Ten years after institution of the multiservice effort to develop a common doctrine and procedures for systematic development of training and education curricula, which became known as Instructional Systems Development (ISD), a U.S. Army Training Board report declared that the Army's military occupational specialties were devoid of serious analysis, design, and developmental work. One reason for ICD's lack of success may have been the Army's failure to establish a fully trained professional corps of civilian training developers led by training managers who were deeply grounded in ISD. At the school level, neither the active duty military nor the civilian specialists were well grounded in ISD. At the same time, civilian specialists found their jobs to hold little prestige, and commanders and service school commandants failed to grasp the ISD concept. Like competency-based education, ISD had strong behaviorist roots. Many educators, on the other hand, tend to follow a humanist philosophy. Part of this problem with educational philosophy may have been rooted in ISD itself since the system was cumbersome, bureaucratic, and too time-consuming to follow. It must also be remembered that at the time of ISD's implementation the Army was also experiencing serious problems with recruitment. Notwithstanding all of these possible causes for the failure of ISD, perhaps the key reason for its failure was an inability to come to grips with the Army's real training needs. (MN)