Download

Download eBook for Free

Full Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 2.1 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Research Synpopsis

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.1 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Purchase

Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price Price
Add to Cart Paperback124 pages $36.00 $28.80 20% Web Discount

Research Questions

  1. How does this design affect division HQ readiness to respond rapidly to contingencies and their ability to conduct mission command from alert through completed deployment in theater?
  2. Are there significant risks with FARG II that were not identified during the design process and thus unknowingly accepted by Army leadership?
  3. What additional steps might be taken to further mitigate both anticipated and unanticipated risks?

To effect reductions in institutional and operational headquarters (HQ), Focus Area Review Group II (FARG II) HQ design was developed and included a new unit type — the Main Command Post–Operational Detachment (MCP-OD) — through which reserve component (RC) personnel augment active component (AC) staffs. This report identifies the effects of this design on division HQ readiness and develops potential mitigation strategies.

The authors reviewed Army history, doctrine, and force structure documents to define when a division HQ deploys and the missions it might be assigned. They visited several AC divisions to interview participants in a multicomponent HQ and conducted telephone interviews with other units. The authors then analyzed how AC and RC staffs have prepared their combined forces for employment as a single HQ and where their efforts have been challenged. Last, the authors developed a model to illustrate when a division HQ will experience increased risk as it tries to meet requirements.

MCP-ODs have demonstrated that, if they are given at least 270 days of notice, they can successfully deploy with an AC division HQ and accomplish their missions. However, without substantial notification, MCP-OD personnel will not be able to deploy as quickly as the AC soldiers in a division's command posts. Many of the risks found in the research were adequately anticipated by FARG II designers. Nonetheless, room for improvement exists in both design and execution. The model showed that the new structure should be able to meet a range of rotational and small-scale contingencies.

Key Findings

MCP-ODs have demonstrated that, if they are given at least 270 days of advance notice, they can successfully deploy with an AC division HQ and accomplish their missions

  • MCP-ODs affect the capacity rather than the capabilities of division HQ.
  • Without substantial advanced notification of sourcing, MCP-OD personnel will not be able to deploy as quickly as the AC soldiers in a division's command posts.
  • This limitation was known when FARG II was designed and explicitly accepted as a risk by the Chief of Staff of the Army.

The instances of risks found in the research were adequately anticipated by the FARG II designers

  • The FARG II and MCP-OD designs successfully mitigate the FARG I risks they were intended to address.
  • Nonetheless, several implications of MCP-OD readiness and availability limitations might need further mitigation.
  • Requirements to accomplish in-garrison tasks were inadequately considered in the FARG II design.

After applying various levels of MCP-OD readiness, mission requirements, and deployment time lines, the model showed that the new structure should be able to meet a range of contingencies

  • MCP-OD personnel are unlikely to be fully deployable for short-notice missions, such as those in response to Global Response Force orders.
  • In the worst-case scenario of a full HQ deployment on less than 90 days' notice, a main command post shortfall emerged.

Recommendations

  • The Army should consider two different division designs: one fully manned by the AC, focused on short-notice deployments across the spectrum of conflict and without a MCP-OD; and one that accepts the risks of the FARG II design (as mitigated by the MCP-OD).
  • The Army should reconsider creating division HQ as true multicomponent units and integrating the MCP-ODs accordingly, versus the current designation as partner units.
  • Each division should develop a command post contingency staffing plan for filling critical position shortfalls if they are not sufficiently mitigated by their partnered MCP-ODs.
  • U.S. Army Forces Command should consider promulgating an information paper or other communication on Army decisionmaking and division HQ force structure trade-offs.
  • Training and Doctrine Command should consider including division HQ design in the curriculum for intermediate-level professional military education courses.
  • The Army should consider designating one or more MCP-ODs as Focused Readiness Units and resourcing them to enable deployment within 60 days of notification.
  • Division Chiefs of Staff and MCP-OD commanders should collaborate closely to synchronize AC and RC training management cycles to optimize MCP-OD readiness and integration into the division HQ.

Table of Contents

  • Chapter One

    Introduction

  • Chapter Two

    The Division Headquarters: History, Organization, and Roles

  • Chapter Three

    History of the Focus Area Review Group II Design and Intent/Limitations

  • Chapter Four

    DOTMLPF-P Analysis of Focus Area Review Group II Impacts

  • Chapter Five

    Impact of Focus Area Review Group II Changes on Short-Notice Readiness

  • Chapter Six

    Conclusion and Recommendations

  • Appendix A

    Aligning Active Component and Reserve Component Training Management

  • Appendix B

    Division Headquarters Fill Rate Tables

  • Appendix C

    A Short History of U.S. Division Headquarters Deployments Since the End of the Cold War

Research conducted by

The research described in this report was sponsored by the U.S. Army Forces Command and conducted by the Personnel, Training, and Health Program within the RAND Arroyo Center.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation research report series. RAND reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.