C O R P O R A T I O N Air Force Non-Rated Technical TraJning Opportunities for Improving Pipeline Processes Lisa M. Harrington, Kathleen Reedy, John Ausink, Bart E. Bennett, Barbara A. Bicksler, Darrell Jones, Daniel Ibarra For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2116 Library of Congress Control Number: 2017961262 ISBN: 978-0-8330-9886-3 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2017 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface In recent years the Air Force has faced persistent resource constraints while trying to deliver necessary training to its new officer and enlisted forces. While the cost of training is a key constraint, other resources such as instructors, training devices, and facilities are also in limited supply. Planning processes attempt to achieve training goals with the fewest resources possible, but alterations in training requirements, mismatches in the supply of students and available classroom space, and uncertainties in the flow of students through the training pipeline can tax resources and contribute to the Air Force falling short of targets for trained personnel. While achieving this balance is never simple, in years of plentiful manpower and financial resources the inefficiencies that can stymie this process are less perceptible. After several years of end strength and budget reductions, the Air Force is currently adapting to increases in end strength by accessing additional personnel who must receive initial skills training. However, these increases are putting a strain on the resources required to conduct technical training and highlighting inefficiencies that at other times might have gone unnoticed. Realizing these challenges, Air Force leadership at Air Education and Training Command (AETC) asked RAND Project AIR FORCE (PAF) to identify ways to improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the Air Force’s nonrated technical training processes, both officer and enlisted, to meet changing force and support requirements. The Air Force asked PAF to identify opportunities for optimizing overall processes at all levels of technical training—corporate Air Force planning and programming, AETC strategic training management, training management at 2nd Air Force and training wings, and the direct provision of individual courses. This report presents the study team’s assessment of the processes and policies in the technical training pipeline and identifies inefficiencies that fall into three broad areas: planning, flow of students, and resources. The report concludes with recommendations for improvements to training processes and policies and outlines the benefits that can be obtained from proactive modeling and the development and tracking of effective metrics. This report will be of interest to those involved in technical training for military personnel. The research reported here was commissioned by the Air Force and conducted within the Manpower, Personnel, and Training Program of PAF as part of a fiscal year 2016 project, Optimizing Air Force Technical Training. RAND Project AIR FORCE RAND Project AIR FORCE (PAF), a division of the RAND Corporation, is the U.S. Air Force’s federally funded research and development center for studies and analyses. PAF provides the Air Force with independent analyses of policy alternatives affecting the iii development, employment, combat readiness, and support of current and future air, space, and cyber forces. Research is conducted in four programs: Force Modernization and Employment; Manpower, Personnel, and Training; Resource Management; and Strategy and Doctrine. The research reported here was prepared under contract FA7014-16-D-1000. Additional information about PAF is available on our website: www.rand.org/paf/ iv Contents Preface ............................................................................................................................................ iii Figures........................................................................................................................................... vii Tables ........................................................................................................................................... viii Summary ........................................................................................................................................ ix Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................... xvii Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. xviii 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Research Objectives and Scope ................................................................................................................. 3 Approach ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Organization of the Report ........................................................................................................................ 6 2. Inefficiencies in the Technical Training Planning Process ......................................................... 8 Unrealistic Expectations Associated with Changing Requirements ....................................................... 11 Lack of Agility in Responding to Changing Requirements .................................................................... 18 Insufficient Visibility into Technical Training Capacity ........................................................................ 22 Lack of Readily Available Information to Support Execution Planning ................................................ 24 Missing Participants in the Planning Process .......................................................................................... 25 Complications of Guard and Reserve Planning ...................................................................................... 26 Summary of Technical Planning Process Inefficiencies ......................................................................... 28 3. Inefficiencies in the Flow of Students Through the Pipeline .................................................... 29 Inefficiencies Associated with Time Not in Training ............................................................................. 30 Costs Associated with Nontraining Time ........................................................................................... 30 Other Insights Associated with Nontraining Time ............................................................................. 32 Security Clearance Delays .................................................................................................................. 34 Accessions and Assignments Delays .................................................................................................. 37 Washback Management ...................................................................................................................... 38 Lack of Realistic and Consistent Metrics ................................................................................................ 43 Summary of Inefficiencies in the Flow of Students ................................................................................ 46 4. Resource Inefficiencies ............................................................................................................. 47 Inefficiencies in Sizing the Instructor Corps ........................................................................................... 47 Instructor Pricing ................................................................................................................................. 48 Undermanning ..................................................................................................................................... 49 Implications on Pipeline Throughput .................................................................................................. 50 Mitigation Strategies ..........................................................................................................................