Document created: 18 August 03
Air University Review, January-February 1975

Each of us makes countless decisions every day. Some decisions are readily made; however, many are very complex. Once other people are brought into decisional activity, the process becomes more structured, complicated, and time-consuming. Thus, the process of developing a supportable position in organizations is often a difficult task, and the difficulty appears to increase geometrically according to the number of individuals, organizational layers and size, varying interests of the participants, distance between individuals or organizations, and the lack of appreciation one has for the other's priorities. It is axiomatic that large, highly complex organizations find the decision process a challenge and devote top-management attention to the entire process.

The challenge of arriving at the optimum position in an organization as large as the United States Air Force, with its numerous commands, worldwide. locations, and varying operational and support responsibilities, presents a difficult task. Yet, decisions are made daily at all levels in the Air Force, with some of the most critical and challenging made at Headquarters USAF. How is this accomplished? How is a coordinated position reached on controversial issues among so many key Air Staff and major command managers? Or is there in fact little or no discussion or coordination taking place on the difficult problems and instead a dictatorial judgment being imposed by a few senior individuals? No, deliberations and coordination do take place, and agreement results--and, yes, it is often difficult and sometimes impossible to obtain consensus through the formalized, hierarchical channels on complicated or controversial subjects.

Most of us are aware that large organizations have at least two ways to communicate: (1) a formal, straightforward functional channel and (2) an informal, diffuse communication system such as a luncheon meeting or other informal channels. We all know the formal decision channel--I go to my boss, lie or she goes to his or her boss, and we coordinate laterally. The problem of obtaining the best position through the formal coordination cycle is a challenge many of us have faced.

This is not an Air Force problem alone. An organizations, and especially the larger ones, find the achievement of consensus and coordination particularly vexing. Private industry, as an example, has recognized the limitations of obtaining consensus solely through formal bureaucratic channels. Consider the problem of obtaining consensus in a large company among the vice presidents for marketing, for manufacturing, and for quality assurance. A stable production rate that would be efficient might not match seasonal sales demands. As for quality assurance, high reliability in component parts would in-crease the quality 6f the product, but the added cost might make the price of the end item noncompetitive and production less efficient. Obtaining consensus among these three senior managers would be difficult, to say the least, since each has different and often conflicting responsibilities and goals. Major corporations in the free enterprise system years ago developed a way to produce consensus, especially when defining the broader corporate goals that transcend the narrower goals of the functional or operating officers. They produced an organizational overlay on the operating organization, one less structured and less formal. These groups are known by many names, such as Board of Directors, Executive Policy Committee, or Operating Officers' Policy Council. Membership usually includes the operating directors for marketing, manufacturing, and quality assurance, but when they sit as members of the board they must act as corporate executives and not in their narrower operational or functional role. We see that the functional manager now must wear a second hat and play a dual role when he sits on the "board."

This system in the world of private business and finance is not unlike the corresponding decision-producing system that has developed in the past 27 years in the Air Force Headquarters Staff. Several "corporate" Air Force groups were purposely established with the goal of addressing the more crucial and controversial issues and streamlining the decision process--in a way that could never be achieved by the bureaucratic organization. Subsequently, this corporate management organization within the Air Staff evolved into today¶s Air Force Board Structure.

The Board Structure provides a formalized way of rapidly assembling functional managers, placing them in a dual, corporate role, and directing their efforts toward the resolution of issues that rise above their functional responsibilities. These corporate groups have as their fundamental purpose:

--To provide recommendations for the consideration of the responsible functional decision-making authority. In this respect, the Air Staff corporate groups differ from the "Board of Directors" analogy in that the former are recommending bodies and not directing or decision-making bodies, as are the latter.

--To assure that the collective evaluation and specialized experience of senior Air Staff members are brought to bear on important matters.

--To expedite coordination on issues that are urgent, major, and complex and demanding of nonhierarchical treatment.

Not all Air Staff decisions require the unique Board Structure approach. When the responsible functional staff official can make and defend his or her own decisions, can carry out the necessary actions within his or her own organization, and can achieve functional Air Staff coordination, then deliberations by the corporate bodies are not required. Indeed, if one were to count the Air Staff issues addressed and the decisions made, he would find the great preponderance of decision-making taking place outside the Board Structure--by the formal, hierarchical organization. However, the key issues and major decisions do comprise the majority of Board Structure activity.

The evolution of the Board Structure started when the United States Air Force was established in 1947. The first Board Structure element was the Board of Senior Officers, which emerged at that time from the Army Aircraft and Weapons Board. The purpose of the Board was to assess resources and missions and to make recommendations to the Chief of Staff. The Budget Advisory Committee was also established about this same time. In 1951 General Hoyt S. Vandenberg, then Chief of Staff, formed the Air Force Council, which continues relatively unchanged today. It is the senior uniformed corporate management review body of the Air Force Board Structure.

As a result of the turbulence of the 1950s i.e., the Korean War, the effect of Sputnik on missile and space programs, etc.--several more corporate groups had been formed by 1961. The objective was to better enable Hq USAF to address fast-moving changes in force structure and management techniques. At this time, the Board Structure consisted of the Air Force Council (ARC), Designated Systems Management Group (DSMG), four Air Staff Boards (ASB), the Program Review Committee (PRC), and numerous panels and working groups.

By 1963 the entire Air Staff had undergone considerable functional reorganization, as did the Air Force Board Structure. The four Air Staff Boards were replaced by one Air Staff Board, which now had "across the Air Force" perspective and oversight. At the same time, more than 74 corporate groups that had evolved within the Air Staff were dissolved. During this time period, the Force Structure Committee (FSC) was chartered and added to the Board Structure.

In 1970 the Operational Test and Evaluation Committee (OT&E) was established, partially as a result of Congressional and public criticism of how new weapon systems were performing when put into operation and partially in response to the specific OT&E criticism in the "Blue Ribbon" Defense Committee report. The Air Force Policy Council is the most recent senior corporate group. It was formed in 1973 at the request of the Secretary of the Air Force. As a result of a study conducted for the Vice Chief of Staff in late 1973, a Simulator Panel and a Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Panel (RDT&E) were added to the Air Force Board Structure. Finally, with the establishment of the Air Force Test and Evaluation Center (AFTEC) in January 1974, the Operational Test and Evaluation Committee was disestablished. As one can see, the Air Force Board Structure is not a static organization. It is responsive to the deliberative and decisional needs of the Air Force.

The Air Force Board Structure is assigned to the Office of the Vice Chief of Staff. The deliberating bodies of the Board Structure are shown graphically on the right in Figure 1 and are described below. The functional levels in the Air Staff are shown on the left.

The Air Staff Board is chaired by the Director of Programs, and its membership consists of six director-level members and the Assistant Chief of Staff, Studies and Analysis (normally major generals). The Air Staff Board has two subelement levels: panels and committees.

--Panels. Approximately one-half of the items brought before the Board Structure enter at the panel level. There are twelve panels, each chaired by a division chief with the rank of colonel. The current panels are Aerospace Defense; Airlift; Command Control and Communications; Data Automation; Electronic Warfare Penetration; Reconnaissance/Intelligence; Research, Development, Test & Evaluation; Simulator; Space; Strategic; Support; and Tactical. Each panel has nine to fourteen members from the major Air Staff functional areas. Panels perform fundamental and essential service as they review a subject by focusing attention on such questions as.

--Are the data validated and based on current policy, planning, and program guidance?

--Is a major command affected? More than one?

--Have all alternatives and trade-offs been considered?

--Can the sponsor of the subject best work his problem functionally, or is it better to work the problem within the Board Structure?

--Should the briefing go forward to a higher decision level, and, if so, are refinements in the presentation necessary?

--Should the panel make its recommendation to the functional staff authority or to a higher Board Structure element?

Examples of recent presentations to the panels include Air Defense Peacetime TAG Augmentation, Impact of Budget Control Act, AWACS Force Requirements, and Air Force Weapons Laboratory Computer Requirements.

--Committees. At the Deputy Director level, there are two committees oriented to specific areas: Force Structure and Program Review. Committee membership is at the brigadier general, senior colonel, and PL313 levels.

The Force Structure Committee is chaired by a general officer who is nominated by the DCS/Plans and Operations. The committee is concerned with evaluating the ability of our forces to meet known and potential threats as outlined and defined in the intelligence estimates. They annually (1) recommend an Objective Force to achieve our mission in light of those forecasted potential threats; (2) categorize systems and force programs to identify those that must be defended at all costs; (3) evaluate program proposals to determine their impact on our force structure, present as well as future; and (4) recommend when and what new weapon systems should enter the force.

The Program Review Committee is chaired by a general officer who is nominated by the DCS/Programs arid Resources. This committee is primarily concerned with achieving program balance for both the next fiscal year and the following years. The functions of this committee are to (1) develop the annual Program Objective Memorandum (POM) and critically review Air Force budget submissions; (2) examine programs in relation to budget estimates and resource requirements to insure that we are optimizing our capabilities; (3) look at program change "candidates" to determine their effect on weapon and support systems, including facility construction and equipment modification requirements; and (4) review the force and financial plan to determine whether program adjustments have an effect in that area.

The chairmen of each of the twelve panels and two committees just described are responsible to the Chairman of the Air Staff Board for Board Structure matters. These chairmen work in close coordination with one another. The Air Staff Board addresses the entire spectrum of Air Force activity. The Board's interests range from concepts and doctrine to how we support the operational equipment on the flight line. Examples of recent Air Staff Board presentations include the DOD Space Shuttle, C-5 Wing Structural Modifications, FAA/ADC Joint Use System, Joint Strategic Bomber Support Study, and Modernization of the Alaskan Command and Control System. Subjects reviewed by the Air Staff Board are normally reviewed earlier by panels and committees.

The Air Force Council is the primary advisory body to the Chief of Staff. It is chaired by the Vice Chief of Staff, with membership consisting of the Deputy Chiefs of Staff (DCS) for Programs and Resources, Personnel, Systems and Logistics) Plans and Operations, arid Research and Development; the Assistant Vice Chief of Staff; the Comptroller of the Air Force; and The Inspector General. One might say that the Air Force Council is the "blue suit" Board of Directors of the Air Staff The Air Force Council, like the Air Staff Board, is concerned with the entire gamut of Air Force business. However, not all Air Force Council subjects are reviewed by the Air Staff Board or its subelements. Approximately half of the Council subjects have had prior review at a lower element. Examples of recent presentations to the Air Force Council include Program Decision Memorandum (PDM) Strategic and Tactical Issues, Review of Colonel Requirements, Management of Rated Officers, AWACS Operational Concept, F-5E Flight Characteristics, Future of Air Force in Space, CONUS Airlift Consolidation, and the FY 76 Budget Submission.

The newest Board Structure element is the Air Force Policy Council, chaired by die Secretary of the Air Force. All the services have Policy Councils, which can function in support of the DOD Armed Forces Policy Council. Membership is comprised of senior Air Force civilian and military officials selected by the Secretary of the Air Force, including the Chief of Staff, Under Secretary of the Air Force, most of the Air Force Council members, end the Assistant Secretaries of the Air Force. The Air Force Policy Council assists the Secretary in the development and resolution of major policy matters of high-level interest. Subjects are placed on the agenda at the request or approval of the Secretary of the Air Force.

The SPR’s are chaired by the Secretary of the Air Force. Attendance is designated by the Secretary and is similar to that for attending the Air Force Policy Council. The Secretary of the Air Force on a regular basis reviews major weapon systems which are in their development and acquisition cycle. Most major programs are reviewed on a monthly basis, with a few select programs reviewed only quarterly or semiannually. These reviews serve two primary purposes: (1) to keep senior Air Force personnel informed of the current status of major development and acquisition programs of high national importance and interest; and (2) to afford the System Program Director (SPD) the opportunity personally to inform senior Air Force officials of any significant problems encountered and to present his personal assessment of the program, along with the high-level action or approval that he needs to manage his program efficiently and effectively.

The SPR system has often been referred to as the "Blue Line" channel. It affords the SPD direct, face-to-face . access to the most senior Air Force officials, where he can obtain top-line decisions without a long and cumbersome coordination and approval cycle. The SPR has proved to be a vitally necessary management tool, since any delay in obtaining a decision on major acquisition programs could create significant contractual, cost, and schedule impacts. Prior to the Secretary's review, these specially selected programs are reviewed by the Commander, Air Force Systems Command, and by the Air Force Council with the Air Staff Board in attendance.

Programs are added to and deleted from the SPR agenda, depending on their problems or progress and according to the phase they are in within the acquisition cycle. The current systems being reviewed are the B-I, F-15, Defense Support Program (DSP), Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), Minuteman III, Advanced Airborne Command Post (AABNCP), Air Force Satellite Communications System (AFSATCOM), A-10, F-5E, Defense Satellite Communications System II (DSDC II), Maverick, Pave Strike, and Tactical Drone/Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV). The last three listed programs were recent additions. Systems are dropped from review at the appropriate time when continuing and frequent close scrutiny by the Secretary and the Chief of Staff are no longer required. For example, the C-5, F-111, and SRAM programs were recently deleted as SPR subjects.

The Directorate of the Air Force Board Structure provides executive support for each element of the Structure. The organization may be compared to the office of the executive secretary in a major corporation. Officers in the rank of colonel serve as executive secretaries to the Air Staff Board, Air Force Council, Secretary's Program Reviews, and the Air Force Policy Council. Majors and lieutenant colonels serve as executive secretaries of the panels and committees. Executive secretaries frequently have responsibility for more than one corporate group. For the most part, their duties take the following form:

--Advise and assist their respective chairmen.

--Advise and assist functional staff action officers,

--Prepare reports on deliberations, to include action items, decision letters and memoranda,

--Monitor follow-up actions to assure that a corporate recommendation has been considered within the functional organization.

--Provide conference and meeting facilities.

--Control attendance.

--Provide organizational continuity when a corporate group is not in session.

Perhaps the most challenging job for an executive secretary is in the preparation of documents and decision papers that become the formal record of the deliberations and the resulting corporate recommendation.

It must be re-emphasized that the Board Structure elements do not make decisions but provide recommendations to functional staff managers--up to and including the Deputy Chief of Staff-or alternatively elevate the problem or issue to the next higher Board Structure element. At the Air Force Council, recommendations are provided to the appropriate functional staff manager for action or to the Chief of Staff for those issues which require his decision. Upon receiving Chief of Staff approval of a Council recommendation, a Chief of Staff Decision or Guidance Memorandum is prepared and released. Actions directed by the Secretary of the Air Force are implemented by a SAF Directive. Because they are recommending bodies and not decisional, all Board Structure recommendations are nonattributive when the functional authority actually renders and staffs his decision.

There are restrictions on who can sponsor an agenda item or issue before an element of the Board Structure. Without rater strict ground rules, the effectiveness of each element could be greatly diluted by those who would unnecessarily avoid the formal decision channels, by those who would air less-significant issues, or by those who would elevate an issue to a much higher element than is required. As a general rule, the right to sponsor a subject is restricted to that person who is a member of the Board Structure element being asked to review the subject. In other words, a division chief (colonel) can sponsor a subject to a panel, while a Deputy Chief of Staff (lieutenant general) sponsors subjects to the Air Force Council. In each case, the concurrence of the chairman is necessary. Furthermore, a chairman can also sponsor a subject or issue to the next higher element within the Board Structure

At what level should a subject enter the Structure? The Board Structure provides a functional staff officer the means of increasing corporate visibility and obtaining wider support from functional managers for problems or issues that are stymied in the hierarchical organization, since a Board Structure element can escalate a subject under review to a higher corporate level. This prerogative is sometimes viewed as an "end run" mechanism in the staff, especially if it happens when an action officer is encountering resistance in the formal coordination system but achieves his objective on the Board Structure "ladder." However, the sponsor who attempts to use this technique still must convince the corporate group of the correctness of his position. The "end run" mechanism is also a two-edged sword: the sponsor may get an answer he does not want from a corporate element, or he may lose control of his subject to a chairman who can take over the sponsorship and move the issue to a higher Board Structure element.

If time allows, it is normally more desirable to enter a subject or issue into the Board Structure at the panel level, because at this level one gets more detailed expertise, and organizational consensus builds from the bottom. Once a subject has been sponsored to the Board Structure, it is up to the corporate group to take one of three courses: (1) recommend the subject to a higher element of the Board Structure; (2) recommend a decision; or (3) place the issue back into the hierarchical Air Staff decision-making organization. If the sponsor disagrees with the latter recommendation, he may elect to convince a higher-level sponsor that his viewpoint should be overriding and that the issue should be reviewed at a higher level within the Board Structure--opposing the advice and recommendation of the lower Board Structure element. Minority reports can also be filed by Board Structure members. There are occasions when an issue is so critical and time-sensitive that review by each element up the Board Structure "ladder" is neither possible nor desirable. When this occurs, the subject can go straight to either the Air Staff Board or the Air Force Council.

Each year the Board Structure elements hold about 500 meetings and review about 800 subjects. There were 504 meetings held in 1972, 486 in 1973, and 540 meetings in 1974. One of the most active elements in 1974 has been the Air Force Council, which reviewed nearly twice as many subjects as in most previous years.

Briefings are normally restricted to 30 minutes. Discussion typically will run an additional 30 minutes. The 30-minute time restriction requires the briefer to organize his subject so that only the most important and crucial aspects to a decision recommendation are addressed. The most professional presentation techniques are required to be successful in the Board Structure.

There are strict rules regarding the number of additional people a briefer or sponsor is allowed to bring to a Board Structure element meeting. This is especially true of the senior elements such as the Air Force Council. Only guest experts who are expected to contribute actively to the presentation are invited into the meeting. Backup personnel are on call outside the briefing room. It is crucial to Board Structure effectiveness that the candidness and give-and-take, which are characteristic of the deliberations of any senior corporate management and decision organization, be strongly protected. Therefore, every effort must be made to assure confidentiality in and after these meetings. Only by protecting deliberations can the inherent effectiveness of the Board Structure process be realized.

The Board Structure system offers the Air Force several advantages not available in a straightforward functional organization. A few of the more important advantages are that it

--prevents problems from being stymied in the hierarchical coordination process.

--requires the membership to act as part of the corporate body seeking an overall Air Force position. Minimizes parochialism on the part of the functional manager by ensuring that the views of the other functional managers, who are also members, are brought to bear on the problem.

--forces a decision by the weight of a corporate recommendation. Many issues could be impossible to solve through for-mal coordination because of an inherent dilemma between legitimate conflicting functional interests. Examples would be a new Officer Effectiveness Report (OER), Colonel Rated Positions, Headquarters Staff Reductions, and O&M Funding Priorities among Major Commands.

--helps top management to bring potential problems to the surface and act while reasonable options still exist.

--screens and filters topics so that each issue is addressed at the appropriate level of management, thus conserving the time and energies of management at each level and allowing them to concentrate on the issues appropriate to their respective levels of responsibility.

--employs streamlined administrative procedures that promote increased effectiveness in obtaining Air Staff consensus. Consensus and agreement come easier when face-to-face, adversary-advocacy discussion takes place at the moment of a lucid briefing-as opposed to circulating staff summary sheets and thick folders. The Board Structure process is especially effective in forming judgments on complex subjects.

--enjoys great reliance and confidence on the part of the Air Force Chief of Staff When a decision recommendation has come up through the Board Structure to the Chief, he can be assured that a thorough review has been accomplished.

The corporate decision process at Headquarters U.S. Air Force, which is embodied in the Air Force Board Structure, is unique among the military services. Each element of the Air Force Board Structure continues to streamline the Air Force decisional process. The system is available, responsive, and supportive to the decisional needs of today's Air Force. Furthermore, this management concept has withstood the test of time.

Headquarters United States Air Force

Contributors