Instructional technology is widely used across adult training and education organizations, including the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), but its adoption faces multifaceted challenges beyond mere functionality. While technology adoption and system usability models highlight interactions between users and technology, they do not focus on institutional factors that can impede adoption of a technology. Pat Reid's 2014 framework identifies five key barriers within the ecology of an organization: Technology, Process, Administration, Environment, and Faculty. Adapting these to the military context, we developed a methodology to gather individual and institutional perspectives on barriers to implementing a technology. We created a questionnaire featuring both open-ended questions and Likert-style risk assessments to solicit detailed individual responses, and a supplementary two-day workshop to contextualize and focus the application of the questionnaire with respect to specific systems and use cases. An early version of the method was piloted on an effort with The Technical Cooperation Program (TTCP), with the full questionnaire and workshop being applied during the design proposal stage of two CAF simulation trainer acquisitions. In all instances, the methodology revealed shared barriers and helped to identify solution paths across diverse contexts. Analysis highlighted principal themes that crossed barrier categories, including as Time Scarcity, System Reliability, and Personnel, and provided insights for design considerations to address these institutional impediments. Notably, workshops held during the COVID-19 pandemic underscored the methodology's adaptability to online environments. Through NVivo analysis, nearly 2000 responses were coded, informing design considerations for a land vehicle crew training simulator, and a weapons effects system. This paper outlines the methodology's development, structure, and outcomes, emphasizing its utility in addressing technology adoption challenges within military training and education. Limitations and avenues for future refinement are also discussed.
Keywords
MILITARY LEARNING;SIMULATORS;TECHNOLOGY;TRAINING;USER PREFERENCES
Additional Keywords
instructional technology, barriers,