Constructive simulations - readiness enhancers or training distractors?

• Main Author: White, Scott A.
• Other Authors: Eyre, Dana P.
• Language: en_US
• Published: Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School 2013
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/10945/32674

In today's reduced-resource (and high rate of operations) environment, the active army is questioning the reserve-component's ability to deploy combat-ready organizations in a timely manner. These concerns mirror the national debate regarding whether the United States should rely on a large standing army with minimal reliance on a reserve component or conversely maintain a small regular army and rely on a large organized militia. The reserve components have tuned to Training Aids, Devices, Simulators, and Simulations (TADSS) and specifically constructive simulations to offset reduced resources and to enhance unit readiness at the same time. The reserve components contend that constructive simulations will allow them to train to active-component standards while at the same time saving taxpayer dollars. Ultimately, the researcher concludes otherwise. Current doctrine needs to be revised to establish a clear sequential relationship between Constructive simulation participation and readiness reporting. Additionally, the leadership of the reserve components needs to understand the importance of having a completed Mission Essential Task List and supporting Staff-Battle tasks. Once completed, these prioritized training tasks should be used by the commander as his primary focus during constructive simulation exercise play. Organizations that are not prioritizing their collective training task are not effectively using constructive simulations.