Air University Review, March-April 1968
Major General Bertram C. Harrison
The Air Force urgently needs imaginative, perceptive management programs
and techniques to insure that we get the absolute maximum value out of our
resources. This is particularly important right now and in the days ahead when
our operations in
General John P. McConnell
One effort toward fulfilling the need expressed by General McConnell is the USAF Management Engineering Program. This program is primarily concerned with the equitable distribution of the Air Force’s manpower resources. The principal method for accomplishing this task is through the development and application of work center manpower standards. These standards relate actual and programmed workload to man-hours expended in such a way as to provide a common basis for determining manpower requirements throughout the Air Force.
Recently the Air Staff has acted to remove a major obstacle to rapid development of these sorely needed manpower standards. This obstacle has been inadequate standardization in terms of the diverse organizational structures and operating procedures prevailing throughout much of the Air Force. Seldom have two bases in two different commands been organized in the same way, nor have similar base functions been operated alike. Consequently it has been extremely difficult for the management engineers to develop standards that could be applied across command lines in an equitable manner. The purpose of this article is to present the background and effects of this problem and review the Air Staff efforts to solve it.
background
During World War II the lack of standard organizational structures and the existence of split command responsibilities were recognized as major problems. Following the war Headquarters USAF instituted a standardized base-level organization Air Force-wide and controlled changes from the Air Staff level. This policy existed until 1955, at which time the pendulum swung back the other way. A policy of flexibility was instituted which permitted individual major commanders considerable latitude in determining the organizational structure of their subordinate units. Actually, the 1955 policy change merely formalized a situation that already existed: namely, that the policy of standardized organization had not been working for some time. Numerous deviations had been made to accommodate varying missions, concepts of operation, deployment, and similar factors, thus making it a standardized organization in name only.
The new policy of flexibility existing after 1955 provided a climate for organizational experimentation. Frequent changes were made, and wide variations existed in the structure and terminology of similar units.
By 1962 the pendulum had again swung back to Headquarters USAF control. One
of the primary reasons for the policy reversal was an April 1961 letter from
the recently appointed Secretary of Defense, Robert S. McNamara, in which he
stated: “We should avoid using different terms to mean the same thing.” About
the same time the Chief of Staff, General Curtis E. LeMay, is quoted as having
said, “I want a standardized Air Force.” Late in 1961 a USAF Inspector General
report had directed Air Staff attention to organizational variances and
ineffectiveness in USAF organizational planning and control. The end result of
all these actions was a 1962 directive to the major commands, calling for
functional standardization wherever feasible and returning to Headquarters USAF
significant control over organizational structure Air Force-wide.2
the problem
Since the organizational structure within a function has a significant effect on layers of supervision to be authorized in a manpower standard, it is necessary that the structure be essentially the same for like bases. Further, if organizational elements are known by different names, perform different tasks, or even the same tasks in different ways, then the job of establishing a manning standard for the function on an Air Force-wide basis becomes extremely difficult. The management engineering technicians at different bases would be observing all kinds of “nonstandard” work, and the resulting standard times would be useless. Once a standard has been established and implemented for a function, it is imperative that local commanders and supervisors continue to maintain its integrity throughout its life cycle; or, stated more simply, once standardization has been achieved, it must be maintained. To do less is to invite manning problems within the function—manning problems which are difficult and expensive to correct.
the solution
As Director of Manpower and Organization at Headquarters USAF, I have been working closely with the other Air Staff directorates for some time now in support of more standardization. Headquarters USAF Operating Instruction No. 25-4, applicable to the entire Air Staff, contains this caution:
Common manning standards cannot be achieved until
like-type operations in the field are standardized. The manpower standard for
one work center would not necessarily be accurate for a similar work center
that differs in organization, processes, equipment, etc.3
In addition to our actions within the Air Staff to achieve standardization, we have continued to enlist the support of commanders and supervisors at all levels. In a recent Air Force Policy Letter for Commanders, the subject was approached in this manner:
. . . standardization wherever possible must be stressed and insisted upon; not because of blind obsession for uniformity, but for the positive benefits that standardization provides. It permits selection and use of the best procedures and methods. It permits the development and use of engineered performance standards having wide applicability—which in turn enlarges the scope for comparison of one activity with another. It simplifies the identification of problem areas and their underlying causes.4
The standardization drive seems to be working. Air Force Manual 26-2, Organization Policy and Guidance, contains many standard structures for functions such as accounting and finance, maintenance, supply, personnel, etc. The manual also reaffirms that one of the Air Force’s organizational objectives is to “standardize to the extent consistent with effective and efficient mission accomplishment” The manual then lists five specific benefits to be derived from standardization: (1) promoting organizational stability; (2) facilitating Air Force-wide management improvements; (3) facilitating the development of standards and performance comparisons; (4) lessening orientation time when personnel are transferred from one unit to another; and (5) improving communications by enabling all Air Force personnel to attach the same meaning to a given organizational term.5 That these are worthwhile benefits goes without saying.
All this is not to say that the Air Staff has a comer on the brain supply. Far from it. A multitude of good ideas is available throughout the Air Force, just waiting to be tapped. But to realize the full benefits of any sound improvement, it must be processed upward for eventual application to all similar units. Isolated instances of unilateral deviation from established norms which are neither reported nor evaluated are next to useless and frequently cause trouble. In this regard, command management engineering teams are uniquely suited to assist in testing, evaluating, and processing desired local deviations to standardized Air Force organizations and will take action to extend them Air Force-wide if warranted. When in doubt or in need of assistance, one should call on his servicing manpower and organization office.
From this brief discussion it can be seen that a major obstacle to producing valid Air Force manpower standards has been a lack of standardization among bases and within functions. Units and functions with similar missions and equipment have seldom shared a common organizational structure, nor have they used the same methods and procedures to accomplish identical tasks. This basic lack of “commonality” has thwarted attempts by the management engineers to develop manpower standards that could be applied on an Air Force-wide basis. As a direct consequence, the equitability and validity of our functional manpower needs have often been open to question.
Fortunately, this major weakness seems to have been identified in sufficient time to permit corrective action by the Air Staff. Standardized organizational structures have been developed and implemented for several large functions, thereby permitting the application of Air Force manpower standards. Equal manning for equal workloads throughout the Air Force has been assured for many functions. In this age of centralized control and cost-effectiveness methodology, no other approach can seriously be entertained. Clearly, standardization is a prerequisite for the equitable distribution of our scarce manpower resource.
Hq United States Air Force
Notes
1. General John P. McConnell, Chief of Staff United States Air Force, address before the Management Analysis Symposium, Bolling AFB, D.C 15 February 1966, quoted in USAF Fact Sheet, Systems & Logistics Management, No. 4-66 (April 1966).
2. Historical references were adapted from a speech by Colonel John R. Kern,
Hq USAF, before the World-Wide Management Engineering Conference, Orlando AFB,
3. Hq USAF, Headquarters Operating Instruction No. 25-4, Staff Responsibilities in the USAF Management Engineering Program, 23 December 1964, p. 3.
4. Major General Bertram C. Harrison, “Management Engineering—Prerequisites for Effectiveness,” Supplement to the Air Force Policy Letter for Commanders, No. 8-1966 (August 1966), p. 11.
5. Air Force Manual 26-2, Organization Policy and Guidance, 11 December 1964, p. 4.
Major General Bertram C. Harrison (USMA) is Director of Manpower and Organization, Hq USAF. During World War II he served in and commanded bomb groups in both the China-Burma-India and Mediterranean Theaters. Postwar assignments have been as Commander, 320th Wing, Walla Walla, Washington, 1946; as Commander, Munich Air Base, later 60th Troop Carrier Group, Wiesbaden AB, to 1948; in Strategic Air Command as deputy or commander of groups, wings, or divisions, 1950-57; in Hq USAF as Deputy Director of Personnel Procurement and Training, to 1960; as Deputy Commander, Oklahoma City Air Materiel Area, to 1962; as Director of Systems Inspection, USAF Inspector General, Norton AFB, California, to 1963; and as Deputy Inspector General, USAF, at Norton, until his present assignment in July 1965. General Harrison is a graduate of the Command and General Staff School and the Armed Forces Staff College.
Disclaimer
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this
document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression,
academic environment of
Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor