defense reform in the 21 century emerging survey...
TRANSCRIPT
Defense Reform in the 21st CenturyEmerging Survey Results
March 14, 2016
Overview
• Sample size varies by question, since all non-demographic questions did not require responses • Varies between 700-900; labeled for each
• The survey was open from Friday, March 4 until Friday, March 11
• Legislative branch under-represented in respondent pool.
• Only outlining topline results today for each of the questions in the survey and displaying responses across major demographic groups.
Survey Results: Guiding Principles I
3
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Improving personnel management
Balancing military "supply" and "demand"
Increasing the efficiency and effective management of DoD systems
Improving the effectiveness of joint military operations
Ensuring independence of military advice
Improving strategy formulation and contingency planning
Ensuring quality of military advice
Maintaining civilian authority
Average Ranking Rating
Rank the following guiding principles that you believe should inform any new DoD reforms.
Survey Results: Guiding Principles II
4
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Nu
mb
er o
f R
esp
on
ses
Rankings
Response Distribution
Civilian authority Quality of military advice Independence of military advice Strategy formulation and contingency planning
Survey Results: Guiding Principles III
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Maintainingcivilian authority
Ensuring qualityof military
advice
Ensuringindependence ofmilitary advice
Improving theeffectiveness of
joint militaryoperations
Balancingmilitary "supply"
and "demand"
Increasing theefficiency and
effectivemanagement of
DoD systems
Improvingstrategy
formulation andcontingency
planning
Improvingpersonnel
management
Ave
rage
Ran
kin
g R
atin
g
Guiding Principle Ratings across Major Demographic Groups
Legislative branch Executive branch - military Executive branch - civilian Other Rating Average
Survey Results: Guiding Principles IV
6
3.69
3.58
3.65
3.17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Other
Legislative branch
Executive branch - military
Executive branch - civilian
Average Ranking Rating
Ranking the Guiding Principle of Maintaining Civilian Authority
Survey Results: Guiding Principles V
7
4.46
4.85
4.02
4.31
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Other
Legislative branch
Executive branch - military
Executive branch - civilian
Average Ranking Rating
Ranking the Guiding Principle of Independence of Military Advice
Survey Results: Guiding Principles VI
8
4.32
3.81
4.88
4.87
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Other
Legislative branch
Executive branch - military
Executive branch - civilian
Average Ranking Rating
Ranking the Guiding Principle of Efficiency and Effective Management of DoD Systems
Survey Results: Reform Opportunities I
9
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Independence of the CJCS
Civilian personnel system
Civil-military balance
Quality of military advice
Contingency/war planning
Role clarity among actors
Military personnel system
Joint requirements process
Agility of DoD
Interagency process
Effectiveness of military operations
Efficiency of DoD
DoD Programming and budgeting processes
Strategy
Acquisition process
Average Score (0-5 Scale)
Select and rank order five of the following issues based on the opportunity for improvement through reform.
Most likely to generate improvements from reform
Least likely to generate improvements from reform
Survey Results: Reform Opportunities II
10
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Independence of the CJCS
Civil-military balance
Civilian personnel system
Quality of military advice
Role clarity among actors
Military personnel system
Contingency/war planning
Joint requirements process
Agility of DoD
Interagency process
Effectiveness of military operations
Strategy
Efficiency of DoD
DoD programming and budgeting processes
Acquisition process
Number of Total Responses
Total Response Counts
Survey Results: Reform Opportunities III
11
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Effectiveness ofmilitary operations
Strategy Contingency/warplanning
Independence of theCJCS
Quality of militaryadvice
Efficiency of DoD Agility of DoD
Ave
rage
Sco
re (
0-5
)
Opportunity for Reform across Major Demographic Groups 1
Legislative branch Executive branch - military Executive branch - civilian Other Average Rating
Survey Results: Reform Opportunities III
12
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Role clarity amongactors
Interagency process Civil-militarybalance
Civilian personnelsystem
Military personnelsystem
DoD programmingand budgeting
Acquisition process Joint requirementsprocess
Ave
rage
Sco
re (
0-5
)
Opportunity for Reform across Major Demographic Groups 2
Legislative branch Executive branch - military Executive branch - civilian Other Average Rating
Survey Results: Strength of Institutions I
13
6.87
4.85
4.58
5.15
4.41
5.02
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
National Security Council Staff
Service Secretaries
Service Chiefs
Combatant Commanders
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Secretary of Defense
Assessing the needs of the Defense Department, rate the current strength of the following institutions.
Just Right Too StrongToo Weak
Survey Results: Strength of Institutions II
14
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Secretary of Defense Chairman of the JointChiefs of Staff
CombatantCommanders
Service Chiefs Service Secretaries National SecurityCouncil Staff
Strength of Institution Ratings across Demographics
Legislative branch Executive branch - military Executive branch - civilian Other Rating Average
Too Weak
Just Right
Too Strong
Survey Results: Size of Institutions I
15
Just Right Too LargeToo Small
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
National Security Council Staff
Service Staffs
Combatant Commands
Joint Staff
OSD
Relative to the appropriate responsibilities of each institution, rate your assessment of the size of each of the following.
Survey Results: Size of Institutions II
16
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
OSD Joint Staff Combatant Commands Service Staffs National Security CouncilStaff
Size of Institution Ratings across Demographics
Legislative branch Executive branch - military Executive branch - civilian Other Rating Average
Too Large
Too Small
Just Right
Survey Results: Interagency System I
17
Wholly Ineffective Highly Effective
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Confirmation and political appointment processes
Decisions on the use of military force and forces
Policy development
Policy implementation
Budgeting and resource management
Evaluation/assessment of policy
Strategy development
Rate the effectiveness of the White House-led interagency system at the following:
Survey Results: Interagency System II
18
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Budgeting and resourcemanagement
Confirmation andpolitical appointment
processes
Strategy development Policy development Policy implementation Decisions on the use ofmilitary force and forces
Evaluation/assessmentof policy
Executive Interagency System Ratings across Demographics
Legislative branch Executive branch - military Executive branch - civilian Other Rating Average
Wholly Ineffective
Highly Effective
Survey Results: Congressional Oversight I
19
Wholly Ineffective Highly Ineffective
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Routine oversight of DoD polices and programs
Budgeting and resource management
Evaluation/assessment of policy
Confirmation and political appointment processes
Policy development
Use of force authorization processes (e.g., AUMF)
Strategy development
Rate the effectiveness of the following aspects of congressional oversight of the Department of Defense:
Survey Results: Congressional Oversight II
20
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Budgeting and resourcemanagement
Confirmation andpolitical appointment
processes
Strategy development Policy development Use of forceauthorization processes
(e.g., AUMF)
Evaluation/assessmentof policy
Routine oversight ofDoD polices and
programs
Congressional Oversight Ratings across Demographics
Legislative branch Executive branch - military Executive branch - civilian Other Rating Average
Highly Effective
Wholly Ineffective
Survey Results: Role Clarity I
21
Totally Unclear Crystal Clear
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Executing direct/indirect military actions
Approval for the use of force or forces
Communications with POTUS
Communications with Congress
Approval for programmatic and acquisition issues
Establishment and enforcement of joint requirements
Executing cross-regional operations
Communications with other interagency actors
Planning for cross-regional operations
Rate the degree of role clarity today within DoD in the following categories:
Survey Results: Role Clarity II
22
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Planning forcross-regional
operations
Executing cross-regional
operations
Communicationswith Congress
Communicationswith POTUS
Communicationswith other
interagencyactors
Executingdirect/indirectmilitary actions
Approval for theuse of force or
forces
Approval forprogrammaticand acquisition
issues
Establishmentand enforcement
of jointrequirements
Role Clarity Ratings across Demographics
Legislative branch Executive branch - military Executive branch - civilian Other Rating Average
Crystal Clear
Totally Unclear
Possible FY2017 NDAA “Quick Wins”• Efficiencies
• A-76 authority (statute)• Study on whether DoD should opt-out its civilian personnel system from OPM (like IC and Foreign Service) (statute)
• BRAC (statute)
• Enhance flexibility in meeting joint duty requirements (statute or SD)• Consider consolidating war colleges (statute or SD)
• Innovation• Change to SASC rules governing conflict of interest divestment for incoming DoD appointees (SASC)
• Create a “bishop’s fund” overseen by DSD for innovative experiments in support of joint warfighting, with competition open to all components (statute or SD)
• Command and control
• Upgrade CYBERCOM and SPACECOM to unified combatant commands, sourced without growth in military or civilian end-strength or HQ personnel and using existing facilities (statute or SD)
• Strategy and planning
• Task CJCS to develop for SD approval prioritized, synchronized cross-regional/functional plans (SD)
• Increase cadre of planners in services and JS (SD)• Task Service Chiefs to join SD milestone approval meetings for OPLANs/CONPLANs (SD)
• Defense reform way ahead• Task DoD, independent study, and/or independent commission in areas of key congressional interest, timed to influence consideration in the FY19 NDAA cycle, e.g.
• Defense efficiencies in the areas of supply chain, healthcare, and education benefit for families
• Efficiencies in defense intelligence agencies• Combatant Command structure, including: possible mergers, HQ efficiencies, the appropriate placement of responsibilities formerly owned by JFCOM, and the
appropriateness of the current UCP in light of complex global challenges
• Civilian and military personnel systems
23