Military Review English Edition July-August 2016 | Page 18

commissioned a series of pilot exercises led by the
Army G-3/5/7 to refine procedures and models by
studying what operational units actually spend to
execute the training strategy. The intent is to develop
better, repeatable methods to estimate the cost of
training and, thereby, make better-informed readiness decisions.
Brig. Gen. John P. “Pete” Johnson, who led the
kick-off briefing for the cost-of-training pilot program
given to the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry
Division, in February 2016 explained the value in this
way: “Stewardship of our precious training resources is
commander’s business, and these pilots are designed to
better enable that critical role while also allowing the
Army to better see itself.”20
Usually because of external pressures, certain
Army organizations have already become masters
of cost consciousness. Army Test and Evaluation
Command’s Redstone Test Center (RTC) in
Alabama is one such organization. Operating in a
very competitive environment, RTC is responsible
for testing aviation, missile, and sensor systems;
subsystems; and components. Ninety-five percent
of its funding comes from external customers, and
those customers have options. If RTC’s costs grow,
they will go elsewhere. The commander, Col. Pat
Mason, reports that in the past RTC had no way to
understand its overhead costs such as IT, labor, and
maintenance because they were “all lumped together in a blob.”21 Because of that shortfall, Mason has
since implemented a sophisticated system of cost
management so that he and his leaders can understand what they are spending in specific categories
on a real-time basis.
Capitalizing on the flexibility and power of the
General Fund Enterprise Business System, the
Army’s state-of-the-art resourcing system, Mason
set up custom “cost centers” and “work breakdown

schedules,” allowing complete command transparency
on estimates and actual expenses.22 This enabled RTC
to ma ke better-informed, fact-based decisions. RTC’s
precision extends to having the uniformed members
complete time cards so that their work can be appropriately identified and binned. This extraordinary
visibility enabled RTC to quickly determine that it
did not need four of its seventy helicopters and a major piece of test equipment. By turning them in, RTC
reduced its overhead cost to customers.23
While most Army organizations do not face the
same customer-centric challenges that RTC does,
carefully managing cost can make any organization
more efficient and facilitate more-informed decision making. With the budget forecast grim for
the foreseeable future, the still-looming threat of
sequestration, and the uncertainty of global mission
requirements, the Army faces unprecedented challenges in remaining a strong and agile force.

Conclusion
While not a panacea, strengthening Army
management will go a long way toward optimizing
effectiveness and efficiency in order to fulfill the
Army’s obligation to the Nation. The AMF tenets
provide the underpinnings of a structured, systematic approach to managing the Army at large
as well as its individual components. Supporting
this are the many Army leaders, both those mentioned above and many others, who are employing
effective, purposeful management approaches to
drive high performance in their organizations. They
demonstrate that by pairing the tenets of the AMF
with inspirational leadership the results are inevitably high-performing organizations, which are
paramount to accomplishing the Army’s mission to
fight and win the Nation’s wars.
Army Strong!

Biography
Lt. Gen. Thomas Spoehr, U.S. Army, is the director of the Army Office of Business Transformation, responsible for
recommending ways and implementing policy for the Army to become more efficient in its business practices. He
holds a BS from the College of William and Mary and an MA in public administration from Webster University.
His prior assignments include director, Program Analysis and Evaluation, Headquarters, Department of the Army
(HQDA); deputy commanding general, U.S. Forces–Iraq (Support); and director, Force Development, HQDA.

16

July-August 2016  MILITARY REVIEW