Document created: 23 August 04
Air University Review, May-June 1970

An Applied Approach 
for Enlightened Managers

Lieutenant Colonel William D. Bathurst

Air Force professionals all recognize and accept the intrinsic wisdom of the following samples of published Air Force management policies: 

The Air Force will maintain the most effective force possible, incorporating maximum efficiency and economy in all operations, consistent with planned objectives. 
All Air Force commanders must insure effective management of human, material, and financial resources. 
Air Force activities must use technical and scientific advancements wherever they are applicable.¹

Acknowledging management policies and applying them can be two different matters. An apparent impediment to good management performance is the ever tightening vise of resource limitations. Budgetary reductions can provide a convenient alibi to all but the enlightened manager. He accepts the challenge, recognizing that he must surmount the apparent impediments if he and his organization are to perform effectively.

In the business sector, competition for markets for goods and services predominates, making efficiency a prime factor in profit and loss. Even stronger competition exists within the Air Force: the competition for results. This competition dominates our operations. Truly great demands are being made at all levels for increased production and accomplishment without benefit of increased resources.

To meet the demand and beat the competition, the commander-manager must continually improve his operations. The enlightened manager is aware of the need to innovate, change, and adapt himself and his organization. He recognizes that the need for change is not an indication of inadequacies within the organization but rather is a normal condition of the operating environment.

To advise and assist managers in their quest for improvement, the Air Force is fortunate and unique among the services in having a management engineering function. Management Engineering Teams are located at most Air Force bases. In the manpower management process of developing manpower determinants, management engineering has performed an important role. The manning standards and criteria developed by the USAF Management Engineering Program² have not only improved the distribution and utilization of personnel within the Air Force but have also served to defend programs and resources in the budgetary process.

The role of the management engineer today is somewhat different from that to which many Air Force personnel were formerly accustomed. He is no longer simply a “standards setter” or “time and motion man,” as he may have been viewed in the past. He has become a specialist in analyzing work, organization, and management processes; he is qualified and capable of assisting the manager in all phases of management. His education, training, and experience in the Management Engineering Program have provided him with considerable information and insight into Air Force operations and opportunities for improvement. His capabilities and the services he offers can be summed up in a definition of industrial engineering: 

Industrial Engineering is concerned with the design, improvement, and installation of integrated systems of men, materials, and equipment. It draws upon specialized knowledge and skill in the mathematical, physical, and social sciences together with principles and methods of engineering analysis and design to specify, predict, and evaluate the results to be obtained from such systems.³

In a large number of corporations, the industrial or management engineer has become one of the more important specialists on the manager’s staff. The reason is that the management engineer has the education, training, and experience which the manager needs to make the most effective use of his resources within the competitive environment in which he operates. The management engineer can identify areas in which change or redirection would be beneficial, determine what changes would be most effective, develop a program for installing or implementing the changes, and follow up to assess the effect on the organization. Such specialized management engineering services have gained widespread recognition as an effective means for change in the organization.⁴ 

Many managers have realized can no longer handle all the technical of the organization themselves bee lack the time to acquire sufficient expertise in all areas. Instead, they extend their management ability by relying on specialists to handle details. Similarly, the enlightened manager uses management engineering specialist manage improvement—an applied approach.

What can the commander or manager expect from applying management engineering?

First, he can expect competence. The Air Force management engineer is educated and trained in the concepts and practices of industrial engineering. He has at his disposal a wide range of “tools of the trade.” Among these tools are the well-known but perhaps little (or mis-) understood techniques of operations research, systems analysis, organization analysis, work measurement, linear responsibility charting, and flow process analysis, to name but a few. These tools are available to anyone who knows how and cares to apply them. The competent use of these tools to assist management is the management engineer’s business. Many management engineering officers possess advanced degrees, are registered professional engineers, and participate in engineering societies such as the American Institute of Industrial Engineers.

Second, the commander or manager can expect confidence. Acting as a consultant, the management engineer provides recommendations for the commander or manager, not for higher headquarters or the Management Engineering Program. The manager accepts or rejects recommendations as he sees fit, is responsible for implementation, and receives credit for all benefits deriving from his actions. The consultant’s role is to provide him with recommendations for action and assist him in implementing those recommendations. The preservation of the client-consultant relationship is an important element of the management engineering services concept.

Third, the commander or manager can expect objectivity. We sometimes overlook the fact that everyone’s perception is affected by the environment to which he is accustomed. Thus, an individual tends to view problems and possible solutions in terms of the method of operation he usually employs. The management engineer (ME) provides the benefit of looking at problems from a different viewpoint.

An example of this occurred with the introduction of a new all-weather fighter aircraft into a new unit. The aircraft arrived complete with manufacturer’s manuals, recommended periodic maintenance cycles, and inspection routines between flights. In addition, another organization operating the same aircraft gave the benefit of its experience in operating the aircraft. Application of all this information would have required a squadron manning level far above that which could be supported from available personnel resources. The new operating unit, despite lengthy analysis of all its maintenance functions, was unable to reduce the number of personnel required to maintain the aircraft to a supportable level.

Management engineering personnel who were called in to assist in solving the problem conducted film analyses of the turnaround cycle. The film dramatically showed management exactly what took place, who took part, and how long it all took, the critical factor being refueling time. A total of fourteen different technicians took part in the refueling operation, and much of their time was spent waiting for access to restricted work areas or for some event to take place. All these technicians could be proved to be required, by regulation, to perform certain tasks within their specialty. The ME’S questioned the need for specialization to such a high degree that the regulations had to be so inflexible. They recommended changes in regulations, cross-training of certain of the technicians to perform other tasks, and a procedure for aircraft turnaround. Application of these recommendations resulted in reduction of the turnaround crew from fourteen to three technicians.

This example illustrates the value of an objective or “outside” view. The maintenance personnel were understandably accustomed to operating within a specified regulatory framework, while the management engineers, not limited by that framework, saw a solution outside it.

Fourth, the requester of a management advisory study should expect feasible recommendations. Suffice it to say that recommending solutions requiring a disproportionate amount of additional resources or additional study is incompatible with the applied approach to management. Managers must be results-oriented.

Finally, the commander can expect fulltime effort. Many managers believe that there are many problems they could resolve if they “only had the time.” The management engineer can provide the continuous effort so vital to the solution of management problems, because that is his function.

The commander should hold to these expectations in applying management engineering. Similarly, the management engineer has a few needs that must be fulfilled in order for him to provide effective consulting services. One of these is a thorough understanding of the structure, work processes, and communications network of the organization under consideration. Where possible, the manager should attempt to identify in general terms what his objectives are and what improvements he would like implemented. There have been cases where the commander called in a Management Engineering Team to determine if any improvements in operations or organization could be made. He had no specific problem in mind. He simply recognized the need for constant improvement and refinement and the value of applying management engineering in accomplishing his mission.

Additionally, the Management Engineering Team needs the cooperation of all members of the organization under study. In fact, it is beneficial if the members can participate in performing the study and developing the recommendations. The members of the organization are not likely to place much value in the study or its results unless they have the opportunity to invest some time and effort in it themselves. This means they should have a thorough understanding of the purpose of the study and, wherever possible, should participate in the development of recommendation.

Combining the expertise of the management consultant and the functional and experience of organization personnel usually results in much better recommendation than either can develop alone. The team acts as a catalyst to surface good ideas and develop them into feasible solutions. Furthermore, the problem of resistance to change can be reduced in this way.

The USAF Management Engineering Program has been carefully building a true industrial-engineering/management-consultant capability through the selection and assignment of personnel who possess the necessary educational background and interest and then further develop their talent with technical training and varied management engineering experience. As a result, the Management Engineering Program meets the needs commanders and managers at all levels for management engineering services—the applied approach for enlightened managers.

The U.S. Air Force is a product of change; innovation is one of its distinctive characteristics. The growth of its managerial leadership reflects the capacity of its members to prepare for and to encourage—in fact to dominate—change. The full participant those who cherish Air Force traditions and yet are able to muster the necessary talent and will to make them better is the best guarantee for applied management to be effective in the complex aerospace age.

Hq United States Air Force

Notes

1. AFM 25-1, USAF Management Process.

2. AFR 25-1, USAF Management Engineering Program.

3. American Institute of Industrial Engineers.

4. Alex W. Rathe and Frank M. Gryna, Applying Industrial Engineering to Management Problems, AMA Research Study 97 (New York: American Management Associations, 1969).

Contributor

Lieutenant Colonel William D. Bathurst (USMA) is Chief, Management Engineering Branch, DCS/Programs and Resources, Hq USAF. After serving in various staff and command assignments, in 1960 he joined the USAF Management Engineering Program. He was Chief of Management Engineering Teams at Dover AFB, Delaware, and Scott AFB, Illinois, and Staff Management Engineer for Airlift Forces, Hq MATS, until 1964, when he became Military Systems Analyst, Office of the Assistant for Special Studies, Hq MATS. Colonel Bathurst was assigned to Hq USAF upon graduation from the Armed Forces Staff College in 1966.

Disclaimer

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.