Training the way we fight
Updated: Oct 6, 2020
Recently, Defence released the Ryan Report into Training. While there is no earth shattering information in the report, no significant innovation or evolution, it is good to see that Army has identified that there is a problem. There appears to be general and formal acknowledgement that the system needs a "modification".
How much modification is needed and what could be possible though? We asked one of our senior training consultants to review the report and if money and time were no barrier, was there a way that could produce better results?
What if money and time were no barrier?
Army could bring all HR, Training and Safety activities under one unified command, such as the old Training Command. Then it could set standards, train to those standards and be audited and held accountable. Army misses out by not using it's RTO status to it's full potential. It has inherent opportunity to have a self sufficient business, which could not only increase the quality of the training provided, but could also be expanded to be able to offer civilian qualifications and traineeships. Army specific training would remain and owned by the Corps Schools to manage and modify as per operational requirements and the Commanders intentions. Standards and doctrine cells however, would be managed more effectively and a greater focus on annual training, confirmation exercises would be generated. Linking readiness, funding and even senior officer and NCO promotions and appointments to Unit training successes. This would focus the entire system on training to fight and win.
While campus looks like the beginnings of an efficient online resource, it could be expanded into much more. A mature training development and delivery portal, learning management system and supplier portal could provide end to end support throughout the training continuum and provide a huge increase in capability. Innovative commercial models could then be applied and possibly applied to generate 3rd party revenue. If the UKMOD can do so with the HETS systems, surely internal business systems could be adapted to do the same. Defence could end up being not only a smart buyer but a smart seller too.
Establishing a VET and Tertiary education oversight body to develop and steer an integrated education approach would be useful. This would be part of an Army College and would manage and coordinate all training (VET and UNI). The term "adult education" is often thrown around but if applied from a first principles approach, this could revolutionise the training and education approach.
Electronic, integrated and interactive class rooms would also be developed. This would assist with holistic training across all forms. Greater use of simulation and blended learning environments would offset risk and costs associated with dangerous or very expensive training.
About the Author.
Tim Wells is a senior Training Developer at 3BY3 Solutions.
He has been engaged in the Anywise
team now for 6 months assisting in the development and delivery of introduction into service training of military equipment. Decades of experience in Army and in the minerals and resources sector has given him very thorough understanding of the organisations links between risk and training.
3BY3 Solutions is providing a range of training services to the wider Anywise network.