hd-a152 998 productivity profiles of first-term …
Post on 04-Nov-2021
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
HD-A152 998
UNCLASSIFIED
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILES OF FIRST-TERM ENLISTED PERSONNEL i/2 <U) RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA G U HAGGSTROM ET AL. FEB 84 RAND/N-2859-RC
F/G 5/9 NL
lull !H 1!
j
I
uc-Ji^jcaz*icJ. «EI VJ ar.if.iurj i1.. ir>wmwnn''
«J
1 ft V-
i-V 4
'I
1.0 A!»
I.I 112
2.5
'V
12.0 I 1 1.8
IL25 11.4 i |.6
L".
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-I963-A
i
i-.- .• - h'.
\
I .-v-.- J-_ .'
fo^^^v^v^^-.^ ,. •> •>,/>,.-> .•/.v^-v.v.v.v.%-.v.v;.f:^.v.v.v.v:-f.. .A.rr-."-
•/•••• .•«.• -.•-.• V
• •
> -
REPRODUCED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE
*•
f J.' w
A RAND NOTE
CD or CM in
< i D <
8
<3>
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILES OF FIRST-TERM ENLISTED PERSONNEL
Gus W. Haggstrom, Winston K. Chow, Robert M. Gay
February 1984
N-2059-RC
DT1C ELECTE APR 25 1985
Approved few pdbUc M1MM| PUtribution Unlimited
•v.
D
85 4 22 05ft
.-.-..v.- .— •-.• .r. ^ _•;.- -,,.)-\.-.V^-.J.-~_-\..-^^'-J •-•> .J..-.J. -• •-<*••-/••-.'- -* • •-» -> .
.TJiTHJ»'nlur'ir"."^'".,V''.,'M"i'iri'i • I •? •'.'•.' f •->•.».'•- ..- <r- «c~
REPRODUCEO AT GOvrHNMFNT FXPfNSE
LV;
This publication was supported by The land Corporation part of its program of public service.
The Rand Publications Series: The Report is the principal publication doc- umenting and transmitting Rand's major research findings and final research results. The Rand Note reports other outputs of sponsored research for general distribution. Publications of The Rand Corporation do not neces- sarily reflect the opinions or policies of the sponsors of Rand research.
Published by The Rand Corporation
• " ."• .'• ."• .'-. .•-."-."- '- > . .' .' «•'•*'•»•- I ' -'--'••' la *- --•'---•-- * - • -
^•iv'. •' .n'vw^^'Tr^'3,1 *J*J.' f*,*t*"m •l|"* J IJ'-"J -' '-'•* •'"-'•"•' -' • '".- T'»- w
A RAND NOTE
Rand SANTA MONICA, CA. 90406
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILES OF FIRST-TERM ENLISTED PERSONNEL
Gus W. Haggstrom, Winston K, Chow Robert M. Gay
February 1984
N-2059-RC
Accession For
NTIS GRAfcl DTIC TAB Unannounced Ju3tificat ion.
By Distribution/
I D
Availability Codes
Avail and/or Dist Special
A
••:•->:
••".•'•"•.
-"•/••/-!•
'. •'. •• "•
<••.'•.
-". •. •".' ** --\ -•- •
'i i' •'. > *
* 1 ••••---.-.
•s-;-.-:-. -v-v.
•-•••-••-'.-.'
* i *.—•—r
r j
:£•:•:' "-.•'•!*->
1 !
liiii --'.•• /«
•• .•• .••
.«. .'.• *.
W .*»•.-'.••-•
••.v;X .-• .• .
T^."» umimni^ww i n • ij n*wwv**'^^^^^*-mw'wm"" ' "' " '"• n^nwrv •."•.' •."— l>.
iii
PREFACE
This Note, sponsored by The Rand Corporation, was prepared as part
of Rand's Manpower, Mobilization, and Readiness Program (now called the
Defense Manpower Research Center). The research uses data from the
Enlisted Utilization Survey, which was undertaken by Rand for the
Cybernetics Technology Office of the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency.
The purpose of the study is to quantify the role that on-the-job
experience plays in the job performance of enlisted military personnel.
The overall effectiveness of the armed forces depends on the
contributions of individuals with varying levels of experience in a
multitude of occupational specialties. The differing productivities of
individuals at various points in their military careers are key
considerations in assessing the advisability of personnel policies that
affect overall experience levels in the armed forces. Historically,
however, there has been little empirical evidence for evaluating the
performance of enlisted personnel. The Enlisted Utilization Survey, a
large-scale survey of trainee supervisors conducted in 1975, was
especially designed to provide a data base for examining the job
performance of trainees in a broad spectrum of military occupations.
This Note uses those data to analyze the relationship between on-the-
job experience and productivity ratings among enlisted personnel in the
Army, Navy, and Air Force.
;•:
HQ
'-•. V.
. - • .
V
•. V. •:••:••;••.*:-:
.• -.-. •;
m -.-_-.•<•.V-\-.'.~-'.-*,.V„--V» _> „
,a. ,v »L^«I • II» il.iK
SUMMARY
I This Note examines the relationship between on-the-job experience
and productivity ratings of enlisted personnel in the Array, Navy, and
Air Force. Using data from the Enlisted Utilization Survey, produc-
tivity profiles are constructed for 48 occupational specialties«by
pooling supervisors' estimates of trainees' net productivity at several
points in their careers.* These profiles show how trainees progress on
average from their first month on the job through their first four years
of service, thereby providing a means for assessing the importance of
experience in military occupations.
In many of the occupational specialties covered by the study,
ratings were obtained for both direct duty trainees and technical school
graduates. Also, in addition to rating trainees under their direction,
supervisors were asked to rate "typical" trainees in the same specialty
(both technical school graduates and direct duty trainees) at four
points in time beginning with the first month on the job. Productivity
profiles constructed from the four sets of ratings provide comparisons
between the actual job performances of technical school graduates and
direct duty trainees as well as information about the supervisors'
assessment of the value of military training programs for typical
trainees. r
is
Dwo
•-.--
.-•-
.•«>
.•.-.•.•--- . . . •. - . •J>^ -^ :- :_. •> •••!• •.- ••-.
•i>;
•*•."-.
"-»-•• ••>•.-. .-
"."•V- /• .v.-»- -- .-• .-. . • .> .-• "."V"
^•^. flT.'^H T^'U'i'i'iT'1" •"'• • •"' •' •" •"» ."':**': "."•••».'';—«.' • ••.".••
Vll
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
»• i. i
As the main author of this Note, I should like to acknowledge the
help of many people. Heading the list is Robert Gay, the principal
architect of Rand's Enlisted Utilization Survey (EUS). Bob provided the
leadership, intellect, perseverance, and good humor needed to direct an
innovative research effort of this magnitude. Bob enlisted Winston Chow
and me to help analyze the EUS in 1977. Winston and I were ably
assisted by Mark Albrecht, Pat Gowen, Dolph Hatch, Roberta Smith, and
Elo Kabe.
Another important contributor to our work was Rick Cooper, who was
the Director of Rand's Manpower, Mobilization, and Readiness (MMR)
Program at that time. Rick incorporated some of our findings into his
book, Military Manpower and the All-Volunteer Force, The Rand
Corporation, R-1450-ARPA, September 1977. Robert Roll, who succeeded
Rick as Program Director in 1979, also recognized the importance of this
area of research and encouraged us to write a report summarizing our
work on productivity profiles. The first draft of the report was
completed in May 1980. I am grateful to Glenn Götz and Rafe Stolzenberg
for their thoughtful reviews of that draft.
I should also like to thank Glenn and James Hosek, current Director
of the Manpower Program, for encouraging me to complete the study and
for securing corporate funding to publish the finished product.
Finally, I should like to acknowledge my indebtedness to my
esteemed colleague and friend, Winston Chow, who was killed in an
automobile accident on November 22, 1980. Most of the statistical work
reported in this Note was done by Winston in his inimitable painstaking,
professional, elegant, and joyful manner. I feel fortunate to have had
the pleasure of collaborating with such a talented scholar, whose
delightful personality and demeanor brightened the lives of all who knew
him.
Gus Haggstrom
•-'•v
'
k - _•_.*_
.•''•, >-'.-"• '••••• "."''.
'•>. -. • •"."-'. •" .
.». •. ^. •.. • .-.--.
—•—r . •. -.
-C-V>:;.
•-v-.\,v..'-
V V MS?
•"-'----'*'-'-- -V-\'. iL-.•• .-'. i ') II '••»'• «
V ;
7"r- '.V
.&<£A Cmjc*• ••*•* * ••*••* »• c%*.*• *_*•„
• •»•".' L • ••..•.nMnyi>'inm^".^".l,-"l^'MM"T'Hl.'Ji;'lJ»l.»l.|llJ".1- - • •--'••••"•• ••'•• '••
ix • 'l-' I-
CONTENTS
PREFACE iii
SUMMARY v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vii
Section I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. MEASURES AND DATA 4 Measures of Productivity 4 Limitations of the Measures 5 Data Base 6
III. ESTIMATION OF PRODUCTIVITY PROFILES 11 Learning Curve Specification 11 Mean Productivity Ratings and Productivity Curves ... 20
IV. CONCLUSIONS 24
Appendix A. SURVEY INSTRUMENTS 25 B. TABLES OF PRODUCTIVITY PROFILES 44
u vy)
^ < m *• ' V — 1 — K" 'T w II *' tt'w' t '"'t *' J'^1 L'* . ' ~ ^ ' . * h. '** . r^^ T^r
•; >'.:•:.'-." •-.
Vow
m •T^*" •\\\
\:-^:,..--.....-... . .... ..-.. ._^_^^——^. . . •
«\> •• .•• Ö. .^ :w/•,••:-•.>;
MS I 1
I. INTRODUCTION
On-the-job experience is valued in the military services, just as *s? ' -
. < it is in the civilian sector, and there is an increasing awareness that ,-\\ - * - shifting to a force with a higher proportion of senior personnel could •&
enhance defense capability and reduce personnel costs. It is well
recognized that, on average, career enlisted personnel are more "-V
productive than first-term personnel in the same occupational specialty. "">',
Also, a more senior force would mean less personnel turnover; fewer ]-'.\
trainees would be required to fill vacancies in the ranks over time, and
instructional time devoted to trainee indoctrination could be shifted to
more productive tasks. On the other hand, personnel costs for senior
personnel are higher than for first-term enlistees, and the crux of the
issue is whether the productivity gains associated with higher
experience levels are sufficient to offset the increased costs.
Time spent in training and in trainee supervision is a key element
in weighing the advantages of a more senior force. Most military
recruits undergo enlistment processing, basic training, and then
specialized skill training before they reach their first duty stations,
a process that typically takes four to eight months but can take more
than a year in some occupational specialties. Moreover, the training
process does not end when the individual arrives at his first duty
station. No matter how good the military's formal training programs
might be, most enlistees require additional on-the-job training before
they can "pull their own weight" in their units. Indeed, some trainees'
net contributions to unit productivity may be negative at first, because ^-^
their contributions are more than offset by the forgone products of
their supervisors, who must devote part of their productive time to .\\\"
trainee indoctrination. •"•/"-!
As a trainee gains experience, his (net) productivity typically L^i-
rises, not only because his own contributions increase with the "?T^\
acquisition of job-related skills, but also because he requires less ,\\""
supervision, enabling his supervisor(s) to contribute more to unit
productivity. The time paths of the trainees' productivity measures,
'.-/
7—7- <^ \%\ 'A
."» . N J\ * ••
>: « * 4
s f,
a <••.•••-.• -'••-'• •••L •••>•.•:..-"••/•.
^ii
vv-vv-v-v-v v-v .-• • v/-v-^v-.•••- • v v .--• •.,••-. w -v--\--v---\ -.-.-v. '.•-•.-.v-v-V-.- >>>»VvX3 v vw v v vv-.\-. -.-.-. -•••.'••. •.••• ••.• •..' •'.-- .•-•.• vv v.-. v-\ v-•.-.;. •;.• vv.>--v.v-v.v.v\v--- v.-.-. v-- •••.••v-v-y
•-•-.•.•••--v •'. .'.-•.-•• ••• -v-v-v-v-v- •-••\.-w.vv--..-- •-.--.-v•,vv-.-. v-. CVJ ,-v .•-.•--..• .^.-..-•v-J; •'••f.:-:ö;.--:-.-;.:---'--:^. VVv'-V. V-V---.,-. -.:•-• •:• •.:...-:.:-v-.^- v. • v.-:.'-.-. <:<. ...v.-. ,.t-.\\\.\:\\±.\wJ,'.\',v. ...>-.-.. .v--.^^
-. -.-_-•<.-•.- • TTm » *' * '• .'•T»'."1'1.'»'.' » ' • , J'.-f i . • .1 i"iP7T^^^^^PfP!B^ww«>*MH^BPv^wi
which we call "productivity profiles," are of special interest to
manpower researchers, because they reflect the enlistee's overall
utility (or value) to the service.
Of course, it may be difficult, if not impossible, to estimate the
individual productivities of members of the armed forces. But if
estimates of these measures exist, comparisons of them aero s experience
levels, defined either in terms of time in service or months on the job,
provide essential ingredients for assessing the advisability of numerous
personnel policies that affect experience levels (e.g., terms of
enlistment contracts, reenlistment bonuses, promotion policies, and
compensation differentials linked to years of service).
Until recently, little empirical evidence existed that could to be
used to evaluate the productivities of enlistees at any point in time,
let alone over the course of their military careers. Indeed,
considering the difficulties associated with defining and measuring the
product of, say, an armor crewman, a radio operator, or a military
policeman, some would say that efforts to measure productivity are
futile.
The Enlisted Utilization Survey (EUS) was a large-scale survey of
trainee supervisors that attempted to fill this gap in manpower research
and provide other information bearing on training costs and job
performances of enlisted personnel.1 The supervisors who participated
in the survey were first apprised of the notion of net productivity.
Then they were asked to evaluate the productivities (relative to
specialists in the same occupational specialty with four years of
service) for trainees under their immediate supervision as well as for
"typical" technical school graduates and direct duty assignees in the
same specialty. The survey instruments are reproduced in Appendix A.
The validity of the supervisors' ratings as measures of
productivity and the availability of alternative measures are addressed
'For a discussion of the rationale and multiple purposes of the EUS, see Robert M. Gay, Estimating the Cost of On-the-Job Training in Military Occupations: A Methodology and Pilot Study, The Rand Corporation, R-1351-ARPA, April 1974.
i
F- -•-
•:-•
•-Vvi
•:'•:
-' -'
•.--•.-
•r;TyTv»g':»,.,«tf*tf"v|rv;*«"i,^-''^q.*T1«"."1.*" "."•. 'l'K «.' ^ ' *.' P^^F^^^^^^^^Wf?^^Ty*T^^ 'l •'?•*•*
more fully elsewhere.2 Since "true" measures of productivity do not
exist in most (if not all) military occupations, absolute standards for
assessing the validity of the supervisors' ratings are not available.
Our view is that, whether the ratings are true measures of productivity
or not, they are important measures of utility (or job performance) that
merit study for the light that they can shed on the role that experience
plays in a broad spectrum of military occupations. We leav-s it to the
readers to adjudge the measurability of the productivity construct, the
capacity of the supervisors to evaluate it, the appropriateness of the
survey instruments, and the correctness of our treatment of the survey
responses.
This study uses averages of the supervisors' ratings to estimate
composite productivity profiles for first-term enlisted personnel in 48
occupational specialties in the Army, Navy, and Air Force. These
profiles vary considerably across occupational specialties, but the
shapes of the profiles are remarkably similar, and most are well fitted
by simple "learning curves" having a negative exponential form. The
productivity profiles and the learning curve characteristics are
provided in Appendix B.
The remainder of this study is divided into three sections.
Section II discusses the productivity measures used in this study and
their limitations. Section III deals with the selection of functional
forms of the learning curves and the calculation of the productivity
profiles. Section IV contains conclusions based on this research. m fesa
^Robert M. Gay and Mark J. Albrecht, "Measuring the On-the-Job Performance in Military Occupations," pp. 175-192, in Richard V. L. Cooper (ed.), Defense Manpower Policy: Presentations from the 1976 Rand Conference on Defense Manpower, The Rand Corporation, R-2396-ARPA, December 1978.
.• .- .- •
•-••-•:-•:•-•
•-•-••
• - - - •
•' - • •
: •• •••••/-.
•.--.•...-..••.••
•.
__
:•"•:•••/-:-•-:-:-
VH-'IW'VVI"« -• - •-• -^'-' '* -•-
• v :•' j<\' — ' J>",'.''" "- JV '• *'.'-'*•"'•* tf* *.* I * ' ' T^TT*^
M
II. MEASURES AND DATA
This section describes the general characteristics of the measures
of productivity and the data base used in this study. A more complete
description of the characteristics of the data and of the data
collection procedures will be provided in a forthcoming Rand report.1
MEASURES OF PRODUCTIVITY
The measures of on-the-job performance used in this study are
derived from the Enlisted Utilization Study, a survey of trainee
supervisors that was conducted in 1975. The survey questionnaires are
reproduced in Appendix A. Almost 30,000 supervisors in the Army, Navy,
and Air Force were surveyed. They were asked to provide two types of
ratings: (i) ratings of the performance of specific trainees under
their supervision, and (ii) ratings of "typical" new technical school
graduates and direct duty trainees in the same specialty.
In evaluating specific trainees' net productivity, the supervisors
were asked to provide ratings as of four points in time:
1. during the first month on the job,
2. at the time the rating was completed,
3. one year from the time of the rating, and
4. after four years of service.
For typical trainees, supervisors were asked to rate productivity during
the first month on the job and after one, two, and four years on the
job.2
'Robert M. Gay and Mark J. Albrecht, The 1975 Enlisted Utilization Study: Study Design and Data Collection Procedures, The Rand Corporation, forthcoming.
2In cases where the estimate of the trainee's productivity was negative during the first mcnth on the job, supervisors were also asked to estimate the number of months required for the trainee to achieve zero net productivity.
WS SS
• - • v - A. - * • * • V V * V * " - - ^ •:•:•:-:••:• •-. && • . ••• r.'A.
iti*^* •.-.•-•
*-• "-* V '•
->•-»•-» -"•--»••- ,^i V..V.
-:: • -.-v- •.•"••• •
• rt.'dlV jl.'^" '.'l'r •>*"> »> m'il
In the survey, supervisors were asked to rate net productivity
relative to the typical individual with four years of experience in the
same specialty. Using the typical specialist with four years of
experience as the reference point made it possible to use the same
instrument to obtain productivity estimates in a variety of specialties.
The concept of net productivity was used because field work showed that
a very important component of an individual's on-the-job training was
the supervision he received from experienced personnel. This
supervision entails an opportunity cost in the form of forgone
productivity of supervisory personnel; consequently, an allowance must
be made for the forgone productivity of supervisory personnel in
estimating the net productivity of persons being trained on the job.
LIMITATIONS OF THE MEASURES
Useful measures of productivity are difficult to develop, and the
subjective measures used here have several limitations. The largest
potential source of difficulty was that supervisors might misconstrue
the concept of net productivity. It was undoubtedly an unfamiliar
concept for most supervisors, and it is reasonable to expect that the
reliability and validity of the estimates would be affected. The
accuracy could be affected because the respondents failed to understand
the concept and/or because they were unable to put it into operation
appropriately. Since most specialties involve performing a variety of
tasks, trainees may be good at some and not at others. In some
specialties there is no tangible product; in others there are numerous
products. As a result, adapting the concept of net productivity to
military occupations and estimating an individual's productivity can be
quite difficult.
Another limitation of the measures used here is that supervisors
were required to estimate not only each individual's current
productivity but also to estimate what it had been during his first
month on the job and what it would be in the future. Presumably,
estimates of past and future performance are less accurate than
estimates of current productivity.
•s •*
f.. v -;: . - -
-.".--'. • •
• - - . . ""•»*"» - , ,"
•j - 1
-'. - V
• •. *
\ •-.-•
•' . - .
. • . '
. • .-• L'' m - -./ -^
.••
.-*-.-• "J . - . " -- "\
.•• .-> .••- .•• --.'
r-=~? 1 ,-..-.. •J -. ."."
• ••••__•• • • • • , • » » • 5 £—? '. • - '-.-••.-.-- -^—.-''••.-.•>>'/•">•'.•• '.vV-'.v.A.-.--.l.-.-.s ^\- .-.•;•.>•.-.•;•.-:•>.•:•/.•.•'.•-•.. ••'. . •.•.••/ CSv.^1
•K :-• . • •••.-• . .•--. S : •'-••' •-•••••' >£v • £ -•••••-•- < >.- :• •> :• :V-VS>'\N>^$--öJ
.-.vv.ir-^.T^iTir» t-nf^^^^l'. '•• •:'•>' VH.'^.' '. .^'ni"-1^1 i' • »r^1^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^"
»I Finally, since the "typical" technical school graduate and direct
duty assignment trainee are not defined, one source of variation in
estimates of the productivity of typical trainees may be differences
among supervisors with respect to what constitutes the typical trainee.
In spite of these limitations, however, we feel that these
estimates of productivity are useful. The relevant question is not so
much whether this method of estimating first-term productivity is
unflawed as it is whether the estimates provide useful information. The
conceptual and practical problems associated with measuring productivity
are sufficiently difficult that it is unlikely that any method of
estimation can be developed that is not undesirable in some respects.1
Moreover, to some extent, data cleaning procedures can compensate for
the major limitation cited above.
Pi
f^-. -•-.
DATA BASE The data base used here was based on the responses of over 17,000
supervisors who completed about 27,000 ratings of specific individuals."
Of course, not all of the responses were usable. The remainder of this
section describes the criteria that were adopted in selecting cases for
inclusion in tue analysis.
V.'.
r*.v
i !$ i v. •:
•
Criteria for Ratings of Individuals
The objective of this analysis is to construct productivity
profiles for first-term enlisted personnel. These profiles represent
the net productivity of first-term personnel as a percentage of the net
productivity of the typical person in the same specialty with four years
of experience. The survey responses were carefully screened prior to
analysis to exclude cases that appeared not to provide a reasonable
basis for estimating such a profile. Supervisors' ratings of specific
individuals were included in our analysis only if the following criteria
were met:
3For a discussion of alternative methods of measuring productivity and their comparative strengths and weaknesses, see Robert M. Gay and Mark J. Albrecht, Specialty Training and the Performance of First-Term Enlisted Personnel, The Rand Corporation, R-2191-ARPA, April 1979.
"Since about one half the trainees were rated by more than one supervisor, approximately 18,000 different trainees were rated.
».'
•---
.= '.• •'• ••• • i '". • •; «•••»• •*.'«' 7;> r.-.'Ä
--.•--.•••.••-.
MU
A -•.-.• .•:
;-••: •, • ' •.:•:•:••. :•;•:•:•.-. •:-••'••:•;;•;•:•••"•••:-••:•;•:•••:•;::•:••:•
TT rrn" j-,e:-f>V"}W'r<.»'\r •>*'-"•-• J* '••»'-' '••' • "J"'Ji "•*'"JI,»JI M ^P^J^^T^^T^t^'^r' • i. • "J". '.". .- ':•-•"
1. The trainee was serving his first term of service.
2. The trainee was working at his first duty station at the time
of the survey.
3. At the time of the rating the trainee was assigned to job tasks
in the specialty for which he was trained. (This applies to
technical school graduates only.)
4. The supervisor confirmed that he was familiar with the
trainee's work performance.
5. The supervisor provided estimates of the trainee's net
contribution to unit production during his first month on the
job, at the time of the rating, one year from the time of the
rating, and after four years of service.
6. For a direct duty trainee, the supervisor:
(i) felt qualified to evaluate the performance of a direct
duty trainee;
(ii) provided ratings for a typical trainee during his first
month on the job, and after one, two, and four years on
the job;
(iii) provided a rating not exceeding 100 for the typical
direct duty trainee during his first month on the job;
(iv) provided a rating exceeding zero for the typical trainee
after four years of service.
7. For a technical school graduate, the supervisor's responses
satisfied conditions (i)-(iv) listed above restated in terms of
a typical technical school graduate.
fcOMJ ••--.
MJ
Conditions 1, 2, and 4 were designed to ensure that the supervisor
has a reasonable basis for providing estimates for the trainee's entire
first term of service. Condition 3 was imposed to ensure that technical
school graduates were being evaluated in the specialty for which they
were trained. Condition 5 ensured that the necessary data for this
analysis were available.
Conditions 6 and 7 were imposed as a test of the supervisor's
comprehension of the concept of relative net productivity. In our
opinion a supervisor who rates the typical trainee as either equal to a
•SO.-,
:•:-:•:••
.'.• .• j-7 , ; — T-*", - '- -". -i".
•-V- m IJ :-• ; ...•..•-• ••.•-•:/.-.•..'_• .•-•^.•.•jv-r ,-j .-.> ^'- • ,• *'•-»'.-.•. j*
'.-•".•-V-V»'..".V- »1 '.-.\ • .-.'.v .-. j. .--V-V.".-. LI W.-. ;.\V -.'.'.'
"v >.-••
•0>>
specialist with four years of experience during his first month on the
job or as having zero net productivity after four years of service
probably does not understand the concept. While either of these
conditions could hold for specific individuals, neither is likely to be
true for the typical trainee.
Table 1 shows the number of individual records included in our data
base with these seven criteria imposed. This data base includes 16 Army \^St
specialties, 10 Navy specialties, and 22 Air Force specialties. Seven \/
high skill Army specialties and four high skill Navy specialties |%\
included in the original data base were excluded from our analysis
because fewer than 10 records remained after imposing these seven
criteria. The final set of 48 specialties is listed in Table 2.
ac Criteria for Typical Trainees
The screening criteria for ratings of typical trainees were
substantially simpler than those for ratings of individuals. The only
issues to resolve here were those of completeness of the ratings and
comprehension of the concept. Accordingly, ratings of the typical
direct duty trainee were included if they satisfied conditions
6(i)-6(iv) above, and those of the typical technical school graduate
were included if they satisfied conditions 7(i)-7(iv). The number of f£y
Pia Table 1
NUMBER OF RECORDS IN ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUALS
Number of Records
Type of Trainee Army Navy Air Force Total
Technical school graduates 1444 1743 5321 8508
Direct duty trainees 96 27 641 764
Total 1540 1770 5962 9272
i • ->•
r.V' ,\0
T.T. •." /•;, •• /•,.-' ./VTT—»-7-
/"• ' ''•• '•/' .-' • -.'X'--'' '. Illlll I • •• I! •.,« I..CI ,111. *•,.,.,. .
-- --.•" V • •-1 Uli." I ,^.. v,p.,...,-1 ..,., . . ' -^ • -w -
T=rr=i
i
•o 3 a c tV fH IH <0 e t a E b
•o o C
u «I O 4J 4U «1 a 0 *J • u fH a a X V- c c I 4J « AJ *M <H U CJ o 1 1 a a u «0 (H •H <W 01 c fH a rH • SN in 3 E • a a o.
01 fH I 4J a o a o x
b fH U l» "2 • 9 u s CA 01 1 •»4 *4
II «4 o.
*> u a tn
*-* u 3 c 6 "2 o- c E <-> fH u u b l3 01 B 0; — a fH fH •H o- 1 reu u M C re «
C on a e •* CM a •ri ao 01
H a B W 01 fH fH fH 0 u il o CO <w H «V <H a. u u u c e •o c fH b U e a b 01
J3 «i u re 4. o o B 5 «4 b 0> u 01 <H •* C 0 «V -^ 0 os e —< re a o. -H -i 3 b a a *J «v y
0 •< O H Ü O «J a •*
-1 X a n in > > 0 fH o. a U B 5 •H « ll« I -^ M 0 O a. 0. 0 < u < «1 tH > 01 01 01 -> x 0. 4J 4U 4J > -rt fr W b t-* u
•H re oc h f e a o c c o: b C fH
man
t Ha
lne
E a E a b u in u oi a a •o u t. » e ij « D -H "3 U C 4J
et i u; a 1-4 ft I •H 01 01 0) B. - b. 1 fH 6 0
01
s Itfltj u a re — re
a i: *-< HH
u a u a a
in a in ts° S!«
0 4-1 fH • fH IH fH «*- MX VII fH ft a •H *H w b 01 0- a •o b a 4-1 —< -r- u v »- U a re o 4M 0» a a a a E b b u b u a -H c o. — in ~ c *•> >. 05 E 3 to j to 01 • ab a b a b Q. b fl 4J *-> 01 3 01 u a
a«- b
3 V u >s O O* 01 Cw 0) a o oi a >. u 01 u 01 u O U a.x> a —' «w * -< 01 c 11 CJ W fH U *J In w in b a! b OT b OS b pe b «J 01 0> to ce en 11 b b X 0 01 u b > c c 01 -H fft fH ft 01 fH -H ~<
0> u. > 0 £5 u If < fH M < < < «. < •-) w u O o
H» c O ff CM Cl —1 CM O H o o o n O O o o o o o o u X X XXX X X s K X X X X x X X K X X X X X in <J <£ <£> <£> v£> fH CM c\ fH CM CM o ^H CM »H CM w n CM —i r» i C o CM CM CM CM CM CM CM Cl Cl <T •» r^ O 00 (ANO CM ert ^ < Cl r* n ci ri •» •» M» -I •a -a u-\ m •JD c* o in iA«D >D y£ >C
CO cc w Cv HH — H " i-3 re
IN < — i—i b
C <V U f-H w in •Q Oi
CO co H —
Cb -* O
X H 00 w . CO —
U •• E IP« j
— I U Ü-' < l
w C-
«- e K re re •- b I — IV b c b -. c
••« « IN < c _
(V (j u ec a 01 —
zl
•a r*-
a & i 01 s-> ^s i* *J U t) ^H f-l 0> a B e E <W B
u a X 5 re
X 1 01 u y tl a, 01 01 --* a D. in X X B b
X B 0 ^ 01 01 u a o ^^ B c a •H fH •H •H H tl •H c .* ee 00 fH
51 in B B »-H b W u a b
3 *j U 0.^- *-* 4J B 01 a -o
01 •1
01 I »M H £<S
01 X
en CM •ri 00
2
CM cn CD
»5
9 3 g G ss
•S -c
I!-
«3 I
a D. a
ex
m
01
c
8 > — re re » c. o IV b oi U
HH o X fH
•o
a 5 u fH -o *-• fH
u 01 a -H
t- u.
J u «P -H
c §
3. a cc a >
a P.
o. o
a £
a o.
o. o
tl
s.
a o
01 x
s
ff fH 0) fH fH fH a a fH fH fH eg U O fH
Hau tn in a
tlfH«" I a rt £ " •
1 ??e $ ± & $ nz m m 9 > u«w r*. rü ff. fv i*> fH fH «a <o «3 W9 f»H\
a a a x o.
i §*
J if
ÖX
•H E a o
B fH fH
3 e o u »s a 4U a
Cl U a a o. o a
b 1 a -H in -H fj ItH o
B «J oj re fH fH ej a a
e oi o a <u M b >, M a fH fH fH
a b b in •v u a
Heapona
Crewman
Engine
ArtlUe
ter
Transpo
ervlce a fH
3 a a V *H Ot
^ 5 " •-I a
u • in •w b a TJ | b
>> c <- b • b
x o x -H a c ^ «W fH tb HH a H > b *H a fH
co w co co m o co ax u fH fH CM Cl fH Hj H» fH fH fH fH «n >o O
'-'>••'---".
'-:-•:•••••, :•:-:-:••-:-•--; . •,-:•:-•- •:-,s^:->>,--^-.-:••.•;>.>%-.-- ->;.:•-•.;•:.;•>;.;•,;..•:•;••'
K^v-i;---:vv-v^--^^-;-->::-.-^:>;--.---:--..--w^f.»:.?-^ .-vx-:-.:,-•.• :• •••-.-•:•••:-.•.-•-.-•:.-•• •.,-••••••.•:-•:•.:.-: :-
T-
VAT^.Ti-1 »n-r1!' <T-J « .n •'»•.••.•«.'»."•" •• > J . f.'.-.' J>"P' . ' .•'J'L» '-'"J" '.»'-' "." • ^^y^^T»T^^"P^^^^^^^^^^^^^^—
10
usable supervisors1 ratings in each service is given in Table 3. It
should be noted that many supervisors provided ratings both for typical
technical school graduates and typical direct duty trainees. The number
of different supervisors who-provided ratings of either the typical
direct duty assignment trainee or the typical technical school graduate
or both was: Army--2784; Navy--3742; and Air Force--4877.
Table 3
NUMBER OF SUPERVISORS' RATINGS OF TYPICAL TRAINEES
Type of Trainee
Number of Supervisors' Ratings
Army Navy Air Force
Typical technical school graduate
Typical direct duty trainee
2348 3475
2110 2821
4434
2454
L-j
I v
•V-
•. -.
£r- \'i
m
.•-. • 7-~7rrr .'.'•.
.-•'.•-' y ••'."'.'
.> •u... „
.- •
-^•'-* "-• -• ~ ^•:- .-•
> -
..mi ... iiji ji .n j <JI j i ••'.•• ;i ji ! I .. . I . J1 I I • f J J,1.',1-'•'.• ",•'•"." .'"J
11
III. ESTIMATION OF PRODUCTIVITY PROFILES
LEARNING CURVE SPECIFICATION
r-.-=-
«A ^ •>
Each supervisor in the survey was asked to evaluate a particular •. -•':/•'
trainee's net productivity during the first month on the job and at
three other times: (1) the time of the survey, (2) one year after the
survey, and (3) after four years of service. On the same questionnaire,
those supervisors were also asked to evaluate the net productivity of a
typical technical school graduate and a typical direct duty trainee
during their first month on the job, and after one, two, and four years
on the job. Averaging estimates for typical trainees over all
supervisors in the same occupational specialty provides pooled estimates
of their net productivities at the corresponding four time points.
Because the middle two points for supervisors' ratings of
individuals depend on the trainee's amount of experience at the time the
questionnaire was completed, they vary from trainee to trainee.
However, the "time on the job" (TOJ) t^nds to fall between 10 and 14
months in most of the specialties. Among values of TOJ outside of this
range, there are more cases for which TOJ exceeds 14 months than for
which it falls short of 10 months. For the sake of uniformity, we
decided to interpolate these individual ratings linearly to arrive at
the same four ordinates as the ratings of typical trainees. Table 4
gives the average values of these productivity estimates for Air Force
corpsmen (AFSC 902X0).
This table reveals a general characteristic of the productivity
profiles that holds true for most of the specialties--supervisors tend
to rate their own trainees higher than they rate the typical trainee.
Moreover, even though not shown explicitly, those supervisors who rate
the typical trainees higher (or lower) than the overall average among
the supervisors also tend to rate their own trainees higher (or lower)
than average. This presents another limitation to these productivity
measures in that one cannot readily examine the trainees' productivity
ratings without first knowing how the supervisors rate a typical
trainee. As noted before, these typical trainees' ratings should serve
•
. • - ' . •; • \
A " • " ' ' * .->:-•• . •_..'._. i m fcXhVfc
:,.< '**.*' J
-. .-. .-..I
"•.'••^•J
1 ^j\M .-- -• .N
k?:>i • :•••>:
--•-.--•;
E * E " 1 1
3
W
* w pi * • * * * * v* •* •*
•>S0'S-:> <:•••:•••: -.V\-\-\-w..\ • ' '/- ^ -'r • V '«•'•".' • i
k
12
Tab!e 4
AVERAGE PRODUCTIVITY ESTIMATES OF AIR FORCE CORPSMEN
Average Productivity Estimates
Typical Typical Technical Direct Technical Direct
Months on School Duty School Duty the Job Graduate Trainees Graduate Trainee
0 10.2 12.1 -1.7 -31.4 12 65.1 62.4 62.5 39.8 24 87.7 86.9 85.7 71.1 48 107.2 109.3 107.7 99.7
Number of ratings 229 193 264 275
as a control for possible supervisor biases if further analyses of these
productivity ratings are to be carried out using these data. The
average net productivity estimates shown in Table 4 are plotted against
months on the job in Figure 1. The points have been connected by line
segments to provide polygonal learning curves passing through each set
of four time points. However, it seems reasonable to assume that smooth
curves can be fitted to these points, which will provide more realistic
productivity curves.than the piecewise linear curves shown. See Figure
2.
An implicit assumption underlying our analysis of fitting
productivity curves is that trainees1 net productivity relative to that
of the average specialist with four years' experience in the MOS
increases over time according to a "learning curve" that can be
estimated reliably from a cross-sectional analysis of the supervisors'
ratings in the specialty.
In considering functional forms for the learning curve y(t) for the
typical trainee in a particular occupational specialty, we were led by a
desire to have a specification with only a few parameters that would fit
the data well and would satisfy the following conditions for given
values of the parameters:
i. ,•
M
i
__j -f^r-rr M •. i ; •—i . • . . . 4 . J . i» 1 . ' . J „ « , . .".•«.' I'" .'••.•'•• ' ,U . • n , I r r-
-•'--, .-.--.:•-.--.•.•••.••.'-•--•..-.••-.>.>;••.•-'.-. „Av- •.'.- v -.v. \ >;•. •.- •-. -•.-•.-\ -•. .-. -• •..- -•'.- ".- - • - v -.• v---••• .. .. -. •• • y .-.. ... - ... ,"• .*• . . •:•;/:••: • - • V . /- • '-.• \ \ --'.."-.- - .-•••.- ..-• •"... - -.-vw.v v\.-..-.
• y-:l
• • -
- •* - ". i
9 - < •«<
—•—»—wf.-'i-'f '.* '-»'-• ••• "»"i". * i"j". ". 'v,*'. •*•:"•! r^'.^ '•.' i "»"j1 U'J'^^TVVW
13
sw
• I I ft
••'.•••A'
•'•"-• -I
d^JU
4
C
Fig. 1 - Productivity estimates for Air Force corpsmen
KJWM
•-' - --••--- •••••-..
•-"• •'• •'• •"• -', .'••"-.• . • '• •" ."• ."• ."-,- r -'•"-'•V-\v'.*-V-'. - • »j •'. -. •. v. • .-• , • - " >. " - • .
- a?" •
t^••-•^_-l•i^.^^^ A.'.
..-•-••..•.• •• • •• "•-•. "••• A - - .••Y..v\v.-. • VA ••.•.•.'••.^•.••.V.\\V.-:^- " • V.IV • ' •.* -\
• .•• i< .-•.- L>
• .-•.-'•-'. -Y-Y-Y,\-»W„vY- Al
-» r-^T~%-' '" 111 • ' • -^ •*'
"i 1 "••"."- «^ 14 _> /.
100
80
K5 >.••••;
60
|
I 40
1
20
Typical tachnical school graduate
-20
24
Months on the job
48
Fig. 2 - Productivity curves for Air Force corptmen
fc*
•- ^ ,
\M
[•-•
!•"••• » ' •* ".• ^ •• •', ••.'.'. - . -'
15 • - > "J
i. y(t) is an increasing, differentiable function of t for t > 0.
ii. y(t) tends to a limit a as t •* «.
A common method of specifying parametric forms for learning curves
is to prescribe that the "learning rate" dy/dt satisfy an equation
involving some of the parameters that characterize the learning curve.
For example, two common specifications of learning curves arise from the
following differential equations:
dy/dt = *(a - y)
dy/dt = 2f(y - 6) (a - y)
(1)
(2)
Following Gullicksen,1 the solutions of these equations will be called
Type A and Type B learning curves. Here and in the equations to follow,
Greek letters specify the parameters of the growth curves, which can be
estimated from observations over time on individuals that exhibit
similar learning patterns.
As Equation (1) indicates, Type A learning curves result from the
assumption that the learning rate is proportional to the amount yet to
be learned. The general solution of Equation (1) can be written in the
form
y = a Be •ft (3)
For I > 0 and & < o, the graph of this curve has the shape indicated
below.
'Harold Gullicksen, "A rational equation of the learning curve based on Thorndike's law of effect," Journal of General Psychology, Vol 11, 1934, pp. 395-434.
•i •- •
*'*"T7'"g7
U.
ov;y
,- j » IMI'.I.
•-.-•• ••.V,->'IVV.M.'^1.''.'. 'A '••-". ","".• .'.'-I'.' ,*>!*>.'r'.*!* . >.• .".• w^^r^>^m^^^^^^m^mff^mm^^m
16
The parameters of this model are readily interpreted using Equation (1)
and the fact that ß is the difference between the limiting v?lue o and
the y-intercept of the learning curve. That is, ß represents the amount
yet to be learned at t = 0.
Although learning curves of Type A seem to fit the supervisors'
estimates of the productivity curve quite well in many occupational
specialties, this specification has certain shortcomings. For one
thing, no specification of the parameters can yield an S-shap<u curve in
the event that the productivity curve for a particular specialty is
relatively flat for small values of t and then increases more rapidly
for larger values of t.
This objection is overcome by learning curves of Type B. The
general solution to Equation (2) is a logistic growth curve with
asymptotes y = a as t •* • and y = 6 as t •• -». The equation of the Co*.
•.
•v. • ,
v „• • . • • • • - i :•'. ':•••'-
*^t* - - - •
r -•» --w - •• - k • tf •"- " ^ ,,v -i ..j i in • i • y • m • •n>iv<l'i>lfi.,Ml">M v "-*• " y "lp 'T* "J-V "•• V rj
17
growth curve can be written in the form
y = 5 + a - 6
1 + 3e-y(a"6)t
(4)
-.^S
The graph of this curve for 6 < 0 < a and 3 > 0 looks like this:
Sft
The parameter 3 is related to the asymptotes and the y-intercept of the
growth curve by the equation 3 = [o - y(0)]/[y(0) -6].
One shortcoming of curves of Type B is that there are two limiting
values o and 6 that must be specified a priori ox estimated from the
data. While an argument can be made for specifying a beforehand at,
say, a • 100 for the typical trainee, the other limiting value 6
presents difficult estimation problems. The woeful experience of
demographers in estimating asymptotes of logistic growth curves leads us
-— '. -r».•'••.,«•.«;,—••:•*:-?-?•: • •: .V\MV-—..v. :•—•.,••••.• -..- .•-••.-•. -. ••• •. •••••—rT" •...-..- •:- .--..••.•••.-•.•••.•-••,• -.-•.••.;-.;-, :••/•: -.-••••• :• . - ...//.--v.v\-•_•.,••;--..••>;.•.;.•- ,--.>...;• •. • .-,.•-.-• . .-.
'••'. .•''. '•'.'.-".'.'' ."';>:-v.";.''---'-•/•">•/•'>••. v-;. "''-v-v-. -. ••;.-•••".'.•• ',-'-. ••"" • -•-'••••>'•'•'•.•'•.••• '•-•" tö '•-'
• . * '. * V • •».' •_•'• '».- '".'*. I J JT^^T^^^^^^^^^^^
18
to shun this approach. Another shortcoming of these curves for our
purposes is that, although the curves have four free parameters, no
specification of the parameters may exist to provide logistic growth
curves that pass through the four points derived from the supervisors'
productivity estimates, such as those in Figure 2. One reason for the
inability of Type B curves to mimic the actual learning curves is that
logistic curves are necessarily symmetric about some point, whereas the
actual trainees' productivity curves may not be.
Motivated in part by the goodness-of-fit of the Type A curves and
the desire to incorporate a fourth parameter in the model to provide
interpolation curves that pass through the supervisors' pooled estimates
at four time points (as in Figure 2), we also considered the family of
curves that satisfy the differential equation
dy/dt = Xtw(o - y) (5)
A
for some choice of parameters o, 2f, and u. In learning-theory jargon,
this amounts to assuming that the learning rate is proportional to some
power of t as well as to the amount yet to be learned.
Since setting u = 0 in Equation (5) yields Equation (1), this
family of curves includes the curves of Type A. But, unlike the Type A
curves, these curves can also be S-shaped. From Equation (3) we see
that, if u > 0, then y'(0) = 0, which corresponds to the notion that the
learning curve is relatively flat in a neighborhood of t = 0.
The general solution of Equation (5) can be written in the form
y = a Be •3Tt (6)
*
where 6 = y + 1 and X = X/6. As in the Type A curves, the parameter ß
in this model represents the amount yet to be learned at t = 0. In
particular, if 6 = 2, the curve will look like an inverted normal
density function for t > 0, as in the figure below.
-J
• •••••• . • -; '••' t
• -:• .-•-> •- •••.••• - . ••'•-
•.. -;>:•.•>;-,,;••. .-;-;-, - . •,•-/•;.;:•••:•
'• --.•'.•'.••-••.•-•.••.•..-.->•-.- • . <•'•••.-
• i i i i i I •
> '>V '.'• W V'.-'.- '.'• '•'
.•-V-.VV . .'.'•'.•-\V\ ..-.
•. . . • •• •• ••!
r-y—yr- .•> ••; • u.n, H!i'.i'.".ll'l'.'imHHWH,l!HHH,llW HlH'U-'y^VT'J' .'..''
19
In fitting curves of the form (6) to our data, we obtained
estimates of 6 that ranged from about 0.6 to 1.1. Values of 6 less than
1.0 are not appealing, because the corresponding learning rates become
infinite as t tends to zero. This undesirable property of the fitted
curves and the goodness-of-fit of the curves of Type A led us to rule
out these curves.
Other three-parameter families of learning curves that have some
appeal are:
y = o + & log(l + 3Tt)
y = a - ß/(t + Z)
y = a + ß(t + 1)'
(7)
(8)
(9)
• The learning rates for these functions are:
.•• $ . v. • - •-• -.• •.•.- i • • -.- - • •
. .'•.••.• .V.'.VWV.AV. •••••• ill--.' . . . _• . . •.•:.-,-.•,-L-. I- -.- ••• .--<-t..-.
•• . • • . -'
. 1 - •'- *
•
•
-_._.^,._*l »TM1» i ••» • J • u ««I • f • i «_• • MJ.—»-•—*———j-p»
20
dy/dt = ßy/(i + yt)
dy/dt = ß/(t + *)'
dy/dt = &¥(t + 1) y-i
(10)
(11)
(12) ••£
With appropriate assumptions, these learning rates are all positive for
t > 0 and tend to zero as t becomes infinite. However, none of these
fit the dats points for the supervisors' ratings as well as the Type A
learning curves in Equation (3).
MEAN PRODUCTIVITY RATINGS AND PRODUCTIVITY CURVES
The mean productivity ratings and learning curves for each of the
48 occupational specialties in this study are reported in Appendix B.
In each case, the four points (t, y^), t = 0, 12, 24, 48, were fitted by
least squares to Type A curves specified in Equation (3). The estimated
values of the parameters a, ß, and If are also given in Appendix B.
Since the unit of measurement for t is months, the estimated average net
productivity of trainees at, say, 18 months can be determined by - 182f
evaluating a - Be for the values of the parameters given in the
tables.
Appendix B also reports the "median training time" T for the
trainees in each occupational specially. This training time was defined
to be the total elapsed time between the service entrance date and the
date of arrival at the first duty station. Thus, T includes time spent
in basic recruiting training, travel time, processing time, and time
spent on leave. For technical school graduates, it also includes time
required for formal training and time spent waiting for courses to
begin.
Several statistics related to these fitted curves are also
tabulated in Appendix B. They are the y-intercept, the slope at t = 0,
residual sum of squares, total first-term productivity (P), and average
first-term productivity (A). Total first-term productivity is defined
•-v_
,
MM
. • .
- -
_w 9 m_ _ w m m m • • .". "••; .-.-.-.•.-.-:/.•-•. -.•.•;••• ' -. .•.•".'•.• -.-:;- •..•• -. •. . •••
••.-•••' -." ••'••' •' .••.*.•."-•" -• -.-.••.•,•.• .- .••.-.. ••' ••' v .• . • . ' . •'. - • . -'. •' •.-'.•.•.--• ••.••,•.•'.••••.». .
•r-1: — -T-v;
—.•-;' ,j. Hl.l r .,,;,.» rt ,n g •.'», • • •j'l'iM'i."».' »-'T'T'»-
21 - , /• >
as the area under the fitted curve y(t) from 0 to 48-T divided by 100: "• ,">
48-T „ ^ 100P = / y(t) dt = a(48-T) + (B/Y) [e"Y(48"T) -1].
0
The tabled values of P can be interpreted as man-month equivalents.
The "average value" of the fitted curve over the interval from 0 to 48-T
is defined by A = 100P/(48-T).
Under the assumption that each first-term enlistee remains in the
service for four years, the amount of time he or she spends in a unit is
48-T months. The total first-term productivity P is relevant, for
example, in comparing benefits of additional technical training with the
costs incurred in such training.2
The learning curves fitted to the supervisors' ratings provide some
interesting comparisons. The total productivities of typical technical
school graduates are higher than that of typical direct duty trainees
for almost all Army and Navy specialties. The Air Force results are
mixed. The typical technical school graduates are rated above the
direct duty trainees in all specialties except 304X4, 306X0, 326X1,
421X3, 423X0, and 603X0. These ratings indicate that, on average, the
supervisors concur that formal technical training has positive effects
on the overall first-term productivities.
However, the story is reversed when one compares the ratings for
the actual trainees in the survey. Total productivities are higher for
the direct duty trainees in all specialties for which ratings on direct
duty trainees are available except for the Army specialties HE, 12B,
91E, and 94B.
These results are not inconsistent. Assignments of trainees to
•*—v
:-v"v|
3*753 fifera
2For a discussion of issues involved in comparisons of formal and on-the-job training, see Robert M. Gay, Estimating the Cost of On-the-Job Training in Military Occupations: A Methodology and Pilot Study, The Rand Corporation, R-1351-ARPA, April 1974; and Robert M. Gay and Mark J. Albrecht, Specialty Training and the Performance of First-Term Enlisted Personnel, The Rand Corporation, R-2191-ARPA, April 1979.
.». -. '•. ••'
1
22
technical school or to direct duty stations are not made at random.
They are based in part on the assessments of the trainees by personnel
specialists who take into account the civilian education and employment
records of the trainees. Although our information derived from
personnel records of the trainees is spotty, there is considerable
evidence to indicate that many direct duty trainees had worked in
civilian jobs related to their specialties before they entered the
service. We conjecture that, with few exceptions, the direct duty
jS\ trainee ^ere permitted to skip technical school on the basis of l '•[•
informa. _>n indicating that technical school training would constitute ty.J
an inefficient use of the trainees' t.-^e. Because of the selection ] .-.'•:
biases involved, the evidence from the survey can neither substantiate .-^
nor refute this conjecture. £".*J
In comparing the total productivities of technical school graduates V[\r[ {£••••
and direct duty trainees, one must keep in mind the fact that the jj^V.
measures are based upon different amounts of time on the job. Since
many individuals reenlist and serve two or more terms, restricting the
measure of total productivity to the first term of service may distort
the measure. Although a uniformly small increase in net productivity jCJjs
due to technical school attendance may not compensate for the loss of k,
total productivity during the first term of service due to time spent in ].-]
training, it may be made up later. It is interesting that, despite '.[•'.
these differences, the supervisors' ratings of typical trainees in most
specialties support the conclusion that technical school training does r._
not result in a loss of total productivity during the first term of
service. \\
In the absence of a clearly defined product in many occupational
specialties, the supervisors' ratings probably reflect evaluations of
other characteristics, such as competence, industriousness, versatility,
adaptability, leadership, and contributions to unit readiness. If so,
the fact that the supervisors rate typical technical school graduates
over the direct duty trainees in most specialties may reflect important
technical school gains in factors that enhance unit performance but t\
cannot be measured in terms of day-to-day activities. Taking these M.
considerations into account, we interpret the supervisors' favorable
ratings of typical technical school graduates as an endorsement of the
--
L--
«.•
:--:• :-\-^^
-••T—l^, •". <••••• P !••!•_•• I». IF^HJIV't1 11 -JTI TS." •. i r^'^-^^wff •,!•.! ^ i," •.« n. •, vw «•• »i" •;• -g- w m •
23
military's technical training programs in most of the specialties
covered in this study.
I • J.» ».* !• r« ;• ••'!• n»
•.-•••>•'
L_
. - E
- .N. " -fl
.•>•:• •W *. -.' - > .-• .• • ,% •-•.--•-••v. •£ •"• •-•>
-•-• .-..-•->". ..- . v- -... .•• - • •.••.• . .• .••.••-.-•.••>/-/•>.•-;.--.••
••-.-•--.-'-.- -."t'. --V - • .'•- • -• - - •. •-..•. "•.-. •.••••..'.-*•.' '.•.".•••.'.•.\\,V'(.'."'-.'..".'.",'-
PPÜ
A- •3.N
24
IV. CONCLUSIONS
This Note has examined the relationship between experience and
productivity among enlisted personnel in 48 occupational specialties in
the Army, Navy, and Air Force. For each of the specialties,
productivity profiles are provided in Appendix B that are based on
supervisors1 estimates of trainees' net productivity at four points in
the trainees' career: (1) during the first month on the job, (2) one
year later, (3) two years later, and (4) after four years of service.
Almost without exception, the four points corresponding to the
means of the supervisors' ratings are well fitted by simple negative
exponential curves, but the parameters vary widely across specialties.
Not surprisingly, trainees in high skill specialties tend to have lower
net productivity on average during the first month on the job and their
total productivities during the first term of service relative to
careerists in the same specialty are somewhat lower than the
corresponding measures for lower skill trainees.
A comparison of supervisors' ratings of typical technical school
graduates with those of typical direct duty trainees indicates that the
supervisors believe the technical school graduates are generally more
productive than direct duty trainees during their first four years of
service. Although raw comparisons of the supervisors' ratings of the
actual trainees in the survey would suggest that direct duty trainees
outperform the technical school graduates, there is considerable
evidence that many of the direct duty trainees had substantial amounts
of training and experience in their specialties before they entered the
service.
Since there is no clearly defined product in many occupational
specialties, the supervisors' ratings probably reflect assessments of
personal attributes commonly associated with high productivity such as
competence and industriousness. Whatever the ratings measure in these
cases, there is remarkable consistency in the patterns of the ratings
over time and across occupational specialties.
(\Cv
r-.-Tl
¥
I • V»"1 •'.
:•-.-•:
-
\. ". -. •..• •.' •.- -.• •.-> •. . v- -,'• o -' •• - ' \- v* -•< - • - - . irV •
.•-'••-••-•:-•-"•-:-•-'---'..••--- ••-:.•«-. -.:--.%•.-•; yvi-.-y *• •*. •• *. *- *»* -. ".' n " •»" . ".** •{.' * .».•",-'. i < 11 ••. .*,
. • - "'•*•
• * * V .".«.' .•-"."- ."* »"• w" -.*•". „> ^*..'. •• • >J
> " w1" .•.•.-- ̂ -:ft >j>^\". - *
LV. •
.*. .".
•wrt . . _.' JvJ_-.\>"'-.*" te&: vV •>vv:
«I
rr—J" r .• .• .'' * *" '• • k ^
m ^4
Appendix A
SURVEY INSTRUMENTS
£££
••'.-•".." |H*-- —^ — I
|#;:#f . ! ^f|ÄM «A3« &&3&$Ä$&§&
•••• »•-•• --—-—••.•••-. • •- •••-•••.•M'^.'••••'•,••, •,"jv".ii|i.i«,'i. • 'i.ii.irrryryr^r^'^'WT'y*1
26
Rand MNU MONICA. ( A <MMUh ENLISTED
UTILIZATION SURVEY
Supervisor Form
OOO REPORTS CONTROL SYMBOL: DDM (OTI 7462
I
ARMY
•.V.
w > '
For Data
Only
CARD 01 Please print your MOS and Social Security number below:
3/ -35 1 1 1 1 1 1 MOS
3644 III 1 SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
SECTION I
1. Which of the following statements apply to the way first-term enlisted personnel are normally trained and utilized in your shop or section? (FOR BOTH AIT SCHOOL GRADUATES AND FORMAL OJT TRAINEES, CHECK EACH STATEMENT THAT APPLIES)
A trainee performs only very simple tasks during his first few weeks in the shop or section.
A trainee performs both simple tasks and tasks requiring specialized skills during his first few weeks in the shop or section.
A trainee works very closely with another specialist during his first few months in the shop or section.
Trainees frequently work independently even during their first few weeks in the shop or section.
A trainee works with the same supervisors throughout his training.
A trainee's supervisors change frequently.
A supervisor generally works with a group of trainees.
A supervisor generally works with only one trainee.
Classroom type instruction is conducted in the shop or section.
AIT School Formal OJT Graduates Trainees
46-47 1.1 1 1. I )
4849 2.1 ] 2. I 1
50-51 3.1 1 3.1 ]
52-53 4.1 1 4.1 )
54-55 5.1 ] 5.1 1 56-57 6.1 ] 6.1 ] 58-59 7.1 1 7.1 ] 6061 8.1 ] 8.1 1 6263 9.1 ) 9.1 I
IV-
:-.:
T^,-:- .- .•-••••-•• „-'-•.- >• - •-..-- . . . • «\ . . . • .•-..••
• t .-.-V ,%.- V...V V VV-. . -•-.-•.•.-.-.•.--....• .•..-..-••••-• -•• • •--.-•-- • •-..--...••
^^_^_L^L^.^.^.-^^_^t_ :_ .•-...,••..-. . - . • . ........ • - ..-.-..• ••••••• .••-.•••-••.•,•••- --^V. J- -.. ,.
'.'"•» L » '. • '- • I * I • t I "•-»•J HI'.'U «J1 U M * ^TT^W^^^^^P •WR UH.lii.i'(.»i Lan.i-!«a,i| •-> -• '
64 66
27
Approximately what percentage of his time on duty does the average qualified specialist spend performing job tasks which require training or experience in your specialty (as opposed to othei types of work such as cleaning the work area or keeping records)? (CIRCLE ONE)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ARMY
SECTION II
The following questions apply to individuals whose on-the-job performance should be familiar to you. One of the things we would like you to do is to rate their net contribution to unit production. Because the idea of net contribution to unit production is complicated, we have found that an example helps people understand what we mean.
Suppose an experienced specialist, working alone, can complete 10 jobs a day. If * trainee is assigned to work with him, the trainee will contribute to unit production by completing some jobs- say, 2 jobs per day. However, because the specialist must spend time supervising and instructing the trainee, his own production will drop. For example, he might now be able to complete only 5 jobs a day. In this case, the trainee's NET contribution to unit production is negative because the two people together are now completing fewer jobs than the experienced specialist was able to complete before the trainee was assigned to him. However, as the trainee gets more experienced, the combined production of the two men will increase. When they are able to produce 10 jobs a day, working together, the trainee's NET contribution to unit production will be zero, because the two men working together will be completing what the experienced specialist was completing before, working alone. When the supervisor and the trainee working together can complete more than 10 jobs a day, the trainee's NET contribution to unit production will be positive.
The pictures below illustrate another example.
> _-J
67
The experienced cook can bake 15 pies a day when he works alone. When a trainee is assigned to work with him, the cook bakes only 8 pies a day and the trainee bakes 3 pies a day.
1. Would you say that the trainee's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION at this time is: (CHECK ONE)
I 1 [ 1 [ 1
NEGATIVE ZERO POSITIVE
In the following questions you will be asked to estimate individuals' NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION . We ask that you assume each individual will serve at least 4 years and remain in this shop or section.
We realize that in many cases it will be difficult to give precise answers, but give the best estimates you can.
V-V-V-'
- -v 'v
- --
ß ARMY 28
1 *- 'J- • .- '
• "- .
1 »"*•. • CARD
jNvj
25-30
NAME - '"J»]
Are you familiar with this individual's work performance?
[ ] 1. YES •(CONTINUE) [ J 2. NO •(SKIP TO NEXT INDIVIDUAL)
Approximately how many months has this individual been with your unit?
MONTHS:
During his FIRST MONTH with your unit, approximately what percentage of his time on duty did this individual spend performing job tasks requiring training or experience in his specialty (as opposed to other types of work such as cleaning the work area or keeping records)? (CIRCLE ONE)
31
32-33
35-37
38-40
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
4. At the PRESENT TIME, approximately what percentage of his time on duty is spent performing job tasks requiring training or experience in his specialty? (CIRCLE ONE)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
We would like you to estimate this individual's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION at several points in his service career assuming he serves 4 years or more in this shop or section. An individual's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION is his direct production minus production lost by others who supervise and instruct him.
Relative to the average specialist with four years experience, how would you rate this individual's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION:
During his FIRST MONTH with your unit? (CIRCLE ONE DOT-DOTS ARE AT 5% INTERVALS)
41-44
-100 _L_
-75 -50 -25 +25 +50 +75 +100 +125 •150
-100 means he requires to much supervision that ON NET hi« presence is like the loss of the average 4 year specialist
Zero NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION means that his direct production is equal to production lost by others who supervise and instruct him
+ 100 means he is as productive as the average 4 year specialist
+ 150 means he is 50% more productive than the avor age 4 year specialist
B. At the PRESENT TIME? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
45 48
4952
53 .<>«
-100 -75 -50 -25 0 +25 +50 +75 +100 +125 +150
C ONE YEAR from now? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
• ....•-. .......................... ........ ......... -100 -75 -50 -25 0 +25 +50 +75 +100 +125 +150
D AFTER 4 YEARS of service? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
100 -75 -50 -25 +25 +50 +75 +100 +125 +150
• •••
. •. • •
'..•-- : •:-'•'• :••>.•••
- •-•• -• ••••--
•"•V ^••vvlJCk? '• •'-'-"•-""- • • •v-'N'iv "-*LV" •'"• %*'"-"• • • "j
-TT-5-——i—»•• 1". ••••H.'li'Tli'l-'HI'.l ••« -r» :.»• —-." •• rrrs»"^: > J n." H-M'V ».'••
29 ARMY •~ •
57
58-59
60-61
Was this individual's MET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION negative during his FIRST month with your unit? (That is, was your answer to question 5A between "100 and 0?)
[ ] 1. YES- [ ) 2. NO
Approximately how many months do you estimate it took (or will take) from the time this individual first joined your unit until his direct production was about equal to the production lost by others who were supervising and instructing him? That is, how long was it until his NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION was zero?
MONTHS:
7. Approximately how many months do you estimate it took (or will take) from the time this individual first joined your unit until he required about the same amount of supervision as a qualified specialist?
MONTHS:
-' .
• -
7A. How would you rate his NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION at that time? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
62-65 J—-
-100 -75 -50 -25
-100 means he requires so much supervision that ON NET his presence is like the loss of the average 4 year specialist
+25 +50 +75 •100 •125 •150
Zero NETCONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION means that his direct production is equal to production lost by others who supervise and instruct him
+100 means he is as productive as the average 4 year specialist
• 150 means he is 50% more productive than the aver age 4 year specialist
66-67
6H 69
70
71
72
73
74
75
10.
During his FIRST MONTH with your unit, how many hours per week of direct personal supervision do you estimate this individual received from all supervisors?
HOURS PER WEEK:
At the PRESENT TIME, how many hours per week of direct personal supervision do you estimate this individual receives from all supervisors?
HOURS PER WEEK
How would you rate this vidual on each of the following? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER IN EACH ROW)
C.
WORK ATTITUDE
INITIATIVE
COOPERATION WITH SUPERVISORS
D. AMOUNT OF SUPERVISION
LEVEL OF SKILL
F. SPEED OF WORK
1 2 A very positive
attitude
1 2 (Jreat
initiative
1 2 Excellent
cooperation
I 2 Requires only
nominal supervision
1 2 Performs even the
mosl complex tasks in the specialty
1 2 Works very fast
6 7 A very negative
attitude
6 Very little
initiative
Very poor cooperation
6 7 Requires
constant supervision
6 7 Performs only the simplest tasks in
the specialty
6 7 Works very slowly
':•-':•• -•'.
" •.'•• y/- C-'.'-'-'-r« •'-'- "
» r - n
'>•--•-•--•-'--•-•----•-•-•--'•--•----•-' ••••••
'.- V
•V-
:-'-v>-•:•>.•. '.•••:-•-: rr'* -*« -'* - '-- ;' **• ••** i-" L * - * •*••"-*
—^—. '.- '.• .• • .• • •„• " f • I • • • ,.v.,,.,.,i • • i . . . i . i , i , . i . fy^^^^^yt^y^^w^^p^^^wi^w^B^^^^f^^
LVl
ARMY
lCARD »9
3/
32-35
30
SECTION HI
PART A: TYPICAL NEW AIT SCHOOL GRADUATE
• * * * *
The following questions apply to the typical or average new AIT SCHOOL GRADUATE who joins your unit immediate!" after completing basic training and the AIT school course in your specialty.
1. Do you feel qualified to evaluate the typical new AIT school graduate?
[ ) 1. YES »»(CONTINUE) [ ] 2. NO »»(SKIP TO PART B)
2. We would like you to estimate the typical new AIT school graduate's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION at several points in his service career assuming he serves 4 years or more in this shop or section. An individual's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION is his direct production minus production lost by others who supervise and instruct him.
Relative to the average specialist with 4 years experience, how would you rate the typical new AIT school graduate's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION:
A. During his FIRST MONTH with your unit? (CIRCLE ONE DOT-DOTS ARE AT 5% INTERVALS)
-100 -75 -50 -25
-100 means he requires so much supervision that ON NET hit presence is like the loss of the average 4 year specialist
+25
Zero NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION meant that his direct production is equal to production lost by others who supervise and instruct him
•50 •75 •100 +125
+ 100 means he is at productive at the average 4 year specialist
+150
+ 150 meent ha it 50% more productive than the aver- age 4 year specialist
36-39
40-43
44-47
48
49 50
B. AFTER 1 YEAR of service? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
-100 -75 -50 -25 0 +25 +50 +75 +100 +125 +150
C. AFTER 2 YEARS of service? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
................................................... -100 -75 -50 -25 0 +25 +50 +75 +100 +126 +150
D. AFTER 4 YEARS of service? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
-100 -75 -50 -25 +25 •50 +75 •100 +125 ••150
3. Is the typical new AIT school graduate's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION negative during his first month? (That is, was your answer to question 2A between -100 and 0?)
[ ] 1. YES- [ ) 2. NO
Approximately how many months do you estimate it takes from the time the typical new AIT school graduate first joins your unit until his direct production is about equal to the production lost by others who supervise and instruct him? That is, how long is it until his NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION is zero?
MONTHS: m
-.
:• •••••••••••'•••v-'-v...1 -•.-^.v•vi^•^^':•.w•.-.••• •-.-•• tvv•--'-.•-.••• v •• ••• • -?—
:•••'••:•"•:'••:-•*• •'•:'-:•-•••-••. " .'••:'•;'.:•';' v">: ;v:'">•:•'••. •:• < '••"-:•••:•••-:•"••:•• •'•: :•-"'•':>.•;.-'••' ^-S?:^
1 j-vim-i- i« TU- vu-u- .• ^ f .m< p >f'Z''-" l'''>"."f'.'>'V.'.'.".""-"f •" . J". V • ".—V V-.'T" ''VS- v;
31
5i
PART B: TYPICAL NEW FORMAL OJT TRAINEE
The following questions apply to the typical or average new FORMAL OJT TRAINEE who joins your unit immediately after completing basic training.
1. Do you feel qualified to evaluate the typical new formal OJT trainee?
I ] 1. YES •(CONTINUE) [ ] 2. NO »-(STOP HERE)
2. We would like you to estimate the typical new formal OJT trainee's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION at several points in his service career assuming he serues 4 years or more in this shop or section. An individual's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION is his direct production minus production lost by others who supervise and instruct him.
Relative to the average specialist with 4 years experience, how would you rate the typical new formal OJT trainee's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION:
A. During his FIRST MONTH with your unit? (CIRCLE ONE DOT-DOTS ARE AT 5% INTERVALS)
ARMY
52-55
-100 -75 -50 +25 •50 +75 +100 +125 +150
—100 meant he requires to much supervision that ON NET hit presence it like the lots of the average 4 year speciahst
56-59
60-63
Zero NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION meant that hit direct production is equal to production lost by others who supervite and inttruct him
+ 100 meant he it as productive as the average 4 year specialist
+ 150 meant he it 50% more productive than the aver- age 4 year specialist
B. AFTER 1 YEAR of service? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
-100 -75 -50 -25 0 +25
C. AFTER 2 YEARS of service? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
+50 +75 +100 +125 +150
-100 -75 -50 -25 0 +25
D. AFTER 4 YEARS of service? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
+50 +75 +100 •125 +150
•-/-\'
I
£
•-.-•
64-67
68
69-70
-100 -75 -50 -25 •25 +50 •75 +100 +125 +150
3. Is the typical new formal OJT trainee's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION negative during his first month? (That is, was your answer to question 2A between -100 and 0?)
[ ] 1. YES- [ ] 2. NO
Approximately how many months do you estimate it takes from the time the typical new formal OJT trainee first join* your unit until his direct production is about equal to the production lost by others who supervise and instruct him? That is, how long is it until his NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION is zero?
MONTHS:
'-"'-Si
v-v-1 - -
•*'•
• •••••••••• .. , , ,... 11,.,..,, ._.. ,,—. .. . .. •.•"••'.•"
• • • *v s ' - - -. • *.- • v .* -• • • '•..-. - • •,-..--*.•• - •..% ,*. .-• . ' v-/..••;••..••..••,••..••••. --..,.- •...-. •. •;• .
":••;•-••' - - •-.••;--'-••.••.-• ••/.-./•,%•' • •'•-••-•- ••..•:.•-..•• • ^^_
v".
•>_.
.'-JT%":-.'«^'.--'.'» >.-.'.' p". •'.»'..•n»'«i|i,jnii«pipvj| -•'." J").""»""'..,."j".'.•'.•."•• i"1 qqifmiiqimM
Rand SANTA MONK A ( A •¥UW,
32
ENLISTED UTILIZATION
SURVEY Supervisor Form
BUPERS REPORTS SYMBOL SUPERS 5314 17 DOO REPORTS CONTROL SYMBOL: DDM IOT) 7462
."V
For Data Processing Only
•CARD 01
NAVY
36-41
Please print your Rate and Social Security number below:
3,-34 I I I I I RATE
_L_I I I I I I I I SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
45
IF THIS DUTY STATION IS A SHIP, is the ship currently spending substantial amounts of time at sea? (IF THIS DUTY STATION IS NOT A SHIP, SKIP TO SECTION I, QUESTION 1)
| 1 1. YES [ 1 2. NO
SECTION I
1
• -
_•'./ "-'."•
Ili 47
1» ,:>
60-6I
S3 :>;i
54-66
3«-57
68-69
no 61
62 63
Which of the Following statements apply to the way first-term enlisted personnel are normally trained and utilized in your shop or section? (FOR BOTH "A" SCHOOL GRADUATES AND DIRECTED DUTY ASSIGNMENT TRAINEES, CHECK EACH STATEMENT THAT APPLIES)
"A" School Graduates
1 I I
3.1 I
4.1 I
5.1 I
6.1 I
7.1 I
8.1 I
9.1 I
Directed Duty Assignment Trainees
1.1 I
2.1 I
3.1 I
4. I I
5.1 I
6.1 I
7. I I
8. I I
9.1 I
A trainee performs only very simple tasks during his first few weeks in the shop or section.
A trainee performs both simple tasks and tasks requiring specialized skills during his first few weeks in the shop or section.
A trainee works very closely with another specialist during his first few months in the shop or section.
Trainees frequently work independently even during their first few weeks in the shop or section.
A trainee works with the same supervisors throughout his training.
A trainee's supervisors change frequently.
A supervisor generally works with a group of trainees.
A supervisor generally works with only one trainee.
Classroom type instruction is conducted in the shop or section.
.-•-.-••'.•
TT
.-••••
- - * * *.».».>A.VL.%
.
nn,m»,^i" «'•' »•»'< i 'l'»'IVM'J' •••«:»: TT
64-66
•'.'J .*'. ) . .' •
33
Approximately what percentage of his time on duty does the average qualified specialist spend performing job tasks which require training or experience in your specialty (as opposed to other types of work such as cleaning the work area or keeping records)? (CIRCLE ONE)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
NAVY
V\V0jfl
•$v8 -• A *J
SECTION II
The following questions apply to individuals whose on-the-job performance should be familiar to you. One of the things we would like you to do is to rate their net contribution to unit production. Because the idea of net contribution to unit production is complicated, we have found that an example helps people understand what we mean.
Suppose an experienced specialist, working alone, can complete 10 jobs a day. If a trainee is assigned to work with him, the trainee will contribute to unit production by completing some jobs- say, 2 jobs per day. However, because the specialist must spend time supervising and instructing the trainee, his own production will drop. For example, he might now be able to complete only 5 jobs a day. In this case, the trainee's NET contribution to unit production is negative because the two people together are now completing fewer jobs than the experienced specialist was able to complete before the trainee was assigned to him. However, as the trainee gets more experienced, the combined production of the two men will increase. When they are able to produce 10 jobs a day, working together, the trainee's NET contribution to unit production will be zero, because the two men working together will be completing what the experienced specialist was completing before, working alone. When the supervisor and the trainee working together can complete more than 10 jobs a day, the trainee's NET contribution to unit production will be positive.
The pictures below illustrate another example.
* * >.7< • •
»*' ."* .** : •'••••>•:•
;
67
The experienced cook can bake 15 pies a day when he works alone. When a trainee is assigned to work with him, the cook bakes only 8 pies a day and the trainee bakes 3 pies a day.
1. Would you say that the trainee's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION at this time is: (CHECK ONE)
[ 1 1. NEGATIVE ( 1 2. ZERO [ 1 3. POSITIVE
In the following questions you will be asked to estimate individuals' NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION. We ask that you assume each individual will serve at least 4 years and remain in this shop or section.
We realize that in many cases it will be difficult to give precise answers, but give the best estimates you can.
:—:\
L,
• •-• Si
r^;-_- -.--—^—.•»—r .*••_• _••:.• '.•-_•-• .•".•i"i"f".i '".»".• • < ii n_»«^i i i •• • iiiiji ifTm^^v^PT^^v^^np^p^pwa^pv«
NAVY •CARD
25-30
34
NAME
1. Are you familiar with this.individual's work performance?
31 [It YES •(CONTINUE) [ ] 2. NO •(SKIP TO NEXT INDIVIDUAL)
2. Approximately how many months has this individual been with your unit?
32-33 MONTHS:
34
IF THIS DUTY STATION IS A SHIP, did the ship spend substantial amounts of time at sea during this individual's FIRST MONTH with your unif (IF THIS DUTY STATION IS NOT A SHIP, SKIP TO QUESTION 4)
1 ] 1. YES [ J 2. NO [ ] 3. UNCERTAIN
35-37
4. During his FIRST MONTH with your unit, approximately what percentage of his time on duty did this individual spend performing job tasks requiring training or experience in his specialty (as opposed to other types of work such as cleaning the work area or keeping records)? (CIRCLE ONE)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
38-40
41 44
At the PRESENT TIME, approximately what percentage of his time on duty is spent performing job tasks requiring training or experience in his specialty? (CIRCLE ONE)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
6. We would like you to estimate this individual's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION at several points in his service career assuming he serves 4 years or more in this shop or section. An individual's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION is his direct production minus production lost by others who supervise and instruct him.
Relative to the average specialist with 4 years experience, how would you rate this individual's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION:
A. During his FIR_ST MONTH with your unit? (CIRCLE ONE DOT-DOTS ARE AT 5% INTERVALS)
-100 I
-75 -50 -25
-100 meanj he requires SO much supervision that ON NET his presence is like the loss of The aver-ge 4 year specialist
45-48
+25 +50 +75
Zero NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION means that his direct production is equal to production lost by others who supervise and instruct him
+100 +125 +150 i
+ 100 means he is as productive as the average 4 year specialist
+ 150 meant he is 50% more productive than the aver age 4 year specialist
B. At the PRESENT TIME? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
-100 -75 -50 -25 +25 +50 +75 rl00 H25 +150
.V.
tea
4952
53-56
C. ONE YEAR from now? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
•100 -75 -50 -25 0 +25
D. AFTER 4 YEARS of service? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
+50 +75 1-100
-100 -75 -50 -25 +25 +50 •75 rl00
+ 125 +150
• 125 + 150 B
:•:•:••
L..-J* ••«•P v :J-j>^ -s •••*•*•• ••• •-- -,?•.•.-• -.• •.- v •.- • v v ,-v V .• .-,.-.•, «".• •--.«-.-'.-".-. . .-. ,'\ v i »ln.n. Wni.•»,,••• •
Wff V IM".WWI»"!'WPI» 9* **9*r} ..,.,_,..,_.,..,
35
NAVY 7. Was this individual's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION negative during his FIRST MONTH with
your unit? (That is, was your answer to question 6A between -100 and 0?)
57
58-59
[ J I- I 1 2.
YES- NO
Approximately how many months do you estimate it took (or will take) from the time this individual first joined your unit until his direct production was about equal to the production lost by others who were supervising and instructing him? That is, how long was it until his NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION was zero?
MONTHS:.
r-"^
Approximately how many months do you estimate it took (or will take) from the time this individual first joined your unit until he required about the same amount of supervision as a qualified specialist?
60-6J MONTHS:
8A. How would you rate his NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION at that time? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
62-65
-100 -75 -50 -25 +25 »50 »75 + 100 +125 +150 ••—M—
-100 means he requires so much Supervision that ON NET his presence is like the loss of the average 4 year specialist
Zero NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION means that his direct production is equal to production lost by others who supervise and instruct him
• 100 means he is as productive as the average 4 year specialist
+150 means he is 50% more productive then the aver- age 4 year specialist
9. During his FIRST MONTH with your unit, how many hours per week of direct personal supervision do "ou estimate this individual received from all supervisors?
66-67 HOURS PER WEEK:
10. At the PRESENT TIME, how many hours per week of direct personal supervision do you estimate this individual receives from all supervisors?
68-69
70
HOURS PER WEEK.
11. How would you rate this individual on each of the following? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER IN EACH ROW)
A. WORK ATTITUDE A very positive
attitude A very negative
attitude
•
- • •
• ..* . Co V \v
>•
v .% ."-•
;"- .%'.•-
71 B. INITIATIVE 1 Great
initiative Very little initiative
72 C. COOPERATION WITH SUPERVISORS Excellent
cooperation Very poor
cooperation
73 D. AMOUNT OF SUPERVISION Requires only
nominal supervision Requires
constant supervision
74 LEVEL OF SKILL 1 2 Performs even the most complex tasks
in the specialty
6 7 Performs only the simplest tasks in
the specialty
75 SPEED OF WORK 1 2 Works very fast
6 7 Works very slowly
1
:-:-:^v:v.:-:"^. •:•-•">. •:-v>-•••>•>: ••v/,v:
- f- v -WWW
•••--•••- '--•-•- • - - • • • - 1- • - ..
.••-.-.-.•••.
«." - - .
if it't -." ••' vi<vy ••'.-• »vvy s ••• ' » . - * -
r^.'V V.'T"'.' '•"*'" ,."*.' H. ' i ' - ' J ' '•" • • I ' J ' •' TTy^^^^T^^^^^^^^^^^F^^
36 » • * » *
NAVY SECTION III ' • • -.
PART A: TYPICAL NEW "A" SCHOOL GRADUATE.
The following questions apply to the typical or average new "A" SCHOOL GRADUATE who joins your unit immediately after completing basic training and the "A" school course in your specialty.
•CARD 99
1. Do you feel qualified to evaluate the typical new "A" school graduate?
31 111- YES »»(CONTINUE) [ ] 2. NO ».(SKIP TO PART B)
2. We would like you to estimate the typical new "A" school graduate's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION at several points in his service career assuming he serves 4 years or more in this shop or section. An individual's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION is his direct production minus production lost by others who supervise and instruct him.
Relative to the average specialist with four years experience, how would you rate the typical new "A" school graduate's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION:
During his FIRST MONTH with your unit? (CIRCLE ONE DOT-DOTS ARE AT 5% INTERVALS)
32-35 -100 -75 -50 -25 +25 +50 +75 + 100 '125 + 150
'„V
-100 means he requires so much supervision that ON NET his presence is like the loss of the average 4 yeer specialist
36-39
Zero NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION means that his direct production is equal to production lost by others who supervise and instruct him
B. AFTER 1 YEAR of service? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
+ 100 means he is as productive as the average 4 year specialist
+ 150 means h< is 50% more productive than the aver- age 4 year specialist
-100 -75 -50 -25 0 +25 +50 +75 +100 +125 +150
C. AFTER 2 YEARS of service? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
1 toe
40-43
44-47
-100
-100
-75 -50 -25 +25 +50 +75 +100 +125 +150
D. AFTER 4 YEARS of service? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
-75 -50 -25 +25 +50 +75 +100 +125 •150
afia tWi
48
19-50
Is the typical new "A" school graduate's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION negative during his first month? (That is, was your answer to question 2A between-100 and 0?)
I 1 I 1
YES- NO
Approximately how many months do you estimate it takes from the time the typical new "A" school graduate first joins your unit until his direct production is about equal to the production lost by others who supervise and instruct him? That is, how long is it until his NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION is zero?
MONTHS:.
Vv*V
v\
- •"•I."'»
'"V
toesae-
..." •. V
.-•v-v ••'<-<-•• fag fa i. ^*- *"- **- •-*- -— ^ <•*- *vV- •-'•v'. fc'-V." .".".•-*->. '-•[»• ,'-•
irm%i i-Mtnii^r^' «.n.i^i'11 «.Uliei. ' «-« '-* '.H" «.^ t " I 'IT.'«!* M M f TTTTT"
37
NAVY
51
PART B: TYPICAL NEW DIRECTED DUTY ASSIGNMENT TRAINEE.
The following questions apply to the typical or average new DIRECTED DUTY ASSIGNMENT TRAINEE who joins your unit immediately after completing basic training.
1. Do you feel qualified to evaluate the typical new directed duty assignment trainee?
[ ] 1. YES •(CONTINUE) [ ] 2. NO •(STOP HERE)
2. We would like you to estimate the typical new directed duty assignment trainee's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION at several points in his service career assuming he serves 4 years or more in this shop or section. An individual's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION is his direct production minus production lost by others who supervise and instruct him.
Relative to the average specialist with four years experience, how would you rate the typical new directed duty assignment trainee's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION-
A. During his FIRST MONTH with your unit? (CIRCLE ONE DOT-DOTS ARE AT 5% INTERVALS)
52-55
-100 -75 -50 -25 +25 +50 +75 1-100 + 125 + 150
-100 means he requires so much supervision that ON NET hi» presence is like the loss of the average 4 year specialist
56-59
60-63
64-67
•68
69- 70
-100
-100
-100
3.
Zero NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION means that his direct production is equal to production lost by others who -"pervise and instruct him
+ 100 means he is as productive as the everage 4 year specialist
+ 150 means he is 50% more productive than the aver- age 4 year specialist
B. AFTER 1 YEAR of service? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
-75 -50 -25 1-25 +50 +75 1-100 + 125 + 160
C. AFTER 2 YEARS of service? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
-75 -50 -25 +25 +50 +75 +100 +125 +150
D. AFTER 4 YEARS of service? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
-75 -50 -25 +25 +50 +75 H00 U25 + 150
Is the typical new directed duty assignment trainee's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION negative during his first month? (That is, was your answer to question 2A between-100 and 0?)
[ 1 1. YES-
[ ) 2. NO Approximately how many months do you estimate it takes from the time the typical new directed duty assignment trainee first joins your unit until his direct production is about equal to the production lost by others who supervise and instruct him? That is, how long is it until his NET CONTRI- BUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION is zero?
MONTHS:
•WV5
>2rf«a fcs=5*
"•:-.-:-7
•;•>>:•; ••.-•---•;•
• v & * 1
Üäa
£
• ••••••• •. • 1 1 g SL m w" 1
.- v.v.--jy» •Kv.-'.v.v. .-•••-•«.s;^,_.:;:<:+:..,':<•.•:.•?:•...'.s.<.<<.*.*.«.<.•:•;.<.*.•.>•.;. . .^-•>.»./. ^^J
38
if -•
SANTA MONK A. CA *
For Data Processing Only
• CARD 01
31-35
36-44
ENLISTED UTILIZATION
SURVEY Supervisor Form
DOO REPORTS CONTROL SYMBOL: DOM (OT) 7462
AIR FORCE
Please print you AFSC and Social Security number below:
I I I I I 1 AFSC
I 1 I I ) 1 1 1 ) ) 1 I SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
SECTION I
1. Which of the following statements apply to the way first-term enlisted personnel are normally trained and utilized in your shop or section? (FOR BOTH TECHNICAL SCHOOL GRADUATES AND DIRECTED DUTY ASSIGNMENT TRAINEES, CHECK EACH STATEMENT THAT APPLIES»
A trainee performs only very simple tasks during his first few weeks in the shop or section.
A trainee performs both simple tasks and tasks requiring specialized skills during his first few weeks in the shop or section.
A trainee works very closely with another specialist during his first few months in the shop or section.
Trainees frequently work independently even during their first few weeks in the shop or section.
A trainee works with the same supervisors throughout his training.
A trainee's supervisors change frequently.
A supervisor generally works with a group of trainees.
A supervisor generally works with only one trainee.
Classroom type instruction is conducted in the shop or section.
Technical School Graduates
Directed Duty Assignment Trainees
46-47 1.1 1 l.l ]
48-49 9.1 ] 2. f 1
50-51 3.[ ) 3.1 ]
52-53 4.1" J 4.[ 1
54-55 5.[ ] 6.1 ] 56-57 6.1 ] 6.1 ] 58-59 7.1 1 7.1 ] 60-6/ 8.[ ] 8.1 ]
62-63 9.1 ] 9.1 ]
?.•. ••:,>•.. v•.o-:•Q-».-'yyyy-. .•VJ-V:..-•-•:•-'.-.-• .-^^^IL^^^i-^vv....,,•.•..•..•:.--.- v• JV,;•• v v ••• «u *»^m.
t
re?
r/ •»•
•V-V
^
•-'.<$ --V-'-•>.-• mm Mm m • • -»«•!
r,.i»vr v'l'UBH»1. >ia»»'mlH.*l'lWr' •• ^W^^^^^^^^^^^H^^^^^^^^ •"*' ."' -" -" - - -- ,- "Tl
64-66
39
AIR FORCE 2. Approximately what percentage of his time on duty does the average qualified specialist spend
performing job tasks which require training or experience in your specialty (as opposed to other types of work such as cleaning the work area or keeping records)? (CIRCLE ONE)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
SECTION II
The following questions apply to individuals whose on-the-job performance should be familiar to you. One of the things we would like you to do is to rate their net contribution to unit production. Because the idea of net contribution to unit production is complicated, we have found that an example helps people understand what we mean.
Suppose an experienced specialist, working alone, can complete 10 jobs a day. If a trainee is assigned to work with him, the trainee will contribute to unit production by completing some jobs- say, 2 jobs per day. However, because the specialist must spend time supervising and instructing the trainee, his own production will drop. For example, he might now be able to complete only 5 jobs a day. In this case, the trainee's NET contribution to unit production is negative because the two people together are now completing fewer jobs than the experienced specialist was able to complete before the trainee was assigned to him. However, as the trainee gets more experienced, the combined production of the two men will increase. When they are able to produce 10 jobs a day, working together, the trainee's NET contribution to unit production will be zero, because the two men working together will be completing what the experienced specialist was completing before, working alone. When the supervisor and the trainee working together can complete more than 10 jobs a day, the trainee's NET contribution to unit production will be positive.
The pictures below illustrate another example.
•«»* - • «J
c ̂7 '•v\V •-«
' ,-v.
.yvs.-. ».% , **-. :~*
67
The experienced cook can bake 15 pies a day when he works alone. When a trainee is assigned to work with him, the cook bakes only 8 pies a day and the trainee bakes 3 pies a day.
1. Would you say that the trainee's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION at thu time is: (CHECK ONE)
( ) I. [ 1 2. [ 1 3.
NEGATIVE ZERO POSITIVE
In the following questions you will be asked to estimate individuals' NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION . We ask that you assume each individual will serve at least 4 years and remain in this shop or section.
We realize that in many cases it will be difficult to give precise answers, but give the best estimates you can.
r,
••1
S ..r, •",.., I? . . •7T7t^T-..M.'. •••••'.-T--1'. -.. •'••'. •'••• .•'•••• ••••'• I-I • .'-. V- .'• ••'."•••••,••>•..-> ••-.--'.-• V-,
.---...• '.•.-.•:••-•••.-.•.-.•.•..•-•.••.- -:• ---v: v: v.-.-.-.-.-.-..,•.-; •.-...• ..'...-•.•-;.•..•..•.-.-.-•.--.•.••-;..
.'/-'.-•"•-. . •.-.••'.-•'.*-". .\--V ••'. . ' . '••. •,-•..-.•.•.-.-..-.-.-...-.-•,. •• -Y- .-.-.. -V- - V> ..•-.-.. . ,' - *\*> " • • • • .' "«• • " - • • • " •» • • ' •.••.'•'- v" -.' . .- ." •.' -. / • • -.• -.' ." • - -." -." -.\ . -.• -.A v\\' "-V-" '• "•"' •
•••••'.''^ '-••'• ^ ••'" ",'^.M •.ll".Hll.|l|'ll^^^P^
m
- vv V wt^^mmtmfm.
40
AIR FORCE • CARD
NAME
25-30
1. Are you familiar with this individual's work performance?
[ ] 1. YES »»(CONTINUE) [ 1 2. NO •(SKIP TO NEXT INDIVIDUAL)
2. Approximately how many months has this individual been with your unit?
MONTHS:
3. During his FIRST MONTH with your unit, approximately what percentage of his time on duty did this individual spend performing job tasks requiring training or experience in his specialty (as opposed to other types of work such as cleaning the work area or keeping records)? (CIRCLE ONE)
31
32-33
35-37
38-40
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
4. At the PRESENT TIME, approximately what percentage of his time on duty is spent performing job tasks requiring training or experience in his specialty? (CIRCLE ONE)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
41-44
-100 _J_
We would like you to estimate this individual's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION at several points in his service career assuming he serves 4 years or more in this shop or section. An individual's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION is his direct production minus production lost by others who supervise and instruct him.
Relative to the average specialist with four years experience, how would you rate this individual's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION:
During his FIRST MONTH with your unit? (CIRCLE ONE DOT-DOTS ARE AT 5% INTERVALS)
-75 -50 -25 +25 •50 •76
'100 miinlhi requires to much supervision that ON NET his presence ft like the lots of the average 4 yaar specialist
Zaro NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION means that his direct production is equal to production lost by others who supervise and Instruct him
45-48
49-52
53-56
-100
+100 1
+125 +150
+ 100 mwnt ha it M productive at The avaraga 4 yaar special.it
+160 meant he it 50% more productive than tha ever- aoa 4 yaar spacial.tt
B. At the PRESENT TIME? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
-100 -75 -60-25 0 +25+50 +75 +100 +125 +150
C. ONE YEAR from now? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
-100 -75 -50 -25 0 +25
D. AFTER 4 YEARS of service? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
-75 -50 -25 +25
+60
+50
+75 +100 +125 +150
+75 +100 +126 +160
j£j
• *-
<-JI>lp I • I' • I > J" I •• .• _• l*_ '. (•sjsjejsj»*»*^,»*»»»*«»-^ •• ' " •s»»" IB" I1
v"
41
AIR FORCE 6. Wu thii individual'» N£T CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION negative during hi. FIRST month
with your unit? (That is, was your answer to question 6A between -100 and 0?)
57
58-59
60-61
62-65
I J 1. YES- t 1 2. NO
Approximately how many months do you estimate it took (or will take) from the time this individual first joined your unit until his direct production was about equal to the production lost by others who were supervising and instructing him? That is, how long was it until his NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION was zero?
MONTHS:
Approximately how many months do you estimate it took (or will take) from the time this individual first joined your unit until he required about the same amount of supervision as a qualified specialist?
MONTHS:
7A. How would you rate his NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION at that time? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
-100 JL_
-75 -50 -25
-100 mean» he raquiraa so much supervision that ON NET hit pretence is lik« the lost of tha tvtragt) 4 year specialist
+25 +60 +75 +100 +125 +150
ZvoN£T CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION meant that his direct production is equal to production lost by othars who supervise and instruct him
+ 100 means ha is as productive as the average 4 year specialist
+ 150 means ha is 50% more productive than the aver- age 4 yeer specialist
66-57
68-69
70
71
72
73
74
75
8. During his FIRST MONTH with your unit, how many hours per week of direct personal supervision do you estimate this individual received from all supervisors?
HOURS PER WEEK:.
9. At the PRESENT TIME, how many hours per week of direct personal supervision do you estimate this individual receives from all supervisors?
HOURS PER WEEK:
10. How would you rate this individual on each of the following? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER IN EACH ROW)
WORK ATTITUDE
INITIATIVE
COOPERATION WITH SUPERVISORS
D. AMOUNT OF SUPERVISION
E. LEVEL OF SKILL
F. SPEED OF WORK
1 2 A very positive
attitude
1 2 Great
initiative
1 2 Excellent
cooperation
1 2 Requires only
nominal supervision
1 2 Performs even the
most complex tasks in the specialty
1 2 Works very fast
6 7 A very negative
attitude
6 Very little
initiative
Very poor cooperation
6 7 Requires
constant supervision
6 7 Performs only the simplest tasks in
the specialty
6 7 Works very slowly
•-
V—'
's\\
-• •". •
•*•-•:• ~ki
-. - •
•. --•-.- •.- - • •••.•.•.'••. j. •-•.-• ^ • . . . • -. - . .-.•-•._. • • . - . >>>>> - - v -k > •" -• «" V "J
•".'•' -"."••.-•."-"."-*.•".'-" ' -'." ' ".'•>' V • ' •'\ *'," '.'-'.'• .'•'.'•" .'•''•f .'•''•'. •* v '"."""- Ti. \"-' •". •"."-•••."-"-"'."• -".""". "*J""cV<C"- • -'•'""- '«_'« ""C""ö .'•y ., j. -• -^ .-•,.•.. •...•.. -•••, •-••-- •*:.»• r^:^. •-.-- . , . ... ^••_. •_..-.,••.,> /fc. •.-.-.. -. ,• . '. . • . - . i. • . f .V •> ^- • f . f • .- .V
•-»-»-'—i—••»•f»r v: •( •'••'. '•'.^'.'^Hl'ui.S.l'.vi.^FjTTri'ti^H.I«1 . •!)*'_'I J ••. , y , a- , y-,
j» AIR FORCE 42 *****
•CARD 99
37
SECTION HI
PART A: TYPICAL NEW TECHNICAL SCHOOL GRADUATE
The following questions apply to the typical or average new TECHNICAL SCHOOL GRADUATE who joins your unit immediately after completing basic training and the technical school course in your specialty.
1. Do you feel qualified to evaluate the typical new technical school graduate?
[ ] 1. YES •(CONTINUE) [ J 2. NO »-(SKIP TO PART B)
2. We would like you to estimate the typical new technical school graduate's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION at several points in his service career assuming he serves 4 years or more in this shop or section. An individual 's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION is bis direct produc- tion minus production lost by others who supervise and instruct him.
Relative to the average specialist with 4 years experience, how would you rate the typical new technical school graduate's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION:
During his FIRST MONTH with your unit? (CIRCLE ONE DOT-DOTS ARE AT 5% INTERVALS)
32-35
-100 -76 -50 -26 •25 +50 •75 +100 •126 •160
-100 mean* he requires so much supervision that that ON NET his presence is tike tha loss of tha average 4 year specialist
36-39
4043
44-47
48
49-50
-100
3.
Zaro NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION means that his direct production is equal to production lost by others who supervise and instruct him
+ 100 means ha is as productive as the everage 4 year specialist
+ 150 means ha is 50% more productive than tha aver- age 4 year specialist
B. AFTER 1 YEAR of service? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
-100 -75 -50-25 0+25
C. AFTER 2 YEARS of service? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
•50 +75 •100 +126 +150
-100 -75 -50 -25 0 +25
D. AFTER 4 YEARS of service? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
•50 +75 +100 +125 +150
-75 -50 -25 +25 •50 +75
• » • +100 +125 +160
Is the typical new technical school graduate's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION negative during his first month? (That is, was your answer to question 2A between -100 and 0?)
I ] [ 1
YES- NO
Approximately how many months do you estimate it takes from the time the typical new technical school graduate first joins your unit until his direct pro- duction is about equal to the production lost by others who supervise and in- struct him? That is, how long is it until his NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION is zero?
MONTHS:
Kfl
m m
w
> •.-
• • • v • • * • * • • m • • • • m • I5 -.'-.-" -•--'*.. '7ry7/7'j,v;^;/,vvv.'.,r;',.\.1:.' .• -v....... :. .n-. .. ... •..>.. •• •- • ~r-. . •. . .... • *
ia»inyjT>^in.'M« «Ty'^Hi'T *••**.• !•- '•." •:"»;" Vg1 «• I '.' '\ "." '-"'
43
AIR FORCE
51
PART B: TYPICAL NEW DIRECTED DUTY ASSIuNMENT TRAINEE.
The following questions apply to the typical or average new DIRECTED DUTY ASSIGNMENT TRAINEE who joins your unit immediately after completing basic training.
1. Do you feel qualified to evaluate the typical new directed duty assignment trainee?
[ ] 1. YES •(CONTINUE) [ ] 2. NO •(STOP HERE)
2. We would like you to estimate the typical new directed duty assignment trainee's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION at several points in his service career assuming he serves 4 years or more in this shop or section. An individual's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION is his direct production minus production lost by others who supervise and instruct him.
Relative to the average specialist with four years experience, how would you rate the typical new directed duty assignment trainee's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION:
A. During his FIRST MONTH with your unit? (CIRCLE ONE DOT-DOTS ARE AT 5% INTERVALS)
52-55
-100 -75 -50 -25 +25 +50 +75 1-100 • 125 + 150
-100 means ha requires SO much supervision that ON NET hit presence if like the loss of the average 4 year specialist
Zero NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION means that his direct production is equal to production lost by others who supervise and instruct him
+ 100 means he is as productive as the average 4 year specialist
+ 150 means he is 50% more productive than the aver- age 4 year specialist
56-59
60-63
64-67
«8
69-70
B. AFTER 1 YEAR of service? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
-100 -75 -50 -25 +25 +50 +75 +100 +125 +150
C. AFTER 2 YEARS of service? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
-100 -75 -50 -25 0 +25 +50 +75 +100 -125 +150
D. AFTER 4 YEARS of service? (CIRCLE ONE DOT)
-100 -75 -50 -25 +25 +50 +75 +100 +125 +150
3. Is the typical new directed duty assignment trainee's NET CONTRIBUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION negative during his first month? (That is, was your answer to question 2A between-100 and 0?)
[ ] 1. YES-
[ ) 2. NO Approximately how many months do you estimate it takes from the time the typical new directed duty assignment trainee first joins your unit until his direct production is about equal to the production lost by others who supervise and instruct him? That is, how long is it until his NET CONTRI- BUTION TO UNIT PRODUCTION is zero?
MONTHS:
• ' >
•-•:-.•
v.
A »VJI'J
&
•-•.V-L;
i r-r-
•;.;•;:
•. "\'"V
.v\.vl
..'•—-•'..
_<~
•/•.•••-••-.---.-• .•.•;..-.- - .-.-. - -••• .••-.-.-.••.•.;-••.••.•••.••..-'•:-•-:-.•- ••-.-• . .-•.-:.-.-••.
-•--••••-• .-• •:•• '•• - •-. -. . •" \ -•. i\ •'. • •" •"- -'. •" •.-'- • • • • -• -.- • «• -.• %" -.• ." -. . •"."•.*•'.•-'.-.-, .'••."•."••..• .••... . .' • .•.•'"-.--•.-*.-'.-'--•. "••'••.•"".'•••'••"•." ••"-.••."»••."'•.••"• •-*„•".•-'.
• ii T«T ., i j « i iv w ,»'. »-.'».' *_' r.'i' !-•,.• l» »•".• .M.n'.i'.i „• .• F. • •w^^^m^^^^^^^^^^^^mimm^m.
44
Appendix B
TABLES OF PRODUCTIVITY PROFILES
The following tables provide the means and standard deviations of
the supervisors' ratings of different categories of trainees at four
points in time: (1) upon arrival at their first duty station, (2) one
year later, (3) two years later, and (4) four years later. The number
of ratings (N) is the number of different ratings that were used in
calculating the means.
For each of the four sets of mean ratings (t, Y ), t = 0, 12, 24,
48, a curve of the form
y(t) = a - ße -art
was fitted by least squares; i.e., the parameters a, ß, and Z were
chosen to minimize
Q =S(Yt ' ° + ß( •Ft 2
The y-intercept at the curve is y(0) = a - ß. The slope at t = 0 is
y'(0) = ßy. The error sum of squares is the value of Q when the
parameters are replied by their least-square estimates.
The median training time (T) is the median time between service
eni.ry date and date of arrival at the first duty station for the
trainees in the survey.
Total first-term productivity (P) is defined by
P = (l/lOO)/48"1 y(t) dt 0
„;::;,S>.:;&«*«*;;-•,.,,•.: :•:,•:,. , \: " ' ."
Aö-T A = J y(t) dt/(48-T) = 100P/(48-T).
0
' »"« kl!
45 >. • LN
where y(t) is the fitted curve. Average productivity (A) is the mean '••'"•
value of y(t) over the interval from 0 to 48-T: ^?5
'/••-"•
:•;••-,
.•-••"
-„<
• '• '
:-:v
• • • •• 9 9 j 1 j » J
-••••>:•- .••- •.:•/;,•;:.>•-:-•••-•••• :::.y.:: :-::;-.•>:1
i 46 • v S Table B.l
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: Army MOS: 26L Skill level: High
Time on the Job (Months)
0
12
24
48
No. of ratings (N)
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
21.8 -- -19.0 -31.1 (48.3) (46.0) (44.2) 64.6 -- 48.8 44.7 (46.3) (38.3) (39.3) 77.5 -- 73.8 69.2 (54.1) (35.8) (33.2) 82.7 -- 99.8 94.7 (56.4) (31.8) (31.2)
11 25 18
- .«•
Learning Curve Statistics -•'.-
Estimated parameters: Alpha 83.2 Beta 61.4 Gamma 0.0994
Related statistics: Y-intercept 21.8 Slope at t = 0 6.1 Error sum of squares 0.0
Median training time (T) 215 days (7.1 mo.)
104.9 123.3 0.0620
-18.4 7.6 18.58
215 days (7.1 mo.)
97.7 128.2 0.0690
-30.5 8.8
28.45
86 days (2.8 mo.)
8j •-V-V
:'••-•:
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 28.0 24.6 26.4
£
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 68.4 60.2 58.4
•••
' - •-
_-^_--^ • .... J..I..J .• .. .II.H.I ••.HIM .im'win-iiiiiH'HiüililHHilili' i"' ' "' '*••" •"• '•.••:•"•• ••»..•
47
Table B.2
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: Army MOS: 3IE Skill level: High
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Time on Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical the Job Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty (Months) in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
0
12
24
48
No. of ratings (N)
34.7 (52.9) 78.9 (34.6) 108.8 (26.2) 126.2 (18.9)
17
-2.4 -22.5 (39.0) (46.0) 60.4 44.5 (34.0) (37.0) 84.7 76.4 (26.5) (29.5) 108.2 103.7 (22.3) (27.1)
50 49
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters Alpha 135.5 Beta 101.3 Gamma 0.0518
Related statistics: Y-intercept 34.2 Slope at t = 0 5.2 Error sum of squares 12.17
Median training time (T) 200 days (6.6 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 38.9
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 93.8
113.1 115.1 0.0621
-2.0 7.1 10.88
200 days (6.6 mo.)
29.7
71.8
112.5 134.8 0.0560
-22.3 7.5 1.77
86 days (2.8 mo.)
28.7
63.5
• • . *•—«"• ..*'.•-
-V- .%\v.
9 •
... ..v.-
v .- /
r^^K
. - «.T»*
•-\SdXvi
c « • •. •
• :••'• •>:•'•
O" -• •' • ."•
.'•_'• Jl'TTJV .'•! r"_ U'_ I PV" •_••!'•••.•' "J" "» ' -• .• .• i _• .« L" ' ß"ß
48
Table B.3
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: Army MOS: 63H Skill level: Medium
' ;"T^.
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Time on the Job (Months)
12
24
48
No. of ratings (N)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
29.3 32.0 13.1 -15.9 (58.2) (76.3) (41.3) (48.9) 69.0 62.6 61.2 42.3 (44.3) (75.2) (29.1) (34.7) 88.5 79.5 86.2 75.3 (40.8) (79.9) (26.0) (29.9) 104.4 105.5 107.3 99.6 (43.6) (55.5) (25.3) (26.0)
155 10 202
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha Beta Gamma
Related statistics: Y-intercept Slope at t = 0 Error sum of squares
Median training time (T)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/lnri
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T)
32.1
78.3
34.0
75.4
30.1
73.5
197
109.7 80.4 0.0561
128.7 96.2 0.0293
115.4 102.3 0.0526
109.9 126.0 0.0528
29.3 4.5 0.19
32.5 2.8 5.39
13.1 5.4 0.12
-16.1 6.7 1.45
212 days (7.0 mo.)
86 days (2.8 mo.)
212 days (7.0 mo.)
86 days (2.8 mo.)
28.0
61.9
--VM
r->"
*» •»:
f • <v
u
SK
LT.L-.1V--.- -/./-•/•••.••• . . . .•_.,^..-,,. a:»-.-..- "...l.;..-v/v^ v>:>-!*,.-^,vV-v-\>:>>,«\/'.->iv"!v.s\v'!v'.-.-:-.>:».-.,-v',-L\i
r%: T -s. • -.• ' ^j ' yr^T^ •J» ;". \ •JT^.UJI •."*.'*.' •:"-' ". t^J'M '". ••.'•—. '^f-"—^nn,\l^!-v!\i-
49
Table B.4
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: Army MOS: 67N Skill level: Medium
-"••'S .- %," v -
fcr=SP
A ••v3 •. •-'!>
H—;- "•'.•»•
Time on the Job (Months)
0
12
24
48
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
22.2 __ -2.4 -25.9 (41.0) (44.6) (49.1) 73.8 -- 53.6 39.9 (32.6) (38.2) (41.6) 93.. -- 79.7 70.3 (31.5) (27.5) (32.8) 110.6 -- 105.0 99.2 (29.3) (23.5) (27.3)
>.
•->"
No. of ratings (N) 36 77 70 .M
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha 113.7 Beta 91.3 Gamma 0.0665
Related statistics: Y-intercept 22.4 Slope at t = 0 6.1 Error sum ot squares 4.14
Median training time (T) 177 days (5.8 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 35.1
113.6 115.7 0.0530
-2.1 6.1 4.07
177 days (5.8 mo.)
28.4
108.6 134.2 0.0541
-25.6 7.3 5.23
86 days (2.8 mo.)
26.4
.•*•"-'•
"V "»* •.
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 83.1 67.4 58.5
. •". {. ••-
. V"'
' • -...
."• Si
• i« i »•.>*« i '.• i .- • 'j>jI«»i^»^ i _• i.«i „•! _• i _• iji iwi^p~m-v*^^i*rw^**y^r^r*w*T*^T*i*T*v****m**'*''*r'mmmmQ
50
Table B.5
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: Army MOS: 67U Skill level: Medium
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parenth eses)
Time on the Job
Tech School Graduates
Direct Duty Trainees
Typical Tech School
Typical Direct Duty
(Months) in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
0 7.6 __ -3.8 -29.9
12 (52.7) 57.1 — m
(40.2) 56.4
(45.5) 34.7
24 (55.3) 76.1 _ —
(35.6) 82.3
(36.4) 66.6
48 (59.7) 95.3 _ _
(28.0) 105.7
(32.6) 93.6
(63.9) (24.4) (30.5)
No. of ratings (N) 38 0 52 44
Learning- Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha 99.4 Beta 91.4 Gamma 0.0610
Related statistics: Y-intercept 8.0 Slope at t = 0 5.6 Error sum of squares 8.19
Median training time (T) 189 days (6.2 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 27.7
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 66.3
111.9 115.4 0.0591
-3.5 6.8 4.81
189 days (6.2 mo.)
28.9
69.1
103.0 132.7 0.0547
-29.7 7.3 0.84
86 days (2.8 mo.)
24.3
53.8
- * • *
_*. •*•-•----••
••••••'
-•-•--•'
;
:•-•:•-.--•;-
•:••>:• ,>:.
•---•.*--•••
,-•• ••.•••:•• ••v-w-- • .*-'>.\^«v-\.--•-•.•; -•-'.'• .'•'-' • Y'.-V-V-V- .-• V •1>J«>> •".".'>.•. ;> ." Y-l
• '- • • * •'• T tS • \ . V i TiV« T. 'J '• < •• - •• _ " • » • - *\ 4
ifi, fvy.)"l J pn>'|i'tfj,
51
Table B.6
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: Army MOS: 67V Skill level: Medium
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parenthe •ses)
Time on Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical the Job Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty (Months) in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
0 17.0 -- -5.S -25.9 (58.3) (41.4) (49.5)
12 66.1 -- 52.2 36.9 (44.9) (33.0) (37.9)
24 87.0 -- 81.1 70.2 (44.0) (27.3) (31.6)
48 104.2 -- 108.9 103.1 (45.0) (24.6) (26.3)
No. of ratings (N) 86 0 132 117
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha 108.3 Beta 91.2 Gamma 0.0626
Related statistics: Y-intercept 17.1 Slope at t = 0 5.7 Error sum of squares 1.86
Median training time (T) 161 days (5.3 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 32.7
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 76.5
119.7 125.4 0.0504
-5.7 6.3 2.57
161 day:> (5.3 mo.)
29-i
68.2
118.0 143.7 0.0467
-25.7 6.7 1.98
86 days (2.8 mo.)
26.3
58.1
:: i
; ica aa
Prös^
::>::":"
*i - T -XT"
yy^/r; 7^r?rr
h>j>>y^->>:r v '-yy^yy^yy^'y:^/:/:- • ':<' •-^ ffiail •»>•.•/'/:•.•• .-• •'..•••
Y.v./..J..-, •—s—1—r*v -• - •' •"—' ' ' >• •' ' . >'
•. • . <. • .*•. T> L> . • \ •. - .*> . • ,v ,"-. »\v 'A i\ „•.
I M^'VA". • ••.•!«•" EJ"'."*LT*. '•>'*.' «."•. "«.'"•»"^'^••^^"^^^^^^^^W^P^y
52
•«r^
Table B.7
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: Army MOS: 73C Skill level: Medium
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Time on the Job (Months)
0
12
24
48
No. of ratings (N)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
15.2 8.0 3.0 -17.0 (45.9) (59.6) (36.8) (41.6) 69.4 64.2 67.9 53.4 (37.8) (38.9) (27.6) (32.7) 89.9 98.6 90.8 81.8 (39.2) (27.6) (24.0) (25.4) 108.2 128.0 110.5 105.8 (39.7) (23.2) (22.9) (22.0)
159 191
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha Beta Gamma
Related statistics: Y-intercept Slope at t = 0 Error sum of squares
Median training time (T)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T)
33.7
79.3
38.8
85.9
33.3
78.5
172
111.5 96.0 0.0659
143.6 135.8 0.0454
113.2 109.9 0.0708
110.9 127.6 0.0644
15.5 6.3 6.18
7.8 6.2 0.96
3.3 7.8 9.22
-16.7 8.2 6.18
168 days (5.5 mo.)
86 days (2.8 mo.)
168 days (5.5 mo.)
86 days (2.8 mo.)
31.4
69.4
m •v. i\ -
I« K
" "«Yv
V\N\V
£3
K\>3J
P
• •" •- • .'
-j ; » .»—»»
.-•.-•.•
%2&
• • • - • -.-.". 1 .««--••--.- . • . - . " J - . •• . . • • . •• . i . . - . "\ • . • . n . - « - « » «. • - - • . •>"
• .• V-.. .V.-v. \\-\-.. v.%...-. . •• •- -..-- .•••\V-V-" '-••"> ' . •> »^*.N -V . ••". .-»:.:-y->i--i•'•'••• ---"A'.-.V..->..•• .••.-.- ^.^>m •.%»•. •-:..-•:•. . v
\ . < . » • .'
Xm.'m* ,:, m
• .-• i- • J' • . • .- .- .- .- IV •.••«• '»ji'ijui. u.T^^^^^»^^^My«t^^yy^^TT'J»m .«•!»?»• »'.' ••^•'••-^-•••'',
53
Table B.8
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: Army MOS: 9 IB Skill level: Medium
Time on the Job (Months)
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
12
24
48
Wo. of ratings (N)
36.7 (53.0) 74.0 (35.9) 91.5 (34.7) 104.9 (34.8)
127
5.8 -9.6 (44.1) (50.3) 62.5 50.5 (35.2) (36.3) 87.2 79.2 (30.0) (30.7) 110.6 106.5 (28.9) (26.0)
241 190
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha 108.8 Beta 72.1 Gamma 0.0601
Related statistics: Y-intercept 36.7 Slope at t = 0 4.3 Error sum of squares 0.14
Median training time (T) 154 days (5.1 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 35.6
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 83.0
117.2 111.1 0.0569
6.1 6.3 5.23
154 days (5.1 mo.)
32.5
75.7
116.1 125.4 0.0525
-9.3 6.6 3.50
86 days (2.8 mo.)
30.8
68.2
. n > * * •
' .V.I V -1
•• • * .
•V- ->Ji
V V
•---•-• ••
l> -'• . • .'• .*• ------
.-^/-T:^- .-• ,v v\-.v-:,0/.v.v.v.'.-.\-','V.-.».' •• •.-•U-' -Jf.-. ' v •• •••••••/•MvV-.-. --•• .-v ••-.•• •- . ••v.\.\- '- . •--• vv-v -•• \ -\.v"--~. ..-•. •.•„--.-••. ••".- 'V v-v....-.\ v\vV-.-.. • • •'-'-• .
.. .•.-•.--;. ••.•.•.-. •.-.'-•. v.-.\.-.--.-\,y.'.-.<.-.--.-.vv.--.-.-.-:. -. . • v-v .-^. v-v-v vv.-.- .--••-•.--, - . - • •• •• • .,.. ..-.v-*>v vv •••. -.-.•.-..% v-v • •-• -\%v.y * •. \ •••*-.• • •• ".NV.'-.V^AV-V-.^ ".-> -. V-j
.. .- 1- y. ^ WW^*^^^^ T'^^^y*
54
Table B.9
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: Army MOS: 9 IE Skill level: Medium
sfl Mean Productivity Ratings
Time on
(Standard deviations in parentheses) 1 * -
h-Y-. Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical the Job Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty
C*\' (Months) in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
m o 39.5 38.0 21.8 -9.9 (46.0) (62.7) (42.3) (51.9)
\. 12 73.8 68.0 69.3 53.4 (38.4) (44.6) (30.0) (33.0)
24 93.7 89.6 90.8 82.9 .-•..• (36.5) (35.7) (23.6) (23.7) • 48 105.7 102.0 108.9 106.4
(35.0) (33.3) (24.1) (23.5)
>:;-:-
tö No. of ratings (N) 133 5 166 117
p?>
Learning Curve Statistics
V v
•-"v>
Estimated parameters: Alpha Beta Gamma
Related statistics: Y-intercept Slope at t = 0 Error sum or squares
Median training time (T)
110.7 109.3 114.0 113.3 71.4 71.7 92.1 123.1 0.0571 0.0498 0.0589 0.0592
39.3 37.6 21.9 -9.8 4.1 3.6 5.4 7.3 2.32 8.13 1.28 0.89
131 days 86 days 131 days 86 days (4.3 mo.) (2.8 mo.) (4.3 mo.) (2.8 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 36.9 36.5 35.4 31.8
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 84.4 80.8 80.9 70.4
T^TT; -rr^r a—• .' I' -r
'••- * '•' *•"-'"'
:—..• • • • --us' •',
«-— w -ji"» -ig-* I^KM'-J'-V/1
,'•'>H".l,ll'^'V,v^ p.i •_" J -w. «nrj*!v- vj w ^v vT* -v•.'•'
55
Table B.10
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: Army MOS: 11B Skill level: Low
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Time on Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical the Job Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty (Months) in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
0 29.5 21.7 12.9 -6.4 (57.4) (69.8) (40.3) (47.5)
12 55.9 53.8 57.8 48.2 (52.3) (49.8) (36.0) (35.2)
24 75.3 78.0 79.9 78.6 (53.7) (49.3) (34.4) (33.3)
48 91.7 96.2 104.8 106.7 (55.5) (53.7) (31.4) (31.0)
No. of ratings (N) 81 21 160 150
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha 103.5 108.8 115.9 120.0 Beta 74.3 87.5 102.7 126.3 Gamma 0.0388 0.0412 0.0455 0.0468
Related statistics: Y-intercept 29.2 21.3 13.2 -6.3 Slope at t = 0 2.9 3.6 4.7 5.9 Error sum of squares 2.24 6.13 4.60 0.17
Median training time (T) 161 days 86 days 161 days 86 days (5.3 mo.) (2.8 mo.) (5.3 mo.) (2.8 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 28.7
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 67.2
31.2
69.1
30.2
70.6
30.5
67.5
> .•
v. .
Ot* .-.
Cv .] ••v
\V it
G
.-"."• I
•Us*
. • i.
u
II.".'
M * * . v.---. HUN -
•- .v
.-.--.-•• * - - » |
v*>
üä£
omm TS-T rn^-.'T .'"•.-»•.-»-: v.1 «-,• 'j-.-•••.•:•'.• • '.» .' "J" •;»"T*T""- * ••• J—••''. «l^1, •'. • I'-V- "-' I »'^^''T'^T^TT^^^?^^^^^^
56 :XM
Table B.ll
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
a
Time on the Job (Months)
0
12
24
48
Service: Army MOS: HE Skill level: Low
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
29.7 23.3 9.1 -5.6 (53.7) (65.3) (42.0) (50.4) 73.8 47.8 56.9 44.6 (50.0) (36.8) (32.4) (36.5) 90.9 70.5 81.9 76.8 (53.0) (31.2) (27.3) r28.9) 103.7 98.3 105.6 104.9 (54.0) (31.8) (27.0) (26.5)
&
• L • V
4 '.V- '.1-,
No. of ratings (N) 112 211 180
tv
v.
I
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated paramei s: Alpha Beta Gamma
Related statistics: Y-intercept Slope at t = 0 Error sum of squares
Median training time (T)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T)
106.0 76.1 0.0701
146.7 123.7 0.0197
115.7 106.4 0.0486
121.4 127.2
0.0429
29.9 5.3 1.42
23.0 2.4 2.52
9.3 5.2 0.86
-5.8 5.5 1.42
150 days (4.9 mo.)
86 days (2.8 mo.)
150 days (4.9 mo.)
86 days (2.8 mo.)
35.3
82.0
29.3
64.8
30.6
71.1
29.5
65.2
-.-•'.
ft
- f
-.-.'•'•-••. . • . . • . • . T^r
Xi.<. '•:."•;•:...-. J: • :-. • '-
••••-*-- ••--
-»— -P "-F * ' -« ' * -• *
MÄ3
57
Table B.12
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: Army MOS: 12B Skill level: Low
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Time on Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical the Job Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty (Months) in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
0 18.3 -4.3 6.4 0.5 (52.4) (66.4) (41.2) (44.4)
12 55.7 29.6 50.1 44.9 (51.7) (50.9) (34.8) (35.6)
24 75.- 59.0) 79.0 77.0 (53.1) (46.1) (27.6) (31.9)
48 91.8 90.0 105.9 105.5 (55.5) (44.0) (25.9) (27.2)
No. of ratings (N) 129 7 169 139
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha 98.3 127.3 123.5 126.3 Beta 79.9 132.1 117.2 126.2 Gamma 0.0522 0.0266 0.0398 0.0380
Related statistics: Y-intercept 18.4 -4.8 6.3 0.1 Slope at t = 0 4.2 3.5 4.7 4.8 Error sum of squares 0.08 5.48 0.90 4.29
Median training time (T) 130 days 86 days 130 days 86 days (4.3 mo.) (2.8 mo.) (4.3 mo.) (2.8 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 29.2
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 66.9
22.8
50.4
29.7
68.0
29.8
66.0
•..•.•:•••• -.; . . ...- . -VpPT7--:-....-.-.-;•-•;-;.•.;;>.:,; ".:'-',-;-:: ' fcftc-i
••>i
et=^S
m I A m ml i\\
- - -.
- • -
L- ,-1 * vCfl •"-•"•-•^
VviVH v\<vQ VV-V-! -", -". »\ !
1
^ =—fc-
•'•'"•'•:
•k- -'--V
„- - •
- . • -.-T- • v . -• •' .' -• • .•.••••• --'j- •• J J'.•»'.!•.•» • i :» . •.. ''. • '.»in • ., i.' • • ^»•»»•••^•^•'^^•^•»^^•^wyq^^wquyitiM
58
Table B.13
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: Army MOS: 13B Skill level: Low
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Time on the Job (Months)
0
12
24
48
No. of ratings (N)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
17.9 45.0 8.2 -14.5 (59.7) (57.9) (43.8) (49.9) 52.6 74.4 58.9 44.2 (59.5) (43.2) (36.4) (35.3) 72.3 95.0) 84.3 77.0 (62.4) (35.1) (32.2) (30.9) 91.0 110.0 108.4 105.4 (61.7) (40.6) (31.8) (29.6)
93 173
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha Beta Gamma
Related statistics: Y-intercept Slope at t = 0 Error sum of squares
Median training time (T)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T)
28.1
64.4
39.4
87.2
32.1
73.6
162
100.4 82.4 0.0452
119.1 74.4 0.0448
117.8 109.4 0.0505
118.2 132.7
0.0487
18.0 3.7 0.07
44.7 3.3 3.47
8.4 5.5 1.62
-14.5 6.5 0.0
135 days (4.4 mo.)
86 days (2.8 mo.)
135 days (4.4 mo.)
86 days (2.8 mo.)
29.2
64.6
fc*l
• • -
33
ft?
- . "
• ••-
* - * o 1
M
.•
• *
&••• •;•••:-.; '•:•:•.•
t*.njn."« TVI "i •»•••";• J'.""" i ••'." •:• -" -'"•" .'"".","."J' ;«.iit.Mj|ija ; in • i JM i.,
59
Table B.14
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: MOS: Skill level:
Army 51B Low
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Time on the Job (Months)
0
12
24
48
No. of ratings (N)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
34.8 41.1 1.2 -13.6 (56.1) (49.6) (38.9) (45.9) 65.6 70.4 46.4 33.6 (49.4) (34.1) (33.8) (39.2) 84.2 93.1) 72.8 67.4 (50.1) (31.8) (33.1) (39.4) 101.7 109.6 100.9 97.1 (49.2) (31.0) (32.0) (36.6)
51 22 114
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha 111.5 Beta 76.7 Gamma 0.0430
Related statistics: Y-intercept 34.8 Slope at t = 0 3.3 Error sum of squares 0.01
Median training time (T) 128 days (4.2 mo.")
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 33.7
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 77.0
121.3 80.7 0.0412
40.6 3.3 6.66
86 days (2.8 mo.)
38.3
84.7
117.6 116.2 0.0403
1.4 4.7 0.62
128 days (4.2 mo.)
27.6
63.0
118
118.3 132.2
0.0386
-13.9 5.1 4.68
86 days (2.8 mo.)
25.2
55.7
1 • ,- I ."".-IT
ISA!
L-J •A - ••
» " - ^
" •
•. * -
•- > .-
y ••.-•.•
r^rr
' v .•_• "»VW-
•' -; •
T^7
i •, 1.. .—r
" " " «-* •v' • ' •
A'-A TT
- • - ^ » * • " • .• «% . "tv i
N." ,-" *."
ü-.AV
, j. , .« . , ., ., .*.. ., . , • i ,j ... nl m avavpii • i nIM 11 «| m •«•
1
:•:•:*
•. •.»". ••.-.-1......... i
60
Table B.15
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: Army MOS: 64C Skill level: Low
1 Time on
Mean Productivity Ratings
v J (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical the Job Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty
' •'•'{ (Months) in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee ,•?!
1 40.5 15.0 13.5 -7.1 (52.5) (40.6) (43.7) (49.6)
12 75.5 68.0 61.8 50.8 ' *." i
(42.1) (44.3) (36.1) (38.2) 24 90.2 97.2 84.3 75.9
~ (41.1) (49.9) (33.4) (32.9) C2J i 48 100.7 109.0 107.2 101.1 I ; (43.0) (45.5) (29.0) (28.2) . • .'
No. of ratings (N) 124 5 209 195
• Learning Curve Statistics it ,§M
Estimated parameters: V-\j Alpha 103.0 113.9 115.3 108.5 " "l Beta 62.4 99.3 101.5 115.2 v-;l| Gamma 0.0674 0.0681 0.0514 0.0552
-"•-l
I Related statistics: cil
m Y-intercept 40.6 14.6 13.8 -6.7 '•\'\ Slope at t = 0 4.2 6.8 5.2 6.4 [.Z'y Ermr sum of squares 0.30 12.72 4.05 7.49
Median training time (T) 130 days 86 days 130 days 86 days
j (4.3 mo.) (2.8 mo.) (4.3 mo.) (2.8 mo.) M Total productivity:
(Area under curve -.• •;•
from 0 to 48-T)/100
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T)
36.3
82.9
37.5
83.1
32.8
74.9
29.9
66.1
L * *• J
*'..-'.
:
* H J
• ••••• • V • • • • • • • • i
*-A>i*{fz*:*. «*/.vv.>.v.v.v.v. .••.•.v.". .*. _v_v * - . •." •
V - '. • " '-" •> v "'•" ••'' '••' •". m
' .•«'.• i *: » y ." . *•.•» '•» " '.'•'•'-'•'J' ' l' r , ... . i, „ | , ^ v,,,,,, v M,. „_» r, „. „ .,- , » ,,, ^ w .
61
Table B.16
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: Army MOS: 94B Skill level Low
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parenth eses)
Time on Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical the Job Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty (Months) in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
0 40.9 24.4 7.2 -7.5 (55.3) (50.0) (45.1) (49.5)
12 69.8 45.1 54.4 44.4 (53.5) (58.9) (34.9) (36.2)
24 87.2 56.3) 80.5 75.6 (57.3) (73.4) (32.0) (31.9)
48 102.1 76.1 107.0 106.2 (59.4) (83.7) (26.6) (27.9)
No. of ratings (N) 92 9 176 192
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha 109.8 98.3 120.4 123.8 Beta 68.9 73.4 113.1 131.3 Gamma 0.0460 0.0247 0.0441 0.0418
Related statistics: Y-intercept 40.9 24.9 7.3 -7.5 Slope at t = 0 3.2 1.8 5.0 5.5 Error sum of squares 0.17 4.19 0.87 0.01
Median training time (T) 150 days 86 days 150 days 86 days (4.9 mo.) (2.8 mo.) (4.9 mo.) (2.8 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 34.4
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 79.8
24.4
54.1
30.0
69.8
29.3
64.8
••:•-'/
.-•.
.vV-
M •••••-.< ••>'•• ••
M
•
. • » r ••
•J v.
-/•••
. •
-- • . --_ •, -•. -.
, .• L , • • . •
• • » » • i—; , -" . -•. •—r;—: !j 1—=1
r-, -...-..., .,...,, .t.T.T.v^-'j»':'ir»'»v»v«^'tii'.l^-l'.l'Alv''.l'.'M' 'i.'iJ.M^f^^^wy^w^wpwpwywwp^w^^^i^w^^wp^wp
62
Table B.17
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: Navy MOS: AE 8327 Skill level: High
Time on the Job (Months)
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
0
12
24
48
No. of ratings (N)
-15.7 (31.9) 38.1 (22.2) 71.9 (26.2) 94.7 (36.9)
15
-24.8 (29.1) 36.6 (29.7) 73.5 (22.9) 102.3 (13.8)
52
-51.0 (30.2) 13.2
(30.2) 50.5 (26.8) 86.2 (22.8)
53
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha 105.9 Beta 122.0 Gamma 0.0510
Related statistics: Y-intercept -16.1 Slope at t = 0 6.2 Error sum of squares 6.80
Median training time (T) 350 days (11.5 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 18.4
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 50.5
116.2 141.3 0.0488
-25.1 6.9 2.26
350 days (11.5 mo.)
18.3
50.2
105.1 156.0
0.0440
-50.9 6.9 0.10
78 days (2.6 mo.)
17.1
37.6
wm>*m*
K«
Lvyy
_
S vw1
• - -—•-••••••••• •-
;•*•••• T :
.v.v im •• > % •.' -• .' •"•."•
.' «">• >-v-v-
.,..•.,, .' •-.•.;-.,-...-. . -w •--. _-. -. .. _.J.-1..-,^.-,> .. -,\ . •:. v. •:. • . -:.•/. ,-. ^••,.' \ m '<••»' m **-J
•-»*' Wt- «T-% V TTTTIT^J i^-^.i-.fjTn.i'.^iMM ^T^T»JTB;««J' •„'•,' ^•'i" ".• i.* AT •:• * * - H'rr,iH,',.r|M' ^ M «*—•.-» ^- j • . N*.; J*
63
Table B.18
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: MOS: Skill level:
Navy ET High
Time on the Job (Months)
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
12
24
48
No. of ratings (N)
-14.0 (40.1) 46.2 (37.4) 73.6 (37.1) 98.5 (33.9)
322
-35.0 (41.4) 51.0 (22.4) 80.7 (25.2) 116.7 (31.2)
4
1) 6
-21 (35 41 (32.9) 73.2 (26.6) 98.6 (19.1)
627
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha Beta Gamma
Related statistics: Y-intercept Slope at t = 0 Error sum of squares
Median training time (T)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T)
23.9
58.9
31.5
69.4
22.8
56.3
-43.0 (39.5) 15.4
(36.6) 49.5 (32.9) 81.1 (26.7)
420
106.1 123.6 107.4 97.5 119.8 157.7 128.8 140.5
0.0562 0.0598 0.0556 0.0448
-13.7 -34.1 -21.4 -43.0 6.7 9.4 7.2 6.3 3.57 52.53 0.18 0.0
226 days 78 days 226 days 78 days (7.4 mo.) (2.6 mo.) (7.4 mo.) (2.6 mo.)
17.0
37.5
\-'-
<:-••-:•-::
•A-- •.." \>j
•." -% ' • ,*j
v-.j 1
M
•'••
• • -••- •' - • i - ^-
zm .-•->"•---.•••>-•..' -• •
- -1 - - - ••"-'••-'• ••"-"•• • •'-<- ••-' '-''•'- ^
-. *
,.v.,r i» . 1. ,\,.*.;
TV^T ' ,'•> >,. •-.
.>, LSV.
64
Table B.19
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: MOS: Skill level:
Navy ADJ 8323 Medium
Time on the Job (Months)
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
0
12
24
48
No. of ratings (II)
6.3 (45.7) 69.7 (27.8) 98.8 (23.8) 131.0 (26.3)
15
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha 143.0 Beta 136.2 Gamma 0.0492
Related statistics: Y-intercept 6.8 Slope at t = 0 6.7 Error sum of squares 11.33
Median training time (T) 240 days (7.9 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 33.5
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 83.6
-14.0 -41.2 (38.3) (40.5) 44.1 23.6 (32.5) (35.6) 74.9 56.9 (25.7) (32.3) 98.6 89.8 (26.7) (30.6)
80 81
• * - J
107.6 103.8 '
121.7 144.7 0.0544 0.0481
•• >
-14.1 -40.9 6.6 7.0 •"""-."3 0.11
240 days
2.97
78 days (7.9 mo.) (2.6 mo.)
23.3 20.5
58.1 45.0
I.VV'
• .
•l.N-.'.-.•-.•'.,V|
.... ^..j., ... ... , . j-1 -a-i-i • i • i»u«»;»um»':'{".«H.lT'l.'M'VVH\ ! MM I ^'.•:•! K ^r». i -. !•. ii. i *"'*-»•-»• .- w* •••.'••.»••» ,
65
Table B.20
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: Navy MOS: ADJ 8327 Skill level: Medium
Time on the Job (Months)
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
0
12
24
48
No. of ratings (N)
10.0 (67.0) 53.7
(51.7"* 87.9 (37.9) 116.0 (30.7)
10
Learning Curve Statistics
•• Estimated parameters: .- Alpha 138.0 •' Beta 128.6 .- Gamma 0.0375
1 Related statistics: Y-intercept 9.4
. Slope at t = 0 4.8 '. Error sum of squares 10.96
r. Median training time (T) 230 days
i (7.6 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 29.0
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 71.8
-17.9 -39.7 (33.3) (40.4) 39.7 16.5 (29.1) (33.4) 73.3 55.0 (28.1) (28.9) 100.2 90.1 (24.9) (26.8)
48
112.7 130.8 0.0492
-18.1 6.4 0.90
230 days (7.6 mo.)
22.6
55.9
46
114.0 154.0 0.0391
-40.0 6.0 3.14
78 days (2.6 mo.)
19.1
42.0
•?S~Sä
-W.--\-
••"A-.--V
p7^ IV V. •."
H-\V
- -•. --•.v/.-.v Ä'.'..,
•rryr . M • '. •-.
i -•'••--•
1 -•-Lw •'
:v:vS
. •;••-:•
•wyrr-iTT-T
at
66
Table B.21
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
i Service: MOS: Skill level:
Navy DT Medium
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Time on the Job (Months)
0
12
24
48
No. of ratings (N)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
42.4 9.8 -18.5 (45.5) (41.7) (47.1) 68.6 -- 62.6 42.0 (32.0) (30.7) (34.8) 89.8 -- 83.7 69.8 (29.6) (24.8) (27.9) 108.3 -- 101.3 88.9 (25.8) (22.9) (26.5)
107 215 104
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha 124.3 Beta 82.3 Gamma 0.0346
Related statistics: Y-intercept 42.0 Slope at t = 0 2.8 Error sum of squares 4.04
Median training time (T) 186 days (6.1 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 33.9
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 80.8
30.3
72.5
26.1
57.5
104.9 94.0 94.9 112.5 ." " / 0.0653 0.0641
10.0 -18.5 l/7~iT 6.2 3.38
7.2 0.02
186 days 78 days (6.1 mo.) (2.6 mo.)
y!&
m
'*** » •_"'V—*•• - • ... .. • .—-. . . . . —-^-—_:
,>KV".'. •. -.\ ••..•;.:'_.•-sr :••• •.••:•• •
w- <
• -•-' *-h— ----- •-• .......
- , '••-'•> • •' , ' • • • • . ••...' I , I • < I I II I I
y..--v.;.-.-.-;.-- • •-••.. , .•-;.-,--•. y-;.y.-. W .. •->•.-.••
. •'.-• <y v •*•.-. \ -v-v-v •.•••;.> . • - '« v. v. .-;• y. %
niriHT-rjI'if"."!.' •*•••• I» -•'•.•'"•* •!•) <•!• I •_! I .• I .• I^1^^"^^
67
'."."i •*"
Table B.22
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: MOS: Skill level:
Navy EM Medium
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
I Time on Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical • the Job Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty
(Months) in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
i ° -0.8 19.6 -9.1 -36.5 ' (41.5) (47.9) (35.9) (36.3)
12 47.5 48.3 43.0 16.0 k (37.Q) (37.8) (29.3) (29.5)
24 73.4 66.3 72.3 48.5 . (39.5) (42.4) (25.1) (26.5)
48 97.6 93.2 99.7 82.9 (42.6) (42.8) (21.7) (24.7)
No. of ratings CN) 396 11 712 692
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: '' Alpha 108.3 123.3 113.0 105.5 < Beta 109.0 103.3 122.1 142.0 1 Gamma 0.0480 0.0256 0.0460 0.0382
r Related statistics: 1 Y-intercept -0.7 20.0 -9.1 -36.5 • Slope at t = 0 5.2 2.6 5.6 5.4 |- Error sum of squares 0.47 2.34 0.14 0. 14
Median training time (T) 226 days 78 days 226 days 78 days 1 (7.4 mo.) (2.6 mo.) (7.4 mo.) (2.6 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 24.5
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 60.3
28.3
62.2
23.4
57.7
17.3
38.1
1 »•.»•.• r .*. •.
'••'•.--:
•::'-Ä
. • . .. • . - • - . • . - -.-.•••. ,. - . . - • . - .
>. • • --.-.->-.-... ..-••
• •-• .I—*- «—".'•.' ».
• :J- J- -• " ' ••-> ••-• '-• ••-• -• - ' '-r- ' -••'•> ••-» •»•>-» ••-•»•-•--•• W* » • » • • i.'-tAii^Lt>jX.I.Ü JX»aiX)
>• •.•
3
1 ••'.--. " . • '.* •
:::-:"
.*> ," •v i «
-- ./•
--•-• - ••,
r, -\ • . >5 . -
<'. •'. « *. *, . - . •
C.\*~J >•.
rrr<
•THI .DM•'. • 11 mmn'Pi ••_ mi. i. u. ui 11 r*^r*«yq"
68
'•.'•. i - i' 1 •••."'•"••i ••••j".•"_• i.»•••
Table B.23
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL .v".
Service: Navy MOS: HM Skill level : Medium
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Time on Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical the Job Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty (Months) in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
0 26.5 3.3 -9.4 -28.7 (42.8) (25.4) (42.4) (47.6)
12 65.8 75.3 51.4 32.6 (38.0) (20.3) (32.7) (39.2)
24 87.0 93.7 79.5 65.0 (38.3) (19.0) (27.6) (33.3)
48 104.5 119.2 101.1 88.4 (38.1) (24.2) (24.2) (29.4)
No. of ratings (N) 50 6 398 219
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha Beta Gamma
Related statistics: Y-intercept Slope at t = 0 Error sum of squares
Median training time (T)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T)
111.7 85.2 0.0516
120.5 116.4 0.0713
107.2 116.5 0.0607
97.0 125.8 0.0564
26.5 4.4 0.0
4.1 8.3
58.45
-9.3 7.1 0.56
-28.8 7.1 0.51
194 days (6.4 mo.)
78 days (2.6 mo.)
194 days (6.4 mo.)
78 days (2.6 mo.)
31.9
76.7
39.1
86.0
27.0
64.8
23.5
51.7
I
r.'\
•.•>•
m •-V-V
•'.••'. -\< vv-v-v-".•••.•••.' •-'. "• • ••.--• .--v.v>".••".-•• " y-;.-.-v.- •-.-.>•.••• -•••
«•JIT ' wj IK<T> «•-•» •!'»'.'• m 'J'W u 1 J* IT" 't'^ >« H1 »ip t 'H •.'••'*»*'-"'!! '^WTW^TW I •• I- . •. I..'*'!•"• ••.••Sl"i'
69
• u • v i "•' • | • • • i • ii • t "i ;'J '_•
Table B.24
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: MOS: Skill level:
Navy RM Medium
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Time on the Job (Months)
0
12
24
48
No. of ratings (N)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
-6.0 __ -21.2 -42.4 (44.3) (39.0) (43.1) 51.6 — 43.7 24.1 (33.2) (32.1) (36.1) 76.8 -- 73.3 57.5 (32.6) (27.1) (30.6) 97.5 -- 99.2 90.4 (34.0) (21.8) (24.2)
329 504
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha 102.8 Beta 108.7 Gamma 0.0613
Related statistics: Y-intercept -5.9 Slope at t = 0 6.7 Error sum of squares 2.06
Median training time (T) 202 days (6.6 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 26.2
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 63.3
24.0
58.0
> • -
361
20.7
45.5
rTrf^X t J •'..". •'
•••:.' •:• . ' •'
'.i .v.w.-. -. •'. -
'• ' .• .-*.•'• .•'•• -• ••.'••.'•• -• '••• •."••.'"•
.•/.': - • ' •'•':•'. •-. •-. \•. •-. ••.••.•••..--.;-".y .;-.;-•. • ••..•.••••.-*••.•,••••- • -• -•.-•.••••.-•.
IT« w • C V-VA
Mt
•>:• A
m •. • - • -
SA'\' vl - * '
106.9 103.7 IOV-.'--,
127.8 145.8 wfeS 0.0573 0.0492
* •« *• * * •
\* •••'>'•'
-42.1 •
-20.9 ::^: 7.3 7.2 Vi.N\y 3.09 3.75
i J> .* ,
202 days 78 days . - * - .%
(6.6 mo.) (2.6 mo.) ». » — "^B
.•AÜ
m
•:>v.:-;^^
s '.-'." •>• «• i • .' v' .•_' i"' r. *.' •.•'.•!!» L.• i.• •.• •_" • ' "v •. i •. i.1. '.^^^y
70
i
I
PRODUCTIVITY
Table E
PROFILE OF
.25
FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL 1 Service: Navy MOS: CS '-•-"--
Skill level : Low
•"'••X'
Mean Productivity Ratings 'M (Standard deviations in parenth eses)
$
Time on Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical the Job Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty fta (Months) in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
0 13.9 65.7 -0.4 -18.4 (51.9) (35.6) (42.9) (48.1) \-*^
12 47.3 83.4 45.4 30.6 \ *•'
(44.4) (38.8) (33.6) (35.8) 24 68.9 90.0 73.5 62.5 r ~ '•'"»I
(44.5) (39.4) (28.1) (30.3) ••** *fl
48 91.1 100.7 99.6 94.8 (47.9) (35.0) (26.7) (26.5)
*%\fl
No. of ratings (N) 242 7 363 355
Learning Curve Statistics 4
Estimated parameters: •V-j Alpha 106.4 104.9 114.5 117.0 - ~M
Beta 92.6 38.8 114.9 135.5 Gamma 0.0375 0.0443 0.0427 0.0377 '•'"'I
Related statistics: «." '."J
Y-intcrccpt 13.8 66.1 -0.4 -18.5 >"; **U
Slope at t = 0 3.5 1.7 4.9 5.1 ' '•""I Error sum of squares 0.02 4.28 0.13 0.15
Median training time (T) 150 days 78 days 150 days 78 days '"4 -•
(4.9 mo.) (2.6 mo.) (4.9 mo.) (2.6 mo.)
Total productivity: i-.vl 1 *."-• (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 26.0
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 60.5
40. 1
88.2
26.7
62.0
23.7
52.2
>
5!
<v."_^C-.i«.", *.' o •- -.- <.' •-
w3
• • - " " •, • V" •„" -.'. •.' \" " > "
•vor-*."', rrv . 'V1-- r* ,"•' •• "' '.•"••"-* ••• ' .' ••• v'"*'•.• "J* ":"••'J -• j JVJ J',.'-T
71
Table B.26
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Time on the Job (Months)
0
12
24
48
Service: MOS: Skill level:
Navy MM Low
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
-5.2 (41.8) 36.3
(39.1) 63.2
(40.9) 88.5
(43.2)
-17.8 -33.1 (36.1) (38.5) 35.9 20.7 (30.9) (31.8) 67.9 54.9 (26.9) (28.7) 98.3 90.1 (23.9) (24.7)
w- - V "C
• V - i - i
u.a. i ,J.«J
V-WVfl
'•'• -N -1 •k-i-
b&4 '-v.-.-.'1. '-- •-' %\ . - -'. • . - - '-V'"••".'
No. of ratings (N) 257 476 490
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha 104.6 Beta 109.9 Gamma 0.0402
Related statistics: Y-intercept -5.3 Slope at t • 0 4.4 Error sum of squares 0.47
Median training time (T) 168 days (5.5 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 22.0
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 51.9
115.0 132.8 0.0432
-17.8 5.7 0.0
168 days (5.5 mo.)
23.0
54.2
113.7 146.8 0.0381
-33.1 5.6 0.01
78 days (2.6 mo.)
20.0
43.9
Ud
•_*- v
•••:-.: 4 • .-.-••
&
• V -- •••.••
'
r-r •'•'•. i • i • r : > • f __,—_ »* • l >> . ' ' • • V . I „ 4
-• 'A •..-••. - •. V".V •. . • •
j-.---.---s--': • m
•y -j--J- • j' »•-• JV WJ w•. nu • m '.'«'.•• -'F vj« J"J" J^l" .'^iiy * I »y1 *!^ *M «ji «.n P '•J"^i|t"T^^^^^^^^^^W^F^^^i^^^^^^
72
Table B.27
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
. fl •;.«-• 'V
•v-v-\
-, *.«
Service: USAF ^4 MOS: 304 Skill level : High
,-"v« -:
Mean Productivity Ratings
Time on
(Standard deviations in parentheses) ~-^i
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical •'* - J
the Job Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty (Months) in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
0 -18.5 (36.2)
-25.0 (46.8)
-26.1 (32.6)
-32.8 (44.2)
i
12 49.0 43.8 40.4 32.0 (32.8) (53.1) (34.5) (42.2) . '•.'
24 76.8 72.3 72.9 66.1
48 (31.0) 98.3 (29.9)
(36.0) 98.8 (35.4)
(24.5) 97.1 (19.2)
(32.9) 92.8 (23.6)
.,.-.".
•
No. of ratings (N) 649 4 477 127
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: .'•V- \1 Alpha 102.9 105.3 104.8 102.9 Jvwa
MS"! Beta 121.2 129.9 130.8 135.7 Gamma 0.0661 0.0600 0.0590 0.0543
Related statistics: - • »> -1
Y-intercept -18.3 -24.6 -26.0 -32.8 Slope at t = 0 8.0 7.8 7.7 7.4 .-.•.-„•.
v." V ". Error sum of squares 2.81 8.72 0.02 0.03 • •>.-.-
Median training time (T) 300 days 60 days 300 days 60 days -.*•".•
(9.9 mo.) (2.0 mo.) (9.9 mo.) (2.0 mo.) i' » ~u
Total productivity: * •;"-." '.•
(Area under curve • from 0 to 48-T)/100
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T)
22.4
58.7
28.2
61.2
20.1
52.8
24.4
• CO 1
.1 DO . 1 «
i
-
• • • • • • • • • • W • • • • • «i . .-;. • •' ; '77/.^//-r\-\\-\\-'.-''.-'/. •'.•'•• • '.-'.
* '•.."...*.".:.'..• *.*.* !•.„• •...' i
.1 rw;>t ' J-IJV n.-VJ-'J" I .••••• "Jr.- '."'IP I.» ' -' '-»' l"J"JIT'"ly^'V.'V'lMTI,f m
73
Table B.28
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: USAF MOS: 306 Skill level: High
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Time on the Job (Months)
12
24
48
No. of ratings (N)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
-8.1 -- -16.1 -28.0 (36.2) (36.8) (50.6) 51.2 -- 44.6 25.1 (31.1) (35.2) (47.7) 78.5 -- 74.6 62.9 (28.8) (26.0) (37.1) 101.7 -- 99.0 94.9 (28.1) (21.1) (26.1)
386 289 35
-.v.v;
*--—*
•« • 1
V • "I
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha 108.6 Beta 116.5 Gamma 0.0578
Related statistics: Y-intercept -7.9 Slope at t = 0 6.7 Error sum of squares 1.86
Median training time (T) 345 days (11.3 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 22.1
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 60.2
107.3 123.3 0.0559
-16.0 6.9 0.36
345 days (11.3 mo.)
20.1
54.9
116.8 145.3 0.0399
-28.5 5.8 6.81
60 days (2.0 mo.)
23.1
50.3
K..<i
•: ... ".j
.'.-.v. ••.'•• 77. :ii •; -.•/-.••.''• • .• .- • .• • .- .• .- .-• :r:.~,. •>•• '•• -••-•• •••• V -,— •1
•ivw • J-- /••- ., u ; u_ . . .', I j 11 III|IIJDI nj IUI ij . ij J"Jili• • L ii«i. • •II I lip IB
74
Table B.29
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: USAF MOS: 326X0 Skill level: High
•wi
* - h •
Time on the Job (Months)
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
12
24
48
No. of ratings (N)
-28.2 (35.7) 42.1 (40.0) 72.2 (35.4) 102.6 (23.5)
93
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha 111.3 Beta 139.1 Gamma 0.0556
Related statistics: Y-intercept -27.8 Slope at t = 0 7.7 Error sum of squares 11.90
Median training time (T) 313 days (10.3 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 20.0
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 53.1
51
114.9 149.3 0.0469
-34.4 7.0 0.01
313 days (10.3 mo.)
16.9
44.9
11
599.7 687.3
0.0066
-87.6 4.5 9.19
60 days (2.0 mo.)
3.2
7.0
-34.4 -86.8 1 (34.5) (23.3) .- :.:
29.9 -37.7 _ (37.0) (44.9) /•"."-'
66.4 14.6 (29.5) (33.6) .'--".••'•
99.2 98.2 f (15.5) (20.0)
Kr
i\V
rr=-7
ft-:
-^T^; < *. ' --• "H-T * 1 *- <.'v^"."^'v *.• v."^.1' ^^^:'|^:• i,'.".i':ii"."
75
vj* v ymm '/'.n,;'v1'. ' •
Table B.30
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Time on the Job (Months)
12
24
48
Service: MOS: Skill level:
USAF 326X1 High
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
-21.7 (39.6) 55.6 (35.6) 83.4 (33.8) 105.6 (32.4)
-31.4 -34.6 (37.9) (38.4) 38.1 39.2 (34.8) (36.4) 73.2 73.9 (27.5) (29.7) 98.9 96.9 (20.2) (31.0)
- L • .
•••• r* \
.-V-V-j
. .._.- - "1 ;J • -'".Vv"
; •:-• ••
• •;
Wo. o/ ratings (N) 145 87 13
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha 108.7 Beta 130.1 Gamma 0.0721
Related statistics: Y-intercept -21.4 Slope at t = 0 9.4 Error sum of squares 8.88
Median training time (T) 267 days (8.8 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 25.7
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 65.4
107.6 139.0 0.0580
-31.4 8.1 0.07
267 days (8.8 mo.)
20.7
52.8
103.4 138.0
0.0640
-34.6 8.8 0.08
60 days (2.0 mo.)
27.2
59.0
' •'
t •
I J . r
». \"
. ' - .. •,.
*.\. •.-•'
•-'.>V-V.
1
- .. - . , . • . • .
•.''•. ~- '
V.N".*.\N V.V -V- •v\--' . • x - - -> •. . .-•
• • .
•••• •
••.*.-;••••."•• «•• ».'•>-•••'•'•—' •'.' i ' •'• ,''-""." .•• J' " .'••'•""•' j. _••'.! < •! .in • i ^^piw»^^^wwwyppiti^p^pp>w>p^^pwpwpPfWTPW^»flT^»fl
& 76
Table B.31
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: USAF MOS: 326X2 Skill level: High
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Time on Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical the Job Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty (Months) in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
0 -18.0 __ -29.9 -37.1 (33.0) (31.7) (35.8)
12 47.7 -- 40.6 16.5 (32.0) (31 7) (38.3)
24 74.3 -- 71.5 55.2 (30.6) (23.4) (29.4)
48 96.0 -- 96.5 80.4 (29.9) (19.8) (25.5)
Wo. o/ ratings (V) 216 0 102 26
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha Beta Gamma
100.5 118.3 0.0653
102.9 132.6 0.0617
95.7 133.5
0.0466
H\rt
Related statistics: Y-intercept Slope at t = 0 Error sum of squares
Median training time (T)
-17.8 7.7 4.29
211 days (6.9 mo.)
-29.7 8.2 2.67
211 days (6.9 mo.)
-37.8 6.2 19.67
60 days (2.0 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve
•
from 0 to 48-T)/100 24.4 -- 22.5 18.8
ar Average productivity:
. 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 59.4 -- 54.7 40.7
• •
.
•
•
• • • •«__•••••••••••
•-.•-.•-•• . •. - . •*. ••« •• - . .- - .• v .• '.«•.• •.• v v v .•--.•...•.•-. . ."• .'•. •. • •. .' •.•."••- • • • • • • \-• •'.-. .-.••' • • • - •"-Vv'.-"-.-,- -•,.•.-.•.
rr*—r-.-« ;"j'J'1.1' .?."' .'f ."." .'• ."•.'>'•• :'V'.v "tj.1»^ 'P. _-.- - ,-
77 *-.-.-
Table B.32
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: USAF MOS: 421 Skill level: Medium
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard dev iations in parentheses)
Time on Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical the Job Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty (Months) in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
0 -8.3 (42.8)
-- -19.8 (40.5)
-26.1 (50.2)
12 51.3 (33.8)
m "* 41.1 (33.0)
30.7 (34.7)
24 74.7 (32.9)
• •* 68.9 (25.7)
64.4 (29.8)
48 92.5 (32.6)
93.6 (19.8)
92.8 (26.3)
No. of ratings (N) 467 0 344 92
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha 95.8 -- 101.0 106.9 Beta 103.9 -- 120.6 133.1 Gamma 0.0690 -- 0.0568 0.0470
Related statistics: Y-intercept -8.1 -- -19.6 -26.2 Slope at t = 0 7.2 -- 6.9 6.3 Error sum of squares 2.68 -- 3.04 0.60
Median training time (T) 205 days (6.7 mo.)
-- 205 days (6.7 mo.)
60 days (2.0 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 25.3 -- 22.5 24.1
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T)
-"-V-i vVt*J • • •' vS
•-:---;-•
!•••,. 11
•-V-W
61.4 54.5 52.4
-•'.••
,• •/.j.o.v'.y.
78
Table B.33
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
^Wf(f|f«l
Time on the Job (Months)
Service: USAF MOS: 422X1 Skill level: Medium
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
- L | ! - . - *• k " .
12
24
48
No. of ratings (N)
-4.0 (38.3) 53.8 (35.0) 77.6 (34.5) 97.5 (33.9)
185
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha 101.9 Beta 105.7 Gamma 0.0637
Related statistics: Y-intercept -3.8 Slope at t = 0 6.7 Error sum of squares 3.52
Median training time (T) 175 days (5.8 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 27.6
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 65.3
-15.5 -31.1 (37.2) (45.4) 42.6 19.8 (30.1) (38.7) 71.2 55.7 (24.8) (33.6) 96.6 83.6 (19.2) (29.7)
125
105.6 121.0 0.0534
-15.4 6.5 1.33
175 days (5.8 mo.)
24.3
28
57.6
101.3 132.9 0.0427
-31.6 5.7 8.52
60 days (2.0 mo.)
19.9
43.2
IV
KVVJ
:•:•:_
m
i • '• ' . •'•• v—, . J . V, V . ^ . • .• . ".• .- '.- •.- .- ." '
-\ -0-. •"••'• •-. V. • -.*--.'. -/>; ••;•• v;
• • J
•
•"r-'i
. - - ft m . «VI
. «• -••* V '^.-' » •* I' 1 • "jr.-i ." .' »'.'v .'-" i ym» ii IJM I^I i n I _| ij i i •r^wy» M"HiAi".llL'V,I'\?«J|ll'Vl.|,W<."W'lJ1V^1..r^^
79
Table B.34
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: USAF MOS: 422X2 Skill level: Medium
Time on the Job (Months)
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
12
24
48
No. of ratings (N)
-11.9 (39.0) 43.2 (39.7) 65.3 (40.9) 85.4 (41.6)
85
-13.9 -13.8 (37.1) (49.1) 52.0 35.0 (30.1) (36.8) 77.5 64.3 (24.4) (30.0) 100.2 90.7 (20.2) (23.7)
79 28
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters- Alpha Beta Gamma
89.8 101.4 0.0623
Related statistics: Y-intercept Slope at t = 0 Error sum of squares
-11.6 .6.3 5.69
Median training time (T) 146 days (4.8 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 23.6
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 54.7
104.6 118.2 0.0648
-13.6 7.7 8.37
146 days (4.8 mo.)
28.1
64.9
104.8 118.6 0.0445
-13.8 5.3 0.15
60 days (2.0 mo.)
25.0
54.4
»\\ „-w'a
p ' •••!
P3
Ml
CM
•. -. -
-
•1 l ill
i > y, Vv-V WAV"
r:
- •
f* 1 -, - • - •'•-'•'';•••'•'
..:•-:•••'
V r'.-iM
. •*. •". ". *
- • - _ • • . • '
2*iJi/iM
yv\i\^'vrrvrM • 'n.^!i:mt'.i't • isi'ir^f • MJ'l'' .'»'jt'ji.n j i ' I »»T^^^^^^^^^^^^^f^wfB^wyi^p^w^w^^MyiQ—jp
80
Table B.35
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
M*3
Service: MOS: Skill level:
USAF 423 Medium
Time on the Job (Months)
12
24
48
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
-23.5 (36.4) 37.2 (35.4) 64.7 (34.4) 90.1 (31.8)
-26.4 (36.5) 31.9 (35.1) 64.4 (27.5) 94.2 (18.9)
-29.7 (40.6) 29.0 (36.2) 67.2 (29.5) 95.5 (23.2)
."•Pi »•• -
Vo. of ratings (N) 299 227 44
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha 97.8 Beta 121.0 Gamma 0.0559
Related statistics: Y-intercept -23.2 Slope at t = 0 6.8 Error sum of squares 4.17
Median training time (T) 178 days (5.9 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 21.6
108.2 134.6 0.0470
-26.4 6.3 0.14
178 days (5.9 mo.)
20.9
110.8 140.9
0.0471
-30.1 6.6 7.14
60 days (2.0 mo.)
24.5
IVVsl
:->:-: '--•'-•
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 51.3 49.6 53.2
m •vv
,..,.._ . ! • i • I . — ••? •-' ' ' •J" ." -" -'-I '*.'*'. "Ul
81
IJIHIMI.III1H«. • W!I,L • .' 'V "l "l pi ">
vMfl
Table B.36
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: MOS: Skill level:
USAF 431 Medium
Time on the Job (Months)
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
0
12
24
48
Wo. of ratings (N)
-4.5 (44.5) 53.2 (33.2> 78.5 (31.4) 98.5 (30.7)
624
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters Alpha 103.6 Beta 107.9 Gamma 0.0623
Related statistics: Y-intercept -4.3 Slope at t = 0 6.7 Error sum of squares 1.44
Median training time (T) 158 days (5.2 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 28.2
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 66.0
-12.8 -22.7 (37.1) (44.9) 47.5 31.4 (32.2) (36.1) 75.9 62.1 (25.4) (28.6) 100.8 94.6 (21.4) (23.3)
432
108.8 121.4 0.0558
-12.6 6.8 2.05
158 days (5.2 mo.)
26.8
62.6
147
112.7 135.2
0.0416
-22.5 5.6 1.31
60 days (2.0 mo.)
24.2
52.5
MI ••:••->:•'.'
•^V-.VN
-T
*>""* •"* *1
' » - . '
-.'• -.••• > ••->:-'.-•.• •:'••:•':•(. •-••:-. - ' v.v-. -\ -- v/«>l>;•;. .-_ .vN;--.v;• --. •••:••;••. .-. •-. .-. •-. w"- .• A k'« -'- J- .*• .'• ."• h «\VjPJ. »iV»>>»J.Y> WJ"*J.Tyh..>J« 'J -j •-• -j- • j"_.V>.i ">.'.! •
• . . , J ••••.'. I •».-•«•». •.
.•.•.•.-.-.•.•••-••• v • '
1 ". I . .
- • .•••.-•
. V'i--.". " <•» »-n»f j» ,w>m i» .UM i I..HJI i.i i.i. II^I .1 .1 .1 ii i i 111 »^»f»?^^^^i^^^p^>WWPW^|Wpppp|
82
Table B.37
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: USAF MOS: 432 Skill level: Medium
£* •. • ••
! Mean Productivity Ratings rffl (Standard deviations in parenthi jses)
- * h *• * . « a'
. m . • Time on Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical *
•
the Job (Months)
Graduates in Survey
Trainees in Survey
Tech School Graduate
Direct Duty Trainee
Mi • 0 -0.8 -- -17.5 -21.5 •' ~~-f\
(45.0) (36.6) (45.4) •••'.'•
12 51.7 -- 41.8 33.3 • (35.5) (31.9) (37.5) .-.-»•/,
24 77.7 -- 72.7 67.4 • (34.4) (26.6) (32.0) i : 48 99.1 -- 101.2 97.2 .' \.\4 • (34.0) (21.4) (29.7)
No. of ratings (N) 662 0 510 174 tii Learning Curve Statistics
"*• 1
Estimated parameters: £$m Alpha 106.4 -- 113.0 113.8 gl Beta 107.2 -- 130.3 135.4 Gamma
Related statistics:
0.0555 0.0497 0.0441 ""-* • m
*':-yi Y-intercept -0.8 -- -17.3 -21.6 ?-M Slope at t = 0 5.9 -- 6.5 6.0 •-•"• Error sum of squares 0.33 -- 0.98 0.95
Z4 Median training time (T) 145 days -- 145 days 60 days (4.8 mo.) (4.8 mo.) (2.0 mo.) . JH
Total productivity: * M
(Area under curve Ü from 0 to 48-T)/100 28.4 25.7 25.7
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 65.8 -- 59.4 55.9
<Q ^fl • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
:};:<:•: •'.-.•. ..••', •-.--".•.VA •_>:-: ;;'.-./.\v: •"•>:•:•
•.VV.V.V.V-VY. ssssl
f i *v • . »•„•••r^ I •• • | 1 I . • L • | • f ^q^^^^^^i^^^^^^^F '•r ' ^ .r m~\s* m «(!•••_••; mym m -i •«-«-wm -i >» ".i i
83
Table B.38
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: USAF MOS: 542 Skill level: Medium
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Time on the Job (Mönchs)
0
12
24
48
No. of ratings (N)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
-4.4 -11.5 -0.9 -35.0 (51.4) (52.0) (41.0) (40.7) 43.1 35.5 48.8 25.0 (32.4> (34.1) (29.5) (34.6) 67.3 68.4 76.6 58.7 (27.4) (31.0) (24.3) (28.4) 87.4 93.3 100.5 92.4 (26.4) (23.5) (18.7) (19.6)
25 20 47
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha Beta Gamma
Related statistics: Y-intercept Slope at t = 0 Error sum of squares
Median training time (T)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T)
24.4
56.4
26.1
56.8
27.9
64.6
46
94.8 108.7 111.3 109.8 99.1 120.6 112.2 144.6 0.0539 0.0437 0.0489 0.0439
-4.3 -11.9 -0.9 -34.8 5.3 5.3 5.5 6.3 0.15 7.62 0.01 0.87
146 days 60 days 146 days 60 days (4.8 mo.) (2.0 mo.) (4.8 mo.) (2.0 mo.)
22.0
47.7
JS.. IL -.
•'.' %
M v-v."->. v--y-;>. j '••':'••'•'••r.
:-••:• '
:
^: V '•?
•" -'. -'. •
.*• .*)• ."•
ri •V-'.-'.-
•:-•'•:-.:•'
-.-•• m : <• -.• 3
?s> •--.- .•»
\ | .\-.\.-.\N •Y>Y
fV>V A
* •••.'• z
::-::-::H
•#••••
r •* 1 ' •''. •.•>'. f.
'. ••//. *. .<\K<\-. •I."..V>',.1 ,
84
Table B.39
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL • *.
Service: USAF MOS: 543 Skill level: Medium
Time on the Job (Months)
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
C'-TJ
0
12
24
48
-5.4 (43.8) 49.2 (35.4) 73.7 (34.3) 93.5 (33.7)
-12.5 -33.0 (37.6) (47.3) 47.6 26.8 (32.4) (40.5) 73.1 56.6 (27.3) (33.9) 96.9 88.7 (23.5) (29.6)
Wo. o/ ratings (N) 271
Learning Curve Statistics
194 61
»-«..
Estimated parameters: Alpha 98.9 Beta 104.1 Gamma 0.0606
Related statistics: Y-intercept -5.2 Slope at t = 0 6.3 Error sum of squares 1.26
Median training time (T) 191 days (6.3 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T)
25.5
61.0
103.1 115.3 0.0587
-12.2 6.8 6.13
191 days (6.3 mo.)
25.1
60.1
102.7 135.3 0.0465
-32.6 6.3 5.95
60 days (2.0 mo.)
21.6
46.9
vs-j
.IV'.'l'^n't'l1' • ,.,.,»..... ., I' • • HTTTTtTP" 7,"al.l,l'J'»J'."
85
Table B.40
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: USAF MOS: 671 Skill level: Medium
Time on the Job (Months)
0
12
24
48
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
5.1 (44.9) 66.0 (34.7) 90.6 (29.9) 108.3 (29.6)
-7.0 -34.9 (39.7) (42.2) 55.7 34.0
(31.4) (36.1) 82.7 71.1
(23.8) (27.3) 105.2 100.5 (20.7) (19.0)
> > •»•
% '.V.
No. of ratings (N) 121 130 62
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha Beta Gamma
Related statistics: Y-intercept Slope at t = 0 Error sum of squares
111.8 106.5 0.0692
5.3 7.4 1.47
110.8 117.6 0.0616
•6.8 7.2 3.07
112.2 147.1
0.0529
•34.9 7.8 0.11
Median training time (T)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T)
154 days (5.1 mo.)
33.4
77.8
154 days (5.1 mo.)
29.8
69.5
60 days (2.0 mo.)
26.3
57.1
•"•«•--•' S - %.v «r. i
- •. •.
• »»•;'. F •••>".«. «.••:•:
t n • i •« ' i L--I • i—r- .__...*.»...*».•. «^P. -..JB... -* .. >.—T¥ ......TV..
.«.'. •*, i,
••-yv'•:""-•'-•'-• ••"."j .• ." •"j.'."j Ji'Wff'^ffr^ffry^w^^yygwyyg^p^
86
Table B.41
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: USAF MOS: 902
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 33.7
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 77.0
34.8
77.3
32.6
74.6
26.2
58.3
WWW
i Skill leve .: Medium
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parenth eses) _ --1
Time on Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical % the Job Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty '.** V (Months) in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee ::*l
10.2 12.1 -1.7 -31.4 0 J (49.3) (53.2) (41.5) (44.4) fc- Q—1
----- 12 65.1 62.4 62.5 39.8 •>A
(37.4) (36.0) (28.2) (34.5) '. "• .-•
24 87.7 86.9 85.7 71.1 *\ (34.9) (35.2) (24.8) (28.3)
48 107.2 109.3 107.7 99.7 (36.8) (33.5) (24.2) (23.5) ?~9
No. of ratings (N) 229 193 264 275
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha 111.6 117.3 111.3 107.7 „- m
Beta 101.2 105.0 112.6 138.8 ~'.-'M Gamma 0.0627 0.0529 0.0663 0.0577 --"1
Related statistics: Y-intercept 10.4 12.3 -1.3 -31.1 "!--'C'l Slope at t = 0 6.3 5.6 7.5 8.0 •i
Error sum of squares 3.83 1.50 12.48 6.40 --•I
Median training time (T) 131 days 90 days 131 days 90 days -V-'l (4.3 mo.) (3.0 mo.) (4.3 mo.) (3.0 mo.)
r w\. w j i".' r.i.'iji.'J'.'i <J' r .••••.• » •" ».»••• •J ••»•»! n»i • !• i* r* vi**. »^ <:• i_n.iv vj K" rnrniTnp^'^v:1
87
Table B.42
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: USAF MOS: 981 Skill level: Medium
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Time on Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical the Job Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty (Months) in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
0 16.5 5.5 13.4 -32.1 (43.1) (42.7) (38.4) (39.3)
12 72.3 68.0 69.6 48.7 (30.5) (21.5) (28.9) (30.2)
24 96.8 98.8 89.9 77.7 (27.5) (18.7) (20.1) (24.1)
48 110.8 114.3 105.3 100.4 (25.9) (21.0) (20.4) (20.6)
No. of ratings (N) 146 29 127 120
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha 114.2 119.2 107.4 103.5 Beta 97.7 113.9 93.9 135.3 Gamma 0.0711 0.0686 0.0735 0.0728
Related statistics: Y-intercept 16.5 5.3 13.5 -31.8 Slope at t = 0 6.9 7.8 6.9 9.8 Error sum of squares 0.22 4.33 3.56 8.86
Median training time (T) 166 days 90 days 166 days 90 days (5.5 mo.) (3.0 mo.) (5.5 mo.) (3.0 mo.)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 35.5 37.8 33.5 28.7
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T)
\ • \i
• •
!
.•-,
.-•'.
3# 88
Table B.43
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: USAF MOS: 552 Skill level: Low
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Time on Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical •^•51 the Job Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty •'"-'•'^1 (Months) in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee •:••-:-•$]
0 0.7 6.8 4.3 -28.7 J (34.8) (49.1) (37.2) (40.3) \u •»;;«
12 40.2 49.4 49.1 23.9 ;-v-v- (40.1) (29.7) (28.4) (27.0)
•".--•'.^
24 63.8 72.3 73.0 56.8 •-'/-•;•-
(44.3) (30.4) (24.1) (24.6) ^y.y 48 91.1
(40.0) 98.6 (37.5)
97.6 (21.8)
91.4 (23.6)
<
: $
No. of ratings (N) 37 22 53 65
V > Learning Curve Statistics [isSs
^ % m IM*
Estimated parameters:
• *»* . Alpha 109.7 113.0 109.4 114.4
Beta 108.9 105.9 104.9 143.1 Gamma 0.0366 0.0411 0.0451 0.0380
Related statistics: Y-intercept 0.8 7.1 4.5 -28.7 •N\*3 Slope at t = 0 4.0 4.4 4.7 5.4 • '"-'v-' Error sum of squares 0.95 2.80 1.41 0.05
••••;•
Median training time (T) 134 days (4.4 mo.)
60 days (2.0 mo.)
134 days (4.4 mo.)
60 days (2.0 mo.)
".- "•*
L-|
Total productivity: :-::-:::: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100 24.1 30. 1 27.7 21.5
- • »% .
Average productivity: ( 100(total prod.)/(48-T) 55.3 65.5 63.5 46.8
,?• \ •
* * * »h
• .
• * • ^ '
».»'•••« " •.' • • " ' in« j. j_« mtm !_.v, r-V" v '."vnr.Trwr.vT
89
Table B.44
PR^ JUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: USAF MOS: 571 Skill level: Low
Time on the Job (Months)
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
0 10.2 1.6 6.4 -33.9 (46.0) (48.5) (34.3) (51.2)
12 53.3 44.6 53.0 25.8 (39.0) (36.6) (30.9) (36.2)
24 77.6 71.3 79.5 59.3 (39.°) (31.3) (25.5) (29.8)
48 97.2 103.3 104.6 97.2 (39.8) (26.0) (20.6) (20.5)
No. of ratings (N) 130 44 129 113
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha Beta Gamma
Related statistics: Y-intercept Slope at t = 0 Error sum of squares
Median training time (T)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T)
105.8 128.0 117.2 119.5 95.7 126.2 110.7 153.0 0.0504 0.0339 0.0452 0.0398
10.1 1.8 6.5 -33.5 4.8 4.3 5.0 6.1 0.19 0.99 0.11 3.50
134 days 60 days 134 days 60 days (4.4 mo.) (2.0 mo.) (4.4 mo.) (2.0 mo.)
29.2
67.1
29.5
64.1
30.0
68.9
22.7
49.4
•--.V-i
:
;
RD-A152 998
UNCLASSIFIED
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILES OF FIRST-TERM ENLISTED PERSONNEL 2/2 (U) RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA G U HAGGSTROM ET AL FEB 84 RAND/N-2059-RC
F/G 5/9 NL »
'
mW8HJW.!.'VL.EI. 1.11 • If-TB 'V »!li ''UOLTB • '- »T-V TH^r.ga--wiw.-. i1 -» •! •••>>,.. •ipnwjp ijLM.il •^ga^jearrj. JJJJJJP"JM
'. 1.0 Bf§a »- 12.2
I.I
11.25
- ,32
»I« 2.0 my 1.8
1-4 111.6
-•.
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANOARDS-1963-A
•• 71*7-1 ^M£M£ te^Mti. Ui\:: •:•-.• ^^^S^^SilMSl^,^S^i
"• "•» "iriTt '-1 "i. *\ ^T»VW^»V^ i^i"wr*rfrfnrin'
v-r. rJ",
90
Table B.45
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: MOS: Skill level:
USAF 603 Low
Time on the Job (Months)
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
0 13.3 25.9 3.1 -5.8 (65.7) (49.2) (46.5) (43.6)
12 67.7 64.3 57.3 54.3 (27.8) (34.9) (35.6) (34.2)
24 87.5 85.0 81.5 77.8 (20.5) (32.4) (34.0) (27.4)
48 100.0 101.3 102.2 101.4 (7.6) (33.0) (22.9) (21.5)
No. of ratings (N) 6 148 74 278
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha Beta Gamma
Related statistics: Y-intercept Slope at t = 0 Error sum of squares
Median training time (T)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100
Average ->roductivity: 100(U .al prod.)/(48-T)
101.7 107.8 108.0 106.7 88.3 81.9 104.7 112.1 0.0783 0.0530 0.0591 0.0603
13.4 25.9 3.3 -5.4 6.9 4.3 6.2 6.8 0.91 0.05 2.13 11.25
139 days 60 days 139 days 60 days (4.6 mo.) (2.0 mo.) (4.6 mo.) (2.0 mo.)
33.3
76.6
35.5
77.2
30.5
70.3
31.7
68.8
S«iff-'
f—f
fry
•". "*« !
- '-'-'l
I r" -V.
i
rrr- T-
.'.V -' <\V "3 * > V
* • • - *"—"*-* •'•
V -'
I v.v'v''>;>\\V. -r.-r.'-.•;.•• I
'J -j. •; '•> s"/*- '.• V '«•' -"- - I
T • I - » ' 1 I • •_« .1 ' • _• _•"_• •.• '•' i j .» -^ -.» -.F v' •• i" ."W ."wv V:I-TW- ' w- wv v~i
91
Table B.46
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: USAF MOS: 622 Skill level: Low
Time on the Job (Months)
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parentheses)
Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
0
12
24
48
No. of ratings (N)
13.5 26.8 0.9 -17.5 (46.0) (47.1) (39.3) (46.7) 48.1 65.4 50.7 39.3 (41.3) (42.9) (29.3) (37.4) 72.1 81.6 78.4 68.0 (42.1) (42.4) (25.3) (31.3) 93.1 97.5 103.2 98.3 (43.8) (45.1) (25.7) (23.7)
140 28 161
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha Beta Gamma
Related statistics: Y-intercept Slope at t = 0 Error sum of squares
Median training time (T)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T)
27.5
62.8
34.7
75.5
29.3
67.0
167
107.2 94.0 0.0399
101.7 74.7 0.0575
114.6 113.7 0.0478
111.6 128.8 0.0466
13.2 3.8 1.85
27.0 4.3 3.38
0.9 5.4 0.04
-17.2 6.0 4.34
128 days (4.2 mo.)
60 days (2.0 mo.)
128 days (4.2 mo.)
60 days (2.0 mo.)
27.0
58.6
teS
r-.-J
* .- '.-•.-•.-• •".-'. ". ' • .•.«".-..• •.•-.--• ••••'•.'•.'•' -.V •*.'- "..'-.'» •-,•-•:•.."..••.••.•»..*• .^ .-»•, "-"."•... •' "••.-.• •_• • vV • •>/.- "• •,•;. -•...-• ••-..".'-•.'••.r'. - .'•• ••.*•-A >.•'.-\ -v«/.." •.-•.- •.•.•-." .',>'."-•.'-\. •-•'.-»'. V-."-
»"£-*"V~" - -"*"»-» -j. - *—.• •_» - .-"."—-".' ir.'«"J J . •••».« . » • 'J- i »•••-v » VIT ". ".-»' -5 !•»'.-.? •• IT" ^ T-^
92
Table B.47
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: USAF MOS: 631 Skill level: Low
Mean Productivity Ratings (Standard deviations in parenth eses)
Time on Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical the Job Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty (Months) in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee
0 6.7 -0.5 9.9 -29.9 (53.4) (55.8) (39.5) (47.6)
12 70.7 71.7 71.4 47.1 (36.7) (36.2) (28.5) (36.0)
24 88.3 91.6 90.7 78.4 (36.7) (33.5) (23.4) (27.6)
48 102.4 106.2 107.5 101.1 (31.8) (33.3) (22.6) (22.8)
No. of ratings (N) 231 142 333 350
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha Beta Gamma
Related statistics: Y-intercept Slope at t = 0 Error sum of squares
Median training time (T)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T)
102.6 95.6 0.0875
106.4 106.6 0.0901
108.8 98.6 0.0769
105.6 135.4 0.0686
7.0 8.4 10.75
-0.2 9.6 10.10
10.2 7.6 11.00
-29.8 9.3 2.38
129 days (4.2 mo.)
60 days (2.0 mo.)
129 days (4.2 mo.)
60 days (2.0 mo.)
34.2
78.2
37.3
81.1
35.2
80.5
29.7
64.5
.v.;
:::::v;::-.::Xv:::;::^::s:;;s* •.•.•i:w.:-:-.'.-.'-. ••:••:••:-•:••: ••:-••:' isM •-:••:-:.:••• Mßäi •-•••• •• ^v.^-:--:v:X^:-,-:--:-.:-.-.-^:v:-W?:---,v-/vV-;.y-y->:i
"•""•—I ^h »"% ' »* T-l^l-WS-Wl-WlTTll-lT-fT-i 1~
93
Table B.48
PRODUCTIVITY PROFILE OF FIRST-TERM PERSONNEL
Service: USAF MOS: 647 Skill level: Low
•psf
J*.' Mean Productivity Ratings
• •"•• «.1
,
Time on
(Standard deviations in parenth eses)
] Tech School Direct Duty Typical Typical •*" •** •!
t the Job Graduates Trainees Tech School Direct Duty \m •
(Months) in Survey in Survey Graduate Trainee f:::-'-]
0 19.1 46.1 8.1 -26.1 L 4 (49.4) (43.3) (40.6) (47.2) { ' ' * '
r-.. 12 67.5 72.8 66.2 41.2 ' •
I (30.5) (48.3) (31.2) (38.2) • 24 91.4
(28.6) 85.6 (57.3)
88.8 (25.2)
74.2 (30.3)
" •*.--"
•« -4 48 111.3 97.2 110.1 103.4
-. (26.8) (74.0) (21.9) (24.1) >•/•-.•
No. of ratings (N) 174 9 199 192 >;.'••'.
Learning Curve Statistics
Estimated parameters: Alpha Beta Gamma
Related statistics: Y-intercept Slope at t = 0 Error sum of squares
Median training time (T)
Total productivity: (Area under curve from 0 to 48-T)/100
Average productivity: 100(total prod.)/(48-T)
118.1 98.9 0.0552
101.2 55.0 0.0539
114.5 106.1 0.0627
113.7 139.6 0.0537
19.2 5.5 0.36
46.2 3.0 0.46
8.4 6.7 8.24
-25.9 7.5 1.80
111 days (3.6 mo.)
60 days (2.0 mo.)
111 days (3.6 mo.)
60 days (2.0 mo.)
36.0
81.2
37.2
80.9
34.9
78.7
28.5
62.0
i END
FILMED
5-85
DTIC v..^.v» •-•- ••. i.v«.\ -r.V.v^-f. ••. -•. v. ^.•-•. •:. -.. --. -\ v. - - • - •:--c. f. . >•. •••. -.. v. •.;•.>.. ^-.y.-f. n. ^ -. ..i.jfo. >-•..-». o^.•_-. ..-fo.«.MI
top related