000 03606cam a2200505 i 4500
001 311507360
003 RAND
005 20200811100920.0
008 101119s2013 caua b 000 0 eng d
020 _a0833080326 (pbk. : alk. paper)
020 _a9780833080325 (pbk. : alk. paper)
027 _aRAND/RR-230-A
037 _c$27.95
_fpaperback
040 _aCstmoR
_cCstmoR
043 _an-us---
050 0 0 _aUA25
_b.R43 2013
245 0 0 _aReadiness reporting for an adaptive Army /
_cChristopher G. Pernin ... [et al.].
264 1 _aSanta Monica, CA :
_bRAND,
_c2013.
300 _axxiii, 139 pages :
_bcolor illustrations ;
_c23 cm
336 _atext
_btxt
_2rdacontent
337 _acomputer
_bc
_2rdamedia
337 _aunmediated
_bn
_2rdamedia
338 _aonline resource
_bcr
_2rdacarrier
338 _avolume
_bnc
_2rdacarrier
500 _a"RAND Arroyo Center."
500 _a"The research was conducted within RAND Arroyo Center's Force Development and Technology Program"--Preface.
504 _aIncludes bibliographical references (p. 131-139).
505 0 _aIntroduction -- Building New Capabilities and Readiness Reporting -- Exploring the Value of the MTOE for Readiness Reporting -- From Readiness to Capabilities: Ready for What? -- Transitioning to the Future and Recommendations -- Appendix A: Literature -- Appendix B: Selected Rapid Capability Organizations -- Appendix C: MTOE Scrubs -- Appendix D: Framework for Considering Root Causes of Assigned Missions.
520 _aThe Army has developed an impressive capacity to adapt to emerging requirements by providing units with new capabilities rapidly and flexibly as units prepare for deployment through the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) process. The Army’s ability to report on readiness throughout these adaptations, however, is challenged. The readiness reporting system is largely predicated on a bottom-up, deliberate process with known milestones and predetermined designs to which the Army would build readiness. As those targets are changed, for instance when deploying to a changing operational environment as was seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, the reporting system cannot easily keep up. The key challenge to readiness reporting is that Army units now routinely prepare for assigned missions that sometimes differ in meaningful ways from their designed missions. This study examines the Army’s readiness reporting system in light of the increased adaptiveness demonstrated by Army units in the past decade. In this study we found that while the readiness reporting system still works as originally intended, the current readiness reporting system captures only a portion of the adaptations readily seen in recent years. The study offers recommendations to better reflect these adaptations in the readiness reporting system.
588 _aDescription based on print version record.
610 1 0 _aUnited States.
_bArmy
_xOperational readiness
_xEvaluation.
610 1 0 _aUnited States.
_bArmy
_xReorganization
_xEvaluation.
700 1 _aPernin, Christopher G.,
_d1973-
_eauthor.
700 1 _aButler, Dwayne M.
_eauthor.
700 1 _aConstant, Louay.
_eauthor.
700 1 _aGeyer, Lily.
_eauthor.
700 1 _aLong, Duncan.
_eauthor.
700 1 _aMadden, Dan.
_eauthor.
700 1 _aPeters, John E.
_eauthor.
700 1 _aPowers, James D.
_eauthor.
700 1 _aShurkin, Michael.
_eauthor.
710 2 _aArroyo Center.
_bForce Development and Technology Program.
710 2 _aRand Corporation.
710 1 _aUnited States.
_bArmy.
856 4 1 _yOnline Access
_uhttp://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR230.html
999 _c599514
_d599514