RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

INSIDE

This Issue

Army Resource

Management Award

Winners 2002 

Page 6

GETS’s Cost Control

Culture

Page 13

Financial Methods

for Analyzing

Federal Capital

Investments

Page 20

2nd Quarter 2003

ACP Graduating Class of 2002
This medium is approved for official

dissemination of material designed

to keep individuals within the Army

knowledgeable of current and

emerging developments within their

areas of expertise for the purpose of

professional development.

By order of the Secretary of

the Army:

Eric K. Shinseki

GENERAL, UNITED STATES ARMY

CHIEF OF STAFF

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO

THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

JOEL B. HUDSON

DISTRIBUTION: Special

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF

THE ARMY

(FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

AND COMPTROLLER):

Sandra L. Pack

MANAGING EDITOR,

THE PENTAGON:

Wilett Bunton

Resource Management is an official professional Bulletin published quarterly and sponsored by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller.

Unless otherwise noted, material may be reprinted provided the author and RM are credited. Views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the

Department of the Army or any element thereof. RM provides a forum for expression of

mature, professional ideas on the art and science of Resource management. It is designed

as a practical vehicle for the continuing education and professional development of

resource managers through thought-provoking articles. Send all correspondence to:

Managing Editor, Resource Management, Comptroller Proponency Office, Office of the

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller)

ATTN: SAFM-PO, 109 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0109. Queries may be

made by phone to DSN 222-7413 or commercial (703) 692-7413. Please send a copy of

each submission to Managing Editor, SAFM-PO, ASST SEC ARMY FIN MGT, 109 ARMY

PENTAGON, Washington, DC 20310-0109.

POSTMASTER: Please send address changes to Managing Editor, Resource Management,

Comptroller Proponency Office, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial

Management and Comptroller)ATTN: SAFM-PO, 109 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC

20310-0109.

Cover Photo

Stephen E. Allenbach Jimmie J. Kimbrough

Micheal T. Barkett Karl E. Lindquist*

Thomas P. Belkofer* Charles R. MacDonald*

Charles E. Bledsoe* Christopher H. McManus

Ronald L. Bowman Patricia E. Provines

P. Daniel Cureton Patricia C. Remington

Thomas R. Davies* Earl W. Rilington

Terry M. Dorman Scott E. Roth

Melissa A. Eggebrecht David P. Savold*

Thomas M. Fowler Bettina M. Sheppard

Kathryn A. Herhusky Kelly M. Thomson*

L. Lisa Hughes Lisa D. Titus*

Keith E. Igyarto Robert E. Unger*

Max J. Jakeman F. Mark Webster

* Beta Gamma Sigma Inductee

All graduates successfully completed Certification for 

Defense Financial Management (CDFM)
R e source Management / 2nd Quarter 2003 3

2nd Quarter 2003 “Professional Development” PB48–03–2

Contents

Message from the Assistant Secretary of the Army 4

Message from the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of

the Army 5

Army Resource Management Award Winners 6

A Postcard from the TWI Water Cooler 10

A Postcard from Industry: GETS’s Cost Control Culture 13

Internal Controls 18

Financial Methods for Analyzing Federal Capital Investments 20

Strategic Planning Model 24

Using Personal Scorecards to Enhance Performance Management 28

Support to Private Organization Events 31

Right-sizing and Personnel Considerations 34

Perspectives 36

Professional Development 38

FA 45 Focus 45

Civilian ATLDP Study Recommends Civilian Advisory Board 47

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
4 R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003

Promoting Professionalism in Our Workforce

A Message from the Assistant

Secretary of the Army

(Financial Management & Comptroller)

The Honorable Sandra L. Pack

The extraordinary battlefield

advantages that our soldiers

enjoy today derive, in large

part, from the way they train.

Superior training programs—some of the best in the world—

are emblematic of the U.S. Army’s continuing commitment to

high standards and professionalism.

A remarkable characteristic of the U.S. Army is its ability to

adapt to change. Consider the rag-tag force of the American

Revolution some 227 years ago juxtaposed against today’s

force—the force that recently demonstrated its prowess in

Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite recent successes, the Army’s continuing challenge is the need to change and transform at an

ever-accelerating pace due to a world that is shifting from the

industrial age to the information age. Hence, the Army must

continue to transform in order to maintain its superiority.

Our role in the financial management community, to resource

our country’s Army, inextricably links us to almost every facet

of Army business. Our job has never been more mission critical. As the rest of the Army transforms, we in financial management also must transform.

I believe that training and educational programs, a cornerstone of Army doctrine, serve as catalysts for innovation and

for growing capable leaders. Moreover, professional education

and certification programs expose our professionals to new

ideas and new ways of thinking and they can serve as the

means for career advancement and personal enrichment.

There are a number of accreditation programs available to the

Army’s financial workforce. These programs are supported by

the US Congress and the Department of Defense.

They include:

Accredited Financial Examiner (AFE)

Certified Defense Financial Manager (CDFM) 

Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE)

Certified Government Audit Professional (CGAP)

Certified in Financial Management (CFM)

Certified Government Financial Manager (CGFM)

Certified Internal Auditor (CIA)

Certified Information Systems Auditor (CISA)

Certified Management Accountant (CMA)

Certified Cost Analyst (CCA)

Certified Public Accountant (CPA)

Certified Quality Analyst (CQA)

Certified Public Finance Officer (CPFO)

I encourage our professionals to take advantage of recent

Congressional actions that were designed to promote professional education. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 Authorization Act

permits the Army to pay for the initial and subsequent

renewals of professional credentials for civilian employees. The

FY 2003 Authorization Act permits the Secretary of Defense to

prescribe professional certification standards for professional

accounting positions within the Department of Defense (i.e.,

government series—505, 510, and 511). The Financial

Management Proponency Offices in both the Department of

Defense and the Army currently are developing policies and

procedures for implementing these provisions.

I believe in the benefits of lifelong learning and I encourage

each of you to take advantage of these certification programs.

As a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), my career has benefited greatly from professional certification. Those benefits

have far outweighed the personal sacrifices that the rigorous

certification process entailed.

In short, now is a good time to start an educational or certification program. No matter your station or position, education

will enrich you.
R e source Management / 2nd Quarter 2003 5

A Message from the Principal Deputy

Assistant Secretary of the Army

(Financial Management & Comptroller)

Ernest J. Gregory

“One's mind, once stretched

by a new idea never regains its

original dimensions.”

Oliver Wendell Holmes

This quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes reinforces the importance of professional development. I will never forget my first

day as an intern with the Army Audit Agency in Philadelphia

in 1967. First and foremost, among the myriad of emotions I

experienced, were two questions, what would I learn and how

can I contribute? Still, thirty-six years later I approach each

new task with the same questions; what will I learn and how

can I contribute? Working in financial management is as exciting today as it was the day I started my career as an intern.

The benchmark for quality training was established when 

I was an intern. As the Functional Career Representative for

the Comptroller Civilian Career Program (CP 11), I want to

ensure that the same benchmark of excellence is in place for

all CP 11 interns. CP 11 careerists and interns have access 

to more professional development training and education

opportunities than any federal employee working in 

government today.

The Financial Management and Comptroller community

exists to provide Army financial management stewardship and

accountability to meet the Army’s resource needs. We need a

motivated, professional workforce to accomplish this mission

and our strategic goals: systems integration, cost control,

resource generation and leveraging resources through innovation. Bottom-line, we need a trained and ready cadre of professional interns to assist our current workforce in transforming financial management systems and processes to support a

new organizational change strategy.

I am committed to transforming and empowering the CP 11

intern program to align training and education with learning

and growth activities. All CP 11 interns will be afforded access

to the highest quality professional development training and

education during their internship. The financial management

community must work together to achieve this goal by doing

whatever we can to ensure that every CP 11 intern completes

the following mandatory program requirements:

• Master Intern Training Plans (completed within sixty days 

of assignment)

• Completion of Mandatory, and Core Competency 

(Priority 1 & 2) Training

• 4–Ninety day rotational assignments

• Participation in HQDA Designated Training Forums

We owe our newest professional employees the best training.

Now more than ever the contribution we make in building the

future workforce is vitally important.

We must remain focused on what is important... the support

we provide to those who defend America.... the Warfighters,

our number one priority.

Interns: Investing in our Future
6 R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003

Assistant Secretary Of the Army (FM&C) Military Award—The

ASA (FM&C) Military Award recognizes the top military soldier

serving in a leadership capacity that the Assistant Secretary personally cites for outstanding contributions to the field of resource

management. This year’s ASA (FM&C) Military Award is awarded

to MAJ Charles Lunati a program integration analyst with the

Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation, G-8, HQDA. MAJ

Lunati designed and developed the PA&E “Program Budget

Decision (PBD) Checkbook System.” He designed the system to

be a web-based program, which can be used to write EXSUMs,

generate impacts of PBDs, and generate senior leader reports. In

addition to the program, MAJ Lunati developed a training course

and user’s manual for the use of the program all at no cost to the

Army. The program has had a significant impact on PA&E operations reducing the number of transcription errors and combining

PA&E internal business practices.

Functional Chief Representative (FCR) Special Award—The FCR

Special Award recognizes the top civilian Army employee serving

in a leadership capacity that the Principal Deputy to the Assistant

Secretary of the Army (FM&C), serving as the CP 11 FCR, personally cites for outstanding contributions to the Comptroller Civilian

Career Program (CP 11). This year’s FCR Special Award is awarded

to Ms. Mary Hansen the Deputy Budget Officer for Headquarters,

Third US Army. Ms. Hansen, while serving as the Deputy Budget

Officer, personally trained more than 60 resource managers within

Third US Army. She followed up her face-to-face training by

authoring the Third US Army Resource Manager’s Handbook. The

handbook immediately became the “bible” for forward RM’s, visible at their desk-side at all times and worn from use. The brevity

and clarity with which Ms. Hansen developed this manual was

clear to the Government Accounting Office auditors who

requested copies to disseminate as a guidance model.

OUTSTANDING RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

ORGANIZATION AWARD

(Above MACOM) G8, Current Operations Branch,

Headquarters, FORSCOM—G8 Current Operations Branch

assisted in the mobilization of over 30,000 Reserve Soldiers for

homeland defense and combat operations and efficiently managed budgets of over $1.3B for Operation Enduring Freedom and

The reviewing panels have met and have announced their 

selections for this year’s Assistant Secretary of the Army

(Financial Management and Comptroller) Resource

Management (RM) Award recipients.

CAPSTONE AWARDS

ASA (FM&C) Civilian Award

Ms. Kathleen Finn

Accountant

Fort Hood, TX

FORSCOM

ASA (FM&C) Military Award

MAJ Charles Lunati

Analyst

PA&E, G8

HQDA

Functional Chief Representative Special Award

Ms. Mary Hansen

Budget Officer

HQ, Third Army

FORSCOM

Assistant Secretary Of the Army (FM&C) Civilian Award—The

ASA (FM&C) Civilian Award recognizes the top civilian Army

employee serving in a leadership capacity that the Assistant

Secretary personally cites for outstanding contributions to the

field of resource management. This year’s ASA (FM&C) Civilian

Award is awarded to Ms. Kathleen Finn, a staff accountant for

Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood. Ms. Finn’s efforts were

instrumental in Fort Hood’s successful conversion to Single Stock

Fund (SSF) Milestone 3 and its completion of the Verification of

Initial Operational Capability (VIOC) period without significant

loss of funds. During SSF conversion, she implemented procedures to mitigate double billing, saving Fort Hood approximately

$20M and worked closely with VIOC systems developers to 

correct programming errors.

Fiscal Year 2002

Army Resource Management Award Winners

Congratulations to this years winners!!!
R e source Management / 2nd Quarter 2003 7

$48.1M for Operation Noble Eagle. The team was integral in the

planning and supporting of the transfer of over 500 detainees

from Afghanistan to Guatanamo Bay.

Organization Members: LTC Johnnie Beale, MAJ Chuck

Styslinger, MAJ Carmen Reyes, MAJ Vince Gallman, MAJ

Marlena Walker, Ms. Cynthia Fong, Ms. Verna Irick-Adams, Ms.

Carolyn Patton, LTC Ron Small, CPT Harold Askins 

(Below MACOM) Financial Management Division, US Army

Finance School, TRADOC—The FMD conducted a total of 53

resource management classes worldwide while initially only

resourced for 47 classes, training a total of 1,260 personnel in

FY02 and saving over $1.37M in training and travel costs. The

FMD further committed over 1,000 hours to the development,

review, and validation of PPBES, BNCOC, and RMBC Distance

Learning (DL) packages.

Organization Members: MAJ William Bunting, MAJ Marc

Frandsen, MAJ Alex Heaton, MAJ Thomas Netzel, CPT Tracy

Foster, CPT Lawrence Stiller, SFC Keith Caraman, SFC Tommara

Ladson, SFC Andre McDaniel, Mr. Lennox McDonald

OUTSTANDING RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

TEAM AWARD

(Above MACOM) Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreement

Central Team, Headquarters, USAREUR—The team developed a

web-based tracking tool, called ACSA Central, to record transactions and to serve as the substantiating vehicle to effect reimbursements among nations. The tool enables the electronic transmission of activity to rear-support personnel who can initiate formal reimbursement actions and bill payment tracking.

Team Leader: Mr. Lloyd Walker

Team Members: Mr. Steve Enstrom, Ms. Sybille Quitar,

Mr. Yusuko Price

(Below MACOM) Advanced Individual Training Fort Gordon

Audit Team, TRADOC Field Office, AAA—The team identified

583 work years of training in FY00 and 01 that were not required

in preparing soldiers for their first assignment. They also identified that implementing assignment-oriented training for four of

the AIT courses could result in net benefits of $104.3M over the

current training methodology from FY04 through FY09.

Team Leader: Mr. George Morrison

Team Members: Ms. Kimberly Craig, Mr. Scott Morris,

Ms. Sharon Seawright, Ms. Gloria Bland, Mr. David Jenkins,

Ms. Cecilia Patwell

CIVILIAN INDIVIDUAL AWARDS

Accounting and Finance

(Above MACOM) Ms. Pauline Cromartie, GS-12, Accountant,

Headquarters, USASOC—Ms. Cromartie ensured the execution

of a sensitive mission account of over $284M with a 99.99% obligation rate, a direct result of her professional management and

accounting expertise.

(Below MACOM) Ms. Kathleen J. Finn, GS-13, Staff Accountant,

Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood, FORSCOM—Ms.

Finn’s oversight and leadership resulted in Fort Hood’s successful conversion to Single Stock Fund Milestone 3 completing the Verification of Initial Operational Capability period

without significant loss of funds.

Analysis and Evaluation

(Above MACOM) Mr. Samuel M. Barnes, GS-14, Management

Analyst, Headquarters, AMC—Mr. Barnes’ coordination and

teamwork resulted in the receipt of $130M in FY02 supplemental

funding to reimburse mission accounts depleted during FY02.

Mr. Barnes continues to serve as the primary point of contact 

for Global War On Terrorism requirements at the Army 

Materiel Command.

(Below MACOM) Mr. Richard J. D’Accardi, GS-13, Operations

Research Analyst, Headquarters, Communications-Electronics

Command, AMC—Mr. D’Accardi collaborated with system

designers to investigate how well the PRICE-H model can be used

to address the impact of new technology insertion. The study identified key variables affected by the insertion of new technology and

the degree of impact they have on hardware cost estimates.

Auditing

(Above MACOM) Mr. James T. Dotson, GS-13, Supervisory

Auditor, Headquarters, USAREUR—Mr. Dotson developed recommendations that resulted in about $41.5M in monetary benefits. Of the $41.5M, $1.5M was in cost avoidance from discontinuing the payment of unauthorized basic housing allowances to service members occupying government family housing.

(Below MACOM) Mr. George R. Sunderland, GS-14, Audit

Manager, Fort Meade Field Office, AAA—Mr. Sunderland oversaw six audits and identified over $52M in potential monetary

benefits. His dedication to customer service is evidenced by the

4.93 (out of a 5.0 possible) average customer satisfaction rating

for his engagements.
8 R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003

implemented a standard operating procedure for preparing 

the District’s Command Operating Budget, and led a highly

successful effort to develop and implement an Objective

Organization Process.

MILITARY INDIVIDUAL AWARDS

Accounting and Finance

(Below MACOM) SFC Steven G. Pedro, Supervisory

Accountant, US Property and Fiscal Officer for Vermont, ARNG,

NGB—SFC Pedro developed and implemented a training program for State Program Managers and Activity Chiefs. The training program focused on educating funds managers on using

automated financial management tools and written reports to

better manage their funds.

Analysis and Evaluation

(Above MACOM) MAJ Charles H. Lunati, Program Integration

Analyst, Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation, G-8, HQDA

—MAJ Lunati designed and developed the PA&E “Program

Budget Decision (PBD) Checkbook System.” He designed the

system to be a web-based program, which can be used to write

EXSUMs, generate impacts of PBDs, and generate senior 

leader reports.

Budgeting

(Above MACOM) CPT Thomas J. Barsalou, Budget Analyst,

Headquarters, USASOC—CPT Barsalou successfully resourced US

Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command for

over $15M in critical readiness shortfalls. His efforts to receive and

process Defense Emergency Response Funding proved critical for

timely deployments.

(Below MACOM) CPT Joyce A. Merrill, Budget Officer, US

Property and Fiscal Office for Vermont, ARNG, NGB—CPT

Merrill tackled organization funding limitations allowing the

Adjutant General to resource and focus on Operation Noble

Eagle, border security missions, Enhanced Force Protection, and

airport security.

Comptroller/Deputy Comptroller

(Below MACOM) MAJ Heath J. Streck, Comptroller, US

Property and Fiscal Office for Iowa, ARNG, NGB—MAJ Streck’s

technical expertise, enthusiasm, and confidence led the Iowa

ARNG to achieve an execution rate of 99.97 percent, the best in

history. His drive for perfection has resulted in the resource

management section maintaining a top 10 ranking in the State

Performance Indicators Reporting System out of all states 

and territories.

Budgeting

(Above MACOM) Ms. Betty A. Serene, GS-11, Budget Analyst,

Army Budget Office, ASA (FM&C), HQDA—Ms. Serene analyzed

execution and recycled millions of dollars during FY02 to support

high visibility Army C4I programs which are proving critical in

executing the Global War on Terrorism.

(Below MACOM) Ms. Mary Hansen, GS-13, Deputy Budget

Officer, Headquarters, Third US Army, FORSCOM—Ms.

Hansen developed and executed the FY02 Operation Desert

Shift budget of $153M and the FY02 Operation Enduring

Freedom (OEF) budget of $1.5B. Her expertise resulted in one

of the lowest negative un-liquidated obligation rates in

FORSCOM. Her efforts further saved the US Army $26M in the

first six months of OEF.

Comptroller/Deputy Comptroller

(Above MACOM) Ms. Towonia L. Coleman, GS-11, Program

and Management Analyst, ARNG, NGB—Ms. Coleman was

instrumental in the development of the Manday Funding Model.

The model resulted in 100 percent funding validation for NGB of

almost $1B at a priority level of zero for POM years 04-09.

(Below MACOM) Mr. Dana H. Spriggs, GS-15, Director,

Resource Management, South West Division, USACE—Mr.

Spriggs consistently provided resource management support for

the newly assigned CENTCOM, ensuring first-class support is in

place for both operations Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle.

Education, Training, and Career Development

(Above MACOM) Ms. Kathy G. Bell, GS-14, Audit Manager,

Headquarters, AAA—Ms. Bell designed curriculums based on 41

auditor competencies for four Agency training courses and the

on-the-job training (OJT) program. Additionally, she prepared a

comprehensive OJT Career Path Book to compliment the formal

training program.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

(Above MACOM) Mr. Bill W. Tracy, GS-14, Budget Analyst,

Army Budget Office, ASA (FM&C), HQDA—Mr. Tracy was

relentless in monitoring the FY02 Army Military Construction

Program in excess of $1.8B. He coordinated closely with his

counterparts in OSD and OMB to reprogram funds where necessary to accomplish the full cost of a project.

(Below MACOM) Mr. Louis R. Smith, III, GS-14, Resource

Management Officer, South Atlantic Division, USACE—Mr.

Smith championed and achieved two strong measures that

improved district business processes, he established and 
R e source Management / 2nd Quarter 2003 9

Education, Training, and Career Development

(Below MACOM) SGM Ryen G. Berghammer, Chief, Career

Management Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO), Doctrine,

Proponency and Combat Developments Division, US Army

Finance School, TRADOC—SGM Berghammer’s accomplishments in planning the implementing actions to consolidate the

three finance Military Occupational Specialties have been instrumental in the establishment of the new MOS, 44C. Soldiers with

the new MOS will be trained to take on a wider range of responsibilities as resource managers.

Resource Management

(Above MACOM) COL Kevin J. Kerns, Chief, Budget Division,

Headquarters, FORSCOM—COL Kerns led an organization of 37

civilian and military personnel through many complex situations

and issues involving new appropriation control and reporting

structures while maintaining legacy force readiness, and mobilizing and deploying both AC and RC units in support of the Global

War on Terrorism and Homeland Security.

(Below MACOM) MAJ Maurice A. Ottinger, Budget Operations

Officer, USARC, FORSCOM—MAJ Ottinger was instrumental in

accurately documenting costs in the accounting system which

facilitated the reimbursement of $22M in Emergency Relief

Fund, Defense funding and $13M in Operation and

Maintenance, Army Reserve funding.

OUTSTANDING INTERN AWARD

(Above MACOM) Ms. Debbie A. Marois, GS-9, Intern Auditor,

Headquarters, AAA—Ms. Marois’ audit of recruiting station

missions was instrumental in increasing the productivity of 7,400

Army recruiters resulting in an increase in the number and quality of recruits. Her efforts will achieve a savings of $17.2M and

allow 41 military recruiters to return to war fighter assignments.

(Above MACOM) Ms. Sara Laurich, GS-9, Intern Auditor,

Headquarters, FORSCOM—Ms. Laurich’s analysis is equal in

quality and depth to more senior analysts. She mastered systems

used in the Budget Division and volunteered to relieve others of

some of their workload. Her accuracy and attention to detail

were commendable and her work could be trusted to stand alone

with only minimal supervisory review.

(Below MACOM) Ms. Amybeth Puhalovic, GS-9, Intern Budget

Analyst, Headquarters, Communications-Electronics Command,

AMC—Ms. Puhalovic was integral in the development and

implementation of the CECOM Budget Execution Improvement

Plan. The plans impact has been dramatic and measurable.

Disbursement goals have been met for the first time in four

years, and no higher headquarters’ decrements were sustained

during FY02, as compared to $2.9M in FY01.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

EDUCATOR OF THE YEAR AWARD

(Military) SFC Darryl W. Morgan, Chief, Enlisted Training

Branch, Financial Management Operations Department, US

Army Finance School, TRADOC—SFC Morgan led his team of

nine NCOs to teach 28 courses producing 411, 73C and 73D

trained soldiers with an unprecedented 96% cumulative academic average and 99% pass rate. His technical expertise was

clearly demonstrated when he added the Defense MilPay Office

and Financial Management Tactical Platform software into the

Advanced Individual Training Program of Instruction before

their distribution to the field.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

AUTHOR OF THE YEAR AWARD

(Civilian) Mr. William N. Washington, GS-13, Operations

Research Analyst, Headquarters, Communications-Electronics

Command, AMC—Mr. Washington authored the article “Rightsizing and Personnel Considerations” published in the May-June

2002 edition of Army AL&T Magazine. The article addresses outsourcing and how it has become an increasingly popular way to

reduce costs and focus operations upon the main objectives of an

organization. It discusses both private industry and government

experiences with outsourcing, and their respective successes and

failures. It further discusses several considerations that should

guide outsourcing decisions

This year’s awards will be presented at “Army Day” on May 28,

2003, in New Orleans, Louisiana. Winners are especially encouraged to attend and be formally recognized.

The FY 2003 award program will be formally announced in July

2003 with nominations due to the Comptroller Proponency

Office in late October 2003. We look forward to many more

nominations. Although there were several this year, not all award

categories had nominations.

Again congratulations to this year’s winners and congratulations

to all who were nominated, a significant accomplishment in

itself. You have all demonstrated superior aptitude and outstanding performance. Great job!!!

About the Author Captain Rapheal J. Hamilton is a

Program/Budget Officer in the Comptroller Proponency Office,

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial

Management and Comptroller)
10 R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003

leisure I now hold a different view. The reality of the TWI experience is similar to the

reality of the NTC; observing with the

intent of identifying and drawing out the

larger implications of an event is often hard

work and requires active participation. That

is not to say that I’ve been disappointed

with my tour at GE Transportation Systems

(GETS); quite the contrary, it has more than

lived up to my hopes and has been

extremely rewarding. I’ll leave GETS with a

solid first-hand understanding of the drive,

competence, and methods our private sector cousins bring to the task of successfully

running a large business in today’s globally

competitive world. Further, I’ll return to the

Army armed with a new frame of reference

to ponder the “hows” and “whys” of the

Army’s business tools and practices. The

comptroller Training with Industry program is a one-year investment in the future

of the participant and in the growth of the

resource management community’s knowledge base. Based on my experience, I think

it’s money and time well spent.

TWI, The Party Line

Per the FP&A website, “The Functional

Area (FA) 45 Training with Industry

Program is designed to immerse a FA 45

officer into a commercial industry or partner corporation in which the officer is

placed in, or rotated through, positions

where he or she will be exposed to broad

financial management operations. The

intent is the participant is neither an intern

nor observer, but an active participant and

contributor to his or her corporation and

learns through hands-on experience.”

(Emphasis added) Among other goals, TWI

seeks to build future resource management

leaders and develop officers who:

• Will bring better business practices 

back from industry leaders for Army use

• Can benchmark Army performance

against industry standards and identify

areas needing improvement

• Can think out-of-the-box and 

challenge paradigms

I envisioned that my TWI assignment

would be a year serving in a role akin to

that of an Observer/Controller (O/C) at the

National Training Center (NTC); I’d be

close enough to see the action but removed

enough from events to be able to draw the

broader, more insightful conclusions

afforded by the experience. Following that

line of thought, I expected that the main

differences between me and my NTC counterpart would be me heading to work

dressed in spiffier duds, and me spending

my days in the posh environment of the private sector rather than working out of the

back of a dusty HMMWV. If, on occasion, I

have ever suspected that O/Cs lead a life of

A Postcard From 

The TWI Water Cooler

Training with Industry, it’s not just a job; it’s

an adventure! Tell a co-worker that you’ve been

accepted to the program and along with whatever other comments you get, you’re sure to

hear the following: “TWI! Cool. So this means

you get to wear civvies?” And, “TWI. Humph,

sounds like a boondoggle.” Participate in the

program though, and you’ll find much more

truth in the former than the latter.
R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003 11

That description is accurate as far as it

goes, (I feel it adequately covers what I’ve

lived and seen this year) but those considering applying for the program are probably

hungry for specifics like: “What do you

wear to work?” “What kind of evaluation do

you get?” “How much accounting do I need

to know to be able to survive?” And, “What

do you do day to day?” While there is no

standard TWI program - each business is

different and consequently, the experience

varies by location–I think the following

overview of my experience at GETS offers

the reader a representative sample of what

TWI is and is not.

For the record: I wore civvies to work

(business casual, no suits), I will get an

Academic Evaluation Report written by the

controller when I leave, and I knew only

enough about commercial accounting to be

dangerous, but somehow still managed to

survive. As for the question, “What do you

do day to day?” I was initially surprised to

find that the life of a private sector financial

analyst is at least superficially similar to that

of an Army budget analyst. At GETS I was

assigned five budgets to support which

involved helping develop and document the

budgets, tracking the spending for each

throughout the year, and advising the owning managers of any potential problems so

that we could develop and implement solutions to them. I also served as the financial

representative on an ad hoc GETS cost control team (called a Bullet Train), and worked

on other short-term projects throughout the

year, mainly involving research or facilitating staff coordination. While that task list

might not sound overly challenging, I

quickly discovered it to be otherwise.

Although financial life at GE is close enough

to what the Army does that one can recognize it, working with unfamiliar tools, systems, and methodologies, along with matching GETS’s pace of operations proved more

than adequate to keep me decisively engaged

for the first six months of my assignment.

One might rightly wonder how the Army

stands to benefit from the TWI participant

learning the minutia of another organization’s systems and procedures. Frankly, it

crossed my mind more than once when I

first arrived and was progressing through

the school of hard knocks. In hindsight

though, I found the answer to be that the

process of adapting to, and learning the various applications and systems GETS uses to

manage and control its business was critical

to my understanding of how the business

functioned and how its numerous pieces fit

together. While admittedly I won’t be using

Oracle’s® Financial Analyzer (OFA) upon

my return to the Army, learning it was a key

part of my education in GETS’s planning,

programming, budgeting, and executing

methodology. (OFA is GETS’s version of

STANFINS, PBAS, & DCAS combined).

Working with OFA, along with learning the

other parts of the “GE Way” comprised the

crawl stage of my training. It provided me

the context and knowledge required to

understand what was going on around me

and evaluate its potential usefulness to the

Army. It is in the light of this broader context that I found working in a position similar to that of an Army analyst to be an

effective means to ground myself at GETS.

Unlike at some of the other TWI sites, my

TWI training plan didn’t call for me to formally rotate throughout GETS. Although I

did work mostly within the bounds of the

controller’s organization, I felt well positioned to gain the broader exposure needed

to make my year a rewarding one. As with

any new job it took time to get on board.

My first ninety days were ones in which I

was running hard to keep up with my GE

colleagues and hoping I didn’t make any

major mistakes. It took another three

months beyond that for me to feel reasonably assured that I had a handle on what

was going on. After surviving my break-in

period, I felt comfortable enough with my

general knowledge of the business to pick

my head up from the grindstone and look

around a bit.

GETS’s general managers were gracious

enough to individually sit down with me

over the course of several months in the latter half of my tour and engage in 30 to 60

minute Q&A sessions (a GM is roughly

equivalent to an 06 or 07 serving as the

commander of a major subordinate unit or

head of a staff section). After giving the GM

a quick overview of the TWI program, I

worked my way down a list of questions I

had jotted down prior to the meeting. These

sessions proved to be fascinating and served

to further fulfill the Army’s goal of the TWI

participant getting senior level exposure.

Additionally, throughout the year I had

the opportunity to sit in on numerous

meetings, ranging from run-of-the-mill staff

coordination sessions to the more intriguing cost-control meetings as well as the

monthly business performance reviews

chaired by the CEO. While meeting overload can be the bane of one’s day back in

the Army, attending meetings during a TWI

tour affords one an excellent opportunity to

observe the give and take required between

the business’s various elements to bring

plans to fruition. Meetings are also a very

instructive place to clearly hear and see

what the business considers important and

worthy of resourcing.

In the end, between working and learning

in the trenches, talking to the GETS GMs,

and observing the mechanics of synchronizing the business through meetings, I felt

well satisfied with the breath of exposure

during my tour.

Throughout the year I kept a notebook of

GE good ideas and lessons learned to take

with me back to the Army. The following

snippets offer a sample of some of the ideas,

training, and tools I’ve had to good fortune

to see at GETS:

• Exposure to an integrated financial system—I have seen the cost-control power an

integrated budgeting and execution system

brings to an organization. OFA is the tool

GETS has chosen to help enable it to run at

the pace it does while simultaneously maintaining control over its cost structure. The

Army could enjoy similar benefits with the

adoption of an equivalent system, but that

adoption would be harder to achieve. The

requirement to develop not just an Army

system but rather a DoD system, considerably complicates the required flexibility of

the desired software. An integrated financial

system is well worth pursuing, but it probably couldn’t happen quickly or easily.

• Computer skills and digitizing the business—I came to the program feeling fairly
12 R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003

confident in my computing skills. I’ll leave a

somewhat humbled man. The employee

comfort level with technology in the private

sector is impressive and I saw first hand how

GETS readily uses this acceptance of the digital world to push aggressive and extensive

digitization initiatives. Digitization was one

of GETS’s main weapons in rationalizing

processes and trimming costs.

• Cost control culture—Effective, proactive cost control is a hallmark of GE businesses and was certainly on display during

my time at GETS. The tools, structures, and

review systems GETS used to track spending

against plan and to wring inefficiencies out

of its operations afforded me a truly graduate level education in how a large business

can effectively control costs. Many of GETS’s

methods could have applicability in the

Army, but any adoption would need to

acknowledge the major difference in the revenue sources between the Army and GETS.

• Six Sigma program—GETS embraces the

Six Sigma quality program as one of the

tools it relies on to continually improve the

organization and reduce costs. I partook of

GETS’s in-house Six Sigma training and also

worked on a Six Sigma project in the controller’s organization. Both experiences triggered numerous notes in my lessons-learned

book on “How could we make that work in

the Army?”

• Accounting—Accounting is the language

of business, and while you don’t have to be

an accounting expert (I’m certainly not), it

doesn’t hurt. You can quickly get lost in

some of the routine conversations at work

without a working knowledge of accounting

principles and the interrelationships of the

income statement, balance sheet, and cash

flow statement. As the Army continues

working toward receiving an unqualified

opinion on its books, the accounting methods used by a large, complex organization

such as GETS provide numerous potentially

useful insights for the Army.

• Lone wolf—Depending on where you’re

sent, you can be A LONG way away from the

Army, and you’ll soon realize how much you

miss it. In many ways, the Army is a Black

Box to GE; you can have a hard time finding

someone to join you at the water cooler to

commiserate about the injustices of current

BAH funding or your thoughts on the joy of

taking an APFT in November.

• Hand off from one officer to the next—

The success of the program depends not

only on what the company has in mind, but

what the preceding officer has accomplished.

In my case, my predecessor did so well with

one budget, he was given four more, and

thus I started with five. Depending on TWI

location, a solid hand-off will be critical to

the incoming participant’s ability to successfully navigate the crawl phase of the program and move on to the more rewarding

run phase involving more looking around

and upper level exposure.

• CFO interaction—One of the Army’s

main hopes for the program is that it affords

the participant interaction at the Chief

Financial Officer (CFO) level. While I did

get to see and talk to the CFO on a monthly

basis, expecting to spend most of your time

there is unrealistic for two reasons: First, the

CFO is extremely busy and while you can

get some time, you can’t have it all. Second,

you won’t have a clue what’s going on until

you’ve done some time in the trenches. TWI,

like any other Army training event, is well

served following a crawl-walk-run methodology. My predecessor implemented a

monthly Q&A session with the CFO, and it,

along with the GM interviews, provided

exceptional upper-level exposure.

• TWI is no boondoggle—There ain’t

nothing in life free. GE is all about setting

demanding targets and expecting its people

to produce. While I think I could have

begged out of some of the work I did, I felt

that if I wanted to be part of the team I had

to be ready to strap on my shoes and run

with them. Balancing the charter to be

“. . . neither an intern nor observer . . .” is a

continual challenge, but the bottom line is

that you won’t learn nearly as much sitting

on the sidelines as you do mixing it up in

the day-to-day operation of the business.

• Private sector life—t’s not posh like you

see in the movies. Unlike an installation,

nobody lives on the plant and the CEO

doesn’t get any brownie points for keeping it

pretty. Safety and functionality are her key

objectives, and while the plant served both

purposes well I never suffered from the illusion that I was working at a health club. In

the end, it was a lot like working on any

Army installation. I must note though that

while the buildings aren’t necessarily new,

GETS makes and follows through on a commitment to ensure it has up-to-date IT

equipment. At most, an employee will be

using a 3-year old PC, which at that point

will be due for rotation out of its lease.

GETS views the challenges posed by old

software, mismatched versions, unstable

operating systems and the host of other IT

hiccups facing businesses today as a battle

that it must continually fight in order to

remain productive.

Conclusions

If the Syracuse MBA program offers its

participants the school solution to business

problems and challenges, then the TWI program shows that theory in action, up close

and personal. Importantly, the TWI experience is not a case study. You are assigned as

part of the team and can have a real impact

on the business you’re serving with. You get

to feel the pressures of their world and you

get to see their systems perform in realworld situations. You get to see what works

and what doesn’t, and not by reading an

after-action review, but by living it. You are

afforded the rare opportunity to be removed

from the day-to-day demands of the Army

and ask, “How would that work in the

Army?” and, “Would that work in the

Army?” The learning isn’t as structured as

that found in a classroom, but it is there.

Come to the program ready to actively participate in the adventure and you can leave

as an O/C leaves the National Training

Center: refreshingly tired and armed with a

year’s worth of insights on how, “when it’s

my turn, I’m going to do it better.” . . . plus,

you get to wear spiffier duds! 

Major Mike Cook is one of five FA 45 officers

participating in the Training With Industry 

or TWI program, in his case with GE

Transportation Systems (GETS).
R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003 13

That success did not happen by accident. GETS reinforces an organizationwide, bone-deep commitment to cost

control through rigorous monthly

reviews of cost performance versus

plan, a focused analysis of the cause or

causes behind any actual or planned

misses, and by assigning ad-hoc,

cross-functional teams to achieve

cost reductions in an assigned cost

account (an Army EOR/EOE).

These three elements—monthly

command inspections, timely

analysis rather than anecdotes

when explaining variation, and

focused, creative cost reduction

efforts—reinforce the cost-control philosophy that lies at the heart

of GETS’s ability to successfully accomplish

its mission: providing superior returns to

shareholders by producing world-class

products and services at a world-wide competitive price. While the Army’s mission is

not to maximize profits, inculcating, Army

wide, a similarly aggressive attitude towards

controlling costs would significantly contribute towards the success of the Army’s

efforts to maintain combat readiness while

transforming itself into the force of the

future. In a funding environment in which

the Army’s Crusader howitzer is canceled

outright, and the Stryker family of armored

wheeled vehicles and the Comanche reconnaissance helicopter are in real jeopardy of

major funding reductions1, GETS’s cost

philosophy and many of the tools the business uses to achieve effective cost control

offer a potential path towards building a

more efficient, and ultimately, more 

effective Army.

What They Do, What We Do

At first glance one might think that the

differences between GETS’s and the Army’s

respective approaches towards budgeting

and cost management would be small to

nonexistent. Both organizations prepare

budgets and both can control their own

destinies, to a degree, through effective cost

control. Closer inspection, however, reveals

A Postcard From 

Industry: GETS’s Cost

Control Culture

GETS Cost Control In Action

The nation is at war. The DOW Jones industrial

average is down nearly 20% for the year. The

economy, if not in recession, is growing at a

pace that one would be generous to call sluggish. Despite those challenges, GETS is on

track to make a profit for the year and to contribute its part towards overall GE success.
14 R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003

the-party-line in that answer, the fact that

that is GETS’s philosophy is more telling

than the response. GETS never stops scrutinizing its cost structure, and the entire team

knows and expects it. Army managers too,

are encouraged to control costs, but because

Army budgets serve more than one purpose

those managers quickly discover that their

task is not quite so clearly cut.

Army budgets serve first to document and

communicate requirements, and second as a

cost management tool. Because the Army

uses its budgets in these two somewhat contradictory roles, they are not as readily

applicable to managing costs as is the case at

GETS. As noted, the Army’s budget serves

initially as a means to document and communicate the cost of fully funding the

requirements it determines necessary to

accomplish its mission. In turn, that budget

is pressed into service to support the Army’s

portion of the President’s annual budget

submission to Congress. At this point in the

budgeting process, the Army is not rewarded

so much for finding areas to nip and tuck a

requirement’s costs as it is for ensuring that

all requirements are fully captured, documented, and presented at an accurate cost.

Congress is the arbiter of which requirements will be funded and what the appropriate level for each will be. Noteworthy is

the fact that this Congressional guidance,

transmitted through the Defense

Appropriation Bill, is not just a goal. The

appropriation is in fact an order from the

Nation’s civilian authorities to its military

and is treated as such, limiting to some

degree, the flexibility the Army has regarding how it will or will not spent its funding.

Following receipt of its appropriation the

Army is able to transform its budget from a

document of requirements into a reasonably

accurate cost plan that can be used in the

more traditional business role of a benchmark against which to measure cost performance. (See figure 1.) It is in this second

role, that of using a budget as a cost management tool, that GETS’s digitization

efforts, its tools, and

its processes provide it an edge over

the Army in instilling and capitalizing

on an organizationwide commitment

to cost control.

Because of the

importance of hitting one’s cost targets, GETS zealously enforces

adherence by its

managers to their approved budgets. GETS

managers and employees spend the year

working to accomplish their tasks all the

while keeping one eye on costs to ensure

they stay at or below their cost parameters,

which, significantly, also include “stretch” or

productivity goals. They are called upon to

present the results of their efforts on a

monthly basis to the CEO. While sometimes

painful for the managers defending their

numbers, these meetings have the desired

effect of creating tenacious employees who

use integrated databases to continually

monitor spending so that they can identify

and correct, as early as possible, problems

that might cause them to miss their cost targets. This timely organizational effort

affords the CEO a view of his organization’s

trends and opportunities early enough in

the year that he can act on them.

The lack of the ability of most Army

organizations to perform timely, detailed

reviews of costs versus predictions (project

management offices being the notable

exception) creates a situation that presents

several obstacles to the Army at large being

able to match the level of cost management

found at GETS. First, because of its lack of

that fundamental differences do exist,

caused mainly by each organization’s differing sources of revenue. At GETS a budget is

a tool to enforce cost discipline. In the Army

a budget is not only a tool to control costs

but also a tool to communicate funding

requests. At GETS aggressive cost control

efforts result in a stronger, more productive

company. In the Army, aggressive cost cutting prior to budget submission to Congress

holds the potential of

producing selfinflicted funding

wounds. GETS is

rewarded with profits

for its cost control

efforts. The Army’s

reward for quality

budgetary efforts is

seeing its requirements adequately

funded by Congress

and ensuring the best

use of its appropriated funding.

The purpose of a GETS budget is to build

and document a cost structure that will

deliver an acceptable profit at a projected

sales (revenue) level. GETS’s budgets provide the plan and reference points the company’s managers use to ensure they deliver

their part in achieving company-wide success. GETS’s working formula is that if its

sales force delivers the projected sales volume and its managers deliver their budgeted

cost figures, mathematically, the company

will achieve its target profit. With the relationship between effective cost control and

company success so clearly drawn, GETS

pays a great deal of attention to budget formulation. GETS’s unspoken guidance

(which quickly becomes spoken if it

becomes apparent that a manager didn’t get

the message) is that one’s going-in budget

position will be flat or decreasing from the

prior year. In fact, GETS looks to its organizations and managers to reduce costs year

after year, continually. When asked, “How

do you know when you’ve hit bottom in

terms of cutting?” GETS’s controller

answered, “You never hit bottom.2” While

admittedly there was a degree of singingGET’s cost philosophy and many of the tools

the business uses to achieve effective cost

control, offer a potential path towards building

a more efficient, and ultimately more 

effective Army
R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003 15

an integrated forecasting and execution

accounting tool, the Army is only able to

hold detailed reviews of performance versus

plan twice during the year, once at mid-year

and also again going into the 4th quarter. By

holding the first detailed review at mid-year

though, the Army effectively surrenders half

the year to costs it might have reduced or

avoided had it been able to act earlier. The

amount of time required to prepare a

detailed review simply precludes a more

often occurrence. Second, a once or twice a

year review offers little incentive to follow

up on issues identified during the review

process. A problem adequately answered

during the current review rapidly drops to

the bottom of the to-do list as other emergencies surface and rise above it in importance. Finally, the limitations of the Army’s

financial systems preclude it from adopting

a cost-control stance as aggressive as GETS.

The Army’s monthly close procedures work

at a macro level. They are not so much

opportunities to cut costs as they are go/nogo checks of total figures focusing on keeping spending at or below allotment levels.

Because of this inability to readily look

below the surface, the Army is more often

than not forced to address the symptoms of

a cost problem rather than its root cause.

Why Cost Control Works Well

At GETS

In the world of organizational management, the tendency for costs to drift steadily

upwards seems almost a law of nature, happening with little or no effort. Effective cost

control, however, requires great effort from

managers and the tools that enable them to

constantly push, look, and dig in order to

separate the must-have from the nice-tohave. Cost control is an exercise in organizational self-discipline, and it currently

works more effectively at GETS than in the

Army because the company has developed

and refined the mindset, supporting technologies, and processes required to realize

its costs-flat-or-less-year-after-year philosophy. The mindset, as previously described,

provides the direction and drive. After the

mindset come the technologies and processes that enable effective analysis and 

subsequent action. Together, the three components continually reinforce one another,

keeping the GETS business machine in

front of the relentless pressure for costs to

creep upwards.

GETS primary enabling technology is 

its financial database, Oracle Financial

Analyzer (OFA). GETS uses OFA to gather

and compile its forecasts during budget submission, and to compare results with predictions during execution. While not the most

user-friendly program ever developed, OFA

is a powerful tool and holds two huge

Figure 1
16 R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003

Bullet Train teams offers a compelling vision

of the concept’s potential. This year GETS

quickly identified and found savings in the

costs it incurs renting its ADP equipment.

GETS pays a premium for laptops as

opposed to desktops but for numerous reasons; for many familiar to the Army, laptops

are the much more popular configuration.

During the course of a Rentals Bullet Train

presentation it became apparent that GETS

could achieve

significant savings were it to

reduce the number of laptops it

rents by either

turning them in

or replacing

some with desktops. In response,

the CEO, who

was chairing the

meeting, turned

to his managers and told them to review

their status and rationalize their computer

mix by the next meeting. No studies were

required, no papers had to be written; the

CEO simply told his people to do it, and the

organization began reducing costs the next

day. Another team, taking advantage of

GETS’s investment in digitizing its processes, found an opportunity to hold components to their budgets. Since all purchase

requests at GETS are input electronically,

the Purchased Services Bullet Train built a

“Gate Keeper” into the ordering process.

The gate keeper was simply a software application that did an automated check of the

amount spent-to-date versus a budget. If the

requesting component didn’t have funds

budgeted to cover its request the application

would deny it, thereby preventing expenditures over approved budget amounts.

Additionally, the application was tied into

GETS’s e-mail system and would forward a

FYI-note to the general manager notifying

him or her of the event. Emergency expenditures could, of course, be approved and

the system overridden as necessary. Thus the

time and effort GETS spent developing its

budget at the beginning of the year paid off

during the year as its components were

Train team doesn’t just look at the manager’s function; it looks across the entire

organization for problems and opportunities to cut costs. Together the team identifies the key cost drivers in its assigned cost

account, and then brainstorms possible

ways to act on any opportunities identified.

After vetting the ideas generated, the team

develops and implements plans to achieve

its assigned savings target. Teams report

their progress to the CEO monthly as part

of the larger company financial performance review.

Translated to an installation, where its use

would be the most appropriate, an Army

Bullet Train team might look something like

the following. The team, made up of the G1

(a colonel and team champion), and representatives from the G3, the Resource

Management office, the DPW, and the

installation’s tenet division, is assigned a

cost reduction goal of $2.0M in EOR21

(TDYs) from an overall installation estimate

of $14.0M in TDY requirements (roughly

15%). The team’s task is to find that $2.0M,

and to get there it starts by identifying and

analyzing who or what are the primary cost

drivers in its assigned account3. The analysis

done, the team focuses on the top one or

two identified causes in which it will look

for ways to cut costs as the means to reach

its assigned savings goal. Over the course of

the year the team presents the results of its

efforts each month to the installation commander, affording him or her the opportunity to issue timely command emphasis to

the cost savings effort.

A sampling of some of the ideas generated and the savings realized by GETS’s

advantages over the Excel spreadsheet

method most often used by the Army. First,

OFA allows for a relatively quick, accurate,

and automated compiling of budget estimates from across the business’s components. In comparison to the Army’s exercise

of budget analysts cutting and pasting their

way through Excel spreadsheets towards a

more or less unified organizational forecast, OFA seems like the fiscal equivalent of

manna from Heaven. OFA

also allows GETS to avoid

that other all-too-familiar

event of finishing the rollup only to find an organization has changed its

numbers, often necessitating a reworking of the

numbers nearly as time

consuming as the initial

effort. With OFA the

GETS budget coordinator

reacts to a number change

by simply recompiling the database. He or

she can produce an updated forecast in

hours rather than the days more typical in

the Army. OFA’s second big advantage is

that it directly interfaces with GETS’s general ledger (GETS’s STANFINS). This direct

connection enables comparisons between

projected and actual expenses through

rapid, accurate, automated queries. In the

Army that analysis, again, requires a cutand-paste effort with analysts taking data

from one system, and compiling and comparing it in the chosen system of their

organization. In short, a unified budgeting

and execution database offers huge potential payoffs to the Army as a tool to gain

timely control over costs.

GETS’s primary cost-control process is

its “Bullet Train”, the name given to its adhoc cost control teams. The Bullet Train

concept, which is probably the most readily transferable to the Army of all of

GETS’s cost control ideas and tools, is simple: a team of four or five employees, one

of whom is a general manager champion

(a position similar to colonel in a primary

staff position), is assigned a cost account

(an Army EOR or EOE) and a savings target for the business to meet. The Bullet

“Is GETS successful and might the Army learn 

from its example?”

The answer is an unqualified and 

compelling, “Yes”.
R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003 17

forced to hold at or below their approved

projections. Through these and other similar innovative actions, GETS’s 2002 Bullet

Trains have delivered the CEO $22.0M in

savings on a targeted budget of $131.6M, a

16% cost reduction in a brutally tough year.

What’s Missing In The Army?

GETS’s internal cost control success offers

a persuasive example of what is possible

given the mindset, tools, and processes. The

Army, however, faces two major obstacles to

replicating that success should it attempt to

directly adopt some or all of the methods

employed at GETS. The first is the fundamentally differing purposes of the two organizations. GETS’s ultimate mission is to

turn a profit. At GETS the numbers are not

only the means to that end, they are the

end. Thus GETS’s leaders are willing to

invest whatever is necessary in money and,

more significantly for the Army, in time to

effectively manage those numbers. In the

Army however, go-to-war readiness is the

fundamental objective. Managing one’s budget is only a part of achieving that objective

and commanders, correctly, spend more

time ensuring that their units are trained

than they do managing the costs incurred to

train them. While the Army will never place

the same emphasis on “making the

numbers4” as GETS does, there is no substitute for command involvement when defining what is important to an Army organization. Inculcating a cost culture similar to

GETS’s would require a fairly significant

investment of the commander’s time and

attention. Were the Army to try to match

GETS’s pace of monthly detailed analysis, it

would fall upon the comptroller community

to develop the tools and processes necessary

to make that investment worthwhile.

The second major missing piece –and by

far the most critical- is the Army’s lack of a

unified budgeting and accounting system.

OFA is the keystone tool for GETS’s cost

control efforts as it that allows for the timely

analysis of costs versus predictions. Without

it GETS would not be able to hold meaningful monthly reviews because, as is currently

the case in the Army, analysts would spend

the majority of their time compiling the

data and little, if any, analyzing it.

Attempting to hold a monthly review in the

Army using current systems would in all

probability produce more frustration than

savings. The Army at large looks hard at its

costs only once or twice a year because that

is all that is realistically currently possible

given the lead-time needed to prepare and

present an accurate spending picture.

Fielding an Army-wide accounting system

that integrated both forecast and execution

numbers is the one major step that would

provide the greatest benefit and enable the

greatest progress towards a truly cost-conscious culture the Army could take today.

Finally, GETS’s primary cost cutting process, the Bullet Train, while transferable to

the Army especially at the installation level,

would probably return less savings to the

Army than it does at GETS. Again, the lack

of an enabling accounting system like OFA

prevents the necessary quick compilation

and analysis of numbers that makes the process work for GETS. Analysts could build

Excel macros and standard reports to speed

the compilation process, but the effort

would not be nearly as efficient or probably

as effective as it is at GETS.

Conclusions

The fiscal challenges facing the Army

today make a strong case for the necessity of

the Army’s leadership and its comptroller

community to consider, pursue, and intelligently adopt new and different ways to

manage costs. The ideas and tools used so

successfully at GETS, while not all directly

adaptable to the Army, offer insights into

how one of American’s finest companies

successfully approaches the problem.

Hopefully it also spurs the interest and

imagination of the Army’s comptroller force

to become agents of change in their own

organizations and to develop and implement innovative ideas to achieve their own

successes in this critical area. As this article

paints a picture of a GE business that literally manages costs as well as any organization in the world, it undoubtedly begs the

question, “Is GETS perfect?” the answer to

which is “No”. GETS has pressures, problems, and failings just as the Army and any

large organization does. A more useful

question though is, “Is GETS successful and

might the Army learn from its example?”

The answer is an unqualified and compelling, “Yes.”

Major Mike Cook is one of five FA 45 officers

participating in the Training With Industry 

or TWI program, in his case with GE

Transportation Systems (GETS).

Notes

1. Squeo, Anne Marie and Greg Gaffe, “Pentagon

Weighs Big Weapons Cuts” Wall Street Journal 15

Oct. 2002: A1

2. Riska, Michael (GETS Global Controller),

Personal interview. 15 Sep. 2002

3. This article’s scope did not allow for a discussion of the quality analysis that is standard procedure for GETS. For a more complete discussion the tools potentially available see “The Six

Sigma Strategy at General Electric” by MAJ

Fabian in the 1st Quarter edition of RM

Magazine.

4. “Making the numbers” is GETS slang for 

delivering its projected profit contribution to

Corporate GE. It is hard to overstate the importance of achieving this objective to the company.

For GETS, a failure to deliver its projected profit

would be roughly similar in seriousness as incurring an ADA violation at the MACOM level

would be to the Army.
18 R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003

Management Controls as the organization, policies, and procedures

used by agencies to reasonably ensure that:

1. Programs achieve their intended results.

2. Resources are used consistent with agency mission.

3. Programs and resources are protected from waste, fraud, 

and mismanagement.

4. Laws and regulations are followed.

5. Reliable and timely information is obtained, maintained, 

and reported.

Internal control may mean different things to different people,

which can cause confusion. DoD defines internal controls as the

manner in which financial, manpower, and property resources are

to be controlled and safeguarded by the regular authorization,

approval, documentation, recording, reconciling, reporting, and

related accounting practices. The Committee of Sponsoring

Organizations of the Treadway Commission broadly defines internal

control as a process affected by an entity’s board of directors

(BOD), management, and other personnel designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of objectives in the

following categories:

1. Effectiveness and efficiency of operations.

2. Reliability of financial reporting.

3. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

Internal control is a process. It is a means to an end, not an end

in itself. Internal control is affected by people, it’s not merely policy

manuals and forms, but people participating and enforcing prescribed standards at every level. It is geared to the achievement of

organizational objectives while safeguarding its assets. Lastly, internal controls can be expected to provide only reasonable assurance,

not absolute assurance. An effective Internal Control Program

should include the following five components:

1. Control Environment—The control environment sets the tone

of an organization. It is the foundation for the other four components of internal control by providing both discipline and structure. The control environment focuses on the integrity, ethical values, and competence of the organization’s people; management’s

philosophy and operating style; the way management assigns

authority, responsibility, and organizes and develops its people.

Leaders at all levels must be committed to internal controls, if they

are not, then their subordinates will not. Internal controls cannot

be “finger drilled.”

2. Risk Assessment—Risk assessment is the identification and

analysis of relevant risks to achieving the organization’s objectives

and forming a basis for managing those risks. Threats are both

internal to an organization and external to an organization. The

business world refers to those threats as SWOT or strengths and

weaknesses (internal environment) opportunities and threats

(external environment). One can effectively control the internal

An effective Internal Control program is critical to every organization whether it is a governmental or non-governmental entity.

Effective being the key word. Everyone with-in an organization

must be knowledgeable of and embrace internal controls.

Organizations that do not establish effective internal controls,

embrace them, and most importantly enforce them will eventually

implode, as did Enron and WorldCom. The purpose of this article is

to discuss internal controls and why they are important to an organization. The bottom-line is that internal controls assist in safeguarding our precious, but limited resources (personnel, equipment,

time, and funding) to ensure that we will always be able to accomplish the mission.

Is the U.S. Army immune from ineffective internal controls?

Definitely not. In fact the consequences can be catastrophic in that

our precious resources may be needlessly wasted (soldier lives,

equipment, time, and money) and/or the loss of confidence in the

U.S. Army by the American people (affects recruiting, retention, and

the Authorization and Appropriations Bills). Effective internal controls will better assist the U.S. Army with accomplishing its mission

efficiently and effectively. Lastly, internal controls are mandated by

law. Before I jump into internal controls, I need to briefly discuss

Management Controls as defined by the Federal Government.

Management Controls include processes for planning, organizing,

directing, and controlling program operations. A subset of management controls is the internal controls used to assure that there is

prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or

disposition of an organization’s assets. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-123 (revised 21 June 1995)

which was issued under the authority of the Federal Manager’s

Financial Integrity Act of 1982 as codified in 31 U.S.C. 3512, discusses Management Accountability and Control. It defines

Internal 

Controls
R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003 19

environment through effective internal controls, organizational

culture, employee training, etc. One does not have the ability to

control the external environment. At best, one can influence or

possibly anticipate future trends. The external environment can

have a significant impact on the U. S. Army such as funding, mandates, and world stability.

3. Control Activities—Control Activities are the polices and procedures that help ensure management directives are executed. They

also help to ensure that necessary actions are taken to address risks

that may impede an organization from accomplishing its objectives.

Control actives occur throughout the entire organization and its

functions. Typical control activities are segregation of duties, inventories, approvals/authorizations, reconciliations, etc.

4. Information and Communication—Relevant and timely information must be identified, captured, and communicated in a manner, which allows commanders to make the best possible decision.

Information systems produce reports that contain operational,

financial, and compliance information. A huge liability to technology is that it is constantly changing which affects our ability to

communicate with other organizations and other services. The ideal

situation would be to use common systems throughout DoD, unfortunately that is cost prohibitive. Effective communication must also

occur both vertically and horizontally with-in an organization. All

personnel must receive a clear message from the chain of command

that internal controls must be taken seriously. They must understand their own role in the internal control environment as well as

how their individual activities relate to the work of others. They

must also have a means of communicating concerns up the chain of

command without fear of future reprisal.

5. Monitoring —Internal controls must be monitored for both

compliance and usefulness. The age-old phrase of “We do well what

the boss checks” is true. We tend to focus on areas that the boss is

interested in. An additional responsibility of monitoring is ensuring

that the internal controls emplaced are useful. If they are not, they

either need to be strengthened or eliminated. One must use common

sense when developing internal controls. The intent is to ensure compliance while safeguarding assets. Internal controls should not be used

to stifle an organization’s ability from accomplishing its mission.

What can internal controls do for organizations? Internal controls

assist organizations to get to where they want to go and assist in

avoiding pitfalls and surprises along the way. It does this by ensuring

reliable financial reporting, protecting precious resources, and assisting organizations in complying with laws and regulations. What can

internal controls not do for organizations? Internal control cannot

ensure success nor change an inherently poor manager into a good

manager. They also cannot ensure the reliability of financial reporting and compliance with laws and regulations. An internal control

system, no matter how well conceived and operated can provide only

reasonable, not absolute assurance. Internal controls can be circumvented by the collusion of two or more people and management may

have the ability to override the system. Developing an internal control program mirrors conducting risk assessments. The diagram

above depicts the steps in developing internal controls.

In conclusion, through careful design, the system of internal controls can help your organization operate more efficiently and effectively and provide for a reasonable level of assurance that the processes for which you are responsible for are adequately protected. The

design of an internal control system must reflect the fact that there are

resource constraints and that the benefits of the controls must be considered relative to their costs. Lastly, internal controls are similar to

risk management and force protection in that it is everyone’s responsibility to practice with commanders being held responsible.

About the Author

Lieutenant Colonel Bob Johnson is one of five FA45 officers participating

in the Training With Industry or TWI program, in his case with USAA.

The Five Components of Internal Control, (COSO, 1994).

Steps in Developing Internal Controls, (COSO Training, 2002).
20 R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003

America, businesses function with the intent

of maintaining profitability. Capital investments are often required to start and sustain

the business. Funding for these investments

come from sources such as long-term debt,

short-term debt, earnings retained by the

company or by new capital raised through

issuance of stocks or bonds. Regardless of

the source of funds used, there is always a

cost of capital. Capital investments should

generate returns that meet or exceed the

organization’s cost of capital if the business

desires to remain profitable. The higher a

project’s return on investment (ROI), the

higher it should be rated from the financial

standpoint. Although financial feasibility is

generally a fundamental screening criterion

for a project, the financial aspects should

not be the only criteria used when considering projects. This is the methodology

behind sound business investment.

Government resources are limited and

sound business practices must be considered when identifying expenditures and

capital investments of an organization. This

concept is nothing new. What may be new is

the idea that despite government entities

being nonprofit organizations, they should

still subscribe to a capital investment

methodology that considers the government’s cost of capital. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) Circular

“An essential element of Resource

Management is the process of reviewing,

revising and reengineering the business

practices of the Army to increase efficiency

and reduce costs .” Like corporate America,

the Department of Defense must ensure the

most effective use of resources. Therefore,

those who make decisions for government

facilities must measure capital investments

to ensure best business practices are used in

an environment of increasingly scarce

resources. Millions of dollars are spent on

capital improvements at every installation

and usually as a result of varying decision

criteria. The purpose of this article is to

identify capital investment analysis tools

that can be used to analyze and prioritize

projects from the financial perspective.

These tools should be used in order to measure the financial merit of projects and provide decision makers a measure to consider

when programming capital investments.

Although this article addresses the use of

these tools with construction projects, the

methodology can be applied on virtually

any project. Furthermore, I’ve included

sample output of an excel-based model that

can be used by anyone who can answer

questions about the size and costs associated with a given project.

Before discussing the tools, it helps to

understand why they are used. In corporate

A-94 was written to provide members of the

Federal Government guidance on making

well informed cost benefit and cost effectiveness analysis decisions. Appendix C to

OMB Circular A-94 is published yearly and

provides both nominal and real discount

rates to use when conducting these analyses.

These rates represent the Federal

Government’s “cost of capital.”

Obviously, some projects will be better

investments than others. The challenge is to

identify the appropriate decision criteria in

order to determine how projects should be

rated. Generally speaking, the higher the

ROI the higher the priority. Although this

sounds like a simple concept, this concept

gets more complex when we consider how

Army Medical Treatment Facilities (MTFs)

fund and operate their maintenance, repair

and construction programs. MTFs are

funded yearly with Operation and

Maintenance (O&M) dollars that are used

for maintenance operations, regulatory

compliance projects and business enhancement projects. The intent is to maintain

facilities at a level that meets or exceeds regulatory and code compliance. Facilities measure their status by dividing the cost

required to bring the facility up to current

regulatory and code compliance by the cost

to replace the facility. This computation

produces the Facility Condition Index or

Financial Methods for Analyzing 

Federal Capital Investments
R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003 21

FCI. Army MTFs aim is to achieve a FCI of

.05 or less.

Briefly describing the FCI shows that

facilities are forced to balance regulatory

and code compliance with improving business practices as well as mission changes. To

make matters more tenuous–funding is

always scarce; projects are approved at different funding levels by different approval

authorities; and projects are developed differently depending on the nature, size and

scope of the project. Regardless of the size,

scope or nature of the project, financial feasibility and funding options must always be

considered. Moreover, a sound maintenance

program must be in place in order for the

facility’s capital investment strategy to be

successful. The maintenance program

should be past crisis (or reactive) maintenance and well into preventative, and

preferably predictive maintenance. This will

mitigate the risk of diverting funds for crisis

response and allow Facility Managers and

Commanders the ability to follow through

with their planned O&M program.

Although some projects and/or programs

are pursued for other than financially sound

considerations, mission (or regulatory compliance) requirements alone should not

excuse decision makers from considering

the financial merit of planned expenditures.

Project approval is based on funding

requirements and may require this analysis

to be conducted at each lower level, as well

as the corporate level. For example, projects

requiring $25K or less can be approved by

the local MTF commander. Projects requiring up to $300K are ranked at the local MTF

and sent forward to the Regional Facility

Director. Projects greater than $300K and

less than $750K are prioritized and funded

at the MEDCOM level. Projects with over

$750K of new work must be approved by

Congress as part of the Military

Construction Program (MILCON).

To determine the ROI or financial feasibility of a project, there are a number of

tools that can be used. These tools can be

used separately or together and include: net

present value (NPV), the internal rate of

return (IRR), profitability index (PI) and

payback (PB). Using NPV, IRR, PI and/or

PB computations in

conjunction with the

FCI provides program

managers the tools they

need to rank order projects from the financial

perspective. OMB

Circular A-94 states,

“the standard criterion

for deciding whether a

government program

can be justified on economic principles is net

present value .” See

Table 1 for computation

of these measures.

For non-profit organizations, cash flows

used in these models are

typically identified

through cost avoidance.

Whether public or private, the concept is the

same. It is a matter of

identifying the cash

flows in and out, then discounting them at

the appropriate rate. Table 2 shows an example of project ratings based on these tools.

This table also demonstrates that the decision maker must determine the importance

of the criteria.

For example, two of the three criteria

demonstrate that project one is the best

investment. However, if the building is programmed for replacement in six years, the

decision maker may decide to select project

two over the projects that were ranked first

and second (projects three and one respectively). The bottom line is that decision makers should understand how to measure projects and clearly identify the appropriate criteria for their capital investment decisions.

The results of an excel-based spreadsheet

model are shown on the following page. The

data is the model’s output and shows the

resulting GPV, NPV, IRR and PI for a sample

project. Furthermore, the model shows that

if you can merely answer the questions and

fill in the cells, you can have the output data

needed to measure the project’s financial

feasibility. This spreadsheet provides decision makers the financial information they 

need to determine a project’s financial merit

and therefore, a measure to use when comparing it to other projects.

Conclusion

Federal Government programs and projects can and should be analyzed for their

financial feasibility. OMB Circular A-94

(with Appendix C) provides the guidance

and discount rates that government agencies

should use for cost benefit and cost effectiveness analysis. MTF facility managers and

Commanders can use these tools to compute and compare the financial merit of

projects. The results of the analysis can be

used in conjunction with other decision criteria to ensure best business practices are

integrated to produce sound capital investment strategies.

About the Author

Major David R. Gibson holds degrees in

MBA/Finance, Masters of Construction

Management, and Master of Public Administration. He is currently a student at the

United States Army Command and General

Staff College in FT. Leavenworth, Kansas.

Table 2

PROJECT NINV NPV PI PB RANK

1 200,000 20,000 1.10 7 2

2 500,000 41,000 1.082 6 3

3 275,000 60,000 1.218 10 1

4 150,000 5,000 1.033 7 6

5 250,000 20,000 1.080 7 4 (tie)

6 100,000 4,000 1.040 8 5

7 275,000 20,000 1.080 9 4 (tie)

Table 1

TOOLS FOR ANALYZING PROJECTS
22 R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003

Instructions:

Go to tab marked "Questionnaire" and fill in

green boxes. Results will be displayed in yellow boxes on the "Cash Flow Schedule" tab.

Methodology:

The model is designed to analyze capital

investment projects. The questionnaire is

designed to accommodate Energy Savings

Performance Contracts (ESPC). The Net

Present Value of a project is determined by

discounting net cash flows (or net savings)

generated from a capital investment and subtracting the net initial investment. A present

value of the net cash flows is determined by

discounting cash flows at the weighted average cost of capital or, in the case of the public sector, the nominal or real interest rate.

OMB Circular A-94 provides guidance on

which rate to use (nominal versus real) based

on the type of project. The interest rates can

be found in Appendix C and should match

the time frame of the project's duration.

Appendix C is updated annually based on

the most recent forecasts with available economic data.The nominal interest rate is generally the market interest rate (used for lease

purchase analysis).The real interest rate is

adjusted to remove expected or actual inflation (used for cost-effectiveness analysis).

Internal Rate of Return:

This is the "portfolio" return on the net

investment as they relate to the net cash

flows. For projects that require no initial

investment on behalf of the government, this

rate may be so high as to result in an error

message for the cells showing IRR results.

Other tools for analyzing projects:

See table 1 on page 21 for tools used for

analyzing capital investments. The use 

of one or a combination of these tools

depends on the specific nature of the project. Therefore, the use of additional models

may be necessary to make sound corporate

decisions when conducting financial 

analysis and comparing projects.

Please send all questions or comments on

the model to david.r.gibson@us.army.mil

Capital Investment Analysis

Notes: Project Title Chiller Replacement

Location Blank Army Hospital

Date of Analysis 9/27/2002

Please answer the following questions:

1. What is the total current working estimate (CWE) of the project? 275,000

2. What amount of the CWE will be funded by the government? 275,000

3. What is the total amount of transition fees (not including equipment)? 0

4. What is the total amount of initial outfitting (IO)? 0

5. What is the total annual amount of additional management fees required? 0

6. What is the total increase in annual maintenance fees associated with 

the project? 0

7. What are the fees required for developing the requirement (SOW)? 2,000

8. What is the appropriate interest rate? If the project is an EUL, enter 

the nominal interest rate. If doing a CB analysis, enter the real interest rate.

See OMB Circular A-94, Appendix C for current nominal and real rates. 3.90%

The project's net investment (NINV) is 275,000.00 

9. What is the gross yearly cost savings to be realized by doing this project (by year)? 

This should include savings from a decrease in the maintenance contract.

Enter 0 for years when contract is expired.

Yr 1 50,000 Yr 16 50,000 Yr 31 - 

Yr 2 50,000 Yr 17 50,000 Yr 32 - 

Yr 3 50,000 Yr 18 50,000 Yr 33 - 

Yr 4 50,000 Yr 19 50,000 Yr 34 - 

Yr 5 50,000 Yr 20 50,000 Yr 35

Yr 6 50,000 Yr 21 50,000 Yr 36 -

Yr 7 50,000 Yr 22 50,000 Yr 37 -

Yr 8 50,000 Yr 23 50,000 Yr 38 - 

Yr 9 50,000 Yr 24 50,000 Yr 39 -

Yr 10 50,000 Yr 25 - Yr 40

Yr 11 50,000 Yr 26 - Yr 41 -

Yr 12 50,000 Yr 27 - Yr 42 - 

Yr 13 50,000 Yr 28 - Yr 43

Yr 14 50,000 Yr 29 - Yr 44 -

Yr 15 50,000 Yr 30 - Yr 45 -
R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003 23

Project Cash Flow Results

Net Investment (NINV) (277,000.00)

Year GPV NPV IRR PI

1 $48,123.20 ($228,876.80) #NUM! 0.174

2 $98,047.26 ($178,952.74) #NUM! 0.354

3 $148,044.30 ($128,955.70) -25% 0.534

4 $198,044.18 ($78,955.82) -12% 0.715

5 $248,044.17 ($28,955.83) -3% 0.895

6 $298,044.17 $21,044.17 2% 1.076

7 $348,044.17 $71,044.17 6% 1.256

8 $398,044.17 $121,044.17 9% 1.437

9 $448,044.17 $171,044.17 11% 1.617

10 $498,044.17 $221,044.17 12% 1.798

11 $548,044.17 $271,044.17 14% 1.978

12 $598,044.17 $321,044.17 14% 2.159

13 $648,044.17 $371,044.17 15% 2.340

14 $698,044.17 $421,044.17 16% 2.520

15 $748,044.17 $471,044.17 16% 2.701

16 $798,044.17 $521,044.17 16% 2.881

17 $848,044.17 $571,044.17 17% 3.062

18 $898,044.17 $621,044.17 17% 3.242

19 $948,044.17 $671,044.17 17% 3.423

20 $998,044.17 $721,044.17 17% 3.603

21 $1,048,044.17 $771,044.17 17% 3.784

22 $1,098,044.17 $821,044.17 18% 3.964

23 $1,148,044.17 $871,044.17 18% 4.145

24 $1,198,044.17 $921,044.17 18% 4.325

25 $1,198,044.17 $921,044.17 18% 4.325

26 $1,198,044.17 $921,044.17 18% 4.325

27 $1,198,044.17 $921,044.17 18% 4.325

28 $1,198,044.17 $921,044.17 18% 4.325

29 $1,198,044.17 $921,044.17 18% 4.325

30 $1,198,044.17 $921,044.17 18% 4.325

31 $1,198,044.17 $921,044.17 18% 4.325

32 $1,198,044.17 $921,044.17 18% 4.325

33 $1,198,044.17 $921,044.17 18% 4.325

34 $1,198,044.17 $921,044.17 18% 4.325

35 $1,198,044.17 $921,044.17 18% 4.325

36 $1,198,044.17 $921,044.17 18% 4.325

37 $1,198,044.17 $921,044.17 18% 4.325

38 $1,198,044.17 $921,044.17 18% 4.325

39 $1,198,044.17 $921,044.17 18% 4.325

40 $1,198,044.17 $921,044.17 18% 4.325

41 $1,198,044.17 $921,044.17 18% 4.325

42 $1,198,044.17 $921,044.17 18% 4.325

43 $1,198,044.17 $921,044.17 18% 4.325

44 $1,198,044.17 $921,044.17 18% 4.325

45 $1,248,044.17 $971,044.17 18% 4.506

Current Working Estimate- 275,000 

Expected rate of inflation- 4%

Number of years project delayed- 3

Future Project Cost- 309,338 

The printout shows the

project breaks even or

has a payback of a little

over 5 years and can

now be measured

against other projects.

The cells at the bottom

show the impact of the

project cost if delayed

for three years.
24 R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003

Introduction

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993

(Public Law 103-62) requires government entities to be more

accountable to the taxpayers. GPRA attempts to make government organizations associate the amount of public resources they

expended to the productive achievements they made. Under

GPRA, an organization’s strategic plan is the vehicle that drives

the budgeting process. Strategic planning, however, is more than

just another attempt to revamp government fiscal practices. It can

actually help organizations to be more capable, successful, and

economical.

Broken down to its basic elements, strategic planning is a continuous and methodical process where key individuals within a

public entity make decisions on the specific outcomes they wish

to achieve, how these objectives are to be accomplished, and how

success will be determined and evaluated. Indeed, strategic planning is a useful way to improve performance, enhance quality of

life programs, focus on customer satisfaction, and concentrate on

other objectives that would help the organization to become

more efficient and effective.

Strategic planning starts with a decision to begin the process,–

a pre-planning phase. This phase represents the fundamental

building block to having a meaningful planning process. If an

organization fails at the pre-planning phase to develop a conceptual framework, then the strategic planning process fails.

Pre-Planning

At this early stage in the planning process, the organization

“plans to plan.” In essence, this is where planners and decisionmakers outline how the organization will develop its overall

“A clear understanding of

one’s destination and strategies needed to reach it are as

important in government as

it is in sailing.” Dr. Berwyn E. Jones

Strategic Planning Model
R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003 25

strategic plan. There are five crucial components to this important phase of the model. The most important of which is to

secure the support of the organization’s key decision-makers.

1. Commitment from Senior Leadership. The organization

isn’t going to embark on any journey without commitment from

senior executives. Additionally, successful strategic planning

requires effective two-way (top-down and bottom-up) communication and listening. Consequently, the skilled planner realizes

that he/she needs to emphasize top management’s commitment

to the strategic planning process as a way to encourage everyone

in the organization to embrace this tool.

2. Projected Planning and Programming. How far in the

future do you wish to look? Some agencies look at least five years

into the future. However, the strategic planning process is flexible

enough to suit any long-term programming needs. Hence, an

organization can readily adjust the planning scope to reflect its

own unique specific goals and objectives.

3. Team Building. Get the team together! Make sure all the

right people are involved. You may want to consider that the

strategic planning process is coordination intensive. It is

extremely dynamic and challenging. The strategic planning process requires every member of the team to sincerely participate

and fully contribute to the process.

4. Diagramming and Charting. Outline the major steps in the

strategic planning process. Establish the sequence of events that

need to happen along with a corresponding timetable. Keep an

internal suspense log to make sure that the process remains on

schedule. Naturally, you would want to regularly refer to the

timetable and adjust it as required. Furthermore, at this point in

the preliminary phase, you may want to solicit input from technical / subject matter experts in the organization and include

them in the overall planning process.

5. Road Blocks. Identify potential barriers and constraints to

the strategic planning process and creatively look for legal and

ethical ways to overcome them.

Mission, Vision, Goals, Values

This phase contains the broadest possible description of the

organization’s vision of its future. This portion of the planning

process addresses all the philosophical aspects of the 

agency’s management.

The mission statement describes the organization’s purposes

and/or the changes within the command that it intends to effect.

The mission shows the ultimate ends/impacts of the organization’s activities – in terms of how they impact the customer base

and, possibly, on the local community and environment.

A brief vision statement inspires the organization to move forward. For example, President Kennedy’s vision of putting a man

on the moon by the end of the decade was the catalyst that

sparked the nation’s space program to move in that direction. Of

course, visionary leadership is required to have future aspirations.

Goals describe the general results that the organization intends

to achieve. Goals are more specific than a mission statement; they

show the organization’s impact on its customers. Organizations

may only achieve some of their goals. However, goals are still useful because they indicate the general direction in which the organization is going. For example, a goal may be to “reduce the

number of traffic accidents involving military vehicles.” While the

organization may not achieve this goal during the current planning period, the goal tells everyone that the command intends to

move in the direction of reducing—and, ultimately, eliminating—the number of traffic accidents involving military vehicles.

That being said, personnel within the command can continue to

work on that goal to make it a reality.

Values describe other things that are important to an organization. For example, a value may be workforce diversity.

Consequently, the organization may choose to write a value statement that emphasizes diversity in personnel actions and 

decisions (e.g., hiring procedures, promotions, developmental

assignments, special programs, etc.).

External Needs Assessment

This is an appraisal of the key outside forces that influence the

success an organization will have in achieving its mission and

goals. These external forces may either pose an “opportunity” or

a “threat” to the organization, such as changes in economic and

political conditions, population, technology, and others. To conduct an external needs assessment:

• List the organization’s customers (other agencies, local 

population, etc.)

• Identify customer concerns (Facility access during heightened

security, local communication and automation support, etc.).

• Analyze those trends that impact customer concerns

(Number of off-post incidents requiring police intervention,

bomb scares, security breaches, and the number of hacker incidents and cyber-attacks, etc.).

You may also want to conduct an “internal needs assessment,”

such as applying Baldrige criteria, to analyze the organization’s

strengths and weaknesses, and its capability to adjust its direction

to take advantage of “opportunities” or face “threats.”

Strategic Objectives

These are written statements that describe an intended outcome. Strategic objectives clearly describe measurable achievement targets. Strategic objectives have six characteristics:

1. Strategic objectives describe the results, outcomes, or effects

of the organization’s activities on its customers.

2. Strategic objectives clearly describe the minimum acceptable

level of performance.

3. Strategic objectives are achievable. Although objectives are

not pie-in-the-sky rhetoric, they will challenge the organization

to reach higher levels of performance.

4. Well-written strategic objectives are clear and concise. Even
26 R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003

strategic objective, management can see if the organization

achieved its strategic objective. To the extent that the strategic

objectives describe true outcomes, the related performance measures will describe effectiveness. Likewise, to the degree that they

describe products/outputs, the related performance measures will

describe efficiency.

Strategic Priorities

Decision-makers rank each strategic objective in terms of relative importance to the organization. Setting strategic priorities is

a management decision. Frequently, a group of top-ranking managers, acting as a board or an executive steering committee, participates in the ranking process. Ranking the strategic objectives

as part of the strategic planning cycle is valuable because these

priorities guide resourcing decisions.

Strategies

A “strategy” is an approach that will lead to achieving a

strategic objective. Most people could think of several alternative ways to achieve almost any strategic objective. For example,

if an organization’s strategic objective is “to reduce the number

of traffic accidents involving military vehicles by 15 percent

those unfamiliar with the organization will be able to understand the intended effects of the activity simply by reading the

strategic objectives.

5. Strategic objectives are all-inclusive. They describe the

intended outcomes of every function the organization performs.

6. Strategic objectives play a key role in keeping the organization within the boundaries outlined by the mission, vision, goal,

and value statements.

Outcome Measures

Every strategic objective should have an accompanying outcome measure that is expressed in terms identical to the strategic

objective it measures. For example, if an organization’s strategic

objective is to “reduce the number of traffic accidents involving

military vehicles by 15 percent from 2002 levels,” then the corresponding outcome measure would be “Percentage reduction in

the number of traffic accidents involving military vehicles from

2002 levels.”

The outcome measure describes the precise measurement that

will generate an indicator that is comparable to the performance

target in the strategic objective. By comparing the number generated by the outcome measure to the performance target in the

Political Economical

and Social Factors

Start Pre-Planning Phase

Evaluation/Feedback Strategies

Strategic Priorities Outcome

Measures

Strategic Objectives

Internal Needs

Assessment

SWOT

Mission Statement,

Vision, Goals and Values

External Needs

Assessment
R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003 27

from 2002 levels,” then different approaches to achieving this

objective might include: raising the standards to get a driver’s

license, expanded training and drivers’ education, only operate

military vehicles during specific hours where there is less 

traffic on the road, or impose heavier penalties for traffic violations/accidents.

In the “strategies step,” planners identify all the alternative

approaches, rate them in terms of command and control, adaptability, flexibility, practicality, cost effectiveness, and other relevant criteria in achieving a strategic objective; and then select

that strategy which best achieves the performance level specified

in the strategic objective.

Performance Feedback

This is a systematic procedure for comparing actual performance to planned performance, and for using that information

in subsequent planning cycles.

The purpose of this step is to determine which strategies

proved effective, and which achieved less than the desired results.

The theory being, if managers (i.e., the Executive Steering

Committee) change their approaches to achieving strategic

objectives based on this information, then program performance

should improve.

Managers evaluate progress using performance measures and

strategic objectives. They compare the actual outcome (described

by the performance measure) to the intended outcome

(described by the strategic objective). This result (the difference)

of this comparison is positive if actual performance exceeds

intended performance. Likewise, it is negative if actual performance falls short of intended performance. Further analysis may

be able to show why specific strategies yielded positive or negative results. Managers can then use this analysis to recommend

program modifications.

A key issue that some managers raise is that the organization

may have little control over whether the intended outcomes actually occur. If the strategic objective is to “reduce the number of

traffic accidents involving military vehicles by 15 percent from

2002 levels,” some managers believe that although they gave it

their best shot, they may still fall short of the mark. For example,

even though management initiated safety training programs,

improved the quality of maintenance in tactical TMPs, strengthened licensing requirements, raised penalties for operator errors,

revised procedures, drafted new rules and policies, and invested

more resources to achieve the goal, the resulting outcome may

still be less than a 15 percent reduction.

Some managers fear accountability for outcomes. They

believe that their heads will roll if—or when—the actual outcome falls short of the plan. For these managers, “accountability” in their organizations is associated (or, has become synonymous) with “punishment.”

Strategic planning is a major part of an organization’s 

solutions, not its problem. It is a logical method to make

improvements. Consequently, the implementation of the strategic planning process shouldn’t have to hurt. To truly get the benefit from strategic planning, executives should use measurability

and accountability to improve programs for the next cycle. Focus

on the positive—what has been achieved—instead of the negative. The model on the previous page depicts the strategic planning cycle discussed in this article. As you can see, it is a neverending process.

Conclusion

The GPRA (P.L. 103-62) requires government agencies to

implement strategic planning. The main focus of the GPRA is to

make government entities more accountable to the taxpayers.

Strategic planning is a logical process that enables an organization to focus on desired long-range outcomes. It outlines a

series of actions that are necessary to make goals and objectives

a reality. Consequently, the application of a strategic planning

process helps an organization to realize its strengths and weaknesses, as well as opportunities for progress and the barriers that

preclude growth.

Strategic planning can help an organization become more efficient and effective. As such, resource managers should become

thoroughly familiar with the strategic planning process because it

ties scarce public resources to productivity.

There are several useful strategic planning models available.

The simple model presented here has the following phases: conducting pre-planning, developing a broad mission statement, an

inspirational vision statement; setting descriptive, concise goals,

and organizational values; conducting needs assessment(s),

preparing thorough, succinct, and well-written strategic objectives with accompanying outcome measures, ranking strategic

priorities, developing practical strategies to achieve objectives;

and, finally, evaluating the plan to determine which strategies

were successful in achieving the desired result—as well as those

which require revision. The strategic planning model should be

flexible enough to accommodate a fluid environment. Hence, the

model should be readily adjustable to support emerging mission

requirements. Therefore, strategic planning is a never-ending

journey.

About the Author

John Di Genio is a Management Analyst in the Installation

Management Agency Korea Regional Office (IMA KORO),

Yongsan Garrison, Seoul, Korea.
28 R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003

According to a recent CBS news study,

eighty percent of Americans are dissatisfied

with their work and statistics show that

since 1962, productivity of American workers has dropped to less than one-third that

of Japanese workers. One contributing factor to an increase in job satisfaction and

productivity among the Japanese was the

introduction of “Quality Circles” in the early

1960’s. The use of Quality Circles developed

out of the theory of ”Employee involvement.” This theory defined by Lawler &

Mohrman, 1989, as a participative process

designed to use the entire capacity of workers and to encourage employee commitment

to organizational success. The use of a participative process is an effective tool to

improve productivity and the concept is

valuable in measuring productivity. At

Headquarters, Fort McPherson, within the

Directorate of Operations & Training,

employees have little awareness of organization strategy. They are not included in the

flow of information and are more often than

not dissatisfied, exhibit lack luster performance, and generally feel disconnected from

organizational goals and objectives. To

change this, the Directorate of Operations &

Training, Headquarters, Fort McPherson,

must develop and implement a Performance

Management (PM) system that directly links

employee performance to the organization’s

Balanced Scorecard, in order to more accurately measure, evaluate and improve overall

organizational performance. This can be

accomplished with personal scorecarding,

using methodology similar to that used in

the Balanced Scorecard. The Balanced

Scorecard is a measurement tool that was

introduced in 1991 and is used to translate

an organization’s mission and strategy into

a comprehensive set of performance measures. This tool provides the framework for

a strategic measurement system. However,

the real power of the Balanced Scorecard is

realized when it is transformed from a measurement system into a management system

that interconnects employee performance to

Using Personal Scorecards to 

Enhance Performance Management
R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003 29

For example, a study conducted by

Sashkin, M. (1986), presented a three

phased participation model.

• Process: Participation and psychology

need (control over own behavior, task closure, positive relationships)

• Leads to: Means of effect (psychological

ownership, information flow, development

of skills, development of share norms 

and values)

• Outcomes: Acceptance and commitment, quality, support, adaptive capacity of

organization 

According to this model, the effects then

lead to increased quality, acceptance and

commitment, increased support and an

increased capacity of the organization to

achieve its goal.

Even so, the vision of the organizational

scorecard will not link to the talents and

competencies of the workforce without a

mechanism to make it happen. Steve Jobs,

CEO and co-founder of Apple Computer,

stated, “You cannot mandate productivity,

you must provide the tools to let people

become their best”. Development and

implementation of personal scorecards will

give employees a tool that link their performance to measures in the organization’s

Balanced Scorecard. Without linkage, individuals cannot optimize their personal performance or contribute effectively to

strategic objectives. The direct unambiguous communication between personal

scorecards and the organization’s Balanced

Scorecard will establish and clarify acceptable performance. It will offer continuous

feedback that will provide a tool, for both

self-evaluation and evaluation of performance as it relates to organizational goals.

The Balanced Scorecard identifies principles that enable an organization to translate

strategy into measurements. For instance,

the use of cause and effect relationships,

where the measurement makes clear how

objectives and measures relate to each

other and the relationship between performance drivers and a predictable outcome is

easily determined.

This concept is just as applicable at the

individual employee level and will help to

manage and validate employee performance.

But, a process is needed to translate this

concept into employee participation and at

the same time encourage employee commitment to organizational success. Scorecard

methodologies can be used to empower

employees and eliminate the barrier between

employees’ ideas and management’s strategic

planning. However, an organization’s measurement system strongly affects the behavior of the work force. Personal scorecarding

may lead to resistance and suspicion that

management is merely following the latest

trend and that scorecarding is simply the

latest craze. Employees feeling connected to

organizational goals and objectives are critical to the success of personal scorecarding as

well as overall organizational success. Thus,

the personal scorecard will serve as a bridge

to creating a climate of connectivity and

give employees a meaningful role in measuring their own performance. As personal

scorecards are developed, managers can

expect to see creativity and idea expansion,

empowering employees and creating a common vision. Personal scorecarding will provide a mechanism where a conscious effort

is made to transfer responsibility from the

supervisor and acceptance of accountability

organizational performance. Headquarters,

Fort McPherson uses scorecarding technology to track organizational performance

and has a Board of Directors (BOD) that

developed a strategic business plan, whose

objective is to move the organization

methodically towards the Commander’s

vision. However, not all employees have a

high awareness of their organization’s goals

and objectives. To combat this, the same

scorecarding technology employed by the

BOD can be used to develop and implement personal employee scorecards that

track and link employee performance to

measures in the organization’s Balanced

Scorecard. Since an organization’s measurement system strongly affects the behavior

of the work force, employee “buy in” is a

critical factor to the successful implementation of personal scorecards. While an

employee feeling disconnected may only do

enough to get by, scorecarding can be used

to empower employees and eliminate barriers between employee’s ideas and management strategy. Although, management must

take the lead in communicating organizational strategy throughout the organization, managers and employees are equally

important stakeholders and both will have

to be committed to successfully implement

the organization’s strategy into a performance measurement system.

Again, for a successful balanced scorecard,

strategic objectives and measures must be

communicated throughout the organization

with a concentrated effort at the work force

level. While, Headquarters Fort McPherson

organizations use the Balanced Scorecard as

a business tool to measure operational effectiveness, many employees within the

Directorate of Operations and Training,

simply are not currently aware of how their

organization’s goals and objectives are being

accomplished. According to Joseph L.

Cotton in Employee Involvement, Methods for

Improving Performance and Work Attitudes,

in today’s competitive environment the

workforce in its entire capacity needs to generate new ideas and ways of working. High

level of employee participation is needed

before employees will change behaviors to

work in improved and measurable ways.

Development and implementation of personal

scorecards will give employees a tool that link

their performance to measures in the 

organization’s Balanced Scorecard.
30 R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003

to the employee. To illustrate, Richard

Henderson, author of Influence Employee

Behavior at Work says behavior scientists

have studied extensively the need to

empower employees by granting them

greater opportunity to participate in the

organizational decision-making process;

organizations facilitate intellectual survival

by having clearly communicated and easily

understood organizational missions and

goals; and that the main goal of every organization that wishes to grow and prosper

should be the development of a synergistic

relationship between the behavior of the

organization and the job-related behavior of

its members.

Managers and employees may have a different perspective, but can come to a place

of common vision. When employees realize

the benefits that can be gained by participating in achieving organizational goals, both

the employee and manager share in the benefit. Although, both share in the benefit,

management will have to take the lead in

developing and implementing the performance base system of personal scorecards

for employees. They will have to define the

process and identify the opportunities that

will foster it or perhaps the challenges that

will hinder it. Also, as managers provide

specific direction to the workers on how to

develop and implement the policy, they will

be required to talk to the workforce about

personal scorecarding, explain the concept

and answer questions, as well as, reinforce

and clarify the significance of the policy. By

clearly communicating the goals and objectives to the people that will accomplish the

work, managers will affect change through

positive leadership.

In conclusion, the Directorate of

Operations & Training, Headquarters, Fort

McPherson, must take advantage of this

opportunity and develop and implement

personal scorecarding. Implementation of

this policy will provide a more accurate

measurement of employee performance, as

well as, evaluate and improve overall organizational performance. It will clearly establish criteria and give employees an increased

chance of satisfying that criteria. The concept of Balanced Scorecard is applicable at

the personal level and can be employed to

create a performance management system

that directly links employee performance to

the organization’s Balanced Scorecard. The

ensuing information sharing and results

will empower employees, as personal scorecarding reinforces individual accomplishment and provides a greater sense of alignment. Employees will feel more connected

to the organization and have a stronger

desire to share in organizational objectives.

Then, individual goals will be brought into

synergy with the organization’s goals. With

the development and implementation of

personal scorecarding, we can expect

increased employee support and an

increased capacity of the organization to

achieve its goals. As managers clearly communicate the goals and objectives and commit to the development and implementation of personal scorecarding, they will be

the catalyst in creating a positive work environment, where employees enjoy greater job

satisfaction from participating in organizational strategy. Managers and subordinates

working together to implement personal

scorecarding, using the same measurable

indicators as the organization’s Balanced

Scorecard will help move the Directorate of

Operations and Training closer to an organization of excellence.

About the Author

Ms. Helen J. McNeil is a Management

Analyst in the Directorate of Operations 

and Training, US Army Garrison,

Fort McPherson, Georgia.

Bibliography

American Innovation Institute’s, Beyond 

The New Millennium Conference. 2000

Cotton, John L. Employee Involvement: Methods

for Improving Performance and Work Attitudes.

Newbury Park, London: Sage Productions, Inc.

1993

Henderson, Richard I. Influencing Employee

Behavior at Work. Georgia State Univ. Atlanta,

GA. 1982 

Kaplan, Robert S. and David P. Norton.

Translating Strategy Into Action “The Balanced

Scorecard”. Boston Mass: Harvard Business

School Press. 1996

Lawler, E.E., & Mohrman, S.A. With 

HR help, all managers can practice 

high-involvement management. Personnel,

(4, 26-31) 1989.

Sashkin, M. Participative Management 

Remains an Ethical Imperative.

Organizational Dynamics. 1986 

As managers clearly communicate the goals and

objectives and commit to the development of

personal scorecarding, they will be the 

catalyst in creating a positive work environment.
R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003 31

before the Federal government concerning a

matter to which the United States is a party

or has an interest. As an exception to this

statute, Congress enacted legislation to permit uncompensated representation of nonprofit cooperative, professional, recreational

or similar organizations by Federal officers

or employees when a majority of the NFE’s

members are Federal employees or their

family members.

In addition, another specific criminal

statute prohibits a former general officer or

senior executive from acting as the

requester if he or she departed the Army

within the last year (18 U.S.C. § 207(c)).

The Decision. Those participating in the

decision to provide support to a private

organization must be other than officers,

directors, employees, or active participants

in the organization. It is a crime (18 U.S.C. §

208) for an Army officer or employee to participate in the decision to provide Army

support, when that same officer or employee

is also an officer, director or employee of the

private organization. By regulation, this

same 18 U.S.C. § 208 prohibition applies to

enlisted personnel. Finally, any Army

employee could violate a punitive regulation

by participating in an official matter to

which a private organization is a party, if the

Support to Private

Organization

Events

Many private organizations seek Army

support for their events. These requests occur

with such frequency that the law of probability suggests that sometime during your federal service, you will be asked to assist in

obtaining Army support for an event of a

private organization. You may even be asked

to provide that support yourself.

Examples of such requests are: (1) the

American Society of Military Comptrollers

(ASMC) requests that you speak about the

Army’s approach to a financial management

issue at ASMC's next three-day Professional

Development Institute; (2) the Association

of the United States Army (AUSA) offers

you space at its next symposium for your

command to set up a display concerning its

future direction; and (3) the United Services

Organization (USO) asks you to give a

speech about the performance of soldiers in

contingency operations at a local fundraiser.

While there are a myriad of examples of

requests sought for governmental support,

the above examples are merely representative for the purposes of this article. The

answer for each of the examples, above, is

"Yes." For that reason, the Army probably

can provide the requested support, subject

to the following:

Who is Asking and Who is

Deciding?

Your first step in your analysis is to ascertain the identity of the participants to

ensure that no one violates Federal criminal

law or a punitive regulation.

The Request. In most cases, the individual requesting support on behalf of the private organization should be someone other

than a current Federal officer or employee.

A criminal statute (18 U.S.C. § 205) provides that officers and employees, as a general rule, are prohibited from acting as

agents for a non-Federal entity (NFE)

Army employee is an active participant in

that organization, because this would create

an appearance of a conflict of interest.

Participating in the decision includes

more than being the actual decision-maker.

It includes the employees who investigate

whether sufficient resources are available to

provide the necessary support, those who

make recommendations about providing the

support, and those who provide a legal

review of the request and recommendation.

Being an active participant in an organization involves a range of possible activity

where many of the answers are clearly “Yes”

or No.” Yet, there is also uncertainty in our

answers because of the nature of the facts.

For example, being a member, receiving an

organization's publication, and attending

the annual dinner fail to make a person an

active participant. But, if this same person

also helps arrange the annual dinner, he or

she might well be an active participant.

Finally, if this individual also chairs the

membership committee, he or she is definitely an active participant. As is often said,

when we change the facts, we often change

the legal effect.

In summary, current Federal officers or

employees are legally unable to act as an

agent for a private organization requesting
32 R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003

Army support for their organization,

although Congress has recently provided

some latitude. And, those individuals who

are officers, directors, employees or active

participants in the organization must avoid

participating in the decision whether to

provide the support.

Can Support Be Provided?

The analysis is fact specific. There are a

number of criteria that the commander,

director or supervisor, responsible for providing or refusing support, must consider.

They are set out in the Department of

Defense (DoD) Joint Ethics Regulation

(JER) (DoD 5500.7-R) paragraph 3-211:

1. No Interference With Performance of

Official Duties or Readiness. The Army is

unable to provide support if it will interfere

with mission or impact on readiness.

2. Community Relations or Other DoD

Interests are Served and It's Appropriate to

Associate DoD/The Army With the Event.

These criteria are on opposite sides of the

same coin. The Army is legally unable to

support private organization events merely

because the organization is friendly to the

Army and supports Army ideals or because

the organization is composed of mainly

retired officers. When we provide support,

we are supporting the sponsoring organization’s event, rather than supporting the

organization, because the event is to our

benefit and we expect to further some

Army interest!

This “benefit” might consist of any one

or a number of things, such as the installation being a "good citizen" and supporting

local community activities; or taking an

opportunity to give an Army perspective to

an issue; or promoting the Army itself.

However, the event must also be “appropriate” or we lose or diminish the benefit that

we might expect. For example, it would be

inappropriate for an Army installation to

support a local event sponsored by an organization that excludes women and minorities from its membership.

3. Event is of Interest and Benefit to

Local Civilian or Military Community as a

Whole. If you advance this far into your

analysis (no mission interference, DoD

interest, appropriate), this criterion will be

easily met.

4. Willing to Provide Same Support for

Similar Events. Again, we are supporting the

organization’s event, rather than the organization when we provide support to one of

its events. Therefore, we should be willing

and able to support comparable events

sponsored by similar NFEs.

The working terms here are "comparable"

and "similar." Perhaps your command

authorized support to an AUSA program to

assist soldier’s transition from military status to civilian life. This support consisted of

use of the post theater, security, and informing the military community regarding the

availability of this program to soldiers.

Notwithstanding this support, the same

Army command may refuse the same support to an insurance company, which wants

to sell soldiers an insurance product to

replace the Survivor Benefit Plan, or to a

company that wants to propose a course,

which teaches how to repair automobiles.

However, you would be expected to provide

comparable support to The Retired Officers

Association (TROA) for a presentation to

assist soldiers in writing resumes and to prepare them for civilian employment.

5. No Restrictions by Law or Regulation.

Even though all the criteria are otherwise

met for providing the requested support to

the event, there might be other laws or regulations that restrict the support being

requested. There are special laws and regulations governing the use of vehicles, aircraft,

animals, real estate, utilities, personnel, etc.

In some instances, there are special rules on

the loan of certain types of equipment.

These laws and regulations must be complied with in the first instance.

6. No Admission Fee Beyond Reasonable

Costs for Sponsoring the Event. This can be

a multi-dimensional problem. Have you

ever attended seminars or continuing education programs in which 50 percent or

more of the lecturers are Army, other DoD

and/or Federal personnel, and the price

approximates comparable events where

there is no official Federal participation?

The Army needs to act with great reluctance

before providing taxpayer-funded support

to a conference designed to produce a profit

for a private organization. Likewise, commanders, directors and supervisors need to

apply sound fiscal judgment when deciding

whether to send an Army employee to a

conference that charges a premium to hear

Army and DoD provided speakers.

There have been conferences at which

Army officials planned to speak where the

cost of the conferences, depending on the

registrant, exceeded $1,000, or even more.

(1) In one case, the Army’s Alternate

Designated Agency Ethics Official (DAEO)

advised the Army participants (speakers)

that they should refuse their support as

planned because the admission fee was exorbitant. The Army was providing over 90% of

the presenters, and the sponsor had refused

to provide any information about its pricing

of the event. When the sponsor finally provided information and significantly reduced

the admission price, the Army participants

were advised that they could speak at the

symposium if they remained interested in

providing the support.

(2) In another situation, where the cost

exceeded $1,000 for a two day conference,

the sponsoring organization explained that

it was for a relatively small group and the

overhead was essentially the same as for a

large audience, that it was paying for the

travel expenses for a number of the presenters and that, while the NFE might make or

lose a little money, it was basically trying to

break even. The Army employees were

advised that there were no ethical objections

to their participation.

(3) In other cases, when local Ethics

Counselors were unable to receive satisfactory information and assurances from the

sponsor concerning the cost of the event,

the Army speakers withdrew their participation and support.

The rule is that, unless the DoD support is

incidental, no admission fee will be charged

beyond that which will cover the reasonable

costs of sponsoring the event (or at least that

portion of the event supported by the Army).

The only exception is charitable fundraising,

and that assumes the event meets all the

other requirements for DoD support.
R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003 33

Application of sound judgment is

required to deal with this requirement of

reasonable costs and fees. In the first

instance, your ethics counselor lacks the

credentials of an auditor. Moreover, it is

beyond your ethics counselor’s responsibility to validate that you have met acceptable

accounting standards. You should also

understand that, in addition to the direct

costs of a conference (e.g., the cost of the

meeting room, liability insurance, printing

and distribution of the brochures, etc.),

there are overhead costs to be allocated to

the event, and some uncertain costs that

must be taken into account, such as risks of

those who register for the event, but fail to

attend. For these reasons, you should always

obtain assurance from the private entity

that its pricing policies comport with the

Joint Ethics Regulation, particularly 

JER 3-211a(7).

Many times, the NFE will obtain

"approval" from the DoD Assistant Secretary

of Defense for Public Affairs for the event.

This approval is other than an endorsement,

or an authorization for official temporary

duty travel, or permission for DoD personnel or organizations to provide support.

Rather, it is a finding of no legal objection to

individual DoD component commands or

organizations approving the attendance or

participation of its employees in the event.

This indicates that the event meets the criteria of JER 3-211a, to include that the fee

charge is reasonable.

Thus, if the event has received DoD

“approval,” you may conclude that someone

in authority has reviewed the matter and

concluded that the costs of attending the

event are within an acceptable range.

However, if you are unable to infer from

this approval that you must provide any

support requested by the private organization, you are still free to refuse the

requested support, whether you consider

the event too expensive or for any other

legitimate reason. The situation should

never happen where the employee expresses

“relief” when an Ethics Counselor advises

him or her that the employee is prohibited

from speaking at a particular event. This

has happened innumerable times where the

employee actually is unwilling to speak at a

particular event, but felt compelled to do 

so and lacked the courage to refuse!

Remember, agreeing to speak or provide

any other support must be driven by the

Army's needs, taking into account all mission and readiness requirements.

Finally, if you are asked to support a

fundraising event, all the above criteria

apply, except that the non-Federal entity

may charge more than the cost of the event.

In addition, if the sponsor of the fundraising event is affiliated with the Combined

Federal Campaign (CFC) and wants to

solicit in the Federal workplace, it must first

obtain Office of Personnel Management

(OPM) approval.

One can summarize the criteria as follows:

1. Is there a legitimate Army interest in

providing the support?

2. Is the event valuable? (Is the Army

receiving its money’s worth?)

3. Does some law or regulation 

prevent it?

4. Is the sponsoring organization 

producing profits from the taxpayerfunded support?

Should the Support be Provided?

The Secretary of the Army has issued

blanket determinations that permit some

Army employees to accept gifts of free

attendance at some private organization

events. One of his caveats has been:

My above determination and approval

do not constitute an Army endorsement of [the organization or its event],

nor are they Army approval for providing specific levels or types of support

to the events. Approval for support to

the events must be accomplished by

the commander concerned pursuant to

law, regulation, and appropriate

resource management.

“Appropriate resource management” is

important. It might be appropriate and fiscally responsible to expend a few thousand

dollars for an officer to prepare and deliver

a speech at a local symposium. However,

expending tens of thousands of dollars in

the support of the same event might raise

critical Congressional interest unless the

Army can produce sound analysis for this

type of expenditure in support of a private

organization event.

There is an additional consideration: how

much support overall is being provided by

the Army? By DoD? You might be the only

speaker requested from your organization,

but there might be another dozen Army/

DoD speakers also participating. The overall support could reach that critical point

where the event is actually an Army or DoD

event. Should the event and our participation be of critical importance to the Army,

then it likely better for the Army/DoD participants to establish their own event and

contract with a private organization to

arrange the details for presenting the event.

Conversely, it may be that the event

should be a joint effort because the subject

matter of the event consists of scientific,

technical or professional issues in which

both the Army and the private organization

share a mutual interest. In this type of situation, the Army could co-sponsor the event

with the private organization. Co-sponsorship can result in the “best of both worlds”

for both the Army and the private sponsor,

and will be the subject of a future article.

Conclusion.

At all times, you are encouraged to seek

the advice and counsel of your Ethics

Counselor in determining whether you or

one of your subordinates may participate

in providing support to a private organization event.

About the Author

Mr. Matt Reres is the Deputy General

Counsel (Ethics & Fiscal) in the Army’s

Office of the General Counsel.
34 R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003

T

his paper reviews three personnel considerations

for use in right-sizing organizations. First, involve

the employees in the process early on to establish

employee buy-in. Next, plan the right-sizing effort so that

the final divisions represent a fully functional organization. Lastly, retain your quality employees so that both

experience and organizational history are retained 

within each of the divisions.

Right-sizing and 

Personnel Considerations
R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003 35

Getting it Right

As we move down the road over the next few years to reduce

staffing costs in order to fund procurement and repair actions,

we should not lose sight of what our end goals are in terms of

readiness. That is, we should not be so focused on the

cost savings aspect that we lose sight of whether

the organization retains its operational capability to perform its missions. This can and does

happen, and when it does, it necessitates

either rehiring or hiring new people to

bring the organization’s staff back to a sufficient readiness level. Likewise, we should

minimize the personnel and organizational disruptions that occur during a

right-sizing effort, so that the remaining

personnel are able to focus on their jobs,

rather than on anxieties about their continued

employment and concerns about fellow workers.

To these ends, there are basically three general concepts that can be used to minimize negative personnel

impacts:

• Involve employees in the process early on

• Plan the right-sizing

• Retain quality employees

Involve Employees in the Process Early on

By involving the employees, one might be pleasantly surprised

at the results. For instance, the employees may be able to come

up with cost savings and efficiencies that were not evident to

management (e.g., redesigning work processes, utilization of

alternative work hours, participation in early retirements, accepting downgraded positions, etc). One example of where this has

been successful has been in the airline industry, where both

United and Southwest Airlines have saved millions of dollars by

involving their personnel, as part of their stock ownership process, in ways to improve operations. This makes the process a collaborative effort, rather than a one-sided approach. In addition,

secretive decision processes about personnel actions do not long

remain so, and when they are discovered, tend to alienate the

employees; and can well create subsequent rumors that are even

more destructive to morale than the intended reduction.

Plan the Right-sizing

First, across-the-board cuts do not usually work very well.

This sacrifices planning for the sake of perceived fairness. It also

relinquishes control over the direction of the organization in

accomplishing its future missions. A further downside to this

practice, is that it can easily lead to eliminating more positions

than are optimal to the operation of the organization, and may

even result in mission failures, due to lack of knowledgeable or

skilled personnel for special tasks.

Next, avoid repetitive waves of right-sizings, for they can lead

to lower employee morale, and subsequently to lower productivity. This action, like the across the board cuts mentioned above,

may also attempt to be “fairer” by not cutting very many positions at one time, but ends up creating an environment in

which the employees become uncertain when the

next right-sizing axe will strike.

Lastly, the jobs should be redesigned as part

of the effort. This involves planning which

jobs to cut, which functions to cut, and

what procedures need to be modified,

given a smaller workforce to perform the

missions. As part of this process, special

emphasis needs to be given to eliminating

unnecessary tasks and inefficient operations. The redesigning of functions is perhaps one of the most critical considerations

in a right-sizing effort, for it is only through

adapting the work processes that a more efficient

and effective organization can be achieved.

Retain Quality Employees

The government has spent a considerable amount of money

on the education and training of its workforce, especially its

Acquisition Corps personnel. As such, it does not make sense to

consider them as billets on an expense ledger. This is borne out

by private industry, which usually considers existing government

workers as a key to performing outsourced government missions,

and actively recruits both retired and current employees for their

government contracts. In addition, it will probably be the top talent within an organization who will first jump ship in a right-sizing process, thus losing these skilled individuals from your eventual organization. As such, every attempt should be made to keep

the organization’s most skilled personnel by involving them in

the decision-making process during the right-sizing effort, and

making them aware that their skills and knowledge are both

appreciated and needed by the organization.

About the Author

William N. Washington is an operations research analyst with the

Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Resource Management, HQ

CECOM, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. He has a BS degree from

Kansas State University and an MS degree from Trinity University.

His doctoral studies were in Measurement, Evaluation and

Research Design at Michigan State University. He is a graduate of

the Army Acquisition Corps Senior Service College (1995), and the

Advanced Program Management Course (96-2).

This article was previously published in the Armed Forces Comptroller.

Involve employees in

the process early on

Plan the right-sizing

Retain quality

employees
36 R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003

Resource Management (RM) functional

area, the reviewable inventory includes

1,879 military spaces and 3,581 civilian

spaces. The spaces come from both the

Military Table of Organization and

Equipment (MTOE) and Table of

Distribution and Allowances (TDA). The

MTOE spaces include all those military in

our finance detachments and battalions.

The TDA spaces include military and civilians below MACOM level.

Our approach is to review the entire RM

functional area. We will review our fiduciary responsibilities within the existing

statutory framework and evaluate business

processes and competitive sourcing strategies. More specifically, we are examining

our title 10 responsibilities and other pertinent laws addressing RM functions, benchmarking with the private sector, and looking at what we have already outsourced.

Recognizing the need for career progression

and given the portability of personnel in

the Federal Employees Retirement System

(FERS), we are trying to view the personnel

system in a transformational way. We are

considering the need to have a more robust

system for lateral hires from all sources,

rather than relying to the greatest extent on

traditional hierarchical structures. We also

are taking into account the increasing complexity of the RM mission and the need to

make strategic and operational financial

management decisions as we deal with new

financial challenges, such as the changes in

management focus as we transform the

Army to the Objective Force and increased

contingency operations supporting the

Global War on Terrorism.

Based on our final assessment of the RM

functional area, we will submit any requests

for exemption to the Office of the Assistant

Secretary of the Army (Manpower and

Reserve Affairs) by November 29, 2002. An

Implementation plan for all non-core

spaces will be developed and submitted to

the Non-Core Competencies Working

Group. The Implementation Plan will

“package” spaces into units/groups appropriate for A–76 study or other competitive

sourcing initiatives to aggressively support

the President’s Management Agenda. We

will update you in a future article on the

status of exemption requests and the development of our Implementation Plan.

.

The Third Wave of

Public-Private

Competitions

by Sharon A Weinhold

In an October 4, 2002 memorandum,

Secretary of the Army Thomas White

announced The Third Wave of public-private competitions. The purpose of The

Third Wave is for the Army to focus its

energies and talents on its core competencies and obtain its non-core products and

services from the private sector where it

makes sense. It allows the Army to aggressively support the Competitive Sourcing

Initiative of the President’s Management

Agenda and Department of Defense’s commitment to the Office of Management and

Budget to compete half of the FAIR inventory. A primary goal is to quickly free up

resources for the global war on terrorism.

The White memorandum identifies

58,727 military and 154,910 civilian spaces

as non-core spaces that are potentially eligible for private sector performance. For the

PERSPECTIVES

The following sections were written by different OASA (FM&C) deputies. Not every deputy will provide input for this feature.

RB Perspectives for RMJ Business Initiatives Council (BIC)

by Sharon A Weinhold

On November 13, the Secretary of the Army approved 12 new Army business initiatives, bringing the total number of approved Army 

initiatives to 35. Of the twelve initiatives, six apply only to the Army and will be implemented immediately. The other six initiatives have

potential DoD-wide application, and these will be submitted to the Department of Defense BIC, as they may have benefits that could be

extended across all the military services. A complete list of approved Army initiatives can be found on the ASA(FM&C) Website at

http://www.asafm.army.mil\bic.asp.

The Secretary of the Army has institutionalized the BIC effort as an ongoing Army program. Each quarter he asks each MACOM commander and HQDA staff principal to submit at least one Army business initiative. These initiatives are evaluated through an accelerated review

and decision process at HQDA, with the Secretary making the Go/No Go decisions. The recent approval of 12 initiatives marks the successful

completion of the third quarterly cycle. Individuals who want to submit proposed BIC initiatives may do so through their MACOM points of

contact, who are identified at http://www.asafm.army.mil\bic.asp.

The Army is seeking initiatives that generate savings, avoid costs, leverage assets, and improve business operations and processes. As an

incentive, MACOMs may retain a significant portion of the savings that accrue from executing the initiatives.

The support provided by MACOMs and installations so far in submitting initiatives and commenting on initiatives has been great. The

number and quality of initiatives have improved each cycle. We thank you for your continued effort to make the BIC program a success, and

we look forward to receiving your submissions.
Financial Operations Perspectives

The Government Travel Card Program

offers substantial benefits to the Army and

its personnel. Army units save $26 each time

a travel card is used instead of a government

travel advance—with over $600,000 in travel

card charges in FY 2001, the savings for unit

travel budgets is obvious. And compared to

a government travel advance, the travel card

gives Army travelers greater purchasing

power and lets them travel on a moment’s

notice. If you’ve been watching the news,

however, you know that cardholder misuse

and delinquency have tarnished our reputation and put these benefits in jeopardy.

Congressional hearings last March and

July and a report by the General Accounting

Office pointed out serious problems with

the Army travel card program: a high rate of

cardholder delinquency on their travel card

balances; wide-spread misuse of the card for

personal purchases; potentially fraudulent

activity like paying travel card bills with

checks that were not backed by sufficient

funds; travel card coordinators not given

time to perform their duties; and managers

and commanders not taking disciplinary

action on problem cardholders. In short,

these problems can be traced to unacceptable behavior by cardholders—especially

those in the lower enlisted ranks—and the

failure of units to prevent or correct it.

What’s the result of all this bad press? A

DoD Charge Card Task Force produced a

range of corrective actions. My office

worked with the Task Force and developed

guidance to commands that is now awaiting

approval. Finally, the Congress has stepped

in and directed some specific measures.

What kind of actions can you expect to

see? There are several significant items

underway: the Deputy Secretary of Defense

directed management at all levels to ensure

the necessary program oversight; Congress

directed DoD to issue policy guidance on

taking disciplinary action; DoD investigative

agencies have been directed to forward evidence of card misuse to local commanders

and security managers to determine whether

this affects the cardholder’s security clearance; the number of travel cards in force will

be substantially reduced; DoD will exempt

use of the card for deployments and PCS

moves; and alternative card products will be

explored for problem cardholders. Further

down the road, DoD will explore the use of

data-mining techniques to detect suspicious

transactions.

These actions are necessary, but they will

have costs: fewer cards and more exemptions

from card use will mean more government

advances at higher cost; alternative card

products will be more expensive and less

flexible; and greater emphasis on data-mining, disciplinary action and security clearances, means some of our problem cardholders may not be with us in the future.

All of this turmoil is unfortunate, because

the travel card program is simple: use your

travel card for official travel expenses, file

your travel claim upon return, and pay your

travel card bill on time, using split disbursement. If you’re a commander or supervisor,

it’s also simple: make your expectations

clear, tell your travel card coordinator to

keep you informed of delinquency and misuse, and confront problem cardholders. If

you take these steps, you will send a strong

signal to your cardholders. If you don’t,

you’ll send another signal to your cardholders: No one is watching!

R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003 37

The Department of Defense Travel Card Program

by Colonel William M. Landrum III
38 R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003

To help the Army Resource Management

community in executing its challenging

missions, a new series of conferences has

been instituted. In announcing the Army

Resource Managers’ Conferences, the

Honorable Sandra Pack, the ASA (FM&C),

established three broad objectives: to provide a regular forum for members of the

community to share information, to

enhance teamwork, and to remain focused

on supporting the warfight and our customers. The Army will conduct three conferences per year: in December to focus on

the current and budget years, in May to discuss key mid-year issues, and in September

to assess results of the year that is drawing

to a close.

While each conference will have a particular focus area, the consistent overarching theme is: the soldiers and units who

are on the front lines in combat operations. Each conference will include an

operations-oriented presentation from soldiers who have been deployed in support

of the warfight, to ensure that Army

resource managers stay focused on their

ultimate customers—soldiers.

Secretary Pack hosted the inaugural conference December 2-4, 2002, at the

Georgetown University Conference Center

in Washington, DC. Over 120 resource

management professionals from Army

Headquarters, major commands, program

executive offices, military and civilian educational institutions, and ASMC attended.

In her opening remarks, Mrs. Pack noted

that the events of the past 15 months have

produced an exceptionally tumultuous

world, and that the role of resource managers has never been more critical. She

stated that to succeed, resource managers

must approach their tasks in a comprehensive manner–one team, one fight. In her philosophy of resource management, she views

the RM community as a “big tent” that

encompasses practitioners from many different fields—planning, programming, budgeting, accounting, education—each of which

is critical to overall success. Her intent is to

use the conferences as a vehicle for regular

communication among all the practitioners.

Members of the 101st Airborne Division

(Air Assault) Brigade Combat Team and

Third U.S. Army, who recently returned

from Afghanistan, presented the first briefing. The briefers provided a comprehensive

overview of their deployment and in-country operations, and discussed the support

provided by the resource management,

finance, and contracting staffs.

Additional briefings, presented by subject

matter experts from Army Headquarters and

the OSD Staff, addressed the following topics:

• FY03 budget issues

• FY04 budget outlook

• Army outsourcing initiatives

• Civilian manpower management issues

• Automation initiatives (the Financial

Management Enterprise Architecture, the

Defense Travel System, and other DoD and

Army systems)

• Issues associated with the government

travel card and purchase card

• The Army’s approach to implementing the

Balanced Scorecard.

The briefing files, along with additional

information on the conferences, can be

viewed or downloaded at the Resource

Managers’ Conference web page

(http://www.asafm.army.mil/secretariat/document/rmc/rmc.asp). This site will provide

information on the conference series and

on each conference as it becomes available.

At the conclusion of the first full day of

the conference, the attendees gathered for

a dinner presentation by Mr. Ron

Castleman, the Director of Region VI in

the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA). Mr. Castleman noted

similarities between FEMA and the Army,

describing his agency’s sustained and significant OPTEMPO level, and the

demands that it places on both operators

and support staff. He also spoke of the

effective working relationship between

FEMA and DoD, and particularly of the

close association between FEMA and the

Army. He noted with pleasure that senior

leaders in the Army Corps of Engineers

sometimes refer to their organization as

“FEMA’s engineers,” and that both FEMA

and COE are proud of the strong bond

they have established.

At the conclusion of the two-day event,

attendees were almost unanimous in recognizing the conference as an excellent

opportunity for Army Headquarters to give

MACOMs a better understanding of timely

resource management issues and, more

importantly, for the resource management

community to become a more cohesive

and effective team.

Mrs. Pack echoed these thoughts in her

concluding remarks. She said that all three

conference objectives had been met: to

exchange information on important

resource management topics, to lay the

foundation for improved teamwork

among resource management professionals, and to provide a vivid reminder of the

Army’s critical combat missions. She

thanked the participants for their attendance, and encouraged them to continue

to build on the dialogue that had been 

initiated at the conference.

About the Author

Mr. Joseph Romito, a Senior Research Fellow

at the Logistics Management Institute in

McLean, Virginia, assists OASA(FM&C) on

a wide range of projects. Mr. Romito is a

former career Army officer whose final

active duty assignment was as a division

chief in the Army Budget Office at HQDA.

professional Development

Army Resource Managers’ Conferences
R e source Management / 2nd Quarter 2003 39

To begin the professional development

journey as a comptroller it would be wise

to visit the ASA (FM&C) Army

Comptroller Proponency Office website at

http://www.asafm.army.mil/proponency/ac

po.asp. This site provides several

comptroller reference materials such as a

draft comptroller professional development

guide as well as a separate section dedicated

to professional development that describes

several courses and programs. By examining the various course and program prerequisites you will be able to develop a strategy

to become competitive for those opportunities that look interesting and will contribute to your overall career plan.

Another section of the website includes

several tools that are to be used in conjunction with a mentoring program but some

of the tools can also be used to develop a

basic understanding of your present situation. One important advantage of these

tools is that they must be written down to

provide a personal record that can be referenced often and used as a measuring stick.

The first tool is a self assessment form. It

can be used to reflect on your past and present choices and attitudes. The second tool

is a career goals and development plan.

This plan requires the creation of goals and

then the development of specific objectives,

planned actions and a timeframe for completion.

Professional development is important

for several reasons. One reason is to remain

competitive and relevant in the current climate of globalization and technological

advancements. Not updating your skill sets

risks job obsolesce and reduces job performance. Statistically, those that pursue

developmental opportunities also achieve

higher lifetime earnings. According to a

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines

professional as relating to or a characteristic

of a profession which is a calling requiring

specialized knowledge. Development is

defined as the act, process, or result of

developing, making clear by degrees or in

detail. When combined, professional development refers to the incremental creation of

knowledge required for employment.

Professional development takes many

forms. It can be informal such as when you

observe a creative technique or solution

being used by a coworker or during workplace conversations. It can also be structured

such as during classes, training sessions or

conferences. Professional development can be

mandatory when directed by the organization or if stated as a prerequisite. It can also

be voluntary as with professional associations

and reading journals or books.

How do you get a handle on the concept

of professional development when its latitude is so wide? To know where you are

going you need to know where you are.

This requires developing a professional history. A good starting point is to update

your resume and past job responsibilities.

Next prepare a list of all your formal educational accomplishments whether through a

college or school or a certification program

or workshop.

After compiling records from the past

you need to determine what professional

development opportunities will either

improve your ability to work at your current assignment or prepare you to move to

another job responsibility. Note that professional development is not always directed

toward advancement but can also be

focused to improve performance in your

current position or even open the prospect

for a lateral transfer.

recent report from the Commerce

Department's Census Bureau, the level of

education is a good predictor of your

“work-life” earnings. Earnings were

reported as follows: high school $1.2 million, bachelor’s $2.1 million, master’s $2.5

million, doctoral $3.4 million and professional degrees at $4.4 million.

Several professions that include attorneys, teachers, accountants, finance and

insurance professionals all stress the importance of professional development by mandating the completion of a certain number

of continuing education credits. This

requirement helps to support the reputation and climate of those people working

in their industry. Several studies also indicate that the use of professional development programs in organizations increases

overall performance, reduces turnover,

increases retention, and creates an

improved work environment.

As Louis Brandeis stated back in 1927,

“those who won our independence

believed that the final end of the State was

to make men free to develop their faculties...” As trusted federal agents, how are

you professionally developing yourself so

you can contribute to the effective operation of government?

About the Author

Major Marcus Seitz is a member Syracuse

University, Army Comptrollership Program

Class of 2003.

Professional Development
40 R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003

and informal activities. Formally, they present two eight-minute, Financial

Management related briefings to students

assigned to their seminar; participate in

small group seminars and guided discussions; and ask questions and provide input

during guest speaker presentations.

Informally, they interact during classroom

breaks, ad hoc study groups, and optional

social activities. Just this morning a Navy

student stopped by my desk to tell me about

something she learned from a fellow Air

Force student the night before—and to ask

me how the Army approaches the same

issue. Not only did their interaction teach

her something about the Air Force—it then

inspired her to learn something more about

the Army. What a testament to the impact

students have on each other throughout the

6-week course!

By now, I hope you fully agree that PMCS

does in fact leverage intellectual resources to

provide its students with the best financial

management education in DoD. From guest

speakers, to permanent faculty, to the students themselves, all three groups are critical parts of the PMCS experience. Whether

you refer to their combined success as synergy or leveraging, the results are still the

same—94% of the school’s last 799 graduates rated PMCS mission accomplishment

as “excellent” or better and 95% rated quality of instruction the same. Therefore, for

our PMCS alumni we look forward to your

potential return as a permanent faculty or

guest speaker. And for those who have not

yet attended, we encourage you to come

experience what we have to offer—and in

the process help us educate tomorrow’s

DoD financial leaders! 

About the Author

Lieutenant Colonel Steve Hodges is a Military

Faculty Member, US Army Advisory Group

Air University.

auditors and others also make themselves

available to our students, through the

school, to help educate DoD’s current and

future financial leaders. Where else would

this same cadre of speakers, in one six-week

period, travel to your location to educate

you? That’s a tough question to answer, so

let’s move on.

As we move on, we must recognize that

the school’s guest speaker and educational

programs could not exist without the tireless efforts of its permanent faculty. This

group of individuals acts as the school’s

cornerstone—the piece that brings the students and the speakers together. They

develop, implement and execute curriculum; present introductory briefings that

provide a baseline for guest speaker presentations; lead diverse seminars and small

group discussions; evaluate research papers

and speeches; schedule and host guest

speakers; coordinate student billeting and

transportation; and more. A cross-section

of DoD (United States Army, United States

Air Force, United States Navy and Defense

Finance and Accounting Service), they all

bring a wealth of experience, education and

professional certifications to the education

process. Some are previous commanders,

others have operational backgrounds, and

still others have finance, cost and economics experience. But regardless of their

backgrounds and credentials, they are all

dedicated professionals who want nothing

more than to educate professional resource

managers who can then positively impact

DoD’s future.

With that, we come to the third and final

group of our intellectual triad—the students themselves. While PMCS students are

technically “educatees,” they are also educators. Like our guest speakers and permanent

faculty, they are a diverse, joint group of

both military and civilians that bring a

wealth of individual knowledge and experience to the school. During PMCS, they

share this experience and knowledge with

other students through a variety of formal

In the operational world we often hear

commanders and warfighters talk of synergy – the process of employing combat

capability in such a way as to make the total

greater than the sum of the individual parts.

However, we don’t often hear that in the

financial world. Instead, we tend to talk

about leveraging resources—and loosely

defined I see little difference between the

two. Therefore, I’m happy to report that the

Department of Defense (DoD) Professional

Military Comptroller School (PMCS) leverages intellectual resources to provide its students with the best financial management

education in DoD. PMCS brings guest

speakers, permanent faculty and professional students together in one location to

maximize the strengths of each group as

they relate to the student’s entire education.

Therefore, it is not uncommon for our students to routinely recognize these groups

among the top school strengths each and

every class. So, with that in mind let’s take a

closer look at these professionals.

To begin with, we have the school’s guest

speaker program—which is no doubt its

academic centerpiece. Without the sixty to

seventy speakers who support each 6-week

class, we could not have PMCS as we know

it today. These speakers represent a horizontal and vertical cross-section of DoD, as

well as a sample of various public and private academic disciplines. Although some

are full-time academes, most are pure, professional resource managers dedicated to

educating PMCS students. They are subject

matter experts who “live” their presentations each and every day. At each class, the

Assistant Secretary of the Army for

Financial Management and Comptroller,

one of her sister-service equivalents, or one

of their senior representatives make themselves available to speak to and interact with

our students. Similarly, senior Defense

Finance and Accounting Service leaders,

Defense Travel Service Project Management

Office representatives, cost analysts,

professional Development

Department of Defense Professional Military Comptroller School—

Leveraging Intellectual Resources
R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003 41

The Commission on Roles and Missions (1995) recommended improved personnel policies and programs to enhance the quality of the Department of Defense (DoD) civilian

workforce. DLAMP was established in April 1997, as a systematic program of “joint” civilian

leader training, education, and development within and across DoD.

A review of DLAMP conducted in 2001 reaffirmed the original tenet of the program and

resulted in significant program changes which were announced by the Under Secretary of

Defense in December 2001. The refocused program is more flexible, cost-effective, and efficient in meeting short- and long-term requirements for highly capable civilian leaders.

DLAMP has admitted a total of 1, 658 participants; 1,353 are active at this time. Army

DLAMP selections total 402, of which 333 are active participants. The DLAMP Class of 2002

(272 participants, including 84 Army civilians) was admitted in June and attended

Orientation on September 30, 2002, in Arlington, Virginia. The first eight participants graduated from DLAMP in October 2000.

One of them was an Army participant. An additional 74 participants have been selected for

positions in the Senior Executive Service, of whom seven were Army DLAMP participants.

The original FY02 budget was $60.6M, but based on the savings attributed to the refocused program, the budget was revised to $31.8M. The President’s Budget request for FY

2003 was $38.3M. Congress appropriated $19.1M, and stipulated that any reductions to the

DLAMP program “cannot be applied to the leased facility in Southbridge, Massachusetts.”

That cost is approximately $10M in FY03.

Despite efforts by senior Department officials, no alternative funds were available to offset

the cut. Accordingly, DoD will be unable to provide the full level of activity that was planned

for FY03. Detailed information on the affect on each program element is as follows:

a. Professional Military

Education (PME): 

• All students currently enrolled in PME,

to include the March 2003 starts at the

College of Naval Warfare, will continue in

those programs. Funding for travel and per

diem is unaffected.

• All DLAMP courses at the School for

National Security Executive Education

(SNSEE) scheduled for January through

September 2003 are cancelled. For PME

Academic Year 2003/04, the requirement to

complete prerequisite courses prior to

attending PME is suspended.

• PME for Academic Year 2003/04 is otherwise unaffected. The Army DLAMP Office

is accepting applications for the PME seats

until close of business January 16, 2003.

b. Graduate Education: 

• Funding for graduate education is suspended and will be restarted when adequate funding is available.

• Participants with tuition assistance

pending for the January 2003 semester will

be advised of their status directly from the

DoD DLAMP Office.

• There will be no new starts for degree

programs or any round-out courses (core

MBA subjects in business management and

public policy) for the remainder of FY03.

DoD will update us on any new developments throughout the year. We look forward to a stronger program in FY 2004. For

additional information contact Ms. Penny

Berardelli at (703) 325-7261.

• All participants will have a master’s degree upon completion of the program.

• Based on an individual needs assessment, participants possessing a master’s degree

may attend up to six graduate courses to round out their academic portfolio in critical business management or public policy areas.

• Graduate education is provided by civilian academic institutions predominately

located in the participants’ commuting area.

• All participants will attend five preparatory courses in national security studies and

leadership taught by the National Defense University.

• All participants will complete Professional Military Education (PME) through a

Senior Service School or approved alternative (e.g., Senior Service School distance

learning program).

• Rotational assignments will be encouraged, but not funded, for all participants.

Refocused Defense Leadership and

Management Program (DLAMP)

Core elements of the refocused program include:
42 R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003

Graduate Management Admission Test

(GMAT) Fee Reimbursement

Military service members, Active, Reserve, and National Guard, looking to take the GMAT

may be eligible for reimbursement of their $200 test fee. To receive the reimbursement the

service member must:

• have a current Armed Forces of the United States identification card

• not have received a prior GMAT reimbursement from DANTES 

• be applying to or enrolled in a graduate school requiring the GMAT or be fulfilling a

legitimate service requirement.

To receive the reimbursement you must file within 90 days after the test was scheduled.

You will be required to have the Army Education Center or Installation Defense Activity for

Non-Traditional Education Support (DANTES) Test Control Officer (TCO) complete and

sign the reimbursement form and attach your official scores with it. For more information

you can contact your local Army Education Center or review the DANTES Examinations

Programs Handbook at the following link

http://www.dantes.doded.mil/dantes_web/library/docs/deph/Part2/FY03Chapter8GMAT.rtf.

The reimbursement form can be found online at

http://www.dantes.doded.mil/dantes%5Fweb/library/docs/examinations/gregeneralgmat_reimb_form.doc.

Reserve Resource Managers Augment

Army Headquarters Staff

professional Development

Sustaining Base

Leadership and

Management

Program

Program Policy

Change

Sustaining Base Leadership and

Management Program (SBLMP) at

the Army Management Staff

College (AMSC) Ft. Belvoir, VA

provides graduate-level professional

development by teaching competencies that add to the body of

knowledge and experience in sustaining base leadership management and decision making for high

potential Army employees.

The Army Management Staff

College (AMSC) will begin accepting GS-11s for the SBLM non-resident class beginning with Class

NR04 (19 May 2003 - 28 July 2004).

Applications must include the

“Request for Grade Waiver”.

Previously, GS-11s were only

considered for the Resident class,

however, the course director has

deemed it appropriate to accept

board-selected GS-11s for the nonresident program as well.

Interested personnel who meet

the criteria as described in the

ACTEDS Catalog are invited to

apply through their chain of command to the DCSPER G1. Military

personnel may apply via their

Branch Assignments Officer or

through the Registrar at AMSC.

Headquarters Department of

the Army POC for this program 

is Maxine Matthews on 

(703) 602-5383.

Are you looking for us? If you’re an Army

Reservist in need of “good years,” we may be

looking for you. The 161st Individual

Mobilization Detachment (IMA) is an activity seeking officers and senior noncommissioned officers to fill key IMA and drilling

IMA billets beginning this October.

The 161st supports the Office of the

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial

Management and Comptroller)

(OASA(FM&C)). Its missions include

researching and analyzing Army financial

and resource management issues; supporting Headquarters Department of the Army

and Joint Chiefs of Staff exercises; and

administering the OASA (FM&C) IMA and

mobilization table of distribution and

allowance programs.

IMA or drilling IMA membership in the

unit will offer you the opportunity to earn

retirement points required to qualify for a

creditable retirement year (“good year”), an

annual officer or enlisted evaluation report,

Army Awards or decorations, and at least 12

Days annual training. Members are also eligible to participate in resident education

and training programs.

A drilling IMA will receive 24 periods of

inactive duty for training in a paid status.

Typically, a number of our members who

occupy IMA position perform their annual

training in Washington, D.C., with the

OASA (FM&C)

In order to be considered for one of the

drilling IMA slots with the detachment,

please provide a current biographical summary along with a cover letter to:

Commander 161st IMA detachment

(OASA-FM&C)

109 Army Pentagon

Washington, DC 20310–0109

To learn more about opportunities with the

161st, contact:

LTC Johnnie Walton

johnnie.wlaton@usdoj.gov (202) 305-2035 or

MAJ Judy Rogers judy.c.rogers@usdoj.gov

(202) 514-2907.
R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003 43

Acceptance Speech

by Steve Bonta,

Director of Defense Finance and Accounting Service,

Indianapolis Center

Leonard F. Keenan Memorial Award Recipient

Mrs. Pack, Mr. Gregory, Major General Sinn, Vice Chancellor

Freund, Dean Burman, Dave Berg, Faculty, Class 50 and distinguished guests. It is a privilege for me to be standing here today

and an honor to be given the Leonard F. Keenan award, named for

the man whose achievements and influence in the

Comptrollership community were so vast.

When I graduated from the Army Comptrollership Program 13

years ago, it never occurred to me that I would someday be a

recipient of this prestigious award. I am honored to receive this

award amongst the current Army resource management leadership as well as the future RM leadership, this ACP graduating class

of 2002. I thought I would always work for the Army, however, I

consider it a great privilege to serve as the Defense Finance and

Accounting Service Client Executive for the Army. I am the son of

a retired Army Colonel and have been associated with the Army

for 45 years. What my dad taught me, what the Army

Comptrollership Program instilled in me, and what I believe Mr.

Keenan stood for is that integrity and commitment to our

Country and to the men and women who defend America is

paramount.

To class 50. Selection to this program was your management's

vote of confidence in your potential to be a future leader in the

Army. Eventually, many of you will be assuming senior leadership

positions. I have 3 pieces of advice for you as you continue to

move through your career.

First, always take care of your people. You will never be successful alone. Be loyal to them and they will be loyal to you.

Second, take care of your customer. Our soldiers on point rely

on us. We need to provide efficient, cost-effective, quality service

to them so they can focus on their mission. The soldiers who protect our freedom are our ultimate customers. And whether you

work for DFAS or within the Army resource management community, our responsibility is to provide them with quality customer service.

Third, don’t forget about yourself. You are all highly motivated

or you wouldn’t be here but you must have balance in your life. It

took me a few years after Syracuse to realize this but your personal

well-being is as important as your career. My balance is my wife

Bridget and my son Christopher and I am fortunate to have them

here today. They are the loves of my life.

As you move throughout the world returning to your jobs, I

encourage you to create this balance in your life which includes

something to strive for, someone to love, and having an overall

purpose of living and acting with honor and integrity.

Congratulations and good luck to you, Class 50. I wish you all

the best as you transition into the Army financial community.

This was the opportunity of a lifetime. Make the most of it.

Thank you.

Acceptance Speech

by Colonel Kenneth A. Pierson,

LTG James F. McCall Award Recipient

Vice Chancellor Freund, Dean Bruman, Associate Dean Bobrowski,

Honorable Pack, Mr. Gregory, Major General Sinn, Colonel 

Retired Berg, Distinguished Guests, Graduating Students, Ladies 

and Gentlemen.

I am very excited to be here today to finally participate in an Army

Comptrollership Program graduation ceremony. I departed Syracuse

early to start the Army Command and General Staff College. For fifteen

years I have regretted not being in this hall with my classmates. I thank

you very much for this opportunity.

When I received word from Dave Berg that I was this year’s recipient

of the James F. McCall resource management award, my immediate

reactions were pride, surprise and concern. I was very proud of the fact

that I was being recognized for possessing some of the same attributes

as Lieutenant General McCall, a man I have tried to emulate during

my career. At the same time, I was extremely surprised, and filled with

a great sense of humility, knowing how many outstanding senior military comptrollers there currently are in our Army. Candidly, any of my

ACP classmates will readily tell you that Ken Pierson was not one of

the mental giants in the class of 1987. Finally, I was a little concerned.

You see I knew that the last two officers before me retired before they

received this award. I couldn’t help but wonder if maybe the Army is

trying to tell me something.

Most of you don’t know me, and it is not likely you will remember my

name very long after you leave here today. So I want to impart upon you

five tips that I believe will help you during your journey toward senior

financial leadership. Since 1992 a great member of our profession, Terry

Placek has engrained in me the importance of mentorship. You may not

remember the name Ken Pierson, but perhaps my counsel this morning

will have a lasting impact on your professional growth and development.

First, apply the Army Values in everything you do. They are nine simple words – loyalty, duty, respect, self-less service, honor, integrity and

personal courage – but they define who you are as a financial manager, a

leader and as a person. Every issue you face, or decision you make in our

business, involves weighing or invoking one or more of these values.

Second, become connected with the ACP alumni network. Former

Syracuse graduates possess a wealth of financial management experience and wisdom and they are more than happy to share with and

mentor you.

Third, take care of yourself mentally, physically and spiritually. Don’t

ever trust anyone that tells you that losing annual leave is a good thing.

Fourth, grow people – train and develop your subordinates. I

believe that the future of our profession depends on how successful

we are at developing our successors. I challenge you to make the

commitment now.

Fifth, and most important, make spending time with family and

friends a priority. How well you balance work and play will be your true

measure of success. Don’t let your only claim to fame be what rank you

achieved or how many hours you spent at the office.

Congratulations Class of 2002. I wish you great success in your career

and the Lord’s richest blessings in you life. Thank you again for this

acknowledgment. Now go forth and be the Army’s mentors. . .

Army Comptrollership Program Class 50
44 R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003

The School of Management’s Army Comptrollership Program celebrated 50 years of

training financial managers for the U.S. Army by hosting a national conference this

month—and by updating the program.

The conference, “The Future of Financial Management in a Period of Major Defense

Transition,” featured Sandra L. Pack, assistant secretary of the Army for financial management and comptroller. Other speakers included Ernest J. Gregory, Pack’s principal deputy;

Francis E. Reardon, auditor general of the Army; Major Gen. Jerry L. Sinn, deputy assistant

secretary of the Army for budget; Lt. Gen. (Ret.) James Franklin McCall, former comptroller

of the Army materiel command and director of the Army budget; and Steve Bonta, director

of sustaining forces, defense finance and accounting service, Indianapolis Center.

“The conference was a good transition from academia to the real world,” says 2002

graduate Lisa Titus. “It will make our job transitions all that much easier.”

Also speaking at the conference was Col. (Ret.) David B. Berg, director of the ACP.

Along with Berg, who graduated in the ACP’s 25th class, McCall and Bonta are also

alumni of the program.

“As a graduate of the program, I can say that I used what I learned at Syracuse every day

of my professional career,” Berg says.

Until now, the ACP was an MBA program for Army officers and Army civilians, the only

program of its kind in the Army. Beginning with the class that started the program in

June, participants will earn dual degrees—an MBA and a master’s of arts in public administration from the Maxwell School.

“The new dual program will provide the ACP graduates with additional policy skills to

accompany the business skills provided by their MBA,” Berg says. “We expect this new

program to be a national model in the education of public sector financial managers.”

The ACP was inaugurated in 1952 in response to financial problems identified during

World War II. More than 1,300 military and civilian personnel have gone through the 14-

month program, preparing them to financially manage conflicts from the Vietnam war to

Desert Storm, as well as fluctuations in the Defense Department budget.

Under the newly updated program, approved by Pack in January, students will take 42 in

the School of Management and 18 in the Maxwell School. In addition, each student must

complete 24 hours of community service, a requirement that has been in place since 1997.

“The 14-month, 60-credit program will test the dedication and time management skills of

the students,” Berg says, “but we fully expect that they can and will be successful.”

“As a graduate of the 

program, I can say that I

used what I learned at

Syracuse every day of my

professional career”

COL. (RET.) DAVID B. BERG

“The conference was a

good transition from

academia to the real world”

2002 GRADUATE LISA TITUS

Army Comptrollership Program Celebrates 50 years with

Conference, Change in Program.

50 Years

Reprint from the Syracuse Record, Syracuse University Newspaper, August 14, 2002
R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003 45

Secondly, one area of the ORB that I

wanted to discuss specifically is the “Duty

Title” column in the Assignment

Information section (Section IX). Due to

the limited space in this column, many job

titles must be abbreviated. Acronyms mean

something to people familiar with the area,

and although many boards will have a FA45

officer representative, time allotted to review

each officers file may not leave time for clarifying questions and answers. Feedback

from members of recent boards highlights

the need to clarify job titles. So we must be

very careful in the use of acronyms and

abbreviations. For example during a recent

review of my ORB my current job title was

listed as “Prop Off.” Even to a FA45 officer

that may not mean a thing, let alone to a

non-FA45 board member trying to review a

file in a few minutes. “DCSRM” is again

crystal clear to FA45 officers, but not necessarily to other non-FA45 board members.

Also ensure the title is correct. Another

recent look at an ORB showed an officer’s

current job title as “Program/Budget

Officer” when in fact he was serving as a

Congressional Budget Liaison Officer. You

must also ensure that the DMOS column

accurately reflects “45A...” not another

functional area code. Another example of an

ambiguous abbreviation is “PGM INTEG.”

There is plenty of space in the column to

accurately reflect this title as “Program

Integrator.” Many times the current job title

is inaccurate due to officers not getting to

review their ORB after reporting to a new

job. A few other abbreviations/acronyms

that could be better expanded include:

As the focus of this issue of RM is on

Professional Development I wanted to

address several FA45 officer career management areas. First is the upkeep of your

personnel documents. I’m specifically

referring to the documents that selection

and promotion boards review in determining your career progression: Officer Record

Brief (ORB), official DA photo and

Performance Fiche. As Major Quinton

McCorvey, FA45 Assignments Officer reiterated in the previous issue of RM you

must “ensure you are aware when the various selection and promotion boards are

scheduled for your year group.

MAJ McCorvey provided detailed information on what to look for in each of the

three documents. I will not go into those

details again, but I do want to talk again

about the ORB to ensure officers understand that this document is also used to

make career decisions beyond the boards

mentioned above. The ORB is your resume

and is used by leaders to assess potential

officers being assigned to them; therefore, it

is imperative for you to ensure your ORB is

up to date and accurate at all times. Today

this is not difficult. Gone are the days of

having to mail a request to PERSCOM, wait

weeks to receive it, and then work hard

copies of documents through your PSB

back to PERSCOM to make changes, and

then again request and wait for a copy to

see if the changes were made. Now you simply go to your servicing PSB and the

changes are inputted while you wait and

you receive a new copy before you leave. In

the future you will be able to review your

ORB from your AKO account. So there are

no excuses for not having an updated ORB.

DRM= Director Resource Mgmt

DCSRM= Dep Chief Staff Resource Mgmt

or DCS Resource Mgmt

Pgm/Bud Analyst= Program/Budget

Analyst

Dep Comp= Deputy Division Comp(troller)

Budget Anal= Budget Analyst

The bottomline is to ensure that your

ORB accurately reflects your assignment history and that all board members can understand that history.

Financial Management Redesign

(FMR) Update

FMR is the financial management community’s transformation into a force that

will be better able to accommodate financial

management (Resource Management &

Financial Operations as defined in Joint Pub

1-06) on the battlefield. The FMR concept is

to redesign the current finance battalions

and commands into units that provide both

financial and resource management support

to the commander. There is a requirement

to have resource management capability on

the battlefield and to have those resource

management requirements documented on

the Table of Organization and Equipment

(TOE). Recent and ongoing deployments

demonstrate the requirement to incorporate

resource management capabilities into the

TOE structure. Currently, the majority of

the Army's resource management capability

is documented only on Tables of

Distribution and Allowances (TDAs) and

not available for deployments as needed. In

addition, Finance Standard Requirement

Code (SRC-14) structures are out of sync

FA 45 Focus

From Lieutenant Colonel Lynn Snyder, Comptroller Proponency Officer
46 R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003

with current requirements on the battlefield. As the Army transforms to a different

structure and benefits from advances in

technology, financial management capabilities and transformation must coincide with

these changes. The financial management

community will achieve its transformation

through Financial Management Redesign

and the Army’s Force Design Update (FDU)

process. FMR supports transformation initiatives through the Interim Force, yields

smaller battlefield footprint, provides tactical commanders a modular and tailorable

FM package, exploits economies of scale

and emerging technologies, and documents

automation requirements (Global Combat

Support System- Army & Financial

Management Tactical Platform) on the

Tables of Equipment (TOE). The new

Financial Management structure is currently in the FDU 03-1 process and has just

completed Army-wide staffing and is being

prepared for final submission through

TRADOC to HQDA. The FMR concept

incorporates lessons learned from recent

deployments and feedback from internal

staffing of the FDU package throughout the

financial community. Refer to the following

documents for more specific information.

O&O Concept for FMR:

http://www.finance.army.mil/DPCDD/FMR/

05%20FMR%20Concept%20Paper%209JAN

03.doc

FMR Design Paper:

http://www.finance.army.mil/DPCDD/FMR/

04%20FMR%20Design%20Paper%209JAN0

3.doc 

FDU Briefing:

http://www.finance.army.mil/DPCDD/FMR/

03%20FMR%20Briefing%20Slides%2016JA

N03.ppt 

Officer Education System (OES)

and Intermediate Level Education

(ILE) Update.

The Army recently approved changes to

the Officer Education System (OES) based

on recommendations of the Army Training

and Leader Development Panel (ATLDP)

officer study published in May 2001. The

Army has decided to implement three high

payoff institutional training and education

initiatives for lieutenants, captains, and

majors. The first initiative is the Basic

Officer Leader Course (BOLC). BOLC will

ensure a tough, standardized, small-unit

leadership experience that flows progressively from pre-commissioning (BOLC I) to

the initial entry field leadership experience

(BOLC II), and then to branch technical/tactical training in BOLC III. The second initiative focuses on the training and education of

captains. Two courses are currently envisioned: The Combined Arms Staff Course

(CASC) for staff officers and the Combined

Arms Battle Command Course (CABCC)

for company commanders. The third OES

Transformation initiative is Intermediate

Level Education (ILE): a 12 week MEL

4/JPME 1 common core curriculum (Phase

I) plus the required CF/BR/FA training and

specialized education or qualification

courses (Phase II). The training and education officers will receive in these courses

provides officers the requisite skills necessary to execute their duties after selection to

major and CF designation. This is the initiative that will affect FA45 officers.

The three-month ILE common core curriculum will be delivered in residence at Fort

Leavenworth for operations career field officers while the other than operations career

field and special branch officers will receive

their common core at Distance Education

(DE) campus sites where qualified

Command and General Staff College

(CGSC) instructors will teach them. DE

campus sites are at various CONUS installations where Ft. Leavenworth ILE instructors

will instruct the ILE core curriculum. This

ILE core curriculum will be the same curriculum and delivery method that is provided in the ILE core course at Ft.

Leavenworth. ILE Core consists of a threemonth curriculum specifically designed to

establish a common officer culture

grounded in leadership, Army full-spectrum

warfighting in joint and multinational contexts, military history and critical

reason/critical thinking. Officers successfully

completing the ILE core curriculum will be

designated MEL 4 and joint professional

military education (JPME) I qualified.

Successful common core and the appropriate qualification attendance will result in the

award of ILE.

To complement the core and obtain career

field credentialing, operations career field

officers will attend the seven-month

Advanced Operations and Warfighting

Course (AOWC) at Fort Leavenworth while

officers in the information operations, operational support, and institutional support

career fields will participate in functional

area qualification courses. The ILE core curriculum pilot started at Fort Leavenworth in

August 2002 with 256 officers in the current

Command and General Staff Officer Course

(CGSOC) class participating. These same

256 officers are now piloting the Advanced

Operations and Warfighting Course

(AOWC). In addition to the Fort

Leavenworth pilot, the Army will pilot the

distance education campus site concept in

the spring of 2003, with a class at Ft. Lee in

April and Ft. Gordon in June. During the

transition years, FY 03–08, no other than

operations career field officers will attend

ILE core curriculum or the Advanced

Operations and Warfighting Course

(AOWC) at Ft Leavenworth, KS. During this

period, all Ft Leavenworth seats will be filled

with operations career field officers.

Current plans have the Army Comptroller

Course at Syracuse University as the FA45

ILE course. Plans also include adding several

other course and instructional topics, such

as fiscal law, additional PPBES training and

the Resource Management Budget Course to

the Army Comptroller Course thus expanding the length for officers attending.
R esource Management / 2nd Quarter 2003 47

WASHINGTON (Army News Service,

April 21, 2003)—Creating a Civilian

Advisory Board to be an advocate for

today’s more than 270,000+ Army civilian

workers will help level the training and

leader development playing field with the

uniformed component of the Army, according to one finding of a recent study.

The Army Training and Leader

Development Panel Civilian study, released

March 13th, mirrored earlier panels that

examined the Army culture, and training

and leader development views of the officer,

warrant officer and NCO corps during the

past two years.

The studies were conducted as part of

Army Transformation in order to shape the

Army’s workforce for future requirements,

officials said. The civilian study was the last

planned ATLDP, yet work continues to

resolve issues identified from all the studies.

“We knew going in what most of the

issues were concerning civilian training and

leader development—the study just confirmed them and provided us with the necessary data to validate the need for change,”

said Maureen Viall, Civilian ATLDP 

study director.

Through the use of written and online

surveys, focus groups, and one-on-one

interviews with Army civilians, garrison

commanders, General Officers and Senior

Executive Service members, the panel got

feedback from over 40,000 respondents.

Viall said the study confirmed that Army

civilians were aware that the Army is undergoing profound change as it transforms into

the future Objective Force and that they

didn’t want to be left behind. What that

means, she said, is that the future civilian

workforce needs to be multi-skilled, multifaceted–not tied down to doing just one job

under a civil service position classification

system that is more than 50 years old.

Most General Officer and SES respondents agreed that the current education system is inadequate to develop civilian leaders

capable of managing the change

Transformation requires.

The study confirmed there are no

sequential civilian leader development

plans like soldiers have. In fact, only 45 of

444 employees in study focus groups could

name a specific leader development course

offered to civilians—223 of the group were

unaware of any core leader development

courses. However, 80 percent of the

respondents who had attended a leader

development course indicated such courses

were beneficial.

Another issue from the study is the 

failure of many civilian supervisors and

managers to attend required leader development courses. Reasons for failure to attend

include low command priority for civilian

training, lack of time due to mission

requirements, lack of money and no consequences for failing to attend mandatory

courses or any meaningful recognition 

for attending.

Training opportunities, whether for professional or leader development, vary widely

from major command to major command,

according to respondents. The issue here is

that most civilian training is currently

funded out of each MACOM budget. A few

exceptions to that rule include centrally

funded leadership training at the Center for

Army Leadership and the Army

Management Staff College.

“It is a case of the haves versus the have

nots,” Viall said. “There are generally more

training opportunities in better funded

MACOMs than in the poorer ones.”

Respondents used words like “meaningful,

challenging, interesting, exciting, fun and

rewarding” to describe their jobs. Almost 90

percent said they plan to make the Army a

career, with only 2 percent stating they

planned to leave Army service before retirement. More than 70 percent said they would

recommend working for the Army to others.

However, many respondents said they

would like more recognition for being productive members of the Army team.

Like the earlier studies that looked at the

uniformed side of the Army, the civilian

study found that Army civilians’ commitment to the Army is not perceived as being

reciprocated by the Army; performance

evaluations and counseling are inadequate;

and current education and career development models are lacking.

Following work by the Implementation

Process Action Team which met on April

15-17, 2003, the Army is currently considering a number of recommendations to

address issues the study identified. Those

recommendations also include: creating a

Civilian Education System that mirrors

those of the NCO, Warrant and Officer

Corps; placing civilian leader development

responsibilities—including funding—under

one Army organization; increasing formal

developmental assignment, self-development and mentoring opportunities; and

establishing an Army Civilian Creed.

The recommended Civilian Advisory

Board comprised of Senior Executive

Service members and General Officers serving on a rotating basis would help implement other approved recommendations,

with the board president acting as a civilian

workforce advocate to the Chief of Staff.

A summary of the panel’s findings is

posted on the Army Homepage at

http://www.army.mil/features/ATLDPCIV/

default.htm.

Civilian ATLDP Study Recommends Civilian Advisory Board
Comptroller Proponency Office

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Financial Management and Comptroller) Resource Management

Professional development bulletin

ISSN 0893–1828

ATTN: SAFM–PO, 109 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310–0109. PIN: 0793191 000 1N