Training development in support of the operational domain



Download 1.39 Mb.
Page28/36
Date18.10.2016
Size1.39 Mb.
1   ...   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   ...   36

autoshape 49

Appendix C
Product Checklists




C-1. CATS QC checklist


The checklist in table C-1 is a means for proponent institutions to document QC measures to ensure their CATS meet requirements and facilitate timely delivery. A QC review is required for each CATS.


Table C-1
CATS QC checklist


CATS QC Checklist for:

CATS Title:


TOE # (from Unit TOE):


Approver (Name and contact information):


Projected Delivery Date:


Date Development Strategy Received:


Date Development Strategy Approved:


Date Coordinating Draft Received:

Date Vetted:

Date Coordinating Draft Approved:


Date Final Draft Received:


Date Final Draft Approved:

Date of Proponent Approval in DTMS:

Date Released in DTMS

Instructions: Tracking dates must be entered in the blocks above. QC review items follow. Reviewers must enter "Yes," "No," or "NA" for each item. Negative responses for an item must be explained in the comments column. Provide specific comments or recommendations to support the response. Use the space provided following each section for additional comments.

#

Item

Yes/No/NA

Comments

CATS DESIGN

Development Strategy

1.

Is the Unit TOE data correct?










a. Are the correct TOEs selected for the unit?










b. Are there subordinate TOEs identified/required to support this CATS?







2.

Are all UTL collective tasks identified?








Table C-1
CATS QC, continued


CATS QC Checklist for:

#

Item

Yes/No/NA

Comments

3.

Does the task selection design appear to be sufficient to train the unit to achieve the required training standard?







a. Are the task selection names descriptive of the TOE missions, capabilities, tactical tasks, and/or warfighting functions described in appropriate FMs or DA regulations?







b. Do they provide a basis for logically linking the collective tasks that would be trained together to develop a capability?







c. Are all collective tasks accounted for in the task selections?







4.

Are collective tasks associated with DA designated TOE missions/tasks consistent with the capabilities, missions, and/or functions requiring training?







5.

Do the initial recommended types of events associated with the task selections provide an appropriate progressive strategy?







6.

Have proponent-specific requirements been included in the design?







7.

Has the approver completed the review and provided feedback?







Additional Development Strategy Comments or Guidance:

COORDINATING DRAFT

The TASK SELECTION

8.

Is the task selection name sufficiently descriptive and does it provide a basis for linking the supporting collective tasks logically trained together to execute a capability, or the selected warfighting function, competency, and/or TOE mission?







9.

Is the task selection number in accordance with the numbering protocol established in TR 350-70 and TP 350-70-1?







10.

Is the task selection training frequency sufficient to achieve/maintain the desired level of training readiness?







11.

Are the collective tasks associated with each task selection sufficient to execute a TOE capability, or the selected warfighting function and/or operational theme or mission?







a. Are the tasks appropriate to train the task selection capability?







b. Are the tasks active in DTMS?







c. Are there obsolete/inactive tasks in the task selection?







12.

Are the task selections linked/associated with the correct METL?







13.

Do the types of events provide a progressive strategy?







Additional Task Selection Comments or Guidance:

Supporting CATS EVENTS

14.

Are the events selected appropriate to support each task selection in accordance with the approved EVENTS List?







15.

Are the recommended event iterations sufficient for each event?







16.

Are the total number of recommended iterations for all events selected to train a task selection equal to or less than the recommended task selection training frequency?







17.

Are event durations sufficient for each event?







18.

Is the rigor for each event identified?







19.

Is the training audience (unit(s), sections, and positions) for each event appropriate?







20.

Do the TADSS selected for events adequately support training of the task selection?







21.

Is multi-echelon training included where appropriate?







22.

Are training gates identified where relevant?







23.

Are the facilities identified where relevant?







24.

Does the purpose statement for each event clearly describe what the event is designed to train?







25.

Does the outcome statement clearly describe what is to be achieved by training the event?







26.

Does the execution guidance for each event provide:










a. Information for a commander to determine if the event is appropriate to train and achieve the desired readiness requirement?










b. The appropriate level of detail to execute the event based on the identified training conditions?







27.

Are the estimated resources for each event sufficient to support the desired conditions and level of training?







a. Is the line item number (LIN) correct for and in great enough quantity for each item selected to support the event?







b. Is the OPTEMPO Class III (miles, hours) data associated with each event appropriate?







c. Is DoD identification code (DoDIC) (Class V) data associated with each event appropriate?







d. Are the LIN DoDICs (Class V) correct, adequate for the event, and consistent with STRAC?







e. Are required non-LIN DoDICs correct and sufficient for the event?







28.

Does the total number of training days support ARFORGEN?







29.

When required, has the coordinating draft been reviewed by a unit and has the feedback been incorporated?







30.

Has the approver completed the review and provided feedback within 10 duty days of receipt?







Additional Events Comments or Guidance:

FINAL DRAFT

31.

Has the proponent completed the review and provided all final corrections or changes?







32.

Have the changes specified by the proponent been completed?







Negative replies on any area of the final draft require specific comments or guidance:

SUBMISSION and VERIFICATION

33.

Has the strategy been approved by the proponent using the CATS Development Tool?







34.

Has the proponent verified that the strategy displays properly in DTMS?







35.

Has the strategy been released in DTMS?







Additional Comments/Recommendations:


Download 1.39 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   ...   36




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2020
send message

    Main page