Both services’ aviation communities have used  simulators for more than half a century. Specifically, until the 1980s, training in the ground  communities was primarily live training. In addition, in response to an increase in  vehicle rollovers, both services began using egress trainers to train  servicemembers to safely evacuate their vehicles. In developing a  similar training system— the Marine Corps Instrumentation Training  System —the service determined that it could reuse 87 percent of the  components in the Army’s system. As a result, officials told us, the  Marine Corps achieved approximately $11 million in cost avoidance and  fielded the system in 2 years instead of the projected 9 years. According to Marine Corps officials, they  are monitoring the Army’s LVC-IA initiative to leverage applicable  technology and lessons learned. The Army and Marine Corps Consider Various Factors in Determining the Mix of Live and Simulation-Based Training, But Lack Key Information to Assess the Impact and Cost of Simulation- Based Training

The Army and Marine Corps consider various factors —such as safety,  and training objective or mission—in determining whether to use live or  simulation-based training to meet training requirements. In addition, the services have not developed a  methodology to identify the costs associated with using simulation-based  training. To leverage the advantages associated with both types of training and  determine whether to use live or simulation-based training, officials from  the services consider a number of factors, such as: training objective or  mission; safety of servicemembers conducting the training and the safety  of the general public; required training frequency for the task; available  training time; the need to replicate environmental conditions, e.g.,  weather conditions; availability of training ranges, simulators, and  simulations; and realism of existing simulators and simulations, including  their concurrency.guidance, when deciding whether to use simulation-based training, the  primary consideration is improving the quality of training and the state of  readiness; potential cost savings or avoided costs are an important, but  secondary, consideration. The Army and Marine Corps Cite Benefits of Simulation-Based Training, but Lack Information to Evaluate Impacts on Performance and Cost

Army and Marine Corps training documents and officials from both  services have noted benefits from the use of simulation-based training — both in terms of training effectiveness and in terms of cost savings or cost  avoidance. Currently, in the absence of  performance data, the services obtain information on the contribution of  simulation-based training from subject matter experts, who are  responsible for developing training programs of instruction and  overarching strategies, as well as information based on feedback and  after action reports from deployments and training exercises. However, taking additional steps to  expand these efforts by establishing performance-oriented metrics and a  methodology to identify the costs associated with simulation-based  training would provide them greater insights into how the use of  simulation-based training contributes to improved performance or  proficiency of servicemembers, and a point of comparison for assessing  the cost implications of using simulation-based or live training. Moreover,  until the Army and Marine Corps take actions to increase their visibility  over the impact of simulation-based training on performance and costs,  they will continue to lack key information that could assist them in  determining how to optimize the mix of live and simulation-based training  in the future and target simulation-based training investments on the  devices that have the greatest potential to improve mission performance. Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve decision makers’ abilities to make fully informed decisions  concerning whether training requirements can be met with live and  simulation-based training and determine optimal mixes of live and  simulation-based training, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense  direct the Secretary of the Army and the Commandant of the Marine  Corps to take the following two actions:
Develop outcome-oriented performance metrics that can be used to  assess the impact of simulation-based training on improving the  performance or proficiency of servicemembers and units. In its comments, DOD noted that the Army and Marine Corps  capture all relevant costs needed for decision-making during the  Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process in  procuring simulators/simulation devices. In our report, we specifically recognize that the  Army and Marine Corps assess costs associated with simulation based  devices, such as life cycle costs, as they make acquisition decisions and  during their budget development process when they determine funding  needs to operate acquired devices. To determine how the Army’s and Marine Corps’ use of simulation-based  training devices has changed since the services first began using  simulators, we reviewed and analyzed service briefings and  documentation that provided information on the historical use of  simulation-based training devices, and the timelines within which  simulators for various occupations became available. To ascertain the factors the Army and Marine Corps consider in  determining whether to use live or simulation-based training, including the  extent to which they consider performance and cost information, we  assessed Army and Marine Corps documentation, such as the 2013 Army  Posture Statement; U.S Army Training Concept 2012-2020; Army  Regulation 350-38, Policies and Management for Training Aids, Devices,  Simulators, and Simulations; the 2012 Army Training Strategy; the  Posture of the United States Marine Corps, 2013 Report to Congress;  and Marine Corps Concepts and Programs 2013. We also  reviewed our previous reports on Air Force and Navy virtual training.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Army and Marine Corps use live and simulation-based training to meet training goals and objectives. Service officials have noted benefits from the use of simulation-based training--both in terms of training effectiveness and in cost savings or cost avoidance. A House report accompanying the bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 mandated GAO to review the status of the military services' training programs. This report follows GAO's reports on the Navy and Air Force, and assesses (1) changes in the Army's and Marine Corps' use of simulation-based training, including efforts to integrate live and simulation-based training capabilities; and (2) the factors the Army and Marine Corps consider in determining whether to use live or simulation-based training, including the extent to which they consider performance and cost information. GAO focused on a broad cross-section of occupations (e.g., aviation, armor, artillery), and analyzed service training strategies and other documents; and conducted six site visits and interviewed service officials involved with training and training development for the selected occupations.

What GAO Found

Over the past several decades, the Army and Marine Corps have increased their use of simulation-based training--simulators and computer-based simulations. Historically, the aviation communities in both services have used simulators to train servicemembers in tasks such as takeoffs, and emergency procedures that could not be taught safely live. In contrast, the services' ground communities used limited simulations prior to 2000. However, advances in technology, and emerging conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to increased use of simulation-based training in the ground forces. For example, in response to increases in vehicle rollovers, both services began using simulators to train servicemembers to safely evacuate vehicles. The services are also collaborating in the development of some simulation-based training devices. For instance, according to Marine Corps officials, the service reused 87 percent of the Army's Homestation Instrumentation Training System's components in its own training system, achieving about $11 million in cost avoidance and saving an estimated 7 years in fielding time. The services are also taking steps to better integrate live and simulation-based training, developing technical capabilities to connect previously incompatible simulation-based training devices. The Army's capability is now being fielded, and the Marine Corps' is in the initial development phase.
The Army and Marine Corps consider various factors in determining whether to use live or simulation-based training, but lack key performance and cost information that would enhance their ability to determine the optimal mix of training and prioritize related investments. As the services identify which requirements can be met with either live or simulation-based training or both, they consider factors such as safety and training mission. Also, they have cited numerous benefits of simulation-based training, such as improving servicemember performance in live training events, and reducing operating costs. Both services rely on subject matter experts, who develop their training programs, and after action reports from deployments and training exercises for information on how servicemembers may have benefited from simulation-based training. However, neither service has established outcome metrics to assist them in more precisely measuring the impact of using simulation-based devices to improve performance or proficiency. Leading management practices recognize that performance metrics can help agencies determine the contributions that training makes to improve results. Army and Marine Corps officials also generally consider simulation-based training to be less costly than live training and analyze some data, such as life cycle costs, when considering options to acquire a particular simulation-based training device. However, once simulation-based training devices are fielded, the services neither reevaluate cost information as they determine the mix of training nor have a methodology for determining the costs associated with simulation-based training. Federal internal control standards state that decision makers need visibility over a program's financial data to determine whether the program is meeting the agencies' goals and effectively using resources. Without better performance and cost data, the services lack the information they need to make more fully informed decisions in the future regarding the optimal mix of training and how best to target investments for simulation-based training capabilities.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the services develop metrics, and a methodology to compare live and simulation-based training costs. DOD partially concurred, but noted that it captures all relevant costs needed for decision making. GAO continues to believe the services may not be considering some important simulation-based training costs and a specific methodology is needed to more fully identify the universe of costs needed for comparison purposes.