Presentation on theme: "Press Kit III: Commander’s Inspection Program (CCIP)"— Presentation transcript:
1Press Kit III: Commander’s Inspection Program (CCIP) OVERALL BRIEFING CLASSIFICATION:UNCLASSIFIEDSAF/IGIOffice of The Inspector General24 June 20131
2Alignment with CSAF’s Top 2 Priorities The Air Force Inspection System should Improve Readiness and Strengthen the TeamWe have an opportunity to do both: a Solution NexusCan you imagine what a wing CC could do with the effort most wings spend preparing for inspections?Can you imagine what the Air Force could do with the effort spent preparing for inspections?Mission ReadinessInspection Readiness=To improve mission readinessand strengthen the teamRIReadiness Inspection ReadinessCompliance Inspection ReadinessCIWasted EffortWasted EffortOne of the outputs of our inspection system is to identify waste—wasted resources of all type, at the local level and at the enterprise level. [CLICK]We’ve turned the IG’s own magnifying glass on the Inspection System and found waste. [CLICK]When a strike sortie flies from the IP to the target (the green triangle), the focus is squarely on putting weapons on the target. For a commander, Mission Readiness is the target. [CLICK]But in today’s inspection system, [CLICK] most commanders believe there is a significant difference between Inspection Readiness and Mission Readiness [CLICK]—the targets are not the same. [CLICK] Too often, commanders and their Airmen deviate off course to be inspection ready [CLICK]Inspection preparation, if not directly aligned with mission readiness, is inherently wasteful. [CLICK] Units will be inspection ready when commanders focus on mission readiness and on building a culture of disciplined compliance in which every Airman does his/her job right the first time when no one’s looking.[CLICK] The intent of the Inspector General is to continuously improve the AF Inspection System so there is an ever-shrinking difference—both real and perceived—between mission readiness and inspection readiness.[Next slide]Change our focus and work systems so inspection-readiness is a natural consequence of CCs focusing squarely on daily mission-readinessGoal
3Focuses Wing Effort on Core Capabilities Reduce wing-level compliance items in AFIsEliminate non-value-added inspection requirementsMove from traditional ATSO focus to mission-assurance C2 focusIncrease compliance and innovationWing CCs better able to prioritize effort with tiered AFIs, MAJCOM Supps and Self-Assessment ChecklistsDelegate waiver authority to lowest appropriate level & hold accountableBuild masteryIncreased whitespace allows CCs to develop muscle-memory proficiencyEffective CCIP will keep core-capability muscles strong and limberAlign wing resources to continually improve the wing’s ability to effectively and efficiently deliver core capabilities
4New AF Inspection System’s Goal Stop this.Reward this.In the new AF Inspection System, “inspection prep” will be unnecessary and ineffective. Most inspections will be done by the Wing Commander’s team on a continual basis…just part of the way the wing works as Airmen focus on mission readiness every day.In the new AF Inspection System, Commanders will inspect their units’ ability to execute the mission, manage resources, lead people and improve performance. Functional experts on staffs will focus on enabling, as commanders focus on ensuring.
5What’s wrong with the current Inspection System? InsidiousReinforces and rewards imbalanced authorities between staff and commandPromotes false sense of security—we’ve grown complacent, believing we’re looking in the right place and asking the right questionsDictates significant part of wing’s battle-rhythm based on staff prioritiesInadequateFails to answer most important questions commanders want answered on leadership, resource management, discipline and process improvementFails to measure ~50% of AF wings’ ability to execute their missionsOffers only a snapshot of how well unit prepares for an inspection every 2-4 years, not their true day-to-day unit effectiveness, readiness or complianceDoes not capture sufficient data to inform policy, training & resource decisionsFails to capitalize on integrity, innovation & energy of our best sensors: AirmenUnsustainableCreates unsustainable manpower and O&M cost to support ~60 different external AF inspection teams and even greater manpower cost for wing prepIncentivizes inspection prep, at the expense of mission readiness
6Data-Driven Decisions Mission-Assurance Focus What’s Wrong With the Current System? Insidious, Inadequate and UnsustainableThe old inspection system has promoted a false sense of security—we’ve grown complacent, believing we’re looking in the right place and asking the right questionsManaging ResourcesLeadershipImproving the UnitExecuting the MissionDisciplineDevelopmentQuality of LifeRisk ManagementStrategic AlignmentAirmen’s TimeCommunicationTrainingData-Driven DecisionsMission-Assurance FocusCost ManagementexternalinspectionsCompliance& ReadinessMoving forward, we MUST ask other, better questions
7Insidious, Inadequate and Unsustainable Current AFIS does not adequately report on the issues Congress and Commanders are primarily interested inEconomy, Efficiency, State of Discipline, Readiness…CCs’ key questionsMannedTrainedResourcedWell LedDisciplinedReadyCompliantSurePolicy & Guidance…Management functionsLeading Indicators Also “Cause Codes” for right side of the equationLagging Indicators+=Funds, Facilities, Equipment, GuidancePriorities, Climate & MotivationSat QoLThe current AF Inspection System, even with the positive vector from efforts to organize external inspections, is unsustainable. To make matters worse, the current system is also inadequate because it doesn’t deliver the required output. The system does not adequately report what Congress requires or what Commanders are interested in knowing about unit performance.The law requires the AF to report on the Economy, Efficiency and State of Discipline of the service, and the Secretary of the Air Force adds “Readiness” to that list. Our system does not produce sufficient data on these four measures.[CLICK] In addition, senior AF leaders have made it clear they are interested in knowing the things on this chalkboard about a unit:Is it properly manned, trained and resourced?Is it well led and disciplined?Do the Airmen enjoy a satisfactory quality of life?Is the unit ready, compliant and sure?The AF Inspection System for decades has focused primarily on the right side of the equation, the lagging indicators. Our leadership is also interested in the leading indicators on the left side, and on whether foundational HQ management functions are in place.[CLICK] As this “AF Inspection System Equation” began to reveal the gaps between what we have and what we need, it became apparent that continuing to focus on organizing external inspections in the current construct will not be adequate. We also realized the phenomenal benefits of a new AF Inspection System. We started to think about the opportunities… [Next slide]Continuing focus only on organizing external inspections in the current construct will only provide marginal improvementNew system must reduce base impact, increase commander effectiveness, and provide leaders more unit performance data
8Insidious, Inadequate and Unsustainable Return to main briefThousands of external inspector FTEs per year to execute 100+ different inspections of AF wings~550 external inspector FTEs just to complete AF CUI Phase 0 requirements each year~$27M in annual TDY costs just to complete AF CUI Ph 0 inspectionsThe real cost is in wing manpower to prepare for, execute and recover from inspectionsA typical wing may expend 140 manpower FTEs to prepare for, execute and close out a Compliance Inspection*How much effort is required for the other 100+ inspections?We realize the current system of 100+ external inspections, no matter how well organized and efficiently scheduled, is not sustainable in today’s resource-constrained environment. Doing only the on-site inspection part of the CUI Phase 0 across the Air Force for one year would require 550 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs), an effort equal to the annual productivity of 550 people—and cost about 27 million dollars.But that is just the tip of the iceberg… [CLICK]The most significant cost of the inspection system is in wing manpower to prepare for, execute and follow-up on all the external inspections. [CLICK]SAF/IGI modeled a typical wing’s effort for a compliance inspection and found a wing may expend 140 FTEs—an effort equal to 140 people working full time for a year. That’s for just one inspection…imagine the resources required for the rest of the 100+ inspections[Next slide]HQs and Wings do not, or certainly will not, have time, money or personnel to execute the current systemBased on SAF/IGI modelFTE = Full Time Equivalent
9New AF Inspection System: End State Wing CCAF Inspection SystemMAJCOM CCCommander’s Inspection Program (CCIP)MICT+MICTWing IG InspectionsMAJCOM IG’s Unit Effectiveness Inspection (UEI)MICT = Management Internal Control Toolset is the AF’s web-based Self-Assessment toolValidate & VerifyValidate & VerifyCC’s Inspection ReportsAssess EffectivenessAssess EffectivenessSelf-Assessment ProgramCommander’s Inspection ProgramAccountable, structured wing commander inspection program, validated and verified by the MAJCOM/CC’s unit effectiveness inspection
10An AF Inspection System Management InspectionHAFDRUsMAJCOM HQsProgramsUnit Effectiveness InspectionWings and FOAsWing EquivalentsCommander’s Inspection ProgramWing ProgramsGroupsSquadronsIndividual ReportingEvery Airman a sensorIn my home state, there are houses we called “ramblers.” The main part was built in 1925, then added to in 1947, 1963 and In many ways, our inspection system is a rambler. But we think we have the blueprint for a new house—an actual inspection system purpose-built to meet the AF’s needs in 2012 and beyond, based on today’s resources, threats, missions and Airmen.[CLICK] [CLICK] A Management Inspection, normally done by AFIA on HQs, DRUs and HQ Programs[CLICK] [CLICK] The UEI, done by MAJCOM IGs on wings, FOAs and wing equivalents[CLICK] [CLICK] A Commander’s Inspection Program, done by a wing IG on groups, squadrons and wing programs[CLICK] [CLICK] Finally, individual reporting , where every Airman is a sensor[CLICK] These inspections are purpose-built and plumb, [CLICK] creating an agile, responsive AF Inspection System focused on command and on what’s most important to commanders.[Next slide]Wing CCIP is focused here!
11Eliminates Real & Perceived Need for Inspection Prep The New AF Inspection SystemStrengthens a Commander’s ability to focus on what matters most1Gives the command chain answers to the most important questions2Reduces the need and incentive for inspection prep3“…this new IG construct places responsibility back in the Wing CC's hands for ensuring awareness of mission execution and compliance….When we mature our CCIP…we'll also be able to dampen out our highs and lows between IG looks and won't have the massive amounts of IG prep that we were used to in the past. And perhaps most importantly, I believe the new philosophy will provide Commanders with better fidelity on our wings.”Wing CC #1 in USAFE, Aug 2012Inspection prep will not be effective in the new systemNew Unit Effectiveness Inspection (UEI) is 2-year photo-album, not a 1-week snapshotDesigned to continually assess systems, processes, and culture—can’t “cram” for itMeasures more of who the wing is over a 2-year period than how they prep for IG visitFocus on Airmen’s Time is check against inspection prep surgeInspection prep will not be necessary in the new systemInspection readiness will be a natural consequence of CCs being free to focus squarely on daily mission readiness…on delivering their core capabilitiesSolid line illustrates current systemDashed line illustrates potential impact of CCIPSustained, stabilized performanceUnit PerformanceEffort available for other tasksUnit Effort“The IG construct change has resulted in a significant positive impact on the mission readiness of the XX Wing. I now receive direct feedback on the wing’s mission readiness, efficiency, state of discipline, and resources by a team of dedicated inspectors tailored to my unique mission set. This allows me and my command team to adjust our focus more rapidly to improve mission readiness. Additionally, I believe the new IG construct has improved the quality of life at [Base X] for our Airmen and their families.”Wing CC #2 in USAFE, Sep 2012Effort necessary to sustain processesContinual performance data through MICTPerformance DataInspection
12Eliminate Real & Perceived Need for Inspection Prep Solid line illustrates current systemDashed line illustrates potential impact of CCIPSustained, stabilized performanceUnit PerformanceEffort available for other tasksUnit EffortEffort necessary to sustain processesContinual performance data through MICTPerformance DataInspection
13USAFE Wing/CC’s View“I realized that it is true--the new IG construct encourages commanders to put capability above “passing inspections.” This would not have been the case two years ago where I would have certainly been fighting with a MAJCOM IG over insignificant numbers just to “pass the inspection.” The word “capability” would not have even entered into my brain. Now, it was really the only thing I cared about. And that culture has continued to trickle down in such a way that the Airmen on the flightline aren’t talking about “did we pass?” Rather, they are talking about what they can do to get better for when the situation is real.What would it be worth if this were true across the AF?What would we be willing to invest to make it true across the AF?
14Structure of Unit Effectiveness Inspection (UEI) and CC’s Inspection Program (CCIP) These are the 4 Major Graded Areas and sub-areas for the UEI and wing CCIP4132Commanders can tailor the methods, scope and depth with which their IGs inspect these areas based on the unique missions and operating environment of each wing
15New AF Inspection System DRAFTMAJCOM/CCPlans and executes Wing CC’s Inspection Program (CCIP)CCIP is executed by CC through Wing IG, command chain, Wing Inspection Team and unit repsEnabled by high-quality functional checklists and the Management Internal Control Toolset (MICT)Reports inspection results to MAJCOM/CC with appropriate MICT visibility for HHQ staffsMAJCOM/IGMAJCOM and FOA StaffInspects to:Validate/verify CCIPUnit performance influences frequency, scope and depth of IG inspectionsAssess leadership effectiveness, military discipline and aspects of climate/culture through Unit Effectiveness Inspection (UEI)IG’s Inspection ReportSupports MAJCOM/CC with recommended policy, guidance, training and resource decisionsGains increased SA through MICT-enabled CCIPProvides inspection requirement recommendations to CC through IGSupports wing CCs and below with approved policy, guidance, training and assistanceAugments IG team as necessaryRefines/develops high-quality Self-Assessment Checklists IAW AFIWing IGWing/CC’s Inspection ReportMICTUEIWing/CCThe focus of the new inspection system is on commanders. This slide depicts the interaction between a MAJCOM CC and a Wing CC, [CLICK] with the support of their respective IGs and staffs. The following table illustrates key differences between current and proposed systems (visible on Notes Page view):Accountable, structured internal inspection, validated and verified by external inspection.
16What would we be willing to invest for a system that: Puts inspections in the hands of commandersRebalances authority from functional staffs to commandersAnswers CCs’ most important questions to enable data-driven decisions & improve unit effectivenessStrengthens CCs’ ability to focus on mission readiness, not inspection readinessDecreases overall effort and riskIncreases “verification” and detection of non-complianceGives commanders an agile system with built-in options to adjust inspection timing, scope, and methods for each unique situationFocuses wing effort on core capabilities in risk-tailored, all-hazards environmentReports unit performance as a photo album, not a snapshot, to help CCs detect and reverse early indications of a hollow forceIncentivizes innovation and promotes smart complianceStrengthens AF compliance with 10 USC 8583, Exemplary Conduct LawFrees up ~16,000 FTEs of inspection prep effort and saves $20-30M on inspector travelWing CCs say it will take about 4 more people than they have in their IG now
17Align Manpower with Mission SecAF and CSAF priority is prevention of a hollow force in coming yearsExternal inspections are not an effective “canary” of wing trendsCCIP enables the earliest detection and most precise, efficient preventionMI and UEI will be canary signaling macro-level trends to MAJCOM CCs and HAF, CSAF, SecAFEnabled by elimination of inspection prep drain, and fueled by the wing’s newfound freedom to focus on core capabilities, wing XP and IG manning must be realignedProposedToday967~775~300108Wing XP BilletsWing IG Billets
18Align Manpower with Mission Responsibilities in typical wing todayProposed RealignmentCCXPIGLead people and manage resources to execute the missionFocal point for wing deployment exercise evaluationsBeing implemented in USAFEExecute complaint & FWA dutiesBuild exercise plan to allow inspection of CC’s objectivesDevelop, coordinate & publish wing plansTrain Airmen on wing plansManage War Res MaterielExecute wing plansCAT, ICC, IOC DirectorEnsure wing is ready for inspectionImprove unit processesWITDo RCA, take action to improve, & close deficienciesExecute wing exercises (White Cell, Exercise Controller, injects)Evaluate/report wing performanceTrack deficiency closureBuild wing exercise calendarAnalyze deficiency trendsTrain & oversee EET membersPlan exercises to prep wing for upcoming inspectionGatekeeperSelf-Assessment Pgm ManagerRealign billets to match responsibilitiesInspectFocus on daily mission readiness, not next-inspection readinessExecute wing plansWrite & improve wing plansInspect execution of wing plans
19How it will Work: Overview There should be two types of inspections in CCIP:“Horizontal” Inspections“Vertical” InspectionsCCIP should look through different 2 lenses:Independent AssessmentValidate/Verify Self-Assessment Program
20CCIP “Horizontal” Inspection When conducting a “Horizontal” Inspection look at Wing-wide programs or processes. These programs and processes can be small scale or large scale.Small Scale: A “small scale” would be the specific programs that make the wing run. Use MICT as a tool to see the status of these specific programs, then go out and do a val/ver to see if what in MICT is true. This type may have one WIT member going out and taking a look.Examples: Fitness Program, Evaluations Program, Security Program, Records Management Program, EMSEC/OPSEC/COMSEC Programs.Large Scale: A “large scale” would be the overall assessment of how the Wing implements plans or accomplishes assigned missions.Examples: MAREs, Mission-focused exercises, Real-world operations.
21How It Will Work Wing IG Wing CC But the Wing IG the Wing IG So the Wing IG builds an inspection plan, that requires6and thefinds and reports deficiencies to the5Wing CCinspectorsand exercises,and MESLs & SOEs,who asks Gp/CCs to do RCA, and fix the problems and improve.and Exercise Controllers7and injectsand this OODA loop starts again4Then the Wing CC asksCatalystBut theWing IGis not responsible forthe Wing IGthe wing’s plans or teaching the wing how to execute themto inspect the wing’s execution of XP’s plansor fixing the problems they findor prepping for an inspection3Then XP works with SMEs across the wingCapabilitiesMission AssuranceAll hazards, all threatsCommand & controlDeploy AEF AirmenExecute primary mission(s)to build, brief and publish these wing plans2so he directs XP to build plans to direct & synchronize the wing’s muscle movements to produce these required capabilitieswants these1The Wing CC
22CCIP “Vertical” Inspection Review data collected from various sources:MICT, previous inspections, SAVs, exercises, real world ops, etc.Conduct interviews with individuals assigned to the Wing.Select a random sampling throughout the wing, make it clear that the interview is protected informationInterview leadership as well as AirmenConduct on-site Audits, Evaluations, and ObservationsThis is based on the conclusions you made of the data collected from sources prior to the “vertical” inspection.Write a report based on findingsUse template provided in AFI
23Detecting Non-Compliance Responsibility for detecting non-compliance has always been with the commanderOver time, Air Force culture has shifted toward FAMs ensuring compliance (through inspections)…not commandersCCIP seeks to fix this problemCommanders ensure, FAMs enableThis means CCIP is now responsible for detecting non-compliance… something that MAJCOM IGs and MAJCOM FAMs used to do.The following A12 “coffee cup” anecdote shows the mindset “evolution” necessary to implement this effort – this depicts the gradual change in the AFIS over the past 2 years
24A Fable about Integration: “AF/A12 and the Coffee Cup Inspection” Old AFISPublished Coffee Cup Inspection AFITasked FAMs with scheduling, executing and reporting coffee cup inspectionsReported Coffee Cup Inspection summary to OSD (DoD-level)A12 FAMsInspecting to detect non-compliance at the shop level
25A Fable about Integration: “AF/A12 and the Coffee Cup Inspection” “CUI” AFIS: SynchronizedPublished Coffee Cup Inspection AFITasked FAMs with scheduling, executing and reporting coffee cup inspectionsReported Coffee Cup Inspection summary to OSDA12 FAMsInspecting to detect non-compliance at the shop levelOnly real change from “synchronizing” is A12 Inspectors now conduct their Coffee Cup Inspection the same week as the IG does their CUI (most of the time)
26A Fable about Integration: “AF/A12 and the Coffee Cup Inspection” “CUI” AFIS: IntegratedIncluded streamlined coffee cup inspection requirements in AFI Atch 3Detect non-compliance thru samplingSend annual report to ATSD-Coffee CupA12 FAMsIGRescinded Coffee Cup Inspection AFIStopped scheduling coffee cup inspectionsStopped reporting Coffee Cup Inspection summary to OSDFocused fully on policy, training & resourcingProvide Subject Matter Experts for IG inspections as neededInspecting to detect non-compliance at the shop level
27A Fable about Integration: “AF/A12 and the Coffee Cup Inspection” The New AFISIGHelp Unit CC understand greatest risks of undetected non-compliance by samplingGive MAJCOM CC independent assessment of 4 MGAsEvaluate adequacy of A12’s coffee cup policy, training and resourcing of the unitA12 FAMsUnit CC’s Inspection ProgramFocused fully on policy, training & resourcingMonitoring compliance through MICT and CC’s Inspection ReportsAirman Hyde reports compliance with A12’s tiered Coffee Cup Self-Assessment Checklist in MICTWing IG val/ver’s Airman Hyde’s reportInspecting to detect non-compliance at the shop level