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

AD-753

093

ESTIMATED

COST

OF

ON-THE-JOB

TRAINING

TO

THE

3-SKILL

LEVEL

IN

THE

COMMUNICA-

TIONS

CENTER

OPERATIONS

SPECIALTY

Alan

D.

Dunham

Air

Force

Human

Resources

Laboratory

Lackland

Air

Force

Base,

Texas

June

1972

!I

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

ESTIMATED COST

0P

ON-THE-JOB

TRAINING

TO

THE

3-SKILL

LEVEL

IN

THE

COMMUNICATIONS

HCENTER

OPER.ATrIONS

SPECI.LrY

U

MI

By

A

Alan

D.

Dunham, Capt.

USAF

! N

N

PERSONNEL RESEARCH

DIVISION

Lackland

Air

Force

Base,

Texas

S

June

1972

0

U

R

Approved

for

public

release;

distribution

unlimited.

c

£ E

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

ii

be

(I

, I

CN&

402

I

-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

%'hen thet

o.verall

report

is

classifi.d)

A

I

ORIGINATING

ACTIVITY

(CIrpotsta

author)

a

.

REPORT

SECURITY

CLASSIFICATION

Pesonnel

Research

Division

Unclassfied

Air

Force

Human Resources

Laboratory

2. G

Lackland

Air

Force

Base,

Texas

78236

3

REPORT

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)

S

AUTNORIS)

(First

name,

middle

initial.

la*t

name)

Alan

D.

Dunhzn

a.

RUPORT DATE

7e. TOTAL

NO.

OF

PAGIS

7b,

NO

OF

REFS

June

1972

3-~~z-

44.

CONTRACT

OR

GRANT

NO

9a.

ORIGINATOR'S

REPORT

NUMBERIS)

b.

PROjECT

NO

6323

AFHRL-TR-72-56

c.

Task No.

632302

9b.

OTHER

REPORT

NO($)

(Any

other

numbers

that

may

be

assigned

this

report)

d.Work

Unit

No.

63230209

10

DISTRIBUTION

STATEMENT

Approved

for

public

release;

distribution

unlimited.

I

SUPPLEMENTARY

NOTES

It2.

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.

,I

DD

'°'.1473

J"

Unssified

Security

Classification

Unclassified

-,1

security

Classifkcation

14

K

WRSLINK

A

LIN

a

L.INK

C

ROLE

WT

ROLE

WY

ROLE

I

Wr

trainin

education

cost

on-the.Job

Training

comnmunications

USAF

Undassifled

.Zii

'*

~

security

ciessificition

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

fmo

public

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

II

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.

4

!V

ill

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

/

Page

i.

Introduction

...................................... I

II.

Description

and

Collection

of

Data

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

Description

of

Specialty

to

be

Studied

....... ................. I

Identification

of

Cost

Factors

............................. I

Development

and Administration

of

OJT

Survey

...... ...................... 2

Ill.

Analysis

of

Results

.......... ................................... 2

Summary

of

Survey

Responses

......... ............................. 2

Cost

of

Technical School

Training

......... ........................... 6

Comparative Cost

of

Technical School

Training

and OJT

...... ................. 6

Comparative

Quality

of

Technical

School

Training

and

OJT

...... ............... 7

Sansitivity

Analysis

............ .................................. 8

IV.

Diss:ussion

............ ........................................ 8

V.

Conclusions.

. ...................................... 9

References

.............. .......................................... 10

Bibliography

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

10

Appendix

I.

Description

of

On-the-Job Training

......... ........................ 11

Appendix

It.

Costing

OJT

.......... ................................... 12

Appendix

111.

Cost

of

Technical

Training

School

. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. 16

Appendix

IV.

Additional

Cost

Associated

with Technical School Training

..... ............ 18

Appendix

V.

Communications

Center

Operations OJT

Survey

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

21

LIST

OF

TABI

ES

Table

Page

I

Mean

OJT

Cost

Factors Computed

from

Equations

Derived

from

Survey Responses

..... 3

2

Summary

Statistics

for

Responses

to

Survey

Questions

I

through

17

..... ........... 4 4

3

Summary

Statistics

for

Selected

Training

Items

in

the

Specialty

Training

Standard

Derived

from

Responses

to

Survey

Queston

18

...... ................. 5

4

Comparative

Performance

of

Technical

Training

School

and

OJT

Trainees

on

AQE

Administrative

and

General

Aptitude

Indexes

........ .................. 7

5

Comparative

Peiformance

of

Technical Training

School

and

OJT Trainees

on

2914 and

2915

Specialty

Knowledge

Tests

......... ...................... 7

6

Correlation

between

Estimated

Cost

of

OJT

and

Selected

Variables

.................. 9 9

7

Technical

Training

Resource and

Cost

Model

....... ....................... !7

v

Preceding

page

blank

LIST

OF

FIGURES

RFipum

Pae

SI

Frequency

of

OJT

cost

estimates

derived

from

survey responses

................... 3

2

Compurative

workload

capability

vs.

time

for

OJT

and

technical

school

trainees

....... ... 18

3

Comparative

workload capability

vs.

time

using

OJT

3-skill

level

as

base

........... .... 18

4

Solution

showing

workload capability

vs.

time

using

OJT

3-skill

level

as

base

......... ... 19

.-i

2 1*

A

vi

4d

ESTIMATED

COST

OF

ON-THE-JOB

TRAINING

TO

THE

3-SKILL

LEVEL

IN

THE

COMMUNICATIONS

CENTER OPERATIONS SPECIALTY

I.

INTRODUCTION

I.

DESCRIrTION

AND

COLLECTION

OF DATA

"The

training

system

must

be

critically

evaluated

to

Description

of

Specialty

to

be Studied

reduce cost

in

terms

of

money and manpower

and

yet produce

trained personnel

in

the numbers

The

Air

Force

specialty selected

as

the

subject

required

(USAF

Personnel

Pan,

Vol

1,

para

2-2-3,

of' this

ini.ial

study

was

Communications

Center

June

1971):.

Operations,

Air

Force

Specialty

Code

(AFSC)

The

United

States

Air

Force

trains approxi.

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

equipment

consoles.

Since

personnel

within

the

new

airn.en

are assigned

to

Category

A

speci-

specialty

move

messages

worldwide for

the

Air

alties

to

upgrade

through

a

technical

training Force,

the

procedures,

codes,

and

message

formats

school

course;

43

percent

are

assigned

to

Category which

must

be

learned

are

complex.

Moreover,

the

B

specialties

where

they

may

go

to

a

technical procedures

and

formats

vary

greatly

depending

on

training school

or

they

may

upgrade

through

on-

which

of

the

two

dozen

types

of

equipment

are

the-job

training (OJT);

4

percent

are

assigned

to

used

in

the more

than

two

hundred

centers

within

Category

C

specialties

to

upgrade

only

through the

continental

United

States

(CONUS).

OJT.V

The

Air

Force

programmed

an

average

of

The

Communications Center Operations

speci-

51

percent

of

the

airmen

in

Category

B

skills

to

ally

is

described

as

an

imbalanced

AFSC,

which

technical training

school

and

49

percent

to

OJT

in

means

that

there

is a

greater

requirement

for

this

FY

1971.

skill

overseas

than

in

the

CONUS.

Also,

since

entry

The

cost

of

training the

required personnel

in

into

a

communications

center

usually requires

that

Category

B

specialties

can

be

altered

by

varying

the

individual

have

a

security

clear-nce,

a

trainee

the

relative

use

of

technical

training

school

and

may

encounter

a

few weeks' delay

before

OJT.

The OJT-technical school

mix

may

also

beginning

OJT.

affect

the quality

of

trained

airmen,

the

time

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

technical

training

course (3ABR29130)

at

problem

of

selecting

an

optimal

mix for

any Air

Sheppard

Air

Force

Base,

Texas.

Force specialty

calls

for detailed

information

in

several

areas.

Identification

of

Cost

Factors

One necessary

data

input

is

the

cost

of

OJT.

Several

general

cost

factors

were

identified

The

primary

purpose

of

this

study

was

to

develop

which

would encompass

all

of

the

costs

associated

and apply

a

methodology

for

obtaining

useful

cost

with

Air

Force OJT and

would

be

relevant

for

all

estimates

of

OJT for

Category

B

Air

Force

speci-

Air

Force

specialties.

The factors

include

student

alties.

With

such

information,

the

cost

of

OJT

can

time,

instructor

time,

records

management,

be

compared

to

the

cost

of

the

corresponding

remedial

training,

and

equipment

and

materials.

technical

training

course,

and an

optimal

mix

of

For

a

more

detailed

discussion

of

this

aspect

of

the

two

training

approaches

for

the

specialty

study,

see

Appendix

il.

under

consideration

can

be

determined.•:

Because

several

of

the cost

factors

measure

the

cost

of

time,

it

was

necessary

that data

be

-:ol-

lected

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.

possible

to

estimate

the

cost

directly

in

dollars.

grammed

Technkial

Training,

ATC,

DSCITT,

may

However,

after

an

extensive

research

of

Depart-

fluctuate

slightly

over

time,

ment

of

Defense,

Federal,

and

professional

!I

11

!I

material

to

determine

if

any

information

of

this

An

initial

survey

design was

completed

after

sort

existed

for OIT.

None

was

found.

2

Therefore, the

interviews, followed

by

final

design

of

the

cost

a

technique

had

to

be

developed

for

collecting

the

factor

equations.

The initial

survey

was

then

appropriate data

in

suitable measures.

administered

to the

communications

center

super-

visors

at

Kelly,

Randolph,

and

Brooks

Air

Force

Development

and Administration

of

OJT

Survey

Bases.

This

provided feedback

on

survey

design

Three

techniques

for

data

collection

were

and

information

to

use

in

the

equations

(see

considered:

establishment

of

a

recording system

Appendix

11)

as

a

test run.

for

OJT

data,

conduct

of

a

large

number

of

inter.

A

copy

of

the

Communications

Center

Opera-

views,

and

administration

of

a

survey.

The

tions

OJT

Survey

is

presented

as

Appendix

V. Of

recording system

would require

a

long

lead

time

all

the questions on

the

survey,

number

18

was

the

and

would be

burdensome to

operaticnal

units, most

difficult

to

design-and,

correspondingly,

the

but it

could

be

very

accurate. The interview

most

useful

as

an

input

into

the

equations.

It

was

method

would

also

require

a

lot

of

time and

it

designed

to

collect the

majority

of

information

would

cost

more

for

the

transportation that

would

about

time

spent

by

instructors

and trainees

in

be involved,

but

it,

too,

could

be

fairly

accurate- OJT. The

problem

was

choosing

the

appropriate

depending

on

the

interviewer.

A

survey

would

units

of

time

and

degree

of

detail. These choices

have

the

disadvantage

of

being

relatively

less

were

dependent upon

several

factors:

the actual

accurate than

the

other

two approaches,

but

it time

phasing

of

the

training,

the

ability

of

super-

would

have

the

advantages

of

being

less

costly

per

visors

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

ability

of

supervisors

to

mentally

join

together

also

have

the

advantage

of

visibility-a

critic could

of

skills

when

answering

the

look at

a

survey

instrument

and judge

it,

whereas

question.

The

decision

was

to

use

the

Specialty

it

would

be

difficult

to

critique

interviews

after

Training

Standard

(STS)

as

a

general

format

the fact.

Hence,

the

survey

technique

was

used.

because

each

respondent

would

be

familiar

with

its

Surveys

were

mailed

to

214

addresses

in

the

terminology

and

method

of

grouping

skills.

The

CONUS

only.

Although

approximately

12.5

per-

question

of

the

appropriate

unit

of

time

was

cent

of

OJT

to

the

3-skill

level

is

being

conducted

resolved

by

asking

for

estimates

of

the hours

per

overseas,

3

most

of

these

trainees

are

probably

week

spent

within

training

weeks.

The

rest

of

the

lateral

or

cross-trainees

from

another

specialty

survey

questions

were

fairly

straightforward.

and,

therefore,

are

generally

atypical

of

trainees Some

surveys

were

partially

filed

out,

while

learning

the

291X0 specialty

as

their

first

skill,

others

were

completely

filled

out

but

with

Initial interviews

were

conducted

with

four

inconsistent

data.

These

latter

surveys

were

Ssupervisors

at

communications

centeis

at

Lackland

identified

to

prevent their

use

in

computation

of

Air

Force

Base,

HQ

Security

Service.

and

Kelly

Air

the

cost factor

equations.

Force

Base,

Texas. Although

Security

Service

uses

Of

the

214

surveys

mailed,

113

were

returned

personnel

with the

291XO

AFSC,

the

operations

in

completely

filled

out,

and

104

of

these were

Security

Service

communications centers

are

sig.

judged

to

be

consistently completed.

These

104

nificantly

different

fro'n

those

of

the

usual

base

cases were

used

for

the

final

cost

estimate.

Some

communications center. Therefore,

Security

Setv-

of

the

partially

completed

surveys

were

used

to

ice

subjects

were

excluded from

the

sample

obtain

averages

for

t'._-

first

17

questions.

because

their

responses

would

have

tended

to

describe

atypical

training.

IlL.

ANALYSL:

OF

RESULTS

2The

time

to

3-skill

level

reflected

by

an

airman's

Summary

of

Survey

Responses

N

records

is

a

poor

estimate

of the

actual time

to

skill level

for

several

reasons:

minimum time

to

skill

level

require-

Equations

designed

to

represent

the

OJT

cost

ments

have

been

prescribed

administrative delays

in

factors

are

specified

in

detail

in

Appendix

1I.

The

records

processing

sometimes

exist, and

data

recording

value

of

each

of

these

equations

was

computed

for

errors

can

occur.

The

Air

Force keeps

very

little

OJT

data

each

vali

survey.

Table

1

shows

the

means

and

beyond

a

record

of

the

date

that

a

new

skill

level

is

attained.

standard

deviations

of

th,

cost

factor

estimates

3

Determined

from

rh.:

Uniform

Airman

Record,

computed

from

,uaticns

derived

from

the

December

1970.

104-c.,

e

sample.

2

The

high

standard

deviation

of

the

cost

esti- In

other

words, there

is

95

percent

confidence

that

mates

reflects three

things:

the

variance in

the

median

total

cost

of

OJT

to

the

3.skill

level

is

complexity

of

tasks

at

different

communications

between

$1,108

and

$1,515.

centers,

the

quality

of

the

trainee observed,

and

Tabk

1.

Mean

OJT

Cost

Factors

the

variance

in

supervisors'

perception

of

the

time

required

for

OJT

to

the

3-skill

level.

4

C

urom

Reqaonse

d

Survey

Responses

The

total

cost estimates

illustrated

in

the

(N=

104)

histogram

shown

as

Figure

1

are

skewed

to the

right

Therefore,

the

median

may be

a

more

appropriate

measure

of

central

tendency

than the

Student

Tune

$

615

516

mean

because

the

mean

biases

the

results

by

Indirect

Cost

of

OJT

19

...

placing

too

much

emphasis

on

a

lew

large

cost

Instructor

Time

412

460

estimates.

Delayed

Entry

Into

Training

259

232

The median

tc.

al

cost estimate

is

$1,311

with

a

Records

Management

110

121

95

percent

confidence

interval of: Remedial

Training

30

82

Equipment

and

Materials

8

---

$1,108

•

Median

Total

Cost

• $1,515EqimnadMteal8 .

Average

Total

Cost

$1,453

842a

40ue

could

advance

the

hypothesis

that

this

relatively

large

vzriance

is

caused

by

other

variables

such

as

unit

size

aComputed

using

the

sums

of

cost

factor equations

for

or

complexity

of

c':ipment.

A

short

investigation

of

this

each

survey

as

observations.

hypothesis

is

discussed

in

Section IV.

19

Median

=

$1,311

18

17

16

is

14.

13

12

~11

'10,

L

9'

Mean

=

$1,453

67

5

*

41

24

462

671

879

10831297

1505

1714

1922

2131

234025482758

2966

3175

3384

3592

38014010

4218 4427

i 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

AdmrLiatered

March

1971,

N

-

153)

SWV*V

Item

Number

Content

ot

Item

Mean

SO

Total Percent

1.

Number

of

months

since

OJT

to

3-

level

last

conducted

10.70

9.295

2.

Average

number

of

weeks

between

arrival

of

DDA

and

start

of

training

3.41

3.777

3.

Average

number

of

weeks

between

arrival

of

tech

school

3-level

and

start

of

5-level

training

2.09

1.132

4.

Average

number

of

weeks

to

3.

level

for

DDA

10.89

7.032

5.

Proportion

of

3-level

trainees

fading Advancement Knowledge

Test the

first

time

0.11

0.200

6.

Average

number

of

shifts

per

day

for

operation

of

communication

center

3.01

0A06

7a.

Number

of

trainees

currently

going

to

34evel

67

7b.

Number

of

trainees

currently

going

to

54evel

167

8.

Number

of

additional

trainees

to

3.

level

which

could

be

handled

if

unit

were allowed

to

go

over

manning

authorization

510

9.

Number

of

additional

trainees

to

3-

level

which

could

be

handled

if

unit

lost

a

5-level

for

each

new

trainee

267

lOa.

Number

of

instructors,

E-7

I5

3

10b.

Number

of

instructors,

E-6

85

15

lOc.

Number

of

instructors,

E-5

297

52

lOd.

Numter

of

instructors,

E-4

156

27

I1e.

Number

of

instructors,

E-3

i5

3

I

a.

Percent

OJT-trained

3-level

workload

that

can

be handled by

newly

arrived

tech

school

3-level

32.16

21.221

I

b.

Number

of

weeks

until

workload

capacity

of

tech

school

3-level

reaches

that

of

OJT-trained

3-level

4.25

2.664

1

Ic.

Consider

either

type

of

training

superior

to

the

other

85

56

I

id.

Consider

OJT-tralned

3-levels

superior

to

tech

school

34evels

25

16

!

2a.

Average

number

of

weeks remedial

training,

when

given

2.64 2.507

12b.

Average

trainee

hours

per

week, on

duty,

remedial

training

6.61

7.629

12c.

Average

instructor

hours per

week,

on

duty,

remedial

training

4.92 6.043

12d. Average

trainee

hours

per

week,

over.

time,

remedial

training

3.22 4.838

4

__

_ _

_____________

Table

2

(Continued)

Survey

Item

Number

Content

of item

Mean

SD

Total

Percent

12e.

Average

instructor

hours

per

week.

overtime,

remedial

training

1.36

2.937

12f.

Average

grade

of

remedial

training

instructor

3.11

2.535

13.

Percent

trainees

failing

to

upgrade

to

3-level

in

the

last

year 0.00

0.011

14.

Average

instructor

hours

per

week

spent

in

records

keeping

1.30

1.920

15a. Average

monitor

hours

per

week

spent

in

records

keeping

0.86

1.231

15b.

OJT

monitor's

grade

4.99

1.784

16.

Percent

Career

Development Course

relevant

to

operations

of

unit

45.57

25.396

17.

Total

number

of

personnel

in

unit

23.30

58.085

Table

3.

Summary

Statistics

for

Selected

Training

Items

In

the

Specialty

Trainirng

Standard

Derived

from

Responses

to

Survey

Question

18

Trainee

Hours

Instructor

Hours

instructor-

Training

Equation

tO4rainee

Item Notation

Mean

So

Mean

SD

Mean

Ratio

Mission

Yj

7.59

24.10

2.77

4.52

.71

Comm

Security

Y2-

24.84

32.48

9.82

12.88

.70

Safety

Y3

5.42

6.32 2A7

4.22

.71

Publications

Y4

30.09

49.59

10.52

17.81

.69

Typing

Y5

,j

55.01

61.01

13.75

16.71

.66

Comm

Instructions

Ys

j

.61.87

85.20

22.11

43.15

.69

Crypto

Ops

Y7j

19.86

41.49

9.97

29.:

7

.71

Routing

Ye

j

25.80

51.55

8.64

15.42

.72

Services

Y9

27.87 38.20

11.24

19.51

.71

Incoming

Narrative

Y0oj

18.56

28.98

6.45

11.29 .64

Incoming

Data

Y! I

14.10

22.69

5.36

11.10

.59

Outgoing

Narrative

Y

2

26.69

41.82

7.65

12.18

.61

Outgoing

Data

Y13j

16.36

30.84

6.02

12.52

.51

Inspection

Y14

21.58

119.92 3.85

8.90

.46

Processing

Ys~j

11.61

20.25

3.Q8

9.27 .45

Routing

Yi

j

11.06

22.75

4.24

10.11

.44

Transmission

Y

17j

8.96

17.53

3.46 8.95

.45

Autodin

SW

Center

Y

sj

26.76

74.16 9.55

34.18

.36

Tel

Switchboard

Ops

Y

j

51.77

62.12

22.31

42.65

.66

Descriptive

statistics

summarizing

the

responses

The

survey

produced

several

interesting

results

to

the

first

17

questions

on

153

surveyss

are

in

addition

to

the cost estimate.

For

instance,

the

presented

in

Table

2

Statistics

for

question

18

are

mean

value

given

for

question

2

indicates

that

the

summarized

in

Table

..

average

unskilled

directed

duty

assignee

(DDA)

waits

three

to

four

weeks

before

beginning

OJT.

i

These

153

surveys

include the

113

completed

surveys

The

delay

in

entry

to

training primarily

reflects

plus

40

partially

completed

surveys

the

time

needed

to

obtain the

security

clearance

5

-. S

.-.-.

-~--.. -•-- ---- -

which

Is

required

for

entry

to

most

communica-

Course

will

be

applicable

to

the

operations

of

a

tions

centers.

This

delay,

in

turn,

results

in

a

three-

partiL

,nit. This

is

not

necessarily

a

bad

point,

to

fov.r-week

los

in

productivity

after

completion

howtver,

because

the

trainees

will

be

assigned

of

OJT.

An

estimate

of

this

value

is

included

in

the

during

their

career

to

various

communications

cost estimate

for

OJT.

centers

with different kinds

of

equipment.

On

the

The

mean

value

for

question

4

implies

that

the

other hand, the

finding

could

provide

slight

average

time

in

OJT

for

proficiency qualification

support

to

a

hypothesis

that

training

received

in

at

the

3.skill

level

is

approximately

1I

weekcs,

technical

training

school

is

in

excess

of that

whereas

the

technical

training

course

is

12

weeks actually

needed

for

operations

in

the

field.

long.

Cost

of

Technical

School

Training

Ihe

answers

to

questions

8

and

9

suggest

that

supervisors

could

train

many more

personnel

on

Course

3ABR29130

at

Sheppard

Air

Force

the

job

if

they

were

sent

DDA

in

a

"pipeline"

Base

Technical

Training

Center

corresponds

to

status.

That

is,

if

supervisors

could

identify

OJT

to the

3-level

in

the 291X0

specialty.

Using

a

personnel

losses

a

few

months

ahead

of

time

and

computer

model,

RAND

Corporation

provided

a

procure

and train

new

DDAs

before the

qualified

cost estimate

for

this

course (Allison,

1970).

Costs

5-levels

were

lost,

the

capacity

for

]JT

in

this

skill

included

in

the

model

contain data

corresponding

could

be

substandially increased.

completely

with

the

OJT

cost

factors

listed

in

Table

I. A

detailed

breakout

of

th:

technical

The

difference

between

questions

7a

and

9

school

course

cost

elements

is

presented

in

reflects

excess

OJT

capacity

which

could be

Appendix

Ill. The resulting

estimated

cost

per

utilized

without

changing

the

present

assignment

graduate

of

$2,670

for

FY 1970

does

not take

system.

into

consideration

the

OJT

at

the

unit

of

assign-

The

mean

values

for

questions

I

la

and

1

lb

ment

that

is

necessary

to

bring

the

technical

highlight

the

fact

that

the

new

technical

school

graduate

up to

the

workload capability

of

graduate,

a

qualified

3-level,

does

not

have

the

an

OJT-trained

34evel.

productivity

of

an

OJT-trained

3-level

until

more

An

accurate

estimate

of

the cost

of

this addi-

than

four

weeks

after

his

arrival

at the

communica-

tional

training would

require

a

large-scale

effort

tions center.

This

information

is

incorporated

into

and

is

not

justified

considering

the

relative

size

of

the

cost

estimate for

technical

training

school.

the

cost.

However,

an

estimate

of

the

student

and

The

percentage

values

for

questions

I

Ic

pnd

instructor

cost

of

this

phase

of

OJT was

obtained

I

Id

indicate

that

44

percent

of

the

supervisors

using

a

method

of

ext~apolation

described

in

surveyed

(N

=

153)

feel

there

is

no

difference

in

ApP,-,;dix

IV.

Results

indicate

that

an

additional

the

performance

of

OJT-trained

3-levels

and

student

time

cost

e.

$33

and

an

additional

instruc-

technical school graduates,

while

16

percent

think

tor

time

cost

oif

$77

would

be

incurred in

order

to

that

OJT-trained

3.levels

have

better

performance,

increase

the proficiency

of

a

3-level

technical

and

40

percent

believe

that

technical

school

graduate

to

the

same

level

of

proficiency

as

graduates are

better

qualified. These

figures can be

that

of

an OJT-trained

34evel.

Therefore,

the

misleading

because

it

is

difficult

to

prove

that

adjusteC.,

cost

of

technical school training

is

supervisors' answers

were

guided

only

by

their

$2,780.

assessment

of

performance

quality.

In

other

words,

instructors

may

have

based

their

answers

Comparative

Cost

of

Technical

upon

a

preference

for

a

training

method rather

School Training

and OJT

than upon

a

preference

for

the

output

of

that

The

adjusted cost

of

technical

school

training

method-a

qualified

3-skill

level

airman,

reported

in

the

previous section

is

112

percent

Thus,

these

data

are inconclusive.

It

is

doubtful

higher

than

the

median

OJT

cost

estimate

of

that

a

question or

series

of

questions

can

be $1

,311.

If

the

upper

limit

of

the

OJT

95-percent

designed

to

provide

unbiased

information

concern- confidence

interval

(S

1,5

15)

is

compared

with the

ing supervisors'

opinions

regarding

the

comparative

cost

of

technical school

training

($2,780),

it

perftrmancw

of

OJT

3-levels

and technical training

becomes

apparent

that

the

cost

of

technical

school

3-levels,

is 83

percent

higher

than

OJT.

Most

of

this

differ-

The

mean

value

for

question

16

implies

that,

on

ence

is

largely

attributable

to

equipment,

the

average,

one

can

expect

that

less

than

50

maintenance,

training

aids,

and

administration

percent

of

the

material

in

the

Career Development

costs

which

do

not

measurably

exist

for

OJT.

6

---- --

-----.-----

This cost

difference

does

not

reflect

a

auter-

Table

4.

Comparative Performance

of

ence

in

the

quality

of

the

two

methods

of

training,

Technical Training

School

and

OJT

Trainees

nor

is

it

necesarily

indicative

of

expected

relative

on

AQE

Administrative

and

General

training costs

for

other

specialties.

(The

question

Aptitude

Indexes

of

comparative

quality

is

treated

separately.)

If

the

two methods

of

training

produce

equally

qualified

Training

Admin

At

Can

Ai

airmen, the

relative

costs

would

seem

to

indicate

Method

N

Mean

N

Mean

that

the

Air

Force should

send

as man)

personnel

as

possible

to

OJT

in

this

skill,

subject

to

manning

Tech School

707

74.08

710 40.90

constraints.

OJT

191

74.18

193

42.80

Comparative

Quality

of

Technical

School

Tralning

and

OJT

difference

in

the

quality

of

airmen

as

observed

by

This

section

considers

two questions

of

supervisors

during

OJT.

quality-input

and

output.

First,

input.

If

the two

The

is:

How

"good"

are

the

populations

of

airmen

who

entered the

separate

training

systems

were

of

different

quality

and

if

aiing

methods

with respect to their

outputs,

the

this affected

their

training

progress,

then

the

cost

trained

airnen?

The

proper

way

to

answer

this

comparison would

have

uncertain implications, question

is

to

measure

and compare

the

produc-

Airmen

entering

the

291X0

career field

must

have

tivity

of

the

airmen coming from

the two

different

a

score

of

60

or

better

on

the

Administrative

or

training

methods. Unfortunately, productivity

the

General

Aptitude

Index

(AI)

of

the

Airman

measures

useful

for

this purpose

do

not

now

exist

Qualifying

Examination

(AQE).

Observation

by

for

most

Air

Force

skills.

An

alternative measure

supervisors

and instructors

of

high

tor

low) quality

of

the

quality

of

the

two

methods

of

training

is

airmen

could

bias the

O.TT

cost

estimate.

Data

on

performance

on

the

Specialty

Knowledge

lest

the

Administrative

and

General

Als, presented

in (SKT).

The

SKT

is

a

skill-specific

paper-and-pencil

Table

4,

were

used

to

examine

this

question'

test

administered

to

airmen

desiring

promotion.

From

the

table,

it

appears

that

OJT

trainees

An

SKT

can

only

test

the

examinee's

knowledge

represent

a slightly

higher

quality

of

inpute

of

operations,

not

his

actual

manual

skill,

however,

the

differences

in

mean

AQE

scores

were

dexterity,

and ability

to

produce

on

the

job.

The

not

large

enough

to

result

in

a

noticeable

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

Table

S.

Comparative Performance

of

the

December 1970

Uniform

Airman

Record

and

the

Techia

Training

School

and

OJT

Tranees

March

1970

Project

100,000

file,

both

maintained

at

the

Th

Personnel

Research

Division.

All

airmen

in

this

sample

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

Trainilni

2*14

SKT

2915

SKT

whether

perronnel

went

to

technical

training

school

or

to

Method

N

Mean

SD

N

Mean

SD

OJT

after

basic

military training;

the

Uniform

Airman

Record

prmided

percentile

AQE scores, which were

Tech

School

514 42.23

9.06

239

45.95

9.57

transformed back

into

percent

correct

from

which

the OJT

130

41.57

8.82

108

47.37

10.20

mean scores

were

computed

using

the

grouped

data

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

3

.ew

much

It=

than

the

total

number

of

airmen

who

took

the

tests

between

1968

and

1970.

As

is

apparent

in Table

5,

the

differences

in

7

These

data

were

taken

from

matching

records on

a

SKT

scores

for

OJT

and

technical school

trainees

selected

merge

of

the

March

1970

Project 100,000

file

were

=all

and

nrt

statistically

significant

at

the

and the

July

1971

Truncated

WAPS

Test

Analysis

fie,

.01

level

for

either

the

44evel

or

the

5-level

SKT

both

maintained

at

the

Personnel

Research

Division.

The

for

Communications

Center

Operations.

It

can

be

Project 100,000

file

povided

data

on

whether

personnel

f"

went

to

t:chnical

school

or

to

OJT

after

bafic military

inferred

from

these

results

that

technical

school

training,

and

the

WAPS

Test

Analysis

fie

provided

and

OJT

methods

teach

the

required

course

percentage

of

correct

SKT

answers.

All

scores were for

material equally

well

for this

career field.

the

same

test edition

date

and

represented

the

total

population

of

akmen

who

took

the

2914

and 2915

SKTs

j

between

December

1968

and

March

1970. 1

7:i

M -SEEMS

Sensitivity

Analysi

center.

Such

variability

in

OJT

subject

matter

This

section

briefly

considers

the

changes

in

the

could

make an

OJT

cost

estimate

difficult

to

estimated

cost

of

OJT

which

would result

from

changes

in

some key

variables.

To

correct

for

this

possible

distortion

of

the

The percentage

of

students•

who

are

given

survey

question

18

was

structured

remedial

training

could

increase

if

the

Advance-

so

that

supervisors

(Le.,

the

survey

respondents)

men

t

Knowledge

Test

failure

rate

increased,

could

leave

blank

those

parts

referring

to

opera-

Answers

given

to

question

S

in

the

survey

indicate

tions

not

conducted

at

their

individual

units.

The

that

11

percent

is

the

average

failure

rate.

If

this

supervisors

did,

in

fact,

frequently

leave

blanks

or

rate

were

to

increase

to

20

percent

as

a

result

of

indicate

that

parts

of

question

18

were

not

lower

quality

personnel,

the cost

of

remedial

applicable.

Thus,

breaking

down

the

time

eimate

tri

ualdty

bersone

incieaseby9prcent

,

o

frome

in

the

manner

of

question

18

had

the

adva

tage

of

training

would

be

incieased

by

9

percent,

from

$30 to

$33. being specific

enough

to

allow

for

variatic#

in

unit

operations,

while

not

being

so

detailed/that

the

Another

variable

which

could

change

is

the

respondent

was

forced

to

give

spuriousinswers

to

instructor-to-skit

ent

ratio.

The

average

value

minute details

he

could

not

recall.

/

obtained

from

the

surveys

was

.60.

If

only

one

student

were

sent

to

a

communications

center,

the

The

relatively large

degree

of

vari

tion

in

unit

ratio

would

obviously become

1.00.

This

would

operations

could

have

been

responsible

for

some

increase

the

per-student

cost

of

instructor

time

by

of

the

variation

in

estimated

unit

cost

of

OJT.

This

roughly

40

percent

which would,

in

turn,

increase

variation

is

emphasized

by

the

estimate

of

mean

the

total

cost estimate by

$165,

from

$1,311

to

time

to

reach

the

proficiency

required

of

a

3-level:

$1,476.

11

weeks,

with

a

standard

deviation

of

7

weeks,

and

a

response

range

of

from

6

to

20

weeks,

tSimilar

computations

can

be

easily

performed

because

all

costs

are

linear

with respect

to

student

fuontinued

use

of

this

cost

estimate

in

the

load.

Changes

in

the

value

of

any key

variable

future

is

valid

only

to

the

extent

that

fxture

would

have

a

linear

impact

on

all

the

cost

factors

knowledge

and

skill

requirements

in

this

specialty

in

which

it

appeared.

correspond

to the

knowledge

and

skills

required

when

the cost

estimate

was made.

The equipment,

An

interesting

question

is

the

relationship

of

procedures,

and

formats

used

in

communications

OJT costs

to

the

size

of

the

communications centers

have varied

over

the

years.

These

system

centers.

To

the

extent

that

the

insauctor-to.

changes

required

that

experienced personnel

student

ratio

can be

lowered,

the

cost

of

instructor

participate

in

a

continuous

learning

process.

This

time

can

be

lessened.

However,

large

communica.

continual

flux

of

knowledge does

not

appear

to

tions

centers

tend

to

havy

more

equipment

and

alter the

time

to

the

3-skill

level

for

a

new

worker,

more

complex

operations

than

smaller

centers,

a

however.

Thus,

the

data

collected

should

be

valid

fact

which

could

increase

the trainee's

time

to

at

least

for

the

near

future-say,

five

to

ten

years.

_proficiency

and,

thereby,

increase

the

OJT

cost.

Any

radical

change

in

the

Communications

Center

On

the

other

hand,

upgrading

students

by

OJT

in

Operations

specialty,

of

course,

would

requireproe

and tere nc rese

t

in

A

radala

change

inte

Com

ntionst

e

ater

Ilarge

communications

centers

might

result

in a

reevaluation

of

the

relevance

of

this

cost

estimate.

better

qualified

airman.

Thus,

the

direction

and

Correlation

coefficients

were

computed

to

magritude

of

the

relationship

between

unit

size

determine the

degree

to

which some

variables

and

OJT

costs

cannot

be

determined

without

more

might

be

the

cost estimates

obtained

detailed

data

collection

and

analysis.

from

the

survey

data.

These

relationships

are

shown

in

Table

6.

IV.

DISCUSSION

A

priori

reasoning

might

cause

one

to

expect

larger

correlation

coefficients

(in

an

absolute

OJT

is

not

identical

for

all

CONUS

communica.

sense)

for

many

of

the

variables.

For

instance,

tions

centers

because

of

varying

missions,

equip. communications centers with

a

relatively large

ment,

and

proced,,res. This

statement

is

supported

number

of

equipment

consoles

might

be

expected

by

the

response

to

survey

question

16

which

to

have

more training time

and,

thus,

report

a

indicates

that,

on the

avenge,

only

47

percent

of

higher

OJT

cost.

It

could

be

that

none

of

these

the

Career Development Course

is

relevent

to

the

variables

is

the

cost

of

OJT.

Another

operation

of

any

individual

communications

8

Table

6.

Correlation between Estimated

outlined

in

this

study

are

quite

visible.

That

is,

it

Cost

of

OJT

and

Selected

Variables

would

be

easy

to

pinpoint

the

cause

of

an

uncer-

(N

104)

tainty

and

interpret its

effect

on

a

cost

estimate

vm,

,r

which

used

the

methodology.

Number

of

3.level

trainees

in

unit

.0461

On

the

basis

of

the

Specialty

Knowledge

Test

Number

of

3level

trainees

in

unit

.0716

I

scores

of

the

airmen

in

the

sample

studied,

both

Number

of

5-level

trainees

in

unit

.0716 the

technical school

and

the

OJT

training

ap-

Total

number

of

3-

and

5-level

trainees

.0690

proaches appear

to

produce

equally

wall-qualified

Months

since

C

JT last

conducted

-.

0870

airmen

for

the

Communications Center

Operations

relevant

to

unit

operations

.2083

specialty.

Another

finding

indicates

that

the

cost

N re tof

equnitpmentonsoles

.084

of

technical

school

training

is

approximately

twice

Number

of

equipment

consoles

-.

0084

that

of

on-the-job

training.

Time

to

3-level

(OJT)

.1008

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

pffor

all

Air

Force

specialties.

Furthermore,

the

Spossibility

is

that

none

of

these

variables

affects

results

are

not

justification

for

discontinuing

the

supervisors'

estimates

of

the

time

involved

in

technical

school course

for

Communications

OJT.

A

final

possibility

is

that

the

size

and Center

Operations. The

data

do

suggest

that

the

randomness

of

the

supervisors'

perception

of

Air

Force should

send

as

many

personnel

as

atudent

and

instructor

time

spent

with

O'

over-

possible

to

OJT

in

this

particular

skill,

although

whelms

the

strength

of

the

expected

relationships.

the

exact

number

or

percentage

of

the

training

Followup

studies

will

examine

this

question

in requirement

who

should

upgrade

through

OQT

is

more

detail

to

attempt

to

eliminate any

unreliable

not

specified.

(error)

variance.

There

are

five

criteria

relevant

to

determining

The

survey

used

to

collect

the

OJT

cost data

an

optimal mix

of

OJT

and

technical school

required

for

this

study

produced

acceptable

training

in

any

Air

Force specialty:

results.

However,

there

are

alternative

ways

of

asking

similar

or

which

should be

1.

Cost

of

technical

school

training

examined."

Cost

estimates

obtained

through

2.

Cost

of

on-the-job

training

alternative

approaches could

be

compared

in

terms

3.

Quality

of

training

methods

of

bias,

minimtam

variance,

or

some

other

suitable

4.

Capacity

of

training

methods

measure

to

select

techniques most

useful

for

5.

Personnel

assignment

system

constraints

estimating

the

cost

of

Air

Force

OJT.

The present

analysis

considers only

the

first

three

of

these

criteria.

Information

is needed

V.

CONCLUSIONS

concerning

the last

two

criteria

to

determine

an

optimal

combination

of

the

two

training

methods.

Compared

to

the techniques

developed

in

this

Finally,

this study

provided

empirical

evidence

study,

there

are

more

complex,

perhaps

less

which

strongly

supports

two

hypotheses.

One

is

readily

understandable

techniques for

estimating

that

the

Air

Force

can

obtain

realistic,

useful cost

the cost

of

and

returns

to

OJT

(Mincer,

1962).

The assumptions

necessary

for

use

of

such

tech-

estimates

of

on-the-job

training

at

reasonable

Teasmtosncsayfrueosuhtc-

expense

for

use

in

decisions which allocate

I

niques could render the

resulting

estimate difficult

mipens

oor

e

ya

Tei

s

econdwish

at

to

use.

in

addition,

the

time

constraints

faced

by

millions

of

dollars each

year.

The

second

is

that

managers

may require

the

use

of

available

data

for

there may

be

a

striking

difference

between the

an

immediate

estimate. Forcing questionable

data

cost

of

OJT

and

the

cost

of

technical training

anrimmdate

eimae.

Fethoringy

requestionablendata

school

for

several

Air

Force

specialties.

The cost

through

a

complex

methodology

requiring

senlsi-

dfeec

on

o

omnctosCne

tive

assumptions

may

result

in

a

cost estimate

that

difference

found

for

Communications Center

tiv asumpion

ma

reultin

cot

etimte

hat

Operations

is

not

some

imaginary, hard-to-grasp

is

difficult

to

interpret. The

simple

concepts

c

on

rsent

re

manpr

andmteriel

concept-it

represents

real

manpower

and

materiel

resources.

Improved

allocation

of

these

training

$As

an

example,

consider

the method

by

which

resources

in

Category

B

specialties

would

allow

the

time-path

estimates

are

obtained for

PERT-Propam

Air

Force

to

improve

its

operational capabilities

in

Evaluation

and

Review

Technique

(MacGrimmon, 1964).

several

career

fields

with(

at

increasing

costs.

9

REFERENCES

Allison, S.L.

A

computer

model

for

estimating

Mincer,

J.

OJT:

Costs,

returns,

and

some

resources

and costs

of

an

Air

Force

resident implications.

Journal

of

Political

Economy,

technical

training

ccurse,

WN-7044-PR.

Santa

October

1962.

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

training

costs:

An

analysis.

Lieberman,

B.

Contemporary problems

in

statis-

I

WRM

67-52,

AD-656

581.

Naval

Personnel

tics.

New

York:

Oxford

University

Press,

1971.

Program

Support

Activity,

Naval

Personnel

Mincer,

J.

Investment

in

human

capital

and

Research

Laboratory,

1967.

personal

income.

Journal

of

Political

Economy,

Bateman,

CW.

Formal

and

On-the-Job

training

in

August

1958,281-302.

military occupation&

Unpublished

staff

report.

Morgan,

J.,

&

David,

M.

Education

mid

income.

Office

of

the

Secretary

of

Defense: Washington,

Quarterly

Journal

of

Economics,

1963,

77,

D.C.

423-437.

Becker,

GS. Human

capitaL

New

York:

Columbia

Shultz,

T.W.

Investment

in

human

capital,

1961,

University

Press,

1964. AER

Vol.

51, 1-16.

itiShultz,

D.G.,

&

Siegel,

A.I.

Post-training

Fisher,

G.H.

Cost

considerations

in

systems

anal-

performance-criterion development

and applica-

ysts.

R-490-ASD.

Santa

Monica, Calif.:

tion.

A

selective

review

of

methods

for

Rand

Corporation,

1970.

measuring

individual differences

in

on-the-job

Investment

in

Human

Beings,

Journal

of

Political performance.

Wayne,

Pennsylvania,

Applied

Economy,

No.

5,

Part

2 Vol.

LXX,

October

Psychological

Services,

July

1961.

1962.

0

I

Io

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.

-I

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

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

ii

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.

12

.4

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

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

underestimate

of

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.

16

Table

7.

Technical

Training Resource

and

Cost

Model

Costs

in

thousands

of

dollars

-

Cost

Factor Total

Variable

Fixeca

Nonrecurring

Costs

Media

0

Training

aids

0

Facilities 0

0

Classrooms

0

Laboratory

0

Other

0

Other

0

Subtotal

nonrecurring

0

Recurring Costs

Student

TDY

and

PCS

316.00

Instructor

training

14.00

Pay

and

allowances

1,904.00 1,508.00

396.00

Students 653.00

653.00

Instructors

and

supervisors

262.00 262.00

Media

and

training

aids

91.00 91.00

Training

administration

160.00

14.00 145.00

Indirect

(base

admin,

supt)

738.00

488.00

250.00

Trng

aids

mtce

matr

and

serv

5.00

Media

O+M

matr

and

serv

0

Supplies

and

services

160.00

110.00

51.00

Command

overhead

164.00

Other

0

Subtotal

recurring

2,563.00

1,952.00

611.00

Total

Cost

2,563.00

1,952.00

611.00

Cost

per

Graduateb

2.56

1.95

.61

Student

type

1

2.67 2.06

.61

Student

type

2

1.90

1.29

.61

Student

type

3

.00 .00

.00

Student

type

4 .00

.00

Student

type

5

.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

allow-

ances

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.

17

• ,• • -'•

SAPPENDIX IV.

ADDITIONAL

COST

ASSOCIATED

WITH

TECHNICAL

SCHOOL

TRAINING

k

The

OJT.trained

3-1evel

continues

to

progress

after

reaching

his

skill

level.

This

is

true

of

the

technical

Sschool

graduate

also,

but

he does

not

have

the

workload

capability

of

an

OJT-trained

34evel

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

.ty

of

the

<

technkal

school

graduate

to

assume full

workload

immectiately

after

arrival.

Productivity

is

measured

S•

relative

to

the

OJT-tralned

3-1evel,

a•uming

that

the OJT-trained

34evel

has

I00

percent

of

the

Si

productivity

required

of

an

Air

Fome

3-1evel

in

the

specialty.

SWorklold

capabHIty

i '

:-- I

Tech

School

grad

can

school

Tech

handle

same

worklosd

Sgraduate

Sarrives

at

unit

]•

as

OJT-tralned

3-level

!

F•.

2.

Comparative

workload capability

vs.

time

for

OJT

aad

technical

Sschool

trainees.

•

With

this

a.•umption the

mean

answers

to

survey

questions

1

la

and

1

lb

(see

Section IlL

Analysis

of

:

Results)

can

be

used. In

other

words,

the

technical

school

graduate

starts

out

with

32.16

percent

of

the

Sproductivity

of

an

OJT-trained

3-level

and

reaches

100

percent

in

an

average

time

of

4.25

weeks.

-•" ,

The

OJT-trained

3-level

undoubtedly

increases

his

productivity

over

the

4.25

weeks,

but

how

much

is

S"

i

a

very

complex

question.

Th erefore,

another

assumption

is

made

to

make

the problem

manageable-that

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

f

OJT

..

•,aed

3-level

100•

STech

1€h00|

gi'ad

32.16%

SWeeks

0

4.25

:

Fig 3.

Comlxtratlve

woddead

capability

v•.

lime

ud,•

oYr

•

level

,,,

base.

i

!

g

<

2-=_

Assume

the

curve

for

the technical

school graduate

is

exponential,

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

137)

Workload

capacity

of

OJT-trained 3-skill

so

49.52

Y

32.16 +67.84

(1

-.3 x

60

40

I

32.16I

20

15

2

25

3

3.5

4

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

+ A2 =

Total

area

=

(100)(4.25)=

425

".A2

=425

-A

A

49.52

A2

=

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

76-$33.26

9

4

25

weeks)

.(40

.62

425

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.

2

a

20

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

21

CHECK

THE

EQUIPMENT

OPERATED

IN

YOUR

COMMUNICATIONS

CENTER:

ANIFGC

20

AND

25

TELETYPEWRITERS

0

AN/FGC

38X/39

TELETYPEWRITER

RELAY

EQUIPMENT

0r-

ASR

MODEL

28 TELETYPEWRITERS

0

CARD-PUNCH

UNITS

0A

COMPOUND

TERMINAL

UNITS

0

DATA CARD

INTERPRETER

0

FACSIMILE

0

MAGNETIC

TAPE

TERMINAL

EQUIPMENT

0

MANUAL

AND

AUTOMATIC

SWITCHBOARDS

0

MODE

V

TELETYPEWRITER

TERMINAL

CONTROL

UNIT

12000

8-A

0

MODEL

19

TELETYPEWRITERS

0

MULTIPLE

ADDRESS CONSOLE

CABINET

7666A

0

PLAN 55

AUTOMATIC

RELAY

EQUIPMENT

0

TSEC/KG-3

AND

KG-13

0

TSEC/KL.7

0

TSEC/KL.47

0

TSECIKW.7

0

TSEC/KW.26

0

TSEC/KW.37

0 "

OTHER(Specify)_ 0

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

I

begins

OJT?

...

weeks.

_,

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

ýA

,I

I '

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.

7.

How

many

trainees

do

you

have

going

to

the

3

and

5

level

in

your

Comm

Center?

3

level

trainees.

5

level

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

in

each

grade

who

would

be responsible

for

3

and

5

level

OJT:

E-7

E-6.__._E.5

-;E-4-

;E-3-.

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.

23

_ = -~ "~ -" '-. L ... • ., •. ,* ' ,= • ----.. ... -•: ',w

-"

'.

=,-

--

•=

'=•

"•"

---=• -. . .. - • ' • •

f.

What

is

the

average

grade

of

the

instructor

who

conducts

this

extra

training?,

1.

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

week

does the

instructor

(trainer)

spend

in

record

keeping for

one

trainee?.. hours

per

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?

%

17.

What is

the total

number

of

personnel

in

your

Comm

Center

at

this date?

personnel

(officer,

enlisted,

civilian).

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

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