This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-393 
entitled 'Military Transformation: Progress and Challenges for DOD's 
Advanced Distributed Learning Programs' which was released on February 
28, 2003.



This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 

longer term project to improve GAO products’ accessibility. Every 

attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 

the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 

descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 

end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 

but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 

version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 

replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 

your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 

document to Webmaster@gao.gov.



Report to Congressional Committees:



United States General Accounting Office:



GAO:



February 2003:



MILITARY TRANSFORMATION:



Progress and Challenges for DOD’s Advanced Distributed Learning 

Programs:



GAO-03-393:



GAO Highlights:



Highlights of GAO-03-393, a report to Congressional Committees:



Why GAO Did This Study:



The Department of Defense (DOD) spends more than $17 billion

annually for military schools that offer nearly 30,000 military 

training courses to almost 3 million military personnel and DOD 

civilians. DOD is transforming its forces, including the way it trains, 

to favor more rapid and responsive deployment. DOD’s training 

transformation strategy emphasizes the use of advanced distributed 

learning (ADL) programs, such as Internetbased training, as critical 

to achieving its training and overarching transformation goals.

ADL is instruction that does not require an instructor’s presence;

can use more than one media; and emphasizes the use of reusable

content, networks, and learning management systems.



Because of ADL’s importance to DOD’s transformation efforts and

pursuant to GAO’s basic legislative responsibilities, we initiated 

this review to create a baseline document that describes the status

of DOD’s ADL programs. GAO reviewed these programs to

determine (1) DOD’s expectations for the programs; (2) the

implementation status of those programs; and (3) major challenges

affecting program implementation. GAO did not assess the programs’

effectiveness at this time because most are in the early stages of

implementation.



DOD reviewed a draft of this report and concurred with its contents.



What GAO Found:



DOD has set high expectations for ADL. They expect the programs to 

provide new learning opportunities and technologies across a wide 

range of training areas. Ultimately, a key benefit of ADL is expected 

to be improved readiness through reengineering of training and 

enhancing service members’ skills.



DOD, the services, and Joint Staff are generally in the early stages 

of implementing their ADL programs and have made progress in several 

areas. OSD, with its three ADL co-laboratories; the services; and the 

Joint Staff chose an industry-wide ADL standard for content 

interoperability and collaboration across the services. They promoted 

experimentation with new technology and working with private industry. 

The services’ programs generally focus on distribution infrastructure 

and service-specific content development. According to ADL program 

officials, OSD, the Joint Staff, and the services have achieved some 

ADL successes. For example, OSD, in collaboration with the 

colaboratories, developed successful course content prototypes; and 

the Army’s Battle Staff Noncommissioned Officer course resulted in 

annual savings while maintaining student performance. However, it is 

too early to fully assess the extent of each program’s effectiveness.



DOD faces cultural, technological, policy and financial challenges 

that affect the ADL programs’ ability to fully achieve the benefits 

of enhanced learning and performance and of improved readiness. Key 

challenges are summarized below.



www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-393.

To view the full report, including the scope

and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Neal P. Curtin,

at (757) 552-8100 or e-mail curtinn@gao.gov.



Contents:



Letter:



Briefing Section I: Background on DOD’s Advanced Distributed 

Learning Programs:



Briefing Section II: DOD’s Expectations for Advanced Distributed 

Learning Programs:



Briefing Section III: Implementation Status of DOD’s Advanced 

Distributed Learning Programs:



Briefing Section IV: Major Challenges Affecting DOD’s Advanced 

Distributed Learning Programs:



Briefing Section V: Conclusions:



Briefing Section VI: Army’s Advanced Distributed Learning Programs:



Briefing Section VII: Navy’s Advanced Distributed Learning Programs:



Briefing Section VIII: Marine Corps’ Advanced Distributed Learning 

Programs:



Briefing Section IX: Air Force’s Advanced Distributed Learning 

Programs:



Briefing Section X: Joint Staff’s Advanced Distributed Learning 
Programs:



Appendixes:



Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:



Appendix II: Timeline of Key Events, Directives and Guidance for DOD’s 

ADL Programs:



Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense:



Abbreviations:



ADL: Advanced Distributed Learning:



AEC: Automated Electronic Classrooms:



AETC: U.S. Air Force Air Education and Training Command:



AFIADL: Air Force Institute for Advanced Distributed Learning:



BA3: Budget Activity 3:



CBT: Computer Based Training:



CNET: U.S. Navy Chief of Naval Education and Training:



C4I: Command, Control, Communications, Computers and 

 Intellegence:



DAU: Defense Acquisition University:



DL: Distance Learning:



DLRC: Deployable Learning Resource Centers:



DOD: Department of Defense:



DTF: Digital Training Facilities:



DTTP: Distributive Training Technology Project:



DUSD®: Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Readiness:



ECP: Extension Course Program:



ETSC: Education and Training Steering Committee:



IRR: Individual Ready Reserve:



ITV: Interactive Television:



JCLE: Joint Collaborative Learning Environment:



JPME II: Joint Professional Military Education II:



LMS: Learning Management System:



MC: Marine Corps:



MCDLP: Marien Corps Distance Learning Program:



MOS: Military Occupational Specialty:



NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization:



NCO: Noncommissioned Officer:



NIPRNET: Non-Classified Internet Protocol Router Network:



NG: National Guard:



NGB: National Guard Bureau:



NMCI: Navy and Marine Corps Intranet:



NSIAD: National Security and International Affairs Division:



O&M: Operations and Maintenance:



OSD: Office of the Secretary of Defense:



PME: Professional Military Education:



POM: Program Objective Memorandum:



QDR: Quadrennial Defense Review:



R,D,T&E: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation:



SCORM: Sharable Content Object Reference Model:



SIPRNET: Secret Internet Protocol Router Network:



TADLP: The Army Distributed Learning Program:



TFADLAT: Total force Advanced Distributed Learning Action Team:



TRADOC: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command:



VTC: Video Teleconference:



VTT: Video Teletraining:



This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright 

protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 

in its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain 

copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the 

copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce 

copyrighted materials separately from GAO’s product.



February 28, 2003:



The Honorable John Ensign

Chairman

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate:



The Honorable Joel Hefley

Chairman

The Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Readiness

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives:



The Department of Defense (DOD) spends more than $17 billion[Footnote 

1] annually for military schools that offer nearly 30,000 military 

training courses to almost 3 million military personnel and DOD 

civilians, much of it to maintain readiness. [Footnote 2] To better 

meet the diverse defense challenges of the future, DOD is transforming 

its forces, including its training, for a post-Cold War environment 

that favors more rapid deployment and responsiveness. DOD’s Training 

Transformation Strategy[Footnote 3] emphasizes the use of advanced 

distributed learning (ADL) programs such as Internet-based training, as 

critical to achieving the department’s training and overarching 

transformation goals and to deliver the highest quality training cost-

effectively anytime, anywhere, whether active duty, reserve, or 

civilian personnel. ADL is instruction that does not require an 

instructor’s presence; can use more than one media; and emphasizes the 

use of reusable content, networks, and learning management 

systems.[Footnote 4]



We initiated this review of DOD’s ADL programs, pursuant to our basic 

legislative responsibilities, because of the importance DOD has placed 

on them as a key to achieving the department’s transformation efforts. 

Specifically, we addressed the following questions: (1) What are DOD’s 

expectations for the programs? (2) How is DOD managing ADL and what 

progress is being made in implementing the programs? (3) What major 

challenges are affecting the programs’ implementation? We did not 

assess the effectiveness of the programs at this time because most are 

in the early stages of implementation; thus our objective was to 

provide a baseline document concerning the focus, status, and magnitude 

of DOD’s ADL programs.



In late August and early September 2002, because of your continuing 

interest in the readiness and training of U.S. armed forces, we briefed 

your offices and those of Representatives John McHugh and Adam Smith on 

the results of our work. This report summarizes and updates the major 

observations provided at our briefings. (See briefing sections I 

through X.):



We conducted our review from February 2002 through August 2002 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Appendix I describes our scope and methodology.



Background:



The increased rate of deployments in recent years of DOD’s forces, 

which often involve rapid, unplanned movements to locations around the 

world, highlights the need for the services to provide training on 

demand to soldiers and units deployed worldwide. Accordingly, because 

of more demanding deployment criteria and other time-sensitive 

constraints, DOD recognized that yesterday’s framework “right time, 

right place” learning, with its use of set times and places for 

training, may not meet future military requirements. It also recognizes 

that providing “anytime, anywhere” instruction is essential to 

maintaining military readiness in the information age, where future 

forces and their support activities need to be highly adaptive to meet 

threats effectively and rapidly.



In response to the DOD 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review,[Footnote 5] the 

department developed a DOD-wide strategy to use learning and 

information technologies to modernize education and training. The 

initial effort in that development was the ADL Initiative. Its intent 

was to set forth a new framework to provide DOD personnel access to 

high quality education and training, tailored to individual needs and 

delivered cost-effectively, whenever and wherever it is required. DOD 

envisioned using the Internet and other virtual or private wide-area 

networks, distributed learning experts, learning management, and 

diverse support tools to ensure a “learner-centric” ADL system that 

delivers high quality training, education, and job performance aiding. 

DOD sees ADL programs as part of a continuum[Footnote 6] of learning 

that encompasses many learning methodologies, as shown in table 1.



Table 1: Continuum of Learning Methods:



Right time, right place: Classroom 

delivery method: *Instructor-led training; Right time, right place: 

Distance/distributed learning delivery methods: *Video tele-training; 

*Embedded training; *Computer conferencing; *Interactive television; 

*Electronic classrooms; *Interactive multimedia; *Computer-based 

training; *Audio-graphics; *Audiotapes/videotapes; *Correspondence 

courses; Anytime, anywhere: Advanced distributed 

learning delivery methods: *Integrated networked systems; *Integrated 

platforms; *Reusable learning objects; *Widespread collaboration; 

*Global knowledge databases; *Intelligent tutoring systems; 

*Performance aiding; *Digital knowledge repositories; *Internet-based 

instruction; *Virtual libraries; *Simulations; *Virtual classrooms.



[End of table]



Source: Defense Acquisition University.



Note: The data displayed in the table is based on data provided in the 

Defense Acquisition University’s Strategic Plan 2002-2009 Training 

Transformation (T2), The DAU Road Map for e-Learning and On-line 

Performance Support.



In April 1999, DOD issued its ADL strategy[Footnote 7] in response to 

the 1997 DOD Quadrennial Defense Review. The strategy also responded to 

(1) the directive in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 1999[Footnote 8] for DOD to develop a strategic plan to guide and 

expand distributed learning initiatives and (2) Executive Order 

13,111[Footnote 9] that tasked DOD to provide guidance to Defense 

agencies and advise civilian agencies in developing and implementing 

collaborative distance learning standards. DOD’s strategic plan defined 

ADL as a way to leverage the power of computer, information, and 

communication technologies through the use of common standards in order 

to provide learning that can be tailored to individual needs and 

delivered anytime, anywhere, in either training or education 

environments. It also includes establishing an interoperable “computer-

managed instruction” environment to support the needs of developers, 

learners, instructors, administrators, managers, and family. An ADL 

implementation plan followed in May 2000 to provide a federal 

framework. It described the department’s approach to carrying out its 

strategic plan and provided an update on each of the services’ and the 

Joint Staff’s programs. [Footnote 10] Since 1995, OSD, the services, 

and the Joint Staff have established ADL programs in concert with key 

executive, congressional, and departmental guidance discussed above. 

See appendix II for a timeline of key events.



OSD’s March 2002 Training Transformation Strategy emphasizes the use of 

ADL programs as critical to achieving the department’s training and 

overarching transformation goals and ensuring that training is readily 

available to both active and reserve military personnel, regardless of 

time and place. The training transformation strategy and soon to be 

released implementation plan are intended to reengineer training; 

enhance service members’ skills; and provide capabilities-based 

training to support service, joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and 

multinational operations.



Summary:



Officials from OSD, the services, and the Joint Staff have set high 

expectations for ADL. They expect the programs, which include the 

various delivery methods cited in table 1, to provide new learning 

opportunities and technologies and improved readiness. In terms of new 

learning opportunities and technologies, DOD expects:



* increased accessibility to training for personnel,



* interoperability of instruction components in varied locations by 

different services,



* reusability in multiple applications,



* durability, despite changes in technology, and



* affordability.



With regard to improved readiness, DOD expects ADL to improve readiness 

by:



* supporting the training transformation initiative and the combatant 

commanders,



* enhancing training opportunities for joint assignments,



* enhancing training opportunities for reserve personnel,



* improving mission performance through anytime, anywhere, and just-in-

time assignment-oriented and job performance enhancement training, and



* improving manning by reducing personnel’s nonavailability and unit 

turbulence and reducing time for in-resident training with large 

return-on-investment for temporary duty costs, while increasing 

retention and quality-of-life enrichment. (See briefing section II.):



OSD, the services, and the Joint Staff are generally in the early 

stages of implementing their ADL programs and have made progress in 

several areas. OSD’s Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 

for Readiness provides executive policy and programmatic oversight and 

guidance for the department’s ADL implementation. That office also 

leads a collaborative effort to produce ADL policy, plans, and 

procedures for developing and implementing ADL technologies across the 

department. This collaboration involves the services, Joint Staff, 

other DOD components, the ADL collaborative laboratories (co-labs), the 

Coast Guard, and the Department of Labor. For example, OSD in 

collaboration with its partners, chose an industry-wide ADL standard 

for content interoperability to be used throughout DOD, which allows 

for collaboration of course content across the services. The standard, 

Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM), is an evolving set of 

technical specifications designed to ensure the interoperability, 

accessibility, and reusability of on-line courseware. The Joint Staff 

and the services agree that future course content will be designed to 

conform to SCORM. OSD, with the National Guard Bureau (NGB) and the 

Department of Labor, established three ADL co-labs to experiment with 

new technology and leverage experience between private industry and 

military components. It also participates in an international 

partnership co-lab in Telford, England, to promote collaboration and 

global e-learning. The services’ and Joint Staff’s programs--individual 

programs designed by and tailored for the specific needs of each 

service or joint position--share a similar vision of providing learner-

centric (i.e., on demand, “anytime, anywhere”) training and focus on, 

among other aspects, distribution infrastructure and service-specific 

content development. (See briefing section III.):



OSD, the Joint Staff, and the services note that they have achieved 

some ADL successes, such as the following:



* OSD--with the co-labs, military services, Joint Staff, and co-

sponsors--developed successful content prototypes, including one joint 

professional military education course.[Footnote 11]



* The Joint Staff’s Joint Collaborative Learning Environment prototype 

established an initial joint personnel tracking and portal capability.



* The Army’s Battle Staff Noncommissioned Officer course conversion to 

an ADL format resulted in a $2.9 million annual cost avoidance while 

maintaining student performance.



* The Navy--to promote interoperability, ease of access to DOD Internet 

sites, and reduce training time--established both .mil and .com access 

to ADL courses.



* The Marine Corps’ distance learning application in terrorism 

awareness reduced training time from 11 hours to 6 hours and increased 

the average exam scores by 7 percentage points.



* The Air Force developed CD-ROM training for hazardous material 

incident response for DOD firefighters and law enforcement personnel 

that reportedly resulted in a significant increase of certified 

responders and a projected $16.6 million cost avoidance.



Additionally, the Defense Acquisition University’s (DAU) ADL program is 

cited by DOD ADL program officials as a success and an example of “best 

practices.” [Footnote 12] According to university officials, since 1998 

on-line instructional time increased from 15,750 hours to 1.4 million 

hours; graduates attending on-line training courses increased 38 

percent; and the on-line program management curriculum reduced annual 

student training weeks from 36,120 to 10,000--a real savings of 300 

annual work years or $17.4 million. The university’s program was 

awarded the U.S. Distance Learning Association Award for Excellence in 

Government in 2001 and 2002 for the quality of its on-line offerings.



A number of cultural, technological, policy, and financial challenges 

affect OSD’s, the services’ and the Joint Staff’s ability to execute 

programs that achieve the attainable benefits of enhanced learning and 

performance and improved readiness in concert with DOD’s ADL vision and 

training transformation strategy. According to DOD officials, there is 

a strong interrelationship among the challenges and that a solution for 

one challenge may have an impact on the others.



Cultural:



A major cultural barrier, according to DOD ADL program officials, is 

the varying level of commitment of senior military and civilian 

leadership in the military. The consensus view of the ADL program 

officials we contacted was that not all senior military and civilian 

leadership is committed to ADL, preferring the traditional, 

schoolhouse-focused approach to learning. Hesitance to embrace ADL is 

also explained as a function of less familiarity and comfort by senior 

officials with computers, advanced technologies, and emerging policies. 

Similarly, ADL program officials told us that the military services’ 

schoolhouses are reluctant to change, in large part because their 

funding and infrastructure are tied so closely to the number of 

students actually trained on-site.



Technological:



According to DOD officials, the services are all moving toward Web-or 

Internet-based access to course content in support of DOD’s vision of 

“anytime, anywhere” delivery of training. The officials stated that 

much progress has been made to enable this type of access. However, 

according to OSD and service officials, bandwidth is generally 

insufficient to support interactive, multimedia learning content and 

simulations; and unresolved network security concerns stifle utility. 

For example, we recently reported that the National Guard Bureau cannot 

ensure that GuardNet[Footnote 13] will perform as intended or provide 

its users with reliable and secure services because the requirements, 

configuration, and security processes for managing the network are 

ineffective. [Footnote 14] DOD ADL officials acknowledge the same issue 

exists throughout DOD. Perhaps more significantly, the development of, 

fielding of, and access[Footnote 15] to military skills-related course 

content that could most positively impact readiness continue to be more 

difficult than anticipated, leading to higher costs and slower content 

availability than forecasted.



Policy:



Some of DOD’s training policies are obsolete; consequently, some of the 

military services’ training regulations do not reflect the availability 

or use of new ADL technologies. [Footnote 16] For example, according to 

DOD officials, DOD is in the early stage of formulating policy that 

specifically addresses the use of ADL. DOD officials believe that 

without an OSD-specific ADL policy, many of DOD’s policies and guidance 

documents will require updating, so as to provide a requirement for the 

military service’s in turn, to update their training and education 

regulations that address the use of ADL. Also, the Army’s primary 

training regulation[Footnote 17] has been awaiting revision for 3 

years, in part, due to a lack of consensus on integrating new 

technologies, including ADL, with traditional training approaches.



Financial:



Funding and budgeting issues similar to those we reported for DOD’s 

distance learning programs in 1997 remain unresolved.[Footnote 18] 

Funding allocations of more than $431 million for fiscal years 1999 

through 2002 (less than 1.3 percent of its training budget during that 

period) did not always meet program requirements, which were difficult 

to determine for a new program where standards were evolving and the 

technology changing rapidly. It is not likely that planned funding 

levels will meet future expected requirements. DOD program officials 

project that over $2.2 billion will be needed for ADL programs through 

fiscal year 2007 but currently have programmed about $1.6 billionæa 

more than $600 million funding gap. Furthermore, according to DOD 

program officials, in some cases, anticipated training savings 

attributable to ADL implementation were removed from the budget as 

savings before they were realized. According to service officials, some 

training facility commanders continue to be concerned that ADL will 

reduce their resources because of the decrease in the number of 

students receiving traditional schoolhouse training. Finally, the Joint 

Staff and the services are still considering how to budget for the 

long-term use of ADL. (See briefing section IV.):



Agency Comments:



The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Readiness) provided written 

comments on a draft of this report, which are reprinted in their 

entirety in appendix III. In its comments, DOD concurred with the 

content of the report. DOD also provided technical comments to the 

draft, which we have incorporated as appropriate.



We are sending copies of this report to Representatives John McHugh and 

Adam Smith and other congressional members as appropriate. We will also 

send copies to the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, 

the Navy, and the Air Force; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. We 

will make copies available to others on request. In addition, the 

report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://

www.gao.gov .



If you or your staff have any questions, please call me on (757) 552-

8100 or Clifton Spruill, Assistant Director, on (202) 512-4531. Major 

contributors to this report were Claudia Dickey, Arnett Sanders, James 

Walker, M. Jane Hunt, Susan Woodward, and Scott Gannon.



Signed by Neal P. Curtin:



Neal P. Curtin:



Director, Defense Capabilities

 and Management:



[End of section]



Breifing Section I: Background on DOD’s Advanced Distributed Learning 

Programs:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Source: Washington Headquarters Service Directorate for Information 

Operations and Reports and Defense Manpower Data Center.



Notes:Data is as of Apr. 2002.



Reserve Component numbers include Selective Reserve Personnel, 

Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) and Standby Reserve personnel.



[End of section]



Breifing Section II: DOD’s Expectations for Advanced Distributed 

Learning Programs:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



[End of section]



Breifing Section III: Implementation Status of DOD’s Advanced 

Distributed Learning Programs:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Source: DOD.



Note:GAO analysis of OSD, Joint Staff, and military service data.



The Joint Staff reportedly added $650,000 per year to its fiscal years 

2003 through 2007 POM after we completed our audit work.



[End of section]



Breifing Section IV: Major Challenges Affecting DOD’s Advanced 

Distributed Learning Programs:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Source: DOD.



Notes:GAO analysis of OSD, Joint Staff and the military service 

budgetary data.



Total Training amount includes all component O&M training funding 

allocated as reported in the DOD budget for Budget Activity 3 (BA3) for 

the indicated fiscal years. Budget Activity 3 funds all training and 

recruiting programs.



Reserve component funding is included within the active duty component 

totals.



Source: DOD.



Notes:GAO’s analysis of OSD, Joint Staff, and military service 

budgetary data.



Reserve component funding amounts were included with the active 

component 

funding data.



Source: DOD.



Notes:GAO analysis of OSD, military service, and Joint Staff budgetary 

data.



The DOD bars reflect the total requirements of the services, OSD and 

Joint Staff.



Total requirements include both infrastructure and content 

requirements.



Joint Staff requirements are included in the “OSD and Joint Staff” 

total because Joint Staff

 receives, funding for ADL projects from the funds allocated to OSD for 

ADL projects. The Joint Staff, along with the military services, 

competes for funds allocated to OSD for ADL prototypes projects.



[End of section]



Breifing Section V: Conclusions:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



[End of section]



Breifing Section VI: Army’s Advanced Distributed Learning Programs:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



[End of section]



Breifing Section VII: Navy’s Advanced Distributed Learning Programs:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



[End of section]



Breifing Section VIII: Marine Corps’ Advanced Distributed Learning 

Programs:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



[End of section]



Breifing Section IX: Air Force’s Advanced Distributed Learning 

Programs:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



[End of section]



Breifing Section X: Joint Staff’s Advanced Distributed Learning 

Programs:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



[End of section]



Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:



We reviewed the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Advanced Distributed 

Learning (ADL) programs to determine the programs’ expectations, 

implementation status, and major challenges. We collected, reviewed, 

and analyzed relevant program information and conducted interviews with 

DOD officials responsible for distance learning programs and from the 

Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Readiness and 

Training; Advanced Distributed Learning Co-Laboratory, Alexandria, 

Virginia; Joint Advanced Distributed Learning Co-Laboratory, Orlando, 

Florida; Department of the Army, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations-

-Training; the Army Distance Learning Program, U.S. Army Training and 

Doctrine Command; U.S. Army National Guard Bureau, Distributed Training 

Technology Project; Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of 

Naval Operations--Education; U.S. Naval Education and Training Command, 

Office of Naval Education and Training; U.S. Marine Corps Training and 

Education Command, Distance Learning Center; Department of the U.S. Air 

Force, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Learning and 

Force Development; U.S. Air Force Air Education and Training Command, 

Air Force Institute for Advanced Distributed Learning; U.S. Air Force 

Office of Air Force Reserve, Education, Training, Readiness Policy; 

U.S. Air National Guard, Distributed Learning Program; Office of the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Doctrine Education and 

Training Division; and Department of Defense, Defense Acquisition 

University.



To determine DOD’s expectations for its programs, we reviewed 

executive, congressional and departmental guidance related to 

developing DOD-wide ADL programs. We reviewed and analyzed the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense’s (OSD), the military services’, and the 

Joint Staff’s ADL strategy and implementation plans and OSD’s Training 

Transformation Plan. We interviewed OSD, service, and Joint Staff ADL 

program personnel to obtain their views about OSD’s and their service-

or Joint Staff-specific ADL program expectations.



To determine the implementation status of OSD’s, the services’, and 

Joint Staff’s ADL programs, we provided OSD, service, and Joint Staff 

ADL program officials a detailed list of questions concerning program 

vision, strategy, implementation status, number of ADL courses, program 

successes, and challenges. We reviewed their written responses, if 

provided, and followed up with face-to-face interviews to clarify or 

obtain additional information if necessary. We reviewed, and compared 

OSD’s, the services’, and Joint Staff’s ADL strategies and 

implementation plans. We interviewed ADL program officials and 

collected other documents as necessary to determine the status of the 

programs as compared to their ADL program implementation plans. 

Additionally, for fiscal years 1999 through 2002, we obtained, 

analyzed, and compared information about the amount of funding OSD, the 

services, and the Joint Staff reportedly received for their ADL 

programs. For the same fiscal years, we obtained and reviewed the 

amount of funding DOD and the services received as reported for Budget 

Activity 3 in each of the components Operations and Maintenance budgets 

(BA3 funds all training and recruiting programs) and compared the 

overall training budgets to the amount of funding each reportedly 

allocated for ADL programs. In addition, we obtained and analyzed the 

amount of funding that OSD, the services, and the Joint Staff reported 

that they need and have programmed for future ADL requirements for 

fiscal years 2003 through 2007. We compared the amounts reported as 

needed to implement program plans with the amounts included in OSD’s, 

the services’, and the Joint Staff ‘s program objective memorandums for 

fiscal years 2003 through 2007. The dollar amounts shown in this report 

are as of August 31, 2002. We did not independently verify the dollar 

amounts reported in OSD’s and the services’ budgets, nor did we 

independently verify the amount of funding OSD, the services, and the 

Joint Staff reportedly allocated for their ADL programs.



To determine major challenges affecting OSD’s, the services’ and the 

Joint Staff’s ADL program implementation, we provided ADL program 

officials a detailed list of questions that included specific questions 

related to challenges ADL program managers face that affect their 

ability to execute programs that achieve their expectations. We 

reviewed their written responses, if provided, and followed up with 

face-to-face-interviews to clarify or obtain additional information as 

necessary. We did a comparative analysis of the comments they provided. 

We compiled a list of challenges for OSD, each service, and the Joint 

Staff. We provided the lists to each for their review and verification. 

The challenges cited by ADL officials were grouped into four basic 

categories. During our exit briefing, we provided ADL representatives 

from OSD, the services, and the Joint Staff with a summary of the 

challenges noted during our review and asked for their comments. It was 

the consensus of those ADL program officials that the challenges we 

identified are valid.



We did not assess the effectiveness of the programs at this time 

because most are in the early stages of implementation.



[End of section]



Appendix II; Timeline of Key Events, Directives and Guidance for DOD’s 

ADL Programs:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



[End of section]



Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense:



PERSONNEL AND READINESS:



OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 4000 DEFENSE PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-4000:



February 20, 2003:



Mr. Neal P. Curtin:



Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:



US General Accounting Office Washington DC 20548:



Dear Mr. Cumin,



This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the General 

Accounting Office (GAO) draft report, GAO-03-393, “MILITARY 

TRANSFORMATION: Progress and Challenges for DOD’s Advanced Distributed 

Learning Programs” dated January 24, 2003. The Department concurs with 

the draft report as presented.



Your report closely captures the present baseline of Advanced 

Distributed Learning (AD L) for the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

and Services. While concurring with the report, the Department makes 

the following observations:



* ADL is an evolving program and is a critical enabler for transforming 

DoD training.



* Beyond the successes identified in the report, there are numerous 

excellent ADL projects that are ongoing within various DoD Components 

and Agencies.



* The ADL effort has been recognized by national organizations with 

awards for its leadership role in establishing a new distributed 

learning framework for government, industry, and academia.



The Department appreciates the evaluation team’s inclusion of our 

previously provided informal comments and this opportunity to provide 

further comments on the draft report. Technical comments were also 

provided to the GAO for consideration in the final report.



Sincerely,



Signed by Paul W. Mayberry:



Paul W. Mayberry Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Readiness:



FOOTNOTES



[1] This amount includes the cost of conducting school training, 

including instructor’s pay; classroom availability and operation; 

course development; and student’s military pay, billeting cost, and 

temporary duty costs.



[2] Generally, formal military training and education occurs at 

centralized training facilities and lasts weeks or months.



[3] Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness, Strategic Plan for Transforming DOD Training, March 1, 2002. 

In this plan the definition of “training” is expanded to include 

training, education, and job performance aiding. OSD’s training 

transformation implementation plan should be completed by March 2003.



[4] Reusable content includes, but is not limited to, courseware, 

tutorials, and case studies; networks are Intra-or Internet based; and 

learning management systems are operating systems that provide access 

to “content objects” and help register, track, and administer courses 

to a given student population.



[5] William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense, Report of the Quadrennial 

Defense Review, May 1997.



[6] A continuum is defined as a whole characterized as a collection, 

sequence, or progression of elements varying by minute degrees.



[7] Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness, Report to the 106th Congress, Department of Defense 

Strategic Plan for Advanced Distributed Learning, Apr. 30, 1999.



[8] Public Law 105-261, sec. 378, Oct. 17, 1998.



[9] Exec. Order 13,111, Using Technology to Improve Training 

Opportunities for Federal Government Employees, sec. 4 (c), Jan. 12, 

1999.



[10] Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Readiness), 

Director for Readiness and Training, Department of Defense 

Implementation Plan for Advanced Distributed Learning, May 19, 2000.



[11] Joint professional military education is a Joint Chief of Staff-

approved body of objectives, policies, procedures, and standards 

supporting the educational requirements for joint officer development.



[12] Defense Acquisition University, the “corporate university” for 

DOD, provides the acquisition, technology, and logistics community with 

learning products and services. Its distance learning program currently 

provides 19 on-line courses.



[13] National Guard Bureau’s GuardNet, the NGB’s wide-area network, was 

initially established to support Web-based distance learning for its 

units in the states, the U.S. territories, and the District of 

Columbia. GuardNet, a network of interconnected federal and state 

military networks across the United States, can connect to a defense 

network operated by the Defense Information Systems Agency, and through 

this network to the Internet. GuardNet has recently been used to 

support homeland security activities such as emergency command and 

control functions, airport security activities coordination, and public 

service announcements.



[14] U.S. General Accounting Office, National Guard: Effective 

Management Processes Needed for Wide-Area Network, GAO-02-959 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 24, 2002).



[15] For this report, access refers to the availability and ability to 

access computer hardware, sufficient bandwidth to support multimedia, 

interactive course content, and/or available duty time to accomplish 

ADL.



[16] DOD policies and regulations include, but may not be limited to, 

Department of Defense Directive 1200.16, Contracted Civilian-Acquired 

Training (CCAT) for Reserve Components, May 30,1990; Department of 

Defense Directive 1322.18, Military Training, Jan. 9, 1987; Department 

of Defense Directive 1430.13, Training Simulators and Devices, Aug. 22, 

1986; Department of Defense Directive 8320.1, DOD Data Administration, 

Sept. 26, 1991; Department of Defense Directive 8000.1, Management of 

DOD Information Resources and Information Technology, Feb. 27, 2002; 

and Department of Defense Instruction 5200.40, DOD Information 

Technology Security Certification and Accreditation Process, Dec. 30, 

1997.



[17] Department of the Army, Army Regulation 350-1, Army Training, Aug. 

1, 1983.



[18] U.S. General Accounting Office, Distance Learning: Opportunities 

Exist for DOD to Capitalize on Services’ Efforts, GAO/NSIAD-98-63R 

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 18, 1997). We reported that the resolution of 

funding and budgeting issues would benefit the services’ distance 

learning initiatives. These issues are the (1) extent of investment 

that will be needed to convert selected courses and delivery 

infrastructures; (2) dollar savings that can be realized; (3) impact on 

the current training infrastructure, in terms of requirements for 

instructors, training developers, training equipment, course 

maintenance, and training facility operations; and (4) process for 

budgeting for long-term use of distance learning. Distance learning is 

structured training that can take place almost anywhere and anytime 

without the physical presence of an instructor and may use one or more 

media but, unlike ADL, does not emphasize the use of reusable objects, 

networks, and learning management systems.



GAO’s Mission:



The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 

exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 

of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 

of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 

analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 

informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to 

good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability.



Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:



The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 

abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 

expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 

engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 

can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 

graphics.



Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its 

Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 

files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 

released products” under the GAO Reports heading.



Order by Mail or Phone:



The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 

each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 

of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders should be sent to:



U.S. General Accounting Office



441 G Street NW,



Room LM Washington,



D.C. 20548:



To order by Phone: 	



	Voice: (202) 512-6000:



	TDD: (202) 512-2537:



	Fax: (202) 512-6061:



To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:



Contact:



Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov



Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:



Public Affairs:



Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.



General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.



20548: