Not Invented Here: The Challenges

This is an ongoing series to support Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's reforms of DoD. Here we talk about the scientifically supported learning methodology Outcomes Based Learning or OBL

“I am the Commander of the Intelligence Center of Excellence and have very little say in how my Captains’ Career Course is run.”

Major General John M. Custer III (April 2009)

Little to nothing has changed to reforming Professional Military Education (PME) since my friend Major General John Custer (descended from George Custer’s brother) made this statement regarding the centralized control and oversight to US Army PME. This also applies across the Department of Defense (DoD). My direct experience over the last 30 years is dealing with the US Army and Marine Corps PME, so I focus on those two services, but again, the same issues with PME apply across DoD. As I have recommended before, this is where reforms should begin as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth reduces overhead through dismissal of general officers, senior executive service (SeS) as well as diminishing or combining force structures (Headquarters).

More specifically, moving beyond traditional instructor-led “blocks of instruction” will require a “cultural learning evolution” affecting significant changes to established TRADOC and USMC Training and Education Command (TECOM) institutional processes. TRADOC’s Army Learning Coordination Council has taken on the task of “synchronizing”(centralization and standardization) learning across the Army to ensure implementation of ALM 2015.

They identified key institutional challenges that involve reforming current training resourcing and policy to accommodate “One Army School System” initiatives and “Regional Learning Center” fielding: improving instructor quality and utility to ensure selection, assignment, development and sustainment of the best personnel as faculty cadre; enhancing network access and infrastructure to ensure Soldier accessibility and point-of-need delivery of learning content; and retooling the current training development model to develop, maintain and assess learning outcomes across TRADOC.

Outcomes Based Learning (OBL) requires a different method of allocating resources to training and more flexibility in using them, as resources are currently aligned to tasks being trained rather than to skills attained. Furthermore, OBL can be instructor intensive. It requires a much different level of instructor quality than do current practices. It necessitates reexamining instructor selection, promotion and development, including empowering instructors as leaders.

The key to quality training and education relies on a cadre of experienced faculty who are leadership mentors, coaches and teachers. One of the advantages of the Army’s having been at war for more than a decade is the increased level of tactical and operational experience its instructors now possess. OBL requires additional instructor training not currently provided by the Army Basic Instructor Course.

In OBL, the instructor is required to change the conditions of the operational environment based on the ability of each student to produce the desired level of skill proficiency, versus one standardized instruction approach. This instructor skill set requires additional training not currently offered. Delivery of training and education dependent on actual learning outcomes requires that some consideration be given to multiple learning models, including OBL.

The “goodness” of ALM 2015 is that we do not have to choose a single “one-size-fits-all” approach to how the Army trains and educates. It further emphasizes that the Continuous Adaptive Learning Model must continually assess outcomes in meeting the needs of the force and be responsive to operational changes and evolving trends in learning technologies and methods.

Difficult, But Not Insuperable “Adapt leader development to meet our future security challenges in an increasingly uncertain and complex strategic environment,” from then General Raymond T. Odierno, 38th Army Chief of Staff.

According to “Marching Orders, 38th Chief of Staff, Army,” The Army is expected to fight and win on difficult and rapidly changing complex battlefields. Aligning the institutional Army to the culture desired through Mission Command will vastly increase Army capabilities. But some hard decisions must be made in terms of how to support and institutionalize Mission Command.

While reforms to the personnel system may take years to implement and must overcome deep bureaucratic and cultural resistance, OBL provides an alternate route to prepare leaders to operate under Mission Command within Maneuver Warfare. It aligns more closely with the way individuals actually learn and communicate. While results are preliminary and anecdotal, evidence is clear from its application from 2006 to 2012, that OBL results in superior mastery of fundamental skills, increased retention, higher levels of confidence and improved judgment, initiative and accountability. Further, as an approach that encourages broader development of capabilities, its implementation will better position Soldiers and units for the uncertain missions and ambiguous realities consistent with full-spectrum operations.

OBL represents an integrated approach to planning, managing and delivering training, education and self-development. It teaches Servicemen and women how to think rather than what to think by developing a deep sense of understanding and increased will to adapt tasks under realistic, complex conditions. It connects the schoolhouse to the operating environment, leveraging combat experience of the force and integrating mission command. OBL is consistent with FM/ADP 6-22, Army Leadership; FM/ADP 7-0, Training; and the ALDS and is linked to the development of Profession of Arms essential characteristics, attributes and competencies. OBL is also consistent with the USMC TECOM Strategic plan April 2020.

OBL has diverse application across the force. However, achieving an outcomes-based learning approach consistent with the ALM 2015 framework and the ALDS imperatives will require a “cultural learning evolution” that includes major institutional challenges for TRADOC (i.e., resourcing and policy, instructor quality and utility, network access and infrastructure, and training development).

Implementing OBL also requires an organizational climate with a consistency of collaboration and flexibility in doctrine, policy and allocation of resources to ensure accountability for results. Finally, OBL necessitates reexamining instructor selection and development that includes empowering instructors as leaders.

Next: “Why Did We Fail?”

Notes:

1. Wyatt Olson, “Pentagon proposal to merge combatant commands draws criticism from GOP lawmakers” Stars and Stripes, March 20, 2025. Read more at: https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2025-03-19/combatant-commands-merge-plan-17201617.html

2. Haskins, “A Good Answer to an Obsolete Question,” pp. 45–48; Haskins lays out the best way to implement OBT&E (OBL) in TRADOC.

3. Quote came from April 2009 discussion at Military Intelligence Center of Excellence Cultural Center Conference in Tucson, AZ, referencing the fact that the institutional Army does not practice Mission Command.

4. General Raymond T. Odierno, “Marching Orders, 38th Chief of Staff, Army,” January 2012, http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/c/downloads/232478.pdf.

5. Ibid.

6. Dr. Gary Riccio and Frederick Diedrich, “An Initiative in Outcomes-Based Training and Education” (study, U. S. Army Asymmetric Warfare Group, Fort Meade, MD, 2009).

7. Haskins, “A Good Answer to an Obsolete Question,” pp. 45–48; Haskins lays out the best way to implement OBT&E in TRADOC.