A sound, analytically based methodology would help the Army to ensure that its institutional force is efficiently organized and comprises the minimum number of personnel. Such a methodology is essential for the Army to make data-based decisions on how to allocate resources among institutional organizations, have assurance the highest priority functions are funded, and be aware of the risks in not funding some institutional functions. The use of workload-based criteria in implementing the programmed downsizing of 13,000 positions and Quadrennial Defense Review reductions could help the Army minimize effects on its ability to perform institutional functions and may help introduce more efficient organizations and processes. A smaller institutional force may also generate savings the Army could apply to its modernization programs or its operational forces. Although the Army has a plan to correct this material weakness, the plan is incomplete, and the Army may have difficulty accomplishing the corrective actions within established time frames. The plan provides a mechanism to ensure compliance with the Army's methodology for determining institutional requirements. However, if the plan's certification and quality assurance milestones are extended due to insufficient resources, the Army will be making reductions without knowing if commands are performing the analyses required to make sound decisions about staffing levels and reduce the cost of accomplishing institutional functions. The Army's plan is to simultaneously develop workload approaches (12-step method and AWPS) and a system to calculate the cost for institutional positions. Until all three efforts are completed and integrated, the Army cannot be assured that it has the minimum essential institutional force, and the Army's planning, programmiing, budgeting, and execution system for institutional functions will not be based on workload. If key subplans remain undeveloped, the Army has no method for assessing its progress toward meeting the plan's current completion date of December 1999. As a result, further reductions or retention of institutional personnel may result without the benefits of workload analysis and assessments of risks and tradeoffs. Army oversight is necessary to ensure that Force XXI institutional redesign results are achieved. To date, the Army has not identified specific, measurable redesign goals, even though its own guidance acknowledges the importance of doing so. Army documents include general goals for improving institutional efficiency but, other than reducing the number of major commands, do not specify measures to achieve efficiencies. Without measurable performance goals, it may be difficult for the Army to know when its vision for the institutional force, as stated in Pamphlet 100xx, is achieved. Further, savings will be less than projected. In fact, the Army may not know the source of the savings because no single office monitors the status of redesign initiatives or their implementation costs. The Force XXI redesign concept includes proposals to reduce the number of major commands and realign their functions. Since the 12-step, methodology includes analyses of how to structure and staff organizations efficiently, the Army could coordinate implementing major command realignments with the 12-step analysis techniques. Such coordination could result in institutional efficiencies, which would provide the Army an opportunity to transfer military institutional personnel to fill shortfalls in support forces. This transfer would increase the proportion of Army resources devoted to missions and decrease the proportion devoted to infrastructure. Recommendations To improve the Army's ability to accurately project institutional requirements, allocate institutional personnel, and make informed, analysis- based decisions on risks and tradeoffs, we recommend that the Secretary of the Army complete subplans of the material weakness plan, modify milestones to accurately reflect available resources to accomplish corrective actions, and closely monitor results. To improve the Army's ability to accurately project institutional requirements derived from AWPS, we recommend that the Secretary of the Army direct the Assistant Secretary for Manpower and Reserve Affairs to develop a long-range master plan to implement AWPS, including milestones and definitions of corporate-level requirements. To improve the Army's ability to make informed, analysis-based decisions on benefits, risks, and tradeoffs in realigning major command organizations and functions, we recommend that the Secretary of the Army require that workload-based analyses, such as the 12-step methodology, be used to demonstrate the benefits, risks, and tradeoffs of Force XXI institutional redesign decisions. To improve the Army's ability to oversee reforms for increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of its institutional force, we recommend that the Secretary of the Army assign a single office the responsibility to provide management and oversight of the institutional redesign process to include identifying clear, specific, and measurable performance goals; publishing these goals in a final version of Pamphlet 100xx; monitoring savings and implementation costs; and periodically reporting results achieved along with the stated goals and projections of the initiatives' savings and implementation costs. Agency Comments In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD generally concurred with the report and all recommendations. DOD also stated that it will request that the Army take appropriate action to implement our recommendations. DOD's comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix III. We are providing copies of this report to the Secretaries of Defense and the Army, other appropriate congressional committees, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. We will also provide copies to other interested parties on request. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. Sincerely yours, Richard Davis Director, National Security Analysis 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