This is a very detailed paper that has many layres of intructions. There is a short video that needs to be watched and a file of instructions with reading material attached to complete this paper.
https://us-lti.bbcollab.com/recording/4c7e3d2fe1c44ce6a3034a34235b1799
The F111A essay is not easy. It will take time for you to do the research, pull together the relevant information, organize your paper and produce a well-thought out paper. I HIGHLY recommend that as you go through each lesson, you pay attention to the readings that discuss how things were done during the post-Vietnam era. As you identify differences in how things were done back then compared to now, write it down. Write down where you found the information in the readings. This will make the F111A essay go a bit more smoothly.
The F111A is a comparative analysis of HOW FM processes were done post-Vietnam vs. today’s processes. The paper is not about if the Big Five programs were successful, if the equipment did well in combat, or the complete history of how any of them were developed. The paper is about the way (how, processes) the Army went about executing change, how that is different today (comparison), and why the differences matter (analysis).
The Army was in a bad spot coming out of Vietnam. It was a light infantry centric organization that was not modernized and not capable of executing large scale, maneuver combat. The Army needed to develop materiel solutions AND change the organizational structure to fix the problem. This required determining strategic guidance/decision making, capability determination, acquisition and organizational change. If you are looking for the readings to give you a detailed process of how things were done post-Vietnam, you will not find it. It did not exist like we have today. This is why you need to use the actions the Army took back then and compare those to the processes we use today.
Given this paper is about HOW things were done, using one of the Big Five is so you have the information from which to execute a comparison. We give you the readings that say how these programs were decided upon, the way the Army did capability determination (or not in some cases), and went through the acquisition process of post-Vietnam. This allows you to compare what happened in the past with today’s processes. Given you also need to address organizational change, the F104 lesson tells you how we do it today, and you have readings in F105 that discuss the methods used by the Army post-Vietnam to do a comparison.
I highly recommend you DO NOT try go through the historical actions, then go through today’s processes, and then try to do analysis at the end. This is not a comparison. It is not the reader’s job to identify the differences in a comparative analysis. It is your job as the writer to clearly identify, discuss and analyze those differences.
I recommend you structure your paper as follows:
– Introduction (a proper introduction with the paper’s purpose, thesis and primary supporting topics)
– Strategic problem (what condition was the Army in post-Vietnam, the threat that needed addressed, etc. Why did the Army need to change?)
– Strategic decision making (comparison and analysis)
– Capability determination (comparison and analysis)
– Acquisition (comparison and analysis)
– Organization (comparison and analysis)
– Conclusion (a proper conclusion that restates the primary points and does not introduce new information)
A paper 4-6 pages in length (3.5 pages is not 4 pages) is not a lot of room. You need to get to drawing out your specific differences and how that is specifically different than today. Again, do not try to give a history lesson and then regurgitate the entire current processes. That is not a comparison, and that is not analysis.
1. SCOPE
The F111 lesson contains the two final assessments of F100. The two assessments may be completed in any order. However, both assessments require you to apply the knowledge you gained during this course. Both assessments are addressed in the F100 block advance sheet Appendix A, Assessment Plan located in the F100 lesson area in Blackboard.
– The first assessment is the 4- to 6-page F111 Final Essay (40% of the F100 grade).
– The second assessment is the F111 Final Exam; it is a Cumulative Blackboard Exam (20% of the F100 grade). This is a multiple-choice test with a 2.5-hour time limit. The test cannot be paused or stopped once started. You have one attempt.
2. LEARNING OBJECTIVES
This lesson supports CGSOC TLO-CC-8, “Demonstrate Department of Defense processes that provide Army capabilities to commanders,” as listed in the F100 block advance sheet.
3. FINAL ESSAY INSTRUCTIONS
The administrative requirements for the Final Essay are the same as the two other submitted written assessments (with the exception of length requirement), and are listed in the F100 Appendix A, Assessment Plan. However, the grading rubric is different for the F111 Final Essay. The F111 Final Essay grading rubric is at the end of this document. All students should review ST 22-2 for writing standards and use the Writing Resource Center (contact information on Blackboard).
F111 Final Essay (40%):
This essay (4-6 pages) is due after the completion of F110. The final essay is a comparative analysis. You will compare the processes used to change the Army during the post-Vietnam timeframe to the processes used today. Use one of the Big 5 from your readings as the basis to conduct the comparison. The primary topic of the paper is not one of the Big 5, but using one of the Big 5 provides you the information needed to do a comparison of past processes vs. today’s processes.
JCIDS, DAS, PPBE, TAA, TAP, etc. did not exist during the post-Vietnam era. So how did the Army make decisions and how is that different than today? Why does it matter?
This is not a history paper of what happened in the past, nor is it a paper that acts like the current processes were used in the past. It is a comparative analysis. How did the Army decide what strategic changes needed to take place? How was it different than what happens today? What is your analysis of this difference/these differences? The preceding is an example for looking at strategic guidance. Ensure you address each of the ELOs. You must address materiel and organizational change in your essay. Ensure you do not simply restate history and regurgitate today’s process; that is not a comparative analysis between two different things. See the F100 Discussion Board for further discussion.
As with all essays, you must cite properly. Papers turned in without citations are academically unacceptable. https://us-lti.bbcollab.com/recording/4c7e3d2fe1c44ce6a3034a34235b1799
The F111A essay is not easy. It will take time for you to do the research, pull together the relevant information, organize your paper and produce a well-thought out paper. I HIGHLY recommend that as you go through each lesson, you pay attention to the readings that discuss how things were done during the post-Vietnam era. As you identify differences in how things were done back then compared to now, write it down. Write down where you found the information in the readings. This will make the F111A essay go a bit more smoothly.
The F111A is a comparative analysis of HOW FM processes were done post-Vietnam vs. today’s processes. The paper is not about if the Big Five programs were successful, if the equipment did well in combat, or the complete history of how any of them were developed. The paper is about the way (how, processes) the Army went about executing change, how that is different today (comparison), and why the differences matter (analysis).
The Army was in a bad spot coming out of Vietnam. It was a light infantry centric organization that was not modernized and not capable of executing large scale, maneuver combat. The Army needed to develop materiel solutions AND change the organizational structure to fix the problem. This required determining strategic guidance/decision making, capability determination, acquisition and organizational change. If you are looking for the readings to give you a detailed process of how things were done post-Vietnam, you will not find it. It did not exist like we have today. This is why you need to use the actions the Army took back then and compare those to the processes we use today.
Given this paper is about HOW things were done, using one of the Big Five is so you have the information from which to execute a comparison. We give you the readings that say how these programs were decided upon, the way the Army did capability determination (or not in some cases), and went through the acquisition process of post-Vietnam. This allows you to compare what happened in the past with today’s processes. Given you also need to address organizational change, the F104 lesson tells you how we do it today, and you have readings in F105 that discuss the methods used by the Army post-Vietnam to do a comparison.
I highly recommend you DO NOT try go through the historical actions, then go through today’s processes, and then try to do analysis at the end. This is not a comparison. It is not the reader’s job to identify the differences in a comparative analysis. It is your job as the writer to clearly identify, discuss and analyze those differences.
I recommend you structure your paper as follows:
– Introduction (a proper introduction with the paper’s purpose, thesis and primary supporting topics)
– Strategic problem (what condition was the Army in post-Vietnam, the threat that needed addressed, etc. Why did the Army need to change?)
– Strategic decision making (comparison and analysis)
– Capability determination (comparison and analysis)
– Acquisition (comparison and analysis)
– Organization (comparison and analysis)
– Conclusion (a proper conclusion that restates the primary points and does not introduce new information)
A paper 4-6 pages in length (3.5 pages is not 4 pages) is not a lot of room. You need to get to drawing out your specific differences and how that is specifically different than today. Again, do not try to give a history lesson and then regurgitate the entire current processes. That is not a comparison, and that is not analysis.
1. SCOPE
The F111 lesson contains the two final assessments of F100. The two assessments may be completed in any order. However, both assessments require you to apply the knowledge you gained during this course. Both assessments are addressed in the F100 block advance sheet Appendix A, Assessment Plan located in the F100 lesson area in Blackboard.
– The first assessment is the 4- to 6-page F111 Final Essay (40% of the F100 grade).
– The second assessment is the F111 Final Exam; it is a Cumulative Blackboard Exam (20% of the F100 grade). This is a multiple-choice test with a 2.5-hour time limit. The test cannot be paused or stopped once started. You have one attempt.
2. LEARNING OBJECTIVES
This lesson supports CGSOC TLO-CC-8, “Demonstrate Department of Defense processes that provide Army capabilities to commanders,” as listed in the F100 block advance sheet.
3. FINAL ESSAY INSTRUCTIONS
The administrative requirements for the Final Essay are the same as the two other submitted written assessments (with the exception of length requirement), and are listed in the F100 Appendix A, Assessment Plan. However, the grading rubric is different for the F111 Final Essay. The F111 Final Essay grading rubric is at the end of this document. All students should review ST 22-2 for writing standards and use the Writing Resource Center (contact information on Blackboard).
F111 Final Essay (40%):
This essay (4-6 pages) is due after the completion of F110. The final essay is a comparative analysis. You will compare the processes used to change the Army during the post-Vietnam timeframe to the processes used today. Use one of the Big 5 from your readings as the basis to conduct the comparison. The primary topic of the paper is not one of the Big 5, but using one of the Big 5 provides you the information needed to do a comparison of past processes vs. today’s processes.
JCIDS, DAS, PPBE, TAA, TAP, etc. did not exist during the post-Vietnam era. So how did the Army make decisions and how is that different than today? Why does it matter?
This is not a history paper of what happened in the past, nor is it a paper that acts like the current processes were used in the past. It is a comparative analysis. How did the Army decide what strategic changes needed to take place? How was it different than what happens today? What is your analysis of this difference/these differences? The preceding is an example for looking at strategic guidance. Ensure you address each of the ELOs. You must address materiel and organizational change in your essay. Ensure you do not simply restate history and regurgitate today’s process; that is not a comparative analysis between two different things. See the F100 Discussion Board for further discussion.
As with all essays, you must cite properly. Papers turned in without citations are academically unacceptable.