" Technical Report 526

INTEGRATION OF MANPOWER, PERSONNEL,

AND TRAINING ISSUES FROM THE

MATERIEL SYSTEM ACQUISITION PROCESS

INTO THE PLANNING PROGRAMMING

AND BUDGETING SYSTEM

Fredrick L. Friedman, Alfred S. Rhode, and Francis E. O'Connor

Information Spectrum, Incorporated

SYSTEMS MANNING TECHNICAL AREA

DTIC

,i 0

'p U.S. Army

L' Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

March 1981

Approved for public release; dotrb tuntasmo 08 5 89'"
ICL

THIS DOCUMENT IS BEST

QUALITY AVAILABLE. THE COPY

FURNISHED TO DTIC CONTAINED

A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF

PAGES WHICH DO NOT

REPRODUCE LEGIBLY.
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

L. NEALE COSBY

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel, IN

Technical Director Commander

Research accomplished under contract

to the Department of the Army

Information Spectrum, Incorporated

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report has been made by ARI.

Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, ATTN:

PERI-TST, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when It Is no longer

needed. Please do not return It to the U.S. Army Research Institute for

the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The findings In this report are not to be construed as an official

Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized

documents.
Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Date Entered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS

BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

I."REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT '

S CATALOG NUMBER

Technical Report 526 Ab it -7(1

4. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

INTEGRATION OF MANPOWER, PERSONNEL, AND TRAINING

ISSUES FROM THE MATERIEL SYSTEM ACQUISITION Final Technical Report

PROCESS INTO THE PLANNING, PROGRAMMING, AND 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

BUDGETING SYSTEM

7. AUTHOR(e) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER()

Fredrick L. Friedman, Alfred S. Rhode, and MDA9O3-79-C-0637

Francis E. O'Connor

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASK

Information Spectrum, Incorporated AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

1745 S. Jefferson Davis Highway 2QI62722A791

Arlington, VA 22202

I. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel March 1981

Washington, DC 21310 13. NUMBER OF PAGES

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(If dIfforent from Controlftnd Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral Unclassified

and Social Sciences

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333 IS.. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thl Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abestrct entered In Block 20, It dllormt hom Report)

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Col. Frank Bettinger (SSC-NCR), LTC Donald Lyman (DCSPER), and Mr. Jacob

Barber (DSCPER) provided valuable input and critical evaluation of the

draft report.

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse side It necessary and Identify by block number)

Planning Personnel

Programmi g Training requirements Budgetin system (PPBS)

ft Cr ¢T MAIP m myrag aso& N in@ d"sd NatMIIy by block numbeir)

This publication describes the integration of the materiel systems acquisition process into the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS)..

The report discusses the manpower, personnel, and training (MPT) information

requirements of the materiel systems acquisition process as they relate to

the entry points of the PPBS. The report also identifies timing for the integration of required data and provides recommendations for updating procedures

rom EV-- FINV 9I §LT D ,a , M i Unclassified

IECUIITY CLASSIFICATIOW OF TIS PAGE ("M DIMS fntero
Technical Report 526

INTEGRATION OF MANPOWER, PERSONNEL,

AND TRAINING ISSUES FROM THE

MATERIEL SYSTEM ACQUISITION PROCESS

INTO THE PLANNING PROGRAMMING

AND BUDGETING SYSTEM

Fredrick L. Friedman, Alfred S. Rhode, and Francis E. O'Connor

Information Spectrum, Incorporated

Submitted by: James D. Baker, Chief

SYSTEMS MANNING TECHNICAL AREA

Approved by:

A Edgar M. Johnson, Director

SYSTEMS RESEARCH

LABORATORY

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

March 1961

Army Project Number Manpower, Personnel

20162722A791 and Training

Approved for public rslan: distribution unlimilted.
ARI Research Reports and Technical Reports are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and for other research and military agencies. Any findings ready

for implementation at the time of publication are presented in the last part

of the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

It

Aecession For

DTIC TAB

Ju:;t ifloatlon- -

Distribution/-

-- Avall and/or Dist s pccia).

iv
FOREWORD

The Army, in implementing the most extensive modernization program

in its history, is faced with the challenge of reconciling the need for

more capable, sophisticated weapon and support systems, which increase the

demand for personnel with greater skills and education, and the diminished

supply, and increased cost, of its most valuable asset; people who must

operate, maintain and support the systems.

To this end, the Army developed an elaborate materiel acquisition

process and a number of regulations and instructions which address the

manpower, personnel and training issues to be considered during system

development and acquisition. The system life cycle costing and management

processes require the development, on an iterative basis, of manpower,

personnel and training requirements information throughout the acquisition

process. This information is used, not only to guide technical and financial decisions within the system acquisition process, but to provide a

basis for the Army-wide planning, programming and budgeting process;

resource allocation.

A major concern is the timeliness, completeness and accuracy of manpower, personnel and training requirements information furnished by system

acquisition managers and system developers to the Army resource planners.

The weapon and support system acquisition process is complex, detailed,

lengthy and event-driven. The resource allocation process is complex, much

more general, cyclical and time-oriented. Yet, if effective equipment

systems are to be acquired and fielded in a coordinated and efficient

manner, and if sufficient numbers of qualified personnel are to be available for system operation, maintenance and support, the mutual informational and financial needs of the two processes must be satisfied in

synchronous fashion.

The Systems Manning Technical Area of the Army Research Institute

is concerned with the development of technology and methods for integrating

manpower, personnel, training and human factors requirments of new systems,

and with insuring that these are considered during the acquisition and

resource allocation processes throughout the system life cycle so that the

requirements can be met when the system is fielded.

The present effort identifies and describes the two processes and

their mutual interface requirements. This research is in consonance with

current efforts in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and at Headquarters, Department of the Army, to review and revise procedures for

system acquisition. This report resulted from a contract with Information

Spectrum, Inc., contract number MDA 903-79-C-0637.

v EPH ZID ER

Te hnical ,rector

V
INTEGRATION OF MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ISSUES FROM THE MATERIEL

SYSTEM ACQUISITION PROCESS INTO THE PLANNING PROGRAMMING AND BUDGETING

SYSTEM

BRIEF

Requirement:

As part of the Army's Force Modernization effort, a requirement exists

to determine how adequately current Army procedures develop manpower,

personnel and training (MP&T) information during the materiel acquisition

process. This entails an extensive examination of Army and Department of

Defense regulations to isolate the MP&T information system boundaries,

identify major components, and determine discrete space and time

relationships.

Procedures:

Manpower, personnel and training requirements information products

developed during the materiel system acquisition process and planning,

programming, and budgeting events were mapped onto a common time-line.

"Optimal" "latest" entry points for effective resource allocation decisions

were determined for each information product. "Latest" entry point refers

to the time interval during which the information product must be available

to insure that equipment availability and human resource availability will

coincide with the system delivery date. Based on an analysis of the two

processes mapped onto the common time-line, methods for satisfying the

requirements of both processes were recommended.

Findings:

The materiel system acquisition process is event-driven. The planning,

programming and budgeting, or resource allocation, process which prioritizes and apportions funds for acquisition of new systems, on the other

hand, is time-oriented. Major planning, programming and budgeting decisions for new systems rely heavily on life cycle cost data/estimates

developed during the system acquisition process itself. To avoid costly

acquisition process discontinuities, the acquisition effort must be adequately and continuously funded. It is essential then, to provide resource

allocation decision makers with the most recent and accurate life cycle

cost data available well in advance of the prescribed budgeting decision

dates. It the cost estimates are low, the acquisition effort will be

underfunded. If they are high, either the cost will become prohibitive, or

other acquisition efforts will suffer. If the estimates are not avaiable

at the time the decision must be made, inadequate funding for the acquisition may result.

vii
Utilization of Findings:

The orderly attention to the MP&T requirements information needs

of the resource allocation decision makers will insure continued and

adequate funds for the system acquisition effort. The result will be an

affordable and coordinated system fielding with equipment, human resources,

training and support needs continuously satisfied through the system life

cycle. On the basis of a detailed analysis of the results of this examination, specific methods for satisfying the information needs during

resource allocation are proposed.

viii
PREFACE

This publication is a draft report describing the integration of the materiel systems acquisition process into the Planing, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS). The report discusses the manpower, personnel, and training (MPT) informational

requirements of the materiel systems acquisition process as they

relate to the entry points of the PPBS. The report also identifies timing for the integration of data and provides recommendations for updating procedures.

It is recognized that the procedures described herein are

currently under extensive review and revision both in the Office

of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and at Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA). The Weapon System Acquisition Process

(WSAP) and the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS)

are depicted here as they existed in March of 1981. Consideration was given to delaying publication of this report until the

current round of review was complete and revisions were in place;

however it was decided that the descriptions of the essential

relationships between WSAP and PPBS would be useful to those engaged in the current reviews. Therefore it was decided to publish the report at this time with the promise that the document

will be revised early in 1982 to reflect the final action on

changes such as those directed in the DEPSECDEF Memo of April

30, 1981; subject "Improving the Acquisition Process."

The views, opinions, and findings contained in this report

are those of the authors and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy, or decision, unless so designated by other official documentation.

ix
CONTENTS

Section Page

PREFACE .............. ........................... i

I. INTRODUCTION .......... .................... 1

A. BACKGROUND ......... ................... 1

B. PURPOSE ........... ..................... 2

C. METHODOLOGY .......... ................... 2

D. ORGANIZATION ......... .................. 2

II. THE MATERIEL SYSTEMS ACQUISITION PROCESS ... ...... 3

A. PURPOSE ...................... 3

B. GENERAL POLICY. ................. 3

C. MILESTONE DECISIONS AND PHASES .... ........ 4

D. AFFORDABILITY ......... .................. 6

E. DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS ............... 6

1. Department of Defense Required Documents . 6

2. The Decision Coordinating Paper (DCP) and

Integrated Program Summary (IPS) ... ...... 10

3. Milestone Reference File (MRF) .......... .14

F. ACQUISITION PHASES ............... ....... 15

1. Mission Area Xnalysis .... ............ 15

2. Concept Exploration .... ............. 15

3. Demonstration and Validation .. ........ 19

4. Full Scale Development .... ............ 19

5. Production and Deployment ... .......... 19

III. THE PLANNING, PROGRAMMING, AND BUDGETING SYSTEM . . . 37

A. GENERAL ........ ..................... 37

B. PLANNING PHASE ...... ................. 41

1. Intelligence Priorities for Strategic

Planning (IPSP) ..... .............. 41

2. Joint Intelligence Estimate for Planning (JIEP) ...... ...... .41

3. Joint Long Range Strategic Appraisal (JLRSA). 41

4. Joint Strategic Planning Document (JSPD). . 41

3. Joint Program Assessment Memorandum (JPAM). . 43

6. Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP). . . 43

C. PROGRAMMING PHASE ...... ................ 44

1. Documentation ...... ............... 44

2. POM Submission ...... .............. 48

3. POM Approval ...... ................. 53

D. BUDGETING PHASE ....... ................ 54

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE MATERIEL SYSTEMS ACQUISITION/PLANNING,

PROGRAMMING, AND BUDGETING SYSTEM PROCESSES . . . . 57

A. GENERAL ......... ................... 57

B. ANALYSIS OF THE MATERIEL SYSTEMS ACQUISITION

PROCESS ........ .................... 57

C. ANALYSIS OF THE PPBS PROCESS ... .......... 60

X
Section Page

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... ........... .67

A. CONCLUSIONS ....... ................ . . 67

B. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... ................. .68

GLOSSARY ........... .......................... 71

List of Tables

Table Page

II-1. Systems Acquisition Process Manpower-PersonnelTraining Events for Milestone 0 ... ......... .17

11-2. Mission Area Analysis Phase .... ............ 18

11-3. Systems Acquisition Process Manpower-PersonnelTraining Events for Milestone 1 ... ......... .21

11-4. Concept Exploration Phase ...... .............. .22

11-5. Systems Acquisition Process Manpower-PersonnelTraining Events for Milestone II ... ......... .. 25

11-6. Demonstration and Validation Phase ... ......... .27

11-7. Systems Acquisition Process Manpower-PersonnelTraining Events for Milestone III .. ........ .30

11-8. Full Scale Development Phase .... ............ .. 32

11-9. Production and Deployment Phase ... .......... 35

III-1. JSPS Documents and Planning Periods .. ........ .44

IV-I. Sample of Civilian Manpower by Category and Type . 64

List of Figures

Figure Page

II-1. DOD Major Systems Acquisition Process ... ....... 5

T-2. DOD Major Systems Acquisition Process ... ....... 7

11-3. Major Systems Acquisition Process .... ......... 9

11-4. Decision Coordinating Paper (DCP) and Integrated

Program Summary (IPS) ...... .............. 11

11-5. IPS Topics for Inclusion in Basic Document ...... .. 13

11-6. Mission Area Analysis Phase .... ............ 16

11-7. Concept Exploration Phase ....... ........ ... 20

11-8. Demonstration and Validation Phase ..... .. . . .. 24

11-9. Full Scale Development Phase .... ............ .. 29

II-10. Production and Deployment Phase ... .......... 34

III-1. Army Programming and Budgeting Framework ........ .. 38

111-2. Major Events Occurring During Army Planning, Programming, and Budgeting Cycle Showing Principal

Interrelationships ........ ............. .39

111-3. Summary of Staff Functions by Principal PPBS Participant ........ ..................... .40

xi
Figure Page

111-4. Planning Events or Documents Showing Principal

Interrelationships--Army PPBS Cycle. ....... 42

111-5. Programming Events Showing Principal Interrelationships--Army PPBS Cycle..............46

111-6. Interrelationship of Force Readiness Analysis and

POM Development...................49

111-7. Sample Program Development Increment Package . .. 51

111-8. Budgeting Events by Budget Stage Showing Principal

Interrelationships--Army PPBS Cycle. ....... 54

IV-l. Minimum Time from Programming to Current Fiscal

Year ................................. 58

IV-2. The Force Development Integrated*Management

System (FORDIMS) ................... 62

xii
I. INTRODUCTION

A. BACKGROUND

The materiel systems acquisition process is both event and

system oriented. It is directed toward satisfying materiel requirements which focus on mission needs, and incorporates management methods for making acquisition decisions at critical points

during the development cycle. The materiel systems acquisition

process also provides a structure for technical and financial

management of a project and permissive authorization for acquisition to proceed, but it does not provide funds or commit other

resources. An essential part of the acquisition process is

the determination of operating and support needs and estimation

of the life cycle costs of the system, a vital element of which

is determination of the manpower needs to operate, maintain, and

support the system. For most materiel systems this results in

a phased plan for insuring that the proper numbers of trained

personnel are available and in place when needed to field the

system. Additionally, plans must insure that appropriate training facilities, devices, and support are available when needed

to commence required training. Although the acquisition process

provides the Army Systems Acquisition Review Council/Defense

Systems Acquisition Review Council (ASARC/DSARC) with an excellent perspective of the individual system, it does not make

visible the total materiel systems-related Army planning and

programming requirements or the means to budget for the needed

manpower and their training. This is properly the function of

the resource allocation process (the Planning, Programming, and

Budgeting System (PPBS)), wherein the cost of the support elements can be measured in relation to the procurement cost of the

materiel system, and within which competing demands for funds

can be ranked in order of priority of the needs which they address. Accordingly, it is essential that all manpower and funding requirements for new systems be planned and/or programmed in

the PPBS and entered into the Program Objective Memorandum (POM)

in a timely fashion, insuring that Army leadership support is

translated into system resource priorities within the list of

competing demands.

Since the acquisition process is event and system oriented

rather than strategy and resource oriented, there must be a

close relationship between the acquisition process and the cyclic

PPBS process. Although decision milestones must be event oriented, acquisition strategies must consider the requirements and

timing of the PPBS cycle and make accommodations for them. Means

and methods must be made available for assuring timely integration of these complementary actions, which are essential to

fielding a new system.

I ...
B. PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to examine the means and timing

with which manpower, personnel, and training (MPT) requirements

are determined in the materiel systems acquisition process, describe methods by which this information is transferred to the

PPBS, and identify areas for improvement in this process.

C. METHODOLOGY

A chronological mapping approach was employed in this analysis to determine the points in the linear materiel systems acquisition process at which MPT information is determined and the

points in the cyclic PPBS process at which the MPT data can be

inserted. Most of the information concerning the relationship

between MPT and the materiel systems acquisition process was

obtained from the Army Research Institute (ARI) Research Product,

"Manpower, Personnel, and Training Requirements for Materiel

Systems Acquisition. 1 Army regulations, Chief of Staff regulations, interviews, and Department of the Army instructions and

memorandums provided the basic information used in the analysis

and documentation of the MPT requirements of the PPBS. A comparative analysis of the two processes was conducted to determine the optimum and latest points in the PPBS at which manpower

data could be entered, allowing Army asset managers sufficient

* time to bring the proper number of skilled personnel and equipment together at the specified time.

D. ORGANIZATION

The remaining sections of this report are organized in the

following manner: Section II describes the Army materiel systems

acquisition process, Section III describes the Army's PPBS process, Section IV provides a summary and analysis of the processes

described in Sections II and III, and Section V summarizes the

findings of the effort and presents conclusions and

recommendations.

Figures and tables are found throughout this report to supplement the narrative. Some of the figures and tables were developed specifically for the study and others were reproduced

from previously published documents, as noted.

1Rhode, Alfred S., Skinner, Benjamin B., Mullin, James L.,

Friedman, Fred L., and Franco, Michele M., Information Spectrum,

Inc., and Carroll, Robert M., Army Research Institute, "Manpower,

Personnel, and Training Requirements for Materiel Systems Acquisition," Army Research Institute Research Product, RP 80-27,

dated February 1980.

2
II. THE MATERIEL SYSTEMS ACQUISITION PROCESS

A. PURPOSE

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the Department of

Defense (DOD) materiel systems acquisition process as it pertains

to manpower, personnel, and training (MPT). The discussion centers around DOD Directive (DODD) 5000.1, "Major Systems Acquisitions," DOD Instruction (DODI) 5000.2, "Major Systems Acquisition

Procedures," DOD Directive 5000.39, "Acquisition and Management

of Integrated Logistic Support for Systems and Equipment," and

associated Department of the Army (DA) directives.

B. GENERAL POLICY

As part of the routine planning for accomplishment of its

assigned mission, the Army conducts continuing analyses of its

mission areas to identify deficiencies, counter new threats, and

find more effective means of performing assigned tasks. During

these analyses, a deficiency may be identified that could lead

to initiation of a major systems acquisition program. A system

acquisition may result from a deficiency in an existing system,

a decision to establish new capabilities in response to a technologically feasible opportunity, or from what is seen as a

significant opportunity to reduce the cost of ownership in dollars, manpower, or both.

Although DODD 5000.1 and DODI 5000.2 address major systems

acquisition processes, they do not include all of the research

and development efforts of the Army. The Secretary of Defense

(SECDEF) designates certain acquisition programs as "major"

systems. As a general rule, SECDEF designates as "major" a

system acquisition which, including system modifications and

additional procurement of existing systems, exceeds $100 million

(constant dollars (base year)) in Research, Development, Test,

and Evaluation (RDT&E) funds or $500 million (constant dollars)

in production funds. The SECDEF reserves the right to designate

as a major system any developmental item that is of special interest to the Department of Defense, regardless of the costs.

Each 

must system 

go through 

in the 

the acquisition 

review and process 

approval designated 

process as 

as 

outlined "major in

I

DODD 5000.1 and DODI 5000.2. Systems not so designated go

through the review and approval process within the Department

of the Army. Programs, regardless of size, directed toward developing and maintaining a viable technological base, are not

designated as "major" by SECDEF, but are subject to review by the Army. In any event, the requirement to develop MP&T require- ments as a part of the ILSP is specifically mandated for all

systems and equipments in DODD 5000.39.

3
C. MILESTONE DECISIONS AND PHASES OF ACTIVITY

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in OMB Circular

No. A-109, describes the systems acquisition process as a sequence of acquisition activities starting from an agency's

reconciliation of its mission needs with its capabilities, priorities, and resources, and extending through the introduction

of a system into operational use or the otherwise successful

achievement of program objectives.

The DOD major systems acquisition process consists of four

milestone decisions and four phases of activity, as depicted in

Figure II-l. Approval of a Mission Element Needs Statement

(MENS) by the Secretary of Defense constitutes the Milestone 0

decision and authorization to proceed to Phase 0, Concept Exploration. The concept exploration phase includes solicitation,

evaluation, and competitive exploration of alternative concepts.

This phase culminates in a DOD review (Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council (DSARC I), and subsequent approval by the

SECDEF, constituting the Milestone I decision. The Milestone I

decision consists of the selection of alternatives and the

authorization to proceed to Phase I, Demonstration and Validation. This phase is concluded with a DOD review (DSARC II) and

subsequent SECDEF approval, constituting the Milestone II decision. The Milestone II decision includes the selection of

alternatives and authorization to proceed to Phase II, Full

Scale Development. This phase culminates in a DOD review (DSARC

III) and subsequent approval by the SECDEF, constituting the

Milestone III decision. The Milestone III decision provides

authorization to proceed to Phase III, Production and Deployment. The decision at Milestone III (DSARC III) may be modified

by the SECDEF to authorize limited production and require the

Army to further test and evaluate the materiel system under development. The SECDEF may direct an evaluation of specific

areas and another review (DSARC IIIA). An example is the decision of the SECDEF after DSARC III review of the XM-I Tank.

As stated in an undated memorandum from the Assistant Secretary

of Defense for Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Logistics

(ASD(MRA&L)) to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research,

Development, and Acquisition (ASA(RDA)), Stbject: XM-I Manpower

and Logistics Analysis Requirements#

... manpower and logistic support resource requirements were important considerations in the recent DSARC

decision... at DSARC IIIA an analysis should be presented by the Army which specifically addresses the

effect of demonstrated and projected reliability and

durability levels on: tank operational availability;

spares investment requirements; maintenance manpower

requirements; tank modification costs; and the resultant

effect on operating and support costs .... The analysis

should be performed in parallel with the test and evaluation reviews directed by the DSARC.

4
22

U 4 O wU

00

p~U.

w 'a 2z

I It

U) -a
Figure 11-2 graphically displays the four phases and milestones of the Department of Defense major systems acquisition

process, noting key activities at each event.

At the end of each phase of the defense systems acquisition

process (after DSARC review), the SECDEF transmits his decision

to the Department of the Army by a Secretary of Defense Decision

Memorandum (SDDM). The SDDM documents each milestone decision

and establishes program goals and thresholds, as well as reaffirms already established needs and program objectives.

Major systems under development by the Army proceed through

the DOD systems acquisition pi<ocess; however, prior to each DSARC

review, there is a corresponding Army Systems Acquisition Review

Council (ASARC) review. The ASARC reviews establish a recommended position for the Secretary of the Army on the system under

review. The Army uses the Life Cycle System Management Model

(LCSMM) to describe the Army process by which materiel systems

are initiated, validated, developed, deployed, and supported.

Specific events within the LCSMM are designed to guide the

progression of developing materiel systems throughout their life

cycles. A detailed description of the MPT events in the LCSMM

is contained in Army Research Institute (ARI) Research Product,

"Manpower, Personnel, and Training Requirements for Materiel

Systems Acquisition."

D. AFFORDABILITY

DODD 5000.1 states that affordability will be considered at

every milestone within the DOD major systems acquisition process.

A materiel system under development normally does not proceed to

the concept exploration phase unless sufficient resources are or

can be programmed for that phase, or into the full scale development phase unless sufficient resources are or can be programmed over the remaining life cycle of the deploying system. Affordability is a function of cost, priority within the Army, and the availability of fiscal and manpower resources. The

ability to provide adequate resources to acquire and operate a

system is principally a determination of the Planning, Program- ming, and Budgeting System (PPBS) process. Specific information is required for individual milestone reviews, some of which

may be used to measure affordability. Documentation requirements for DSARC reviews are described below. Figure 11-3 displays the informition and documentation flow for all four phases

and milestones of the major systems acquisition process.

E. DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS

1. Department of Defense Required Documents

At each milestone event, the Department of Defense requires the Department of the Army to justify, in varying degrees,

6

I _________________________ £ . ... . . - .. . . r . . . '.. . .. . . .II I I. . . I I I
CON 

C

PHASE EXPLO

MILESTONE (MISSION AREA ANALYSIS) 0 (MENS APPROVAL)

ACTIVITIES 0 CONTINUING ANALYSIS OF * DOD STAFF COMMENTS ON 0 DEVELOP

MISSION AREAS ARMY'S MENS BACK TO STRATEGY - IDENTIFY DEFICIENCIES ARMY 0 INVESTIGA - TECHNOLOGICAL 0 IS MISSION ELEMENT TASK COMPETITI

OPPORTUNITIES ESSENTIAL TO ARMY'S 0 EXPLORE

- REDUCTION IN COST MISSION? 0 DEVELOPT

(MANPOWER AND * IS THREAT REALISTIC? EVALUATI

DOLLARS) 6 DOES COST SAVINGS AND 0 DEVELOP

* DETERMINE ACQUISITION TECHNOLOGY MERIT PLANNING

NEED CONTINUATION OF EFFORT' 0 DEVELOP

* DIA VALIDATED THREAT 0 IS PLAN FOR NEXT PHASE GUIDANCE

* DATE SYSTEM IS TO BE SOUND' DEVELOP 

P

FIELDED * ISSUE SDDM AND DEMONST

* GENERAL MAGNITUDE OF SCHEDULE DSARC I VALIDATI

ACQUISITION RESOURCES * UPDATE 

M

REQUIRED AND THREA

* RESOURCES ARMY HAS 0 SUBMIT -F

PROGRAMMED FOR DCPM AND

"CONCEPT EXPLORATION" 

- OPERAT

PHASE AND FO

" DEVELOP PLAN FOR 

- MANP

CONCEPT EXPLORATION THRESH

PHASE 

- PERSON

* RECOMMENDATION ESTIMAT

WHETHER PROGRAM 

- MANPO,

SHOULD BE DESIGNATED 

- MANPO;

A "MAJOR SYSTEM ANALYSI

* INCORPORATE DOD STAFF TRAINICOMMENTS ON DRAFT SUMMA MENS 0 INCORPOR

* RESUBMIT UPDATED MENS COMMEN

AND IPS
DOD MAJOR SYSTEMS ACQUISITION PROCESS

DEMONSTRATION TION AND VALIDATION

I IDSARC I) II (DSARC II)

UISITION & DOD STAFF COMMENTS AND S FABRICATE PROTOTYPE * DOD STAFF COMMENTS ON

"FOR COMMENT DCP" AND SYSTEM "FOR COMMENT DCP" AND

E SOURCE FOR IPS BACK TO ARMY 0 SELECT BEST ALTERNATIVE IPS BACK TO ARMY

E CONCEPTS S IS MISSION E .EMENT TASK 0 CONDUCT DT/OT I TESTS 0 IS MISSION ELEMENT TASK

TERNATIVES REAFFIRMED) AND EVALUATE RESULTS REAFFIRMED?

ST & 0 DO ALTERNATIVE DESIGN 0 EVALUATE CONTRACTOR 0 DOES SYSTEM SELECTED

MASTER PLAN CONCEPTS MEET STATED PROPOSALS MEET ARMY'S NEEDS?

REQUIREMENTS' 0 UPDATE MISSION ANALYSIS 0 IS TRADEOFF ANALYSIS CMAINING S IS ACQUISITION STRATEGY AND THREAT REALISTIC? ROCUMENT SOUND? 0 PERFORM TRADE-OFF 0 IS THE ARMY WITHIN THE RCE LEVEL IS 5 PLAN FOR NEXT PHASE ANALYSIS THRESHOLDS AND SOUND? 0 DEVELOP PLAN FOR FULL CONSTRAINTS AS STATED IN N FOR ISSUE SDDM WITH SCALE DEVELOPMENT PREVIOUS SDDM' TION AND ALTERNATIVE SELECTED PHASE S IS PLAN FOR NEXT PHASE

PHASE S SUBMIT "FOR COMMENT SOU*JD7

SION ANALYSIS DCP" AND IPS TO DOD * ISSUE SDDM.

1 - MANPOWER GOALS AND

R COMMENT THRESHOLDS

fPS TO DOD - PERSONNEL FUNDING

NAL CONCEPTS ESTIMATE

CE STRUCTURE - MANPOWER ESTIMATE

ER GOALS AND - MANPOWER SENSITIVITY

LDS ANALYSIS

EL FUNDING - MANPOWER EVALUATION

RTE - MANPOWER TRADE-OFF ER ESTIMATE ANALYSIS ER SENSITIVITY - MANPOWER I I REQUIREMENTS

Y IMPLICATIONS COMPARISON

TEDDTF -TRAINING REQUIREMENTS IE DO STAFF SUMMARY SIN "FINAL DCP" - TRAINING PLAN

SUMMARY

0 INCORPORATE DOD STAFF

COMMENTS IN "FINAL DCP'

AND IPS

Figure 11-2

DOD Major System Aquisition Process

... ... .
FULL SCALE PRODUCTION AND

DEVELOPMENT DEPLOYMENT

kRC II) III (DSARC Il)

OMMENTS ON * AWARD CONTRACT FOR 0 DOD STAFF COMMENTS ON 0 CONDUCT DT/OT III TESTS IF

INT DCP" AND LIMITED PRODUCTION "FOR COMMENT DCP" AND REQUIRED AND EVALUATE

ARMY * FINALIZE PLAN FOR IPS BACK TO ARMY RESULTS

LEMENT TASK PRODUCTION 0 IS MISSION ELEMENT TASK 0 FINALIZE PROGRAM

* CONDUCT DT/OT II TESTS REAFFIRMED? ACTIVATION AND

$SELECTED AND EVALUATE RESULTS 0 ARE MAJOR ISSUES DEPLOYMENT PLANS

I NEEDS? 0 UPDATE MISSION ANALYSIS IDENTIFIED AND RESOLVED? 0 UPDATE OPERATIONAL AND

ANALYSIS AND THREAT 0 ARE PRODUCTION TRAINING PLANS

* UPDATE LOGISTICS QUANTITY REQUIREMENTS 0 CONTRACT AWARD FOR

WITHIN THE PLANNING VALID? FULL PRODUCTION

AND * UPDATE MANPOWER. S ARE MANPOWER AND 0 ACHIEVE READINESS

BAS STATED IN PERSONNEL, AND TRAINING FISCAL REQUIREMENTS POSTURE

lom? PLANS CONSISTENT WITH PPBS? 0 CONTINUOUSLY MONITOR

NEXT PHASE 0 DEVELOP PLAN FOR 0 IS THE ARMY WITHIN THE LOGISTICS AND PRODUCTION AND DEPLOY- THRESHOLDS AND MAINTENANCE AREAS

MENT PHASE CONSTRAINTS AS STATED IN

0 SUBMIT 'FOR COMMENT PREVIOUS SDDM?

DCP' AND IPS TO DOD 0 IS PLAN FOR NEXT PHASE - MANPOWER GOALS AND SOUND?

THRESHOLDS 0 ISSUE SDDM - PERSONNEL FUNDING

ESTIMATE - MANPOWER ESTIMATE - MANPOWER SENSITIVITY

ANALYSIS - MANPOWER EVALUATION - MANPOWER TRADE-OFF

ANALYSIS - MANPOWER

REQUIREMENTS

COMPARISON - TRAINING

REQUIREMENTS

SUMMARY - TRAINING PLAN

SUMMARY

* INCORPORATE DOD STAFF

COMMENTS IN "FINAL DCP"

AND IPS

I_
the continuation of a materiel system under development. Although the ability to provide adequate resources to acquire and

operate a system is a PPBS process determination, the ability to

provide sufficient resources to execute a program is a fundamental consideration during milestone reviews. The documentation normally required by the Army to fully justify SECDEF approval for continuation of the development of a system and

authorization to expend funds is as follows:

a. Milestone 0

The culmination of the Army's mission area analysis

of the materiel systems acquisition process is the submission by

the Army of a MENS. A MENS is the document upon which the Milestone 0 decision is based. The MENS identifies and defines:

1) a specific deficiency within a mission area, defined as narrowly as possible, so that there is a reasonable probability of

correcting the deficiency by the development of a single system;

2) the relative priority of the deficiency within the Army mission area; 3) the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)-validated

threat forecast or other factors causing the deficiency; 4) the

date the system must be fielded to meet the threat; and 5) the

general magnitude of acquisition resources the Army is willing

to invest. The MENS format includes mission threat or basis for

need, planned capabilities, assessment of need, constraints, resources estimate, and schedule. New systems proceeding through

mission analysis that may exceed a cost of $100 million (constant

dollars) in RDT&E funds or $500 million (constant dollars) in

production funds shall go through a MENS review. The Army must

submit a MENS to the Defense Acquisition Executive (DAU), along

with a recommendation as to whether or not the prograi" should be

designated as a major system. The DAE solicits comments from

the DOD staff, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), other military

departments, and DIA. If the DAE plans to recommend designation

as a major system, comments received from the coordination of

the MENS will be provided to the Department of the Army within

20 workdays after DAE receipt of the MENS. Upon receipt of DOD

comments, the Army will revise the MENS and return it to the

DAE within 20 workdays for approval action. If the DAE does

not recommend designation as a major system, the MENS will be

returned to the Army for assumption of responsibility for milestone decisions on the program.

When the DAE plans to recommend approval of a MENS

and "major system" designation, and after receipt of an updated

MENS (DOD comments included) from the Army, the designated DOD

action officer prepares a SDDM. After formal coordination within DOD (all permanent DSARC members and such advisors as the

DAE considers appropriate), the DAE submits the SDDM to the

SECDEF for approval and signature.

9
MISSION AREA ANALYSIS PHASE

01.0 02.

DRAFT DA MENS D

DCSPER PPROVA D lIENS ANORMAOWRV - MANPOWER ME

TRADO ONSTRAINT CONSTRAINT CONSTRAINTS APPRO
01

INITIATION OF LOGISTIC

LOGISTIC SUPPORT

SUPPORT PLANNING

0PLANNING DOCUME

APPROVED DARCOM

VALMIESON 0V _ MANPOWER

ALVI - RES T2.

INITIATION TRAINING

TRAINING PLANNING

PLANNING DO0C U MENT
CONCEPT EXPLORATION PHA

03.1 04.1 05.1 06.1 07.1

LOA ORGANIZATIO-NALFOCCNEP

MANPOWER HQ AND

DA OPERATIONAL LEVEL BASELINE FORMULATION

ININ APPROVAL CONCEPTS GUIDANCE COST ESTIMATE PACKAGE

MANPOWER TRADOC TRADOC DCSOPSDARCOM

DARCOM
o8. 10. 010.

OUTLI NE CI

DEVELOPMENT DCSPER DRAFT DCP I

PLNAPPROVAL PI9l

V - MANPOWER

A.1 ORGANIZATIONAL

DARCOMAND OPEPATIONAL

SOURCE:LA. 1,05.1

IBA MANPOWER GOALS

& THRESHOLD 1

SOURCE: 03 .1,014.1,

C.1 PERSO-NNEL

FUNDING EST I

SOURC E:05 1, 06 1

D.1 MANPOWER

ESTIMATE 1

SOURCE: 03.1,05 .1

E.1 MANPOWER

SE NS ITIVI TY

ANALYSIS 1

SOURCE: ols.i

F.1 TRAINING

IMPLI CATIONS

SUMMARY I

SOURCE: 03.1, 08. 1

G.1I MANPOWER

E VALUATION 1

SOURCE: 08.1

DCSRDA
11101.2 02.2 03.2

DACLOG IST IC TRAI NI NG TQQPR

ISR DT/OT I TEST SUPPORT ANAL SUPPORT PLAN PREPAR

APROA MILESTONE I PLAN UPDATE UPDATE

DARCOM/OTEA DARCOM TRADOC IDARC
DEMONSTRATION AND VALIDATIONI PHASE

04s.2 05.2 06.2 07.2 08.2 09.2

RITRAI NING TETT EADV. RESIDENT DEVELOPMENT

IO Nol TENTATIVEm TRAINING PLAN& P A

REQUIREMENTS DECISION NEW EQUIPMENT PLANmo TRAINING PLAN V - MANPOWER

Oi TADC RAOCDCSPER TRADOC/DARCOM VI - SUPPORT

DARCOM
10.2 11 .2 '0.2 12.2

DRAFT DCPDSR 

T

DCRD IP 11if MILESTONE 11

DC1D IS 10.2A APPROVAL

LlO'

2 A1DARI ,. APWER GOALS --- THRESHOLDS 2

SOURCE: 01 .2.

05.2, o6.2, 07.2

B.2 PERSONNEL FUNDING; EST 2 SOURCE:- 01.2,

02.2, 04.2, 05.2,

06.2. 07.2

C.2 MtANPOWER ESTIM~ATE 

2

SOURCE: 01.2, 03.2,

04.0, 05.2, 06.2,

07.2

D.2 MANPOWER TRADE-OFT

ANAL 2 SOURCE:

01.2 THRU 07.2

E.2 MANPOWER REQS

COMPARISON 

2

SOURCE: 01 .2,02.2,

04.2 THRU 07.2

F.2

MANPOWER SENSITIVITY

ANAL 2 SOURCE: 01.2,

03.2, THRU 07.2

G.Z MANPOWER

REQUIREMENTS

ASSETS 2 SOURCE:

02.2 THRU 07.2

H.2 TRAINING REQMTS

SUMMARY 

2

SOURCE: 01.2

THRU 07.2

1.2 TRAINING PLAN

SUMMARY 

2

SOURCE: 02.2

THRU 08.2

J.21 MANPOWER

EVAL 

2

SOURCE: 01.2,
FULL SCALE DEVELd:

01.3 02.3 03.3 04.3____ 05.3 06.3

DRAT TAINNGLOGISTIC PLAN FNLQ R IA OI

/OT TEST DRF RIIG SUPPORT PLAN FOR FNLQ R IA OL

COM/OTEA TRADOC DARCOM HTRADO

DARCOM/TRADOC TRADOC
OPMENT PHASE.

.3 07.3 08.3 09.3 08.3 10.3

DEVELOPMENT DRAFT DCP DI

PLAN .I I DSARC

ASR DASO ARCE:O.3

UPDATE DCSRDA APROA

i~ ~~< PERONE VAIN

V - MANPOWER IIL3 APnPR 

VI - SUPPORT MNOE-OL A.3 &THESHOLS

DARCOM SOURCE: 01.3,

06.3

8.3 PERSONNEL FUNDING

EST 3 SOURCE: 01.3,

02.3,03. 05.3, 06.1

C3 MANPOWER ESTIMATE 3

SOURCE: 01.3. 02.3,

05.3, 06.3

D. 3 MANPOWER TRADE-OFF

ANAL 3 SOURCE: 01.3,

03.3, 05. 06.3

E.3 MANPOWER

SENSITIVITY ANAL 3

01.3, 03.3,

05.3, 06.3

F-3 MANPOWER REQS

& ASSETS 3

SOURCE: 05.3,

06.3

G.3 TRAINING REQS SUMMARY 3

SOURCE: 01.3

THRU 06.3

H-.3 TRAINING PLAN SUMMARY 3 SOURCE:

. 02.3 03.3,

o4.3:, 05.3, 06.3

MANPOWER EVAL 3

SOURCE: 01.3,

05.3, 06.3,07.3

OCSRDA

•:7-
IIIPRODUCTIONA

01 .4, 02.4 03.4 04.4

LOGISTI C

MILESTONE III OT/OT IIIl SUPPORT F ANAL -' AMENDED AMENDED

(IF REQUIRED) PLAN UPDATE QQPRI BoIpV

DARCOM/OTEA DARCOM DARCOM/TRAD OC TRADOC
DEPLOYMENT PHASE IIA

05.4 06.4_07.408.4_09.

OPMENT DP11

LAN SARCDSARC

-4N DRAFT___ DC Il lw 1A MILESTONE

KPOWER IIISIIAPPROVAL IIA

SUPPORT 0.

RCOM CRD CSD

Figure 11-3

Major Systems Acquisition Process
b. Milestones I, II, and III

After MENS approval and issuance of the SDDM, the

defense systems acquisition process becomes a formal, structured -rocedure.

2. The Decision Coordinating Paper (DCP) and Integrated

Program Summary (IPS)

Figure 11-4 illustrates the DCP and IPS.

a. The DCP

The DCP is the primary documentation used by the

DSARC in arriving at the milestone recommendation to the SECDLIF.

It summarizes the program and acquisition strategy, the alternatives considered, and the issues. The DCP is limited to ten

pages, including annexes. The basic document is divided into

five parts as follows:

0 Part I: Statement from the Secretary of Defense

on both the direction the Army needs to continue system development and any deviation from DOD policy such development

requires.

0 Part II: Description of the overall program to

include the mission and life cycle resource requirements.

0 Part III: Revalidation of the need.

* Part IV: Summary of the alternatives considered

and the rationale for recommending the preferred alternative.

0 Part V: Summary of the program acquisition strategy with emphasis on the next phase.

0 Part VI: Identification and assessment of the

issues which will affect the SECDEF's milestone decision.

The DCP also contains the following three annexes:

* Annex A: Goals and Thresholds.

This annex reflects the goals and thresholds approved by the SECDEF, as stated in the SDDM following the preceding milestone review. It also reflects the Army's current

estimates of requirements which address supportability and manpower. This area includes the manning level for both operators

and maintenance personnel.

13
I DECISION COORDINATING PAPER (DCP) AND- ] INTEGRATED PROGRAM SUMMARY (IPS)

DCP (10 PAGES)

PART0 IIPRAES CUIINANXS

PARTIV-UMMRY Figr TRTIES ADRTOA O

DeciionCoorinaingPaERDC? TRAI~E radPoga Swmr(

PAR VSUMAR OFACUISTIN SRAE4
0 Annex B: Resources--Preferred Alternative.

This annex denotes the resources (costs in dollars

only) required to support the Army's preferred alternative, including the operation and maintenance (O&M) and military personnel (MILPER) costs. In order to determine the O&M and MILPER

costs, the manpower required to operate and maintain the system

under development must be determined by military identity (e.g.,

officer, warrant officer, and enlisted) and by the stationing

plan (e.g., CONUS, Europe, Korea), as there are O&M costs associated with military stationing.

* Annex C: Life Cycle Cost.

Reflected in this annex are the life cycle costs for

each alternative considered. The various "Ownership Considerations" I involved in life cycle cost determination include important manpower and training components. Manpower and Training costs for each alternative are required.

b. The IPS

The IPS is a summary of the implementation plan developed

by the Army for the entire acquisition cycle, with emphasis

placed on the phase the program is entering. The IPS accompanies

the DCP when the "For Comment DCP" is submitted to DOD, and is

updated when the "Final DCP" is submitted. The IPS provides information for a management overview of the entire life cycle cf

the system and will not exceed fifty (50) pages, including all

annexes except Annex B (Resources--Funding Profile). The format

and content of the IPS are contained in DODI 5000.2, "Major

Systems Acquisition Procedures."

(1) The logistics paragraph requires a summary of the

information contained in the Integrated Logistics Support Plan

(ILSP).

(2) The manpower paragraph addresses the system activity

level used to compute the manpower requirement, indicates the

posture level (e.g., combat surge, sustained combat, or precombat readiness), specifies the available hours per person per

month used to compute numbers of people from workload estimates,

and contains any critical assumptions that have an impact on the

manpower requirements. This paragraph must be consistent with

Annex D (Manpower) of the IPS.

(3) The training paragraph identifies significant differences in the training implications of the alternative systems

iEffectiveness of U.S. Forces Can Be Increased Through Improved Weapon SWem Design; The Comptroller General, General

Accounting Office, Washington, D.C., January 29, 1981.

15
Vi

IPS TOPICS FOR INCLUSION IN BASIC DOCUMENT

1. Program History

2. Program Alternatives

3. Cost Effectiveness Analysis

4. Threat Assessment

5. System Vulnerability

6. Organizational and Operational Concept

7. Overview of Acquisition Strategy

8. Technology Assessment

9. Contracting

10. Manufacturing and Production

11. Data Management

12. Test and Evaluation

13. Cost

14. Logistics

15. Reliability and Maintainability

16. Quality

17. Manpower

18. Training

19. Facilities

20. Energy, Environment, and Safety

21. Computer Resources

22. International Programs

Figure 11-5

IPS Topics for Inclusion in Basic Document

16
under consideration and the operating and support personnel, onthe-job and unit training, use of simulators, number of personnel

to be trained, and training costs.

The following five annexes are required to accompany the

basic IPS:

0 Annex A: Resources--Cost Track Summary.

This annex reflects the operating and maintenance

costs of manpower (military and civilian) for the life cycle of

the system.

* Annex B: Resources--Funding Profile.

This annex reflects each fiscal year's costs of the

system, with the manpower cost data being included.

* Annex C: Resources--Summary of System Acquisition

Costs.

This annex displays the sources of funding, in constant dollars, by the Five Year Defense Program (FYDP) categories.

In order to be consistent with Annexes A and B, the total manpower costs must be included in this annex.

0 Annex D: Manpower,

This annex numerically displays the manpower estimate in support of the program system. It is limited to one page

with the following three sections:

so Section 1: This section contains the current

manpower estimate for force structure and includes a display of

the unit type, program alternative, reference system, number of

units, active military, reserve components, and "other" categories. This section is not required for Milestone I review.

se Section 2: This section contains the contract

support and depot workload display.

* •Section 3: This section displays the net change

in total force manpower associated with the proposed system

deployment.

* Annex E: Logistics.

3. Milestone Reference File (MRF)

The MRF is a working file which provides the backup data

referenced by the Army in the DCP and IPS at each milestone review. When the Army submits the "Final DCP" and the IPS update

to the DAE, the backup data in the MRF will accompany these

17
documents. The DAE maintains the MRF at one location and makes

the file available to any DOD staff member requiring more detailed information than that contained in the DCP or IPS. The

DAE maintains the file until the SDDM is issued.

F. ACQUISITION PHASES

As can be seen from a description of the materiel systems acquisition process and related documentation requirements for

specific decision points, requirements for manpower, personnel, and training information exist relatively early in the acquisition process. This planning, coupled with cost estimates and

life cycle cost requirements, should provide a basis for early

input to the PPBS programming phase. The specific acquisition

phases are described, in detail, in the following paragraphs. The purpose of these paragraphs is to describe those key actions that occur prior to initiating development of a new major system.

1. Mission Area Analysis

Although not labeled as such by either DOD or Army reg- ulations, for clarity, this report designates this phase as the

Mission Area Analysis Phase.

The services perform continuing analysis of mission

areas; therefore, the mission area analysis phase consists of

identification and definition, through analysis, of current and

projected mission needs, capabilities, resources, and available

technologies. When a need is identified, it is stated in terms

4of a task to be performed and a MENS is prepared, coordinated,

and staffed with appropriate agencies within the Army and DOD.

Approval of the MENS by the Secretary of Defense ends the mission

area analysis phase for that specific need and constitutes authority to proceed to Phase 0, Concept Exploration.

Figure 11-6 provides a graphic display of events within

this phase. A summary of events is found in Table II-1. Table

11-2 is a matrix and exhibits manpower information which could

assist in early planning for input to the PPBS. At this point

in the acquisition process, most information would be relative

to the Extended Planning Annex (EPA) of the Program Objective Memorandum (POM). The EPA is a ten-year extension of the POM.

2. Concept Exploration

At the time of proceeding to the concept exploration phase, the Army determines the need for a special study group, special task force, steering group, or study advisory group to

assist in the effort for a short duration. A project manager

is normally designated at Milestone I.

18
4 t)

* uiZ 

o cc

La>4

W

4 4~3

19
Table II-1

Systems Acquisition Process

Manpower-Personnel-Training

Events for Milestone 0

AGENCY RESPONSIBLE APPROVAL

EVENTS TITLE FOR SUBMISSION AUTHORITY REFERENCES

01.0 Development Combat Developer HQDA-DCSOPS AR 71-9

of Mission Ele- (TRADOC) DODI 5000.2

ment Needs

Statement (MENS)

02.0 MENS Approval/ DCSOPS OSD AR 71-9

Milestone 0 DODI 5000.2

20

20
>4

-4

*X 

x

00

-. 4q

CC'

0 go

4J 21
There are a number of key events during this phase related to manpower, personnel, and training. Figure 11-7 is a

graphic display of the key events of the LCSMM process during

this phase. DOD information requirements for the DCP/IPS are

also displayed. A summary of events is found in Table 11-3.

Table 11-4 is a matrix displaying documents which must be prepared during concept exploration and relating them to specific

information requirements which could assist in preparing input

to the PPBS.

3. Demonstration and Validation

A favorable decision by the Secretary of Defense, upon

DSARC I review, and a corresponding SDDM constitute the Milestone

I decision. This decision provides approval for the Army to proceed to Phase I, Demonstration and Validation.

Figure 11-8 is a graphic display of the LCSMM process

during this phase, including the key events. Events/documents

which contain specific manpower, personnel, and training information are keyed to the corresponding DOD information requirements

category (contained in the DCP/IPS) to display sources of information. Events are summarized in Table 11-5. The matrix in

Table 11-6 displays documents which must be prepared during this

phase and relates them to specific information requirements which

could assist in preparing input to the PPBS.

4. Full Scale Development

A favorable decision by the Secretary of Defense, upon

DSARC II review, and a corresponding SDDM constitute the Milestone II decision. This decision provides approval for the Army

to proceed to Phase II, Full Scale Development.

Figure 11-9 is a graphic display of the LCSMM process during this phase, including the key events. Specific manpower,

personnel, and training information in the events/documents are

keyed to the corresponding DOD requirements for the DCP/IPS.

Events are summarized in Table 11-7. The matrix in Table 11-8

displays documents which must be prepared during this phase and

relates them to specific information requirements which could

assist in preparing input to the PPBS.

5. Production and Deployment

A favorable decision by the Secretary of Defense, upon

DSARC III review, and a corresponding SDDM constitute the Milestone III decision. This decision provides approval for the Army

to proceed to Phase III, Production and Deployment.

22
01.

INITIATION OF LOGISTIC

LOGISTIC SUPPORT

SUPPORT PLANNING

PLANNING DOCUMENT 03.1,

APPROVED DARCOM !0LOA

MILESON 0V - MANPOWER

L ., wR02.1 

LTRA IN I

INITIATION TRA IN ING

TRAINING PLANNING

Lp PLANNING DOCUMENT

TRADOC
CONCEPT EXPLORATION PHASE

014.1 05.1 06.1 07.1

HQORGANIZATIONAL FORCE CONCEPT 0

DA ~~AND LVLBSLN OMLTO E

DA ~OPERATIONAL LVLBSLN OMLTO E

APPROVAL CONCEPTS -Ao GUIDANCE -i COST EST114ATE -No PACKAGE -b

TRADOC DCOSMANPOWER TRADOC v - ___________ __ ___ ____ __ ____ ___ ___DARCOM

DARCO10
o8. 1 09.1 10.1 09.1 1

ELPNET DCSPER DRAFT DCP I DPID ELOPMENT MANPOWER SR I PLAN APPROVAL DCRAAACIPS1O9.1A APP

MANPOWER

A.1 ORGANIZATIONAL

DARCOM AND OPERATIONAL

CONC EPTS

SOURCE: 04.1.05.1

8.1 MANPOWER GOALS

&THRESHOLD 1

SOU RCE: 03 .1,04 .1

C.1 PERSONNEL

FUNDING EST 1

SOURCE:05.1,06.1

0.1 MANPOWER

ESTIMATE 1

SOURCE: 03.1, 05 .1

E.1 MANPOWER

SE NSITI V ITY

ANALYSIS 1

SOURCE: 04.1

F.1 TRAINING

I MPL I CAT IONS

SUMMARY 1

SOURCE: 03 .1, o8. i

G-1 MANPOWER

EVALUATION 1

SOURCE: 08.1

DCSRD A

Concept

23
09.1 1. 911.

DRAFT DCP I C IDSR

CONC EPTS

SOURCE: 04.I 105.1

8.1 MUN WER GOALS

& THRESHOLD 1

SOURCE 31 04 .1

O .13.

C.1 PERSONNEL

FUNIONG EST 1

SOURCE:05.I,06.1

D.1 MANPOWER

ESTIMATE 'I

SOU RCE: 03. 1,05 .1

E.1 MANPOWER

SENSITIVITY

ANALYSIS 1

SOURCE: 04.1

F.1 TRAINING

IMPLI CATIONS

SUMMARY 1

SOURCE:03.1, 08.1i

G.1 MANPOWER

EVALUATION 1

SOURCE: oB.i

DCSRDAFigure 11-7

Concept Exploration Phase

23
Table 11-3

Systems Acquisition Process

Manpower-Personnel-Training

Events for Milestone 1

AGENCY RESPONSIBLE APPROVAL

EVENTS TITLE FOR SUBMISSION AUTHORITY REFERENCES

01.1 Initiation of Materiel Developer Materiel Devel- AR 71-9

Logistic Sup- (DARCOM) oper (DARCOM) AR 700-127

port Planning

02.1 Initiation of Trainer (TRADOC) Trainer (TRADOC) AR 350-50

Training Plan- AR 611-1

ning AR 602-1

DA PAM 11-25

03.1 Preparation of Combat Developer HQDA-DCSOPS AR 70-1

Letter of (in coordination if required AR 70-27

Agreement with Materiel AR 602-1

Developer) AR 1000-01

04.1 Inclusion of Combat & Materiel HQDA-DCSOPS AR 1-1

Organizational Developers AR 70-1

and Operation- AR 71-2

al Concepts AR 71-9

AR 570-2

AR 611-1

DA PAM 11-25

05.1 Development of HQDA-DCSOPS HQDA-DCSOPS AR 1-1

Force Level AR 71-1

Guidance AR 71-9

06.1 Development of Materiel Developer HQDA-COA AR 11-18

" E AR 70-1

07.1 Lreparation of Materiel and HQDA-DCSRDA AR 15-14

CFP Combat Developers AR 70-27

AR 71-1

AR 1000-1

AR 71-9

DA PAM 11-25

08.1 Preparation of Materiel Developer HQDA-DCSRDA AR 70-27

ODP DA PAM 11-25

09.1 Preparation of HQDA-DCSRDA SEC Army AR 15-14

Draft DCP I DODD 5000.1

DODI 5000.2

25
°W

E

0

:>

rM:

0

.9=4

VV

*1 0

* x 0.

x × x 0

4

- CU

g o00_' 0

* 4.)

-4 00

-4-

U x x

98 41 "0 .M .4 .1 o) 4' a

u 0

r. 0004 U) U

262

0 0 0 0 -4w0 4

4444u0 .94 i a, 16 24 w r

(f4U Q) Q) 0% cfl 4 0 >. 4)17

0 W C $4 W 0) 

'4 4J C 40, 4j 4~ 4 m 0. 0 o - m to

0 4) .,.1 tv 0 0 )~ EU4s " m '

04 U LO 4)s- W O 04 - *9 "4 -14 .44j ..4 9.

I: r. M) FAW 4 c M~ > > V-4' &8 EU

0~E 0 .4 00. it w~ "If m- _H4' ~ 0

Zu u ZUO 3 tn I- E-4 U OA 0 OZZ -

26
Table 11-4 (Cont'd)

This matrix is designed to identify existing documents within

the LCSMM process that include certain MPT information which

could be useful in preparing input into the PPBS. The column

headings of the matrix display the documents required during this

specific acquisition phase. The row headings of the matrix include specific information contained in various documents which

might provide useful input to the PPBS. Documents and information

output relationships are identified.

Example: The DCP should include life cycle

cost information, manpower requirements estimates, MILCON (approved

FYDP), MILPERS (MPA), and training

costs.

27
01. 02.2 03.2 o4.2

LOG IST IC TRAI NI NG QPI

MILESTONE I PLAN UPDATE UPDATE--w

DARCOM/OTEA DARCOM TRADOC DARCOM IT
DEMONSTRATION AND VALIDATION PHASE

05.2 o6.__z_07.2__o8.2 09.2 10.2

TRiNNGADV. RESIDENT DEVELOPMENT DRAFT DCP

pDEVICE M NEW EQUIPMENT PLAN DCID REQUIREMENTS DECISION__ TRAINING PLAN V -MANPOWER DSD

DC TRADOC DCPRTRADOC/DARCOM A VI -SUPPORT

DARCOM
10.2 11.21022.

DRAFT DCP

11 ~A ARCDAR

DCSRDA _ _ S R 

P 1 11 

E T

A. 2 MANPOWER GOALS&

SOURCE: 01.2,

05.2, 06.2, 07.2

B.2 PERSONNEL FUNDING EST 2 SOURCE: 01 .2,

02.2, 04.2, 05.2,

06.2, 07.2

C.2 MANPOWER ESTIMATE 2

SOURCE: 01. 03.2,

04.0, 05.2, 06.2,

07.2

D .2 MANPOWER TRADE-OFF

ANAL 2 SOURCE:

01.2 TNRU 07.2

E.2 MANPOWER REQS

COMPARISON 2

SOURCE: 01 .2,02.2,

04.2 tNRU 07.2

F.2

MANPOWER SENSITIVITY

ANAL 2 SOURCE: 01.2,

03.2, THRU 07.2

G.Z MANPOWER

REQUIREMENTS S

ASSETS 2 SOURCE:

02.2 THRU 07.2

I.2TRAINING REQMTS

SUMMARY 2

SOURCE: 01 .2

THRU 07.2

1.2 TRAINING PLAN

SUMMARY 2

SOURCE: 02.2 Figure 11-8

THRU 08.2

J.2' MANPOWER Demonstration and Validation Phase

EVAL 2

SOURCE: 01.2,

04.2 THRU 08.21

DCS RDA

29
Table 11-5

Systems Acquisition Process

Manpower-Personnel-Training

Events for Milestone 1I

AGENCY RESPONSIBLE APPROVAL

EVENTS TITLE FOR SUBMISSION AUTHORITY REFERENCES

01.2 DT/OT I Test Materiel Developer HQDA-DCSRDA AR 70-10

DT/Operat ional AR 71-3

Tester OT AR 611-1

AR 602-1

02.2 Logistic Sup- Materiel Developer HQDA-DCSOPS AR 71-2

port Analysis AR 700-18

Planning Up- AR 700-127

date AR 750-1

03.2 Training Sup- Trainer HQDA-DCSOPS AR 71-2

port Planning AR 350-35

Update AR 611-1

AR 602-1

04.2 Development of Materiel Developer/ HQDA-DCSPER/ AR 71-2

TQQPRI Infor- TRADOC AR 350-35

mation AR 602-1

AR 611-1

05.2 Development of Combat Developer HQDA-DCSOPS AR 70-1

Initial Unit AR 71-2

Structure and AR 71-9

BOIP I AR 611-1

06.2 Identification Trainer HQDA-DCSOPS AR 70-1

of Training AR 71-7

Device Require- AR 602-1

ments (TDR)

07.2 Tentative MOS TRADOC DCSPER AR 71-2

Decision AR 611-1

08.2 Development of Trainer and HQDA-DCSOPS AR 350-35

Advanced Resi- Materiel Developer AR 71-7

dent Training AR 750-1

Plan and New

Equipment

Training Plan

31
Table 11-5 (Cont'd)

Systems Acquisition Process

Manpower-Personnel-Training

Events for Milestone II

AGENCY RESPONSIBLE APPROVAL

EVENTS TITLE FOR SUBMISSION AUTHORITY REFERENCES

09.2 Formulation of Materil Developer HQDA-DCSRDA AR 70-27

DP

10.2 Preparation of EQDA-DCSRDA SECARMY AR. 15-14

Draft DC? II DODD 5000.1

DODI 5000.:

10 .2A Development of HQDA-DCSRDA DODI 5000.2

IPS

11.2 Review by HQDA-DCSRDA SECARMY DA PAM 11-25

ASARC II

12.2 Review by DAE SECDEF DODD 5000.1

DSARC II DODI 5000.2

32
Ix

trl,, rzf x x x x 4

ro

aS4 x x

09

a x

I I

0t 

0,0,CI

.1) C) o,

0~~~~~ 4 02fC) '

(D w 41 w .. 4

0 0 ~0 b w.4)~... C

(A 04C4 00 w0 cCD 4 f ~ to 0

0 41 0,. W~.4.0:4C20 I4 

r P40 E .,I 0 2 A.e V- 5.4 .4

IV 33 C" 0)= -
Table 11-6 (Cont'd)

This matrix is designed to identify existing documents within

the LCSMM process that include certain MPT information which

could be useful in preparing input into the PPBS. The column

headings of the matrix display the documents required during this

specific acquisition phase. The row headings of the matrix include specific information contained in various documents which

might provide useful input to the PPBS. Documents and information

output relationships are identified.

Example: The DCP should include life cycle

cost information, manpower requirements estimates, MILCON (approved

FYDP), MILPERS (MPA), and training

costs.

34
II FU

01.3 02.3 03.3 04.3

DRAFT TRAINING LOGISTIC PLAN FINAL~

DT/OT TEST SUPPORT PLAN FOR

MILESTONE 11 PROGRAM & FM -- p UPDATE & TM -0 TRAINING P105 DI

DARCOM/OTEA TRADOC DARCOM TRADOC DARCO
SCALE DEVELOPMENT PHASE

05.3 06.3 07.3 08.3 09.3 08.3

PIFNLBLPDEVELOPMENT DRAFT DCP DCP III

ISO DFNA OE PLAN IIASARC

ISIONDRAF TOEUPDATE DCSRDA IIisi 83

RADO~~j TkADOC V - MANPOWER P II083

RAO RDCVI - SUPPORT A.3 MNOER GO

DAROMSOURCE: 01.

06.3

B. PERSONNEL FUNSI

EST 3 SOURCE: 01'

02-.03.3, 05.3,

C.3 KAIOWER ESTINA

SOURCE: 01.3, 0

05.3, 06.3

D .3 KANPOWER TRADE ANAL 3. SOURCE:

03.3, 05.3, 06

E.3 MNOWER

SENSITIVITY A

0 1.3 03.3,

05.3, 06.3

F.3 MANPOWER ft

&ASSETS

SOURCE: 05. 06.3

G.3 TRAINING ft

SUMMARY

SOURCE: 01

THRU 06.1

51.3 TRAINING P

SUMMARY3S 02.3, 03

0I..3, 05.3

MANPOWER

SOURCg: 01

05.3, 06.3,

DCSRDA
o8.3 09.3 08.3 10.3

DRAFT DCP DCP IIIDSR

III AARC III MILESTONE III

DCSRD III 083 APPROVAL

MANPOW ER GOALS1

THRESHOLDS

SOURCE: 01.3,

06.3

B133 PERSONNEL FUNDING

EST 3 SOURCE: 01.3,

02.3, 03. 05.3. 06.j

C.3 MNIOIEESTIMATE 3

SOURCE: 01.3, 02.3.

05.3, 06.3

D .3 MANPOWER TRADE-OFF

ANAL 3.SOURCE: 01.

03.3, 05.3. 06.3

E.3 MANPOWER

SENSITIVITY ANAL 3

01.3, 03.

05.3, 06.3

F.3 MANPOWER REQS

& ASSETS 3

SOURCE: 05.3,

06.3

G.3 TRAINING REQS

SUMMARY 3

SOURCE: 01.3

THRU 06.3

H.3 TRAINING PLAN SUMMARY 3 SOURCE:

02.3, 03.3,

04-.39 05.3, 06.3

MANPOWER EVAL 3

SOURCX: 01.3, Figure I1-9

105.3, 06.3, 07.31

DCSRDA Full.Scale Development Phase

35
Table 11-7

Systems Acquisition Process

Manpower-Personnel -Training

Events for Milestone III

AGENCY RESPONSIBLE APPROVAL 4 EVENTS TITLE FOR SUBMISSION AUTHORITY REFERENCES

01.3 DT/OT 11 Test Materiel Developer- HQDA-DCSRDA AR IAO-4

DT/Operat ional A 01

Tester-OT AR 71-2

AR 71-3

AR 602-1

DA PAM 11-25

02.3 Preparation of Trainer HQDA-DCSOPS AR 70-1 ADraft Training AR 750-1

Program and DA PAM 11-25

Field Manuals

03.3 Preparation of Materiel Developer HQDA-DCSLOG AR 70-1

Logistic Sup- AR 700-127

port Planning DA PAM 11-25

and Technical

Manuals

04.3 Update of Plan Trainer HQDA-DCSOPS AR 71-2

for Training DCSPER AR 350-35

AR 611-1

05.3 Final QQPRI Materiel Developer DCSPER AR 71-2

Final MO~S TRADOC AR 350-35

Decis ion AR 611-1

AR 700-18

AR 750-1

DA PAM 11-25

06.3 Final Combat Developer EO.DA-DCSOPS/ AR 70-27

B01? DCSPER AR 71-2

AR 570-2

DA PAM 11-25

07.3 Update of Materiel Developer HQDA/DCSOPS/ AR 70-27

Development

Plan (DP)

08.3 Preparation of HQDA-DCSRDA SECABMY DODD 5000.1

Draft DCP III DODI 5000.2

AR 15-14

37
Table 11-7 CCont'd)

Systems Acquisition Process

Manpower-Personel-Training

Events for Milestone III

AGENCY RESPONSIBLE APPROVAL

EVENTS TITLE FOR SUBMISSION AUTHORITY REFERENCE

08.3A. Development of HQDA-DCSRDA SECABMY DODI 5000.2

IPS III *109.3 Review By HQDA-DCSRlA SECARMY AR 15-14

ASARC III DA PAM 11-25

10.3 Review By DAE SECDEF DODD 5000.1

DSARC III DODI 5000.2

38
laC, Uq 41C

r4V 0 )E

0 a zf

00

44J

~f~vV 4j 0

4/l

04 

4

uq .,

I1 41 InC

Ig~

397
DODD 5000.1, "Major Systems Acquisitions," and DODI

5000.2, "Maj, Systems Acquisition Procedures," do not address

a situation . which the Milestone III decision includes authorization for limited production with a follow-on review for full

production and deployment. The Army LCSMM process, however, does

provide for this contingency and prescribes events and procedures

necessary to review the system at a follow-on ASARC/DSARC review

(ASARC IlIA and DSARC IIIA).

Figure II-10 is a graphic display of the LCSMM process

during this phase, including key events. Information requirements data are dependent on what the ASARC/DSARC may require on

a case-by-case basis, and can vary depending on the limited production decision. The matrix in Table 11-9 displays documents

which reflect manpower, personnel, and training information.

These documents are related to specific information requirements

which could assist in preparing input to the PPBS.

40
I

U I

* 

I

* jII

p~

I

4.

31

S

I

a

IC

0;

i~ j

-U

-E

41
(D 0

0 ~ 0 id -4 0)

a4 U O 00

L) 9: 0 .4i

0 4 4- j -q

4 -1 VO tO

E . 0 4 U)L0) O

co 4 C ~.2 

0 4- th 9.1- 0) w) :-4.-0 r-- 4.

-H 0 C0)4-10 41 m 0 t

C: -q4-W 44 4 C

4) r- U) r 41 fa row E - (L 0, *4 . 00 a) it 3: a to44 U ra U)Lw ~W .0 :$41&

4. *- 4 1 -4C

C*44) 1 0 *l) 0 04

40 o 0':

o 00 4) r_'Q 

41 U .) V

0 Ki 4 X-I 41 0 -

C *f 0 0) 0

~ 0 0 C 4 )

0 ~,4 r4. to - ,4 -0 -U W. 0.44

41 ws 4 0) >

0) 0~ rc rA w

.444- 0 .4

40 tO r. (D0 0.4

o41 41t r

(a C ) 44 (1) .-4

41 0 $4 4 v) x .V)cC

410 w 14 -M 0 > w y >q 04 0 :1*" 04 4J U)$4 w 

20 m 0. 0 to w0 ~ 4

U) 44 4) M .1 4u F 4- )~" 0 r. w 0 4) E-1 M

4c 4 41~ 4) 9) 0.a4 0

E-4 u r) 0 (a ZF rq ".4 a )

S0 W& 9 - V4

4) Od4 02 rqX:U)U E-4 M.4 E- 1.0Q

42
III. THE PLANNING, PROGRAMMING, AND BUDGETING SYSTEM

A. GENERAL

The Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS) was

initiated in the early 1960's by the Office of the Secretary of

Defense (OSD). This system created a bridge between planning and

budgeting, and provided OSD with a management and decision-making

system which would enable resources adjustments within and among

the military services and other defense agencies.

The Army PPBS follows Department of Defense (DOD) guidance

and is a complex system designed to translate U.S. military

strategy for the accomplishment of established national security

objectives into Army force structure. It is the primary tool

used to articulate the strategy, size, structure, equipment, and

prioritization of resources to insure readiness of the total

force. The PPBS is an evolutionary process which looks at national defense objectives and strategic planning, and develops

and programs forces to meet these objectives. Finally, the

selected programs are entered into the budget. Essentially, the

process is a systematic way to arrive at an effective allocation

of resources for accomplishing specific national defense objectives (Figure III-1). The most consistent aspect of the entire

PPBS is the close interrelationships among the distinct phases

of the process (planning/programming/budgeting) (Figure 111-2).

During the planning process, concepts and objectives (missions, forces, readiness) are developed to support national defense objectives. The basic purpose of the programming phase of

the PPBS cycle is to convert the approved concepts and objectives

developed during the planning phase into a definitive structure

of time-phased resource requirements (manpower, materiel, funds),

as the basis for the Army's budget submission. Interactions result from overlap in the annual regeneration of an 18-month cycle, during which there is budgeting for one year, programming

for the following year, and planning for the succeeding years.

Planning, programming, budgeting, accounting, and reporting for

the DOD must all be consistent with DOD guidance. The Five Year

Defense Program (FYDP) is the management tool that records, summarizes, and displays the defense program resultinq from military

service recommendations and Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) decisions. It is the baseline from which all programs are evaluated

and updated to obtain authorizations and Congressional appropriation of the funds necessary for program implementation. The

following subsections describe each of the three functions of

the PPBS--planning, programming, and budgeting. A summary of

Army staff functions by principal PPBS participant is in Figure

111-3.

43
SSELCO 05

L------------ Progamin Budetin

ATRADDO SAS CO

CAS AA RCa

MUDSCO ABCD AM A CSAESA

OPSUATIUD~CH 

D:SCI - ' w s & .g.

ROA OTERSA A S

DARCW DCLOG OA I A S AAU O

Army C Progrming andR BudgetingFrm ok

L -- -------- i IARC060 "'44
ca

IJ

(~d 3P44 -

0-

IC 2 Z

~441

S --- -- - - -

'ad

-,-CA

45
._.l.. pi- ". _ ti.~I

A-, -p-aas I.". '..3

.3.

F .90.4 w0. "

DCOPPG

COEw

-dur.d R1-.1Arl195 S 7-.1 A ugus 1978C

Figur 111-3-d Summary of Stf ucinabsrnia PB atcpn

-... ,d CMA lm" PM46
B. PLANNING PHASE

The initial phase of each PPBS cycle is the planning phase

(Figure 111-4). During this phase, defense policies and military

strategy to attain national security objectives, capabilities,

and resources required for the execution of Army roles and missions in support of these objectives are determined.

Military planning is accomplished within the Joint Strategic Planning System (JSPS). The JSPS addresses all aspects of

intelligence, strategy, requirements, and capabilities, and takes

into consideration allied as well as U.S. forces.

The JSPS is comprised of a series of six (6) documents, as

described in the following paragraphs.

1. Intelligence Priorities for Strategic Planning (IPSP)

The IPSP establishes military intelligence targets and

priorities for both the short-range (0-2 years) and mid-range

(2-10 years) periods. The document provides guidance and advice

to the SECDEF and military services on the planning, collection,

and production of intelligence. It includes guidance for the

prioritized collection and production of intelligence to develop,

update, and revise the Joint Intelligence Estimate for Planning

and the Joint Long Range Strategic Appraisal. The IPSP also is

used to inform the director of the Central Intelligence Agency

(CIA) of intelligence priorities to support military strategy.

2. Joint Intelligence Estimate for Planning (JIEP)

This document focuses on the short- and mid-range periods; presents global and regional appraisals, including estimates

of the internal and external threats to countries of importance

to the United States; and estimates of the Warsaw Pact and major

Asian Communist military forces.

3. Joint Long Range Strategic Appraisal (JLRSA)

The JLRSA provides intelligence estimates, U.S. strategic forecasts, broad force structuring implications, and probable issues. This document is published every four years, just

preceding each Presidential election.

4. Joint Strategic Planning Document (JSPD)

The JSPD is the source document used by the Joint Chiefs

of Staff (JCS) to advise the President, the National Security

Council, and SECDEF on military strategy and force levels required to attain national military objectives.

47
0 

0

C

I-Ic

~ I

£

f ~I V

III I 1~ U) LL-i

U.. A .4-'.

U) U) 0

.( '-I

-~ -~

Li

1~

C)

* .---- za U. IL. -~ Li

O~i -

20

* 0

0 .~ U)0

*0C

C) = S

- U) U0

0..

Li

- U S 

0

I 0 I I Li 

U -' I I 'd.i

4 * I *~ 

C

I I C) w

o

hi * ~ -~ 0.

*0 C

r~i 2' '.2W 2 

C __________ ___________ _____ ______ __________ I~&J _____ U _________________________ C) - 4 U 0.. a hi - - U o C __________ U)

48
The planning force levels summarized in the JSPD constitute the baseline for assessing capabilities and associated risks

of the force proc-amr-d to implement the national military strategy. This, along wi... an assessment of the current force

capabilities, is the basis for JCS recommendations on DOD force

planning guidance and for changes to the Consolidated Guidance

(CG).

5. Joint Program Assessment Memorandum (JPAM)

The JPAM is published each year, approximately 30 days

after the military services have presented their Program Objective Memoranda (POMs) to OSD. The JPAM provides the JCS's

views on the adequacy of the composite force and levels of

resources as presented in the services' POMs.

6. Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP)

The JSCP provides JCS guidance to the chiefs of the

military services unified and specified commanders. It outlines

military tasks based on projected military capabilities and

threat estimates during the short-range period, and provides

current SECDEF guidance. The JSCP specifically assigns the unified and specified commanders' responsibilities for preparing

contingency plans.

7. The Joint Security Assistance Memorandum (JSAM)

The JSAM contains an analysis of U.S. military interests, establishes security assistance objectives and identifies

desired force levels for allied and friendly nations.

Each JSPS planning document applies to one or more specified planning periods and is published, updated, or reviewed

annually. Table III-1 depicts the JSPS document and the planning period(s) of impact.

The Army provides mid-range planning input to the JSPD

and short-range planning input to the JSCP through the ArmStrategic Appraisal (ASA) and Army Mobilization and Operations

Planning System (AMOPS) respectively.

Although not an approved, official Department of the Army

position, the ASA, developed by the Strategic Studies Institute

at the Army War College, presents an unconstrained view of midrange trends and addresses strategy and force planning issues in

the environment, projected 3 to 10 years into the future. The

Army staff and major commands consider the issues identified in

the ASA for possible inclusion in the PPBS and in forming the

Army position when responding to joint and DOD papers. The ASA

is a source document for Army input to the JSPD and the Consolidated Guidance (programming document).

49
Table III-I

JSPS Documents and Planning Periods

PLANNING PERIOD

DOCUMENT Short-Range Mid-Range Long-Range

ISPS X X

JIEP X X X

JLRSA X

JSPD X

JPAM X

JSCP X

JSAM X

The AMOPS provides mobilization and operational planning

guidance to Army staff agencies, major commands, and Army component commands of unified commands for the employment and support of Army fcrces in the short-range period. The AMOPS uses

the planning assumptions of the JSCP and reflects specific tasks

and capabilities attainable within existing program and budget

constraints.

C. PROGRAMMING PHASE

1. Documentation

Within specified constraints, the programming phase is a

translation of JCS and Army planning into a comprehensive and

balanced allocation of projected forces, manpower, materiel, and

funds for a five-year period, and an additional ten-year extended

planning period. The culmination of the programming phase is the

publication of the detailed allocation of resources as the Army

Program Objective Memorandum (POM). The POM is submitted to OSD, each May, for review in terms of overall defense needs. The POM,

as approved by the SECDEF, establishes the five-year program (and

50
ten-year extended planning annex), the first year of which provides the basis for developing annual budget estimates (Figure

111-5). Program formulation commences in early fall and continues for approximately nine months, until the POM is published

in May. The following subparagraphs describe, in general terms,

the required OSD and Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA)

programming documents.

a. Defense Policy Guidance (DPG)

Each fall, OSD prepares the DPG, a document containing new or revised guidance for conducting operational and

program planning, in sufficient detail to be of value to planners

and programmers. The DPG establishes a bridge between broad objectives and specific policy; that is, it translates broad

national goals and objectives into statements of policy and

strategy that are sufficiently specific for initiating the development of the Consolidated Guidance (to be discussed in subparagraph b.).

The DPG assumes an intentionally distant time horizon

in order to focus on near- and mid-range planning. This focus

aids in the transition of the defense program from the current

year program to the desired future year program. Due to resource limitations and because the force posture can only be

changed marginally, certain specific goals and objectives are

attainable during the program period only at high risk. Therefore, OSD intends that guidance emanating from the DPG be developed in congruence with the policies and objectives stated in

the document, subject only to such near-term constraints as costs

and manpower.

b. Consolidated Guidance (CG)

The CG constitutes a primary guidance document pro- viding central policy and direction for program development. The CG articulates rationale for the defense program and identifies fundamental issues. The SECDEF uses the document not only

to inform but also to encourage dialogue and debate. In the fall,

prior to revision of the previous year's CG, the SECDEF solicits

comments and suggestions from the chairman of the JCS and the

service secretaries. Thus, in late January, when he issues the

draft CG for review, service participation has already influenced

its content. In early March, the Secretary holds a joint meeting with the services and chairman to discuss their further comments based on the draft. After the joint meeting, he revises

the CG and, in late March, issues a final version, a summary of

which is sent to the President for his review. The CG contains

specific guidance on policy, military strategic concepts and objectives, planning and programming, force levels, manpower, support, and budget.

51
Agency AM IJ IJTAISLOIN.D IJ IFIMIA M IJ JfA ISFON 1D 1J

MONTHS BY FISCAL YEAR

0SCO

ARMY

dateI Upate uarteriy during

S*~**.: *"~.wn.... ~ .* *ograov omcutiofi i 

Programing evont

MACOMB -~ Non.Programing F'~\ ~ evnt for

continuity

____A M J J A S 0 N D 'J JY MI A RII J I J A IS 1 0 N I DJ

Source: Adapted from PPBS Handbook, 1979

Figure 111-5

Programming Events Showing Principal Interrelationships--Army PPBS Cycle

52
C. Army Guidance (AG)

The Army Guidance (AG) consolidates planning, programming, budgeting and guidance from studies into a single

document to be used by action officers and decision makers

throughout the PPBS cycle. The AG is a relatively recent innovation having replaced the Preliminary Army Planning and Programming Guidance Memorandum (PAPPGM) and the Army Planning and Programming Guidance Memorandum (APPGM) in January of 1980. The

first edition of the AG provided guidance for the FY82-86 POM and

the FY82 Budget. In the future, the AG will be published in

four volumns keyed to the timing of PPBS events.

d. Program and Budget Guidance (PBG)

In October the Comptroller of the Army (COA) issues

the Program and Budget Guidance (PBG) to the more than 25 commands and operating agencies that provide information for the

preparation of the POM. The October PBG contains detailed manpower and fiscal guidance based on decisions regarding the previous POM and the Army Budget Estimates (ABE). The October

PBG addresses the current budget and the five program fiscal

years. The manpower and fiscal data contained in the program

years provide command and agency controls for the upcoming POM.

e. Total Army Analysis (TAA)

Concurrent with the issuance of the PAPPGM and the

October PBG, the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans (ODCSOPS) translates the gross aggregation of

force structure requirements into more detailed elements of

force content. This process, called Total Army Analysis, develops the program force in support of the PAPPGM. The program

force lists the major combat, combat support, and combat service

support forces; the ammunition and resupply requirements; and

the associated manpower spaces needed to satisfy given scenarios.

f. Mission Area Analysis (MAA)

Eleven major mission areas have been defined in

which mission needs are rank ordered. Incremental additions to

these mission areas in the form of PDIPs are defined and become

the basis for program definition and ranking across mission areas.

g. Operational Readiness Analyses

Concurrent with TAA, the Army utilizes operational

readiness analyses (OMNIBUS), sponsored by OCDSOPS, to assess the

Army's capability to mobilize, deploy, and sustain forces in com- bat. The technique parallels that of TAA; however, instead of

describing the program force designed for the POM, OMNIBUS defines

53
the actual state of the existing force's readiness. The analysis

is based on the readiness conditions of a unit's personnel, training, equipment status, and major weapon system fire power potential. By computer simulation, the analysis deploys the force to

a theater of operations where it is programmed against the estimated endmy threat for the theater concerned.

h. Total Logistic Readiness/Sustainability (TLR/S)

Analysis

The Army conducts a TLR/S analysis, sponsored by the

Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics (ODCSLOG),

which complements the TAA and OMNIBUS. The TLR/S is designed to

assess the capability of the Army to deploy logistically ready

forces and sustain them in combat. TLR/S is conducted in conjunction with TAA, and then OMNIBUS, to provide data for both

program and current year force evaluations. Figure 111-6 displays the relationships among TAA, OMNIBUS, and TLR/S, and how

they affect program development.

i. Program Analysis and Resource Review (PARR)

The Army major commands and agencies that receive

the October PBG document from HQDA begin preparation of their

PARR document in the November-December time frame. The PARR,

forwarded to HQDA in January, represents the prioritized, zero

base program of the command at appropriation/operation and

maintenance, Army (OMA) program level of detail. The PARR discusses resource requirements and deficiencies in terms of both

the command's ability to accomplish-its mission and its need

for manpower, equipment, and facilities, and recommends commandidentified tradeoffs.

j. Program and Budget Estimate (PABE)

During the January/February time frame, the major commands and agencies that submitted PARRs to HQDA prepare their

PABE, at Army Management Structure Code (AMSCO) level of detail,

PABE. The PABE furnishes the budget-level detail supporting

the command operating and programming requirements, which were

approved during the Army staff evaluation of the PARRs, and any

additional guidance received from OSD. This level of detail

provides the Army staff the transitional link between the program and the upcoming budget estimate.

2. POM Submission

All of the aforementioned comments and actions lead to

the final programming actions--production and submission of the

Army's POM to OSD. The publication of the POM formally transmits

54
PLANNING

STRATEGY ~IL TA~PROGRAMING _

3SD LANNNG AGUIDANCE

FORCE 4F

J DEVELOPS * PROGRAM

FORCE

AV

DETERMINES LOGISTICS CAPABILITY TO SUJSTAIN COMBAT FORCES

OMNIBUS PROVIDES READINESS ESTIMATES 10TLR/S

PROGRJMBDE IPUT

Source: Adapted from Appendix A, CSR 700-2, 29 April 1977

Figure 111-6

Interrelationship of Force Readiness Analysis and POM Development

55
to the Office of the Secretary of Defense the Army proposals for

resource allocation in consonance with program guidance. As a

related action, the Army updates the FYDP to coincide with the

POM resource allocations. The POM describes all aspects of Army

programs, to include the Active Army, Army National Guard, and

Army Reserves. It highlights forces, manpower, and materiel

acquisition. Much of the POM is narrative and provides planning

rationale for various aggregations of program data and some of

the decisions which they support. The sections on forces, manpower, and materiel acquisition contain considerable detail

because of the intensive management interest in these resource

areas. A ten-year extension of the POM is provided to OSD as an

annex to the POM. The Extended Planning Annex (EPA) has assumed

increasing importance over the last several years. The EPA extends the five-year program an additional ten years. It displays

the materiel acquisition profile for selected major systems and

projects operating and support costs for both active and reserve

forces in force structure, manpower, plans, and military construction. The value of the EPA as a PPBS document is in its

influence on subsequent issues of the POM by highlighting program direction, potential affordability problems, and operating

and support shortfalls.

Since OSD has been required to submit its budget to the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in a zero base budget (ZBB)

format, the Department of the Army has redesigned its programming format to a zero base program (ZBP), to enable a smooth

transition from program to budget. The programming and budgeting

framework is displayed in Figure III-1. Therefore, the POM is

designed to display essentially three levels of resource requirements. The basic level is the resource (dollars and military

and civilian manpower) level prescribed in the Consolidated

Guidance, which provides that the Army sustain activities at the

level programmed in the President's budget. The second, or minimum, level is lower than the basic level and is established by

identifying specific functions that are to be unfunded. The

third level is the enhanced level, which calls for resources

greater than those expressed in the basic level.

a. Program Development Increment Package (PDIP)

The basic building block of POM development is the

PDIP. The purpose of the PDIP is to associate all resource

requirements with a particular mission or function, thereby

promoting incremental development and facilitating leadership

decisions on the Army program and budget. Each PDIP specifies

the manpower and, by funding appropriation, the Total Obligational Authority (TOA) needed to produce a particular increment

of capability. Figure 111-7 is an example of a PDIP.

PDIPs are developed by either the Army staff or the

major commands, and each PDIP competes for resources during the

programming phase of the PPBS. In order for the Army to display

56
.4.4

00

zr

>4 -.

0

i:~ ~E 04 

M

C,0 01 0 -.

~~44

N N~ N NNNN4

04 w

0D 0o

04a

57
the three levels of resource requirements (ZBP) in the POM, a

brief discussion of the FY-81 to 85 POM is necessary.

The Army staff decided to develop a core resource

position which would be below the OSD-prescribed minimum level

by approximately 20%. The purpose of reducing the Army resource

level to below the minimum level was to enable the Army programmers to gain flexibility in designing a prioritization scheme

that would allow the movement of PDIPs above and below the minimum level. This meant that the Army could prioritize some missions and functions which would not be displayed to OSD in their

submission of the POM.

In order to take the Army resource level down from the approved FY-80 to 84 POM basic level to the proposed core, the

Army staff developed a number of PDIPs that decremented the Army

program. These PDIPs were transmitted to the field and the major

commands were instructed to include the decrementing PDIPs in

their PARR submission to achieve their core level. The major

commands also were instructed to develop PDIPs in support of new

initiatives, prioritize their new PDIPs, and add back the decrementing PDIPs in building their PARR from the core to their enhanced level.

Upon HQDA receipt of the major commands' PARR and the Army

staff-developed PDIPs (new initiatives and CG direction), the

Army programmers prioritized all of the PDIPs, making it a

viable and attainable program, and submitted the final product

(the POM) to OSD. The FY-82 to 86 POM development was based on

the FY-81 to 85 POM submission (that is, the PDIPs developed

from the core through the enhanced level), new initiatives, CG

direction, and a complete prioritization review.

3. POM Approval

The POM is officially transmitted to OSD in May, and the

POM approval cycle begins. The approval process begins with the

issue paper cycle. During the course of the program review by

OSD, alternatives emerge and are expressed as issue papers, each

dealing with a specific PDIP. As these issues arise, working

level meetings are held between the Army and OSD staff in an attempt to resolve or clarify the issues. The formal (unresolved)

issue papers begin to arrive in June and usually continue through

July, each requiring an immediate, formal response. The Army's

responses to the issue papers are considered by the Secretary of

Defense as he formulates his Program Decision Memorandum (PDM).

In early August, SECDEF issues a PDM approving the POM

with specific changes. The Army staff reviews the PDM and determines which decisions the Army should reclame, identifying

those that warrant the personal attention of the Chief of Staff

or Secretary of the Army. These latter decisions become major

issues and result in a meeting of the Chief of Staff, Secretary

58
of the Army, and Secretary of Defense for a personal discussion

of the issues.

Following the major issues meeting, the Secretary of Defense

publishes an Amended Program Decision Memorandum (APDM) in late

August or early September. This document approves the POM with

the specific changes identified in the PDM and amendments in

consideration of the Army reclame made.

Upon publication of the APDM, the SECDEF reports to the

President on the status of the overall program, and the APDM

then is used by the SECDEF to finalize earlier budget instructions. In a separate communication to the Army, SECDEF transmits control totals for TOA and instructions for using the minimum, basic, and enhanced programs of the approved POM to adjust

the FYDP and, at the same time, construct budget estimates for

the forthcoming budget submission.

D. BUDGETING PHASE

Programming translates planning into a balanced allocation

of forces, manpower, materiel, and funds for a five-year period.

Budgeting expresses resource requirements as needed manpower and

dollars categorized by Congressional appropriation, placing emphasis on the first year of the approved POM. Obtaining the

manpower and funds necessary to carry out approved plans and

programs is a primary function of the Army budget. Other primary functions of the Army budget are to promote both efficient

program management and effective financial control.

There are three distinct stages of Army budgeting: formulation, justification, and execution (Figure 111-8). The COA has

statutory responsibility for Army budgeting. Acting for the

COA, the Director of the Army Budget (DAB) is responsible for

overall supervision of the formulation, presentation, and execution of the Army budget.

Budget formulation begins with the approved POM, as modified

by the APDM, which establishes dollar amounts and military and

civilian manpower strength constraints. The May PBG displays

the positions and decisions emerging from internal POM review

and the adjustment of earlier resource guidance. Publication

in May permits timely development of annual budget estimates.

The advance data precedes, by several months, formal Budget

Estimates Guidance (BEG) received from OSD. However, this document, by virtue of translating the POM data into budget data and

c:lose coordination with OSD, fairly accurately reflects the re- • 'mlrce targets and fiscal guidance that will apply for the Army's

,r,.mber budget submission. The major commands receive both

POM and PBG immediately following their submission and, .. I n those documents, formulate command requirements. In

* ,v commands submit these requirements to HQDA in a Command

59
122L

*1 _________________________________________________________

.", ..........

4C) 

I~ 0L.. 

CA~ r

V - i

LL. L.co

z e 0

z 

z

a. 

4 1

II

12 - ___________; 

~0-

'060
Operating Budget (COB) which provides the appropriation directors

with budget and workload data needed in developing and evaluating

their budget estimates.

Following SECDEF issuance of the APDM, OSD prepares a BEG

relevant to the submission of the Army budget. Usually issued

in early September, the BEG formalizes essential information already available to the Army through advance coordination. The

BEG explains new requirements initiated by Congress and any requirements imposed by either OMB or OSD. The DAB disseminates

the BEG changes to the Army appropriation directors.

Once the appropriation directors have developed their proposed budgets, they present them to various Army authorities for

review to assure implementation of approved plans and programs.

The PBC serves as the principal forum for internal review of the

Army budget. During the review, the PBC discusses issues prepared by the DAB and alternatives to the proposals of the appropriation directors. Following PBC revision of the budget estimates (September), the appropriation directors present the proposed budgets to the Comptroller of the Army and the Assistant

Secretary of the Army for Installations, Logistics, and Financial

Management for review. Subsequently, the DAB develops a summary

budget which is presented to the Select Committee (SELCOM), the

Chief of Staff, and the Secretary of the Army for review and

decision.

Approval of the consolidated Army budget estimates by the

SELCOM, Chief of Staff, and Secretary of the Army paves the way

for the OSD budget "submit." Immediately following the Army

budget submission, analysts from OSD and OMB hold discussions

(hearings) jointly with the Army appropriation directors. The

purpose of these discussions is to conduct a detailed and analytical review of the budget to insure that it complies with restraints imposed by the BEG and that resources are allocated so

that programs approved by the APDM are realistically supported.

The products of the above review are scores of Decision

Package Sets (DPSs) either approving or revising specific programs. The flow of DPSs begins in late October and continues

until approximately mid-December. The DPSs flow through the

office of the DAB and are assigned to appropriate functional

staff agencies for action. The DPS then is coordinated with the

appropriation director to determine if appeal is warranted. Each

successful appeal results in a revised DPS documenting final decisions by OSD. Also during December, the Chief of Staff and

the Secretary of the Army meet with the SECDEF to discuss those

major budget issues on which decisions limit the capability to

execute Army programs. SECDEF and Presidential decisions resulting from this meeting appear as revisions to previously

issued DPSs.

6!
The final DPSs are integrated into the Army budget, which is

submitted to OSD for incorporation into the OSD budget that the

President submits to Congress in January. Concurrently, the

FYDP is updated. The Army portion of the President's budget is

accompanied by supporting books (justification books) containing

descriptive summaries and justification documents prepared by

appropriation directors.

Immediately following budget submission to Congress, the

justification phase begins. The Secretary of the Army and Chief

of Staff are called before Congressional committees to justify

the Army's budget. Posture statements are presented, either

jointly or separately, which cover different program aspects and

make reports on the status of current programs, objectives, and

capabilities of the Army. Questions posed by various committee

members are then answered. The Secretary of the Army and Chief

of Staff are followed by the DAB and appropriation directors,

who also present statements and testify before the Congressional

committees. The culmination of the justification phase of the

budget process is the military authorization and follow-on

appropriation bills which lead to the budget execution phase.

Budget execution constitutes the last of the three stages of

the budgeting process. Complementing budget formulation and justification, budget execution entails apportioning and allocating

funds to carry out approved programs, obligating and disbursing

these funds, and associated reporting and review.

62
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE MATERIEL SYSTEMS ACQUISITION/PLANNING,

PROGRAMMING, AND BUDGETING SYSTEM PROCESSES

A. GENERAL

It is evident that the materiel systems acquisition process

is event (Army Systems Acquisition Review Council (ASARC),

Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council (DSARC)) oriented;

that is, time sensitive only to the extent that the timing of

the next event is dependent upon the time needed to complete the

tasks required for that event, whereas the Planning, Programming,

and Budgeting System (PPBS) is time sensitive to the extent that,

at a specific time each year, the planning, programming, and

budgeting phases must commence.

ASARC/DSARC approval at each milestone (event) does not provide for programming or allocation of the resources (manpower or

dollars) necessary to support the continued development and deployment of a materiel system in the acquisition process. Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 5000.1 (paragraph D.2.d)

explicitly states that a program normally shall not proceed from

one acquisition phase to another unless sufficient resources are

or can be programmed. Thus, a programming action must be accomplished in a minimum of 16 months in order to become a current

year budget action (Figure IV-l). Normally, 16 months does not

allow enough time for the recruiting, training, and personnel

managers to implement the resource requirements to adequately

support the acquisition action; therefore, longer lead times are

required to match man and machine at the proper place and time.

B. ANALYSIS OF THE MATERIEL SYSTEMS ACQUISITION PROCESS

Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 5000.2 (paragraph

F.8.d) states that "new systems shall be designed to minimize

both the numbers and the skill requirements of people needed for

operation and support, consistent with system availability objectives. Manpower and personnel factors (to include numbers,

occupations, and skill levels of manpower required) shall be included as considerations and constraints in system design. Integration of manpower and personnel considerations with the

system shall start with initial concept studies and shall be refined as the system progresses to form the basis of crew station

design, personnel selection and training, training devices, simulator design, and other planning related to manpower and

personnel."

With this statement in nind, the first decision point is the

Milestone 0 decision, which is based on the Mission Element Needs

Statement (MENS) submitted by the Army. The purpose of the MENS

is to request Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) approval

to proceed to Phase 0, Concept Exploration, in order to overcome

63
CD

CD4 V 4r

I4 u . 4 Il

.. 0.4 2 

a2 4 3 w Fal 41

>4. .4 -

-1 0. tr 0 r-4 44 (U=

14-4 Q4 8 I*) 41 §4 0

toN U 4) (U C.

N 02 m) 41 -.3r 

-A 0,m4) riL.

24t 41 4) a)0 hE 41 U >H-O.

0 010 (Uj

0) a, 5

to 0% U) m04t $4o. 

-4 4) 0

4J 3 0

41 m 5W i o41 

4~ .4c,.

04~

4) "4

40

W) .4 1.4c

0. 4) v 8 C. V -4 o

A 0 to )

o ~2 4.4) $4 -4 .4

U) to -402 -. -

0 ri 41

0-p - ~ 4))4 -- -.

r144

64
a deficiency or capability shortfall, or to provide a more

effective means of performing the Army's assigned mission. The

format of the MENS is displayed in Enclosure 2 of DODI 5000.2.

Paragraph E. of the MENS format requires identification of key

boundary conditions (constraints), which includes an order of

the magnitude of resources the Army is willing to commit to

satisfy the identified need and manpower considerations. In

order for the Army to satisfy this requirement, an estimate of

the manpower required to test, train, operate, and maintain the

developing system must be made. The estimate need not be more

specific than the number of officers, warrant officers, enlisted

personnel, and Department of the Army civilians required, per

fiscal year, through the life cycle of the system.

Throughout the remainder of the formal acquisition process

(DSARCs I, II, III, and IIIA, if required), manpower, personnel,

and training (MPT) data are required in the Decision Coordinating

Paper (DCP) and the accompanying Integrated Program Summary

(IPS). These documents will require progressively more specific

definition of the numbers and skill requirements needed to

operate and support the proposed new system. The DCP and IPS are

required by OSD at each milestone review following MENS approval.

Annex A (Goals and Thresholds) of the DCP requires the identification of manpower requirements as they were approved by the

Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) in the last milestone decision, a

current estimate based on refinements, identification of tradeoffs and support concepts and, finally, the Army's recommendation for new goals and thresholds.

Annexes B and C of the DCP are dollar-oriented and both must

include the operation and maintenance, Army (OMA) cost of manpower (military and civilian). In order to cost manpower, its

various categories must be identified (e.g., officer, warrant officer, enlisted, direct hire U.S. civilians, direct hire foreign

national civilians, and indirect hire civilians). Thus, the manpower data identified to fulfill the DCP requirements can be considered general in nature, whereas the manpower data requirements

in the IPS are more specific and should be used as a building

block for the manpower data required in the DCP. The DCP does

not address training except in the overall context of manpower.

In general, the IPS requires data concerning the system

activity level used to estimate and compute system manpower requirements and to indicate whether the activity level represents

a combat surge, sustained combat, precombat readiness, or other

posture. Also, the IPS requires data concerning the available

hours per person, per month used to compute numbers of people

from workload estimates and any other critical assumptions that

have a significant bearing on manpower requirements.

Specifically, at Milestone I, the Army must summarize manpower sensitivity to alternative employment concepts being considered. They also must identify parameters and innovative

65
concepts to be analyzed during the next phase, such as new

maintenance concepts and organizations or new concepts or

technologies to improve personnel proficiency and performance.

At Milestone II, the Army must summarize the significant

manpower implications of tradeoffs conducted among hardware design. It must explain the significant manpower differences in

comparison with a reference system, quantify the sensitivity of

manpower requirements to the proposed maintenance-related reliability and maintainability goals and system activity rates,

describe the sources of manpower for the new system, and identify new occupations. In addition to this, the Army must portray

schedules for further tradeoff analysis among design and support

elements as well as schedules for job task identification, manpower analysis planning during the next phase, and planned test

and evaluation to verify the manpower estimates and assumptions.

At Milestone III, the Army must explain the changes from

manpower estimates presented at previous milestones and quantify

manpower sensitivity to the maintenance-related reliability and

maintainability levels and system activity rates demonstrated.

The Army also must identify shortfalls in meeting requirements

by occupation, assess the impact on system readiness, assess

the impact of a failure to obtain the required personnel, identify new occupations not yet approved and programmed into the personnel and training systems, and summarize plans for evaluating

manpower requirements during follow-on test and evaluation.

It is obvious from the above that, at the MENS and each succeeding milestone review, OSD requires more detailed manpower

and/or personnel data.

C. ANALYSIS OF THE PPBS PROCESS

The initial entry of a new resource requirement into the PPBF

can be in either of the three phases (Planning, Programming, or Budgeting). Initial entry into the planning phase is through the

Army Strategic Appraisal (ASA) and the Army Capabilities Plan

(ACP). A resource requirement entry into the planning phase of

the PPBS allows the Army's planners, programmers, and budgeters

the longest lead time to implement the new or revised requirement. Initial entry into the programming phase of the PPBS is

accomplished through the Program Objective Memorandum (POM) and

the Extended Planning Annex (EPA) of the POM process. For entry

of a resource requirement into the POM or EPA, the Army staff or

a major Army command must initiate a Program Decision Increment

Package (PDIP). The data required to initiate a PDIP are all of

the known resource requirements, to include but not be limited tc

o Military Manpower by Program Element, Fiscal Year, and

Active and Reserve Component

so Officer

66

Lmimmnn
so Warrant Officer

so Enlisted

0 Civilian Manpower by Program Element and Fiscal Year

so Direct Hire U.S.

so Direct Hire Foreign National

so Indirect Hire

a Funding by Program Element/Appropriation and Fiscal Year

* Narrative Description

0 Rationale and Analysis

The initial entry of a new resource requirement into the

budgeting phase of the PPBS is an exception rather than a

standard practice. The reason for this is twofold: first, time

of entry into the PPBS through implementation is so short that

the resources (personnel and training) may not be available when

required, and, second, in order to provide the required resourcesL

for the new start, some other mission or function must be decremented or delayed. Initial entry into the budgeting phase is

through the Command Operating Budget (COB) submission or through

a budget appropriation/program director. The budget (COB) reviev

is initiated in July and August, followed by budget approval in

January and budget implementation in October.

An adjunct to the PPBS is the Force Development Integrated

Management System (FORDIMS) (Figure IV-2). FORDIMS is a major

Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) management information system (MIS) that provides accurate and timely force and

manpower management and civilian manpower costing data to the

Army staff throughout the PPBS process. The civilian and active

military force structure manpower data for each approved PDIP

(within the approved basic level) are entered into the Program

and Budget Subsystem (PBS) by the Office of the Deputy Chief of

Staff for Personnel (ODCSPER) (Manpower Data) and the Comptroller

of the Army (COA) (Civilian Cost Data). The type of manpower

data entered into the PBS is as follows:

0 Purpose of the action

* Action number

* Effective date--that is, the date manpower is expected

to be on station to perform the mission or functional

requirement

* Major command(s) of assignment

67
".4 C

>

414

I~ ''15

P64

wow

680
* Active Military Force Structure by identity (officers,

warrant officers, and enlisted)

* Civilian manpower by type (see Table IV-l)

Army Management Structure Code (AMSCO)--An 11 position

code used for each line entry to allow the identification of manpower with an OSD program element code (Five

Year Defense Program (FYDP) code)

Through automation, the above data are transmitted to the

Force Structure Subsystem (FSS), which is, in essence, the Army's

master force or troop list, and represents, at a unit aggregate

level (manpower by required and authorized officers, warrant officers, and enlisted), the approved and planning force structure

of the Army as a force continuum. One area within the FSS that

is not unit-oriented is designated as a "holding area" (undistributed manpower); that is, designed to accept the transactions

from the PBS (non-unit-oriented) and hold them until either the

Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans

(ODCSOPS) or the major command of assignment designates the

unit(s) to which the manpower is to be assigned. It is important to note that the military and civilian manpower in the FSS

does not contain data on grades or skill levels, only numbers

of officers, warrant officers, and enlisted and civilians by

category (Direct Hire U.S., Direct Hire Foreign National, and

Indirect Hire).

The third and last subsystem of FORDIMS is the Authorizations Subsystem (AS). The AS is essentially a file of documents, each one of which is supposed to display detailed manpower, personnel, and equipment information (required and authorized) for a unit at a specific time in the FSS. Each approved

unit (not the planning force units) in the FSS should have a

document on file in the AS. The documentation contained in the

AS for those units currently (current year) in the master force

and those entering the force in the budget year is submitted by

the major command to which the unit is assigned. ODCSOPS is

responsible for maintenance and operation of both the FSS and

AS. There does not appear to be an Army agency responsible for

entering documentation into the AS for new types of units approved in the POM and EPA where a table of organization and

equipment (TOE) has not been developed.

The transition of manpower authorizations to personnel requirements is accomplished through the Structure and Compositior

System (SACS). The SACS is the primary vehicle used to translate

the approved master force from its aggregate level of detail

(using a combination of data from the FSS and AS) to a resource

requirements level of detail for the Army's asset managers.

There are two types of SACS output data supporting Army asset

managers. The Personnel SACS (PERSACS) provides ODCSPER, ODCSOPS,

and MILPERCEN with personnel data for the following:

69
Table IV-l

Sample of Civilian Manpower by Category and Type

CATEGORY TYPE

rirect Hire US -Graded US Citizens

-Wage Grade US Civilians

-US Citizens Paid From

Deutschemark

-Rate Instructors

-US Dependents

cirect Hire Foreign National -Graded Panamanians

-Wage Grade Panamanians

-Korean

-Korean Service Corps

-It'lians

-Ryukyuan

Indirect Hire Foreign National -German National Personnel

-German National Personnel

Paid From Deutschemark

-German Labor Service

-Japanese

70
0 development of personnel accessions

* distribution programming

* personnel assignments

* training requirements

The Logistics SACS (LOGSACS) provides logistic data for:

0 the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics

(ODCSLOG), for use in the development of materiel distribution

programs.

* the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Research,

Development, and Acquisition (ODCSRDA), for the development of

materiel acquisition programs.

0 the Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command

(DARCOM), for use in the development of the Army Materiel Plan

and ammunition requirements computations.

In summary, the determination of manpower, personnel, and

training data from the materiel systems acquisition process is

accomplished in stages. For the MENS, only manpower (officers,

warrant officers, and enlisted) constraints need to be identified. At Milestone I, a summary of manpower sensitivity to

alternate employment concepts is to be considered. Essentially, this is little more than a requirement to update the MENS

data. At Milestones II and III, not only is there a requirement to update the manpower data, but there are requirements to:

* identify manpower implications of hardware tradeoffs.

0 . identify manpower differences in comparison to a reference system.

A * describe the manpower sources for the new system.

* summarize projected requirements in critical career

fields.

* identify new occupations.

* summarize training plans for acquiring and maintaining

the required proficiency of operating and support

personnel.

* identify the scope and duration of formal training and

time in on-the-job training.

* provide a summary, by fiscal year and occupation, of all

formal training requirements, identifying numbers of

personnel trained and training costs.

71
The above manpower, personnel, and training information requirements are to be included in the documentation presented to

OSD in the MENS and to the DSARC at Milestones I, II, and III.

DODI 5000.2 (para. E.5.g) also requires the Army to provide the'

following affordability information in the briefing presented

to the DSARC:

* Comparison of program resource estimates with the latest

PPBS projections (including the Extended Planning Annex).

. Identification of the relative ranking of the system

with the Army's other major systems in the same mission

area and time frame.

The manpower requirements for developing materiel systems

can be entered into the PPBS during any phase of the PPBS process. The entry of data in the planning and programming phases

of the PPBS will allow the asset managers of the Army the longest

lead time for the timely procurement and asE-mbly of non-systems

equipment (e.q., individual weapons, government furnished equipment, etc.).

Entry of data in the planning phase of the PPBS is through

the ASA or ACP, and entry in the programming phase is through

the POM process. Entry in the budgeting phase is through the

Command Operating Budget process.

72
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. CONCLUSIONS

Managers at all levels of the materiel systems acquisition

process must be intimately aware of the procedures and timing of

the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS) in order

to justify and obtain the resources required to insure the continuation and smooth transition through each developmental phase

of the materiel systems acquisition process they have been designated to manage. As can be seen throughout this document, the

materiel acquisition process is event oriented and lacks the regulatory authority to allocate resources. On the other hand, the

PPBS is the authoritative system designed to prioritize and allocate resources for all Army missions and functions for current

and future years.

The materiel systems acquisition process and procedures have

been institutionalized within the Department of Defense (DOD) and

the Department of the Army (DA) for a number of years, but only

recently has there been a concerted effort to identify and project manpower, personnel, and training resource requirements

early in the acquisition process. DOD also has placed greater

emphasis on the interface between the materiel systems acquisition process and the PPBS. Retired Generals Walter T. Kerwin

and George S. Blanchard in their Discussion Paper #2 for the

Chief of Staff, "Army Top Problem Areas," dated August 1980,

stated:

The U.S. Army has a major man/machine interface problem. There are not enough qualified people to perform the tasks required to effectively operate, support, and maintain the current Army systems. Force

structure changes and organizational realignments

such as those prompted by Division 86 will create

additional requirements. The problem is severe

and will continue to get worse. Increasing weapon

complexity, the large number of new systems being

developed, insufficient formal school training, a

declining manpower pool, disproportionate numbers

of CAT IIIB and CAT IV personnel, recruiting and

retention problems, and unit turbulence - all will

continue to strain the already overburdened personnel, training, and development communities .... The

severity of this man/machine crisis and its impact

on force readiness, reconstitution, and sustainability requires that immediate and extraordinary

action be taken to remedy this complex interrelated

problem.

Since 1978 (Program Objective Memorandum (POM) 80-84), the

Army has been actively attempting to capture the total life cycle

73
resource requirements of each materiel system under development

as well as assess and prioritize each system within the PPBS.

This was accomplished by identifying all resource requirements

for one materiel system in a single Program Development Increment Package (PDIP) (PDIP discussion in Section III). During

the succeeding POM submissions (POMs 81-85 and 82-86), the

Department of the Army has made considerable progress in updating, refining, and including life cycle cost data of the

systems under development in the PPBS process.

The key issue, then, concerning the interface between the

materiel systems acquisition process and the PPBS process is

the timing of the data entry into the PPBS. It is obvious that

the earlier the materiel systems data are entered into the PPBS

process, the more visible the acquisition system becomes, the

longer is the lead time provided for affordability/supportability assessment, and the better is the opportunity for plan- ning afforded to Army asset and training managers.

In order to accomplish the above, the materiel systems developers must be able to initially determine, at the point of

initial program definition ("For comment DCP") a "best guess"

of the manpower and military occupational specialty (MOS) (skill)

requirements for their system for entry into the next POM and

Force Development Integrated Management System (FORDIMS)

(program/budget and authorization subsystems). Each year thereafter, the manpower and personnel data entered into the POM and

FORDIMS should be refined and updated with the latest data

determined by the acquisition managers.

After each POM submission to the Office of the Secretary of

Defense (OSD), personnel and logistics Structure and Composition

Systems (SACSs) (described i, Section IV) are computed, based on

the master force supporting the POM decisions. The Personnel

SACS (PERSACS) will describe, for each of the POM years, the

number, type, and skills of personnel required to implement the

POM programs and systems. This will allow the personnel, recruiting, and training managers to analyze the total active

Army requirements for each POM year in view of affordability and

supportability in relation to a decline in the recruiting manpower pool, the proportion of CAT IIIB and CAT IV enlistees, retention forecasts, and unit turbulence. If, through the above

process, the personnel or training managers determine certain

skills (MOSs) are not supportable, then personnel and/or training constraints (man/machine tradeoff) can be placed on those

materiel systems under development causing the unsupportability.

B. RECOMMENDATIONS

o The acquisition system combat developer (normally, the

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC)) should determine, as accurately as possible, the total military and civilian

manpower requirements for the life cycle of the system and

74
provide a document to the FORDIMS manager at Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA) designating the grade and MOS of the

military manpower required to operate and support the system

throughout its life cycle. It is understood that an MOS decision

for the system operators and maintainers will not have been made

at this time, but the career management field (CMF) and the skill

levels should be known or at least estimated. Therefore, only

the third character of the MOS should be unknown (e.g., 13X20).

The number 13 represents the field artillery CMF; the X represents the unknown or undesignated system; the 2 represents the

skill level which describes the difficulty of the tasks to be

performed and equates to an enlisted grade of E-5; the 0 signifies that the position does not require special qualifications,

such as a parachutist. The above should be provided to HQDA

prior to submission of "For Comment DCP" to DOD.

0 A single point of contact (POC) on the DA staff should be

appointed for each system obtaining MENS approval from the Secretary of Defense. The system POC would be responsible for the

development and annual update of the system PDIP. He also would

be responsible for assuring that the approved (HQDA) system data

are properly entered and displayed in FORDIMS.

* A pre-POM SACS should be computed and distributed to the

Army asset and training managers based on the President's budget

submission plus the Total Army Analysis (TAA). This would allow

affordability/supportability analysis prior to the final decisions on prioritization of the POM. These decisions will assist

managers in the acquisition, personnel, and training processes

in determining the impact materiel acquisitions will have on

future Army posture.

:75
GLOSSARY

ABE Army Budget Estimates

ACP Army Capabilities Plan

AMSCO Army Management Structure Code

APDM Amended Program Decision Memorandum

APPGM Army Planning and Programming Guidance Memorandum

ARI Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences

AS Authorizations Subsystem

ASA Army Strategic Appraisal

ASARC Army Systems Acquisition Review Council ASA(RDA) Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research,

Development, and Acquisition

ASD(MRA&L) Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower,

Reserve Affairs, and Logistics

BEG Budget Estimates Guidance

CG Consolidated Guidance

CIA Central Intelligence Agency

CMF Career Management Field

COA Comptroller of the Army

COB Command Operating Budget

DA Department Of the Army

DAB Director of the Army Budget

DAE Defense Acquisition Executive

DARCOM Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command

DCP Decision Coordinating Paper

DIA Defense Intelligence Agency

* DOD Department of Defense

DODD Department of Defense Directive

DODI Department of Defense Instruction

DPAE Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation

DPG Defense Policy Guidance

DPS Decision Package Set

DSARC Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council

EPA Extended Planning Annex

FORDIMS Force Development Integrated Management System

FSS Force Structure Subsystem

FYDP Five Year Defense Program

HQDA Headquarters, Department of the Army

ILSP Integrated Logistics Support Plan

IOC Initial Operating Capability

IPS Integrated Program Summary

ISPS Intelligence Priorities for Strategic Planning

77

Jo j- -
JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff

JIEP Joint Intelligence Estimate for Planning

JLRSA Joint Long Range Strategic Appraisal

JPAM Joint Program Assessment Memorandum

JSCP Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan

JSPD Joint Strategic Planning Document

JSPS Joint Strategic Planning System

LCSMM Life Cycle System Management Model

LOGSACS Logistics Structure and Composition System

MENS Mission Element Needs Statement

MILPER Military Personnel

MIS Management Information System

MOS Military Occupational Specialty

MPT Manpower, Personnel, and Training

MRF Milestone Reference File

O&M Operation and Maintenance

ODCSLOG Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics

ODCSOPS Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations

and Plans

ODCSPER Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

ODCSRDA Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Research,

Development, and Acquisition

OMA Operation and Maintenance, Army

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PABE Program and Budget Estimate

PAPPGM Preliminary Army Planning and Programming Guidance Memorandum

PARR Program Analysis and Resource Review

PBC Program and Budget Committee

PBG Program and Budget Guidance

PBS Program and Budget Subsystem

PDIP Program Decision Increment Package

PDM Program Decision Memorandum

PERSACS Personnel Structure and Composition System

POC Point of Contact

POM Program Objective Memorandum

PPBS Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System

RDT&E Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

SACS Structure and Composition System

SDDM Secretary of Defense Decision Memorandum

SECDEF Secretary of Defense

SELCOM Select Committee

TAA Total Army Analysis

78
TLR/S Total Logistic Readiness/Sustainability

TOA Total Obligational Authority

TOE Table of Organization and Equipment

TRADOC U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command

ZBB Zero Base Budget

ZBP Zero Base Program

79
DISTRIBUTION

I IS AriMY WtlSTIkRN L)MMANU AITN: AVPL

I IEJAtMENT t* 1.Im NAVJY 11(MININ., ANALYbIS ANL EVALUATION bI4OUIU

I riIIA ATfr4: AIIJA CMT-UU

IHoiCArA AT:ACTOI OS AuitY MAWtt SYSTtm~i 04NALYsih ACTIVITY AHMY PROCIipEmLNT HESEAWC1 OFFUCL

? Hj iA ktSLARCH AN) SrUi)ILb UFC

I 14111ARY UCCUP~li.)(AL DEVtLUPH-WNI U1V L)APC-WiF-Uq RM IA5eC HOFFMAN HLoG 1

4 OA'.I) (MRA AND LI

IMANI...1. COHVPS ULVtUPM4LtVI AND L--ULAI 1U' (.,-IMANLI ATTN: Co.OU LU41

1 1) tA A I iN:

IHQ. lt.AIA TFLHNILAL LILIHNA(Y

I H'J )A ul)C: PF k

I lIS4Aa.CUq STC

I )S i .L)HALIC'M AI I': AMSItL-PA-Ho,

I )', HRA0COP4 AT IN A4Z L-LU-AL

I '~ii)IAH-IitPS J:3 M~kIWEJ CUNI5 ,1 IN: CJut, -iTMT

I HL.A,,oANLctS* US~ IAHINt IJkPb ATTN: L~i MPI-20

Ai OS Am.MY EUWP .)iJi) St~LLAIrl ANif

I I sr ihAN1iY thlIIJSIOd Af4U Plt i.1LFV' ArTf.: AILN-UPI-T

*I is. .IjdLLT!(jLNLF 'INI StCuhiTY (UMMANI) ATTN: LAOPs-TNI.-T

-, 1li I mAIj0C rFI- UlAL Li 4mMY

I ,AjAi T-JAINIbl WJIALN1 L.LN .I I IN 1 r.Lpif ICAL LIdRWARY

I -iI L I ANY u(,CIP AT I)P4 L Ut V LL U irt.'& UkHIX WII kA IL ATTN: ATZI1NCR-MS-M. K~4 3N.13 HOFFjAN IHLVU It

I *)AIA ANALci'I, ujIViSIuN AlIN: aIL-N.-41. HOFFMAN ttLd( LI

I u S 41; LF A CHIiI. )t4UsilIAIIONMI LtPLCIIVl,ESb tiRANLH

I .,i 0.IANIbY fu141S1UJ

I ",j jA AtlmY FURL' 'i3otWNNILAI IU14 LUUHLI'4AT [ON ufFFICE

1 -114 )A Al T1: IJ~ , ~i I r.A4Aj A IN SYSIL1 :014NiANLI

* ~I I el 4j) U2AHLOA4 1 ~r t CtNtRA

1 -11.3 AmdNY IjUI.i)irH s:JI'P)NI Ltl"4rLH

Ii O.ti.1Uo4%fF thF %RM~Um AViMlIUIN ATTN: 11K-AAu

III5jA..gMC + J. r~,J AVIiiIUN 1-'ItbIO

I II iRwCL~ k ip 'a 0I L,4 - OLPI I I L (iF j FON LNTELLIb*NCE

I rAiJHCLSb CUMM1AN) AfLib - uPi)l'Y LHr.F flF STAFF FOR LOGhISTICS

it r0W~CLh C4m,,-4 A~uoj - UL)uIY (Hk.1; Of STAFF FOR OPERATIONS

I''Si ANmY 'hg11 Fi-'ISL zCl1UUL Al ,Yl; ATSA-jTIP

OII .tlul,!1lf tl II(AINIwN, ulTN: AILw-T

Ii O4ft.Tt)I4r~I. OIF iu'41*A1 tfliVLLOMPlr NIS AiTti: AIZU-U

I 414 PA,4LIP4 -',AkNr _t uNI LIAISONJ uti.

ii,'A..IitN lb I-or li14.1Y U~p ANOYly NTEL,.i,sICL * SLCUi4ITY CUMMANU

1 .W yIY 10-411416 bJ, sW ,I ?(,I LfN I R /

Il'S Amm *34% ty oL'4ILN .ATIN: LlrikHIA'4, 141.1)b 490O

'IS. W) *.IjlLf .lI-'I AllIN; UHNS.kNIN

1 I:.. I l.: f i)K(-iI .- Lbli

I,, ii-irLAmy IjJbI!-?Lt Ot asibil,Pid'UN O'l_ (Ot toJUAL OIP$OWIOTNITY

,ii ,tfN~llJ~ts..~ut t(.NILff ,I N: A IC-.,MU

,' il*IALh0? oFI IL:

/1.4I ,k,4"Y Tk.Al i ~ :to LUANANUIL

I ij k jAIIIl*N 011 * ti')OPI*

1 PI, )lJA. t)LSUI'% U It liiuIN104i,v

P41) )1o. I)CSL()(s l -'.I'i~N~. ANo%-I.Mt.NIr

I o )AI to, OC' Sj1JUI )It ICL

to iI3C-tC L Al a it..; I L-tA-t rIuflAh, Pm lu t
I A I ~ 54M C/II#'i,.H

I I* IS. F 60 IT PC i N MAHHY *UV ISUH

I oio rLeX:I"0O,1lC ,HJVLNU tjHIVtjNU 'A IN11: a IirE i-MIS

I f)F1C t M N kl- (~~ L NAV AL iI;Iy1*N 4t F.4(Ct AiCI~ :Lk.C IJI II rrito

I AF: IRt/LkLku

I i;L I '- UC tW~Is&N4 Ii.')WMLLCS LAUi , I f N: At- 'i''L/ NN

I AF -Im4L 1K

1 111l- I1l4 htft I uA 4AeI tA(Il.E 14l) L; LriII~tk LOMMIMAIU A 4 ) UPPURO$1 SYS rLMS

I i'MJY PFHnSI.Jt'IPLL .- Afl) U. (.t'JiENi I

I rAVY I'LNSj(frIF~L ANt) U ,L-J1Ek ULHLLIJK (+ .HJIURAMS I rcA 4Y 14 HSUNI l-L ANI) u LLN ILk I

I l AmjY Allh L,1jk)114-FI!W1Nu. l-LIbfI AL1 vii y AT114: UAvIL-ir'

,( III- uk ucVAL QNL)tAPCII Wt-:t0N~rL AU fHAI1jNb NEEA140 PHUGNkAMS

1 HAvM, PLNSONNEL H + U L LNItR I

I OPL-. kit' AAVAL RL1,L-AICri PNuJlL1 VI-1- ILER lt,vIIUNMLN4TAL PHYSIOLOGY I* (P uF NAVAL W)I r 0HbcAAZIAUL LFfE.CIJvNL5S PR,).

1 iiAvAi Al-NUSRACL -1;71jIl;AL HS)I. LW-) AlINJOW-- HNAR9 HES1-ARLM

I 1 iAjAj AP.ROCSPACIL vIEVUILAL HW.H LAU AtkJt.'ACE PSYCH)LUGY ULWAHTmENr

I II, iHAUL SY5115i AN'ALYbI ) ALILVIIY MITIj: ATAA-TCA

I H~L)MDUAWMtRbq LocI OUAHU CHirl- 9 PSYCHt1:v)GICAL NSCH mo

ll~ii rqSEAHC~H AN'- ILCH-NULU-,Y LA'iI/

I OS54 rI'bINLFA4 lU-U~kAIPH1C LAbS AI I N: S Ii L 4 C;tN .R

I uS,% rNGINJLFW TUPu3RAPIC L-AbS AiI N -I L- II)-$ I ')So% m,.UILITY tii 'ltif H NUw u (AJmU AIIo~o: UHUME-1U (SCHIJOL)

1 11 Oil , VISiLIJ LANi AI IN: L)N .LL-t4-SUL

I AT ArIiU M~-AT941MA

I tJ A rIUMAN bNt,11-.-4Nu Lmb

I W:ISaorl- LIAISON 4t--q USA)V"I.. I

I UkJ% .-iATt.NIEL SYT:.MS AIIA)LISI ALi1VjIY ATT: LRASY-C

I i)Szk nESEANCH OIlC I

I PIAF~t. HUMAN EN olIJLLTINIJ CIANLH

I oIa H.CIIC ILSI CE!') A1TN: AMSIL-I'L-15S

1 IS.. tOULi HF(21,'4 5 ft!.S CF-11 ATTI'l: S rECN-01P

I LIS-k L.UNCEPIS AN.ALVb1I) UI.,LT ATIN: CLA-Rqp

I IS)' k.NCEPTS A".L4YbSIS AILY A] IN. LSLA-JI.

IoS.IC.LIA AIN: ATZL-CAL-IL

IUSAC(.O(-A All.): ATLL-CAC-Lm

I iIS'4CuL ATTN: AIL..-CAC-LA

I I)boAC..CIA Aflfi: AILL-CAL-A

I IIS'u rLECrH()NIC .A-0ARE LAO 011I't- Ih4ILLI.IGLNCt ?4AILH flEVLL *SUPP (JIF

I1li m5C ,EtFVNC AN STVLO'UMNUI A W19 U.K. LF cEC~ Ji OUSC

I I) iApq NSF -~F AkC ANOAHVL~~tI LAUZ U.I(.CE(ESU~ Cip, FIUS A

I Fi~m.I,04A ATTI-: ,Ajh-Uk

I wAoAt, Ali SYSTL-iS LOMMAiNu A14 AIR-:iJlA

I FC,)9 AlTTN: AAISL-CT-U

t iS-ACuLC TFCH:4ICA INI-oNMAI1UIlk LLNiILN

I 'S-4Auil. LItINAWY

Is M A AUC SYSIti4S ANALYSIS AcrivilY Arlj: ATAA-SL (TFCH LIbWARY) I IINII,,HMLj SEWVACLS U141T UP- Il- 'IALIH bCI ULIYAkdMtNT OF PSYCHIATRY,

I IS L0141UIEW SfblEMS CUM,4ANU AIIN: CJM-'4A*IO TLCrINICAL LIbI4AIY H-9

1 tUi~ib INFCIoIIAIE, USAAMNLL TL4l-INICAL LIHIIAHY

I CLIrpl FUR NAVAL ANALYbIS

1 NIAMA HtALTH RbCCM CEN L16MAHY

I NAVAt ELk.CIIUNLC:3 LAO AIIN:t LLANCN LIMRAttY

I NA4Ai- NPl-SONNEL e4 ANU U CLN LINHWAY ATTN: CUUL 10106 I HU4EywELL INL. bYSTk#45 A14U NLSLAHNCH CL1ITPR

I A11- I-UNCkt HOMAN' tiESUUILLS LAO ATTN: AIHWL/0IS

I NCO* PT. MUACHULA AtI-I ILLH wtti~ (AV

82
I tUS, "LAI)LMY OF i1LALTri b)CILVCES S1IMSJN LIlHWAR!V WO)CUMFNTS)

I SCIO%)L Ulf SYSTLA~ ANd LU('ISTILS/

I t54mrHDC TELHN1t.AL Ljt4HAP(

I D)E.'A..dIA1N1 01,4ri NAVIY lKMIN1Nji3 ANALYSIS ANU EVALUATION ('P

I 051A DEPT OF uIPHAV1ORAL bL1 AIIU LLAULHSHIP

I I)SA t.01MjANf A'JU ENERAL SIAFP cul-LL(if- ATTN: L18*RARY

I US4 ikANIS0RTAII0'J SLCuUL USA IHANVSP IliC.- 1NF0 ANU NSCH CkN

I IIS~ %DJMlNLEN l'-LiNICAL HtZ.SEAH(II k8ANCH 1I18HARY

,0 1-IIIA USA mF1J t45.-i AND OLtt-Li(.MHANU

1 USA( r IELI) ARTY iol /

I r1,11iUIL 1 04 UtflNSL A.NMLYSkb

I 'ISA IHAININt' SUt-rOH CtLVdLN A I I At I1I'lST-PA

I t'1 iki 1 LCI-INOLOUY JF C (mi)

I 'lS' .-vIiILJTY EUi'iDMEIT k~ ANU u LUMMANU ATTN: URU'4E-I(,

I HW. .iSA MI) 0114: A ANPr-UL

I 0A IJ.- AR4MY PI-IHAi'4NN 11UL WL:,LAHC.9 + LVALIJATION 0LVIcSION

I II~aF SCHOflI OF jL-0SP'ACf- II'ILINL ALRAoi4lCAL LIHI4Amy (15K-4)

1 iS -,IiL1TACY ACA.,E14Y ULNI. )1' rIkSIURY, 'IuG bl

1 111. sN1F-LL3(,I~jLf- CN AN, -3LH AlIN: SCHO(OL LIBROAY

I I)SlA iNTFLLT(;f'NLY Ctf- AIJ bt.M AI I I: AIS I-OiP

I AI.tL COHPS IN'.,lIJUlt

I fbA'Ai SAILTY CL,l--I(/

i OALL.UDIETJ COLLti'-. LtAIf(1IlldI LL-ILIR

I 054'A,,64 A141, fl. i'JCLk. AiIN: IliU-tS

1 If) A.HW AVI' 1-4U. LIHHAHY A1ll,4: t..riILF 6..k,41isIAN

1 i115. ma1N I)*FLrlt ,CHOUL AlIJN: .AlSA-UT

I tIS4A.ivL ATTlv: .. l/Ij-U

1 11S rAILITAN'r ALAM'tAV UNLL~IOk ! ,I'NSIIIUTIONAL RSCH

I lioiA IWj otFlIjSt CHOUL Al IN: A ISA-CU-MS

I JSi,.AajbLlhI4AW~Y- 10CLNTS

I I 1'5 - .114 DLFErNSL b)AWI) AIIN 1 I-L5 kLPUSTJONY

I i1S % ii'jIANlI..V lOIN?) AT!14: ATLL-ib-uE

1 sl~i oijTf~LLj fG-Li-.. Ct N ANDI bLil " I IN: A f l-,T-SFL

I il PHUWNAvrE CL - A111) hLI ATIN: ATbL-ILI-1a.C

I 1ISs' ..NMII SdlOUt_ ATTN: AILK-Ii,

1 OiS i k9MOH CEIllI r iILCUIHA1L tiI L-UMbAl iot.VLLUPP4LrITS

I NAJAt P0ST(,HA)UAl- SLH AIIN. .bULLY '.IWux LlbtfAR' (COIIf 14?4)

I ip. I kAWSP(IRTA I I ON SCHiU')L ULbI oi ASS!s * CIIMIANL)ANT E.UtiriA. TLCHfqULUI-Y

I OS.% -sIGNAL %CHUD )L w.ju I- I .*u, LjDI4fl A1TI 4: Al ju-LU

1 11', .JAk1 LPMI.Sh H., SCHi All v: o- 14-1146l- 1 i-i' T

I IlS! mILI TA1Y PU! I^ t Z)CIIUL A 1 1J L I iiAH y

I IS s "moH rt11L. * t 1. *NU Of r~ I Ct a.OH -~ F ORLIE Mb I b STANUAI I IA I ION

I CPIII-. Of 01WAVAL tJ)CA 110 4 NU I . U /

I I IS.- .,il 14AIL S(,iUlIL 4 I- I. * UUN~ LUUCAI'JsL TLCuiN(oLUt~y DIIVISION

I Wi AiL/AP1.') 1H,1111*N0 bYSILtMS ioLVtLLUI'4L4f

1It w,I'tSTI1t it. t iH MILl iNt ASSI5nIANLE At IW4 A FSO- IU- I

, s ItiILISlL 'tf-J AIJI) Z~tH 11i 1 14 AlI S 1-1 NM

I If% ti!' ANIrlII L~i1tl aITIV AI/I'.-IU-PIU

I JIJ. Il~l-FI4SL LCitT1%N. Il. I tiL S Al iV: ATZL-UIM

I of%., iUAI01t.MASIt? oLlIL IHIf.IuHA1L UP. iAININO. i)LVjIIOPMfNTS

I Is copn'T ut Atvi) ot-MY /

I -ISA), llAN'SPOI)PA iu'i bCH.UOL uI9tI LIOHAIc. O THAIN1NN; * IiOC r4lNtI '%' iNFAt1IOY S.'JI.LJOH04KYi /

0), 'i Nt ANlIPY S1.1 'jX Al INI Al S- LuS I AmMtY II'.9AIITIIY S(.tUUL ATTN; AISI--CU

1 : %I iI'.IP1Y SL'u'.)l. stl 1 1 V 1 AI.S'-uVl-L4v

I iI' I~v 114lAlyI uY SL.ItIL All N;l A! 5.-Ltv

1 IS ...IP 4 L-o '4 SIJ1/i ID .rN * 1. I . I-LLI--Lit , -iL Al IN: A 1IN-1 IS

1 13 ro +d Lif (.11 bf -/ INN7 C"i * 1' 1 * mLLLI' .Av- L)IR. L(1MHI A1 LVI L~t'MI NI

i',s ot' # 0W I I (It/ I Pi, L. 1..4#PI *mLLLE .L -4f DIll. INAINjNCb LI VkL0IJ4L' I

I #,,l LIII 1-1 acri/ II. 0~ '4 4 t I *M(LLLL.LAI AlIN4: A~ II-mP-A( L

I'. NI I II I I. f. ow. I I'jI "Ilm aI IJ Al -0. MtULINT iI4AIN'IWi MANAL*AflNI

83
I Pi. i EL u AHl I LI L ~I CHOUUL NIO-hlb :II IbIkAR1

I I ti Slj II1 It Ul, Al im iN I .I <M I o. IA- AOM L(C L ItINARY

iw1 cul ('t Al I 1: LIMPhA11

I t NO 1 NdLt'~ i SL,,v)IR LtIHIyh I) I-AU 4.t #J .SUUWLt.a Ctr I I t P

15~~~~~~~~ 'Cl1,(Iitr5 AI' IkIU Li g1,iAA y

I I I t i HA- si- (m I A I I v 'j 'LluOL Ik N i.. -Uh ITA1 1,' SCfhOOL L it4 APY

I ()H 7,.I141 mt-hAL t - rCl 1VLI'jL')b Li 11 1 4 I N: -1dHARlAt,

I lls Amri Y jJ1tLL i-t141. Lt,,,]lLH + -LtIOUL All ATSIrIP

I ll1o A #.4Y INTOIL~Ll-- ClLiIltr< * '-hLLl Al I A AI SI -;.i-M

I 111 it nN Y INltl.Li rt'j~t LL1,Ilt" + 'LrIUUL A I I.: A 15 1-1 U-m

1 01" 'Ommfy INIIF-LLI L\JC. CLAI Ltl * 'tIIUUL A I ATSI-CU-CS

I I1s A-htM'Y 1 N 1tFL L 1-LJ41- t U-11I Lm + ,LIIUUL A I 1 AT[SI-FS

I 'is.% r I tLI) AP IT iLI L 4Y )CtIUUL () J.LL IUHA I t 1-4 CUISL .LV + blrif,.J,10

I llL.',,Wmr.Nl l l.,t iaN IINLL mIII (JNLVrWSJIlY LiIjHARY (aTC)

I Wj TMI.WOC llIAl- 1'4t, ULVt-Lui-MLI',I INSI I UrT--

,i I1 I i 591 EMi4ASSF -liii Sri .JULFLI\-t.L 51 Al

(:A AoIAI' Jil4 IAI-F

(WU5C) IIPIAY 1 I t l~r .11.AMY A IlI iL -Ol 1CA IAU ,l.JA' h'ilAio~YP- *'II 3L M IL I IoAiY A'4U .1 AIATAL~t

IA.,AN _i~ AISO*4 Z Arr I I IN: LUII.,SLLLIJN. oJLIF?-CE ANu I)

I lNf)Ai NLiIF 4LAN:, t-iAkSY MIL i, I Al lI -

I CA IA&iI'J rICI- ' IS,,St CONNMMLLIS AlIM~: ..i MSUONNLL SELLC71UN

-C 4 IAAN P-~U~iL APP~ iiL HkSLri oi'411

1 si k y PftSiI'If'LL -1t Sr HCtt i* .)AI5L I I OHMt Ni

i 1 -I~r l'LI- JiS IT'1 ~ i Ot t- I %t 01, It-IL AI-4 ATIACIL

1I 'SiLilIOLUI, IC.L l 1.itiU,.jI MI I N: ZIn-t,-I 4 (LIL Ho M.j LILL Y)

L IW.NY OI CU(j'.,-.L!)S LNLHAMI.4L ;kiW lif- I _I IV

i lI I* tI I LCIiJLiL It&Uhi4Ita tu :LN Al I I: -TIC-UI)4-?

14 1-1.-111! ()I CO-IUt-5h liil I UOLtj,iLI*I! LhI'rtiTINO ON.JJt.C1

Il 'Ii 1 VENHNMF NI K, 1,41 If~ii OIL Li.MRY, 'PU14LIC UUCUIENTS Ill IAwIMLNT

1 IS (i,,VENI'iItl-!l i-'1111,4.U 0IL. Llo"AkIY ANIL STAIUTOIRY, LIH DlIV (SLL)

I Tilt HrN~y LTHhIAmv ATN: m~iy S)TuwlLb bLL

84