Resource Management Survey

1 Technical Report 8350An Evaluation of the AviationResource Management Survey (ARMS) Checklist: Volume IJohn W. Ruffner and D. Michael McAnultyAnacapa Sciences, 1989D T IELECTE WAUG 0 8 1989 SAGU nited States Army Research Institutefor the Behavioral and Social SciencesApproved for public release; distribution is ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTEFOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCESA Field Operating Agency Under the Jurisdictionof the Deputy Chief of Staff for PersonnelEDGAR M. JOHNSON JON W. BLADEST echnical Director COL, INCommandingResearch accomplished under contract forthe Department of the Army Accesior, ForNTIS CRA&IAnacapa Sciences, Inc. DTIC TAB QUnanno,;rired 0 JLJS trfiCd 6iu01 Technical review by Y_,Distribution lJames M. Casey Avdodbihty CoaesCharles A. GainerGabriel P. Intano Dist Aail did/ OS .ec idlRobert H. WrightNOTICESDISTRI :Primary dis butio this report has bee by ARI.

2 P1l a ess 'rrespo ence c ing dis bution of to: y Re h Institu forthB Aio and Social ,A1 TMPERI- 00 isenhower Av. e dria, Vir a2233 .rFINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when it is no longer needed. Please do notreturn it to the Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social : The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Armyposition, unless so designated by other authorized CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGEREPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE oMBNo. 0704-088Ia. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS M 0 Unclassified --2a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION/ AVAILABILITY OF REPORT--_'Approved for public release;2b. DECLASSIFICATION/OOWNGRADING SCHEDULE distribution is PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) 5. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)AS1690-301(I)-88 ARI Technical Report 8356a.

3 NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b. OFFICE SYMBOL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATIONA nacapa Sciences, Inc. (If applicable) Army Research Institute AviationI -Research and Development Activity6c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) Box 489 ATTN: PERI-IRFort Rucker, AL 36362-5000 Fort Rucker, AL 36362-53548a. NAME OF FUNDING/SPONSORING j8b. OFFICE SYMBOL 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBERORGANIZATION Army Research (If applicable)Institute for the Behavioral MDA903-87-C-0523nni 5qrinl SriencPI PERI-ZA8c. ADDRESS (Cty, State, and ZIP Code) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS5001 Eisenhower Ave. PROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK UNITA lexandria, VA 22333-5600 ELEMENT NO. NO. NO. ACCESSiON 794 335 C611. TITLE (Include Security Classification)An Evaluation of the Aviation Resource Management Survey (ARMS) Checklist: Volume I12.

4 PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)Ruffner, John W.; and McAnulty, D. Michael (Anacapa Sciences, Inc.)13a. TYPE OF REPORT 13b. TIME COVERED 14. DATE OF REPORT (Year, Month, Day) 15. PAGE COUNTI nterim FROM 86/10 TO 88/11 1989, May 6716. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATIONThe report is organized into two volumes. Volume I contains the primary report andAppendixes A and B; Volume II contains Appendix COSATI CODES 18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP Aviator training Training effectiveness05 08 Army National Guard Resource managementArmy Reserve Reserve Component19, ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)The Army helps Reserve Component training managers conduct training efficiently withvisits by an Aviation Resource Management Survey (ARMS) evaluation team. This research wasperformed to assist the First Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Training in evaluating andrevising the First Army ARMS Checklist.

5 Aviation personnel from First Army National Guardand Army Reserve aviation support facilities and aviation units rated the Detectability,Importance, and Criticality of the checklist items, deficiencies that may result in aviationsupport or aviation unit failure, as applied to a facility and to a unit. The resultsindicate that, on the average, the Detectability and Importance of the items were ratedmoderate to high, while the Criticality was rated low. The rating distributions and theverbal scale anchors suggest that different criteria may be appropriate for determining ifan item is low or high on each of the three scales, A procedure for using the Detectability,Importance, and Criticality information for revising the ARMS Checklist was are provided for improving the checklist content and the evaluation20. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21. ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION0 UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED El SAME AS RPT.

6 0 DTIC USERS Unclassified22a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b. TELEPHONE (Include Area Code) 22c. OFFICE SYMBOLC harles A. Gainer (205) 255-44041 PERI-IRDD Form 1473, JUN 86 Previous editions are obsolete. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGEUNCLASSIFIED ,- ,, m m mmnm nm Immmmlllnmlml mll 'm iSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Data EaIoted)ARI Technical Report 83519. ABSTRACT (Continued)procedures. In addition, an ARMS Checklist data base was developed to helpArmy managers organize, interpret, and summarize the results of ARMS CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Wt7*fl Date Entered)iiTechnical Report 835An Evaluation of the Aviation Resource ManagementSurvey (ARMS) Checklist: Volume IJohn W. Ruffner and D. Michael McAnultyAnacapa Sciences, Aviation R&D Activity at Fort Rucker, AlabamaCharles A. Gainer, ChiefTraining Research LaboratoryJack H. Hiller, Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600 Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for PersonnelDepartment of the ArmyMay 1989 Army Project Number Education and Training2Q263007A794 Approved for public release; distribution is Army Research Institute Aviation Research andDevelopment Activity (ARIARDA) at Fort Rucker, Alabama, isresponsible for research and development that will increase theeffectiveness of Army aviator training.

7 The responsibilitiesencompass training for both Active Component (AC) and ReserveComponent (RC) part of the Army's "total force" concept, RC aviators arerequired to train to the same standards and to maintain the samelevels of flight proficiency and flight safety as AC RC aviators must meet this requirement with limited re-sources, the individuals responsible for planning, implementing,and evaluating RC training must manage the resources available tothem efficiently. The Army helps RC training managers achieveefficiency through evaluation visits from Aviation ResourceManagement Survey (ARMS) report documents the results of a questionnaire surveydesigned to evaluate the First Army ARMS Checklist and the pro-cedures used to administer the checklist. The results of thesurvey provide information that can be used by the First ArmyARMS team to improve the quality of the checklist and to conductevaluation visits more efficiently.

8 As part of the researcheffort, an information data base was developed that will helpArmy managers organize, interpret, and summarize the results ofARMS Charles A. Gainer, Chief, ARIARDA, Fort Rucker, Alabama,was the technical monitor'for the project. The research was com-pleted under the Letter of Agreement between the Deputy Chief ofStaff for Training (DCST), First Army and the Army ResearchInstitute, Subject: Aviation Resource Management Survey . Theresults of the research were briefed to Colonel Vay, First ArmyDCST, and Lieutenant Colonel Beasley, Chief, Aviation Division,DCST, on June 3, 1986, at First Army Headquarters, Fort Meade,Maryland, and to staff members of the Aviation Division, DCST, onMarch 28, 1987, during the First Army Aviation StandardizationConference in Baltimore, Maryland. The Aviation Division per-sonnel applied the results of the research when they revised theARMS Checklist during Fiscal Year report is divided into two volumes.

9 Volume I containsthe primary report and Appendixes A and B. Volume II containsAppendix C and the ARMS Checklist Data Base. The data in Ap-pendix C are also available on floppy disc in a dBASE III file inMS-DOS M. JOHNSONT echnical DirectorviACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe authors wish to express their appreciation to the fol-lowing individuals for their contributions to this Colonel Charles Slimowicz, Aviation Division,Deputy Chief of Staff for Training, First Army Headquarters,who served as the First Army point of contact for the project andprovided valuable assistance and guidance. Members of the FirstArmy Aviation Resource Management Survey (ARMS) team spent manyhours with project personnel demonstrating the procedures thatthey followed during an ARMS visit and discussing their respec-tive areas of authors also wish to acknowledge the First Army NationalGuard and Army Reserve aviators who completed the surveyquestionnaires during their limited training EVALUATION OF THE AVIATION Resource Management Survey (ARMS)CHECKLIST: VOLUME IEXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis report describes the results of research that evaluatedthe First Army Aviation Resource Management Survey (ARMS)Checklist and the procedures used to administer the research was conducted by the Army Research InstituteAviation Research and Development Activity (ARIARDA) at therequest of the First Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Training(DCST).

10 Requirement:As part of the Army's "total force" concept, Reserve Com-ponent (RC) aviators are required to train to the same standardsand to maintain the same levels of flight proficiency and flightsafety as aviators serving in the Active Component (AC). SinceRC aviators must meet this requirement with limited resources,the individuals responsible for planning, implementing, andevaluating RC training must manage the resources available tothem Army helps RC training managers achieve efficiencythrough evaluation visits made by ARMS teams. The generalpurposes of the ARMS, as defined by the Army Forces Command(FORSCOM), are the following:-to evaluate the Management of First Army National Guard(ARNG) and Army Reserve (USAR) aviation programs,-to identify areas requiring additional emphasis, and-to provide staff assistance as First Army ARMS team's evaluation efforts are guided bya written checklist containing 670 items organized into 11 func-tional areas of evaluation ( , safety, maintenance).