Interaction Research Institute, Inc. Technical Report 0921

U.S. Marine Corps Advisor Training Impact System

(MATIS)

OIF Transition Teams Deployed Oct 2007 – Sep 2009

Quarterly Report Volume I

September 2009

Prepared for: I Marine Expeditionary Force

Advisor Training Group Camp Pendleton, CA

4428 Rockcrest Drive • Fairfax, VA 22032-1820 • (703) 978-0313 1-800-STATMAN Fax: (703) 978-1776 iriinc@aol.com www.irism.com

Interaction Research Institute, Inc. 4428 Rockcrest Drive, Fairfax, Virginia 22032

iriinc@aol.com www.irism.com 703.978.0313 1.800.782.8626

Marine Advisor Training Impact System (MATIS) Survey:

www.irism.com/usmc

USMC Advisor Publications: www.irism.com/pubs

I MEF ATG MATIS Reports: www.irism.com/atg

Username: devil Password: dog

Point of Contact: Thomas D. Affourtit, Ph.D. Lieutenant Colonel, USMC (Ret) iriinc@aol.com | www.irism.com (703) 978-0313 | 1.800.STATMAN

Foreword

The Marine Advisor Training Impact System (MATIS) was developed to provide an efficient method to track advisor effectiveness in terms of impact in theater. The system focuses on specific competencies as measured by results and outcomes during deployment, and by host country readiness to assume security operations. The system is designed to assure timely and concise mission relevant feedback that can be linked to training effectiveness and mission accomplishment. Dynamic reports of progress provide actionable findings and training recommendations during and after deployment. Implementation requires less than 30 minutes to complete data collection, and the dynamic system can produce instant feedback on request. The MATIS measures advisor readiness to accomplish mission requirements. The program is designed to provide direct feedback to practitioners; those who implement the training and preparation process. The MATIS is administered on a voluntary and anonymous basis. Results can be quickly analyzed to assess training readiness and mission accomplishment by team type, area of operation, billet, deployment period, rank, MOS, time with counterpart, and other relevant criteria. The MATIS is augmented with a series of direct narrations of debriefs that further qualify responses to the survey, and lend interpretive evidence to support conclusions and recommendations. In summary, the MATIS is a systematic approach to advisor preparedness that provides detailed information on training effectiveness and impact in theater for the planning and execution of all phases of the training cycle.

Interaction Research Institute, Inc. i

Executive Summary

This is the fourth Quarterly Marine Advisor Training Impact System (MATIS) report prepared for the I MEF Advisor Training Group (ATG). This report aggregates the data from 62 Transition Teams that returned from Iraq between September 2008 and September 2009, representing three evolutions of seven month deployments. Prior to deployment, the 649 Marines and Navy Corpsmen in this study were sourced from I MEF. To assure timely review and response, MATIS results were also provided to I MEF ATG and MAGTF-TC ATG, 29 Palms immediately following data collection during the post-deployment process for Marine Advisor groups.

Key Results & Recommendations

Pre-Deployment Training

• Language training has consistently been rated the most beneficial training, although opinions vary regarding extent and importance. Returning advisors recommend more coordination among language instructors to ensure sequential and progressive language training.

• Field exercises with Role Players and Interpreters have proven to be an effective medium to develop team cohesion, as well as language and cultural skills. Returning advisors call for updated scenarios that represent current situations in theater.

• Cultural awareness training is considered essential by advisors. However, many felt that instruction should advance beyond basic norms and ideologies, and be directed more toward in-depth communication skill through understanding of the counterparts’ frame of reference and reasoning process.

• The advisory mission requires comprehensive knowledge about the area of assignment; including the current political situation, security force organization and operations, and tribal leaders/demographics. Dynamic conditions and changing assignments in theater necessitate convenient access to AO information throughout the battle space.

• Debrief interviews disclosed a need for additional training and guidance regarding corruption. What is the operational definition of corruption in theater? What type/level of corruption is acceptable? What is the role of advisors in dealing with corruption?

• Critical incidents reported by returning advisors reveal that an appropriate advisor mindset is a requisite for success: a non-kinetic approach directed towards enhancing existing host nation operations, versus imposing unsustainable U.S. solutions.

Sourcing

• Team Leader effectiveness is a primary factor impacting team cohesion and mission accomplishment. A Team Leader Selection Board is recommended.

• The mission to train, mentor, and advise requires the appropriate team composition: expertise in all applicable billets, with sufficient personnel to travel and operate effectively within the existing Rules of Engagement.

Interaction Research Institute, Inc. ii

Support

• Since Advisors can be located in remote areas with limited access to external support, teams need to be sourced and trained to be self sustaining; with the capability to operate, maintain, and repair the systems/equipment they employ.

• Returning Advisors report that Coalition Force communication, collaboration, and support is vital for mission accomplishment. Optimal Coalition Force systems and processes enhance TT performance and provide an example for the Host Nation Security Forces to emulate.

Trends

• Trend analyses disclose increasing levels of preparedness over the past year. The following competencies attained the greatest improvement:

Sufficient knowledge about the Area of Operations. Capability to improve ISF planning and logistics. Execute the role of the TT billet. Provide training to counterpart units.

• Verbatim comments regarding the pre-deployment training curriculum became more positive over the past year:

Increase in the percentage of Advisors that considered all the training to be beneficial. Increase in positive comments regarding the 29 Palms POI and all scenario based

training.

• Comments and debrief interviews cite a more challenging operational environment in 2009, primarily due to the revised Rules of Engagement (Jan 1 and June 30) established by U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).

_ _______________________________________________________________________________

Notes: 1 Volume I of this report displays the quantitative results derived from the MATIS survey questionnaire

(Appendix B). Volume II displays verbatim comments by Advisors to open-ended questions on the survey form. A companion document (MATIS Technical Report 0615, June 2009) provides direct debriefs of Transition Team representatives.

2 MATIS data can provide additional analysis with respect to any criteria listed on the MATIS survey form.

Interaction Research Institute, Inc. iii

Table of Contents

Foreword ................................................................................................. i Executive Summary ................................................................................ ii RESULTS MATIS Score Improvement – Figure 1 .......................................................1 MATIS Score Improvement by Team Type – Figure 2 .................................2 MATIS Score Team Leader Comparison – Figure 3 ....................................3 Verbatim Comment Tabulations – Tables 1-4 ..............................................4 DEMOGRAPHICS Transition Team Demographics – Tables 5-7 ..............................................6 MATIS Participating Teams – Table 8 ........................................................7 APPENDICES MATIS Survey Form ........................................................................................... A-1 MATIS Outline ..................................................................................................... A-2 MATIS Conceptual Framework ......................................................................... A-3

RESULTS

Marine Advisor Training Impact System

Figure 1

MATIS Score Improvement

0 25 50 75 100

Appreciate and understand the Iraqi culture

Sufficient knowledge about AO

Assume advisory role and mindset

Execute the role of their TT billet

Cultivate relationships with counterparts

Adapt to changing situations

Tolerate stress and culture shock

Communicate with Iraqi citizens

Work with interpreter(s) to communicate

Negotiate to reach mutually beneficial decision

Provide training to counterpart unit(s)

Improve ISF planning and logistics

Conduct combined tactical operations

Foster sustainable ISF process improvements

Advance operational readiness of counterpart units

Work & live harmoniously with other TT members

Q1 FY09 Score Q4 Score/Increase

Impact in Theater

Not at all prepared

Somewhat prepared

Prepared Well prepared

Very well prepared

Level of Preparedness

• I MEF OIF Transition Teams improved in every category of assessment between September

2008 and September 2009.

• Impact categories were derived from debriefs with returning Marine Advisors. Scores reflect the level of preparedness to accomplish the mission.

___________________________________________________________________________________ Notes: Sample: 62 Transition Teams (649 Marines and Navy Corpsmen). Scores: Calculated from MATIS survey responses by returning Advisors. Significance: All MATIS improvements are statistically significant (beyond chance variation) p≤ .01, with the exception of Work with interpreter(s) to communicate.

Interaction Research Institute, Inc. 1

Marine Advisor Training Impact System

Figure 2 MATIS Score Improvement by Type Team

0 25 50 75 100

MTT

PTT

BTT

POETT

Q1 FY09 Score Q4 Score/Increase

Not at all prepared

Somewhat prepared

Prepared Well prepared

Very well prepared

Level of Preparedness

• PTTs and BTTs achieved the greatest overall gains in preparedness over the period of assessment.

Interaction Research Institute, Inc. 2

Marine Advisor Training Impact System

Figure 3

MATIS Score Comparison TTs with Team Leader Relieved

vs. Other Transition Teams

0 25 50 75 100

Appreciate and understand the Iraqi culture

Sufficient knowledge about AO

Assume advisory role and mindset

Execute the role of their TT billet

Cultivate relationships with counterparts

Adapt to changing situations

Tolerate stress and culture shock

Communicate with Iraqi citizens

Work with interpreters to communicate

Negotiate to reach mutually beneficial decision

Provide training to counterpart unit(s)

Improve ISF planning and logistics

Conduct combined tactical operations

Foster sustainable ISF process improvements

Advance operational readiness of counterpart units

Work & live harmoniously with other TT members

Team Leader Relieved Other Transition Teams

Impact in Theater

Not at all prepared

Somewhat prepared

Prepared Well prepared

Very well prepared

Level of Preparedness

• Transition Teams that had a Team Leader relieved scored significantly lower on most

MATIS categories.

Interaction Research Institute, Inc. 3

MATIS Comment TabulationsResponse Change

Q1 versus Q4

Code Category Q4 %1 Change2

LNG Language 35.4 ≈

SEN Practical Application / Scenarios / Role Playing / Interaction 32.3 >

CUL Culture 20.3 ≈

29P 29 Palms 20.3 >

CON Convoy Operations, Vehicles, Driving 13.3 >

CMP Weapons, Marksmanship 12.7 ≈

MED Medical 8.2 ≈

TAC Tactics / Combined Ops 7.0 >

NEG Negotiations & Mediation 5.7 <

COM Radio / Communications 5.7 ≈

Code Category Q4 %1 Change2

BET More Relevant & Less Redundant Training 17.2 >

N/A N/A, None, All was Beneficial 14.1 >

LNG Language 13.5 ≈

CMP Weapons, Combat Marksmanship 9.8 ≈

TAC Tactics / Combined Ops 7.4 ≈

CUL Culture 7.4 >

29P 29 Palms 6.1 ≈

COM Radio / Communications 6.1 ≈

Notes:1 Percent computed using the number that provided a verbatim comment to the question.2 ≈ indicates stability> indicates increase< indicates decrease

Table 1Most Beneficial Training for Advisory Duty

Table 2Least Beneficial Training / Improvement Needed

Interaction Research Institute, Inc. 4

MATIS Comment TabulationsResponse Change

Q1 versus Q4

Code Category Q4 %1 Change2

COM Communications, radios, etc. 12.2 >

LNG Language 11.5 <

CON Convoy Operations, Vehicles, Driving, Navigation 10.9 >

ISS Iraqi Security Systems (Org, Processes, etc.) 9.6 >

SEN Practical Application / Scenarios / Role Playing / Interaction 8.3 ≈

CUL Culture 7.7 <

MIS Mission Specific (AO, AA's, ORA's, POC's) 5.8 <

BDR Border/Police Specific Training 5.8 >

MED Medical 5.8 >

BIL Billet Specific, Staff Functions/Planning 5.1 <

Code Category Q4 %1 Change2

TEM Team Dynamics, Structure, Personnel 18.2 <

COF Coalition Force Coordination, Collaboration & Support 17.5 ≈

MIS Mission Clarity & Viability 15.4 >

IRC Iraqi Culture & ISF Mindset 14.7 <

KSA Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, Preparedness 13.3 ≈

ISS Iraqi Security Systems, Organization & Processes 10.5 ≈

POL Policy & Current Situation in Theater (SOFA, ROE, etc.) 10.5 >

LNG Language Barrier 5.6 ≈

MAT Material, Equipment, Supplies, Maintenance 5.6 ≈

N/A N/A, No Major Problems 2.3 <

Notes:1 Percent computed using the number that provided a verbatim comment to the question.2 ≈ indicates stability> indicates increase< indicates decrease

Table 3Additional Training Desired for Advisory Duty

Table 4Barriers to Mission Accomplishment

Interaction Research Institute, Inc. 5

DEMOGRAPHICS

Marine Advisor Training Impact System

Transition Team Demographics

TTs Deployed Oct 2007 – Sep 2009

Table 5 Respondents by Type Team

Type Number Percent Military Transition Team (Bn, Bde, OW) 187 28.8 Police Transition Team 182 28.0 Border Transition Team 130 20.0 Port of Entry Transition Team 84 12.9 Military Transition Team (Division) 42 6.5 Regional Border Team 21 3.2 Not Indicated 3 0.5

Total 649 100.0

Table 6 Rank Structure Comparison

Rank Qtr 1 % Qtr 4 % O4 - O6 5.8 7.3 O1 - O3 22.1 18.1 WO1 - CWO5 0.8 0.6 E6 - E9 31.7 24.3 E1 - E5 39.6 49.7

Total 100.0 100.0

Table 7 Time Interacting with Counterparts

Percent of Time Spent Number Percent less than 1% 24 3.9 1 - 25% 109 17.7 26 - 50% 169 27.4 51 - 75% 167 27.1 76 - 100% 148 24.0

Total 617 100.0

Interaction Research Institute, Inc. 6

Table 8MATIS Participating Teams

Team Type MATIS Survey Deployed Team # RespondentsMTT 17-Sep-08 Feb-Sep 2008 0712 15MTT 17-Sep-08 Feb-Sep 2008 0713 11MTT 17-Sep-08 Feb-Sep 2008 2907 9PTT 17-Sep-08 Feb-Sep 2008 4210 8BTT 17-Sep-08 Feb-Sep 2008 4221 9BTT 17-Sep-08 Feb-Sep 2008 4222 9BTT 17-Sep-08 Feb-Sep 2008 4223 9POETT 17-Sep-08 Feb-Sep 2008 4252 9POETT 17-Sep-08 Feb-Sep 2008 4253 9POETT 17-Sep-08 Feb-Sep 2008 4254 8PTT 9-Oct-08 Mar-Oct 2008 4 8PTT 9-Oct-08 Mar-Oct 2008 5 10PTT 9-Oct-08 Mar-Oct 2008 7 8PTT 9-Oct-08 Mar-Oct 2008 9 10MTT 20-Oct-08 Oct 07 - Oct 08 0700 27MTT 20-Oct-08 Oct 07 - Oct 08 0720 19MTT 19-Nov-08 Apr-Nov 2008 0721 16MTT 19-Nov-08 May-Nov 2008 0722 14MTT 19-Nov-08 May-Nov 2008 0723 18MTT 19-Nov-08 Apr-Nov 2008 0731 14MTT 19-Nov-08 Jul-Nov 2008 0733/30 1BTT 28-Jan-09 Jan 08 – Jan 09 4200 10BTT 28-Jan-09 Jan 08 – Jan 09 4220 4MTT 19-Feb-09 Jul 08 – Feb 09 0732 11MTT 19-Feb-09 Jul 08 – Feb 09 0733 11PTT 19-Feb-09 Jul 08 – Feb 09 20/7 12PTT 19-Feb-09 Jul 08 – Feb 09 21/8 11MTT 25-Feb-09 Jul 08 – Feb 09 0713 12PTT 25-Feb-09 Jul 08 – Feb 09 1 13PTT 25-Feb-09 Jul 08 – Feb 09 2 13BTT 10-Mar-09 Jul 08 – Mar 09 4210 7BTT 10-Mar-09 Jul 08 – Mar 09 4221 9BTT 10-Mar-09 Jul 08 – Mar 09 4222 8BTT 10-Mar-09 Jul 08 – Mar 09 4223 9BTT 10-Mar-09 Jul 08 – Mar 09 4235 9POETT 10-Mar-09 Jul 08 – Mar 09 4252 10POETT 10-Mar-09 Jul 08 – Mar 09 4253 6POETT 10-Mar-09 Jul 08 – Mar 09 4254 11

7

Table 8MATIS Participating Teams

Team Type MATIS Survey Deployed Team # RespondentsPTT 6-Apr-09 Aug 08 – Mar 09 4 8PTT 6-Apr-09 Aug 08 – Mar 09 11 9PTT 6-Apr-09 Aug 08 – Mar 09 13 10PTT 6-Apr-09 Aug 08 – Mar 09 15 11MTT 12-May-09 Oct 08 – May 09 0721 8MTT 12-May-09 Oct 08 – May 09 0731 9MTT 14-Aug-09 Aug 08 – Aug 09 0700 15MTT 14-Aug-09 Aug 08 – Aug 09 0720 10MTT 14-Aug-09 Jan 09 - Aug 09 0733 9BTT 14-Aug-09 Jan 09 - Aug 09 4235 11PTT 14-Aug-09 Jan 09 - Aug 09 1 4PTT 14-Aug-09 Jan 09 - Aug 09 2 1BTT 31-Aug-09 Jan 09 - Aug 09 4210 9BTT 31-Aug-09 Jan 09 - Aug 09 4221 8BTT 31-Aug-09 Jan 09 - Aug 09 4222 10BTT 31-Aug-09 Jan 09 - Aug 09 4223 8POETT 31-Aug-09 Jan 09 - Aug 09 4252 10POETT 31-Aug-09 Jan 09 - Aug 09 4253 10POETT 31-Aug-09 Jan 09 - Aug 09 4254 10RBT-N 31-Aug-09 Aug 08 – Aug 09 RBT-N 21PTT 10-Sep-09 Feb 09 - Sep 09 4 12PTT 10-Sep-09 Feb 09 - Sep 09 11 9PTT 10-Sep-09 Feb 09 - Sep 09 13 8PTT 10-Sep-09 Feb 09 - Sep 09 15 10

8

APPENDICES

• MATIS Survey Form

• MATIS Outline • MATIS Conceptual Framework

Appendix A. USMC Advisor Training Impact Survey Form

USMC Advisor Training Impact Survey

No. Please indicate the level of preparedness of your Transition Team: Not at all prepared

Somewhat prepared Prepared Well

PreparedVery well Prepared

NA or don't know

1. Appreciate and understand the Iraqi culture.

2. Sufficient knowledge about our Area of Operations.

3. Assume an advisory role and mindset.

4. Execute the role of their TT billet.

5. Cultivate relationships with counterparts.

6. Adapt to changing situations.

7. Tolerate stress and culture shock.

8. Communicate with Iraqi citizens.

9. Work with interpreter(s) to communicate with counterparts.

10. Negotiate to reach a mutually beneficial decision.

11. Provide training to counterpart unit(s).

12. Improve ISF planning and logistics.

13. Conduct combined tactical operations.

14. Foster sustainable ISF process improvements.

15. Advance the operational readiness of counterpart unit(s).

16. Work and live harmoniously with other TT members.

What training was most beneficial in preparing you for advisory duty?

What training was least beneficial in preparing you for advisory duty?

What additional pre-deployment training do you wish you had?

A-1

Transition Team information for your last deployment as an advisor

Type of Transition Team: Military Transition Team (MiTT) Police Transition Team (PTT) Border Transition Team (BTT) Port of Entry Transition Team (POETT)

Your rank during your Transition Team deployment: E-1 through E-5 E-6 through E-9 O-1 through O-3 O-4 through O-6 WO1 through CWO5

Your TT Unit Number

Your TT Billet

What percent of your time was spent interacting with your Iraqi counterpart(s)?

Less than 1% 26 - 50% 76 - 100%

1 - 25% 51 - 75%

Demographic Information (optional):

Current Rank: Years in USMC:

Your MOS: Your Age:

What problems made your mission difficult to accomplish? Recommendations.

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

MARINE ADVISOR TRAINING IMPACT SYSTEM OUTLINE

PURPOSE

• Track Advisor Effectiveness • Assess Training Enhancements / Modifications • Determine Overall Impact

METHOD / PROCEDURE

• Critical Incidents: Analyze situations versus training received • Consolidate Reports: Conduct content and trend analysis • Construct Instrument: Ongoing assessment of training impact on

mission accomplishment OBJECTIVES

• Efficient method to derive precise quantitative and qualitative measures

• Timely, concise mission relevant feedback • Dynamic reports of theater and unit (provincial, division, brigade,

battalion) level results • Actionable findings and recommendations • Trends track progress in training effectiveness & mission

accomplishment

Interaction Research Institute, Inc. A - 2

Training from a System’s Perspective*

Impact ISF

Operational Readiness

Process Advisor Training

I MEF II MEF

ATG Results

Knowledge Skills

Abilities Effectiveness

Mission Advisor

Preparation

Resources Personnel Funding Facilities Program

POI

PLANNING • Mission: Established in line with U.S. policy objectives. • Resources: Determined by training standards • Program: Designed to accomplish objectives.

EXECUTION • Process: Quality and relevance of training segments. • Results: Advisor preparedness and effectiveness during deployment. • Impact: Host country readiness to assume security operations.

Feedback from Execution provides input into Planning.

* Training model developed for the Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies, LtGen H. Stackpole, USMC (Ret), President.

Interaction Research Institute, Inc. A-3