Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
4 EDUCATION AND TRAINING THE URGENT ARMY NEED As science and technology grow in sophistication and as accelerating technological change becomes essential to the nation's defense, the Army will have correspondingly greater needs for education. It will require not only specialized education and training of personnel in the short term, but also the career-long education that must provide continuing career opportunities for growth. Universities and colleges cannot meet these increased needs unaided. In the future, government and industry will need to assume more responsibility for maintaining current scientific and technical expertise--through research, development, education, and training. While this statement is more broadly applicable, it is particularly true of the Army's artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics programs. After hearing the details of these programs, the committee concluded that the Army must significantly improve the quality and quantity of its educational and training programs. Personnel acquisition, retention, and development are a critical Army problem at present, and they will continue to pose problems unless significant changes occur. The Army does not offer competitive salaries for civilian or military personnel, it does not in general project the image of a high-technology environment, and it does not offer attractive career opportunities in robotics and AI. Further, the Army seems too dependent on short-term commitments by ROTC graduates, short courses, and contractor contacts for its expertise. A smart customer must be a smart doer, and the Army's internal skills and expertise must be increased. 20
21 In robotics and AI, the Army's efforts in education and research lag behind those of the Navy and Air Force not only in perception but also in fact. The long established Navy AI Center and the Northeast AI Consortium sponsored by the Air Force have no Army counterpart. Further, the Naval Postgraduate School, coupled with the numbers of service personnel sent for Master's and Doctoral degrees by the Air Force and Navy convey to civilian and military recruits the value placed on education. UNIVERSITY CENTERS SPONSORED BY THE ARMY The Army established Centers for AI at the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Pennsylvania in 1984. Although, in the opinion of the committee, these are not yet recognized as major research centers, they are operating satisfactorily. The productivity figures provided indicate normal professorial output in terms of publications and students. Greater effort is required, however, to transform each into a national Center for AI. Our major concern is that the long-term funding of these Centers, by either the Army or the respective universities, is far from assured. Because the time required to earn a degree ranges from about A years for the undergraduate degree to as much as 8 years for the doctorate, funding cycles of such major Centers must be guaranteed for the long term. Otherwise, the programs should not be initiated, in fairness to the university, its faculty, and the students. From the Army's perspec- tive, long-term financing is required because there is no return on short-term financing. These centers need more publicity. Other centers, similar to those of the Army, have been and will continue to be funded. These include, among others, the Engineer- ing Research Centers (ERCs) sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the University Research Initiatives sponsored by the Department of Defense. In this competitive environment, the Army must do its part not only to sponsor but actively to promote its Centers in the hope of getting the most talented people.
22 ARMY INTERNAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS An appropriate step taken by the Army is the establish- ment of an AI capability at West Point. The recent allocation of 6 to 8 research slots in this discipline is a major step forward. The committee suggests that these slots be used to teach (and thereby train Army officers in) AI as well as to do research. In addition to this offering at West Point, the committee believes that such an opportunity should be made available at the Army's Command and General Staff College at Ft. Leavenworth, which now offers advanced degrees. Mid-career Army personnel in the mainstream of the Army's business attend the Staff College, and great benefit would be derived by starting an AI program there. Although West Point excels in military history and leadership programs, it is not chartered as a research institution. Conse- quently, it could not be expected to be a leader in AI research. Nevertheless, the coupling of West Point's program with the offering at Ft. Leavenworth would be a valuable addition to the Army's internal educational thrust. The committee believes that Army career attractiveness and opportunities for civilians in AI and robotics are insufficient to acquire and retain key personnel. The Army must do more if it is to become a reservoir for talented people doing Army-related research and develop- ment in these fields. Educational programs must be long-term and include career-long education, rather than just 1-day or 2-week course offerings. Regular programs must be established for renewal of both military and civilians; they should include sabbaticals for advanced degrees or regular retraining. The committee noted that the Army has institutionalized certain areas. For example, every year a certain number of people are sent to Syracuse to be trained in comptrollership, while others go to Florida State for logistics management or to the University of Illinois for civil engineering. Perhaps it is time to institutionalize robotics and AI in the same way. The absence of AI efforts from the University Research Initiative (URI) program is a missed opportunity. The URI program offers a unique opportunity for the services to concentrate large sums of long-term support in key techni- cal areas of interest to them. The area of intelligent control, awarded to a consortium of MIT, Brown University, and Harvard, comes closest but is not mainstream AI. The
23 existence of the two university Centers in AI does not constitute sufficient effort. If the FY 1986 URI program is followed by a second solicitation, as is being considered, the Army's need for further research in AI makes it an ideal candidate for a URI area. Praiseworthy plans for a TRADOC-supervised, contractor- operated AI Applications Center sponsored by the Army were presented at the committee's January 1986 meeting. By the October 1986 meeting, however, plans for the Center had been dropped. (Note that this Applications Center differs from the AI Center at the Pentagon, about which â¢the committee was not briefed.) The transience of such proposals points to the fundamental issue--the incompatibility of the Army's long-term planning and resources with educational time constants, complicated bv the high rate of technological change. The Army needs to recognize the importance of long-term support, identify key program areas, and stick with them; the uncertain status of the AI Applications Center suggests that the Army has not yet done this. As originally proposed, the Center was a good idea and we support it. ARMY INTERNAL TRAINING PROGRAMS The programs geared toward short-term training in AI and robotics generally seemed to be stronger than the Army's long-term educational activities. The Army recognizes that the technology is evolving and that, as a result, more intensive and frequent training of its personnel is required. Maintenance and support of equipment will become a major issue in the future, and the Army will need to upgrade its training even further. The Army also has advanced to the use of technology such as CAI (computer-aided instruction) as teaching tools and training aids and is to be complimented on its progress. This is true not only of the Hawk Missile Maintenance Tutor described in the previous chapter, but also of the AI Center of Excellence, programs at Fort Gordon, and an entry level course at Fort Lee.
