System training metrics and measures: A key operational effectiveness imperative

Systems Engineering

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 238-248

  Verma, Dinesh ^a   Farr, John ^a   Johannesen, Line H ^b  

^a STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b AS Missives and Space Division   (Norway)

Author keywords

Architecture evaluation; System operational effectiveness; Training; Training methods survey; Training metrics

Indexed keywords

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN; COSTS; EVALUATION; LIFE CYCLE; OPERATIONS RESEARCH; PERSONNEL TRAINING; RISKS; SURVEYS; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS;

ARCHITECTURE EVALUATION; SYSTEM OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS; TRAINING METHOD SURVEY; TRAINING METRICS;

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING;

EID: 24744467099     PISSN: 10981241     EISSN: 15206858     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sys.10047     Document Type: Review

References (15)

1. D. DiGiovanna, W. Miller, and R. Stratton, Creating low-cost, low-impact metrics designed to foster process improvement efforts in the engineering environment, Proc Annu Int Symp Int Council Syst Eng, Boston, 1996, pp. 1011-1013.
2. J.D. Fletcher, Effectiveness and cost of interactive videodisc instruction in defense training and education, Report, Institute of Defense Analyses, 1990.
3. J.D. Fletcher, Does this stuff work? Some findings from applications of technology to education, Report, Institute of Defense Analyses, 1996.
4. G.J. Gery, Performance support systems: Concepts and development issues, ICW Conference and Exposition, Chicago, IL, April 1995.
5. G.J. Hudak, J.N. Martin, and W.D. Miller, Systems engineering metrics, Proc Annu Int Symp Natl Council Syst Eng, Arlington, VA, 1993.
6. L.H. Johannesen, Supportability assessment and evaluation during architecture formulation and development, Masters Thesis, University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom, 2000.
7. J.N. Martin and W.D. Miller, Re-engineering the metrics collection process, Proc Annu Int Symp Natl Council Syst Eng, St. Louis, MO, 1995, pp. 581-588.
8. J. Orlansky and J. String, Cost effectiveness of computer based instruction in military systems, Report, Institute of Defense Analyses, April 1979.
9. OSD, Product support: A program manager's guide to buying performance, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Material Readiness, Pentagon, Washington DC, November 2001.
10. TRADAM, The Navy Training Delivery Model (TRADAM), Technical Report 96-004, U.S. Navy, Washington, DC, 1996.
11. U.S Army, Performance based logistics - Army implementation guidebook, Washington, DC, May 2002 (Draft).
12. U.S. Navy, Naval guidance for implementing performance based logistics, Assistant Secretary of the Navy-Research, Development, and Acquisition (ASN-RDA), Washington, DC, October 2002 (Draft, Version 9.0).
13. D. Verma and B. Gallois, Graduate Program in System Design and Operational Effectiveness (SDOE): Interface between developers/providers, and users/consumers, Int Conf Eng Des (ICED), Glasgow, United Kingdom, August 2001.
14. D. Verma and L.H. Johannesen, Supportability assessment and evaluation during system architecture development, Proc Int Council Syst Eng (INCOSE), Minneapolis, MN, July 2000, pp. 699-706.
15. D. Verma and G. Plunkett, Systems engineering and supportability analysis: Technology refreshment for COTS-intensive systems, Proc Int Council Syst Eng (INCOSE), Minneapolis, MN, July 2000, pp. 69-72.