An Independent Assessment of Air Force Compliance

116 Pages·2016·1.35 MB·English

Research Report
An Independent Assessment
of Air Force Compliance with
Headquarters Reduction
Goals
John A. Ausink, Kristin F. Lynch, James A. Leftwich, H. G. Massey,
David W. George, JJ Roomsburg, Robert G. DeFeo, Robert S. Tripp
C O R P O R A T I O N
For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1480
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication.
ISBN: 978-0-8330-9428-5
Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif.
© Copyright 2016 RAND Corporation
R® is a registered trademark.
Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND
intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication
online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it
is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of
its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit
www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html.
The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make
communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit,
nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest.
RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.
Support RAND
Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at
www.rand.org/giving/contribute
www.rand.org
Preface
Congress has expressed concerns about the size and growth of staff elements in U.S.
Department of Defense and military headquarters. In the fiscal year 2014 National Defense
Authorization Act, Congress instructed the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan for
streamlining those headquarters. In both anticipation of and response to that, the Secretary
directed two separate reductions, one in 2013 and one in 2015. The first called for a 20-percent
cut in the budgets of management headquarters by 2019, and the second called for a 25-percent
reduction by 2020. The Air Force asked the RAND Corporation to assess the Air Force’s effort
in reducing its major headquarters by independently verifying the headquarters reductions taken,
comparing the Air Force’s methodology and approach with best practices, and identifying the
degree to which opportunities exist for future reductions. This report, conducted within the
Manpower, Personnel, and Training Program of RAND Project AIR FORCE, responds to those
requests.
RAND Project AIR FORCE
RAND Project AIR FORCE (PAF), a division of the RAND Corporation, is the U.S. Air
Force’s federally funded research and development center for studies and analyses. PAF
provides the Air Force with independent analyses of policy alternatives affecting the
development, employment, combat readiness, and support of current and future air, space, and
cyber forces. Research is conducted in four programs: Force Modernization and Employment;
Manpower, Personnel, and Training; Resource Management; and Strategy and Doctrine. The
research reported here was prepared under contract FA7014-06-C-0001.
Additional information about PAF is available on our website:
http://www.rand.org/paf/
This report documents work originally shared with the U.S. Air Force in February 2016. The
draft report, issued on January 19, 2016, was reviewed by formal peer reviewers and U.S. Air
Force subject-matter experts.

iii
Table of Contents
Preface ............................................................................................................................................ iii
Figures........................................................................................................................................... vii
Tables ............................................................................................................................................. ix
Summary ........................................................................................................................................ xi
Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................... xvii
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... xix
Chapter One: Background, Purpose, and Analytic Approach ........................................................ 1
Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
Analytic Approach .................................................................................................................................... 3
Some Caveats ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Organization of This Report ..................................................................................................................... 4
Chapter Two: Assessment of Air Force Headquarters Reductions ................................................ 5
2013 Direction for Reductions ................................................................................................................. 5
Initial Air Force Response to the Cuts ...................................................................................................... 6
Air Force Input to the Section 904 Report ............................................................................................. 10
Assessing the Air Force Cuts .................................................................................................................. 11
The Next Step: 25-Percent Cuts ............................................................................................................. 15
Chapter Three: Comparing Practices from Literature and Industry with the Services’
Approach to Streamlining and Delayering ............................................................................. 17
Key Practices Identified in Literature ..................................................................................................... 17
Industry Approach to Streamlining ........................................................................................................ 21
Military Services’ Approach to Streamlining ......................................................................................... 22
Summary Findings from Comparing the Air Force’s Approach with Sound Practices ......................... 25
Chapter Four: Opportunities for Additional Savings and Staff Reductions ................................. 29
Chapter Five: Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................... 33
Appendix A: Detailed Discussion of Reductions and Data .......................................................... 35
Appendix B: Delayering in the Air Staff and Secretariat ............................................................. 47
Appendix C: Annotated Bibliography .......................................................................................... 53
Appendix D: Findings from Literature ......................................................................................... 73
Appendix E: Findings from Industry ............................................................................................ 81
Appendix F: Navy and Army Approaches to Reductions ............................................................ 87
References ..................................................................................................................................... 91

v
Figures
Figure B.1. Span of Control, by Number of Subordinate Organizational Elements .................... 49
Figure B.2. Span of Control, by Number of Personnel in the Lowest-Level Organizational
Element ................................................................................................................................. 50
Figure B.3. Span of Control, by Number of Personnel and Organizations .................................. 51
Figure D.1. Mintzberg’s Elements of an Organization ................................................................. 74
Figure D.2. A Divisionalized Form Comprising Different Types of Subordinate Divisions ....... 76

vii
Tables
Table S.1. Air Force Reductions in End Strength and Funding .................................................... xii
Table S.2. Key Focuses from Theory and Practice Literature ..................................................... xiii
Table 1.1. Reduction Initiatives and Purposes ................................................................................ 2
Table 2.1. Air Force Reductions in End Strength and Funding .................................................... 11
Table 2.2. Net Change in Air Force Management Headquarters Authorizations ......................... 12
Table 3.1. Key Focuses from Theory and Practice Literature ...................................................... 18
Table A.1. Timeline of Headquarters Reduction Documentation ................................................ 36
Table A.2. Status of Reductions in July 2014 ............................................................................... 38
Table A.3. Detailed Changes in PEC 98–Coded Authorizations .................................................. 40
Table A.4. Civilian and Military Breakdown of End-Strength and Funding Reductions ............. 44
Table E.1. Interviewee Lessons Learned ...................................................................................... 84
Table E.2. Interviewee Common Practices ................................................................................... 84

ix