Minutes from 4-6 Nov 09 FRB meeting_Danette_comments

Document Sample
Minutes from 4-6 Nov 09 FRB meeting_Danette_comments Powered By Docstoc
					              Notes on AIM FRB meeting

                  5-6 November 2009

1. Attendees:

[See separate attendee list posted at]

Wednesday, 4 Nov 09

2. Discussion:

    a. Introductions & Overview: Jake Aplanalp

Appreciation for wide participation locally and
virtually by range of Navy training activities. Jake
provided VTC audio dial-in (850-912-1100) for virtual
participants not at VTC sites. CAPT Reuter
(NAWCTSD XO) welcome and context from
NAWCTSD’s perspective. CAPT Grimland on
his/Jake’s efforts to get more predictable, robust
funding stream for AIM. Working closely with Scott
Lutterloh (OPNAV N15) who is planning to take
overall resourcing responsibility for AIM. Initial
results in end-year (FY09) funding from NETC N7
(RDML Lotring/CAPT Oakes), CNATT, and
NAWCTSD Undersea Programs. See attendee list
posted on Web page

   b. NETC N7 status update: Jake Aplanalp /
Roy Hoyt (via VTC)

Roy Hoyt unable to attend because of Job Duty
Task Analysis (JDTA) workshop for Navy divers at
CEODD Pensacola and participating via VTC form
Panama City Beach, FL.

Jake on back ground of AIM program in support of
NAVEDTRA 130/131 training content process
documents, both of which are being updated to Rev
B. He also reviewed AIM modernization process in
support of ILE and provided context of
demos/discussions this week about Content
Planning Module (CPM) and Learning Object (LO)

Roy: background of job-task analysis process over
the past several years – began work with Jake and
AIM team about 18 months ago to start updating
CPM to support evolving Navy performance
requirement definition process via the JDTA process
and supporting NETCINST recently signed out
(RDML Lotring last week; RADM Kilkenny very
soon) – to be updated to support CPM as soon as
promulgated – CPM in use at CEODD Navy diver
JDTA workshop this week in Panama City Beach –

stresses value of JDTA as supported by CPM in
generating and managing data for valid learning
content design and update – stresses NOT designed
to replace other manpower analysis processes/tools,
but Roy and his team are working with NAVMAC to
ensure they understand JDTA/CPM process for
functional and data integration with OCCSTDS etc.

Jake and Roy: GAT of CPM JDTA functions to be
schedule soon based on initial pilot testing at
CEODD this week

Joe Pekarske: what about use of JDTA for interface
with AIM I/PPP Tables – Roy: aligned with LO
Module for ILE-style training and will coordinate with
RDML Lotring to push toward use of LO Module
process vs. retrofitting JDTA data into AIM I/II
curricula – Jake: push for transition based on new
development going into CPM/LO Module while
continuing to support traditional AIM I/II – Jamie
Stewart: lots of options for linking JDTA to traditional
content and need both policy guidance and user
community input to determine way forward on this
issue that is VERY important to current AIM users –
Roy Wilde: need to keep in mind that JDTA defines
work performance and may NOT directly map to
existing training interventions

Roy Hoyt: fiscal constraints may drive policy to
more rapid transition to CPM/LO Module-based
content vs. extended parallel AIM I/II and ILE
content paths – also stress need to create and refine
standardized toolsets to support consensus
business processes

Denise Green: how does JDTA process support
platform-specific training reqts based in Master Task
Lists (MTLs) and defined by Work Unit Codes
(WUCs) – [note: need to get Paul involved directly
with aviation users to help map current JDTA
functions in CPM to that MTL/WUC data and on into
NLOS/LO Module]

NAVEDTRA series status: background is initial
update to very old documents – “0 to 30 mph” this
year, then faster/further updates in FY10-11 –
moving back toward “shall use” vs. “should use” –
NETC Drumbeats are pushing this message and
RDML Lotring pushing to Center senior leaders

   a. NAVEDTRA 130B / 134 signed by RDML
Jones before his departure

   b. NAVEDTRA 131B – in final review for 30
Nov promulgation

    c. NAVEDTRA 135C – 2000+ comments
coordinated and same s status as 131B

      d. LSO Charter – signed by RDML Lotring on 3

    e. JDTA instruction – at Pcola for RADM
Kilkenny signature

    f. OPNAV HPRR instruction being developed
with integration to NETC TPP and HPRR

    g. ILE guidance – working with PMW-240 to
update ILE guidance to support many training admin
products such as TPP, CMS, TCCD, etc.

   h. NETC has created dashboards for each
Center to track TPP and content development

Denise Green: CNATT using ILE guidance for
follow-on, non-schoolhouse training – will that be
addressed in upcoming updates

Karen Pohl: is the goal to integrate NAVEDTRA
130 series with ILE guidance? – Roy: absolutely
NETC N7’s goal for high degree of integration by

Richard Payne: how does new NETC training
content policy affect NAVSEA (from NAVSHIPYARD
which works for NAVSEA 04L)? – Roy: NETC trying
to coordinate with OPNAV, SYSCOMs, and
SPECWAR to leverage lessons learned from ILE to
date and ongoing pilot projects

Roy: can’t live with status quo – too painful –
MUST move forward, integrate, and standardize

3. JDTA pilot project status: Jake on overview of
how we’re trying to support JDTA pilots

     a. CPPD – Journeyman Instructor Training
(JIT) analysis – Roy describes data collection
process using JDTA prototype Excel spreadsheet
that formed the basis for the current JDTA
instruction – Yvette Bartholomew (CPPD) still up in
the air about how the project will be implemented
going forward to curr design and development –
Jamie Stewart supporting from AIM team

Roy Wilde: what about performance level task in
JDTA that can’t be supported in the schoolhouse –
does that get put in CPM and then just NOT
selected for ILT or not put into CPM at all

     b. SLC – ITS rating project – Leslie: ramping
up – using JDTA process and plan to use CPM –
holding fire pending readiness of JDTA function in
CPM – Jim Ferrall: encourage ITS team to
participate in CPM JDTA GAT – Leslie: will pass
news to Master Chief Jors and believes his team will
participate – planning to use CPM and LO Module
for capturing JDTA data and building out learning

   c. CID – Joe Pekarske – 3 projects would be
good candidates – none formally teed up for CPM /
LO Module use as yet – Joe will coordinate with CID
N7 – Roy Hoyt: Leslie Desenburg helping CID on
CTN JDTA analysis – Reqts Sponsor validating
JDTA as basis for moving forward for application of
CPM and LO Module

    d. CEODD – Roy Hoyt as sponsor – Danette
Likens: learning and implementing JDTA process as
supported by CPM – minimal JTA data input from
analysis of existing “C” Schools and some
OCCSTDs data – overall, pretty successful – likely
to move forward into LO Module for learning content
development as well – Jake: need more discussion
about OCCSTDS process and data interface with
CPM – Roy: very pleased with CPM support so far

and putting data in from a variety of sources –
CEODD still looking at additional data sources
Roy- JDTA process SMEs don’t need to learn CPM
functionality. They are there to provide work
elements. Desires training for Center staff ahead of
JDTA workshop and for as much data as possible to
be front-loaded into CPM to speed process. Roy
recommended adding capability to limit resources to
center specific elements only.

Centers desire JDTA spreadsheet to use in JDTA
process. (additional lessons learned regarding
spreadsheet (not mentioned in meeting)
spreadsheet needs to have columns clearly defined
to avoid data being placed in wrong columns (i.e.
task & subtask in same column); Need to add
columns for conditions & standards; need to instruct
users that more than one source can be referenced;
need business rules on how source will be formatted
(i.e. NAVEDTRA …title, just title, NAVEDTRA###
series; spell out or title with acronym – right now
data is entered in multiple formats – should be

    e. NETWARCOM – Roy Hoyt – meeting with
RDML Lotring and CPPD in support of their analysis
efforts – using JDTA for new officer project – good

adtl test of JDTA process itself as well as potential
application for CPM support

Roy Wilde: will pilots lead to NETC-defined process
that then gets passed to Center or will NETC lead all
projects? – Roy Hoyt: NETC will help with initial
efforts and then pass to Centers to define and run
their own analysis operations

     f.   MT Continuum – Jake Aplanalp and Dan
Zabecki – Jake: MT Continuum is really a poster
child for the overall ILE process of design, build, and
maintain learning content – background of SSP as
long-time AIM (I) user community with major
Reduction in Total Cost of Ownership (RTOC) –
Jake as great lessons-learned opportunity across
entire AIM user community

Dan: SSP has drunk the ILE Kool-Aid for several
years – description of “discussions” with his Board of
Directors (funding sponsor) about funding this effort
and moving to this business model
Goals: reduce ILT dependency, train for the “near”
task (what the new MT needs when first reporting to
the boat) – detailed description of current and to-be
training approach for MTs – being driven by FY14
Strategic Weapon System Shipboard Integration
(SSI) – stresses “structured” blended learning that

ties all modes of instruction – packaging is driven
largely by MT watch qualifications which is the key
driver for the fleet consumers of this MT training
program output product – specifically addresses how
MT Continuum avoids the problems reported by the
Navy IG/Navy Times with current CBT – overview of
how SWS moved away from PPP-based AIM I
curricula to JTA (JDTA)-based ILE approach
learning content for MT Continuum

Migration plan from current PPP-based ILT to full
ILE/JDTA-based content – building/testing over 3-
year period and integrating new content into
traditional pipeline presentation

Janet Gilmartin: why not just use task-based PPP
table vs. entirely changing methodologies? – Dan:
much more flexible than even task-based PPP table
approach and provides much more understandable
performance reqt mgmt baseline to TYCOMs/fleet

D H-Y: what process to get all stakeholders to
review and provide comments in timely way to get
good product that meets all reqts and still meets
schedules? – Dan: current effort is 3rd prototype and
lots of lessons learned; especially set deadlines and
provide on-line collaboration tools

Dan: stress SWS/MT Continuum drive to be part of
the solution in designing and promulgating business
rules for ILE-based learning content tied to JDTA
performance reqts definition

Action Item: ??? provide standardized JDTA Excel
spreadsheet to allow users to capture baseline
performance data in support of NETCINST XXXX.X
for import into CPM

4. AIM Central Site implementation: Jake Aplanalp
and Bruce Bare (NETC N6)

    a. Jake on background of why NAWCTSD
stood up Citrix Metaframe-based Central Site for the
SWS community – now expanded to support
Continuum pilot project – working with Bruce and
NETPDTC staff to stand up similar functionality at
NETPDTC and begin testing as basis to plan for AIM
user community-wide implementation – need

Bruce on possible funding models for Central Site
hosting at NETPDTC – Roy Hoyt, Jake, and Bruce
are putting in POM issue paper that addresses the
enterprise costs of standing up, running, and
updating a Central Site implementation –
background on current Metaframe operations at

NETPDTC and eAIM network attached storage
version of Central Site on TRANET – movement
toward real enterprise implementation will draw lots
of Information Assurance (IA) attention – looking at
hybrid model of using Citrix where necessary for
performance issues and attached storage where
NMCI in-house performance will permit that
approach to operate effectively – Jake: re-
emphasizes IA impacts as well as relying heavily on
NETPDTC’s expertise in enterprise IT application

Bruce stresses lots of baseline admin data created
and managed in AIM already – need to promote
leveraging that authoritative source data via Web
services to CeTARS and to the LMS – Roy Wilde: is
there a comprehensive transition plan to get an
enterprise? – pending getting load testing on
NETPDTC prototype before planning to move
forward to that implementation – Jake: stresses
need to get SAAR-N forms from all potential testers
before conducting the testing

Action Item: FRB user activities interested in
participating in load testing on NETPDTC prototype
Central Site provide Jake Aplanalp names of testers
and SAAR-N forms.

Discussion of performance differences among
current user sites – Bruce: NETPDTC is doing test
scripts to automate that performance testing on the
prototype system at Saufley Field

Bruce on funding constraints: POM 12 issue in
place for enterprise funding but until that funding
gets approved and in place, individual users (such
as CNATT) will need to pay for their own NETPDTC-
hosted implementations

Charlie Brewer (LSI) question about database
replication to support distributed sites – Ron Zinnato:
problematic in AIM because multiple users can be
accessing one course at any given time – Jake: will
explore that issue in depth as we move forward with
loading testing Central Site system – Bruce: feels
that most current performance issues are really
firewall / proxy server configurations and
architectures vs. absolute bandwidth issues

Denise Green on CNATT prototype: POA&M in
place with NETPDTC to host and manage IT system
– hardware bought and in place at NETPDTC – ACR
and funding in place to modify AIM II to support 5
levels of privilege for AIM users playing different
roles – [note: see CNATT Central Site brief posted
on AIM FRB Web page] – plan to start actual data

migration of their detachments AIM II data in
January 2010. Roy Hoyt desires to be a part of
Roles IPT.
Ron Z.- brought up issue with roles and people
being able to free text in ERL course information hat
does not align with official CeTARS data. The
misaligned data creates problems with approving the
data and has to be corrected before it can be
approved. He wants to know if there is a way to (1)
lock this field so that only CeTARS data can be
imported or selected, (2) reject entries that do not
align, (3) warn that the data does not match the
official data and will not be able to be approved.

Jake: recommended that Roy Wilde join D Harrison-
Young’s IPT to help nuke out the business rules in
managing Central Site implementation and mgmt

Discussion on large graphics files – both for
manipulation and storage/mgmt – need to pursue
this issue in more detail once load testing is
complete – Denise: explore linking AIM to MediaTrax
to manage CNATT graphics files.
There was a discussion about having large files on a
central server (or multiple) with ability in AIM to link
via URL or other means to limit need to import /
export large files, which slows system too much.

Also would like similar capability in AIM/CPM for files
that are frequently referenced in material for
students to access.

6. AIM user training: Jake Aplanalp, Dave
Donnelly, and Yvette Bartholomew – Jake on
background: CSFE and Dave Donnelly anointed
CCMM for AIM User training courses and CPPD as
CCMM for Curr Developer Course – Janet Gilmartin:
ATRC developed course; recommend cycling Angel
Strong and Melinda O’Brien

     a. status of current user training: updated User
courses to support Rel 4.0 – NMCI status of Rel 4.0
is still languishing in San Diego awaiting release for
pilot testing by NAWCTSD – sked for NMCI push to
AIM NMCI users still TBD – many video snippets in
place on Web page to support Help Desk, User
Manual, on-line Help – limited resources for training
with Tom Travers and Paul Graf departure

    b. CSFE as CMM – Dave Donnelly as primary
POC supported by Michele Osborne – currently
tweaking AIM I/II Rel 4.0 to reflect several
terminology changes defined in 130 Rev B – Roy
Hoyt: need to formalize user training in concert with
stronger push for mandatory use of AIM – need
implementation plan draft from Jay, Dave, and Mike

Coyle/CPPD – Dave: NETC N74 as CCA – still
working roles between CSFE and NAWCTSD –
question about how to train the trainer – CSFE won’t
do training directly but need to define how training
will be delivered for a variety of user activities -
need to have user training IPT to validate changes
to user training – especially focus on emerging reqts
(and solution) for CPM/JDTA and LO Module – Dave
Donnelly: Do we teach CPM / LO Module? Roy
Hoyt: Want training in place for JDTA, CPM, LO
Module before rolling out to center. Recommends
having multiple courses – not incorporating into AIM
I/II training. Roy: probably package in several AIM
user courses for different communities and their
unique set of requirements – stress close working
relationship with CPPD on Curr Dvlp course(s) –
Janet Gilmartin: may need to be in NTSP format to
support entire program – Roy: depends on how N15
/ PMW-240 decides to approach AIM

Action Item: Roy Hoyt and Jake Aplanalp discuss
NTSP feasibility and requirement with OPNAV N15

     c. CPPD on Curr Dvlp course – initial update
piloted in San Diego – planning to move forward with
JDTA for curr dvlp tasks – Yvette: should be generic
treatment on theory of curr dvlp with tailored module

on the toolset that curr dvlper will use and whether
curr dvlper will do both dvlp and maintenance

extended and excellent discussion by many
attendees on planning and future direction –
consensus from group on Roy Hoyt’s mandate to
charter an IPT to support CSFE and CPPD in the
design, development, and support of this
requirement Jake & Yvette see CD course as
primary NEC training with AIM I/II, CPM, LO Module,
and ??other?? as ad hoc training to the NEC.
Yvette: Must be an instructor before becoming a
curriculum developer. Dave D.: CD course is means
of weeding out the people who shouldn’t be
developers and keeping those that should.

    d. CPM/LO Module training – integrated into
previous item in terms of how to address the
changing constellation of curr dvlp, AIM I user, AIM II
user, and CPM and/or LO Module training

Jake: great discussion on how to move AIM user
training from his problem to more formal NETC N74 /
CSFE / CPPD - IPT to be chartered by Roy Hoyt and
Jake (from AIM FRB perspective) critical to bounding
the problem and moving forward – critical to define a
functional and technical input to the process and

NETC/CSFE/CPPD mgmt team and orchestrate
some elements of that support via AIM support

7. Increased use of AIM: Jake Aplanalp

Ventilate concerns about adequacy of team staff and
funding to support the bow wave of new reqts being
generated by NETC mandate on AIM use as well as
grass roots increase in AIM usage

D H-Y: Centers recognize push to use AIM – how to
train Center (and contractor) staff who do not have
trained AIM users? – Jake: monthly SSO-sponsored
sessions will continue in Norfolk and San Diego as a
minimum – dedicated on-site training possible if
funded by Center (or NETC), resource sponsor, and
contractors – Roy Wilde: need to stress the “right”
students into both the AIM user course and into
additional sessions of the AIM train the trainer
course – Roy: moving AIM from “tin cup” operation
limping along with distributed funding to robust
program of record, but that will take several years to
get more robust and reliable funding stream on-line

Jake: help desk support issues as well as training
load – Roy: need metrics of increased support to
bring adtl help desk resources

NETC guidance is to move to AIM I/II or CPM/LO
Module when a course is being revised, not pull from
stock and update just to update

Kelee Plagis (PMA-205): urge collaboration between
130/ILE guidance updates (NETC and PMW-240)
and ongoing PMA-205/ADL IPT updates to MIL-
PRF-29612 – Roy: NETC is very receptive to that

8. LO Module data
interchange demo: Mike French and Charlie Brewer
of LSI

Integral part of MT Continuum prototype – showing
live data generated by GD-AIS with LSI ISD support
for the first MT Continuum deliverable

Stress import of LO Module-generated XML data
without change, maintaining links to CPM JDTA
performance reqts, NLOSs, metadata generated by
LO Module, and links to authoritative IETM sources
on which content chunks are based

Action Item: Jake Aplanalp investigate whether
NETC / PMW-240 plans to promote a standard suite
of tools on which NSWC could piggyback

Excellent discussion and many pertinent questions –
Janet Gilmartin: what about existing self-paced
content built in or other toolsets that
potentially could be imported and surveyed/updated
via LO Module (with possible links created backward
to 1) performance reqts in CPM via NLOS and/or 2)
authoritative IETM tech data for surveillance and
display)? – Jamie: need to explore that option but
not a central part of this MT Continuum prototype
project – Mike French: also beginning to explore
something like that retrofitting existing self-paced
content generated in for CNE EPOC

Lari Manning: why use over Kreus? –
Mike: Charlie pushed it in that direction because he
has been working with Teresa Rippeon on data
interchange with LO Module for several years –
existing experience and hands-on experience – next
step is to extend to “tool agnostic” data interchange
process to support Kreus and SCO Workbench and
other CBT toolsets

What about DADMs certification of Venus and/or
Kreus toolsets? – Mike: probably get Kreus certified
working with V-22 program – haven’t addressed in
much detail because output is run-time
HTML that runs on standard IE browser

Lari: need to look at creating integrated toolset that
is registered in DADMs to avoid many IA miseries

Charlie: recommend pushing for to standardize the
data model for exchanging data between LO Module
and a variety of self-paced learning content toolsets
that can work with this standardized tech data

Lari: need to watch action by NAE on one or small
number of standardized toolsets – Mike: stress
determination to integrate with Kreus and SCO

Thursday, 5 Nov 09

8. Review of May 09 FRB meeting action items:
Jake Aplanalp

9. NETC assessment project: Mike Dekle (via

Jake: intro about previous discussions between
Mike’s assessment project team and the AIM team
on possible data interchange functions

Mike: project overview (PPT posted on Web page) –
project being driven by RDML Lotring’s FY09 goals,
specifically training quality and sailorization issues

     a. Level 1 survey – quality of content /
instructional staff, quality of life, and safety – push
for standardization across NETC insofar as possible
but support community-specific additions

    b. Level 2 COGNOS dashboards/reports
(learning) – data on non-grads, attrites, setbacks,
and sailorization issues – focus on academics but
also non-academic training support issues

   c. Level 3 surveys (learning transfer) – for
supervisor and graduate

piloting projects in work at CSF, CID, and CNATT –
major issue now is how to get surveys to the fleet
quickly and accurately addressed – Level 2 CIN /
CDP threshold development (monthly tracking of
course-specific norms based on previous twelve
month patterns) – focus is to help Centers “reduce
scrap and rework” and promote efficient “assembly
line” process

    d. Demos:

         1) Level 3 survey – sent to both graduate
and to supervisor – potential interface with AIM can
be to output tasks/learning objectives based on
course that sailor attended in preparation for this
position/task directly to Perception – perhaps
remove infrequently performed tasks from curriculum
or add frequently performed or critical tasks that are
not addressed in the curriculum

Still work in progress and hope to push up the line
for senior mgr approval shortly – hope to work
closely with Roy Hoyt on implementation policy
statement – Dave Donnelly: POA&M? – Mike:
pushing for Feb/Mar 10 to have Perception on-line –
Centers will have to re-develop their survey data
from Perseus into Perception – Leo Grassi: should
be able to export Perseus data in .csv form and
populate that data into Perception via template –
Mike: stressed that current Perception users MUST
export their data to preserve it prior to Perseus
stand-down or their data will be lost – Joe
Pekarske/CID: how to get surveys to graduates and
to supervisors quickly and accurately – Mike: many
options being reviewed now as part of piloting

Courses undergoing revision or migration from ILT to
CBT are good candidates for use in preparing and
conducting surveys – should be part of NETC /
Center business rules -> likely to be closely related
to dashboard trend data

        2) COGNOS displays – PPT snapshots of
wide variety of survey result displays consolidated in
COGNOS – see posted PPT; includes listing of
business rules

    e. next steps:

         1) QM Perception on-line Jan-Feb 10 to
implement current / new surveys pending Authority
to Operate (ATO) finalization
         2) develop Level 3 level of knowledge
(LOK) skill decay assessments (initial on reporting to
command by general exam – follow-up after
reporting to work center by scenario-based exam) –
recognize the difficulty of assessing skill via
essentially knowledge-based exam – all questions
tied to critical objectives
         3) tie AIM content to Perception to simplify
the duty / task survey questions and exam content
development – also learning objectives may play
role in development and feedback

Dave Donnelly: where will question bank reside? –
Mike: Level II and Level III will require questions
related to learning experience – assessment
program will have central server (probably hosted at
NETPDTC) from which surveys will be generated

Roy Wilde: relationship of Perception and
CeTARS? – Mike: can do either in schoolhouse,
depending on Center preferences – [note: issue of
synchronizing CeTARS question bank and
Perception bank to support both schoolhouse and
fleet assessments]

Karen Pohl: is this automated solution to TQI? –
Mike: no – helpful piece-part but not part of
NAVEDTRA 135C process – not sure about Roy
Hoyt/NETC N74 plan to formalize as part of 135C

Jake on AIM/assessment tool interface possibilities:
based on previous discussion with Mike and team,
theoretically, much AIM-based authoritative
job/duty/task analysis such as now starting in JDTA
process of CPM – Roy Wilde: many of the potential
links/data sources already in place in AIM I/II
curricula baselines – Jamie Stewart: stresses that all
data elements are uniquely identified and versioned
in AIM toolsets to support automated data
interchange and impact assessment for the

emerging assessment project – Jim Ferrall: several
ongoing projects that may impact this interface –>
current Web service of CMS from AIM to CeTARS;
initial test / test item data exchange between AIM
and CeTARS; prototype demonstration of LO
Module push of test item data into Perception

10. CPM/LO Module demo: Jamie Stewart /
Danette Likens

   a. overview of CPM and LO Module (Rel 4.0)
enhancements included in Jun 09 release (now in
NMCI cert. testing in San Diego)

         1) TPP/TCCD initial version – Denise
Green: use of new TPP/TCCD function with
traditional AIM I/II courses – Jamie: being
investigated but not yet fully inter-operable

         2) skills editor – user can input Skills item
directly vs. having to import via Excel

        3) Skills workflow – submit / review /
approve support processes – being addressed by
Roles / Privileges / Workflow IPT chaired by D
Harrison-Youngs of CNE

     b. JDTA support in CPM: same basic process
but many specific enhancements (starting at skills
tree structure and display and more substantively
starting at Jobs tab) to support JDTA implementation
per NETCINST and N74 staff direction – still
evolving based on CEODD pilot testing and
upcoming GAT
Action item: Jake Aplanalp and team resolve
questions about “Type of Training” being equated to
“Intermediate / Organizational / Depot / N/A” in JDTA
process as practiced in CEODD prototype

[note: this is an issue of business process / rules
that needs to be nuked out between Centers and
NETC process/policy makers and then reflected into

D H-Y: what about filtering verbs (and other pick
lists) to reduce volume of items through which the
user must scroll? – Jamie: being discussed by R / P
/ W IPT and will be discussed in more detail during
that agenda item

     c. overview of new video help functions on AIM
information Web page:

also video overviews as presented to NETC
Drumbeat sessions earlier this year:

Danette and Jamie both urge FRB members and
their staffs to use Discuss function on Web / Wiki
page to report problems / errors and request
additional help packages

Discussion of detailed updates and release dates for
AIM I/II Rel 4.0 both traditional functions (no
updates) and LO Module (listed on AIM information
Web page) – Ron Zinnato reporting latest news
about NMCI with “hope” to start push to users

Action Item: FRB members participate in upcoming
NETC N74/PMW-240 ILE guidance revisions and
provide inputs to NETC N74 on business processes
and rules to leverage capabilities of CPM and LO

11. AIM s/w status: Jake Aplanalp and Ron Zinnato

    a. overview of modernization process – see
posted PPT

    b. Rel 4.0 in NMCI testing – in final process in
San Diego now
    c. Rel 5.0 upcoming (Jun 10) release for
traditional, CPM, and LO Module based on funded
programming tasks

Action Item: Jake Aplanalp determine feasibility and
member interest in going to quarter vs. semi-annual
FRB meeting for the next several years as business
processes and s/w tools evolve rapidly

    d. future releases: need FRB inputs to help
focus post-Rel 5.0 versions of the s/w – FRB will
review and prioritize remaining ACRs and FRM
items during the Fri am agenda sessions of this
meeting as guidance to Jake, Ron, and team for
future releases

11. overview of Elite electronic classroom
integration software (ECIS): Mike Clifford (LSO TTF
Kings Bay), Dan Zabecki (SSP SP-2056 – SWS
training), Jerry Benzel (NAVSEA submarine
curriculum support)

Karen Pohl: is there any command or NETC
direction about policy for ECIS use? – Mike: SLC
mandates ECIS use via an instruction to their

activities but limited to the submarine training
community at this point

Web meeting issues prevented Steve from
presenting his demonstration as planned – Elite
explanatory material will be posted as part of the
FRB presentation materials on the AIM information
Web page

POC information for Steve Kramek:

    Phone: 413-494-3406

12. report from IPTs: Jake Aplanalp and D
Harrison-Youngs (CNE – chair of Roles, Privileges,
and Workflow IPT)

    a. AIM Central Site – actions in this area now
being driven by Jake working directly with Bruce
Bare of NETC CIO and Denise Green on CNATT
Central Site prototype

Action Item: FRB members identify to Jake their
interest in defining/monitoring business rules for
operating in a Central Site environment

     b. CeTARS – again, ongoing direct contacts
between the CeTARS and AIM teams,
supplemented by promises of NETC-level action
from Roy Hoyt, have overtaken an active role for the
CeTARS-to-AIM data exchange IPTs – ongoing
coordination of test/test item data exchange – Jake
to follow up with NETPDTC and NETC N74

    c. new IPTs – at least user training IPT needs
to be chartered and brought into operation to
support coordination among Jake, Dave Donnelly
(CSFE), and Yvette Bartholomew (CPPD) – perhaps
IPT on distribution processes for new AIM releases
via NMCI

   d. Roles/Privileges/Workflow – D Harrison-
Youngs reviews work of group to date

        1) mgmt of verb lists in CPM as one
example of user-controlled pick list vocabularies –
Jamie Stewart discussed a process-flow diagram
(see posted PPT) from IPT discussions proposing a
workflow to support input and processing of requests
for new or modified verbs per the authoritative list

Verb List: Jamie presented flow for submission of
desired verbs & mentioned domains. Policy issue
and application issue – draft is a recommended

application process. Anyone can submit with
notification going to center designated approver
where it can be approved or rejected; response back
to submitter; approved goes to administrator for final
approval. Discussing filtering for verb to be tagged
as center entry. Larger group needs to know when
verb is added, looking for way to automate means of
notifying others of new entries. Jake: verbs have
been validated and there is a need to continue to
enter more because some centers have specialized
needs. Recommend centers be able to filter
baseline list to reduce length. D-H-Y: Question to
FRB- should NETC have to approve verbs that are
added & what should the process be if adding large
number (more than 10) verbs? If you would like to
provide input on approval process, please send to D
within 1 month; no input means consensus to
proposed process.

Action Item: FRB members review proposed verb list
process flow discussed at FRB meeting and
included with minutes and email yea/nay vote to D
Harrison-Youngs, copy to Jamie Stewart, by 15 Dec

        2) portion marking – extended discussion
about the many issues related to policy on portion
marking, correlation of data fields and user interface

capabilities in AIM to support granular portion
marking in a variety (paper, PDF, browsable XML,
data-output XML in ECIS) – consensus that this
remains a very hard problem and a moving target –
need more participation in IPT to support
community-wide discussion of this issue and define
business rules and s/w capabilities to support this
important function with the multi-dimensional matrix
of managing data in AIM database and producing
the various portion marked outputs

         3) data list mgmt for NLOS pick lists –
similar to the processes and possible business rules
identified for verb lists

[note: Denise Green recommends a checklist
approach by which different user activities can
define what verbs should appear to their users via
checking or omitting verbs from both baseline and
Center-specific verbs]

        4) roles and privileges – most near-term
action will relate to AIM II privilege changes being
driven by CNATT Central Site implementation –
Denise to report at next FRB meeting and request
feedback from FRB members per this meeting

     e. metadata IPT: Leo Grassi (Navy Medical
and chair of IPT) – push to auto-generate metadata
to streamline and reduce cost of creating meaningful
metadata related to learning content – AIM team
demo on AIM/CPM/LO Module metadata generation
and editing capabilities conducted for IPT in early
Oct – see posted PPT for detailed list of

looking to auto-generate data from Aim to limit need
to manually enter data. Need to facilitate center
review of CPM/LO Module metadata vocabularies
and use case to get user defined requirements and
processes (originally due by 12 July). Is Denise
doing something to that effect – Denise: sort of as I
have time. Locally established working group is
trying to work on process since they are levied with
same requirement as fleet IPT.

Applications issues – EADE is only marginally
accessible (his perception). Conventions issues: do
we know or expect to know what query logic will dive
execution? Other issues: Roles (for ISD, SME,
videographers, graphic designers), where is
vocabulary controlled (only in CPM?), Annotation
methods have limitations with AIM metadata built-in
taxonomy. Verb list: why do we need to have if the
JDTA is being done right we should not need a verb

list. Leo: JDTA data will pull in verb eliminating need
to have a drop down. ??: What verbs are we talking
about – the ones for the training arena or the ones
for the work (may be different). Jamie: list is
generated from NLOS and is replicated in both. D-H-
Y, TO & EO may change verb. Leo: in simulated
environment you could use same in both
environments or change depending on setting. Leo:
counted short-falls with limited schemas in the RL
environment leaving out category 5, 6, 7, & 8, which
are needed to tag uniformly throughout. Copy
function at COI level to be able to copy if there is a
need for a duplicate in CPM – Yvette: show me what
training is in system already after I select the tasks
needed. She wants to be able to copy structure into
CPM – we can do this in traditional AIM. She has 2
projects where she would like to be able to do this.
Jamie: maybe we should have ability to copy whole
project. (Jamie has for action – meeting with Yvette
next week) See brief for recommendations.

Jake: explained EADE is vs. EDE construct and
design concept. LEO: need to define out in
NAVEDTRA 130 and metadata guide as to how to
apply and guide people through use. (Action Item)
Can ISD comment field be use to automate
metadata? Jake to check with SW team to see

where we are with Metadata. Leo willing to assist
with development.

Action Item: AIM team explore using CPM
instructional design comments to automate
NSCORM Metadata Category 5 (8 categories) and
report to FRB

13. Center/SYSCOM AIM status and activity brief:
Jake as intro for information sharing among AIM
FRB user communities and excellent feedback to
AIM team for future enhancements and fixes to
current problems

     a. NAVSEA: Jerry Benzel – nothing yet on
JDTA data – HQ knows about JDTA but MSAs not
well versed – IETMs linked into curr so definitely do
need electronic classrooms and ECIS – now
creating Fault Insertion Guides (FIG) in PDF and
linking in AIM I as IMI files for delivery and mgmt –
active process of linking a wide variety of IETM
types into AIM I-based NAVSEA curricula – CPM/LO
Module expertise is limited and NAVSEA has no
plans to implement unless NETC mandate is
accompanied by resources or NAVSEA will POM for
adtl resources for downstream action – 100
NAVSEA courses with about 450 weeks of trng
(18,000 hrs)

     b. Navy Medical: Senior Chief Santee – see
posted PPT – currently refreshing JDTA via
spreadsheets (importing to support CTTL
development) – very limited electronic classrooms –
probably go to Blackboard for electronic courseware
delivery – [note: look at SCORM XML output import
into Blackboard] – AIM II training completed for all
sites – Shawn Riley as in-house AIM expert/help
desk – major development efforts ongoing: 6
courses in place with 100+ course weeks

     c. NSWC Coronado: Karen Pohl – 42 courses
(~ 7400 hrs) enroute to 93 courses (with possible
adtl 24 foreign language courses and/or 12 UAS
courses being analyzed for possible CPM/LO
Module application) – several distributed databases
looking at Central Site applicability – refreshing
entry-level electronic classrooms now with POM-12
wedge to move to adv classrooms with current
technology student workstations – OCCSTDS
approved by CENSEALSWCC – NSWC will likely
consume JDTA built and managed by Center –
Karen an active participant in SOCOM LMS/ETMDS
study by John Lomax/Jerry Best – still a moving
target on SOCOM business processes and rules

[note: Jerry Benzel – question on metrics of building
in AIM I vs. CPM/LO Module – Jamie/Jim: not much
data available yet because no one, including MT
Continuum, has any end-to-end experience – AIM
team to discuss, esp. with Paul Graf, and provide
feedback to FRB – NAVSEA uses 10 hrs/1 hr of ILT
content for AIM I development; SSP uses 30 hrs/1 hr
of ILT content for AIM I development]

     d. CID: Joe Pekarske – mapping JDTA data in
Excel model for 5-6 courses now but unfamiliar with
CPM – IT A School / IT of the Future going to
advanced electronic classrooms now – Perception
as assessment tool in classified courses – working
toward CeTARS for Unclass courses – CTM courses
being done in AIM II and delivered in electronic
classrooms including linked IETMs – senior mgmt
very interested in Central Site AIM; commitment to
use contingent on satisfactory centralized system –
Joe as former AIM POC at CNATT and went through
AIM train-the-trainer process last summer – Joe to
teach AIM II user training to contractors in late Nov –
will train other CID activities pending resolution of
other non-AIM duties

   e. CNE: D H-Y – NETC N74 pushing hard on

     f. TTF Kings Bay: Mike Clifford – using AIM-
linked qualification pkgs similar to what Jerry Benzel

Friday 6 November

14. Review of governance process and procedures:
Jake Aplanalp – see posted PPT

Jake stresses that he’s happy to provide a conduit
from the perspective of the AIM toolset and the FRB
to Roy as N74 policy maker and documentation

     a. Relationship of FRB and NETC N74 in
providing policy guidance and functionality priorities
to AIM Pgm Mgr – Jake on Roy Hoyt’s position
about being the “51% stockholder” on AIM
functionality issues – resource sponsor eventually
will be OPNAV (N15) with NETC as a major player
but funding control will remain at OPNAV –> PMW-
240 will likely become BSO for AIM resources and
manage AIM as a training enterprise application –
discussion about historical relationship between
FRB and AIM Pgm Mgr and actual implementation
planning of AIM releases based FRB-defined
priorities – Jake on criticality of implementing JDTA

Karen: link between OPNAV N15 competency work
and JDTA process as being pushed forward by
NETC? – Jamie Stewart: he and Paul participated in
higher-level competency working group – meeting in
Millington TN in Feb 09 looked very promising for
integrated MP and TE integrated approach for
competency and work description but subsequently
fell apart for lack of senior mgmt attention and
funding – Jamie’s understanding was that 2014 is
target date for competency approach
implementation – Jake: NETC N7 simply decided
they and the Centers couldn’t wait – Jamie: that
said, Roy has frequently committed to continuing to
work with NAVMAC and OPNAV to interface JDTA
data with evolving competency policy

Jamie: NJA model vs. JDTA model – very similar
structure – no Position in JDTA – Condition and Std
added to JDTA – assembling Tasks by components
in JDTA – Jake: will continue to work closely with MT
Continuum as they migrate their mass of NJA data
into JDTA structure in CPM for production work on
their learning content

Denise: need to link content both to JDTA and MTL
(Master Task List) data – Jamie: Task Source in
JDTA might be a good spot to do that to ensure
thorough interconnection – Jim: good time to raise

and resolve the issue to refine CPM database
structure before Navy generates masses of JDTA
data – Karen: needs to be requirement and
integrated into CPM

    b. possible more formal relationship with PMW-
240 / Sea Warrior team – not much impact on FRB /
user community; perhaps more impact on Jake in
organizational terms

    c. Enterprise Training Management and
Delivery System (ETMDS) award now being
evaluated for successor NeL LMS – AIM toolsets
output has been extensively tested with a variety of
SCORM 2004-compliant LMSs and should be
equally compatible with ETMDS-selected LMS
scheduled to come on-line in 2012

Jake discussions with CAPT Rich Sweetman of
PMW-240 on EDE/EADE – Jake briefs block
diagram from CAPT Sweetman -> see posted PPT

15. ACR review: Ron Zinnato – see posted PPT

   a. ACRs planned for Rel 5.0 – all but 2 of
ACRs reviewed and prioritized at May 09 FRB mtg

Ron summarizes planned ACRs per PPT

Jamie Swaim on AIM II-2000-485: ONLY AIM
ADMIN should be able to replace existing course
with course being imported – [note: coordinate
with Steve and FRB members about local vs.
Central Site implementation of this capability; e.g.,
perhaps can be Privilege driven for Central Sites if
there’s any way to identify how AIM is being used for
that instance]

Jamie on AIM-II-2000-511: need to have capability
to write TCCD changes back to TPP and need to
define process/business rules about changes being
written back to TPP from TCCD during TPP
review/approval – Jamie recommends that the
capability be limited to AIM Admin role and it be
optional vs. automatic in all cases – Jim: consider
using workflow functions in CPM to treat TPP data
elements separately vs. monolithic document –
Karen Pohl: exploring many of those issues to tailor
TPP data functions for more effective use in
SPECWAR community – Dave Donnelly: be careful
not to inject a new problem in AIM for a process that
has been made to work for a long time even if
somewhat kludgily

Action Item: Jake and team develop scenario-based
white paper on implementation of ACR AIM-II-2000-

511 to define work flow and support current
business rules for TPP processing, approval, and

Action Item: Per ACR AIM-II-2001-577, Ron and
team verify that once AIM goes to saving graphics in
native format will work with Elite ECIS when course
data package is exported to Elite.

ACR AIM-II-2004-642: implementation of
performance testing – extensive discussion of
adding capability to AIM that may duplicate functions
of CeTARS and/or Perception – Jim: funded as
minor effort and will not create expensive or very
robust capability – Karen Pohl: her understanding is
to create capability similar to NSWC high-risk
document capability also being planned for Rel 5.0 –
Dave Donnelly: need to coordinate ACR analysis
with potential impacts on other enterprise IT toolsets
perhaps via PMW-240 –

AIM-II-2002-614: stress that this action will create
document identifying how to use 3rd party tools to
solve the problem plus ongoing functional / tech
support – investigate Jerry Benzel’s concern about
creating multiple files in PDF and having to stitch
these files together individually – Jamie Swaim:
option in AIM TG module to print integrated TG may

address this issue – AIM team investigate and
document in white paper being output under this

    b. ACRs NOT included in Rel 5.0:

     - AIM-II-1998-380 erroneously listed in the
“Included in Rel 5.0” ACRs
     - Karen Pohl: really need to provide capability
to generate properly marked classified LPs, TGs,
and supporting materials

Action Item: FRB provide AIM team sample of
paper/PDF products desired from AIM I/II with
correct classification markings. Jake and team will
develop preliminary design and level of effort ROM
to implement that capability.

Dave Donnelly: very concerned about continuing
lack of change package generation capability in AIM
II – Ron to support further discussion about level of
effort ROM developed to implement that capability

    c.   review of new ACRs since May 09 mtg:

         - Ron asks FRB to review and prioritize
after the meeting

Action Item: FRB members review listing of new
ACRs and identify their priorities and provide
comments on recommended implementation.

         - Ron encourages FRB members to move
to on-line (Bugzilla) system to submit and track their
ACR inputs
         - AIM team to explore status of CDP-
level CMS in AIM I/II/CPM related to ACR 95
         - TCCD print Course Length as
Instructional Days vs. Calendar Days – consensus is
both should be displayed
         - Review roles for CNATT Central Site
and how those will appear to non-CNATT AIM II
users in Rel 5.0

16. Review of CPM/LO Module Functional Reqts
Matrix (FRM) items: Jamie Stewart – see posted

     a. current CPM issue: CPPD/Yvette on
flexibility of moving milestones around in TPP

    b. items to be incorporated into Rel 5.0

    c.   new FRM items since May 09 FRB mtg:

        - JDTA functionality initial version on-line
now but anticipate many updates as pilot projects go
        - CPM copy project
        - CPM copy COI

    d. review of current FRM tool to track CPM /
    LO Module projects – [note: because of DCO
    failure at this point, Jamie will record GTM of
    FRM overview and link to minutes for remote
    users/non-attendees] – Jamie solicits