In this lesson you will continue to review the key agencies and major force management processes used in developing warfighting capability provided to combatant comman Review
Major force management processes
Used in developing warfighting capability provided to combatant commanders for the operational environment.
You will focus on the relationship between the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution process and the Total Army Analysis process, the fourth phase of the force development p
You will address Total Army Analysis, the process that takes us from the Army of today to the Army of the future.
You will also address planning, programming, budgeting, and execution, the process for convincing the Secretary of Defense and Congress to authorize the resources that the Army needs
F103: Executive Summary discusses the purpose, principles, basics, and resources of the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process and the Total A “GEN Odierno AUSA Winter Symposium, February 24, 2012” presents an excerpt from a speech made by General Odierno at the 2012 AUSA Winter Symposium. As you study, keep the following focus questions in mind:
Which of the six PPBE principles appear to be followed in the reading, “General Odierno, AUSA Winter Symposium?” Which of the six PPBE principles appear NOT to be followed in the reading, “General Odierno, AUSA Winter Symposium?” Which of the five questions answered by programming will be most impacted by the speech delivered by Gen. Odierno in the reading?
Budget Concerns and Questions
You may be asking yourself, “Why do I have to learn about the TAA and PPBE processes?” Take some time to review the following questions. By the end of this lesson you should have a greater understanding of each question and the interrelationships between them.
Are budget concerns expressed by lawmakers and administration oﬃcials valid? Are they sound? Why or why not? Are they accurately portrayed and fairly discussed in the media? Should the DOD budget be “fenced” from any future budget reduction proposals? Why or why not? If budget reductions are proposed, who should make those determinations for the Army? If the Army reduces its budget, what criteria should it use to determine where those cuts would be applied? Are budget concerns expressed by lawmakers and oﬃcials valid? Are they sound? Why or why not?
The level of national debt is a legitimate concern for all stewards of government resources. Responsibility is specifically given to Congress in the separation of powers Discretionary and non-discretionary spending is a construct determined by law, therefore subject to change by Congress; it is not a constitutionally mandated system The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that there is no contractual right to social service payments (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) for any citizen; levels can be cha Are budget concerns accurately portrayed and fairly discussed in the media? Appeals to emotion rather than references to fact are a common fallacy in budget positions argued by many involved. Facts taken out of context or cited and then misinterpreted also often form the basis of arguments.
Comparing costs from future or past years without normalizing them, or multiple-year costs compared to single-year expenditures is another error. Should the DOD budget be “fenced” from any future budget reduction proposals? Why or why not? “Provide for the common defense” is one of the few directed missions of the federal government established in the preamble of the US Constitution. The “social worth” of DOD missions is not legally above that of any other executive branch mission. In theory, DOD should consume no more resources than are necessary to meet its mission; missions should be tied to civilian guidance as clearly and
If budget reductions are proposed, who should make those determinations for the Army? Ultimately, it is the Secretary of the Army who is responsible for recommending Army solutions, with input from the Army Staﬀ and commanders; they are evaluated, al If the Army reduces its budget, what criteria should it use to determine where those cuts would be applied?
Levels of expenditure should always be tied to identified and implied missions and risks. Criteria could vary widely, but should be derived from DOTMLPF and/or guidance received (or recommended) for missions and risks. Trade-oﬀs seeking to accommodate or take advantage of intra-Service or inter-Service rivalries or perceived political realities should not be the “start-point” of any
Force Management Processes
Remember that the Army receives guidance for its force structure from multiple sources, both within and without DOD.
Strategic Planning Summary
How the Army Receives Guidance
National Security Strategy (NSS): The NSS is the basic planning document for the executive branch of government, issued and signed by the President. It is written by the N The National Defense Strategy (NDS): The NDS outlines how DOD will contribute to achieving National Security objectives. Guidance for the Employment of the Force (GEF): The GEF consolidates and integrates DOD strategic planning guidance. Moves DOD from a “contingency-centric” to a “s Defense Planning and Programming Guidance (DPPG): The DPPG establishes
the DOD force development, resource and programming priorities, and consolidates and int NOTE: The DPPG is now called the Defense Programming Guidance (DPG).
Guidance and Decision Making
You should remember that the capability developed by the Army is in response to guidance and direction from the JCS, the DOD, and the President and SecDef.
This diagram graphically displays the relationship between strategic documents used in PPBE and the phase of PPBE to which they are relevant.
Strategic Documents and PPBE
While grouped linearly, it is important to remember that this is done to clearly show strategic documents’ relationships with PPBE phases.
PPBE is an iterative process that does not rigidly
“flow” from one discrete step to the next.
TAA is a subset of the Army Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) system, which is itself a subset of DOD-level Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution. . The six principles of Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution are as follows
Decisions should be based on explicit criteria of national interest, not on compromises among institutional forces. Needs and costs must be considered simultaneously.
Major decisions should be made by choices among explicit, balanced, and feasible alternatives. The Secretary should have an active, analytic staﬀ to provide him with relevant data and unbiased perspectives. Open and explicit analysis, available to all parties, must form the basis for major decisions. A multi-year force and financial plan is required to project the consequences of present decisions into the future.
While PPBE is primarily an internal DOD system, it has become an integral part of Congress’ and other executive departments’ vocabularies.
What is PPBE?
PPBE is primarily an internal DOD system; it has become an integral part of Congress’ and other executive departments’ vocabularies. PPBE is milestone-oriented and it ultimately influences activity levels, late-hour and weekend work requirements, leave schedules, and the disposition of everyone it PPBE is the primary resource management system for DOD. Virtually all of you will interact in some phase, and perhaps more than one phase of PPBE as field grade oﬃcers.
PPBE: The Primary Resource Management System for DOD
There are two management systems in DOD: administrative and PPBE. PPBE is the DOD’s primary resource management system.
Let’s all start with a common lexicon for planning, programming, and budgeting.
Planning is defining and examining alternative strategies; it includes analyzing changing conditions and trends, threats, technologies, and economic assessments. It is an eﬀort to understand both change and the implications of current choices, and it is a process for determining requirements. Programming
Programming is defining and analyzing alternative forces, weapon systems, and support systems, along with their multi-year resource implications. It includes evaluating various tradeoﬀ options; it is a process for balancing and integrating resources among various programs according to certain priorities. Budgeting
Budgeting includes formulating, justifying, executing, and controlling the budget. It is a process for convincing OSD and Congress to provide necessary resources,
and then balancing the checkbook to ensure that we do not over- or under-spend
The formation of the Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS) was directed by Robert McNamara and instituted by DOD Comptroller Charles J. Hitch. The PPBS was established in six months and used in preparing the FY 1963 budget. The system was designed to analyze defense requirements systematically, and Among the management tools developed to implement PPBS were the Five Year Defense Plan (FYDP) (now known as the Future Years Defense Plan), the Draft Pre The annual FYDP was a series of tables projecting forces for eight years and costs and manpower for five years in mission-oriented, rather than individual Service, p PPBE Recent Changes — Major changes to the system and documents were made by the Obama administration in early 2010.
On May 12 2008, Defense Secretary Robert Gates approved two key strategic planning documents designed to guide the development of war and contingency pla Those two documents were the Guidance for the Development of the Force and the Guidance for the Employment of the Force, both classified, biennial documents In 2008, the Guidance for the Development of the Force (GDF) replaced the Strategic Planning Guidance and considered a 20-year view of the security environment This guidance was consolidated into one volume to provide Service planners—those responsible for making strategic resource allocations—a single, authoritative t The Present — The DOD only develops single-year budgets, and the GDF and JPG were consolidated into the Defense Planning and Programming Guidance. PPBE Recent Changes
The Guidance for the Employment of the Force (GEF), first developed in coordination with the National Security Council by President Bush in 2008, set forth priorities The GEF also consolidated in one place what was previously issued in a number of documents, including the Contingency Planning Guidance, policy guidance for em
2010 PPBE Changes: In 2010, the Guidance for the Development of the Force (GDF) and the Joint Planning Guidance (JPG) were consolidated into the Defense Planning and
So what actually are the distinct parts of planning, programming, budgeting, and execution? Planning
Includes defining and examining alternative strategies; analyzing changing conditions and trends, threat, technology, and economic assessments; and understanding It is a process for determining requirements. Far term refers to plans for up to 25 years; mid term refers to plans for up to 16 years; and near term refers to plans for u There are multiple proponents for planning:
The OSD produces the DPPG, the National Defense Strategy, and the Quadrennial Defense Review. The JCS produces the National Military Strategy.
The G-3/5/7 produces The Army Plan and coordinates Total Army Analysis. The G-8 produces the Research and Development Acquisition Plan. Programming
This includes defining and analyzing alternative force structures, weapon systems, and support systems together with their multi-year resource implications and evalu It is a process for balancing and integrating resources among the various programs according to certain priorities. It is the art of translating guidance and objectives into action to produce combat capability with timely and balanced resource allocation and program integration. It answers the questions:
How big will we make the Army?
What forces will it contain?
What will we buy?
Where and what will we build?
What are the expected resource constraints?
This includes formulating, justifying, executing, and controlling the budget. It is a process for convincing OSD and Congress to provide necessary resources, and then balancing
the checkbook to ensure that we spend our resources in accord
This includes executing programs and budgets in the field.
This stage apportions, allocates, and allots funds; obligates and disburses funds; and, reports financial statuses.
The NMS is the primary input to the new DPPG.
The JCS produces the NMS.
The DPPG now links planning and programming.
Force structure is derived from the threat, strategy, constraints from DOD, and Army guidance.
Strategy and Force Structure
Force structure is derived from the threat, strategy, constraints from DOD, and Army guidance. The strategy that is currently followed isn’t “set in stone,” but represents an evolutionary shift in the US strategy. This ability to respond to change is what allows our current system to provide relevant, ready land power to DOD and to our nation. You should remember that the capability developed by the Army is in response to guidance and direction from the JCS, the DOD, and the President and Secretary of In January 2012, Secretary Panetta provided guidance that the AC be reduced to 490,000 by FY 17. The CSA has indicated the AC will eliminate between 8 and 15 B
This image depicts the rapid changes to the DOD’s strategy since the 2004 timeframe. Note that the highlighted area reflects some of the changes in constraints directed within strategy de
Total Army Analysis Process
The purpose of TAA is to determine the required “operating and generating” forces necessary to support and sustain the “operating force,” echelon- above-brigad The specified combat forces and the EAB support forces determined during the TAA process are referred to as “operating forces.” For example, guidance includes the OSD “Directed Force,” currently set at 73 BCTs in the 2011 ASPG.
Two Broad Questions
The purpose of TAA is to determine the required “operating and generating” forces necessary to meet all of the tasks assigned to the Army. For example, guidance includes th
What supporting and generating forces are required to make the “operating force” successful during combat and daily mission requirements? TAA develops the sup What echelon above brigade (EAB) support force and generating force structure is necessary to meet the needs of the BCTs during homeland defense, Army suppo Determining the size and content of the Army force structure is an iterative, risk-benefit, trade-oﬀ analysis process.
Army Force Structure • Determining the size and content of the Army force Army Force Structure
structure is an iterative, risk-benefit, trade-oﬀ
analysis process. • The Program Objective Mem
Determining the size and content of the Army force structure is an iterative, risk-benefit, trade-oﬀ analysis process. The Program Objective Memorandum (POM) force (the force recommended and supported by resource requests in the Army POM as part of the TAA determines the force for each program year.
It has Army-wide participation, culminating in the Army’s senior leadership making decisions and providing approvals.
future years defen
Determine and justify a POM force, aligned with the QDR, the DPPG, and TAP. The POM force is that force projected to be raised, provisioned, sustained, and main Provide analytical underpinnings for the POM force for use in dialogue among Congress, OSD, Joint Staﬀ, Combatant Commanders and the Army. Assess the impacts of plans and potential alternatives for materiel acquisition, the production base, and equipment distribution programs on the projected force s Assure continuity of force structure requirements within the PPBE process. Provide the program basis for structuring organizational, materiel, and personnel requirements and projected authorizations. TAA’s Principal Products
The Army’s total warfighting requirements
Required support forces echelons above brigade (EAB). “Support” in TAA includes units like combat multipliers, fires A force resourced in accordance with requirements and budgetary constraints The Army structure (ARSTRUC) message and the initial POM force (The ARSTRUC is FOUO and is not releasable.) brigades, and sustainment units like sustai
The ARSTRUC message provides a historical record of the Army’s senior leadership’s final decisions during the TAA process. The ARSTRUC message, produced by DCS, G-3/7 Force Management, is directive in nature, providing the commands’ guidance and direction at the standard req
This diagram displays the function and structure of TAA, and how it supports the Army’s PPBE process. It shows the two phases of TAA, Capability Demand Analysis and Resourcing and
TAA is the process that takes us from the Army of today to the Army of the future. It requires a doctrinal basis and analysis; is based upon strategic guidance from above the Army; and involves threat analysis, specific scenarios, and an Army The G-3/5/7 conducts the Total Army Analysis (TAA) and the ODCS, G-8 develops the Research Development and Acquisition Plan (RDA Plan). TAA validates the operating force and produces the support and generating forces to complement the Army’s operating force.
TAA determines the correct mix of organizations required and resourced that comprise a balanced and aﬀordable force to meet the guidance. Guidance for this phase i TAA develops requirements and authorizations defining the force structure the Army must build, raise, provision, sustain, maintain, train, and resource, providing the co TAA provides the analytical underpinning for developing, explaining, and defending the Army force structure in the POM. By law, TAA is a biennial process initiated during even-numbered years. Based on guidance from Army leadership, this process has been shortened to 10 months durin
TAA is a two-phased analytical and subjective process consisting of capability demand analysis and resourcing and approval. The more critical of the two phases, capability demand analysis, is made up of two separate events: force guidance and quantitative analysis. Click on each highlighted area to learn
Consists of data inputs and guidance from NMS, QDR, DPPG, and TAP. G-3/5/7 and the Center for Army Analysis (CAA), use the DPPG to prepare the combat force apportionment that drives the operating and generating force requirem Quantitative analysis begins with data and guidance inputs. DOD provides the directed scenarios utilized (the analytic agenda), which are developed for joint and com Directed Force — Force structure requirements defined by the QDR currently include: Prevail in today’s wars.
Prevent and deter conflict.
Prepare to defeat adversaries and succeed in a wide range of contingencies. Preserve and enhance the all-volunteer force.
The Army analytic process will achieve these construct elements. It will also evolve and adapt to the current uncertain security environment. This approach will adva During the analysis phase, Council of Colonels and the General Oﬃcer Steering Committee reviews ensure that all approved allocation rules and other guidance is f Demands
The Center for Army Analysis uses multiple computer models to determine the requirements driven by the guidance and data inputs. These include: MOBCEM and GDAS for analysis of mobilization and deployment requirements. COSAGE and JICM for tactical system interactions during theater campaigning. FORGE and FASTALS to determine the sustainment force structure. A computer program compares the approved, doctrinally-required force file provided from CAA with a current list of on-hand and programmed units to determine pro
Senior Leaders of the Dept. of the Army (SLDA) Approval
Phase I is complete after the CoC/GO-level review and approval of the CAA modeling and analysis. The CoC/GO-level forums “review and approve” the warfighting capability requirements portrayed by FORGE as a fully structured and resourced force. Additionally, these forums reach agreement on the force structure demands supporting homeland defense, Army support to other Services, and foundational activities
The SLDA reviews and approves the capability demands generated through the computer models and analysis recognized within the required force structure. The SL After the SLDA reviews and approves the capability demands, Department of the Army Military Operations–Force Development (DAMO–FMF) makes a comparison of The resourcing and approval phase consists of qualitative analysis and capability-based assessment.
Qualitative analysis is conducted to develop the initial POM force, within total strength guidance, for use in developing the POM. Capabilities-based assessment is initiated through the force program review (FPR) process. The FPR is the process where the leadership reviews and approves the POM fo Phase 2 Forum
The forum is the senior leadership of the Army, consisting of the SA, the USA, the CSA, and the VCSA. The senior leadership resolves any issues forwarded from the resourcing conference forums. Resourcing Conference
The resourcing conference is held again in two forums, the Council of Colonels (CoC) and the General Oﬃcer Steering Committee (GOSC). The CoC level provides initial analysis and review of the Concepts Analysis Agency (CAA) developed force, and allows ARSTAF, commands and other support agen
The GOSC is a series of two- and three-star committees which review and approve the issues and recommendations made by the CoC, as well as proposing reco Recommended Force Structure Options
The recommended force structure options are briefed through the Director, Force Management, through the G-3/5/7 to the senior leadership of the Army. They scrutinize, review, and evaluate the options. At the conclusion of the briefs to the senior leadership of the Army, the CSA decides the force structure recomm Resourced Force TAA
The resourced TAA force represents the force structure for POM development, capturing all components (Active, Reserve, and host nation) and Type Unit Codes (TYPC The product of the TAA and POM processes is the approved force structure for the Army, which has been divided for resource management purposes into compo Total Army Analysis Summary
TAA determines the mix of organizations that comprise a balanced and aﬀordable force structure. TAA process is evolving.
The Army Plan (TAP) is the principal Army guidance for TAA.
Total Army Involvement—TAA resources MTOE & TDA Army—all components (Active, ARNG, USAR), commands, schools, etc.
TAA’s three principal products are: Army’s total requirements, definition of required support forces, and basis for the Army’s POM submission. The two phases (capability demand analysis and resourcing and approval) include: Quantitative Analysis — Based on JPPG and produces CBT/CS/CSS doctrinal structure requirements to support the combat forces and other services. Qualitative Analysis — Examines ARSTAF, commands’, and combatant commander’s concerns. Allocation rules represent a quantitative statement of each type of CBT/CS/CSS unit’s capability. It is a machine-readable statement used by CAA in modeling. Culminates in senior leaders of the Department of the Army decision on force structure authorizations for next Program Objective Memorandum (POM) ARSTRUC announces the TAA decisions.
Army Staﬀ (ARSTAF)
Combat/Combat Support/Combat Service Support (CBT/CS/CSS)
Commands: Army Commands, ASCC, DRU, ARNG & USAR
Chief of Staﬀ, Army (CSA)
Joint Planning and Programming Guidance (JPPG)
Table of Organization & Equipment (TOE)
Table of Distribution and Allowances (TDA)
Planning, Program, Budgeting and Execution
Intent of PPBE
PPBE is DOD’s and the US Army’s primary resource management tool. The entire process focuses on assessing required Army capabilities, both for today and for what the Army requires in the future. Congress and the executive branch adjust or refine these capabilities when they fulfill their constitutionally-mandated responsibilities.
This diagram shows the overall PPBE process for the Army. Each phase includes the inputs and products of that phase. Shown between each phase are the products which link any two ph
This diagram shows the intent of PPBE and relationship of its processes.
There are many Army PPBE objectives, but they all can be summarized as managing resources.
Who manages PPBE?
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management & Comptroller (ASA (FMC)) Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation (DPAE G-8)
Deputy Chief of Staﬀ (G-3/5/7)
The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management & Comptroller, Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation, G-8 and the Deputy Chief of Staﬀ, G-3/5/7, all manage the Army
Deputy Chief of Staﬀ (G-3/5/7)
The G-3/5/7 is responsible for requirements integration and prioritizing all Army programs, but the entire Army staﬀ contributes. This prioritization process is a continu The G-3/5/7 then integrates the product of each of these functional groups (program evaluation groups [PEGs]) into an Army master priority list. Deputy Chief of Staﬀ (G-3/5/7) and The Army Plan
The Army’s G-3/5/7 has overall responsibility for developing The Army Plan (TAP), and is specifically responsible for preparing three of its four stand-alone sections. Section I, The Army Strategic Planning Guidance, “provides strategic planning guidance for developing the Program Objective Memorandum and articulates the geo Section II, Army Planning Priorities Guidance (APPG), prioritizes the Army’s capabilities to support attaining the Army’s strategic imperatives and to facilitate defining Section IV, Army Campaign Plan (ACP), directs planning, preparing, and executing the Army’s operations and transformation. Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation (DPAE G-8)
Develops Section III, Army Program Guidance Memorandum (APGM). This is the only section developed outside the G-3/5/7.
It guides the POM by providing goals, objectives, sub-objectives, and prioritized resource tasks for each of the six program evaluation groups (PEGs). Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management & Comptroller (ASA (FMC)) Responsible for administering all phases of Army PPBE and developing and promulgating PPBE policy Oversees all Army appropriations and serves as the sponsor for all appropriations except ARNG and USAR Has overall responsibility for budgeting and executing budgets Principal oﬃcials of OSA oversee the PPBE process within assigned functional areas. This image depicts the management structure the Army uses to evaluate and manage program progress and issues.
Army Resources Board (ARB)
The Army’s final deliberating and decision making body is called the Army Resources Board (ARB). The Secretary of the Army (SA) chairs and the Chief of Staﬀ of the Army (CSA) vice-chairs the ARB. Senior Review Group (SRG)
The Senior Review Group (SRG) is co-chaired by the Under Secretary of the Army (USA) and the VCSA. It is the central council for coordination of all issues requiring ARB review and approval, and is the intermediate senior body between the ARB and the
Planning Program Budget Committee (PPBC)
The Planning Program Budget Committee (PPBC) includes every element of the Army Staﬀ and the Secretariat. The PPBC is the first formal committee with staﬀ-wide participation that addresses the The Army Plan (TAP), the program, and the budget. The Director of the Army ACOMs provide input to the POM and budget estimate submission (BES) development through the ACOM POM. The PPBC makes initial decisions and recomme Program Evaluation Groups (PEGs)
Program evaluation groups (PEGs) play an important role in the Army resource management process. They support all phases of the PPBE process, with special emphasis on the POM/BES building process. The Army has six program evaluation groups (PEGs). They assist with developing the resource plan (TAP) and the combined program and budget estimate submis With the Secretariat as a co-chair, there is the eﬀect of increased Secretariat’s influence at the PEG level, with a potential of diluting the Army Staﬀ’s influence. Furthermore, this formalizes the PEG’s responsibilities for all phases of PPBE. Previously, the planning and execution phases were not formally under their review To enhance flexibility, this diagram depicts the management organizations the Army currently uses in practice.
Co-Chaired by ASA FM&C, G-3/5/7, G-8
Decide/recommend resource issues for 3-star programmers
Chaired by the Director of Army Budget (DAB), Additional Director General (ADG)-3/5/7 & PA&E Recommend POM/BES solutions to 3-star Budget,
Requirements, and Program (BRP) and Senior Review Group (SRG) Colonel BRP
Chaired by the Army Budget Oﬃce (ABO), G-3/5/7
Package proposals, frame issues and coordinates for 2-star BRP & Planning Program Budget Committee (PPBC) Program Budget Assessment Team (PBAT)
Coordinate, advise, and decide planning, programming, and budgeting issues for SRG Review and recommend courses of action
Here are the six program evaluation groups, as if they were to scale.
The Army has six program evaluation groups (PEGs). They assist with developing the resource plan (TAP) and the combined program and budget estimate submission (POM/ We will now discuss management decision packages, a tool used by the Army to track and account for resource expenditures as part of its resource management system.
The Army Management Decision Package (MDEP) serves as a key resource management tool. Collectively, MDEPs account for all Army resources. They describe the A management decision package (MDEP) describes a particular organization, program, or function and records the resources associated with the intended output. An individual MDEP applies uniquely to one of the following six management areas for the Active Army, Guard, and Reserve. 1) Missions of Modified Table of Organization and Equipment (MTOE) Units An MTOE MDEP links resources to the wartime mission of an organization and its assigned MTOE units. Examples of organizations covered include Army divisions, brigades, and corps support commands. The MDEP will contain funds for mission- related needs such as fuel, supplies, and unit training. The MDEP will also contain military manpower. It can contain civilian pay and augmentation manpower. 2) Missions of Table of Distribution and Allowance (TDA) Units and Army-Wide Standard Functions
A TDA MDEP identifies resources required to carry out the mission of a TDA organization. A standard function MDEP identifies resources required to perform such standard functions as health care and CHAMPUS (Civilian Health and Medical Program of th 3) Missions of Standard Installation Organizations (SIOs)
An SIO MDEP identifies resources to perform specific base operations, such as supply operations, personnel support, and operation of utility services. 4) Acquisition, Fielding, and Sustainment of Weapon and Information Systems
A weapon (and materiel) system or information system MDEP contains resources used to develop, buy, field, or sustain new systems. Such MDEPs can also contain resources for research and development activities unrelated to specific systems. (Linkage to units exists through HQDA decision supp 5) Special Visibility Programs (SVPs)
An SVP MDEP crosses two or more management areas to define and protect resources having high-level interest. This may be an issue that is the subject of a report required by Congress, OSD, or the Army leadership. Another example is Military Personnel, Army (MPA) and Retire Periodic review by Program Analysis and Evaluation Division (PAED) with ASA(FM), Deputy Chief of Staﬀ for Operations (DCSOPS), and proponent agencies determin 6) Short-Term Projects (STPs)
An STP MDEP is a temporary structure. It defines and projects resources for a designated project of specified duration. An STP MDEP may define an Army Management Review issue, a base closure, force structure realignment, or other short-term projects. When building the POM or budget, an STP MDEP can also define a resource programmatic adjustment over time. For example, the Organizing PEG is made up of 46 MDEPs, including the following. During programming, MDEPs provide useful visibility.
MDEPs Provide Useful Visibility
They assist Army managers, decision makers, and leaders to assess program worth, confirm compliance, and rank resource claimants. During budgeting, MDEPs help convey approved programs and priorities into budget estimates. They also assist HQDA program evaluation groups’ post program changes caused by budget decisions and approved funding. During execution, the posted MDEPs help HQDA principals and commanders of major Army commands (MACOMs) and other operating agencies track program an The financial data they get as feedback helps determine future requirements. Funds of the correct amount and appropriation must be planned and programmed into the Army budget.
How It Works
Funds of the correct amount and appropriation must be planned and programmed into the Army budget, in general, two years before they are needed. In the program and budget process, funding requests are initiated and reviewed annually. Congress appropriates funds for the annual Defense Appropriation Act. The Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDTE) and procurement budget request 1. enactment of an authorization measure that may create or continue an agency or program, as well as authorize the subsequent enactment of appropriations; 2. enactment of appropriations to provide funds for the authorized agency or program. The Army may reprogram funds, except for congressional interest items, within an appropriation subject to budget authority dollar limits, or in excess of dollar limits w Up to $10 million of RDTE and $20 million of procurement may be reprogrammed from a lower priority program to a higher priority program without prior congression Authorizations diﬀer from appropriations and apportionment.
Appropriation is the legal obligation of funds by Congress for a particular purpose. Authorization is congressional permission to expend funds that have been appropriated. The Army may reprogram funds, except for congressional interest items, within an appropriation subject to budget authority dollar limits, or in excess of dollar limits wit The integrated program-budget process distributes projected resources.
Integrated Program-Budget Process
The integrated program-budget process distributes projected resources. It seeks to support priorities and policies of the senior Army leadership, while achieving balance among Army organizations, systems, and functions. For each budget year, as of April 2010, the integrated process converts program requirements into budget requests for manpower and dollars. When enacted into appropriations and manpower authorizations, these resources become available to carry out approved programs.
This diagram illustrates the current single-year budget cycle followed by DOD. Looking at any “current year,” the Army is executing the budget, developing the next FY budget, looking ahea
This diagram depicts, in chronological order, the major functions accomplished while the budget is being developed. The 2-Star Budget Review Panel is a decision making forum.
Decision Making Forum
The 2-Star BRP is a decision making forum made up of Assistant G-3/5/7 for planning, the Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation for programming, and the D It is a continuing forum in which planning, program, and budget managers review, adjust, and recommend courses of action on relevant issues, and maintain over The senior BRP resolves significant resource allocation issues identified by the 2-Star BRP. It recommends final decisions on The Army Plan and the POM/BES. It a
This image displays the budget from a DOD perspective. Using 11 OSD program elements, DOD apportions decisions on dollars and manpower among the FYDP’s 11 major force program
How do the Services track funds?
Funds are tracked for each Service by DOD major force programs and congressional appropriation. The Army then must account for funds by major source program, congressional appropriation code, and Army program
elements included in our Army managemen
This graph depicts the Army FY 13 budget request.
Supports the essential roles of the Army as the best led, best trained, best equipped ground force in the world: Continues to meet our commitments in Afghanistan and around the world. Develops the Army for the future as part of the joint force—a smaller, leaner force that is more agile, flexible, and technologically advanced. Continues to care for Soldiers and Families—maintains a commitment commensurate with their service and sacrifice. Begins to reduce Active Component end strength and invests in the Reserve Component as an operational force within the base budget Supports Army modernization priorities and systems integration. This graph depicts the historic progression of the DOD budget with proposed expenditures to FY 17.
EW Case Study
Let’s briefly review the major actions and events leading up to where we are now in the electronic warfare capability case study. In F101, Strategic Change, the Army identified an EW capab
The driving strategic vision that expedited both rapid and deliberate EW capability development came in the form of an urgent operational need from in-theater (exp This led to the development of a unit reference sheet (URS) and tables of organization and equipment (TO&Es) for the 29-Series EW career field. The purpose of this graphic is to illustrate how the Army used the Total Army Analysis process to resource EW personnel requirements.
Note that due to resource constraints and priorities, this is often an ongoing process. Of the original 3,776 spaces recommended in the EW FDU, 1,664 Operating Forc How the Army documents and fields new personnel authorizations attained through Total Army Analysis.
EW authorizations from TAA 10-15 were phased from FY 11-13. Phased implementation took into account the time that it would take to recruit and train new personnel
How building an EW capability continues to evolve over time based on new requirements and lessons from the current operating environment.
A proposed EW FDU recommends consolidating EW capability (currently echeloned at division through battalion levels) at the division level. The intent is to mass capab
And the EW Bridging Strategy, continued from F102, shows how the Army continued to use ASI-trained personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan to provide an interim Army capability to “bridge t
Of note, the Army achieved full operating capability (FOC) to support all EW requirements in Iraq with the OIF 09-11 rotation. This was achieved with ASI-trained person
First, institutionalize capabilities through deliberate processes. In 2009, the Vice Chief of Staﬀ for the Army approved an EW force design update for competition in TAA 2010 to 2015. Rem
Total Army Analysis (TAA)
2009 – The VCSA approved EW FDU for competition in TAA 2010-15. Results were announced in ARSTRUC 10-15: 1,664 of 3,776 EW spaces were achieved (45% of the request). All positions were slated for operational units. 1,511 spaces were through TAA.
108 spaces were from corps/division redesign.
45 spaces were from converted FA30 slots.
Positions were integrated at ASCC, BDE and BN levels in FY 11-13. (Division and corps requirements will be addressed in future TAA.) Remaining EW requirements, to include Generating Force and civilian spaces, will compete in future TAAs/FMRs. FMR 13-17: 45 Generating Force positions were awarded for FY 11. Positions were split between CTCs, COEs, and the Ft. Sill schoolhouse. In addition, organiz TAA 14-19: Approved BCT redesign includes all remaining BCT EW positions that were originally requested in TAA 10-15,
but were not awarded. Remaining O
The new EW force design update proposes consolidating the EW element at the BCT or the division level. Cyber capabilities-based assessment proposes building an integrated Army capa
The new EW FDU proposes consolidating the EW element at the BCT or the division level. The intent is to mass capability, enhance 25ID has internally reorganized its EW positions at the division level. The intent is to eventually give EW its own Standard Requirements Code (SRC). Cyber CBA proposes building an integrated Army capability that uses EW as a baseline. Recommends filling all un-resourced EW positions to 100%
Adds 35 (MI) and 25 (SC) series positions to the consolidated team at BCT/division Provides integrated EW, spectrum management, and electromagnetic attack capabilities training, and improve readiness o
Next is the task of supporting the warfighter through rapid integration strategies.
Theater EW Bridging Strategy FY 09-11:
Background: FY 06-09 – Bridge between the Navy’s, Marine’s and Air Force’s EW capability to the Army’s capability. By 2009, the following Army personnel had been trained to provide an interim EW capability until formal resourcing of TAA approved 372 ASI 1J – operational EWOs.
1,181 ASI 1K – tactical practitioners.
40,000 CREW operators were trained.
7 FA29 oﬃcers were trained in pilot course.
USF-I achieved full operating capability of Army electronic warfare bridging strategy in OIF 09-11.
authorizations in FY 11-13:
Provisional/”Ad Hoc” Organizations:
Joint Composite Crew Squadron ONE (JCCS-1) provides and coordinates in-theater EW training at Victory Base from 2006-2009. This drives what follows next in the Developing Materiel Capabilities (Acquisition) lesson.
Developing Materiel Capabilities (Acquisition)
So far we have talked a lot about attaining personnel capabilities
and authorizations, but how about materiel requirements?
During this lesson, you continued to focus on the key agencies and major force management processes used in developing warfighting capability provided to combatant commanders for th You explored the DOD PPBE process. You learned that it is both an art and a science.
The purpose of TAA is to determine the required “operating and generating” forces necessary to support and sustain the “operating force,” echelon- above-brigad The specified combat forces and the EAB support forces determined during the TAA process are referred to as “operating forces.” Total Army Analysis (TAA)
Determines the correct mix of organizations required and resourced that comprise a balanced and aﬀordable force to meet the guidance. Develops requirements and authorizations defining the force structure the Army must build, raise, provide, sustain, maintain, train, and resource, providing the comba Provides the analytical underpinning for developing, explaining, and defending the Army force structure in the POM.