The computer age has brought forth an abundance of automated tools for hosting training development and management functions. Virtually all of these systems were designed and built to meet service-specific Instructional Systems Development/Systems Approach to Training (ISD/SAT) requirements. Many of these automated training tools are narrow in scope, while others contain comprehensive training support capabilities. Nearly all the tools operate independent of each other and have no data integration capabilities or integration plans. Consequently, most automated tools require extensive data handling by users or special interface modules to transfer training data and analysis products from one system to another.

When viewed from a life-cycle perspective, whether from the acquisition of a defense system or the development of a professional/career management system, the ISD/SAT process has extensive functional breadth and depth. Literally hundreds of training development and management functions and sub-functions need to be performed to properly specify, acquire, field, and sustain an individual weapon system, a fully ready military force, or a professional work force. With so many diverse automated tools available to meet these ISD/SAT requirements, how can a military training organization select the tool or tools appropriate to meet their specific needs?

This paper describes the findings of the Automated-Training Evaluation, Acquisition, and Management program (A-TEAM), which is a Joint Service initiative to demonstrate the feasibility of integrating a set of service-specific training development and management tools into a joint service training development capability. Research and analysis by the multi-service A-TEAM membership examined issues such as:

1) ISD/SAT Models. Could a "master list" of ISD/SAT processes and procedures be derived from existing service-specific and DoD models that would provide a comprehensive foundation for comparing automated training tool capabilities?

2) Training Data Elements. Do DoD Standard Data Elements adequately accommodate the extensive cross-service differences in technical jargon, service-specific vocabulary, data element lengths, usage and intent? Are data elements an appropriate and feasible level for making automated training tool comparisons?

3) Contractor-performed Training Developments. Can the requirements of contracted training development that is specified through use of MIL-STD-1379D, Military Training Programs, be met by these automated training tool capabilities?

4) Tool Hardware and Software Requirements. Can a candidate tool that meets an organization's training development needs be supported by the computer hardware and software capabilities of the training organization? And will the tool be supported in the future?

The A-TEAM program concluded that a way of selecting appropriate ISD/SAT tools is possible within the military training community. By correlating the automated training development processes and their data elements to the A-TEAM's training development "master list", a highly versatile means of linking training process requirements and tool capabilities was developed. Correlation results identified training processes supported by automation, training processes not supported by automation, processes in compliance with DoD and service-specific doctrine, and common footprints as to whether data interfaces between tools are possible. Implementation of the lessons learned from these results will ensure the development of higher quality training products as well as avoid the continued development of duplicative tools and software. Current U.S. military downsizing and the related trends toward more Joint Service training (and less service-specific training) further heighten the usefulness of the A-TEAM training tool selection process and the need for further training development tool integration efforts.