战略与国际研究中心-Defense-Reform-Survey-Results_23页_1mb

Defense Reform in the 21st Century: Emerging Survey Results

Overview

• The survey was conducted from March 4 to March 11, 2016.
• The sample size varied by question, ranging from 700 to 900 respondents.
• The legislative branch was under-represented in the respondent pool.
• Only topline results and responses across major demographic groups were outlined today.

Guiding Principles

Guiding Principles I

Respondents were asked to rank guiding principles that should inform new Department of Defense (DoD) reforms. The principles included:

• Maintaining civilian authority
• Independence of military advice
• Efficiency and effective management of DoD systems

Guiding Principles II

The response distribution highlighted the prioritization of these guiding principles, with varying levels of support across different groups.

Guiding Principles III

Guiding principle ratings were analyzed across major demographic groups, indicating differences in perception and preference.

Guiding Principles IV

• Maintaining Civilian Authority: Respondents ranked this principle highly, emphasizing its importance in ensuring civilian control over military operations.
• Independence of Military Advice: Also ranked highly, showing a strong belief in the need for independent military counsel.
• Efficiency and Effective Management of DoD Systems: Ranked third, highlighting the need for streamlined and effective management practices.

Reform Opportunities

Reform Opportunities I

Respondents were asked to select and rank five issues based on the opportunity for improvement through reform. The issues included:

• Supply chain efficiencies
• Healthcare efficiencies
• Education benefits for families
• Defense intelligence agency efficiencies
• Combatant Command structure (including possible mergers, HQ efficiencies, and reassignment of responsibilities)

Reform Opportunities II

• Total Response Counts: Provided data on how many respondents selected each reform opportunity.
• Opportunity for Reform across Major Demographic Groups 1: Highlighted variations in perceived reform opportunities among different demographic segments.
• Opportunity for Reform across Major Demographic Groups 2: Further detailed the demographic differences in reform priorities.

Strength of Institutions

Strength of Institutions I

Respondents assessed the current strength of various DoD institutions, rating them as:

• Too Weak
• Just Right
• Too Strong

Strength of Institutions II

• Too Strong: Some institutions were perceived as overly powerful.
• Strength of Institution Ratings across Demographics: Revealed how different groups viewed the strength of these institutions.

Size of Institutions

Size of Institutions I

Respondents evaluated the size of institutions relative to their responsibilities, rating them as:

• Too Small
• Just Right
• Too Large

Size of Institutions II

• Too Large: Some institutions were seen as oversized, potentially leading to inefficiencies.

Interagency System

Interagency System I

Respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of the White House-led interagency system, with options including:

• Wholly Ineffective
• Highly Effective

Interagency System II

• Highly Effective: Some respondents believed the system was very effective.
• Wholly Ineffective: Others found it completely ineffective.
• Executive Interagency System Ratings across Demographics: Demonstrated differing views on the effectiveness of the system among various demographic groups.

Congressional Oversight

Congressional Oversight I

Respondents assessed the effectiveness of congressional oversight of the DoD, rating it as:

• Wholly Ineffective
• Highly Ineffective
• Highly Effective

Congressional Oversight II

• Highly Effective: Some respondents believed oversight was very effective.
• Wholly Ineffective: Others found it completely ineffective.
• Congressional Oversight Ratings across Demographics: Showed variations in perception of oversight effectiveness.

Role Clarity

Role Clarity I

Respondents were asked to rate the degree of role clarity within the DoD across different categories, including:

• Totally Unclear
• Crystal Clear

Role Clarity II

• Crystal Clear: Some respondents believed roles were well-defined.
• Totally Unclear: Others found the roles to be completely ambiguous.
• Role Clarity Ratings across Demographics: Highlighted differences in perception of role clarity among various groups.

Key Reform Areas

Efficiencies

• A-76 Authority: Statute allowing for the privatization of certain government services.
• Civilian Personnel System: Study on whether the DoD should opt-out its civilian personnel system from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), similar to the Intelligence Community (IC) and Foreign Service.
• BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure): Statute for base closures and realignments.
• Enhance Flexibility in Meeting Joint Duty Requirements: Statute or Study and Development (SD) to improve flexibility in joint duty assignments.
• Consider Consolidating War Colleges: Statute or SD to streamline war college operations.

Innovation

• Change to SASC Rules: Altering the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) rules to govern conflict of interest divestment for incoming DoD appointees.
• Create a "Bishop's Fund": A fund overseen by the Deputy Secretary of Defense (DSD) for innovative experiments in support of joint warfighting, open to all components.

Command and Control

• Upgrade CYBERCOM and SPACECOM to Unified Combatant Commands: Sourced without increasing military or civilian end-strength or HQ personnel, using existing facilities.

Strategy and Planning

• Task CJCS to Develop Prioritized, Synchronized Cross-Regional/Functional Plans: For SD approval.
• Increase Cadre of Planners: In services and the Joint Staff (JS).
• Task Service Chiefs to Join SD Milestone Approval Meetings: For Operation Plans (OPLANs) and Concept Plans (CONPLANs).

Defense Reform Way Ahead

• Task DoD, Independent Study, and/or Independent Commission: In areas of key congressional interest, timed to influence consideration in the FY19 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) cycle.
• Defense Efficiencies: In supply chain, healthcare, and education benefits for families.
• Combatant Command Structure: Including possible mergers, HQ efficiencies, and reassignment of responsibilities formerly owned by the Joint Forces Command (JFCOM).
• Civilian and Military Personnel Systems: Focus on improving these systems for better performance and management.