Instructions for submitting a Manpower …...conduct close coordination with the subject matter...

Instructions for submitting a Manpower

Requirements Determination Model

(MRDM) for validation

U.S. ARMY MANPOWER ANALYSIS AGENCY

(USAMAA)

15 July 2016

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part 1: Introduction 2

Part 2: Development of the Manpower Requirements Determination Model (MRDM) 2

Part 3: USAMAA Involvement during the MRDM Development 5

Part 4: MRDM Validation Package (MVP) 5

Part 5: MRDM Validation Brief (MVB) – Is the MRDM Defendable? 7

Part 6: MRDM and Repeatability 9

Part 7: USAMAA Validation 11

Part 8: Post Validation 11

Part 9: Conclusion 12

Part 10: Frequently Asked Questions 12

Part 11: Enclosures 13

1 – MRDM Process

2 – Sample of Requiring Organization (RO) Validation Request Memorandum

3 – Sample of MRDM Validation Briefing (MVB)

4 – Sample of USAMAA validation memorandum

2

1. Part 1: Introduction

a. Army Regulation 570-4, Manpower Management, dated 8 February 2006 directs

that all Requiring Organizations (ROs) such as Army Commands (ACOM), Army

Service Component Commands (ASCCs) and Direct Reporting Units (DRUs) obtain

validation and approval of their manpower models. The RO must accomplish

validation before they apply any model to their subordinate commands/organizations

as part of the Manpower Requirements Determination process to change currently

documented Table of Distribution and Allowances (TDA) requirements. Validation is

required from the Assistant Secretary of the Army (ASA) for Manpower and Reserve

Affairs (M&RA), but the ASA (M&RA) delegated this authority to the US Army

Manpower Analysis Agency (USAMAA). USAMAA is responsible for manpower

models validation as part of the MRD process.

b. This document provides guidelines to ROs for obtaining USAMAA validation of

any manpower model that is a Manpower Requirements Determination Model

(MRDM). Compliance with the process outlined will ensure the most expeditious

processing and approval of your MRDM. Deviations from the process outlined in this

document will require the approval of the Director, USAMAA.

c. The point of contact (POC) for this instruction document is the USAMAA

modeling proponent. You can contact the POC via the USAMAA front office at (703)

805-4229.

2. Part 2: Development of the MRDM

a. US Code, Title 10, Section 129a requires all manpower requirements to be

workload-based and as such all manpower models must be workload-based.

Furthermore, the RO must follow the Army five-phased approach to manpower

requirements determination to ensure consistent application of procedures across all

modeled organizations. USAMAA developed the Five Phases (Enclosure 1) that

includes the minimum points where the USAMAA Command Analyst (CA) should be

involved in the development process. If not, we strongly suggest a meeting with your

CA before submitting the MRDM for validation. The steps of the MRDM process are

necessary for all MRDM development and as such apply to MRDMs submitted for

validation and revalidation. While all the steps are still necessary for validation and

revalidation, the steps to revalidate a MRDM will most likely consume less time to

complete. To put this document into context, we will focus exclusively on Phase 5 of

3

the MRDM process. This document addresses how to engage USAMAA and prepare

for the documentation of requirements generated by the MRDM.

b. USAMAA Five Phased Approach, is depicted with color-coded blocks at

Enclosure 1 and includes: ‘Planning’, ‘Front End Analysis’, ‘Data Collection, Analysis

and, Validation’; ‘Product Development / Recommendations’, and ‘Validation,

Approval, and Documentation.’ Enclosure 1 describes the steps normally

accomplished within each of the five phases. The following paragraphs summarize

the five phases along with guidelines for model development.

(1) Phase 1, Planning: The major elements of this phase are:

(a) Identify the mission and directive

(b) Select functions to analyze

(c) Begin parsing organization’s functions into logical groupings

(d) Scope the required analysis

(e) Establish clear boundaries between functions

(f) Establish timelines

(g) Determine resources required to perform the analyses

(h) This phase probably consumes the least time in MRDM process. It is,

however, the foundation of the MRDM process. If we do not do it right, then the rest of

the MRDM development will not have a solid framework. We need to start with placing

a boundary around what it is we are trying to analyze. The key part is the definition. If

the organization wants to analyze two adjacent processes, and we cannot tell where

one ends and the other begins, then you only have one process.

(2) Phase 2, Front End Analysis: The RO analysts developing the MRDM must

conduct close coordination with the subject matter experts (SMEs) who have in-depth

knowledge of the business processes that comprise the function(s) they are attempting

to model. The RO analysts will also create flow diagrams of the processes - such as a

process maps. They can consider a set of basic questions when building the process

map such as:

(a) What takes place inside this function?

(b) Why does this function exist in this organization?

(c) Is the function conducted elsewhere within the command, or across the Army?

4

(d) Does a law, regulation, or policy mandate this function?

(e) What creates the demand for the output generated by these processes?

(f) Do internal or external forces drive the demand?

(g) The RO analysts will also begin to develop a list of workload and process

drivers. The initial list of drivers should be very broad and include all factors that could

influence the overall process. The RO analysts will think through a Conceptual

MRDM such as banded allocation rules, templates, ratio models, mathematical

regression, discrete event simulations, and stochastic equations. Finally, RO analysts

will develop a data collection plan that they will implement in the next phase.

(3) Phase 3, Data Collection, Analysis and Validation: Data collection is the most

time consuming and resource intensive phase of model development. The RO

analysts need to do it right the first time. Data needs to be:

(a) Representative – provides insight into a measure of reality

(b) Unbiased – free of sampling errors that can mislead

(c) Complete – gives a ‘good enough’ picture

(d) Accurate – collected, stored, and analyzed without further error

(e) Relevant – collected from recent history (e.g., 3 years) and without affect by

atypical events and occurrences such as one-time surges.

(f) The RO analyst will evaluate every data element to ensure it meets the criteria.

It is like building a house where you want all the blocks, lumber, electrical wire and,

roofing material to be good quality. The data utilized to build a MRDM is no different.

(4) Phase 4, Product Development/Recommendations: The RO analysts will

combine the Conceptual MRDM from Phase 2 with the data collected in Phase 3.

Sometimes a very simple solution works just fine. The MRDM should be consistent

when applied across a set of similar circumstances. It should be flexible and able to

adapt to changes within the mission. It should be transparent, easy to use and

understand, and able to be modified when necessary. Its base should be authoritative

data sources that will be available throughout the life of the MRDM. The simplest

example is:

5

Generating Requirements:

Per Accomplish Time (PAT) times Workload_count = Workload

Workload divided by Army_Availability_Factor = Requirements

Projecting Workload Counts to a future (fiscal year):

Equation for workload_driver = workload_count

(5) Phase 5, Validation, Approval, and Documentation: This phase in sequence is

gain approval of the MRDM results from the RO Command Leadership, develop the

brief to USAMAA where they will determine if the MRDM reflects reality well enough to

be useful and develop the brief to G-3/FMP. This process requires validation of both

the model, and all underlying data. USAMAA will identify MRDM limitations and the

feasible range of its application. This document will provide further details of this

phase. Once validated the RO can apply the MRDM for five years. USAMAA strongly

suggests the RO start the revalidation process at the beginning of the fourth year of

the current validation period.

3. Part 3: USAMAA Involvement during the MRDM Development

The five phases at Enclosure 1 developed by USAMAA includes the minimum points

where USAMAA should be involved in the process. The RO analysts developing the

products in each phase needto share the process maps, data collections plan, and

more with the USAMAA. If not, we strongly suggest a meeting with your CA before

submitting the MRDM for validation.

4. Part 4: Model Validation Package (MVP)

a. The RO should coordinate with their respective USAMAA CA to provide the MVP

of their MRDM. This paragraph references step 17 of the MRDM process at

Enclosure 1. The RO will provide the MVP as electronic files that will consist of:

(1) An executive summary of the MRDM. This can be a succinct summary of the

facts, assumptions, approach and, application of the MRDM.

(2) An RO memorandum signed by the appropriate flag officer (general officer or

member of the senior executive service) in the command. The memorandum will

identify the entire model (and sub-models) and, if applied, the results of the model by

6

sub-organization. The memorandum will request USAMAA validate the specified

MRDM. A sample is at Enclosure 2.

(3) The MRDM briefing (Sample at Enclosure 3) as outlined in Part 5.

(4) The model itself with all formulae including all comments clearly annotated,

along with all input data, so that USAMAA can replicate the MRDM and its results

across sub-organizations. See Part 6 for further explanation of specific items of the

MRDM.

(5) All staffing coordination documentation of the MRDM that affects other

commands / organizations. If the MRDM will affect commands external to the RO then

the RO will provide documentation of coordination with those commands. An example

is an enterprise or Department of the Army level MRDM.

b. The MVP submission will set several actions in motion for the validation process.

The USAMAA CA will ensure all files are present to include the MRDM briefing that

should be complete as outlined in Part 5. The CA will also acknowledge receipt of the

Flag Officer memorandum requesting validation. Below is the email from the USAMAA

CA:

As the Command Analyst for ___fill-in RO ____ Command, I acknowledge

receipt of your memorandum requesting validation of the __________

MRDM. We will schedule the Model Validation Brief (MVB) as soon as

practical in coordination with the _____fill-in RO ____ Command staff.

This email does not constitute receipt of the MRDM for validation. The

process of validation will occur after the MVB from the command and

when the USAMAA Division Chief acknowledges receipt of the Model

Validation Package via email.

c. The USAMAA CA and the RO analyst will establish a time/date the RO analyst

will provide the MRDM brief to USAMAA. The official validation time of the MRDM by

USAMAA does not start until the respective USAMAA Division Chief acknowledges

receipt of the MVP from the RO. USAMAA will send the email below once the Division

Chief verifies that the MVP is complete:

The _______Division of USAMAA acknowledges receipt of __________

MRDM. The _____fill-in RO ____ Command staff completed the MVB on

_______. It is our goal to complete this action no later than 20 business

days. However, as we may encounter unresolvable issues we request a

POC listed in the MVB be available for resolution of issues.

7

d. The USAMAA Division Chief will establish the final point of receipt. However, this

will normally occur after the MRDM brief. As stated above, USAMAA will have 20

business days from receipt date to validate the MRDM, validate portions of the MRDM

or, return the MRDM not validated with comments.

5. Part 5: Model Validation Brief (MVB) – Is the MRDM Defendable?

a. This paragraph explains step 18 of the MRDM process specifically the MVB that

describes who, what, when, where, why and how of the MRDM. The MVB will ‘defend’

the necessity and validity of the MRDM or how solid/logical is the analysis and the data.

The RO can conduct the MVB in person at USAMAA or via VTC/telecommunication.

The purpose of the MVB is to present details of the final RO approved MRDM that the

RO is requesting USAMAA to validate. The MVB is a discussion of the MRDM where

USAMAA can ask questions pertaining to the model. An example of a MVB is at

Enclosure 3. USAMAA recommends this outline for the command decision brief to

approve the model identified in step 16 of the MRDM process at Enclosure 1. This is

not a listing of necessary charts but necessary elements for the briefing. The RO could

explain the elements collectively on fewer charts.

b. The MVB must include the following essential items:

(1) Background which will include the following:

(a) Reason for development of the MRDM to generate requirements (why): Include

any mission directive or mandate for developing the MRDM. If MVB is to revalidate an

existing MRDM then the RO will specify the MRDM superseded. The RO will explain

any extensions to the existing MRDM. Also, the RO will explain any changes or

differences between the existing MRDM and the MRDM under validation.

(b) Description (what): Include function(s) represented, applicable organizations,

etc. The functions must be necessary for at least four years from the date of signed RO

memorandum (enduring).

(2) Facts

(3) Constraints, limitations and assumptions

(4) All process maps, as applicable

8

(5) Development/approach (how/when):

(a) Specify if development followed the USAMAA five-phased modeling

methodology. If not, specify what overall methodology the RO followed.

(b) Specify when and who developed the model.

(c) Outline the specific approach used for developing the model and/or each sub-

model, identifying how the RO collected the data and how was it used, what software

did the RO use, what type analysis was used, etc.

(d) Explain data sources for all data utilized in the MRDM development. Include

sources utilized to derive workload counts, Per Accomplished Times (PATs), workload

drivers, and process drivers (if derived).

(e) Explain the complete model (or sub-models), definitions for all specified

variables, show the derivation of the resultant equation(s), any allocation rules, and any

template(s). This should include the two major portions of a MRDM: that which

generates requirements, and that which projects workload counts. See Part 6 for further

explanation of specific items of the MRDM.

(f) Explain USAMAA CA and SMEs involvement. Identify how much USAMAA was

involved during the development of the model, specifying when/how the USAMAA CAs

were involved. Identify what SMEs were involved in the development of the MRDM.

Did they verify the model itself and the results? Does the MRDM reflect the

functions/processes outlined in the mandate or mission directive?

(6) Model Application(where):

(a) Include a brief description of the location/organization/work center.

(b) Use a table or matrix to show the results of the MRDM and, if applicable, each

sub-model applied to each applicable location/organization.

(c) The results of the model will utilize current workload counts to derive

requirements from the MRDM.

(d) The workload driver portion of the MRDM will be used to project future

requirements when the RO proceeds to documentation of the requirements.

9

(e) Include total overall current MRDM generated requirements and the difference

from the current TDA requirements.

(f) Explain the on-hand personnel numbers in relation to the MRDM generated

requirements.

(7) Next Steps and Points of Contact (POCs):

(a) Specify the anticipated application of the MRDM for documentation.

(b) Specify any special circumstances such as out of cycle application.

(c) Specify a POC and alternates with contact information that USAMAA can

contact for questions.

6. Part 6: MRDM and Repeatability

a. The Manpower Requirements Determination Model (MRDM) is a decision

support tool that is typically used to calculate the expected level of manpower required

to generate an estimated level of workload in the future for a specific function. It should

represent the system (function(s)) under consideration in terms of its logical and

quantitative relationships. As such, there are specific elements necessary to the

validation of a MRDM. USAMAA must be able to reproduce unequivocally the results

presented in the MRDM Validation Briefing (MVB) given the data of the MRDM

Validation Package (MVP). There are two major portions of the MRDM: that which

generates requirements and, that which projects workload counts. The USAMAA CA

will determine successful repeatability for both portions of the MRDM.

b. The following is a minimum listing of necessary elements to validate a MRDM.

Simply put, if the RO analyst used it to develop the MRDM, the RO analyst should

include it in the MVP submission.

c. The MRDM. This is normally a set of derived equations. The simplest example

is:

Generating Requirements:

Per Accomplish Time (PAT) times Workload_count = Workload

Workload divided by Army_Availability_Factor = Requirements

10

Projecting Workload Counts to a future FY:

Equation for workload_driver = workload_count

d. The Army Availability Factor is usually 1740hrs/work year. The Generating

Requirements equations merely derive manpower requirements based upon a

workload count whether current or projected counts. The Projecting Workload Counts

to a Future Year (FY) equation will derive future workload counts base upon a

programmable workload driver.

e. The RO can simplify the equations into allocation tables that also must be

included in the MVP. The equations can be in such software as Microsoft EXCEL

(cells), Statistical Application Software (SAS) code, or other software. The RO must

realize the obscurity of the software will affect the time to validate the MRDM. If the

software utilized is not well known and/or USAMAA does not have the software, it will

protract the validation time. Again, the important aspect is the repeatability; the

USAMAA CA must be able to recreate the results briefed during the MVB utilizing what

the RO provided in the MVP. In addition, all spreadsheet equations used to determine

values within the MRDM must be included and active with the MRDM submission (no

arbitrarily entered values). In other words if a value in the MRDM is computed and not

an input, the calculation must be present where the USAMAA CA can evaluate it.

f. The Projecting Workload Counts to a future FY is the equation that relates a

workload driver to a workload count. It is the necessary equation to ultimately project

requirements for documentation. The workload driver is a set of data projected five

years, if possible, from the date of the RO memorandum. The RO should present this

equation during the MVB and present the output of this equation utilizing the projected

workload driver as input. The RO will also include the workload driver data in the MVP.

g. The data utilized to develop the MRDM. They are the data utilized to derive all

equations/allocation rules of the MRDM. They will be historical data that are not

necessarily the data input into the MRDM. They should be collected from recent

history; USAMAA suggests utilizing data no more than five years in the past from the

date of the RO memorandum requesting validation. These data should not be

affected by strong events that occurred during the period such as incidental surges or

temporary resources reductions (e.g., sequestration). An example would be the data

utilized to derive the PAT shown above. It is also the workload counts data and the

workload driver data utilized to derive the Projecting Workload Counts to a future FY

equation. The historical workload counts will serve dual purposes, as it will be utilized

to derive the Projecting Workload Counts to a future FY equation. The RO will also

utilize the more recent or current workload counts to generate the current

11

requirements presented in the MVB that will allow a comparison to the current TDA. If

a template is part of the MRDM, then specify the regulation, source or, analysis that

justifies the template. All data submitted must be no more than 14 months old from

the date of the RO memorandum requesting validation. This equates to two months

for data collection plus 12 months to complete development of the MRDM before the

submission of the MRDM to USAMAA for validation. USAMAA may grant deviations

to this rule on an exception basis.

h. The data used as input to derive the projected requirements. This would be the

programmable workload driver data utilized to project the workload counts. The RO

must also provide the output results of the inputted programmable workload driver

data. Again, all data submitted must be no more than 14 months old from the date of

the RO memorandum requesting validation. Example, the first data were collected on

April 1, 2014 then the memorandum requesting validation must be signed by June 1,

2015

7. Part 7: USAMAA Validation

a. Once the MVP is accepted by USAMAA as identified in Part 4, the RO can

expect a response from USAMAA either validating the MRDM, portions of it, or formally

requesting modifications of the MVP. During this time, USAMAA will verify the MRDM is

defendable and repeatable. As they complete these efforts questions may surface that

require clarification therefore it is important for the POCs (or alternates) listed in the

MVB and the USAMAA CA to maintain solid contact and are available to resolve

questions quickly.

b. Some aspects covered during the validation are the logic and mathematics

underlying the MRDM. The USAMAA CA will also check the accuracy and validity of

the data utilized to develop the MRDM. The USAMAA CA must be able to repeat the

build of the MRDM.

c. The USAMAA CA will validate both major portions of the MRDM, as both portions

are necessary to document requirements. When USAMAA validates the MRDM, they

will provide a memorandum attesting to the validation. A PDF example is at Enclosure

4. Additionally, the memorandum will document the MRDM and the projected

requirements for documentation into the TDA. The RO will provide this memorandum to

G-3/FMP for documenting the projected requirements of the MRDM. The USAMAA CA

will distribute the MRDM validation memorandum as needed.

12

8. Part 8: Post Validation

As identified in the MRDM process, the RO will conduct a TDA baseline presentation to

G-3/FMP. The RO needs to schedule this briefing within a reasonable time but

preferably no later than 30 calendar days after the date of the validation memorandum

to avoid applying ‘stale’ data and generating erroneous requirements. The

documentation briefing will normally include various document such as the TDA

crosswalk but will definitely include the validation memorandum identified in Part 7. It is

important in terms of the validation of your MRDM that the USAMAA CA maintain

involvement in the MRDM validation process and attend the brief to G-3/FMP to support

your MRDM effort.

9. Part 9: Conclusion

The MRDM process continues with step 22 at Enclosure 1 and addresses any issues of

concept plans. USAMAA posted this instruction document along with concept plan

instructions on their website. You, the RO analyst, can address any questions with your

USAMAA CA. The USAMAA website is http://www.asamra.army.mil/usamaa/.

Part 10: Frequently Asked Questions

a. Will USAMAA validate a MRDM even if the RO did not follow the procedures outlined in Part 2 of this document? As a rule no, unless the RO can adequately explain why they did not follow the procedures.

b. Will USAMAA validate a MRDM even without their involvement, as discussed in

Part 3 of this document? Yes, however, the validation process may take much longer. There also is a higher risk that USAMAA may not be able to validate the MRDM.

c. Must the RO submit all documents specified in Part 4 to USAMAA for validation? Yes. In fact, Commands are welcome to provide additional documents as well in order to help USAMAA understand the complete rationale for your findings and recommendations of the MRDM.

d. Are there any tips to ‘sanity’ check the MRDM before submission? Yes. The RO

can compare the MRDM results to the existing TDA requirements and authorizations to see if they are comparable. This does assume the TDA is not outdated or ‘stale’. The RO can compare the MRDM output to the current workforce or on-hand personnel.

MRDM Process

Page 1, Enclosure 1

USAMAA is

available to assist

you with every step

of the Five Phases

Phase 2: Front End Analysis

Phase 3: Data Collection

Phase 1: Planning

1

Cmd authority

identifies a need to

execute Manpower

Review

2

Conduct Initial analysis;

identify scope of study;

determine wkg grp/team

members

3

Present model

development

methodology and

approach to wkg

grp/functional

experts (FEs)

4

Provide assistance

to functional reps

in validating F/T

list/WCDs w/

mandates

5

Functions/tasks

lists completed/

verified; schedule

process mapping

wkshp

6

Facilitate process

mapping wkshp for

functions identified;

create WLD lists based

on mapped tasks

7

Staff working

process maps for

review; revise as

necessary

8

Screen proposed

Workload Drivers list

obtained from

process mapping

wkshp

9A

Develop/staff data

collection

approach and tool;

include

instructions, test

questions

9B

Release data

collection tool;

provide spt for

questions during

data collection

period

10

Conduct data

cleansing/binning

of raw data;

identify data gaps

& errors

FEs prepare list of functions/tasks/work ctr

descriptions (WCD) of what will be modeled

USAMAA invited to review materials

to date (process maps, WLD lists)

12

Execute statistical

analysis of

collected data;

consult w/FEs to

review data

findings & clarify

data

inconsistencies

USAMAA invited to review

materials to date, to

include data collection tool

Update USAMAAA on

data findings

11

Conduct on-site

data validation

visits, as required

9

Is local (non-

authoritative level)

data collection

required?

5A

Are adjustments

necessary based on

findings during

Functions/Tasks list

development?

5B

Adjust as

required

8A

Are adjustments

necessary based on

findings during process

mapping?

8B

Adjust as

required

12A

Are adjustments

necessary based on

findings during data

collection?

12B

Adjust as

required

NO

YES M2

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

Contact your

USAMAA

Command

Analyst

MRDM Process

Page 2, Enclosure 1

Phase 5: Validation

Phase 4: Product Development/Recommendations

15

Meet with FEs for

command-level

verification of

model

16

Brief leadership

on model dev &

results; obtain

command-level

validation of

model

17

Provide readahead

and modeling info

to USAMAA

18

Execute Defense

and support

Repeatability of

model at USAMAA

19

Receive USAMAA

Approval/

Validation

22

Is concept plan

necessary for approval

of rqmts beyond

manpower?

22A

Prepare to

submit as part

of a concept

plan

22B

Schedule to

present to DA G3

for approval;

USAMAA attends

NO

YES

20

Develop

documentation for

model (rules of

application, data

sources, etc)

21

Validate TDA

baseline for

presentation to

HQDA G3;

develop TDA

Crosswalk

documentation;

determine line-

level details

16A

Are adjustments

necessary based on

findings during model

development and

verification?

16B

Adjust as

required

Move to CP process, as

appropriateEND of MRD

M2

13

Develop possible

model

approaches/

prototypes; select

suitable model

prototype

14

“Run” selected

model for output

YES

NO

USAMAA is available to

assist you with every step of

the Five Phases

Enclosure 2

OFFICIAL LETTERHEAD OF USA___ Office Symbol MEMORANDUM FOR Director, U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency, 5915 16th Street, Building 238, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-5514 SUBJECT: Request for Validation of Manpower Requirements Determination Model

(MRDM) for ____________________ 1. The Manpower and Management Division of USA___ developed the enclosed MRDM that confirms xxx requirements for XXXX unit identification code WXXXAA. Enclosures to this memorandum include an Executive Summary of the MRDM, the MRDM, all necessary data to conduct a validation of the MRDM and, the decision briefing that the senior leadership of USA___ approved. 2. USA___ requests USAMAA review and approve the attached MRDM for documentation as part of the Fiscal Year XX (FYXX) Command Plan and Program Objective Memorandum FYXX-XX submission. 3. My point of contact for this action is __________. You can contact them at phone number (xxx) xxx-xxxx or email: [email protected]. Encls Signature Block and Signature (Flag Officer or SES)

, Enclosure 3

Requiring OrganizationFunction Manpower

Model Validation Brief

NN February 20NN

, Enclosure 3

Agenda• Introduction

Purpose

Description

Background

Functions/Scope

Mission Directive(s)

• Methodology Modeling Technique

Sample Process Map

Facts, Assumptions, and Limitations

DA Proponency

Applicability

• Overview of Results

• Output by Installation

• Way Ahead

• Points of Contact

1

, Enclosure 3

Introduction (1 of 3)

• Purpose/BLUF: – Develop staffing standard that will include function missions, functions, and workload associated of

Department of Army Civilians (DACs) with each command, intermediate command and installation.

• Description: − The function program ensures that the federal, state, and Army mandates are being met.

− Quantify the workload necessary for DACs to manage and monitor function programs in order to meet applicable conditions of legally mandated requirements.

• Background:− There is currently no valid method to identify the Army’s function requirements and the minimum essential

DAC staffing standard to execute the Army’s function Program.

− Previous attempts to model function DAC workload were under the form of an Installation Command common level of service. This was inappropriate as the mandates and regulations that manage function requirements are a legal necessity rather than customer service. Additionally, previous modeling attempts were developed using simplistic analytic approaches to manpower requirements determination.

− Baseline information for RO installations is based on the requirement amount that is programmed for divided by the individual rate, endstrength, and adjustment for inflation. Baseline information for RO-HQ was obtained from FMS-WEB. Baseline information for CMD was obtained from FMS-WEB on 15 Nov 2015. Baseline information for the Reserves reflects the RSC’s function Chiefs historical knowledge of manpower that has been purchased via contract.

− The end-state of this model is intended to properly align function DAC Manpower requirements in support of Decision Point 59 to the Army Campaign Plan (Standardize Institutional Army TDAs).

1

, Enclosure 3


• Scope:

− This model details DAC requirements associated with function functions as outlined by Public Law, Department of Defense (DoD), Army Regulation, and Department of the Army (DA) function Policy.

− Resulting in 9 Functions with 80 process maps managed by DACs.

− The model (1) is limited to the DAC workforce included in the 9 function Functions and 80 processes for those installations, intermediate commands, and command headquarters listed in slides 11 – 15, (2) does not include work performed by project contactors (because they are included in EQ Requirements Model), and (3) does not include conservation reimbursable and fee collection program personnel that are funded by generated revenues.

• Functions Modeled:

1. F1 (4 Process Maps)









, Enclosure 3


Mission Mandate(s):

Functions Mission Directives Date/Page/ParagraphPercentage of

Total Workload

Air Quality• AR 200-1, 4-1 • 13 Dec 07 / 17 /4-1

6.25%

Clean-up Compliance• AR 200-1, 12-2• AR 200-1, 8-2

• 13 Dec 07 / 38 /12-2• 13 Dec 07 / 31 /8-2 4.86%

Cultural Resources • AR 200-1, 6-2 • 13 Dec 07 / 28 /6-2

8.77%

Natural Resource Management • AR 200-1, 4-3b• AR 200-1, 5-2

• 13 Dec 07 / 21 /4-3b• 13 Dec 07 /27 /5-2

17.75%

Pollution Prevention • AR 200-1, 7-2 • 13 Dec 07 / 30 /7-2

2.91%

Program Support

• AR 200-1, 1-1b• AR 200-1, 15-1b• AR 200-1, 15-3• AR 200-1, 16-1• AR 200-1, 16-3

• 13 Dec 07 / 1 /1-1b• 13 Dec 07 /45 /15-1b• 13 Dec 07 / 46 /15-3• 13 Dec 07 / 52 /16-1• 13 Dec 07 / 53 /16-3

33.15%

Storage Tanks • AR 200-1, 11-2 • 13 Dec 07 / 36 /11-2 1.70%

Waste Compliance • AR 200-1, 10-1• AR 200-1, 10-2

• 13 Dec 07 / 34 /10-1• 13 Dec 07 / 35 /10-2 16.91%

Water Compliance • AR 200-1, 4-2 • 13 Dec 07 / 18 /4-2 7.70%

TOTAL 100%

, Enclosure 3

Methodology (1 of 4)• Data Sources

− USAMAA and DAIM-ISE facilitated the development of standardized process maps via online meetings.

• A working group of ARNG/IMCOM/USAR and DAIM-ISE SMEs identified 9 functions and developed 80 process maps with data from 122 installations, 2 intermediate commands, and 3 command headquarters.

• DAIM-ISE SMEs established standard times for each task and percentages for decision points based on their expertise and input from Standard Times and Decision Point Data Call.

• DAIM-ISE SMEs established counts for each process based on their expertise, the Counts Data Call, and the Commands’ proposed changes.

• Data Sources

– Standard Times and Decision Point Data Call:

• A subset of installations and intermediate commands provided times for tasks and percentages for decision points for each process.

• Commands provided times for task and percentages for decision points.

– Counts Data Call:

• DAIM-ISE SMEs developed questions that would aide in identifying counts for the processes regarding DAC work.

• Commands coordinated with installations and subcommands to answer questions developed by DAIM-ISE SMEs.

– Command Review of Model:

• Commands were tasked to provide proposed changes to the model and justification for the changes.

1

, Enclosure 3

Methodology (2 of 4)

function Manpower Modeling Technique:Where:

PAT is Per Accomplish Time

Wc is workload count

wkld is workload

rqmnts is requirements

MAF is Manpower Availability Factor (usually 1740hrs/work year)

wrklddvr is workload driver

1

• Model Equation:

Generate requirements:

PAT* wc = wkld

wkld/MAF = rqmnts

Project workload counts to a future FY:

equation(wrklddvr) = wc

, Enclosure 3


1

, Enclosure 3

• Facts:

– Insufficient function DAC staffing introduces risks of function noncompliance with Executive Orders, Federal, state, inter-state, regional and local statutory/regulatory requirements as well as to function functions that support training and operation of facilities that produce installation energy, process drinking water, wastewater, storm water as well as function regulatory requirements associated with handling, disposal, and response to spills of hazardous waste, solid waste, and oil and petroleum products.

• Constraints:

– The time allotted to developed the model

• Assumptions:

– The majority of data collection provided valid DAC workload counts

– Appropriate function DAC Personnel staffing will support compliance with policy and standards

• Limitations:

– No previous model for direct comparison

– Process map percentages at decision points and the least, most and most likely times were SME derived rather than empirical

• DA Proponency

– Mr. Erstil Hickey, DOOM-ISIS, function Program Manager is the proponent for the modeling effort.

• Applicability:

– This Model is applicable to 122 installations, 2 intermediate commands, and 3 command headquarters identified in slides 11 –15 to perform the DAC work included in the 8 function Functions and 80 processes.


1

, Enclosure 3

Overview of Results

1

Model Requirements

Model with Advisory and Supervisory

Requirements

TDARequirements

BaselineDifference On-board

Installation 823 958 696 262 708

Command 38 44 47 -3 47

861 1002 743 259 755

Installation 1161 1344 1360 -16 944

Intermediate 18 21 8 13 6

Command 54 62 12 50 7

1233 1427 1380 47 957

Installation 226 260 217 43 132

Command 9 10 12 -2 4

235 270 229 41 136

2329 2699 2352 347 1848

, Enclosure 3

RO Output

1

UIC UIC Description

Model with Advisory and Supervisory

Requirements

TDA Baseline

RequirementsDifference On-board

W123AA UNIT 1 14 9 5 10

W123AA UNIT 2 17 7 10 7

W123AA UNIT 3 16 5 11 5

W123AA UNIT 4 16 8 8 8

W123AA UNIT 5 17 4 13 5

W123AA UNIT 6 17 7 10 7

W123AA UNIT 7 17 7 10 7

W123AA UNIT 8 17 14 3 14

W123AA UNIT 9 16 8 8 8

W123AA UNIT 11 15 14 1 14

W123AA UNIT 12 14 10 4 10

W123AA UNIT 13 19 12 7 12

W123AA UNIT 14 24 26 -2 26

W123AA UNIT 15 13 5 8 8

W123AA UNIT 16 15 8 7 5

W123AA UNIT 17 18 16 2 17

W123AA UNIT 18 16 5 11 5

W123AA UNIT 19 21 16 5 16

W123AA UNIT 11a 27 30 -3 30

W123AA UNIT 12a 9 15 -6 4

W123AA UNIT 13a 17 21 -4 16

W123AA UNIT 14a 15 4 11 8

W123AA UNIT 15a 22 8 14 20

W123AA UNIT 16a 16 9 7 9

W123AA UNIT 17a 17 7 10 12

W123AA UNIT 19a 16 11 5 7

W123AA UNIT 11b 19 13 6 14

W123AA UNIT 13c 44 47 -3 47

1002 743 259 755

, Enclosure 3

Way Ahead

• The commands would like the model to be applied to the FY18 Out-of-Cycle TDAs

• Anticipate to brief G3 DAMO-FMP no later than the end of Feb 16

• Funding will be addressed in the 19-23 POM

• For UICs in addition to this validation, the model will either need to be re-evaluated or output must be used in the manpower analysis section of a concept plan.

1

, Enclosure 3

Points of Contact

• Proponent

– Mr. Erstil Hickey, (571) 256-9724 (DOOM-ISIS)

– COL Bonapart, (571) 256-1327 (DOOM-ISIS)

• USAMAA– Mr. Underhill, (703) 805-1111

1

, Enclosure 4

Instructions for submitting a Manpower …...conduct close coordination with the subject matter...

Documents

Transcript of Instructions for submitting a Manpower …...conduct close coordination with the subject matter...