Force development process
Force development process
Force development is initiated with all operational capabilities expected of the army as articulated in national strategies and guidance, which include Strategic Planning Guidance (SPG), Defense Strategy, Joint Programming Guidance (JPG), Army Vision as well as the National Military Strategy (NMS) (United States, 2003). In essence, force development determines Army doctrinal, training, leadership, organizational, facility capabilities and personnel requirements consequently translated into structures and programs with specified resources allocated with the main aim of enabling the accomplishment of Army functions and missions.
Force development plays critical function of bringing people and equipments together to eventually form an operational organization (Birkler, Neu, Kent, U.S & Institute, 2008). Force development is able to achieve its objectives because it utilizes phased processes that are essential in the development of organizational and operational concepts. The phased processes are then combined with materials, work force, and technology or limited resources when producing combat capacity. The paper will explore phase four that determine organizational authorizations assessing how and why it is impacted.
Phase 4: Determining Organizational Authorizations
The fourth phase that determines organizational authorization is critical in force development as it provides the organization’s mix, resulting in an affordable and balanced force structure. The process of force structuring is a central process of the PPBE (Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution), OSD (Office of Secretary of Defense) as well as the OSD systems of management (Birkler et al., 2008). This means that the fourth phase is a sensitive resource process included in the determination of authorization division. Additionally, it is responsible during the development of force structure that supports strategic, operational and joint planning including Army programming and planning as well as all budgeting processes. The process of force structure development is based on the understanding of desired capabilities, objectives and constraints that are externally imposed such as roles, end strength, missions and dollar (Paton, 2005).
The determination of the content and size of an Army force structure is a risk-benefit, iterate and trade-off analysis. The analysis process is not entirely exclusive within the Army’s purview. Total Army Analysis is a proven mechanism acknowledged for defending and explaining Army Force Structure (Paton, 2005). This means that it is capable of transporting one’s mind to the future army from the present moment. However, it requires an analysis and doctrinal basis that flows from joint force capability as well as from strategic guidance requirements. More importantly to note is that TAA can be an annual process due to its characteristic of being able to be compressed from biennial process into even number of years. Therefore, the main purpose of TAA is aiding in the determination of the EAUEx support force structure to the generating forces and of operating forces required for sustaining and supporting all strategic guidance (United States, 2003).
In other words, TAA is responsible for executing all of OSD’s decisions regarding initiatives as well as directives of the Army PPBE and joint staff processes (Lorke, 2012). This means that it acts as a bridge between the Army’s forced program and planning building process and the OSD guidance. It is therefore capable of balancing all requirements of the Army against planned and available resources. The size and the future of the Army are shaped by the leadership and senor decisions made in the TAA process for the best interests of the Army. The strategic guidance is supported by the Army’s resourced force structure. In this respect, TAA is responsible for developing a force capable of meeting necessary guidance in specified scenarios, usually under resource constraints that are already established (Lorke, 2012). This is imperative in fulfilling or meeting the missions and roles as specified through the guidance of congressional guidance and oversight.
In addition, all processes of the TAA are crucial in transitioning force structure through the phases of planning to programming within the realms of Army’s PPBE process. It is also responsible for determining, verifying and justifying requirements of the Army while at the same time assessing capabilities of the force (United States & United States, 2007). Nonetheless, it is important to note that all processes conducted by TAA are normally responsive and flexible to dynamic changes. They flow from internal Army decisions, guidance and actions and from external inputs such as the Secretary of Defense, President, JS, OSD as well as CJCS.
The Army is tasked with developing the POM force capable of supporting national objectives as well as war fighting needs of COCOM (Exercise of Command) commander (United States, 2003). All joint and Army planning, budgeting and programming the mix of unit models including tactical and operations processes that normally supports programs. This essentially means that as a multi-phased structuring process, TAA uses both quantitative and qualitative analysis, designed to help develop any operating and generating forces. Forces that are generated as a result help sustain and support combat forces, which are delineated in the TAP (Paton, 2005).
The process of determining resources consists of two main activities that include leadership review as well as qualitative analysis. It is worth to note that qualitative analysis is determined as TAA’s most emotional facet since it results in scarce resources that are distributed resulting to significant impacts to Army’s every aspect (Birkler et al., 2008). Consequently, there is a need of adequately and extensively preparing participants with the aim of determining that war-fighting force structure has been sufficiently developed. Qualitative analysis is primarily conducted in the development of the initial POM force. During this process, a series of analysis, resource forums, conferences and panel reviews validate the FORGE model by considering all generated requirements as well as by conducting an analysis on those particular analyses (Birkler et al., 2008).
On the other hand, the resources conference is responsible for identifying and development of all potential solutions regarding plethora matters brought to the TAA. This particular forum incorporates Force Integrators (FI) as well as Organizational Integrators (OI) who are two critical individuals (United States & United States, 2007). The FIs and the OIs are mainly responsible in pulling together any diverse opinions and guidance that may be identified during the conference. They are able to execute the objective by adding valuable insight from various perspectives and engaging in the process of establishing the credibility or viability of any changes in the building blocks. During such a process, the OIs play a critical role of identifying and collecting any relevant information to present to the TAA (United States & United States, 2007).
The product of POM and TAA processes is usually a force structure approved for the Army. Moreover, this force structure is divided for the purposes of resource management into various components (Lorke, 2012). Three out of the total components indirect host nation support (COMPO 8), direct host-nation (COMPO 7) as well as the Civil Augmentation Logistics (COMPO 9) all develop a force structure that is offset. In this case, Host nation support is tasked with guaranteeing the other COMPO seven and eight (United States, 2003). However, COMPO 9 is not an offset but an augmentation that generally represents contracts derived from additional services and support (United States, 2003). This is mainly from foreign or domestic firms augmenting the force structure already in existence.
Birkler, J. L., Neu, C. R., Kent, G. A., United States, & National Defense Research Institute (U.S.). (2008). gaining new military capability: An experiment in concept development. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Lorke, A. (2012). Nanoparticles from the gas phase: Formation, structure, properties. Berlin: Springer.
Paton, R. (2005). Handbook of corporate university development: Managing strategic learning initiatives in public and private domains. Aldershot, Hants: Ashgate Pub.
United States. (2003). Energy task force: Process used to develop the National Energy Policy. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office.
United States & United States. (2007). The Joint force development process. Washington, D.C.: Headquarters, Departments of the Army and the Air Force.