defense reform in the 21 century emerging survey...

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


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




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




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


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


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


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


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


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

defense reform in the 21 century emerging survey...

Documents