaction
maps to course level
satisfaction.
TOC is not visible during
Introduction and Pretest
Introduction
Pretest
ISWS
User loops through
Attacks/Posttest infinitely until all
objectives are satisfied.
ISWS Content
Posttest is same as
Pretest - except those
passed during the pretest
are skipped.
User takes pretest
once only.
Q1
Introduction
Attack Class
Attack Class
Posttest
After pretest, TOC is
built and content flows
to first failed attack.
The pretest is no
longer visible in the
TOC.
Q2
Q3
Q4
Attack *
Attack *
Attack *
Attack *
Attack *
Attack *
Q1
Q2
Q3
User forced through
Introduction before
pretest. Intro is then
available throughout
the Content section.
* See Next Page
Q5
Q6
Each test scenario is a SCO and maps
to a single objective as well as single
attack.
Passing the scenario during the pretest
or posttest results in satisfying the
associated objective.
Attacks for which the
objective has been
satisfied are not
visible in the TOC.
Q4
Q5
Q6
CTC Bremerton, May 14, 2004 11

ADL SCORM 2004 Demonstration: ISWS Course Conversion Lessons Learned
LOGICAL ACTIVITY TREE PART II
Each attack is associated with a
single objective.
If the objective is satisfied during
the pretest or posttest, by passing
the associated scenario, the attack
is not displayed in the TOC.
Trainees are able to
navigate freely between
attacks and safeguards
that are displayed in
the TOC.
Attack*
-- Description
Protection Safeguards
-- Safeguard
-- Safeguard
Detection Safeguards
-- Safeguard
-- Safeguard
Assessment Safeguards
-- Safeguard
-- Safeguard
Recovery Safeguards
-- Safeguard
-- Safeguard
Treatment Safeguards
-- Safeguard
-- Safeguard
The Description
shows the student
how the specific
attack works.
The different phases of an
attack do not contain content,
but provide context within the
TOC to show the overall
structure of the attack.
Safeguards are actual content
items (assets). Since a single
safeguard may be applicable
to any number of attacks, they
are reused throughout the
course and are context
neutral.
Safeguards are purposely not
named in the TOC, as they
could provide the answers to
test items.
CTC Bremerton, May 14, 2004 12

ADL SCORM 2004 Demonstration: ISWS Course Conversion Lessons Learned
TECHNICAL ACTIVITY TREE PART I
Sequencing Control Mode: Flow = true, Choice = false
Choiceexit = false, forward only = true
Rollup Rules: Course Objective
Exit Rule: Exit if satisfied
Limit Condition: Attempt limit = 1
Sequencing Control Mode: Flow = true, Choice =true
Rollup Rules: Course Objective
Exit Rule: Exit if satisfied
targetObjective = course_objective
ISWS
Sequencing Control Mode: Flow = true,
Choice = true, ChoiceExit = true
Rollup Rules: Course Objective
Exit Rule: Exit if satisfied
Introduction
Pretest
targetObjective = course_objective
ISWS Content
targetObjective = course_objective
Sequencing Control Mode: Flow =
true, ChoiceExit = false
Limit Condition: Attempt limit = 1
isVisible = false
Q1
Q2
Q3
Introduction
Sequencing Control Mode:
Flow = true,
Precondition Rules: skip if
satisfied, hidden if satisfied
Attack Class
Attack *
Attack *
Attack Class
Attack *
Attack *
Posttest
Q1
Q2
Q4
Q5
Q6
Sequencing Control Mode: Flow =
true, Choice =true, ChoiceExit =
true
Rule Condition: Always skip
Attack *
Attack *
POSTTEST
Sequencing Control Mode: Flow = true, Choice =
false, ChoiceExit = false, forward only = true
Rollup Rules:
Precondition Rules: skip if satisfied
Q3
Q4
Q5
* See Next Page
EACH PRE & POST TEST ITEM
targetObjectiveID = obj_1, 2…6
Q6
CTC Bremerton, May 14, 2004 13

ADL SCORM 2004 Demonstration: ISWS Course Conversion Lessons Learned
TECHNICAL ACTIVITY TREE PART II
Sequencing Control Mode: Flow = true, Choice =
true, ChoiceExit = true, forward only = false
Rollup Rules:
Precondition Rules: skip if satisfied, hidden if
satisfied
targetObjectiveID = obj_1, 2…6
Attack*
-- Description
Protection Safeguards
-- Safeguard
-- Safeguard
Detection Safeguards
-- Safeguard
-- Safeguard
Assessment Safeguards
-- Safeguard
-- Safeguard
Recovery Safeguards
-- Safeguard
-- Safeguard
Treatment Safeguards
-- Safeguard
-- Safeguard
targetObjectiveID = obj_1, 2…6
Sequencing Control Mode: Flow = true, Choice =
true, ChoiceExit = true, forward only = false
Rollup Rules:
Precondition Rules: skip if satisfied, hidden if
satisfied
CTC Bremerton, May 14, 2004 14