To determine the extent to which the Army addressed its historical weakness in determining institutional requirements, we compared the June 1997 draft material weakness plan to the October 1997 approved plan to identify changes in milestones, progress in subplans' development, and the intent to administer and monitor the plan. We also examined Army and Department of Defense (DOD) guidance and regulations regarding implementation of workload-based systems and processes, such as the 12-step method and the Army Workload and Performance System (AWPS).
We obtained documentation and interviewed knowledgeable Army officials from Army Headquarters, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans-Directorate of Force Programs, Washington, D.C.; and the Industrial Operations Command, Rock Island, Illinois. We observed pilot testing of AWPS at the Corpus Christi Army Depot, Texas. We also analyzed documents and held discussions regarding AWPS system implementation, status of training, management of depot workload, systems requirements, and the lack of updated project schedules.
We obtained relevant documentation on existing requirements determination processes at Forces Command, Fort McPherson, Georgia; the Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia; the Army Materiel Command, Alexandria, Virginia; and the Management Engineering Activity, Huntsville, Alabama, which performed the Army Materiel Command's requirements assessments. The three major commands account for 43 percent of the civilian institutional workforce and 47 percent of the military institutional workforce. We compared each of the command's processes with the 12-step method to identify compliance and program differences. We also assessed the use of the requirements determination processes in budget formulation and execution at Army Headquarters and the major commands.
To assess the extent to which the Army's streamlining initiatives identified opportunities to reduce Army personnel devoted to institutional functions and realize savings, we reviewed streamlining guidance and interviewed knowledgeable officials from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs; the Directorate of Force Programs within the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans; the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller; the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics; Forces Command; Training and Doctrine Command; and Army Materiel Command. During discussions with the officials, we obtained documentation describing each initiative, estimated implementation costs, and dollar and personnel savings for the 107 fiscal year 1998-2003 institutional redesign initiatives. We also obtained documentation and discussed military position transfers from institutional to operational forces. However, our assessment focused on those initiatives that represented the largest percentage of the phase I redesign savings.
Officials from the Army's Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation provided documentation of the dollar savings included in the 1998-2003 Program Objective Memorandum and validated our analysis of those numbers. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs validated the personnel savings.
To identify the distribution of active Army and civilian institutional personnel and analyze institutional trends, we obtained the number of institutional positions from fiscal years 1992 to 2003 from the Army Force Management and Support Agency's Structure and Manpower Allocation System database. We did not conduct a full reliability assessment because the data used in the report are for background and context and are not vital to audit results. However, Army officials explained the imbedded system edits they rely on to detect data errors and protect data integrity. Additionally, we independently corroborated the numbers at two commands. On the basis of our comparisons and the description of the database's system edits, we were satisfied that these data are the best available and that they accurately support our statements on institutional composition and trends.
We conducted our review from April to December 1997 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Back to Table of Contents Force Structure US Army
Back to GAO List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 1998 by US GAO.
This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com