Sources Sought Context Taxonomy Q and A.docx

Question: ARI has conducted significant research on context previously (see, for example, Brou et al 2022). How does this requirement differ from such previous requirements and work?

Answer: The primary difference is in the focus and scope – “context” is important to many of ARI’s research areas, and ARI has conducted context-relevant research for many years. The current requirement differs by focusing exclusively on the development and refinement of a broad taxonomy/framework, and not just as features ancillary to other research (e.g., context as a moderator for some process). The intent is for the development of a taxonomy that is applicable to a wide range of uses, including but not limited to development of assessment strategies or career path modeling.

Question: Brou et al. (2022) suggested a preliminary framework for guiding context-based assessment. Do you see it informing your work, and could the taxonomy described there be a useful starting point?

Answer: The Brou et al (2022) paper [full reference is Brou, Allen, Ratwani, Diedrich, Toumbeva, and Flanagan. (2022). Not that straightforward: Examining and enhancing soldier development. Journal of Military Learning.] could certainly inform research conducted under this requirement, as an example of adapting and enlarging existing situation taxonomies (e.g., DIAMONDS) for the military context, but we note that this paper appears to be focused primarily on tasks – potentially, the presence or absence of a specific task might itself be an aspect of a situation.

Question: Is it a goal of the research to validate the developed taxonomy against any particular criteria of interest?

Answer: The goal is not to develop or validate against a specific external criterion (e.g., job performance, unit culture, etc.). We do expect to see construct validation take place – although the specific form(s) of construct validation that make sense will of course depend on the research and analytical methods being proposed.

Question: Is the goal to develop a general framework that is applicable across the entire Army, or should the initial work target a specific branch or subset of roles?

Answer: Ideally, we would like a taxonomy or framework that is not branch, MOS, or rank-specific. However, we recognize that statistically validating a general framework on every relevant combination is not likely feasible with given resource constraints. Therefore, reasonable alternatives or boundary conditions will be considered – for example, choosing a mix of particular branch/MOS/rank combinations designed to give reasonably good coverage of a broad mix of situations.

Question: Are there particular data sources that would be available? Is there a particular mix of data sources (e.g., doctrinal sources, surveys, interviews, etc.) that is desired?

Answer: There is no preferred mix of data sources (e.g., doctrinal reviews, soldier surveys, interviews, etc.) to be used, but it is likely that multiple sources would be required, depending on the proposed approach. Soldier data (for example, from surveys) can be collected during umbrella weeks spread throughout each year, or using online survey platforms (e.g., Verint), although certain populations may not have easy access to computers to take online surveys. Some archival data relevant to the project may exist – for example, in the form of task and duty lists for particular positions, or various Army regulations (e.g., ADP 6-22).

Question: You reference job analysis, selection, development, assessment, and training needs analyses as potential application areas. How would the requirements differ across these uses?

Answer: Some such considerations might be part of a proposal (for example, to help identify the appropriate level of situational granularity to focus on) or could be left to future research.

Question: Can you give an example of how the civilian frameworks do and do not apply to military contexts?

Answer: Understanding where and how they might differ could be considered part of a potential research proposal.

Question: Can you give an example of an Army context, situation, and event to illustrate how they differ from each other?

Answer: Whether and how the concepts of context, situation, and event are meaningfully different is an open question, and any Army-specific examples of how the concepts may or may not be distinguishable would be too prescriptive.

Question: Are there specific deliverables/end states that need to be produced at the end of the base and each option period?

Answer: No – which end states make sense for particular periods of performance will depend on the specific nature of each proposal received.

Question: Should we propose travel? If so, are travel estimates accounted for in the dollar values provided, or do those only include labor?

Answer: IPRs and regular meetings can be conducted virtually (e.g., using MS Teams), but data collection activities might potentially require travel, depending on the mode of data collection being proposed. The dollar limits mentioned in the sources sought notice are inclusive of all categories (labor, travel, etc.).