Managing Military Readiness

"This paper presents an analytic framework that builds from previous work to yield the systematic and defendable readiness analysis that must underlie decisions ranging from budget allocation to force employment and even strategy development. To manage readiness, the Department of Defense must balance the supply and demand of deployable forces around the world. The readiness of an individual unit is the result of a series of time-intensive force generation processes that ultimately combine qualified people, working equipment, and unit training to produce military capabilities suitable for executing the defense strategy. While this discussion is a basic tenet of production theory, it had not been commonly applied to readiness management until recently. The important point here is that understanding how the readiness of military capabilities is generated provides the clearest picture of the current readiness status and whether that status is likely to change over time. Furthermore, it provides the best shot at identifying effective management policies to ensure that DOD can generate the capabilities that the Nation asks of it. This paper argues that traditional unit-level readiness metrics are useful as part of a larger readiness management construct, but by themselves they do not provide enough information to proactively manage strategically. This approach provides a clear explanation of the causes of readiness degradations and options for how to mitigate them that can be traced to precise resource investments"--Page 1.

"This paper presents an analytic framework that builds from previous work to yield the systematic and defendable readiness analysis that must underlie decisions ranging from budget allocation to force employment and even strategy development. To manage readiness, the Department of Defense must balance the supply and demand of deployable forces around the world. The readiness of an individual unit is the result of a series of time-intensive force generation processes that ultimately combine qualified people, working equipment, and unit training to produce military capabilities suitable for executing the defense strategy. While this discussion is a basic tenet of production theory, it had not been commonly applied to readiness management until recently. The important point here is that understanding how the readiness of military capabilities is generated provides the clearest picture of the current readiness status and whether that status is likely to change over time. Furthermore, it provides the best shot at identifying effective management policies to ensure that DOD can generate the capabilities that the Nation asks of it. This paper argues that traditional unit-level readiness metrics are useful as part of a larger readiness management construct, but by themselves they do not provide enough information to proactively manage strategically. This approach provides a clear explanation of the causes of readiness degradations and options for how to mitigate them that can be traced to precise resource investments"--Page 1.

The Dept. of Defense (DoD) reports data about the operational readiness of its forces. In 1999, Congress directed DoD to create a comprehensive readiness system with timely, objective, and accurate data. In response, DoD started to develop the Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS). After 7 years, DoD has incrementally fielded some capabilities, and, through FY 2008, reported obligating about $96.5 million. This report reviews the program including the extent that DoD has: (1) effectively managed and overseen DRRS acquisition and deployment; and (2) implemented features of DRRS consistent with legislative requirements and DoD guidance. Includes recommendations. Charts and tables. This is a print on demand report.

This General Accounting Office (GAO) report addresses concerns that the time military personnel are spending away from home on deployments - commonly called personnel tempo (PERSTEMPO) - has increased and is stressing portions of the military community and adversely affecting readiness. The GAO was asked to review: (1) U.S. forces' frequency of deployments in recent years; (2) the effect of increased PERSTEMPO on the readiness of U.S. forces; and (3) Department of Defense (DOD) actions to mitigate the impact of high PERSTEMPO, including efforts to create systems for measuring PERSTEMPO. The end of the Cold War and the evolution of a new security environment have resulted in new operating realities for the U.S. military. Amid significant reductions in the overall size of U.S. forces, defense budgets, and overseas presence, the U.S. military must continue to deploy its forces for traditional combat training and simultaneously manage increased demands to deploy forces for peace operations and other activities. U.S. military forces have participated in peace operations for many years. For example, the United States has committed military personnel to the Multinational Force and Observers since 1982 to ensure that Israel and Egypt abide by the provisions of the Sinai Peace Treaty. However, in recent years, U.S. participation in peace operations has grown. In 1992 alone, the United States began deployments eventually totaling 26,000 personnel to Somalia, 3,000 to Bosnia, and 14,000 to Southwest Asia The ongoing deployment to Bosnia is expected to involve over 20,000 troops. Congress and others have expressed concern about the overall impact of peace operations on unit and personnel readiness.

GAO-01-566 Military Readiness: Management Focus Needed on Airfields for Overseas Deployments

Military Readiness: DOD Needs to Strengthen Management and Oversight of the Defense Readiness Reporting System

The Department of Defense (DOD) reports data about the operational readiness of its forces. In 1999, Congress directed DOD to create a comprehensive readiness system with timely, objective, and accurate data. In response, DOD started to develop the Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS). After 7 years, DOD has incrementally fielded some capabilities, and, through fiscal year 2008, reported obligating about $96.5 million. GAO was asked to review the program including the extent that DOD has (1) effectively managed and overseen DRRS acquisition and deployment and (2) implemented features of DRRS consistent with legislative requirements and DOD guidance. GAO compared DRRS acquisition disciplines, such as requirements development, test management, and DRRS oversight activities, to DOD and related guidance, and reviewed the system's current and intended capabilities relative to legislative requirements and DOD guidance. We did not evaluate DOD's overall ability to assess force readiness or the extent that readiness data reflects capabilities, vulnerabilities, or performance issues. GAO is making recommendations