PORTFOLIO // PROJECT
A standardized collection plan designed to capture C2 training observations, identify recurring integration gaps, and convert field feedback into actionable curriculum and training improvements.
I created the C2CWG as an observation collection and training feedback framework — not a meeting series — connecting C2TECOE, the MISTC sites, MOCTT observers, C2 instructors, site directors, system specialists, and operational unit feedback into one repeatable improvement cycle.
SEC 01 // PROJECT OVERVIEW
I created the C2CWG to solve a recurring challenge in C2 training: observations, system issues, operator proficiency gaps, and site-level lessons were being identified during exercises and training events — but there was no consistent framework to collect them, compare them across sites, prioritize them, and turn them into updates for training, curriculum, instructor development, and system-integration practices.
The C2 training environment includes many systems, workflows, and stakeholders, and different MISTC locations see different issues. Some problems are technical — system configuration, data flow, network setup, integration between C2 applications. Others are procedural — inconsistent operator proficiency, limited troubleshooting ability, weak understanding of information flow, or unclear watch officer and watch chief control over the common tactical picture. Without a standardized collection plan, those observations stayed trapped in a single event, a single instructor, or a single site — making it hard to spot recurring trends or decide which issues should drive change.
The C2CWG made C2 training improvement deliberate, repeatable, and evidence-driven.
SEC 02 // MY ROLE
I created and shaped the C2CWG concept end to end: the working group structure, how monthly and quarterly feedback would be collected, reviewed, and used, and the observation collection approach built around operator proficiency, system integration, mission-thread execution, and training-site trends.
I created the framework for standardized observation reports so different sites collect information in a consistent format, and shaped the process for converting observations into recommendations — assigning ownership, tracking status, and rolling updates into future training improvements. Throughout, I worked to align technical observation with training relevance, so issues weren't just documented but connected back to curriculum, instructor development, student performance, and operational readiness.
SEC 03 // THE FEEDBACK LOOP
The C2CWG runs as a repeatable observation and feedback cycle. Recurring monthly and quarterly touchpoints gather data from training sites, instructors, observers, and system specialists — collecting both operator feedback and observer-based findings, then converting them into recommendations and tracked action items.
STEP 01
Watch training and exercises as they actually execute.
STEP 02
Gather operator and instructor feedback from the event.
STEP 03
Record technical and procedural findings in a standard format.
STEP 04
Compare observations to find recurring trends across sites.
STEP 05
Develop recommendations grounded in the evidence.
STEP 06
Give every recommendation an owner and track its status.
STEP 07
Improve curriculum, training methods, and integration practices.
STEP 08
Check progress at the next C2CWG session — and repeat.
SEC 04 // COLLECTION PLAN ARCHITECTURE
CMP 1
Standardized feedback from operators and students that measures practical proficiency — not attendance. It captures confidence using assigned systems after instruction, ability to explain system outputs to a watch officer or watch chief, ability to troubleshoot basic data-flow or display issues, understanding of how system inputs affect the common operational picture, ability to perform core tasks without constant instructor intervention, and remaining gaps or unclear workflows.
CMP 2
Standardizes how instructors, site personnel, and observers collect information during real training execution — mission threads, system chains, operator workflows, integration points, and watch-floor processes — across battalion, regiment, and major subordinate command events, and across fires, close air support, digital CAS, call for fire, intelligence, maneuver, and C2 reporting workflows. It doesn't just ask "did the system work?" — it asks whether people, process, and technology worked together to support command and control.
CMP 3
A common reporting format so observations from different sites and events can be compared and used. It captures systems observed, mission threads, external tie-ins, training context, operator actions, process issues, technical issues, strengths, gaps, and recommendations — consistent enough to compare, detailed enough for complex technical findings, and readable by leadership, curriculum developers, instructors, and integration personnel.
SEC 05 // RECOMMENDATION HANDLING & BATTLE RHYTHM
The most important part of the C2CWG is what happens after the note is taken. Every finding moves through a tracked pipeline with a named owner, reviewed at every working group session until it lands as a training or curriculum update.
MONTHLY C2CWG
Keeps stakeholders aligned: review of recent observations, futures and system updates, trend tracking, and status on open recommendations. Attended by key site leadership, selected instructors, system specialists, MOCTT representation, and C2TECOE HQ stakeholders.
QUARTERLY C2CWG
Expands the discussion: deeper trend analysis, site-to-site comparison, instructor development needs, training refinement, and curriculum input — a larger review of observation trends and training improvement priorities.
SEC 06 // SKILLS DEMONSTRATED
SEC 07 // PROJECT SUMMARY
The C2CWG project demonstrates my ability to identify an organizational gap, design a practical collection framework, coordinate across technical and training stakeholders, and turn complex C2 observations into a repeatable improvement process. By creating the structure for operator feedback, observation reporting, recommendation tracking, and recurring working group review, I helped establish a more deliberate way to improve C2 training across multiple sites and events.