Technical b r Report - International Military Testing Association

II
When given the requirement to propose Human Factors-Behavioral Science
research for the coming year, we are faced with a soul-searching situation
in which we must ask ourselves two questions: one, are we really getting
the taxpayers' dollar benefit from the work that has transpired in the past;
and, two, will the research we are asking for be likely to yield productive
results in the future. Another question which also must be scrutinized when
it surfaces is, if we aren't getting a masimum return on our investment in
research, how can KC, as trainers and managers, translate the results of
future research into better returns on our investment dollars? First of all,
d it is not purely 3 translation problem. The process of bridging the gap
between the ccnduct of rcscarch and the implementation of rcscarch, by the
Army trainer, is a continuing one. It begins while the problem is being
defined to both the researchers and the trainers; it continues during the
conduct of the research; it continues while the final report is being
drafted, and it- still continues long after the final report has been published.
Let's b:Rin at the beginning. In avery real sense, utilization begins at
-.
the time tl~c probla to be researched is presented. The training problem must
be carefully defined and documented to insure that both the researcher and the
trainer arc speaking the same language and that the researcher fully understands
the problem that the trainer believes he has. After the trainer submits his
request for rcscnrch, the researcher must then submit a statement to the
trainer on what he views the problem to he and how he intends to seek out the
solution. A common understanding and agreement of the problem to be researched
is essential if a usable end-product is to be the result. The research approach
may have to be modified in the light of continuing support requirements. somctimes
it may have to be recast if the research proposed is not understood by
the trainer to be appropriately responsive to the problem as hc perceives it.
Constant inter&tiodbetween researcher and trainer takes place during the
conduc: of the work. Cor;lmunication is achieved informally on a continuing
$asis through -he USC of interim progress reports, periodic reviews, briefings,
and discussions. The, trainer requesting the research must be kept ccjnstantly
aware of the work taking place_, and the researcher must be kept abreast of
significant military changes within the parameters of training problems. Hopefully,
the interaction and open ccxzmunication will keep the evolving solution
directly aligned with the trainer's problem.
As relevant data becomes available, that is, data which bears upon the
problem, it is provided to the trainer. Such coarmunication involves both
those management functions which can implement cl,ange and those responsible
for actually carrying out the drcision to make the change. Management, simply
dccrccing that change ie made, will not, alone, get the job done; the “notinvented
here” syndrome must be overcome. The "doer" --t!re guy at the working
level--must be convinced t.hat the change is good and that it will be of benefit,
not only to himself, but to the prospective students and to the system, othcrwise
it will be doomed to failure.
97
, : ._
.: .
2