Technical b r Report - International Military Testing Association

44
INTRODUCTION
A new, more specific laqguagc for describing work activities is being
designed for the Army on an c-xperimental basis.1 The new language is
based upon a concept called the “duty module”. Lkty nodules are clusters
of tasks that tend to go together occupationally and organizationally in
meaningful Kl\‘S.
The need to evalunte the feasibility of personnel information systems
1~1sed upon clusters of tasks smaller than a Military Occupational Specialty
(NIX) \;as originally suggested by personnel at thr k-my Research Institute.
The development of the duty module concept was a team effort involving
staff pnmbers fr& the Army Research Institute (AHI) and the Arzerican
lnstittces for Research (AIR).2
Duty modules are rationally dcrivcd clusters of work activity based upon
a detailed examination and grouping of task inventory or job analysis data.
Attention is then given to ways in which these tentatively identified job
content modules can be tcstcd against various available criteria of operational
utility. One relevant consideration is uhcthcr job content modules
can be used as field assignment noduIcs. Xnothcr possible application is in
the area of requirement planning 3nd unit cffcctivcncss. A source of
information here is data that can lx gathcrcd in conjunction with unit
training and unit effectiveness excrciscs that arc performed in the field.
The xord “module” -was chosen bccausc job activity clusters, like
equipment components of the same nzmc, are meant to bc largely selfcontained,
independent units of work. For purposes of occupational classification,
a duty module is a cluster of tasks that apply without modification
in a number of occupational classifications or specialties.
1 The work MS carried out under Contract No. DAK-19-71-C-0004, “A
Taxonomic 6392 for Future Information and Decision Systems”, and Contract
Xo. DAK- 1%is-C-0041, “A Comparison of Officer Job Content Modules with
Activity Grouping Implicit in Course Design”, awarded by the Army
Research Institute to the American Institutes for,Rcsearch.
2 Key pcrsonncl st XRI:wcre Nr. Cecil Johnson, who provided the initial
guidance as the Contract Officer’s Technical Rcprescntativc, Dr. J.E.
Uhlancr, Technical Dircdtor, and Mrs. Bertha Coy, who succ-eded Mr.
Johnson as the Technical Rcprcscntativc.
Key AIR staff members, in addition to Dr. Robert W. Stephenson, who
was Proicct Director, included Dr. Robert Miller, who served as
Consulting Scientist. Colonel Warren P. Davis, >lr. Harry I. Hadley,
Dr. E&in A. Flciskman, Dr. Albert S. filicl\mnn, !4r. Clifford P. Hahn,
Dr. Ronald P. Car\‘cr, and Mr. Albert Farina.
t
270
2