Military Review English Edition January-February 2017 | Page 21

REDUCING HQDA

Through a comparative analysis of the 8-Step Process,
this article will discuss the HQDA Comprehensive
Review’s ability to achieve its 25 percent authorization
reductions and de-layering while simultaneously maintaining and improving work functions.

MILITARY REVIEW  January-February 2017

f
l o ing
ve
Le stand t
r
n
de te
un of in

n
tio
ica s
un day
mm in
Co elay
d

ensure all HQDA agencies would participate, and
avoid the pitfall of a uniform “salami slice” 25 percent
reduction within each agency. The design principles in
figure 4 (on page 20) defined how the leaders of each
HQDA agency should de-layer, or flatten, the echelons
that make up
their agency;
Principal
the principles
Secretary of the Army, chief of staff of the Army,
were used
under secretary of the Army, vice chief of staff of the Army
by the USA
Clear
intent
is
and VCSA
Conveys new
Time
Intent
vital to mission
directive
as approval
command
criteria for
every redesign
100%
0
Echelon 2
submission.10
99%
<1
Echelon 3
Following
99%
<1
Echelon 4
the second step
98%
4
Echelon 5
of the Kotter
process, “build a
93%
13
Echelon 6
guiding coali85%
31
Echelon 7
tion,” the USA
75%
51
Echelon 8
and VCSA
71%
60
Echelon 9
attempted to
build a guiding
70%
62
Echelon 10
coalition from
within the
HQDA princi(Graphic by authors)
pals during the
Figure 3. Increased Communication Time and Degradation of de-layering kickMessage Clarity with Increased Echelons
off meeting. The
review had a
small core workComparison to the Kotter
ing group, led by OBT and supported by BCG, to enable
Model and Insights
change, report on progress, and provide an alternative
The SA accomplished the first step, “create a sense of point of view for redesign progress. Senior leaders relied
urgency,” during the FARG effort and continued with
heavily on this group to coordinate efforts, track progress,
his tasking memorandum to the USA that established
and communicate pertinent activities throughout the
the need and authority for the HQDA Comprehensive
effort. While this reliance on OBT and BCG ultimately
Review. Simply put, the Army needed to reduce perproved successful, the HQDA agencies often viewed
sonnel levels and associated costs by FY 2019 to meet
them as outsiders forcing change rather than assisting
established force structure goals. There were clear
the agencies’ champions with implementing common
reduction targets and a set timeline for completion.
plans and design constructs. Because of this friction, the
On 28 October 2014, the USA and VCSA, supported
USA and VCSA often had to directly address concerns
by OBT and BCG, held an HQDA de-layering kickoff
and provide guidance to HQDA principals rather than
meeting with the Army secretariat and ARSTAF prinmanage other lines of effort such as reorganizing work
cipals. The intent of the meeting was to outline the reflow to determine if larger inter- or intraorganization
quirements, introduce the de-layering design principles, agency change was warranted. A successful example of
19