全球智库信息集成服务系统

Joint educational institutions are working to define measurable outcomes and appropriate linkages to curricula

• Measuring student performance using authentic assessments—that is, assessments that simulate real-world applications of desired outcomes—is critical to the successful implementation of OBME.
• There was wide agreement among educational institutions and joint stakeholders that the structure and content of the newly adopted Joint Learning Areas provide a promising framework to organize this communication and engagement.

Prior experience is the dominant prerequisite for Joint Duty Assignment List (JDAL) positions, and in only a few examples is joint education consistently demanded

• Joint stakeholders struggled to convey performance expectations and did not have systematic processes to communicate such expectations.

Joint stakeholders measure individual performance during JDAL assignments using the established performance feedback processes of the individual services

• Joint stakeholders said that they do not aggregate performance information into overall themes or lessons that can inform joint educational institutions as those institutions consider how to modify their curricula, instruction, and authentic assessments to improve future joint outcomes.

Significant challenges at the intersection of TM and JPME have the potential to constrain strategies that can help implement OBME

• Academic performance in JPME-II (in the current system) is only weakly linked to JDAL assignments and career progression.
• Efforts to enhance JPME-II might have limited effects if organizations and officers do not invest seriously in the enhancements that OBME can deliver.
• Despite several comments that indicated that completing a JPME-II program was valuable prior to entering a JDAL assignment, analysis of personnel data concluded that just 40 percent of current O-5 and O-6 JDAL-assigned officers (as of January 2020) completed JPME-II prior to assignment, and another 7 percent completed it sometime during their assignment.

Leadership development in the military is a multifaceted process that takes place over an officer's entire career. At its most basic level, this development occurs through professional experiences and a progressive series of professional military education, of which joint professional military education (JPME) is a subset.

In May 2020, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) issued a vision statement with guidance and objectives for leadership development in the armed services. This vision calls for an outcomes-based approach that emphasizes ingenuity, intellectual application, and military professionalism. The new approach focuses on what students must accomplish rather than traditional metrics, such as curriculum content or the amount of time spent learning specific material. The JCS also emphasized the need to integrate officer talent management (TM) and JPME because these functions are so closely connected.

To support the implementation of this vision, the authors reviewed foundational, policy, and implementation documents; conducted semistructured interviews with senior representatives of relevant joint and service offices; and analyzed officer personnel data. They used these methods to (1) describe joint educational institutions' transitions to an outcomes-based approach, (2) examine performance expectations and the qualities needed in effective joint officers, (3) explore how joint performance is measured, and (4) see how challenges in TM systems and processes affect the implementation of JPME, Phase II. They also provide recommendations for how joint stakeholders and the military services can best integrate the TM and JPME processes to support the outcomes-based approach.

• Chapter One

  Changes Needed in Joint Professional Military Education

• Chapter Two

  Foundations and Changes in Joint Officer Development

• Chapter Three

  The Talent Management and Joint Professional Military Education Enterprise

• Chapter Four

  The Evolving Practices of Joint Educational Institutions in Outcomes-Based Military Education

• Chapter Five

  Managing and Measuring Joint Performance

• Chapter Six

  Challenges Arising from Talent Management Systems and Processes

• Chapter Seven

  Summary of Findings

• Chapter Eight

  Recommendations

• Appendix A

  Joint Learning Areas

• Appendix B

  Interview Methodology

• Appendix C

  Position Method and Detailed Findings

• Appendix D

  Mission Statements of Joint Professional Military Education, Phase II Institutions

• Appendix E

  Options for Enhancing Relationships Among Talent Management–Joint Professional Military Education Enterprise Members