acteristics is shown in Table 6.11 (taken from the report). It can be seen from this table that some of the areas proposed for the AP*NET have corresponding characteristics in O*NET™, whereas others would require specific development for Army use. For example, O*NET™ uses a common language, includes a comprehensive set of personnel characteristic descriptors and cross-job descriptors, uses hierarchically organized descriptors, provides a process for gathering occupation specific descriptors, includes civilian jobs, and is planned for on-line automation. The Army would have to develop:

• Army-specific cross-job descriptors;
• Equipment and technology descriptors to be linked to tasks;
• A taxonomy of missions and linkages among missions, work activities, skills, and knowledge; this taxonomy will need to be included in the common language so that missions can be linked to tasks, skills, and knowledge;
• Variables of use to commanders; and
• Coupling with top-down, future-oriented job analysis procedures.

Russell et al., (1995) suggest that the Army build a prototype of AP*NET and then run a pilot test to identify development problems and to assess usefulness. In addition, their report makes the following long-term recommendations. First, develop procedures for assigning individuals to teams that optimize on multiple personnel considerations associated with readiness. Second, initiate studies to identify and measure individual and teamwork requirements for new missions. Third, develop performance measures to be used in career development, training, and job classification. Finally, develop simulation exercises to allow officers to run what-if scenarios based on various mixes of force capabilities. The key is to develop an occupational analysis system that efficiently links workforce capabilities with mission planning and provides the structure for recruiting, training, and assignment and promotion of personnel.