Estimated Cost Of On The Job Training To 3 Skill Level In Communications Center Operations Specialty 753 093 753093

User Manual: 753-093

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 36

Download
Open PDF In Browser	View PDF

AD-753 093
ESTIMATED COST OF ON-THE-JOB TRAINING
TO THE 3-SKILL LEVEL IN THE COMMUNICATIONS CENTER OPERATIONS SPECIALTY
Alan D.

Dunham

Air Force Human Resources Laboratory
Lackland Air Force Base, Texas
June 1972

DISTRIBUTED BY:

National Technical Information Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield Va. 22151

[]A

AFHRL-TR-72-56

AIR FORCE 0

HCENTER

ESTIMATED COST 0P ON-THE-JOB TRAINING TO THE
3-SKILL LEVEL IN THE COMMUNICATIONS

U
MI

OPER.ATrIONS SPECI.LrY

By
Dunham, Capt. USAF
Alan D.

PERSONNEL RESEARCH DIVISION
Lackland Air Force Base, Texas

0
U

cR
£

June 1972

release; distribution
Approved for public

unlimited.

S L ABORA TO R Y
AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND
BROOKS AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS

Iit

S i
NOTICE
When US Government drawings, specifications, or other data are used
for any purpose other than a definitely related Government
procurement operation, the Government thereby incurs no
responsibility nor any obligation whatsoever, and the fact that the
Government may have formulated, furnished, or in any way supplied
the said drawings, specifications, or other data is not to be regarded by
implication or otherwise, as in any manner licensing the holder or any
other person or co, poration. or conveying any rights or permission to

manufacture,
use. or sell any patented invention that may in any way
be related thereto.

402
CN&

-I

__402

Unclassified
Security Class•fication

DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA - R & D

(Security cla•• i•ication of title. body of Abstract and indexing annotation must be o*nrr
ORIGINATING

REPORT

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

Unclassfied

Pesonnel Research Division
Air Force Human Resources Laboratory
Lackland Air Force Base, Texas 78236

%'hen thet o.verall report is classifi.d)

a . REPORT

ACTIVITY (CIrpotsta author)

TITLE

ESTIMATED COST OF ON-THE-JOB TRAINING TO THE 3-SKILL LEVEL IN THE COMMUNICATIONS CENTER
OPERATIONS SPECIALTY
4

DESCFI4PTIVE NOTES (Type

of report and Incluesve dates)

AUTNORIS) (First name, middle initial. la*t name)

Alan D. Dunhzn
a.

RUPORT

7e.

DATE

TOTAL

NO.

7b,

PAGIS

June 1972
44.

CONTRACT

GRANT

b. PROjECT NO

c. Task

9a. ORIGINATOR'S

REPORT

OF REFS

3-~~z-

NUMBERIS)

AFHRL-TR-72-56

6323

No. 632302

(Any other numbers that may be assigned

9b. OTHER REPORT NO($)

this report)

d.Work Unit No. 63230209
10

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
II

SUPPLEMENTARY

It2.

NOTES

SPONSORING MILITARY

ACTIVITY

Personnel Research Division
Air Force Human Resources Laboratory
Lackland Air Force Base, Texas 78236
13

ABSTRACT

Decisions concerned with the use of alternative Air Force training methods require several types of data. Among
these are capacity to train, cost of the training, and quality of the trained airm n. The two methods of formal training
In the Air Force are on-the-job training (Oil) and technical school training. The data currently being provided to
decision makers for selecting the proper mix of thete two training methods can be substantially improved.

DD '°'.1473

Unssified
Security Classification

Unclassified

-,1

security Classifkcation
K

LIN

WRSLINK
ROLE

ROLE

a
WY

trainin
education
cost
on-the.Job Training
comnmunications
USAF

.Zii ~
'*

Undassifled
security ciessificition

L.INK C
ROLE

AFHRL.T R--72-56

June 1972]

ESTIMATED COST OF ON-THE-JOB TRAINING TO THE
3-SKILL LEVEL IN THE COMMUNICATIONS
CENTER OPERATIONS SPECIALTY

By
Alan D. Dunham, Capt, USAF

Approved fmopublic re'lease: dbathbution unlimited.

II
PERSONNEL RESEARCH oIVISION
AIR FORCE HUMAN RESOURCES LABORATORY
AIR FORCE SYSTEMS COMMAND
Lackland Air Force Base, Texas

FOREWORD
This research was completed under Project 6323, Personnel Management Research
and Development; Task 632302, Research and Development on Mathematical/
Econometric Models of the Air Force Personnel Symem.
This report describes the preliminary results of an effort to develop a methodology
for estimating costs of On-the.Job Training which can be used in decisions concerning
optimal mixes of OJT and Technical School.
This report has been reviewed and is approved.
George K. Patterson, Colonel, USAF
Commander

iil

ABSTRACT
Decisions concerned with the use of alternative Air Force training methods require
several types of data. Among these are capacity to train, cost of the training, and quality
of the trained airmen. The two methods of formal training in the Air Force are on-the-job
training (OJT) and technical school training. The data currently being provided to
decision makers for selecting the proper mix of these two training methods can be
substantially improved.
A model to obtain cost data for technical training school already exists. This study
applies a methodology developed to estimate the cost of OJT to the 3-skflf (semi-skilled)
level for Air Force Specialty 291 XO, Communications Center Operations, and compares it
with the cost of the corresponding technical training school course, 3ABR29130.

ill

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

II.

Description and Collection of Data ........

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
............................

Description of Specialty to be Studied .......
Identification of Cost Factors .............................
Development and Administration of OJT Survey ......
Ill.

Analysis of Results ..........

Page
I

.................

I
I
2

......................

...................................

Summary of Survey Responses .........
.............................
Cost of Technical School Training .........
...........................
Comparative Cost of Technical School Training and OJT ......
.................
Comparative Quality of Technical School Training and OJT ......
...............
Sansitivity Analysis ............
..................................
IV.

Diss:ussion ............

Conclusions.

2
6
6
7
8

........................................
.

References ..............
Bibliography ............

......................................

..........................................

.........................................

Appendix I. Description of On-the-Job Training .........
Appendix It. Costing OJT ..........

........................

...................................

Appendix 111. Cost of Technical Training School

. ..

12
..

Appendix IV. Additional Cost Associated with Technical School Training .....
Appendix V. Communications Center Operations OJT Survey ......

............

.................

. ..

16
18
21

LIST OF TABI ES
Table

I
2
3

Page

Mean OJT Cost Factors Computed from Equations Derived from Survey Responses .....
Summary Statistics for Responses to Survey Questions I through 17 .....
...........
Summary Statistics for Selected Training Items in the Specialty Training
Standard Derived from Responses to Survey Queston 18 ......

3
44

.................

Comparative Performance of Technical Training School and OJT Trainees on
AQE Administrative and General Aptitude Indexes ........
..................

Comparative Peiformance of Technical Training School and OJT Trainees on
2914 and 2915 Specialty Knowledge Tests .........
......................

6
7

Correlation between Estimated Cost of OJT and Selected Variables ..................
Technical Training Resource and Cost Model .......
.......................

99
!7

Preceding page blank

LIST OF FIGURES
RFipum

2
3

Frequency of OJT cost estimates
SI derived from survey responses ...................
Compurative workload capability vs. time for OJT and technical school trainees .......
Comparative workload capability vs. time using OJT 3-skill level as base ...........

Solution showing workload capability vs. time using OJT 3-skill level as base .........

.-i

2 1*

Pae

...
....

3
18
18

...

ESTIMATED COST OF ON-THE-JOB TRAINING TO THE

3-SKILL LEVEL IN THE COMMUNICATIONS
CENTER OPERATIONS SPECIALTY

I. INTRODUCTION
"The training system must be critically evaluated to
reduce cost in terms of money and manpower and

yet produce trained personnel in the numbers
required (USAF Personnel Pan, Vol 1, para 2-2-3,
June 1971):.

DESCRIrTION AND COLLECTION OF DATA

Description of Specialty to be Studied

The United States Air Force trains approxi.

The Air Force specialty selected as the subject
of' this ini.ial study was Communications Center
Operations, Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC)
291X0. The primary manual skill needed for this

mately 80,000 non-prior-service airmen each year.

specialty is high-speed typing on a wide variety of

After completion of basic training, 53 percent of
the new airn.en are assigned to Category A specialties to upgrade through a technical training
school course; 43 percent are assigned to Category
B specialties where they may go to a technical
training school or they may upgrade through onthe-job training (OJT); 4 percent are assigned to
Category C specialties to upgrade only through
OJT.V The Air Force programmed an average of

51 percent of the airmen in Category B skills to
technical training school and 49 percent to OJT in
FY 1971.
The cost of training the required personnel in
Category B specialties can be altered by varying
the relative use of technical training school and
OJT. The OJT-technical school mix may also
affect the quality of trained airmen, the time

equipment consoles. Since personnel within the
specialty move messages worldwide for the Air
Force, the procedures, codes, and message formats
which must be learned are complex. Moreover, the
procedures and formats vary greatly depending on
which of the two dozen types of equipment are
used in the more than two hundred centers within
the continental United States (CONUS).
The Communications Center Operations speci-

ally is described as an imbalanced AFSC, which
means that there is a greater requirement for this
skill overseas than in the CONUS. Also, since entry
into a communications center usually requires that
the individual have a security clear-nce, a trainee
may encounter a few weeks' delay before
beginning OJT.
In addition to OJT (which is described in brief

necessary to meet a sudden increase in required

and general terms in Appendix 1), training in t;ds

operational capability, and the ability of units to

specialty is provided through enrollment in

maintain their operational effectiveness. Thus, the
problem of selecting an optimal mix for any Air
Force specialty calls for detailed information in
several areas.
One necessary data input is the cost of OJT.
The primary purpose of this study was to develop
and apply a methodology for obtaining useful cost
estimates of OJT for Category B Air Force specialties. With such information, the cost of OJT can
be compared to the cost of the corresponding
technical training course, and an optimal mix of
the two training approaches for the specialty

under consideration can be determined.•:

technical training course (3ABR29130) at
Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas.
Identification of Cost Factors
Several general cost factors were identified
which would encompass all of the costs associated
with Air Force OJT and would be relevant for all
Air Force specialties. The factors include student
time, instructor time, records management,
remedial training, and equipment and materials.
For a more detailed discussion of this aspect of the
study, see Appendix il.

Because several of the cost factors measure the
cost of time, it was necessary that data be -:ollected in the form of time or dollars, or both. If
data had existed on OJT, it might have been

'These percentages, obtained from FY 1971 Pro.
grammed Technkial Training, ATC, DSCITT, may
fluctuate slightly over time,

11
!I

possible to estimate the cost directly in dollars.
However, after an extensive research of Depart-

ment of Defense, Federal, and professional

material to determine if any information of this
sort existed for OIT. None was found.2 Therefore,
a technique had to be developed for collecting the
appropriate data in suitable measures.

An initial survey design was completed after
the interviews, followed by final design of the cost
factor equations. The initial survey was then
administered to the communications center supervisors at Kelly, Randolph, and Brooks Air Force

Development and Administration of OJT Survey
Three techniques for data collection were
considered: establishment of a recording system
for OJT data, conduct of a large number of inter.
views, and administration of a survey. The
recording system would require a long lead time
and would be burdensome to operaticnal units,
but it could be very accurate. The interview
method would also require a lot of time and it
would cost more for the transportation that would
be involved, but it, too, could be fairly accurate-

Bases. This provided feedback on survey design
and information to use in the equations (see
Appendix 11) as a test run.
A copy of the Communications Center Operations OJT Survey is presented as Appendix V. Of
all the questions on the survey, number 18 was the
most difficult to design-and, correspondingly, the
most useful as an input into the equations. It was
designed to collect the majority of information
about time spent by instructors and trainees in
OJT. The problem was choosing the appropriate

depending on the interviewer. A survey would
have the disadvantage of being relatively less
accurate than the other two approaches, but it
would have the advantages of being less costly per

units of time and degree of detail. These choices
were dependent upon several factors: the actual
time phasing of the training, the ability of supervisors to give accurate information under the

obsenation and less time consuming for the

various possibilities for units of time, and the

researcher and the respondents. The survey would
also have the advantage of visibility-a critic could
look at a survey instrument and judge it, whereas
it would be difficult to critique interviews after
the fact. Hence, the survey technique was used.
Surveys were mailed to 214 addresses in the
CONUS only. Although approximately 12.5 percent of OJT to the 3-skill level is being conducted
overseas, 3 most of these trainees are probably
lateral or cross-trainees from another specialty
and, therefore, are generally atypical of trainees
learning the 291X0 specialty as their first skill,
Initial interviews were conducted with four
Ssupervisors at communications centeis at Lackland
Air Force Base, HQ Security Service. and Kelly Air
Force Base, Texas. Although Security Service uses
personnel with the 291XO AFSC, the operations in
Security Service communications centers are sig.
nificantly different fro'n those of the usual base
communications center. Therefore, Security Setvice subjects were excluded from the sample
because their responses would have tended to
describe atypical training.

ability of supervisors to mentally join together
related groups of skills when answering the
question. The decision was to use the Specialty
Training Standard (STS) as a general format
because each respondent would be familiar with its
terminology and method of grouping skills. The
question of the appropriate unit of time was
resolved by asking for estimates of the hours per
week spent within training weeks. The rest of the
survey questions were fairly straightforward.
Some surveys were partially filed out, while
others were completely filled out but with
inconsistent data. These latter surveys were
identified to prevent their use in computation of
the cost factor equations.
Of the 214 surveys mailed, 113 were returned
completely filled out, and 104 of these were
judged to be consistently completed. These 104
cases were used for the final cost estimate. Some
of the partially completed surveys were used to
obtain averages for t'._- first 17 questions.
IlL. ANALYSL: OF RESULTS

Summary of Survey Responses

2The time to 3-skill level reflected by an airman's

records is a poor estimate of the actual time to skill level
for several reasons: minimum time to skill level requirements have been prescribed administrative delays in
records processing sometimes exist, and data recording
errors can occur. The Air Force keeps very little OJT data

Equations designed to represent the OJT cost
factors are specified in detail in Appendix 1I.The

value of each of these equations was computed for
each vali survey. Table 1 shows the means and

beyond a record of the date that a new skill level is
attained.
3

Determined from

standard deviations of th, cost factor estimates
computed from ,uaticns derived from the
104-c., e sample.

rh.: Uniform Airman Record,

December 1970.

The high standard deviation of the cost estimates reflects three things: the variance in
complexity of tasks at different communications
centers, the quality of the trainee observed, and
the variance in supervisors' perception of the time
required for OJT to the 3-skill level. 4

In other words, there is 95 percent confidence that
the median total cost of OJT to the 3.skill level is
between $1,108 and $1,515.
Tabk 1. Mean OJT Cost Factors

The total cost estimates illustrated in the
histogram shown as Figure 1 are skewed to the
right Therefore, the median may be a more
appropriate measure of central tendency than the
mean because the mean biases the results by
placing too much emphasis on a lew large cost
estimates.

(N= 104)

urom Reqaonse
Survey Responses

Student Tune
Indirect Cost of OJT
Instructor Time
Delayed Entry Into Training
Records Management
a
with
is
$1,311
cost
estimate
tc.
al
The median
Training
Remedial
95 percent confidence interval of:
Equipment and Materials
$1,108 • Median Total Cost • $1,515EqimnadMteal8
Average Total Cost
40ue could advance the hypothesis that this relatively
large vzriance iscaused by other variables such as unit size
or complexity of c':ipment. A short investigation of this
hypothesis is discussed in Section IV.

$ 615
19
412
259
110
30

516

$1,453

842a

17
16
is
14.
13
12

~11
'10,
Mean = $1,453

67
5
41

462 671 879 10831297 1505 1714 1922 2131 234025482758 2966 3175 3384 3592 38014010 4218 4427
i

---

aComputed using the sums of cost factor equations for
each survey as observations.

Median = $1,311

232
121
82
.

...

460

EstWar 'ted Cost at OJT

Fig. . Frequency of OJT cost estimates derived from survey responses.

I3
---

-Ij

Table 2. Summary Statistics for Responses to Survey Questions I through 17
(Survey AdmrLiateredMarch 1971, N - 153)
SWV*V

Item
Number

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7a.
7b.
8.

lOa.
10b.
lOc.
lOd.
I1e.
I a.
I b.

1Ic.
I id.
!2a.
12b.
12c.
12d.

Content ot Item

Number of months since OJT to 3level last conducted
Average number of weeks between
arrival of DDA and start of
training
Average number of weeks between
arrival of tech school 3-level
and start of 5-level training
Average number of weeks to 3.
level for DDA
Proportion of 3-level trainees
fading Advancement Knowledge
Test the first time
Average number of shifts per day for
operation of communication center
Number of trainees currently going
to 34evel
Number of trainees currently going
to 54evel
Number of additional trainees to 3.
level which could be handled if
unit were allowed to go over
manning authorization
Number of additional trainees to 3level which could be handled if
unit lost a 5-level for each
new trainee
Number of instructors, E-7
Number of instructors, E-6
Number of instructors, E-5
Numter of instructors, E-4
Number of instructors, E-3
Percent OJT-trained 3-level workload
that can be handled by newly
arrived tech school 3-level
Number of weeks until workload
capacity of tech school 3-level
reaches that of OJT-trained
3-level
Consider either type of training
superior to the other
Consider OJT-tralned 3-levels
superior to tech school 34evels
Average number of weeks remedial
training, when given
Average trainee hours per week, on
duty, remedial training
Average instructor hours per week,
on duty, remedial training
Average trainee hours per week, over.
time, remedial training

_____________

10.70

9.295

3.41

3.777

2.09

1.132

10.89

7.032

0.11

0.200

3.01

0A06

Total

Percent

67
167

510

4
__

Mean

32.16

21.221

4.25

2.664

2.64

2.507

6.61

7.629

4.92

6.043

3.22

4.838

267
I5
85
297
156
i5

3
15
52
27
3

Table 2 (Continued)
Survey
Item
Number

12e.
12f.
13.
14.
15a.
15b.
16.
17.

Content of

item

Average instructor hours per week.
overtime, remedial training
Average grade of remedial training
instructor
Percent trainees failing to upgrade
to 3-level in the last year
Average instructor hours per week
spent in records keeping
Average monitor hours per week
spent in records keeping
OJT monitor's grade
Percent Career Development Course
relevant to operations of unit
Total number of personnel in unit

Mean

1.36

2.937

3.11

2.535

0.00

0.011

1.30

1.920

0.86
4.99

1.231
1.784

45.57
23.30

25.396
58.085

Total

Percent

Table 3. Summary Statistics for Selected Training Items In the Specialty Trainirng
Standard Derived from Responses to Survey Question 18
Training
Item

Equation
Notation

Mission
Comm Security
Safety
Publications
Typing
Comm Instructions
Crypto Ops
Routing
Services
Incoming Narrative
Incoming Data
Outgoing Narrative
Outgoing Data
Inspection
Processing
Routing
Transmission
Autodin SW Center
Tel Switchboard Ops

Yj
Y2 Y3
Y4

Y5,j
Ys j
Y7j

Ye j
Y9
Y0oj
Y! I
Y 2

Y13j
Y14

Ys~j
Yi j
Y1 7 j
Y sj
Y j

Trainee Hours
Mean
So

7.59
24.84
5.42
30.09
55.01
.61.87
19.86
25.80
27.87
18.56
14.10
26.69
16.36
21.58
11.61
11.06
8.96
26.76
51.77

Instructor Hours
Mean
SD

24.10
32.48
6.32
49.59
61.01
85.20
41.49
51.55
38.20
28.98
22.69
41.82
30.84
119.92
20.25
22.75
17.53
74.16
62.12

Descriptive statistics summarizing the responses
to the first 17 questions on 153 surveyss are
presented in Table 2 Statistics for question 18 are
summarized in Table ..

2.77
9.82
2A7
10.52
13.75
22.11
9.97
8.64
11.24
6.45
5.36
7.65
6.02
3.85
3.Q8
4.24
3.46
9.55
22.31

instructortO4rainee
Mean Ratio

4.52
12.88
4.22
17.81
16.71
43.15
29.: 7
15.42
19.51
11.29
11.10
12.18
12.52
8.90
9.27
10.11
8.95
34.18
42.65

.71
.70
.71
.69
.66
.69
.71
.72
.71
.64
.59
.61
.51
.46
.45
.44
.45
.36
.66

The survey produced several interesting results
in addition to the cost estimate. For instance, the
mean value given for question 2 indicates that the
average unskilled directed duty assignee (DDA)
waits three to four weeks before beginning OJT.
The delay in entry to training primarily reflects
the time needed to obtain the security clearance

i These 153 surveys include the 113 completed surveys
plus 40 partially completed surveys

-. S .-.-.

~--..
-

•--

which Is required for entry to most communications centers. This delay, in turn, results in a threeto fov.r-week los in productivity after completion
of OJT. An estimate of this value is included in the
cost estimate for OJT.
The mean value for question 4 implies that the
average time in OJT for proficiency qualification
at the 3.skill level is approximately 1I weekcs,
whereas the technical training course is 12 weeks
long.

Course will be applicable to the operations of a
,nit. This is not necessarily a bad point,
partiL
howtver, because the trainees will be assigned
during their career to various communications
centers with different kinds of equipment. On the
other hand, the finding could provide slight
support to a hypothesis that training received in
technical training school is in excess of that
actually needed for operations in the field.
Cost of Technical School Training

supervisors could train many more personnel on
the job if they were sent DDA in a "pipeline"
status. That is, if supervisors could identify
personnel losses a few months ahead of time and
new DDAs before the qualified
procure and train
in this skill
]JTcapacity for
5-levels were lost, the
could be substandially increased.

Course 3ABR29130 at Sheppard Air Force
Base Technical Training Center corresponds to
OJT to the 3-level in the 291X0 specialty. Using a
computer model, RAND Corporation provided a
cost estimate for this course (Allison, 1970). Costs
included in the model contain data corresponding
completely with the OJT cost factors listed in
Table I. A detailed breakout of th: technical
school course cost elements is presented in
Appendix Ill. The resulting estimated cost per
graduate of $2,670 for FY 1970 does not take
into consideration the OJT at the unit of assignment that is necessary to bring the technical
school graduate up to the workload capability of
an OJT-trained 34evel.
An accurate estimate of the cost of this additional training would require a large-scale effort
and is not justified considering the relative size of
the cost. However, an estimate of the student and
instructor cost of this phase of OJT was obtained
using a method of ext~apolation described in
ApP,-,;dix IV. Results indicate that an additional
student time cost e. $33 and an additional instructor time cost oif $77 would be incurred in order to
increase the proficiency of a 3-level technical
school graduate to the same level of proficiency as
that of an OJT-trained 34evel. Therefore, the
adjusteC., cost of technical school training is
$2,780.

8 and 9 suggest that
Ihe answers to questions

The difference between questions 7a and 9
reflects excess OJT capacity which could be
utilized without changing the present assignment
system.
The mean values for questions I la and 1lb
highlight the fact that the new technical school
graduate, a qualified 3-level, does not have the
productivity of an OJT-trained 3-level until more
than four weeks after his arrival at the communications center. This information is incorporated into
the cost estimate for technical training school.
The percentage values for questions I Ic pnd
I Id indicate that 44 percent of the supervisors
surveyed (N = 153) feel there is no difference in
the performance of OJT-trained 3-levels and
technical school graduates, while 16 percent think
that OJT-trained 3.levels have better performance,
and 40 percent believe that technical school
graduates are better qualified. These figures can be
misleading because it is difficult to prove that
supervisors' answers were guided only by their
assessment of performance quality. In other
words, instructors may have based their answers
upon a preference for a training method rather
than upon a preference for the output of that
training method-a qualified 3-skill level airman,
Thus, these data are inconclusive. It is doubtful
that a question or series of questions can be
designed to provide unbiased information concerning supervisors' opinions regarding the comparative
perftrmancw of OJT 3-levels and technical training
school 3-levels,
The mean value for question 16 implies that, on
the average, one can expect that less than 50
percent of the material in the Career Development

Comparative Cost of Technical
School Training and OJT
The adjusted cost of technical school training
reported in the previous section is 112 percent
higher than the median OJT cost estimate of
$1 ,311. If the upper limit of the OJT 95-percent
confidence interval (S1,5 15) is compared with the
cost of technical school training ($2,780), it
becomes apparent that the cost of technical school
is 83 percent higher than OJT. Most of this difference is largely attributable to equipment,
maintenance, training aids, and administration
costs which do not measurably exist for OJT.

-----.-----

This cost difference does not reflect a auterence in the quality of the two methods of training,
nor is it necesarily indicative of expected relative
training costs for other specialties. (The question
of comparative quality is treated separately.) If the

Table 4. Comparative Performance of
Technical Training School and OJT Trainees
on AQE Administrative and General
Aptitude Indexes

two methods of training produce equally qualified
airmen, the relative costs would seem to indicate

Training

that the Air Force should send as man) personnel
as possible to OJT in this skill, subject to manning
constraints.

Admin At

Can Ai
Mean

Method

Mean

Tech School
OJT

707
191

74.08
74.18

710
193

40.90
42.80

Comparative Quality of Technical
School Tralning and OJT
This section considers two questions of
quality-input and output. First, input. If the two
populations of airmen who entered the separate
training systems were of different quality and if
this affected their training progress, then the cost
comparison would have uncertain implications,
Airmen
291X0 career field must have
a score entering
of 60 orthe
better on the Administrative or
the General Aptitude Index (AI) of the Airman
Qualifying Examination (AQE). Observation by

difference in the quality of airmen as observed by
supervisors during OJT.
The next question is: How "good" are the
aiing methods with respect to their outputs, the
trained airnen? The proper way to answer this
question is to measure and compare the productivity of the airmen coming from the two different
training methods. Unfortunately, productivity
measures useful for this purpose do not now exist
for most Air Force skills. An alternative measure
of the quality of the two methods of training is
performance on the Specialty Knowledge lest
(SKT). The SKT is a skill-specific paper-and-pencil
test administered to airmen desiring promotion.
An SKT
can only not
test the
knowledge
of
operations,
his examinee's
actual manual
skill,

supervisors and instructors of high tor low) quality
airmen could bias the O.TT cost estimate. Data on
the Administrative and General Als, presented in
Table 4, were used to examine this question'
From the atable,
it appears
represent
slightly
higher that
qualityOJTof trainees
inpute
however, the differences in mean AQE scores were
not large enough to result in a noticeable

dexterity, and ability to produce on the job. The
data presnted in Table 5 represent a measue of
each training method's success in teaching the
required knowledge.'

Data were from matching records on a selected merge
of the December 1970 Uniform Airman Record and the
March 1970 Project 100,000 file, both maintained at the
Personnel Research Division. All airmen in this sample

Table S. Comparative Performance of
Techia Training School and OJT Tranees
Th
on 2914 and 2915 Specialty Knowledge Tests

enlisted at the

same

time between December 1968 and

March 1970. The Project 100.000 frae provided data on
whether perronnel went to technical training school or to
OJT after basic military training; the Uniform Airman
Record prmided percentile AQE scores, which were
transformed back into percent correct from which the
mean scores were computed using the grouped data

Trainilni
Method

2*14 SKT

Tech School 514
OJT
130

2915 SKT

Mean

42.23
41.57

9.06
8.82

239
108

45.95
47.37

9.57
10.20

method. Project 100.000 is a random sample, by AFQT
mental category. of the airman population. Although still
representative 0f the population, the sample sizes in Table

.ew

much It= than the total number of airmen who

took the tests between 1968 and 1970.
7

As is apparent in Table 5, the differences in

These data were taken from matching records on a

SKT scores for OJT and technical school trainees
were =all and nrt statistically significant at the

selected merge of the March 1970 Project 100,000 file
and the July 1971 Truncated WAPS Test Analysis fie,
both maintained at the Personnel Research Division. The
Project 100,000 file povided data on whether personnel
went to t:chnical school or to OJT after bafic military

.01 level for either the 44evel or the 5-level SKT
for Communications Center Operations. It can be
f"

inferred from these results that technical school
and OJT methods teach the required course
material equally well for this career field.

training, and the WAPS Test Analysis fie provided

percentage of correct SKT answers. All scores were for
the same test edition date and represented the total
population of akmen who took the 2914 and 2915 SKTs
between December 1968 and March 1970.

SEEMS

Sensitivity Analysi
This section briefly considers the changes in the
estimated cost of OJT which would result from
changes in some key variables.
The percentage of students• who are given
remedial training could increase if the Advancemen t Knowledge Test failure rate increased,
Answers given to question S in the survey indicate
that 11 percent is the average failure rate. If this
rate were to increase to 20 percent as a result of
of remedial
thebycost
personnel,
lower quality
from
9 percent,
beincieased
would
training
o frome
,
tri
ualdty bersone
incieaseby9prcent

center. Such variability in OJT subject matter
could make an OJT cost estimate difficult to
To correct for this possible distortion of the
related findings, survey question 18 was structured
so that supervisors (Le., the survey respondents)
could leave blank those parts referring to operations not conducted at their individual units. The
supervisors did, in fact, frequently leave blanks or
indicate that parts of question 18 were not
applicable. Thus, breaking down the time eimate
in the manner of question 18 had the adva tage of
being specific enough to allow for variatic# in unit
operations, while not being so detailed/that the
/
recall.
could not
respondent
washeforced
minute details
to give
spuriousinswers
to

$30 to $33.
Another variable
the
average isvalue
The change
ratio. could
ent which
instructor-to-skit
obtained from the surveys was .60. If only one

The relatively large degree of vari tion in unit

student were sent to a communications center, the

operations could have been responsible for some
of the variation in estimated unit cost of OJT. This

ratio would obviously become 1.00. This would
increase the per-student cost of instructor time by

variation is emphasized by the estimate of mean

roughly 40 percent which would, in turn, increase

An interesting question is the relationship of
OJT costs to the size of the communications

time to reach the proficiency required of a 3-level:
11 weeks, with a standard deviation of 7 weeks,
and a response range of from 6 to 20 weeks,
tSimilar
fuontinued use of this cost estimate in the
future is valid only to the extent that fxture
knowledge and skill requirements in this specialty
correspond
to the knowledge and skills required
when the cost
estimate was made. The equipment,
procedures, and formats used in communications
centers have varied over the years. These system

centers. To the extent that the insauctor-to.

changes required that experienced personnel

the total cost estimate by $165, from $1,311 to
$1,476.
computations can be easily performed
because all costs are linear with respect to student
load. Changes in the value of any key variable
would have a linear impact on all the cost factors
in which it appeared.

_proficiency

Ilarge

student ratio can be lowered, the cost of instructor
time can be lessened. However, large communica.
tions centers tend to havy more equipment and
more complex operations than smaller centers, a
fact which and,
couldthereby,
increase increase
the trainee's
cost.
time
to
the OJT
On the other hand,
and upgrading
tere nc
students
rese by
t OJTin in

communications centers might result in a

participate in a continuous learning process. This
continual flux of knowledge does not appear to
alter the time to the 3-skill level for a new worker,
however. Thus, the data collected should be valid
Center
the Communications
change
radical
Any
at least
for the
near infuture-say,
five to ten years.
A Operations
radala
specialty,
change inteof course,
Com ntionst
would requireproe
e ater

reevaluation of the relevance of this cost estimate.

better qualified airman. Thus, the direction and
magritude of the relationship between unit size
and OJT costs cannot be determined without more
detailed data collection and analysis.

Correlation coefficients were computed to
determine the degree to which some variables
might be related to the cost estimates obtained
from the survey data. These relationships are
shown in Table 6.
A priori reasoning might cause one to expect
larger correlation coefficients (in an absolute
sense) for many of the variables. For instance,
communications centers with a relatively large
number of equipment consoles might be expected
to have more training time and, thus, report a
higher OJT cost. It could be that none of these
variables is related to the cost of OJT. Another

IV. DISCUSSION

OJT is not identical for all CONUS communica.
tions centers because of varying missions, equip.
ment, and proced,,res. This statement is supported
by the response to survey question 16 which
indicates that, on the avenge, only 47 percent of
the Career Development Course is relevent to the
operation of any individual communications

Table 6. Correlation between Estimated
Cost of OJT and Selected Variables
(N 104)

outlined in this study are quite visible. That is, it
would be easy to pinpoint the cause of an uncertainty and interpret its effect on a cost estimate
which used the methodology.
On the basis of the Specialty Knowledge Test
scores of the airmen in the sample studied, both
the technical school and the OJT training approaches appear to produce equally wall-qualified
airmen for the Communications Center Operations

vm,
Number of 3.level trainees in unit
Number of 3level trainees in unit
Number of 5-level trainees in unit
Total number of 3- and 5-level trainees
Months since
C JT last conducted

.0461
.0716 I
.0716
.0690
-. 0870

to unit operations
relevant
N re oftof
equnitpmentonsoles
Number
equipment
consoles
Time to 3-level (OJT)

.2083
-..084
0084
.1008

specialty. Another finding indicates that the cost
of technical
schooltraining.
training is approximately twice
that
of on-the-job

Total nwnber of personnel in unit

-. 0376

It should be noted, however, :hat these results
do not necessarily imply that the cost of OJT will
be less than the cost of technical training school
all Air Force specialties. Furthermore, the
results are not justification for discontinuing the
technical school course for Communications
Center Operations. The data do suggest that the
Air Force should send as many personnel as
possible to OJT in this particular skill, although
the exact number or percentage of the training
requirement who should upgrade through OQT is
not specified.
There are five criteria relevant to determining
an optimal mix of OJT and technical school
training in any Air Force specialty:

pffor
Spossibility is that none of these variables affects
the supervisors' estimates of the time involved in
OJT. A final possibility is that the size and
randomness of the supervisors' perception of
atudent and instructor time spent with O' overwhelms the strength of the expected relationships.
Followup studies will examine this question in
more detail to attempt to eliminate any unreliable
(error) variance.
The survey used to collect the OJT cost data
required for this study produced acceptable
results. However, there are alternative ways of
asking similar or related questions which should be
examined." Cost estimates obtained through
alternative approaches could be compared in terms
of bias, minimtam variance, or some other suitable
measure to select techniques most useful for
estimating the cost of Air Force OJT.

1. Cost of technical school training
2. Cost of on-the-job training
3. Quality of training methods
4. Capacity of training methods
5. Personnel assignment system constraints
The present analysis considers only the first
three of these criteria. Information is needed
concerning the last two criteria to determine an
optimal combination of the two training methods.

V. CONCLUSIONS

Compared to the techniques developed in this
study,
are moretechniques
complex, for
perhaps
less
readily there
understandable
estimating
the
cost
of and returns
The assumptions
necessaryto for
of such1962).
techOJTuse(Mincer,

Finally, this study provided empirical evidence
which
supports
two realistic,
hypotheses.
Onecostis
that thestrongly
Air Force
can obtain
useful
estimates of on-the-job training at reasonable

Teasmtosncsayfrueosuhtc-

expense for use in decisions which allocate
mipens oor
e
ya Tei
s econdwish at

niques could render the resulting estimate difficult
to use. in addition, the time constraints faced by
may require the use of available data for
managers
an immediate estimate. Forcing questionable data
anrimmdate eimae. Fethoringy requestionablendata
through
a complex
requiring
that
estimatesenlsiresult in a cost
maymethodology
tive
assumptions

millions of dollars each year. The second is that
difference between the
be and
a striking
mayOJT
there of
the cost of technical training
cost
school for several Air Force specialties. The cost
dfeec
on for
o Communications
omnctosCne
Center
difference found

tiv ma
asumpion
reultin cot etimte hat

Operations is not some imaginary, hard-to-grasp

is difficult to interpret. The simple concepts

cconcept-it
on
rsent
andmteriel
represents re
real manpr
manpower and
materiel
resources. Improved allocation of these training
resources in Category B specialties would allow the

$As an example, consider the method by which

time-path estimates are obtained for PERT-Propam
Evaluation and Review Technique (MacGrimmon, 1964).

Air Force to improve its operational capabilities in
several career fields with( at increasing costs.

REFERENCES

Mincer, J. OJT: Costs, returns, and some
implications. Journal of Political Economy,
October 1962.

Allison, S.L. A computer model for estimating
resources and costs of an Air Force resident
technical training ccurse, WN-7044-PR. Santa
Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation, October
1970.
MacCrimmon, K.R. & Ryavec, C.A. An analytical
study of the PERT assumptions. Operations

Research, 1964, 12, 16-37.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arziga•n, S. On-the-job trainingcosts: An analysis.

Lieberman, B. Contemporary problems in statis-

WRM 67-52, AD-656 581. Naval Personnel

tics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1971.

Program Support Activity, Naval Personnel
Research Laboratory, 1967.

Mincer, J. Investment in human capital and
personal income. Journalof PoliticalEconomy,
August 1958,281-302.
in
training
Bateman, CW. Formaland On-the-Job
military occupation&Unpublished staff report. Morgan, J., & David, M. Education mid income.
Office of the Secretary of Defense: Washington,
QuarterlyJournalof Economics, 1963,
77,
D.C.
423-437.
Becker, GS. Human capitaL New York: Columbia Shultz, T.W. Investment in human capital, 1961,
AER Vol. 51, 1-16.

University Press, 1964.
itiShultz,

D.G.,

& Siegel,

A.I. Post-training

Fisher, G.H. Cost considerationsin systems analysts. R-490-ASD. Santa Monica, Calif.:
Rand Corporation, 1970.

performance-criterion development and application. A selective review of methods for
measuring individual differences in on-the-job

Investment in Human Beings, Journalof Political

performance. Wayne, Pennsylvania, Applied
Psychological Services, July 1961.

Economy, No. 5, Part 2 Vol. LXX, October

1962.

10''
•....°

•. ...

••.. . •' -• •

....

.•.

:. ..

•

• _ •

•

APPENDIX!L DFSCRJPTION OF ON-THE-JOB TRAINING
As described in Air Force Manual 50-23, On-theJob Training, OJT in the Air For,;e is regarded as a
formal method of training which can be used by an operational unit to -apgrade enlisted personnel to the
knowledge and proficiency required for a specific specialty and skill level.
The OJT program operates under the "Dual Channel" concept. That is, a trainee acquires both career
knowledge and job proficiency during the course of the training. Career knowledge is obtained primarily
through the Career Development Course-a programmed course of instruction containing specific skill
information learned through self-instruction, both on the job and off duty, and by daily discussion with a
trainer. These courses and their associated tests are updated frequently.
Job proficiency, the second channel, is acquired by the trainee through instruction, practice, and
actual performance of the skills. Progression of the trainee in acquiring skill proficiency is carefully
monitored by updating the Special Training Standard, or Job Proficiency Guide. This is a form specific to
each Air Force specialty whic'A details the skills, the required level of proficiency for each skill, and
verification by the trainer that the trainee has the required proficiency.
Satisfactory completion of job proficiency training, the Career Development Course, and the
Advancement Knowledge Test, plus supervisor recommendation, results in the airman's being upgraded to
the 3-skill level (semi-skilled) in his specialty.

APPENDIX 11. COSTING OJT
It would be desirable if the Air Force employed skills with easily measured outputs to which a value
could be assigned. However, it is often the case that the output of a skill is not easily related to an absolute
measure. For example, the protection afforded by the Security Police's patrolling of a flight line would be
considered an output. In this instance, though, what measurement scale could be used to assign a number
to "protection" to indicate its value?
Given that some outputs are not directly quantifiable, one can move back a step in the production
process and use the inputs as substitute (proxy) variables to measure the value of output. The logic for this
is that although it is difficult to place a value on output, Air Force decision makers must consider the
output of the skill, e.g., Security Police, at least as valuable as the manpower and equipment used in the
skill.
Since the economic cost of any type of training is the value foregone as a result of the training, the
cost (opportunity cost) of OJT in terms of inputs may be considered In two broad areas: (a) materials and
equipment, and (b) student and instructor time. These two areas can represent the resource inputs, and thus
the output, foregone in order to conduct OJT.
The product of the OJT process is a skilled airman. Thus, the cost estimate, according to the criteria
discussed earlier, should be in units of cost per skilled airman. This ties the cost estimate to a specific
output; for instance, the estimate could be for the cost of one OiT-upgraded, 3-skill level Fire Protection
Specialist.
The two broad areas of cost can now be separated into components for ease of analysis:
Time spent instructing. This is the time which trainer (instructor) must spend with a trainee to
describe and demonstrate the performance of each skill in which the trainee is required to become
proficient.
Time spent in remedial training This is the time spent by the instructor during duty hours which is
devoted to bringing the trainee's knowledge up to the required level of proficiency when a trainee fails a
paper-and-pencil skill test given at the end of his correspondence course.
Time spent in records management. This is the time taken out of each training week in order to
review and update one trainee's records. Both i structors and unit OJT monitors spend time here.
Time spent by the student in OJT. This includes reading of course materials, practice of skills (as
opposed to productive wotk), and time spent with instructors to learn the skills.
Student time spent in remedial training. If the trainee fails an end-of-course correspondence test, he
must review the course materials with an instructor and retake the test. This review work is often done on
the job.
Materials and equipment. This component refers only to materials and equipment used solely for OJT
and which are non-reusable. This might include such items as course materials, additional equipment
maintenance, gasoline, and munitions. The concept here is to consider only those costs which are
incremental, or in addition to the equipment normally required by unit operations.

Indirect cost of student time. In addition to the unit instructors and OJT monitors, organizations
exist at base and command levels which also monitor the progress of trainees, thus incurring a cost due to
the existence of OJT, but not attributable to a specific skill.
Often organizations, operations, or jobs exist at a base because OJT is conducted at that base. For
instance, Air Training Command keeps very tight control of its OJT programs by maintaining centralized
administration of trainees' progress, course materials, testing, and counseling. Thus, for any specialty under
ATC control, the indirect cost of OJT would be some sort of per-trainee estimate of the cost of this control
monitoring agency for each ATC base.
However, most of the OJT functions for AFSC 291 XO, including records maintenance, are handled
by the individual unit. The only contact outside the unit is when the Specialty Knowledge Test or
end-of-course examinations are administered by the local personnel office. Thus, base overhead is minute

on an individual trainee basis. This is also true of command overhead.

An indirect cost not reported as such for this skill is the administration of the Career Development
Course and course materials. The size and complexity of the Extension Course Institute, which prints and
administers the courses, prevents allocation of costs to any single skill. it was feit that it would be simpler
to report this cost under the single heading of Equipment and Materials rather than break up this small
number. Therefore, for this skill !he percentage of total cost falling under the category of Indirect Cost is
very small. This particular cost factor will probably vary greatly amorg specialties, depending upon how the
training is administered.
Output from the technical school cost estimate, included in Appendix VI, indicates that the annual
cost of updating course materials for the 291X0 Air Force specialty is approximately $37,200. This cost,
distributed among the two-thousand or more trainees who benefit each year, comes to $18.60 per trainee.
This cost is also included in the estimate reported for technical training school.
The specific makeup of any of these cost factors will vary from skill to skill. For instance, some skills
may have a large number of items in Materialsand Equipment, while others (e.g.. paper-and-pencil skills)
may have a negligible value for this cost factor.
Breaking up the total cost estimate into these categories will reduce the complexity of the overall
analysis and provide a more accurate estimate without going into unmanageable detail. An added advantage
is that the separate factors make the estimate easier to critique and easier to understand.
An important aspect of any study is selection of an appropriate measurement scale. The measurement
scale used for estimating the cost of OJT should be dollars, for two reasons. One, most resource allocation
decisions in the Department of Defense, especially at lower levels of decision making, require expliciZ
discussion of the impact of an alternative in terms of dollars. The second reason is that the dollar,
particularly with treatment of uncertainty, is the best understood, least nitbiguous measure currently
available.
For t..-purposes of this study, trainees were assumed to hold grade E.2 and 34evels grade E-3. The
number of annual work hours for all communications center personnel was assumed to be 2,080 hoursTi.e.,
52 weeks times 40 hours per week).
The cost factor equations are presented here in the form actually used for computation. The
variables represent the 31 answer blanks in the first 17 questions on the survey, respectively. The Y.variables represent question 18 where i = 1, 2,. . . 19 and I, 2, . . . 5. For instance, Y4, 2 is the
number representing trainee hours per week reading spent learning publications in question 18.
Cost of Delayed Entry into 291X0 Training
Number of weeks\
betweenarrivalof
DDA and start of J
Training
/
(Question 2) 0 ($1.62)

(40)=

/ Work

(Hourly wage of)
upgraded 3-1eveij

hours ]
per week)

$
Trainee

Cost of Records Manaement

with grade i

instructors with grade I

[/Instruct r hours

pe wee

Houlywagto

of-intuco3
7

Sntumber of instructors

with grade i

i=3
L
Average time \
toskill level)
in weks

ininnaintaining
trainee's records

Hourly wage of
unit OJT monitor

Hours per week
(spent by OJT
monitor

Average time
to skill level
in weeks

-I

• ! - I • ' - ..J•

==
. .. • •,

r -., -,...•.. = ,••-=, --:--• , = Y

X. (Hourly wagei)

•(Question 4) (Question 14) + (Hourly wage of monitor)

l we

11
i=xi
$
Trainee
Trainee

(Question 4) (Question 15a)

Cost of Student Time in Training
Weeks to
19
proficiency)
E
(Hourly wage
for skil!i /
i=1
oftrainee

(

19
E
P'-I

($1.32)

(Yj,I) (Y.,2 + Y1 ,3)

/Trainee hours
(per week reading
for skilli

Trainee hours per week\
being instructedorj
practicingskilli

Trainee

Indirect Cost of OJT
Cost per trainee
fo ror
/
monitors

'Cost per trainee )
+
baseOT
monitors
6

Annual cost of updating 291X0
career development course
Total number of trainees
usng CDC in the year

$
Trainee

Cost of Instructor Time

7
i

15
E

Instructor hours

(Weeks to

per week for
skilli

proficiency
\ forskiili/

iýl

with gra

of instructors
with grade;•

SNumber

L i=3

r19

Hourly wage of instructor

Number of instructors
with grade i

19
E
1i=1

(X) (Hourly waget)

Instructor-to-trainee
ratio for skill i A

(yi )(Y,4) (Y,5)'s

$
Trainee

Cost of Remedial Training
=

;
i-3

(Number of instructors
/
with grade i
7
2:
i=3

Hourly wage of
nstructor with grade 1/

Number of instructorsl
with grade i

( Average weeks\
of remedial
Nntraining

Average hours
per week of
instructor time

(Trainee\

Average hours per\

hourly
wage /

(Average weeks of

\remedial training )\

week of trainee

time, on duty

15
1

(Hourly wage1
1ffi
I;xj

(Question 12a) (Question 12c)
+ (Question 12a) (Question 12b) (Hourly Wage) =
Trainee

Cost of Equipment and Materials
Cost per student of Career Development Course (obtained from Extension Course Institute, Gunter
AFB, Alabama).
The outcomes of these ecqx.tions were summed for each survey and adjusted for attrition by adding a
factor equal to question 13. In other words,
( Sum of cost
Sum of cost )
Total cost per trainee
uestion 13 factor equations
(factor equations
Dlq-uuion
are assocbted
Tc Indirect Cost of OJT should include those costs at bare or command level which
the base-level
skills
some
For
skill.
single
any
to
with OJT in general but which are not easily attributed
be a vcry
may
overhead
command
of
trainee
per
cost
the
skills
many
In
OJT monitors may not be involved.
Development
Career
the
mall figure. A factor which should be included here is the cost of updating
100 or more. This cost is
Course, but only for those skills with an annual Trained Personnel Requirement o,"
should be distributed
cost
course-the
the
use
trainees
OJT
and
included here because both technical school
evenly among all users.
of instructor wages
In the Cost offInstructor Time, the instructor hourly wages are a weighted average
within the communications center.
the requirement for a
Cost of Delayed Entry into 291X0 Trainingis unique to this skill because of

delay prior io
security clearance prior to entry to most communications center. Normally, there is little

start of training.
that it is only
Remedial training is conducted both on and off duty. The assumption made was
in the Cost
included
no'
was
time
Off-duty
productivity.
of
loss
a
in
results
on-duty remedial training which
nothing
loses
Force
Air
the
something,
of Remedial Training because, although it certainly costs the trainee

directly.
Course
The only equipment and materials used in OJT for this specialty are t.e Career Development
utilities
increased
and
materials. The inteniews indicated that increased equipment maintenance

an estimate of the
consumption due to CJT were nil. Extension Course Institute, Air Univerty, provided
available for the
not
were
Data
Course.
Development
Career
a
of
cost of materials and administration
specific course concerning the 291X0 specialty.

APPENDIXIII. COST OF TECHNICAL TRAINING SCHOOL
To obtain a cost estimate of the technical training school course correspond;ig to 291X0 OJT. a
computer model was developed by RAND Corporation for estimating resources an costs of the training
(Allison, 1970). Input data for the model were provided by Sheppard Air Force Bast Technical Training
Center on man-hours, facilities, maintenance, and materiel.
A copy of the last page of output of the computer program is shown as table 0. The appropriate cost
estimate is indicated for the cost factor Cost per Graduate, Student type 1.
The technical training school cost categories generally contain greater detail than tbze OJT cost factors
because more detailed data are available for technical training school.
OJT Cost Factors

Tech School Cost Categories

Student Time

Pay and Allowances (Students)

Instructor Time
Equipment and Materials

Pay and Allowances (Instructors and Supervisors)
Pay and Allowances (Media and Training Aids)
Training Aids, Maintenance, Materiel, and Service
Media, O&M, Materiel, and Service Supplies and Services
Cost of Delayed Entry into Training Pay and Allowances (Students)
Remedial Training
Pay and Allowances (Students and Instructors)
Records Management
Pay and Allowances (Training Administration)
Command Overhead
Indirect
Pay and Allowances (Indirect)
In Table 7, the nonrecurring costs items in the technical training school cost output are zero because
these costs are to be used for comparison of alternatives. Nonrecurring costs for facilities which already
exist are not valid for this purpose because the facilities will likely remain whether or not the technical
school remains. However, if, for example, the student load for technical training school were to increase
beyond present capacity, the cost of required additional facilities would have to be included in this cost
category.
Some of the cost categories appear more than once beside OJT Cost Factors. For instance, Pay and
Allowances (Students) appears beside both Student Time and Cost of Delayed Entry into Training because
the computer model lumps the time for Personnel Awaiting Training and the actual time for student
training .nto one factor, Student Time.
The Command Overhead factor in the computer output has no corresponding OJT cost factor
because this cost was negligible for Communications Center Operations OJT. This may not be true of other
Air Force specialties.
Personnel at the technical training school maintain and update the Career Development Course used
by both technical training students and by OJT trainees. The cost of this would exist whether or not OJT
existed because OJT trainees make use of the service. However, because the cost is not negligible, and
because this cost is included in the technical training school model, it was prorated ased on a fiscal year
Trained Personnel Requirement estimate of 2,000 and included for OJT under the lnwrect cost factor.
One incorrect aspect of this computer model is that the cost of student time spent in Personnel
Awaiting Training and Personnel Awaiting Assignment status is computed based on the student's wages
while in school. It should be based upon his wages after he leaves school, however, because the productivity
foregone as a result of these delays occurs as the student's graduation point is moved into the future. In this
sense, the technical training school cost estimatz- of $2,670 is a slight underestimateof the actual cost,
although the difference will probably not amount to more than $100.
Under Cost per Graduate in the computer output, Student type I represents Air Force enlisted
personnel, while Student type 2 represents Civil Service employees. The difference in cost for these two
groups is due to differences in delay time (entering and leaving the course) and attrition rates.

Table 7. Technical Training Resource and Cost Model
Costs in thousands of dollars
Variable

Total

Cost Factor

Nonrecurring Costs
Media
Training aids

Fixeca

0
0

0
0
0
0
0

316.00
14.00
1,904.00
653.00
262.00
91.00
160.00

316.00
14.00
1,508.00
653.00
262.00
91.00
14.00

Indirect (base admin, supt)

738.00

488.00

Trng aids mtce matr and serv
Media O+M matr and serv
Supplies and services
Command overhead
Other
Subtotal recurring
Total Cost

5.00
0
160.00
164.00
0
2,563.00
2,563.00

5.00
0
110.00
164.00
0
1,952.00
1,952.00

611.00
611.00

2.56
2.67
1.90
.00

1.95
2.06
1.29
.00

.61
.61
.61
.00

Facilities
Classrooms
Laboratory
Other
Other
Subtotal nonrecurring
Recurring Costs
Student TDY and PCS
Instructor training
Pay and allowances
Students
Instructors and supervisors
Media and training aids
Training administration

Cost per Graduateb
Student type 1
Student type 2
Student type 3

.00
.00

Student type 4
Student type 5

.00
.00

396.00

145.00

250.00
51.00

.00
.00

aFixed costs are cotts which will not vary for the school, department, branch, or course regardless of any change
made to the course or the number of students trained. Fixed costs for the school, department and branch are allocated to
courses on the basis of numbers of student weeks.
bcost per graduate by student type determined on the basis of actual academic student weeks and pay and
allowances by type of student.

Alternative cost estimates for technical training school courses are available in Air Force Manual
172-3, Air Force Cost Planning Factorm However, these reported costs are not as accurate for cost
comparison purposes as the cost model discussed here because school operation costs and man-hours are

not allocated in detail to the individual course level. While this may mean an error of only $100 to $200 per

graduate, there is no need to accept this error when a more accurate, low.cost alternative method is
available.

•,•

• -'•
IV. ADDITIONAL COST ASSOCIATED WITH TECHNICAL SCHOOL TRAINING
SAPPENDIX

The OJT.trained 3-1evel continues to progress after reaching his skill level. This is true of the technical
graduate also, but he does not have the workload capability of an OJT-trained 34evel
Sschool
until a few
weeks after his arrival on the job. This difference in relative productivity is depicted in Figure 2. The
shaded area can be thought of as representing the total productivity loss associated with the inabili .tyof the
technkal school graduate to assume full workload immectiately after arrival. Productivity is measured
relative to the OJT-tralned 3-1evel, a•uming that the OJT-trained 34evel has I00 percent
S• of the
productivity required of an Air Fome 3-1evel in the specialty.
Si

SWorklold
capabHIty

:--

I
Tech School grad can
school
]•

Tech

handle same worklosd

at unit

Sgraduate
Sarrives

as OJT-tralned 3-level

F•. 2. Comparative workload capability vs. time for OJT aad technical
trainees.

•
:

Sschool

With this a.•umption the mean answers to survey questions 1la and 1lb (see Section IlL Analysis of
Results) can be used. In other words, the technical school graduate starts out with 32.16 percent of the
of an OJT-trained 3-level and reaches 100 percent in an average time of 4.25 weeks.
Sproductivity

-•"

,
i

•

The OJT-trained 3-level undoubtedly increases his productivity over the 4.25 weeks, but how much is
a very complex question. Th erefore, another assumption is made to make the problem manageable-that
S"
the OJT.tralned 3-level has constant productivity for that period of time. This forces the OJT curve to
appear as shown in Figure 3. It is not clear whether this assumption results in • overestimate or an
underestimate. The ratio of the shaded area to the area of the total rectangle provides a reasonable estimate
of the percentage of the 4.25 weeks which was unpmductiw,
Workload capability of
OJT trained.•, ..•le•l

OJT .. •,aed 3-level

100•

STech

1€h00| gi'ad

32.16%

:
i
!

g
<
2-=_

Fig 3. Comlxtratlve woddead capability v•. lime ud,• oYr •

4.25

SWeeks
level ,,, base.

Assume the curve for the technical school graduate isexponential, i.e., of the form
where Y is the percentage of an OJT-trained 3-level's workload and x is weeks. The shaded area can be
obtained by subtracting the area under the curve from the area of rectangle OABC. The ratio of the shaded
area to rectangle OABC could then be multiplied by 4.25 weeks and the 3-level's weekly wage to obtain a
cost estimate of the uaproductive time. A plotted graph of the curve is shown in Figure 4.
Solution for ct
Y =32.16 +67.84 (1 -e)
Y()=32.16
Y (4.25) =99.9
ct1.37
thus

Y 32.16 +67.84 (1 -e 13 7 )

Workload capacity of
OJT-trained 3-skill

49.52

32.16 +67.84 (1 -

40
32.16I

15 2

3.5

4.215 4.5

Wks

Fig. 4. Solution showing woddoad capaililty vs. thime using OJT 34kil level ats bas.
19A

Solution for area under curve
A,

'4.2
5 (32.16 + 67.84 (1 - e'1'37x))dx

AI = 375.48
Solution for shaded area
AI + A 2 = Total area = (100)(4.25)= 425

".A2 =425 -AA
A2

49.52

13% of 4.25 weeks spent in reaching the proficiency of an OJT-trained 3-levei.

Estimated additional student cost of technical school graduate

/49.52

42hours

9 4 25 weeks) .(40

425

76-$33.26

.62

week)(

T
hor

Instructors must also spend time instructing technical school graduates to "get them into the
system." To measure the cost of this instructor time, it was assumed that instructors spend an amount of
time equal to that spent by the technical school graduates. This means that instructors spend
.2 or 13
percent of 4.25 weeks as an instructor. The average instructor wage is $3.48 per hour (a weighted average
using questions 10a and lOb from the survey).
Thus, the cost of instructor time is
(.13) (4.25 weeks) (3.48 &

) (40 hours) = $76.90

This cost, plus the estimated cost of student time, brings the total cost estimate for technical training
school up to $2,780.

APPENDIX V COMMUNICATIONS CENI ER OPERATIONS
OJT SURVEY
INSTRUCTIONS
1. The Communications Center Supervisor/NCOIC should complete this survey. If this person is
unavailable, it shoukd be filled out by the OJT Monitor. Approximately one (1) hour will be required to

complete the survey.
2. When answering the questions, have a Job Proficiency Guide (STS) handy to refer to.
3. The person who fil out this survey is encouraged to ask for the help of others, such as the OJT
Monitor or an instructor when uncertain about the answer to a question.
4. This survey should be completed and returned in the attached self-addressed envelope not later than 2
April 1971.
5. If there is difficulty in deciding what information is being asked for in any question, contact Lt
Dunham, Lackland AFB, at 473-4106 (AUTOVON).

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
NAME (Last, first, middle initial)

GRADE
E-4_,E-5

_________________

,E.6_,E.7_E.8..__.,E-9

Job Title
Social Security Number
Organization
Base or Installation

Total Months in Present Job
Total Months at Present Base
Duty Telephone Extension

CHECK THE EQUIPMENT OPERATED IN YOUR COMMUNICATIONS CENTER:
ANIFGC 20 AND 25 TELETYPEWRITERS
AN/FGC 38X/39 TELETYPEWRITER RELAY EQUIPMENT
ASR MODEL 28 TELETYPEWRITERS

0
0r0

CARD-PUNCH UNITS

COMPOUND TERMINAL UNITS
DATA CARD INTERPRETER

FACSIMILE

MAGNETIC TAPE TERMINAL EQUIPMENT

MANUAL AND AUTOMATIC SWITCHBOARDS

MODE V TELETYPEWRITER TERMINAL CONTROL UNIT 12000 8-A
MODEL 19 TELETYPEWRITERS

0
0

MULTIPLE ADDRESS CONSOLE CABINET 7666A

PLAN 55 AUTOMATIC RELAY EQUIPMENT

TSEC/KG-3 AND KG-13

TSEC/KL.7
TSEC/KL.47

TSECIKW.7

TSEC/KW.26

TSEC/KW.37

OTHER(Specify)_

29 IXO OJT SURVEY
1. Approximately when (give month and year) did your Communications Center last conduct OJT to the
3 level for AFSC 291X09
month

year

2. When a man (or woman) first arrives at your Comm Center directly from Basic Military Training, it may
take some time before le actually begins training and work inside the Comm Center, even though his "date
of entry" to training may bc the same as his reporting date. Part of this delay is due to personnel
processing, while any further delay may be due to the need to wait for security clearance before entering
the Comm Center. Approximately how many weeks does it take before the newly 3rrived "helper" actually
begins OJT? ... weeks.

I_,

3. There is also delay in entering training associated with the arrival of a 3-level from Technical School at
Sheppard Technical Training Center. In addition to personnel processing, familiarization with procedures
specific to your Comm Center may be necessary before he/she actually begins 5 level training. On the
average, this delay is
weeks

,I
ýA

4. Due to the "miniinwn time" requirement to the 3 level and to delays in paperwork, there is often a
difference between time of award of the 3 level and the actual time the trainee takes to reach the required
level of proficiency in all skills. Based on your experience, what is the average number of weeks it actually
takes for a "helper" to reach the proficiency required for a 3 level? -weeks.
5. What percentage of the 3 level trainees fail the Apprentice Knowledge Test (End of Course Test) the
first time they take it?

6. Under normal operating conditions, how many eight-hour shifts per day does your Comm Center
operate? _
shifts per day.
3 level

7. How many trainees do you have going to the 3 and 5 level in your Comm Center?
5 level trainees.
trainees.

8. In addition to the trainees you now have responsibility for and ignoring the limit on authorized number
of personnel, how many more 3 level trainees could your Comm Center train right now without
significantly reducing the effectiveness of the Telecomm operations? -...3 level trainees.
9. If you had to lose a qualified 5-level for each new 3-level trainee ("helper"), how many raore 3 level
trainees could your Comm Center train right now without significantly reducing the effectiveness of the
Telecomm operations?

- 3 level trainees.

10. Assuming your Comm Center had to train the sum of questions 7 and 8, list the number of instructors
;E-3-.
E-6.__._E.5 -;E-4in each grade who would be responsible for 3 and 5 level OJT: E-7
1i. The newly arrived Tech School-trained 3-level is not as productive at first as the OJT-trained 3-level is,
althc ugh he may soon close the gap.
a. In your estimate, what percentage of the workload of an OJT-trained 3-level can the Tech School
graduate handle immediately after his arrival?

b. How many weeks does it take before the Tech School-trained 3-level works with as little
supervision as an OJT-trained 3-level? __.._weeks.
c. After both types of 3-levels are awarded their 5-level, on the average do you consider either to
have superior performance?_ yes; _ no. If your answe, was 'yes,' which type of 3-level do you
consider to have better performance?_

OJT-trained to 3 level:

Tech School-trained to 3 level.

12. If extra (remedial) training is conducted in your Comm Center for trainees who fail the Apprentice
Knowledge Test (End of Course Test), answer the following questions:
a. On the average, how many weeks of additional training are given to airmen who fail the AKT
before they take the test again?

weeks.

b. How many hours per week, norma, duty hours, ý.ies the trainee spend engaged in this remedial
training? _ hours per week.
c. How many hours per week, normal duty hours, does the instructor (trainer) spend conducting this
extra training?

per week.

d. Hew many hours per week, overtime, does the trainee spend in extra training?

hours per

week.
e.

flow many hours per week, overtime, does the instructor spend conducting cxtra

training?_

hours per week.

=
_

'-.

...

•

•.

•

----..

...

•:

',w

'. =,- •=

-- '=•
"•"

=•

13. Of those trainees enrolled in OJT in the last year, what percentage failed to upgrade to the 3
level?
%
14. During the training period for 3 level OJT, the instructor (trainer) must spend some time keeping
training records up to date. On the average over the whole training period, how many hours (or fractions of
hours per
hours) per week does the instructor (trainer) spend in record keeping for one trainee?..
week.
15. The OJT Monitor for your Comm Center must also spend some time reviewing records. How many
hours (or fractions) per week does the OJT Monitor spend reviewing the records of one trainee?
hours per week. Grade of OJT Monitor?
16. The Career Development Course is designed to be used by all OJT trainees, 3 and 5 level, but since
equipment and procedures vary among Communications Centers not all of the CDC is relevant to the
operations of your particular Comm Center. Roughly what percentage of the material covefed by the CDC
is relevant to the operations of your unit?
%
personnel (officer,

18. In this question, you are asked to provide estimates of training time spent on various items in the Job
Proficiency Guide (STS). The figures which you give will necessarily be average figures based on your
experience. When you lack experience or cannot recall enough information to properly answer any part of
this question, you are encouraged to consult with others in your Comm Center who would have more
recent experience or who have been in closer contact with the training. Referral to a Job Proficiency Guide
,or Specialty Training Standard) will help you give accurate information. If you refer to the items
following, you will see that training time to 3-level proficiency for each skill is broken down into categories
defined as follows:
Weeks to Proficiency: The number of weeks it takes the average trainee to reach 3-level proficiency in
that skill.
Trainee Hours p4r Week Readin : This is the average number of hours per week during the weeks
spent becoming proficient in this skill that the trainee spends reading material relevant to this skill.
Trainee Hours per Week OJT: During the time spent learning this item, this is the number of hours
per wee.. lie trainee spends learning the different aspects of this skill, in addition to reading.
Instructor Hours per Week: During the weeks spent b, the trainee in learning this skill or knowledge,
this is Me number of hours per week spent by the instructor (trainer) in teaching (or lecturing) all trainees.
This may differ from "Trainee Hours per Week OJT" in some cases, such as typing.
Trainees per Instructor: This is the average number of trainees handled by an instructor for a
particula-r skil.This may be the same for all skills, but not necessarily.
As an example, look at the first item, "Mission." We'll assumc that out of the weeks spent by the "helper"
in acquiring 3-level skill, in only one week was there formal training about "Mission." So you would put a
'I' next to "Mission" under "Weeks to Proficiency." This is not an extensive subject, so probably not much
time is spent on it. For the sake of an example, we'll say that for the whole week the average trainee spends
one hour reading and two hours being shown the different equipment and procedures and how they relate
to the mission of the Major Command and the Air Force. So you would put a '1' under "Trainee Hours per

•

f. What is the average grade of the instructor who conducts this extra training?,

17. What is the total number of personnel in your Comm Center at this date?
enlisted, civilian).

and '2' under "Trainee Hours per Week OJT." We will also assume that the instructor was
Week
Reading"
with the
trainee(s) for their two hours of OJT and that he usually handles two trainees while teaching the
item. So you would put a '2' beside "Mission" under "Instructor Hours per Week" and a '2' under

"Trainees per Instructor." The information for this item would look like this:
Weeks
Trainee Hours Trainee Hours
to
per Week
per Week
Proficiency
Reading
OJT

1. Mission

Instructor
Hours per
Week

Trainee
per
Instructor

Again, it is understood that these figures are not exact. Just give the best estimates you can about these average times.

• • I• '

•'

'•-"

I..

;

-Z

i2-

0
u.

000
@

oz-

U,
E

CuC;c
C.;

ý6

C MUu~O

I I

06C

26~~

•_

• "7

..........

i.•4

Source Exif Data:

File Type                       : PDF
File Type Extension             : pdf
MIME Type                       : application/pdf
PDF Version                     : 1.4
Linearized                      : No
Page Count                      : 36
EFA                             : JUN 1972
DE                              : *COMMUNICATIONS CENTRALS, DECISION MAKING, TEACHING METHODS, AIR FORCE TRAINING, SELECTION
Modify Date                     : 2011:05:14 05:13:20-04:00
DS                              : Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
TC                              : UNCLASSIFIED
DCS                             : UNCLASSIFIED
AU                              : Dunham, Alan D.
FG                              : HUMANITIES AND HISTORY
DC                              : APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
HDL                             : http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/AD753093
AD                              : AD0753093
AC                              : UNCLASSIFIED
CI                              : UNCLASSIFIED
Producer                        :  ; modified using iText 5.0.4 (c) 1T3XT BVBA
AB                              : Decisions concerned with the use of alternative Air Force training methods require several types of data. Among these are capacity to train, cost of the training, and quality of the trained airmen. The two methods of formal training in the Air Force are on-the-job training (OJT) and technical school training. The data currently being provided to decision makers for selecting the proper mix of these two training methods can be substantially improved.
RS                              : AFHRL
PAG                             : 36
GC                              : 4820
CS                              : ACTIVE
IC                              : UNCLASSIFIED
ID                              : *ON JOB TRAINING
ORG                             : AIR FORCE
PGC                             : 
UPD                             : 31 OCT 2007
AN                              : AD0753093
Title                           : Estimated Cost of On-the-Job Training to the 3-Skill Level in the Communications Center Operations Specialty
DLC                             : DTIC AND NTIS
Creator                         : 
RC                              : UNCLASSIFIED
TI                              : Estimated Cost of On-the-Job Training to the 3-Skill Level in the Communications Center Operations Specialty
RD                              : JUN 1972
RCC                             : UNCLASSIFIED
CA                              : AIR FORCE HUMAN RESOURCES LAB LACKLAND AFB TX
TT                              : ACTIVE
RN                              : AFHRL-TR-72-56

EXIF Metadata provided by EXIF.tools

Estimated Cost Of On The Job Training To 3 Skill Level In Communications Center Operations Specialty 753 093 753093

Navigation menu

Versions of this User Manual:

Views

Navigation