Determining the worth and effectiveness of training used within a military environment is the same accountability responsibility that educational organizations, businesses, and social agencies are charged with for improving programs and services to society. The need for accountability implies the process of evaluation, particularly in governmental training programs. This article provides a case study, blueprint, and action plan for the infusion of two evaluation models as the foundation for determining the effectiveness of training within a military application.

The evaluation of training programs to determine effective strategies for improving performance is a priority in business and military environments. Improved performance is a paramount interest for organizations dependent on training for preparing employees. This evaluation study consisted of a one-group pre-posttest quantitative research design with N=45 participants completing a pre-assessment prior to entering the Basic Oceanography Accession Training course and a posttest assessment upon completion of the course. Study participants were comprised of Navy officers who had earned at least a baccalaureate degree prior to beginning the program and their major academic focus was one or more of the following areas:

This article provides a description and the results of a study that utilized the human performance (HP) model and methods to explore and analyze a training organization. The systemic and systematic practices of the HP model are applicable to military training organizations as well as civilian organizations. Implications of the study for future organizations grappling with registrar office concerns include the development of a rich information base and the acquisition of data collection resources.DURING THE LATE 1990s, the U.S. Navy commissioned a new organization, the Human Performance Center, with a major integrant mission to optimize Navy war fighting performance by applying the human performance (HP) model tenets to all facets of Navy operations, while focusing on performance improvement (HPC, 2007). The history provided by Van Tiem, Moseley, and Dessinger (2001) contends that the HP model uses a wide range of interventions drawn from many other disciplines, including behavioral psychology, instructional systems design, organizational learning, evaluation, and management sciences. Based on Van Tiem et al., the rationale for the present study generated a systematic application of solid investigative techniques for resolving organizational issues in military training environments. These background and rationale considerations prompted the selection of the HP model for use as the theoretical framework for the present study.The International Society for Performance Improvement posits that the HP model accents a rigorous analysis of present and desired levels of performance, identifies the causes for the performance gap, offers a wide range of interventions with which to improve performance, guides the change management process, and evaluates the results. The model consists of five segments: performance analysis, cause analysis, intervention selection, intervention implementation, and evaluation, as depicted in Figure 1 (ISPI, 2008).In addition to using the HP model methods, a scientific method (time motion techniques) pioneered by Taylor in 1911(Harrison, 2004 helped create the framework for this project. Taylor's scientific methods provided the insight to establish the metrics for this project to document and analyze daily student registration and other related activities. Taylor posited that efficiency could be increased by carefully planning workers' movements to ascertain the most efficient manner that jobs could be standardized and simplified by breaking the jobs down into core elements. This process of standardization and simplification was called time and motion (Harrison, 2004).This study utilizes the HP model with a focus on student registration processes and concerns. Student registration processes at military training sites are continually plagued by complex workloads, and workflow frequently bottlenecks. Registration processes are often exacerbated by numerous repetitive administrative initiatives. These

No abstract