In 1983 there was a dramatic change in the activities of the Royal Australian Army Educational Corps (RAAEC). From 1965 to 1983, the RAAEC satisfied the educational needs of soldiers in the Regular Army by conducting the Australian Army Certificate of Education Class 1 (AACE 1) and the Australian Army Certificate of Education Class 2 (AACE 2). These courses were originally designed to parallel civilian secondary school studies, and as a result, the AACE program's structure, subject range and content were similar to those of the civilian educational system. This duplication was so complete that credit towards the AACE qualifications was granted for secondary school studies at, or above, Year 9. In August 1983 the AACE program was replaced by a new program of Army education. This program consisted of two courses - Subject 3 Level 1 and Subject 3 Level 2. Whereas the AACE courses were lengthy and included an extensive range of subjects, the Subject 3 courses were of relatively short duration and addressed only literacy and numeracy skills. As this change was carefully planned and deliberately executed to better satisfy the educational needs of soldiers, for the purposes of this field study, it was described as an innovation - the Subject 3 innovation. The study reported here reviewed the Subject 3 innovation process. To ensure that the review was comprehensive, the innovation process was examined from a number of different perspectives. These included an historical description, an analysis of the innovation strategy, a review of the curriculum development tool and decision making, and a determination of the process necessary to confirm and remediate any deficiencies in the innovation process. The outcomes of this review of the Subject 3 innovation process gave cause to question the validity of many fundamental characteristics of the Subject 3 courses, e.g. the scope of the course content, the content validity of the terminal assessment instruments, and the exit standards of the courses. The field study concluded that there was an urgent need to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the Subject 3 courses to verify and correct these shortcomings.