Assessment of the Air Force Materiel Command Reorganization

Assessment of the Air Force Materiel Command Reorganization: Report for Congress

Don Snyder
Bernard Fox
Kristin F. Lynch
Raymond E. Conley
John A. Ausink
Laura Werber
William Shelton
Sarah A. Nowak
Michael R. Thirtle
Albert A. Robbert
Copyright Date: 2013
Published by: RAND Corporation
Pages: 98
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/j.ctt5vjwm3
  • Cite this Item
  • Book Info
    Assessment of the Air Force Materiel Command Reorganization
    Book Description:

    This report assesses the FY 2012 reorganization of the Air Force Material Command (AFMC), which was undertaken as one of the initiatives to achieve mandated budget reductions by eliminating civilian manpower positions, thus achieving cost savings. One AFMC challenge was to absorb these cuts with minimal, if any, impact on its assigned missions in part by targeting staff positions.

    eISBN: 978-0-8330-8468-2
    Subjects: History, Political Science
    × Close Overlay

Table of Contents

Export Selected Citations
  1. Front Matter (pp. i-ii)
  2. Preface (pp. iii-iv)
  3. Table of Contents (pp. v-vi)
  4. Figures (pp. vii-viii)
  5. Tables (pp. ix-x)
  6. Summary (pp. xi-xvi)
  7. Acknowledgments (pp. xvii-xviii)
  8. Abbreviations (pp. xix-xxii)
  9. 1. Introduction and Context of the AFMC Reorganization (pp. 1-6)

    In 2011, Congress mandated budget reductions¹ that require the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to reduce its future spending by approximately $487 billion over the next decade.² To realize one part of these reductions, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) called for all services to return to their fiscal year (FY) 2010 civilian staffing levels.³ That action required the Air Force to eliminate approximately 16,500 civilian manpower positions. Rather than distributing these cuts proportionally throughout the service, the Air Force sought specific initiatives that could achieve the necessary savings with minimal impact to missions. One initiative, a reorganization...

  10. 2. The AFMC Reorganization (pp. 7-22)

    The Air Force took advantage of the directed reductions in personnel described in Chapter One to implement a sweeping change in the organization of AFMC. This change was intended not only to achieve cost reductions by eliminating a number of manpower positions but also to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the command.

    Recent changes in personnel authorizations for AFMC are the result of several initiatives. For example, in addition to civilian personnel reductions attributable to the AFMC reorganization, Round 1 of the response to RMD 703A2 at AFMC included the following:

    reductions resulting from the restructure of MAJCOM headquarters...

  11. 3. Methodology for Assessing the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Reorganization (pp. 23-34)

    Element 1 of Section 2814 of the FY 2013 NDAA calls for an assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of the FY 2012 AFMC reorganization.¹ As overall military capabilities emerge from a combination of the elements of doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities, together with policy (DOTMLPFP),² the effectiveness and efficiency of mission performance result from how well each element of DOTMLPF-P is designed, integrated, and implemented by a military command. Organization, therefore, is just one of many factors that affect the effectiveness and efficiency of AFMC prior to and after the reorganization.

    Since all the...

  12. 4. Assessing the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Reorganization (pp. 35-54)

    In this chapter, we assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the FY 2012 AFMC reorganization. We emphasize again that (1) organization is just one component of doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities, together with policy (DOTMLPF-P) that contributes to effectiveness and efficiency; (2) many of the benefits and possible challenges associated with the reorganization will require a much longer time frame to come to full fruition; and (3) that factors outside AFMC’s control, such as budgetary constraints, also contribute.

    In conducting this assessment, we restrict the analysis to the elements that changed as a result of...

  13. 5. Institutional Synergies and the Test and Evaluation Mission (pp. 55-66)

    This chapter responds to Elements 2 and 3 of the Section 2814 language by describing the Air Force T&E; missions and assessing the impact of the reorganization (1) on the synergies¹ among DT&E;, S&T;, and acquisition; (2) on the synergies between DT&E; and OT&E; and (3) on other commands' ability to carry out their OT&E; and FOT&E; missions.

    T&E; is a key component of the acquisition process. It has two primary goals: (1) to identify problems as early in a program’s life-cycle as possible to minimize the cost and schedule impacts of redesign and rework; and (2) to ensure that...

  14. 6. Adherence with 10 U.S.C. Section 2687 (pp. 67-68)

    The following assessment of the compliance of the AFMC reorganization with 10 U.S.C. Section 2687 was provided at RAND’s request by the office of the Air Force General Counsel on April 26, 2013:

    10 U.S.C. Section 2687 requires that the Secretary of the Air Force notify Congress in advance of certain planned base closures or base realignments. When one of the statutory requirements for notification is triggered, the Secretary must identify the criteria that were used to consider the closure or realignment and submit an evaluation of its fiscal, local economic, budgetary, environmental, strategic, and operational consequences. This submission must...

  15. 7. Coordination with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (pp. 69-70)

    The services have the right and responsibility to organize. Under some circumstances, coordination with OSD is needed. Actions that cause a significant change to the T&E; capability of a Major Range and Test Facilities Base (MRTFB) must be approved by the director of the Test Resource Management Center (TRMC).¹ And, since the Defense Acquisition Executive has statutory responsibilities for the defense acquisition workforce,² continued lines of communication between the SAE and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics are vital to managing the acquisition workforce.

    In the case of the FY 2012 reorganization of AFMC, no changes...

  16. Appendix: Section 2814 of the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (pp. 71-72)
  17. References (pp. 73-76)

Access

You are not currently logged in.

Login through your institution for access.

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.