Unnamed: 0
int64 0
4.52k
| report
stringlengths 7
512
|
|---|---|
3,000 | ernization management framework to fully address broader business transformation efforts. Until the department institutionalizes a management framework that encompasses all aspects of business transformation, including establishing overall responsibility for and defining what is included in business transformation, DOD will be unable to integrate related initiatives into a sustainable, enterprisewide approach and to resolve weaknesses in business operations that we have shown are at high risk of waste, frau |
3,001 | d, and abuse. DOD faces two critical challenges to achieving successful business transformation. First, DOD does not have a comprehensive, integrated, and enterprisewide plan or set of linked plans supported by a planning process that sets a strategic direction for overall business transformation efforts and monitors progress. Second, DOD lacks a full-time leadership position dedicated solely to the planning, integration, and execution of business transformation efforts. Until the department establishes a c |
3,002 | omprehensive, integrated planning process and establishes full-time sustained leadership, DOD will be challenged to integrate related initiatives into a sustainable, enterprisewide approach and to resolve weaknesses in business operations that we have shown are at high risk of waste, fraud, and abuse. DOD continues to be challenged in its business transformation efforts because it has not developed a comprehensive, integrated, and enterprisewide action plan or set of linked plans for business transformation |
3,003 | that is supported by a comprehensive planning process. Such a plan or set of plans would help set strategic direction for overall business transformation efforts, prioritize initiatives and resources, and monitor progress through the establishment of performance goals, objectives, and rewards. Our prior work has shown that this type of plan should cover all of DOD’s key business functions; contain results-oriented goals, measures, and expectations that link institutional, unit, and individual performance g |
3,004 | oals and expectations to promote accountability; and establish an effective process and related tools for implementation and oversight. Furthermore, such an integrated business transformation plan would be instrumental in establishing investment priorities and guiding the department’s key resource decisions. Our analysis shows that DOD does not have an integrated plan in place and has not fully developed a comprehensive planning process. For example, we analyzed the enterprise transition plan and determined |
3,005 | that the goals and objectives in the enterprise transition plan were not clearly linked to the goals and objectives in the Quadrennial Defense Review, DOD’s highest level strategic plan. In addition, the enterprise transition plan is not based on a strategic planning process. For example, it does not provide a complete assessment of DOD’s progress in overall business transformation efforts aside from business systems modernization. Furthermore, while the enterprise transition plan contains goals and milest |
3,006 | ones related to business systems, the plan does not contain results- oriented goals and measures that assess overall business transformation. Finally, we determined that DOD’s business transformation efforts are currently guided by multiple plans that are developed and maintained by various offices within DOD. DOD officials acknowledged our analysis that DOD does not have an integrated plan in place. Business Transformation Agency officials see the enterprise transition plan as the highest level plan for bu |
3,007 | siness transformation but acknowledge that it does not currently provide an assessment of the department’s overall approach to business transformation. Business Transformation Agency officials also acknowledged that they are challenged to work across various offices to develop an integrated planning process and results-oriented measures to assess overall business transformation. These officials added that DOD is starting to develop a family of linked plans to guide and monitor business transformation. Speci |
3,008 | fically, DOD’s March 2007 update to the enterprise transition plan includes an approach that is intended to align other business plans with the enterprise transition plan, establish working relationships among plan owners across DOD’s major business areas, and identify interdependencies among their products. However, according to Business Transformation Agency officials and others within DOD, the alignment currently involves only ensuring data consistency across DOD’s major business plans and does not yet e |
3,009 | ncompass the full integration they envision. In addition, it is not clear from discussions with these officials which committee or office within DOD will be responsible for developing a family of linked plans and a supporting comprehensive planning process. The Defense Science Board, the Defense Business Board, and the Institute for Defense Analyses agree with our analysis. These organizations have issued reports supporting DOD’s need for an integrated planning process for business transformation. In a Febr |
3,010 | uary 2006 report on military transformation, the Defense Science Board concluded that DOD needed, but did not have, a multiyear business plan capable of relating resources to mission purposes. In addition, the report said that confusion existed over roles in identifying needs, proposing and choosing solutions, executing programs, and overseeing performance. The Defense Science Board concluded that an effective business plan would give decision makers a clear understanding of the impact of resource decisions |
3,011 | . The Defense Business Board arrived at a similar conclusion. In a May 2006 report on governance at DOD, the Defense Business Board reported that a challenge facing DOD’s business activities was the move from a hierarchical, functional approach to an enterprisewide, cross-functional, horizontal approach. The Defense Business Board recommended that DOD develop a strategic plan that contains clear goals and supporting objectives, including outcome-based metrics. In a December 2006 report about the need for a |
3,012 | CMO at DOD, the Institute for Defense Analyses recommended that DOD adopt a planning structure that would ensure that the strategic-level directions and priorities drive day-to-day planning and execution. The Institute for Defense Analyses said that the planning structure should contain top-level goals, approaches, and resources and link these goals to the required resources within the executing activities. DOD continues to lack sustained leadership focused solely on business transformation. We have reporte |
3,013 | d that as DOD and other agencies embark on large-scale organizational change initiatives, similar to defense business transformation, there is a compelling need to, among other things, (1) elevate attention on management issues and transformational change efforts, (2) integrate various key management and transformation efforts into a coherent and enterprisewide approach, and (3) institutionalize accountability for addressing transformation needs and leading change. Without such leadership, DOD is at risk of |
3,014 | not being able to sustain and ensure the success of its overall business transformation efforts, and its progress is at risk of being another in a long line of unsuccessful management reform initiatives. The Deputy Secretary of Defense has elevated the attention paid to business transformation efforts, and he and other senior leaders have clearly shown a commitment to business transformation and to addressing deficiencies in the department’s business operations. For example, the Deputy Secretary has been a |
3,015 | ctively engaged in monthly meetings of both the Defense Business Systems Management Committee and the Deputy’s Advisory Working Group, and directed the creation of the Business Transformation Agency to support the Defense Business Systems Management Committee. However, these organizations do not provide the sustained leadership needed to successfully achieve overall business transformation. The Defense Business Systems Management Committee’s representatives consist of political appointees whose terms expire |
3,016 | when administrations change and the roles of the Deputy’s Advisory Working Group have not been institutionalized in DOD directives or charters. Without this, the committee’s very existence and role could change within or between administrations. A broad-based consensus exists among GAO and others that the status quo is unacceptable and that DOD needs a CMO to provide leadership over business transformation efforts, although there are different views concerning the characteristics of a CMO, such as whether |
3,017 | the position should be codified in statute, established as a separate position from the Deputy Secretary of Defense, designated as Executive Level II or Level III, subject to a term appointment, or supported by a deputy CMO. As required by Congress, DOD commissioned studies of the feasibility and advisability of establishing a deputy secretary of defense for management to oversee the department’s business transformation process. As part of this effort, the Defense Business Board, an advisory panel, examined |
3,018 | various options and, in May 2006, endorsed the CMO concept. Furthermore, in December 2006, the Institute for Defense Analyses issued a study that reported on various options for the creation of a CMO position and recommended that a CMO is needed at DOD. In response to the Institute for Defense Analyses report, DOD submitted a letter to Congress in May 2007 outlining the department’s position on a CMO at DOD. However, this position does not adequately address the key leadership challenge that we discuss in |
3,019 | this report—that is, the lack of a senior leader, at the right level, with appropriate authority, to focus full time on overall business transformation. In summary, DOD is proposing to Congress that the role of a CMO be assigned to the Deputy Secretary of Defense. While the Deputy Secretary may be at the right level, with the appropriate authority and responsibility to transform business operations, we have testified that the demands placed on him and other senior leaders make it difficult for them to maint |
3,020 | ain the oversight, focus, and momentum needed to resolve business operational weaknesses, including the high-risk areas. Finally, DOD does not agree with codifying the CMO role in legislation, stating that doing so would restrict the flexibility of future Presidents and Secretaries of Defense to build an integrated management team. DOD would rather leave the assignment of the CMO role to the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, and DOD plans to formalize the Deputy Secretary’s CMO and business transforma |
3,021 | tion duties in a DOD directive. Because of the complexity and long-term nature of business transformation, we have long advocated the establishment of a CMO position at DOD with significant authority and experience and a term that would provide sustained leadership and the time to integrate the department’s overall business transformation efforts. Major transformation initiatives often take at least 5 to 7 years in large private and public sector organizations. Codifying a separate, full-time CMO position i |
3,022 | n statute would ensure continuity and help to create unambiguous expectations and underscore congressional desire to follow a professional, nonpartisan, sustainable, and institutional approach to this position. Without formally designating responsibility and accountability for results, reconciling competing priorities among various organizations and prioritizing investments will be difficult and could impede the department’s progress in addressing deficiencies in key business areas. A full-time and separate |
3,023 | CMO position could devote the necessary time and effort to further and sustain DOD’s progress and would be accountable for planning, integrating, and executing the department’s overall business transformation efforts. Further, we believe that the CMO should be at Executive Level II and report directly to the Secretary of Defense so that the position has the stature needed to successfully address integration challenges, address DOD’s high-risk areas with a strategic and systematic approach, and prioritize i |
3,024 | nvestments across the department. By subsuming the CMO duties within the Deputy Secretary of Defense position as DOD advocates, the CMO would be at level II, but not subject to a term or able to focus full-time attention on business transformation. Finally, we advocate an extended term appointment for the CMO of at least 5 to 7 years so that the position could span administrations to sustain business transformation when key personnel changes occur. DOD’s efforts at business transformation consist of various |
3,025 | entities whose interrelationships are not clearly articulated and numerous plans that are not integrated across the department. Currently, there is no single individual, office, or integrated plan within DOD to provide a complete and focused assessment of the department’s business transformation efforts. DOD continues to face formidable challenges, both externally with its ongoing military operations and internally with the long-standing problems of fraud, waste, and abuse. Pervasive, decades-old managemen |
3,026 | t problems related to its business operations affect all of DOD’s major business areas. While DOD has taken positive steps to address these problems, our previous work has shown a persistent pattern of limited scope of focus and a lack of integrated planning and sustained leadership. In this time of growing fiscal constraints, every dollar that DOD can save through improved economy and efficiency of its operations is important to the well-being of our nation and the legitimate needs of the warfighter. DOD c |
3,027 | an no longer afford to address business transformation as it has in the past. Unless DOD elevates and integrates its efforts, billions of dollars will continue to be wasted every year. Furthermore, without strong and sustained leadership, both within and across administrations, DOD will likely continue to have difficulties in maintaining the oversight, focus, and momentum needed to implement and sustain the needed reforms to its business operations. In this regard, we continue to believe that a CMO whose so |
3,028 | le focus is to integrate and oversee the overall transformation of the department’s business operations remains key to DOD’s success. To ensure successful and sustained business transformation at DOD, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following two actions: Institutionalize in directives the roles, responsibilities, and relationships among various business-related entities and committees, such as the Defense Business Systems Management Committee, investment review boards, the Business Tran |
3,029 | sformation Agency, and the Deputy’s Advisory Working Group, and expand the management framework to capture overall business transformation efforts, rather than limit efforts to modernizing business systems. Develop a comprehensive strategic planning process for business transformation that results in a comprehensive, integrated, and enterprisewide plan or set of interconnected functional plans that covers all key business areas and provides a clear strategic direction, prioritizes initiatives, and monitors |
3,030 | progress across the department. Given DOD’s view that the Deputy Secretary of Defense should be assigned CMO duties, Congress should consider enacting legislation to establish a separate, full-time position at DOD with the significant authority and experience and a sufficient term to provide focused and sustained leadership and momentum over business transformation efforts. In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD generally concurred with our recommendations that the department institutionalize a |
3,031 | management framework and develop a comprehensive strategic planning process for business transformation, and disagreed with our matter for congressional consideration that Congress enact legislation to establish a separate, full-time CMO position. The department’s comments are reprinted in appendix II. In its overall comments, DOD expressed concern about what it characterized as GAO’s belief that the department placed improper emphasis on business systems modernization to the detriment of overall business t |
3,032 | ransformation efforts. In particular, DOD stated that business systems modernization is a critical step in achieving overall business transformation, and that lessons learned and governance structures developed for modernizing business systems acquisition processes are being evaluated for implementation beyond the business side. It further stated that the Deputy’s Advisory Working Group and the Defense Business Systems Modernization Committee both focus more broadly on defense business transformation. DOD a |
3,033 | lso believed we had overstated the nature of “broad-based consensus” between GAO, the Institute for Defense Analyses, and the Defense Business Board about the need for a CMO in DOD, noting that the Institute for Defense Analyses had examined four alternate methods for institutionalizing the roles of the CMO and ultimately supported the department’s position that those duties be vested in the Deputy Secretary of Defense. We disagree with DOD’s characterization of our report with respect to the emphasis of th |
3,034 | e department’s efforts and the nature of the broad-based consensus on the need for a CMO. The report specifically gives DOD credit for progress to date on setting up an overall framework for broader business transformation, and in no way suggests that any specific steps taken regarding modernizing business systems are detrimental to this progress. Rather, we note that the framework, as currently structured and implemented, focuses on business systems, is a foundation to build upon, and needs to be expanded |
3,035 | to more fully address broader transformation issues. The report also recognizes the establishment of the Deputy’s Advisory Working Group and the Defense Business Systems Modernization Committee. While DOD suggests these two groups focus more broadly on business transformation, our work shows that DOD has not clearly defined or institutionalized interrelationships, roles and responsibilities, or accountability for broader business transformation among these entities. Also, differences of opinion exist within |
3,036 | DOD about the roles and scope of the various entities. Further, contrary to DOD’s view, we did not overstate the nature of the “broad-based consensus” regarding the need for a CMO. In fact, the Defense Business Board, Institute for Defense Analyses, and the department are on record in their support for establishing a CMO at DOD. Specifically, the board endorsed the CMO concept in a study completed in May 2006, the Institute for Defense Analyses identified the need for a CMO in its study completed in Decemb |
3,037 | er 2006, and DOD, in a May 2007 letter, informed Congress of its view that the Deputy Secretary of Defense should assume CMO responsibilities. The Institute for Defense Analyses also recommended that Congress establish a new deputy CMO position with an Executive Level III term appointment of 7 years to provide full-time support to the Deputy Secretary in connection with business transformation issues. We believe these actions demonstrate a broad-based consensus regarding the need for a CMO and, therefore, t |
3,038 | hat the status quo is unacceptable. Notwithstanding these positions, we also recognize, as stated in the report, that there are different views concerning the characteristics of a CMO, such as whether the position should be codified in statute, established as a separate position from the Deputy Secretary, designated as Executive Level II or Level III, or subject to a term appointment. As stated in this report and numerous testimonies, we believe the CMO position should be codified in statute as a separate a |
3,039 | nd full-time position, designated as Executive Level II, and subject to an extended term appointment. In addition to its overall comments, DOD provided detailed comments on our two recommendations. Specifically, DOD concurred with our first recommendation that the department institutionalize in directives the roles, responsibilities, and relationships among various business-related entities and committees and expand the management framework beyond business systems modernization to capture overall business t |
3,040 | ransformation efforts. In fact, DOD stated explicitly in its comments that the department is a strong advocate for institutionalizing, in its DOD Directives System, the functions, responsibilities, authorities, and relationships of its principal officials and the management processes they oversee. DOD added that the Deputy Secretary of Defense has issued a directive-type memorandum on the management of the Deputy’s Advisory Working Group and that a draft DOD directive has been prepared to define the functio |
3,041 | ns of the Defense Business Systems Management Committee and elaborate its relationships with the Defense Business Transformation Agency and other key business-related entities in the department. We recognize that directives and memorandums, in some cases, do exist, and that DOD plans to finalize additional directives, particularly for the Defense Business Systems Management Committee. As noted in our report, during the course of our review, we found that DOD has not clearly defined or institutionalized inte |
3,042 | rrelationships, roles and responsibilities, or accountability for establishing a management framework for overall business transformation, and that differences of opinion exist within the department regarding which of the various senior leadership committees will function as the primary body responsible for overall business transformation. Therefore, we encourage DOD to ensure that its efforts to institutionalize its management framework for business transformation in directives specifically address these m |
3,043 | atters, and once directives are finalized, to take steps to clearly communicate the framework and reinforce its implementation throughout the department. Further, DOD partially concurred with our second recommendation that the Secretary of Defense develop a comprehensive strategic planning process for business transformation that results in a comprehensive, integrated, and enterprisewide plan or set of plans. Specifically, DOD stated that it has already begun to expand the scope of the enterprise transition |
3,044 | plan to become a more robust enterprisewide planning document and to evolve this plan into the centerpiece strategic document for transformation. DOD added that as the enterprise transition plan evolves, it will continue to improve in aligning strategy with outcomes, identifying business capability gaps, prioritizing future needs, and developing metrics to measure achievement. DOD also stated that it will continue to evolve its family of plans to address our recommendation. While DOD’s proposed actions to |
3,045 | address both of our recommendations appear to be positive steps, the key to their success will be in the details of their implementation. Moreover, we continue to believe that these efforts alone will not be sufficient to bring about the desired transformation. More specifically, efforts to institutionalize and broaden the scope of a management framework and develop a comprehensive strategic planning process for business transformation will not be successful without a CMO to guide and sustain these efforts. |
3,046 | However, DOD disagreed with our matter for congressional consideration that Congress consider enacting legislation to establish a separate, full- time CMO position at DOD to provide focused and sustained leadership and momentum over business transformation efforts, stating that no official below the Secretary of Defense, except the Deputy Secretary, has the rank and perspective to provide the strategic leadership and authoritative decision making necessary to ensure implementation of departmentwide busines |
3,047 | s activities. DOD stated that the Deputy Secretary of Defense is to be designated as the CMO and that an internal directive is being revised to that effect. DOD also stated its belief that the continuity of business transformation is best ensured by institutionalized processes and organizations, the knowledge and perspective of DOD’s career workforce, clear and mutually agreed to economy and efficiency goals, and the due diligence of future administrations and Members of Congress to nominate and confirm hig |
3,048 | hly qualified executives to serve at DOD. Further, DOD stated that the establishment of an additional official at the under secretary level to lead business transformation would generate dysfunctional competition among the five other Under Secretaries by creating confusion and redundancy in their roles and responsibilities. DOD added that the Deputy Secretary of Defense as the CMO has sufficient officials available to assist in managing the department and the authority necessary to refine the department’s m |
3,049 | anagement structure to continue business management reform and integrate business transformation activities with the operational work of the department. Because of the complexity and long-term nature of business transformation, we have consistently reported and testified that DOD needs a CMO with significant authority and experience, a term that would provide sustained leadership, and the time to integrate overall business transformation efforts. In our view, DOD’s plan to subsume the CMO duties within the |
3,050 | Deputy Secretary of Defense position and to establish this action by directive would place the responsibilities at the appropriate level—Executive Level II—but would result in a position not subject to a term or able to focus full-time attention on business transformation. Transformation is a long-term process, especially for large and complex organizations such as DOD. Therefore, a term of at least 5 to 7 years is recommended to provide sustained leadership and accountability. To ensure continuity, it shou |
3,051 | ld become a permanent position, with the specific duties authorized in statute. As stated in our report, we believe codifying a separate, full-time CMO position in statute would also help to create unambiguous expectations and underscore congressional desire to follow a professional, nonpartisan, sustainable, and institutional approach to this position. We recognize that the Deputy Secretary of Defense has officials and institutional structures available to support the transformation process; however, trans |
3,052 | formation cannot be achieved through a committee approach. Ultimately, a person at the right level, with the right type of experience, in a full-time position with a term appointment, and with the proper amount of responsibility, authority, and accountability is needed to lead the effort. Contrary to DOD’s view, we believe the establishment of a separate CMO position would bring leadership, accountability, focus, and direction to the department’s efforts rather than creating dysfunctional competition and ca |
3,053 | using confusion. The CMO would not assume the responsibilities of the Under Secretaries of Defense or any other officials. Rather, the CMO would be responsible and accountable for planning, integrating, and executing the department’s overall business transformation effort, and would be able to give full-time attention to business transformation. As such, the CMO would be a key ally to other officials in the department in dealing with the business transformation process. Without formally designating responsi |
3,054 | bility and accountability for results, reconciling competing priorities among various organizations and prioritizing investments will be difficult and could impede progress in addressing deficiencies in key business areas. We believe DOD’s position essentially represents the status quo, and that in the interest of the department and American taxpayers, the department needs a CMO to help transform its key business operations and avoid billions of dollars in waste each year. We are encouraged that this matter |
3,055 | is now before Congress as it prepares to deliberate on pending legislation that calls for statutorily establishing a CMO for DOD. In particular, we believe any resulting legislation should include some important characteristics for the CMO position. Specifically, a CMO at DOD should be codified in statute as a separate and full-time position that is designated as an Executive Level II appointment and reports directly to the Secretary of Defense so that the individual in this position has the stature needed |
3,056 | to successfully address integration challenges, adjudicate disputes, and monitor progress on overall business transformation across defense organizations. In addition, the position should be subject to an extended term appointment such that the CMO would span administrations to sustain transformation efforts when key personnel changes occur. Transformation is a long-term process, especially for large and complex organizations such as DOD. Therefore, a term of at least 5 to 7 years is recommended to provide |
3,057 | sustained leadership and accountability. In addition, we would recommend a requirement for advance notification should the Secretary decide to remove an individual from the CMO position. We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees and the Secretary of Defense. We will also make copies available to others upon request. This report is also available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please conta |
3,058 | ct me at (202) 512-9619 or [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Other staff members who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix III. To assess the progress the Department of Defense (DOD) has made in setting up a management framework for business transformation, we reviewed and analyzed relevant documents and current literature about the department’s business transformation and intervi |
3,059 | ewed key DOD senior leaders and defense experts. Documents that we used for our review included, but were not limited to, (1) GAO reports related to DOD’s high- risk areas, including business systems modernization, development of the business enterprise architecture, and organizational transformation; (2) DOD products, including the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review and updates to DOD’s enterprise transition plan; (3) DOD’s annual reports on business transformation to Congress (and biannual updates); (4) DOD |
3,060 | testimony to Congress on the status of business transformation; and (5) meeting minutes and briefing documents, such as those from the Defense Business Systems Management Committee, the Deputy’s Advisory Working Group, and the Defense Business Board, related to DOD’s business transformation, governance, and management reforms. We obtained testimonial evidence from officials representing the Business Transformation Agency, offices within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (including the Program Analysis |
3,061 | and Evaluation Directorate; Office of the Director, Administration and Management; and the Office of Business Transformation), the Joint Staff, the military departments, and defense experts. To assess the challenges DOD faces in maintaining and ensuring success in its overall business transformation efforts, we compared DOD’s efforts to key practices we found to be consistently at the center of successful organizational mergers and transformations, specifically, establishing a coherent mission and integrate |
3,062 | d strategic goals to guide the transformation and ensuring that top leadership drives the transformation. We also reviewed relevant plans and related documents to assess integration among DOD’s various business-related plans. These plans included DOD’s Quadrennial Defense Review, Performance and Accountability Report, Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan, Defense Acquisition Transformation Report to Congress, Supply Chain Management Improvement Plan, Focused Logistics Joint Functional Concept and |
3,063 | the Focused Logistics Campaign Plan, Human Capital Strategy, and the Defense Installations Strategic Plan. In addition, we reviewed proposals for a chief management officer (CMO) at the department and obtained testimonial evidence from key DOD officials and defense experts. As part of this effort, we considered comments raised by several public and private sector officials during a forum sponsored by the Comptroller General in April 2007. The purpose of this forum was to discuss the merits of a CMO or chief |
3,064 | operating officer concept. We also analyzed congressionally mandated CMO reports prepared by the Defense Business Board and the Institute for Defense Analyses and reviewed DOD’s response to the study prepared by the Institute for Defense Analyses. We conducted our work from September 2006 through July 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. In addition to the contact named above, David Moser, Assistant Director; Thomas Beall; Renee Brown; Donna Byers; Grace Coleman; Gina F |
3,065 | lacco; Barbara Lancaster; Julia Matta; and Suzanne Perkins made key contributions to this report. DOD Business Systems Modernization: Progress Continues to Be Made in Establishing Corporate Management Controls, but Further Steps Are Needed. GAO-07-733. Washington, D.C.: May 14, 2007. Business Systems Modernization: DOD Needs to Fully Define Policies and Procedures for Institutionally Managing Investments. GAO-07-538. Washington, D.C.: May 11, 2007. DOD Transformation Challenges and Opportunities. GAO-07-500 |
3,066 | CG. Washington, D.C.: February 12, 2007. Business Systems Modernization: Strategy for Evolving DOD’s Business Enterprise Architecture Offers a Conceptual Approach, but Execution Details Are Needed. GAO-07-451. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2007. High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-07-310. Washington, D.C.: January 2007. Defense Business Transformation: A Comprehensive Plan, Integrated Efforts, and Sustained Leadership Are Needed to Assure Success. GAO-07-229T. Washington, D.C.: November 16, 2006. Department of D |
3,067 | efense: Sustained Leadership Is Critical to Effective Financial and Business Management Transformation. GAO-06-1006T. Washington, D.C.: August 3, 2006. Business Systems Modernization: DOD Continues to Improve Institutional Approach, but Further Steps Needed. GAO-06-658. Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2006. GAO’S High-Risk Program. GAO-06-497T. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2006. Defense Management: Additional Actions Needed to Enhance DOD’s Risk-Based Approach for Making Resource Decisions. GAO-06-13. Washington, |
3,068 | D.C.: November 15, 2005. Defense Management: Foundational Steps Being Taken to Manage DOD Business Systems Modernization, but Much Remains to be Accomplished to Effect True Business Transformation. GAO-06-234T. Washington, D.C.: November 9, 2005. 21st Century Challenges: Transforming Government to Meet Current and Emerging Challenges. GAO-05-830T. Washington, D.C.: July 13, 2005. DOD Business Transformation: Sustained Leadership Needed to Address Long-standing Financial and Business Management Problems. GAO |
3,069 | -05-723T. Washington, D.C.: June 8, 2005. Defense Management: Key Elements Needed to Successfully Transform DOD Business Operations. GAO-05-629T. Washington, D.C.: April 28, 2005. |
3,070 | The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 required that DOD develop a detailed implementation plan for carrying out its health care system reform of creating the DHA, and provide the plan to the congressional defense committees in three separate submissions in fiscal year 2013. In October 2013, DOD established the DHA to assume management responsibility for numerous functions of its medical health care system, support the services in carrying out their medical missions, manage the military |
3,071 | ’s health plan, oversee the medical operations within the National Capital Region, and provide 10 shared services, including oversight of medical education and training. According to DOD, a “shared services concept” is a combination of common services performed across the medical community with the goal of achieving cost savings. The DHA’s Education and Training Directorate, a shared service, is scheduled to begin operations in August 2014 and, according to DOD officials, when operational, will constitute t |
3,072 | he first instance of oversight of medical education and training at the Office of the Secretary of Defense level. While the services establish training requirements, operate their own service-specific training institutions, and provide manpower to conduct the training at tri-service institutions, such as METC, the Directorate plans to provide administrative support; academic review and policy oversight; and professional development, sustainment, and program management to the military departments’ medical se |
3,073 | rvices, the combatant commands, and the Joint Staff. See figure 1 below for the organizational chart of the DHA. Medical personnel receive training throughout their careers to develop and enhance their skills. Examples of the types of medical training they can receive include 1. initial training for enlisted servicemembers, which results in a new 2. sustainment training for enlisted servicemembers, which does not result in a new occupational classification but refreshes or augments initial training; 3. oper |
3,074 | ational or readiness skills training, which provides training to perform in operational situations throughout the world and includes such training as burn and trauma care as well as emergency and Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive preparedness; and 4. executive skills training for enlisted servicemembers, officers, and civilians, which provides military health care leaders with executive management and professional administrative skills. These training courses can be presented in sha |
3,075 | red or service-specific settings that involve varying degrees of a consolidated approach to course curricula, faculty instruction, equipment, and facilities. Figure 2 depicts the locations of this training and whether it is shared (“tri-service”) or service-specific training. Four DOD institutions offer medical training to servicemembers from all three services. These institutions vary in size and subject matter, and include the following: Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS): DOD-fu |
3,076 | nded medical school in Bethesda, Maryland, with a fiscal year 2015 budget estimate of about $146 million. This university provides medical training to health professionals dedicated to a career as a physician, dentist, or nurse in DOD or the U.S. Public Health Service. Medical Education and Training Campus (METC): Provides initial skills training to most medical enlisted servicemembers in about 50 areas such as pharmacy, laboratory, and dental technology; combat medics, basic hospital corpsmen, basic medica |
3,077 | l technicians; and a number of advanced medical training courses. METC resulted from a 2005 BRAC recommendation to establish a medical education and training complex that collocated medical enlisted training being conducted at five different locations by each of the military services into one location at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. (See fig. 3.) Since first becoming operational in 2010, METC has created 14 new consolidated courses while 22 of its courses were consolidated prior to METC’s creation. METC trains, |
3,078 | on average, about 20,000 students annually and is estimated to cost almost $27 million in fiscal year 2015. See appendix I for a list of courses taught at METC and course participants. Defense Medical Readiness Training Institute (DMRTI): Tri-service organization that is staffed by servicemembers from the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force as well as Department of the Army civilians and according to officials, had a $1.4 million budget in fiscal year 2013. This organization offers resident and nonresident j |
3,079 | oint medical readiness training courses as well as professional medical programs that enable military medical personnel, both active duty and reserve, to better perform a wide range of medical and health support missions they face throughout the world. Courses include trauma care, burn care, public health emergency preparedness, humanitarian assistance, and emergency response to chemical, biological, nuclear, and other events. During fiscal year 2013, approximately 3,600 students participated in 122 course |
3,080 | iterations in 51 different locations. According to officials, besides providing medical readiness training to U.S. servicemembers, DMRTI has provided this training to officials in 38 countries at the request of a combatant command. Joint Medical Executive Skills Institute (JMESI): Tri-service organization that provides military health care leaders with executive management skill programs, products, and services that are designed to enhance their performance as managers and leaders in the military healthcare |
3,081 | environment. The training JMESI provides centers on the Core Curriculum which is a collection of 35 executive administrative competencies required of a military hospital commander that tri- service senior leaders are responsible for reviewing and updating every 3 years. Each year approximately 200 managers graduate from JMESI’s Healthcare Management Seminar and MHS Capstone Symposium, and nearly 20,000 students participate in its online, distance learning program. In addition to tri-service training, each |
3,082 | of the services operates its own education and training entities that provide additional training to their medical servicemembers. The Army and Navy education and training entities are constituent commands of the Army Medical Command and the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, respectively, which are headed by Surgeons General. The Air Force education and training entities conduct a wide variety of training, including nonmedical training, and do not report directly to the Air Force Surgeon General. These organi |
3,083 | zations include the following: Army Medical Department Center and School (AMEDD C&S): Army training headquarters located at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. The center formulates the Army Medical Department’s medical organization, tactics, doctrine, and equipment. The school educates and trains Army medical personnel. More specifically, the Academy of Health Sciences is the “school” and is part vocational institution, part community college, and part major university. The Academy of Health Sciences includes 361 pro |
3,084 | grams of instructions, with 41 of them taught at METC; 2 levels of officer leader development programs; 6 Masters Degree programs; 7 Doctoral Degree programs; 94 professional postgraduate programs; as well as pre-deployment training within three main centers and a graduate school. First, the Center for Health Education and Training consists of 10 departments whose primary mission is to instruct advanced or specialty courses enhancing and building upon the initial training that enlisted soldiers receive from |
3,085 | METC and officers receive after finishing their basic courses. Second, the Center for Pre-Deployment Medicine analyzes, designs, and develops individual pre-deployment training courses and products and provides professional expertise and pre-deployment training to increase the technical and tactical abilities of physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals. Third, the Leader Training Center provides professional education, doctrinal, and individual leadership training to execute Army missions acr |
3,086 | oss a full spectrum of military operations. Additionally, aviation medicine classes are taught at the US Army School of Aviation Medicine, in Fort Rucker, Alabama, and forward surgical teams preparing for overseas deployment go through training at the Army Trauma Training Center in Miami, Florida. Navy Medicine Education and Training Command (NMETC): Consists of four centers that provide education, training, and support for Navy medical personnel. The first center is the Navy Medicine Professional Developme |
3,087 | nt Center headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, which offers educational programs such as the Naval Postgraduate Dental School as well as leadership and specialty courses that focus on the practice and business of military medicine in both the operational and hospital settings delivered via in-person classes and online. The second center is the Navy Medicine Training Support Center headquartered in San Antonio, Texas. It serves as the Navy’s component command for METC students and instructors to provide admi |
3,088 | nistrative and operational control of Navy personnel assigned to METC. The third center is the Navy Medicine Operational Training Center, which is headquartered in Pensacola, Florida, and consists of six detachments and nine training centers at 14 locations throughout the country that teach such areas of Navy medicine as undersea, aviation, expeditionary, special operations, and survival training. Fourth, another section of the NMETC provides medical education and training to the reserve components. Air For |
3,089 | ce: There is no specific Air Force organization focused exclusively on medical training. The Air Force Surgeon General assists Air Force leadership in developing policies, plans, and programs, establishing requirements, and providing resources to the Air Force Medical Service, while the Air Force’s Air Education and Training Command (AETC) and the Air Force Material Command (AFMC) provide medical training. AETC, which is headquartered at Joint Base San Antonio—Randolph, Texas, oversees a wide variety of med |
3,090 | ical and nonmedical training. AETC is responsible for 114 medical-related courses: 35 initial skills courses conducted mostly at METC; 73 sustainment or skills progression courses conducted at METC and other various locations; and 6 medical readiness courses taught at a military training site near San Antonio, Texas. AFMC, which is headquartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, includes the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine (USAFSAM). USAFSAM is a center for aerospace medical education and tra |
3,091 | ining, and offers a series of courses comprising the initial qualification training for flight surgeons, including hyperbaric medicine, occupational medicine, aviation mishap prevention, and other unique aeromedical issues pertinent to the flight environment. The school trains 6,000 students annually. DOD has outlined the areas of responsibility for its Education and Training Directorate, including consolidation and management of a number of activities currently performed by the services. However, in its pl |
3,092 | ans, DOD has not demonstrated through a fully developed business case analysis how creating a shared service for education and training will result in cost savings. According to DOD’s third submission to Congress on its plans for the implementation of the DHA in October 2013, DOD proposed a number of projects or “product lines” for its shared service Education and Training Directorate. Specifically, DOD identified three product lines for the directorate, which involve (1) management of professional developm |
3,093 | ent, sustainment, and related programs, including the METC, the Defense Medical Readiness and Training Institute, and the Joint Medical Executive Skills Institute; (2) academic review and policy oversight functions, including management of online courses and modeling and simulation programs; and (3) management of academic and administrative support functions, such as training and conference approval processes. According to DOD’s second submission to Congress, the overall purpose and core measure of success |
3,094 | for all shared services is the achievement of cost savings. This focus differentiates the objective of establishing shared services from the six other objectives outlined in DOD’s plans for the implementation of the DHA. However, in its plans, DOD has not demonstrated how its Education and Training Directorate projects will result in cost savings through a fully developed business case analysis, including an analysis of benefits, costs, and risks. In its third submission to Congress on its implementation pl |
3,095 | ans for DHA, DOD presented estimates of costs and cost savings for two “sub-product lines” concerning modeling and simulation and online learning. However, these projects do not represent the core of the directorate’s mission, but rather a portion of the academic review and policy oversight project. Further, these projects overlap with DHA’s contracting and information technology shared services. Specifically, while cost savings for modeling and simulation are allocated to the Education and Training Directo |
3,096 | rate, implementation costs are to be incurred by the DHA contracting shared service. In addition, the savings for the online learning project are found within the DHA information technology shared service portfolio. Aside from these projects, DOD did not present information concerning the cost savings of its other shared service projects within the Education and Training Directorate. GAO’s Business Process Reengineering Assessment Guide states that a business case begins with (1) measuring performance and i |
3,097 | dentifying problems in meeting mission goals, which is then addressed through (2) the development and selection of a new process. As noted above, the primary stated purpose of the DHA’s shared service projects is to achieve cost savings. The Guide further states that as a project matures, the business case should be enlarged and updated to present a full picture of the benefits, costs, and risks involved in moving to a new process. Such analysis is to provide a sound basis to proceed with the reengineering |
3,098 | process. DOD’s own process for developing its shared services, outlined in its second submission on implementation of the DHA, states that after an assessment of the current state of performance and measures of effectiveness have been identified, performance improvement and cost reduction opportunities should be identified. It also states that new processes and initiatives are to be developed to address these challenges, along with associated implementation costs. Further, the National Defense Authorization |
3,099 | Act for Fiscal Year 2013 required DOD to develop business case analyses for its shared service proposals as part of its submissions on its plans for the implementation of the DHA, including, among other things, the purpose of the shared service and the anticipated cost savings. DOD does not have a fully developed business case analysis for medical education and training because it has not yet completed the first step of that analysis, which is to identify specific problems, which, given the stated purpose |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.