FORCE DESIGN UPDATE (FDU) PROCESS TRAINING 6 October 2006

Participating Sites/Agenda 02 May 06 Central Time 0800 - 0815 Roll Call, Introduction Dir, FDD 0815 - 0900 Force Design Update (FDU) process Dir, FDD 0900 - 0930 HQDA (FIFA process) DAMO-FM 0930 - 1000 Questions, Close Proponents / Dir, FDD 05 May 06 Central Time 1530 - 1545 Roll Call, Introduction Dir, FDD 1545 – 1630 Force Design Update (FDU) process Dir, FDD 1630 – 1700 HQDA (FIFA process) DAMO-FM 1700 – 1730 Questions, Close Proponents / Dir, FDD 02 May 06 0800-1000 Central TRADOC HQ, others PENTAGON: DAMO-FM, Others Ft LEAVENWORTH Ft Belvoir (USAFMSA, others) Ft Eustis Ft Lee Ft Sill Ft Benning Colorado Springs Ft Sam Ft Knox Ft Leonard Wood Ft Monroe Redstone 05 May 06 1530-1730 Central TRADOC HQ, others PENTAGON: DAMO-FM, Others Ft LEAVENWORTH Ft Belvoir (USAFMSA, others) Ft Bliss Colorado Springs Korea (Camp Tango) Ft Hucchuca SAMPLE

Regulatory/Force Design Guidance 1. Develop and promulgate guidance and formulate general plans, policy, priorities, and overall TRADOC procedures for execution of TRADOC force design and goals and objectives. 2. Exercise staff responsibility for management, coordination and consolidation for those TRADOC actions impacting on current and future Army force design and force structure. Serves as TRADOC focal point for analyzing, evaluating effectiveness, and integration of force designs and force structure alternatives. Conduct the Force Design Update (FDU) process for the Army. Manages TRADOC participation in the Total Army Analysis (TAA) program. Coordinates and directs the TRADOC analysis and input to the TAA process. Plans, programs and conducts force structure analysis. Participates in Functional Area Assessments Formal Reviews. TRADOC Reg 10-5-2, para 7-3

Regulatory/Force Design Guidance SUBJECT: Approval of Army Warfighting Requirements 11 Dec 03 CSA designates VCSA to approve all Force Design Updates Rationale: Rapidly changing technology, constrained budget, increased sustainment costs, link requirements to resourcing, increase emphasis on Joint Interoperability, Army Transformation, TF Modularity. Requirements generation process will not change – TRADOC develops requirements (DOTMLPF) – provides recommendation to HQDA for approval. BOTTOM LINE: TRADOC determines requirements, HQDA approves and resources requirements.

FDU Environment Constrained resource (personnel and equipment) environment. Still must abide by the HQDA DIR FM memo dtd Nov 02: requesting a bill payer methodology for each FDU. TRADOC and HQDA executing VCSA directed review of the modular designs to establish MMEWR CG TRADOC reluctant to determine requirements that place unexecutable bills on the table. DIR-FM reluctant to recommend approval of any FDU that places a bill (personnel or grade) on the table. Challenged to resource required force in TAA 08-13 (over a 30k AC bill to pay). Even if approved, Army may delay implementation for a number of years “hoping” resources become available. BOTTOM LINE: FDU must present viable billpayer methodology to have a high probability of success.

Purpose To provide an overview of the Organizational development process and guidance on how to submit Force Design Update (FDU) packets.

Agenda Overview of Organizational Development Process Methods to Achieve Organizational Design Changes The Force Design Update (FDU) Process HQDA FIFA Analysis

Overview of Organizational Development Process Capability short fall/requirement DOTMLPF Analysis Method to achieve organizational adjustment (admin, BOIP, FDU, etc) Documentation Process – Table of Organization & Equipment (Development & Approval) Total Army Analysis (TAA) – Recognition of Requirements and Resource Allocation

Methods to Achieve Organizational Design Changes Administrative Adjustments to Table of Organization & Equipment (TOE) – DA Form 2028 Military Occupational Classification & Structure (MOCS) Adjustments – Personnel changes internal to an organization’s design (changes to standard duty titles and standards of grade) Basis of Issue Plans – Establishes requirement for specific equipment within an organization (causes changes to associated personnel and equipment) Capability Development Document (CDD) – Generates new material requirement (causes personnel and equipment changes associated with the new piece of equipment) Force Design Update (FDU) – Primary method for changing designs of existing organizations and creating new designs Regular Cycle (2 per year) Out of Cycle (Rarely done) FDU JR (abbreviated issue and abbreviated procedure) Major Redesign/Restructuring Initiatives – Similar process as FDU, but generally larger scale effecting all organizations within a - specific proponency (i.e. Aviation Restructuring Initiative (ARI) or Medical Restructuring Initiative (MRI)) - or echelon (i.e. Force XXI Division Design or Operational HQ Redesign) Relatively Quicker Relatively Longer

The FDU process Proponent Review & Development – Capability Statement, DOTMLFP Analysis, O&O Concept, URS. Review Board – HQ TRADOC (FDD Lead), HQDA G1, G3, G4, G8, OCAR, NGB, CASCOM, TWVRMO, USAFMSA Field Staffing – Over 200 addressees (MACOMS, CORPS, Combatant Commanders, HQDA, TRADOC Proponents) HQDA Force Integration Functional Area (FIFA) Analysis Requirement determination (TRADOC) – CG TRADOC / DIR ARCIC / DCG-CA Requirement Approval (HQDA) – CSA / VCSA, HQDA G3

ARMY The Force Design Update Process G1 G3 G4 G8 7 6 1 5 2 3 4 GOOD Announcement and classes TP 525-68 Concept for Modularity 7 GOOD IDEA! US Army Force Management Support Agency Field Units HQDA Total Army Analysis TOE Development ASCC MACOM MTOE Development CMBT CMDR VCSA APPROVED DESIGN TRADOC FDD FIFA Recommends Implement Return to TRADOC Send to TAA VCSA APPROVAL OF DESIGN FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND RESOURCING TRADOC PROPONENT SCHOOLS & CENTERS Development Process 6 1 Review & Development by Organizational Proponent (Operational Concept & Unit Reference Sheet) FIFA Commandant Approves Concept Submits to HQ TRADOC for inclusion in FDU. Decision Process ARMY G1 G3 G4 G8 Proponent Bill Payer No Bill Payer TRADOC HQ FDD (Lead Office) CD, LOG DIV AIMD RID, DOC DIV PPD DCSOPS&T CASCOM TWVRMO OCAR NGB HQDA (DAMO-FMF lead) ARMY G1 ARMY G4 ARMY G3 (DAMO-FMF,FMO,USAFMSA) ARMY G8 FORSCOM BRANCH PROPONENT (as required) The process used to establish the Minimum Mission Essential Warfight Requirement (MMEWR) for both new and existing organizations is the FDU process.  A quick summary of the process follows: Field units, Army Service Component Commands (ASCC), Major Army Commands (MACOM), and Commander in Chiefs (CINC) all identify requirements short falls effecting their organizations to the Army through the ASCCs and MACOMs.  When development of a long term solutions is desirable, HQDA forwards to TRADOC for requirements determination.  HQs TRADOC forwards the issue to the organizational proponent for review and, if appropriate, for further development. The proponent conducts an assessment, develops/refines the concept and proposes an organizational design to provide the capability.  After the proponent completes the development of an FDU packet, the issue is forwarded to TRADOC FDD for inclusion in the FDU process.  The packet is reviewed by TRADOC schools and centers and then passes through a review board to determine if it is mature enough and credible enough for Army wide coordination with organizations in the field.  Note the participation level at the review board includes not only TRADOC elements but HQDA, FORSCOM, NGB and USAR.  Based on the results of the review board, Dir FDD recommends to the ADCSDEV TRADOC whether to delay the FDU for further analysis or to field staff the proposal and continue the FDU process.  During field staffing, over 180 addressees have an opportunity to review, establish a position and provide comments on the FDU.  Substantive comments and issues of non-concurrence are addressed after field staffing by Dir FDD to TRADOC DCSDEV and potential adjustments are considered.  Dir FDD then recommends approval or rejection of the FDU to the DCSDEV who has the authority to make a requirements determination on the FDU for the TRADOC commander.  Approved FDUs are forwarded to HQDA, G-3, Dir-RFM (currently BG (P) Hardy) for HQDA staff recommendations on FDU approval.  G-3/Dir-RFM make the majority of the FDU decision on approval and forwards results to the VCSA.  Occasionally, significant FDUs (as defined by Dir-RFM) may eventually be briefed to the VCSA for decision (usually major restructuring initiatives). FDU Review Board Video Teleconference Determines supportability. Validates: requirement shortfall. need for a new capability. Identifies potential implementation issues for action. 5 2 TELECONFERENCE DAMO-FMF USAFMSA PROPONENT FDD HQDA-G3 ACCEPTS / REJECTS TRADOC DETERMINED REQUIREMENT Initial FIFA Analysis DCG-CA or DIR, ARCIC TRADOC DIR, RID Release for Field Staffing 3 Chief, FDD Include in FDU Cycle, or FDU Jr FDD RESOLUTION OF REVIEW BOARD ISSUES FIELD STAFFING 4 Determination of Requirement for CG TRADOC Ready Ready, but requires certain fixes Represents Decision Point

Step 0: In the Beginning . . . The Good Idea! Good Ideas Can Come from Anywhere Proponent schools and centers frequently generate issues for development in the FDU process as a result to changes in missions, doctrine, or force modernization. FDU 06-1: Financial Management for Military Pay. The Finance School (FIS) requires a redesign of the Financial Management Detachment (FMD) table of organization and equipment (TOE), 14527GA00, to reestablish military pay input capabilities within the FM structure. This capability was taken out of FM designs during the Financial Management Redesign FDU Jr. (approved JAN 05) in anticipation of the activation and implementation of the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System (DIMHRS). Army field units, Major Army Commands (MACOM), and Army Service Component Commands (ASCC) frequently forward issues for resolution caused by an observed capability shortfall. FDU JR: C-RAM. CONOPS relies on the complete and seamless integration of a full range of sensors to enable (1) denial operations, (2) warning operations, (3) intercept operations, and (4) shape and respond operations. The linkage between sensing and responding is facilitated by an enhanced battle command network that remains centric to Army Battle Command System (ABCS) yet fully interoperable with sister service systems to insure full applicability to joint operations. The threat, whether involving an in-flight RAM or an insurgent indirect fire team, is fleeting and the success of defeating it is dependent upon a reduced sensor to shooter timeline, capability to predict insurgent follow-on actions. Human intervention, to the greatest extent possible, should be minimized to successfully engage targets. War fighting Combatant Commanders generate requirements which the services seek to meet. When a Combatant Commander generated requirement can not be met because Army organizations lack the capability - correcting the shortfall may be addressed in the FDU process. FDU Out of Cycle: EOD Group, Battalion, Company. The VCSA directed that EOD design a modular structure to allow for maximum scalability and tailoring to support the modular force and address the following concerns: Do we have the right EOD Force in the AOR? Do we (Army) have the right organization (EOD + EN) that brings both skills to bear? How do we increase EOD capacity w/without increasing structure? HQDA (CSA/VCSA) frequently approve concepts for new capabilities that cause organizational changes. The approved concept is placed into the FDU process to ensure that the organizational changes meet, but don’t exceed, the minimum mission essential war fight capabilities outlined in the HQDA approved concept. FDU 05-2: Military Police Command and Commander of Detainee Operations. Develop a UEy MPC to fill the C2 void for multiple MP Brigades created when the UEy Theater Protection Command (TPC) was eliminated from the UEy C2 construct. Based on numerous operational/investigative recommendations and the Army Detainee Operations Plan (ADOP), the MPC commander is designated as the CDO and requires additional staff capabilities to accomplish the CDO responsibilities.

Step 1: Proponent Review & Development Good Ideas are generally sent through either TRADOC, FDD or ASCC / MACOMs to the appropriate proponent for review and development. Although each proponent has its own internal procedures, at a minimum the initial review covers both of the following areas. Area 1: Capability Requirement What war fight capability does the proposal address? Has the Army recognized a requirement to provide that capability? Must have HQDA validation of requirement prior to FDU. What is the specific capability requirement shortfall? Area 2: DOTMLPF Analysis – Listed in order of consideration, most to least preferred. - Can a change in DOCTRINE correct the shortfall? - Would additional LEADER DEVELOPMENT fix the shortfall? - Can the shortfall be overcome with additional TRAINING? - Does correcting the shortfall require an ORGANIZATIONAL solution? - Will a MATERIAL solution overcome the shortfall? - Consider the impact on PERSONNEL and FACILITIES (includes MARC). If the DOTMLPF analysis shows that an ORGANIZATIONAL solution is needed then the proponent must make an initial assessment of how the organization must change and then determine the best method to make that change.

Step 1 Cont: Proponent Review & Development Methods to Achieve Organizational Design Changes. - Administrative Adjustments to Table of Organization & Equipment (TOE) – DA Form 2028 Military Occupational Structure & Classification (MOSC) Adjustments – Personnel changes internal to a design (changes to standard duty titles and standards of grade) Basis of Issue Plans – Establishes requirement for specific equipment within an organization (causes changes to associated personnel and equipment) Capability Development Document (CDD) - Documents the operational performance requirements that satisfy the required mission needs. (Previously called the ORD). Force Design Update (FDU) – Primary method for changing designs of existing organizations and creating new designs Major Redesign/Restructuring Initiatives – Similar process as FDU, but generally larger in scale effecting all organizations within a: - specific proponency (i.e. Aviation Restructuring Initiative (ARI) or Medical Restructuring Initiative (MRI)) - or echelon (i.e. Force XXI Division Design or Corps Redesign) Relatively Quicker Relatively Longer

Step 1 cont: Proponents Develop FDU Packet Force Design Updates are generally necessary when the proposed change exceeds the scope of administrative adjustments, military occupational structure and classification adjustments, or basis of issue plans. Prior to an issue being placed into a Force Design Update the proponent must conduct some development work that will support the proposal. The prerequisite development actions are: Concept – There are three distinct concepts (for the purpose of the FDU) consolidated into one paper. - Operational Concept – This paper explains in conceptual terms how the proponent envisions the proposed organization intends to operate to accomplish it’s mission. The Operational Concept focuses on how the organization looks on the ground prior to, during, and after conducting its various missions. Organizational Concept – The Organizational Concept explains how the parts and pieces of the organization interrelate to each other. Where the Operational Concept focuses on the organization in terms of space and time, the Organizational Concept focuses on specific functions, roles, and responsibilities performed by the organization. The Organizational Concept explains relationships and how roles, responsibilities, and functions are divided up internal to the organization. Concept of Change – The Concept of Change details how the proponent envisions the transition of the current organization to the proposed organization. It focuses on more practical matters limited to the transitory period between the current and proposed design. Impacts on force modernization and personnel proponency issues are two areas frequently addressed in the Concept of Change.

Step 1 cont: Proponents Develop FDU Packet Organizational Design Paper – Includes Purpose, Background, Change in requirements, New organization, DOTMLPF impacts, Resourcing Methodology (Personnel / Equipment) and proponent POCs. Include statement or explanation of how MARC impacts the proposed Force Design Update. Unit Reference Sheet Identifies personnel and equipment at paragraph and line level of detail – MOS, Grade, quantity. Provides narrative providing sufficient detail for subsequent development of Section I of the TOE. Shows relationships between C2 and work centers. Reflects application of applicable MARC when applied to proposed force design update, when possible. Reflects complete coordination in Branch Proponent’s FDIC / CD Directorate. Force Design Update Packet Transmittal letter submitting the packet for consideration in the FDU process – Usually signed by Commandant Concept Paper – Three concepts in one document (see above). Organizational Design Paper (see above) Unit Reference Sheet(s) Briefing Packet that provides a “stand-alone” information briefing explaining the proponent’s proposal includes Purpose, Overview of (ORG, Mission, Capabilities, Limitations), What Occurred to Cause Change (identifies Requirement Shortfall, explains New Operational Capability), Restate the Problem (Facts, Assumptions, COAs) Proposed ORG/DOTMLPF Impacts, and Resourcing Impacts) The Proponent delineates the proposal at a level of detail that would permit action officers throughout the Army to understand their respective portion of the proposed organizational design.

Step 2: Proponents Present FDU Proposals to a Review Board Proponents present their Force Design Update proposals at a Review Board Video-Teleconference hosted by the Force Design Division, the TRADOC Executive Agent for the update process. The objective of the board is two fold: One – Obtain Division Chief, Force Design Division recognition that the proposed issue is sufficiently developed to take forward to HQ TRADOC Director, Requirements Integration Directorate for release to the field for Army wide staffing. Two – Identify potential implementation issues early in the process to cognizant Army agencies outside of TRADOC ARCIC channels so they may resolve them prior to the issue moving from the development phase to the decision phase of the process. 1 Review & Development by Organizational Proponent Review & Development by Commandant (Operational Concept & Unit Organizational Proponent Approves Concept (Operational Concept & Unit Reference Sheet) Submits to HQ Reference Sheet) TRADOC for TRADOC for inclusion in FDU. The review board is comprised of members who represent the combat development community across the Army. They review the issues prior to the board being convened and assist the Division Chief, Force Design Division to arrive at an informed judgment on the readiness of the proposal to undergo Army wide field staffing. The board seeks to: Determine supportability of the proposed organizational solution. Validate the: Required capability shortfall or Need for a new capability Identifies potential implementation issues. Board members & the branch proponents seek to resolve issues and potential implementation issues prior to seeking approval from the Dir, RID to release the proposals to the field for Army wide staffing. FDU Review Board UPON ACCEPTANCE INTO THE FDU PROCESS, THE PROPOSAL TRANSITIONS FROM A PROPONENT TO A HQ, TRADOC ISSUE

Step 2 Cont: The Secret to FDU Success – A Simple Little Story nce upon a time . . . Seven Steps to a Simple Little Story O A Simple Statement of the Current CAPABILITY The CHANGE THAT CAUSED or WILL CAUSE . . A Required Capability Shortfall A Statement of that CAPABILITY SHORTFALL – Simple, Concise, & Specific A Quick Summary of the Analysis of the Alternatives to overcome Shortfall State the PREFERRED MMEWR SOLUTION Explain how the preferred solution FIXes the shortfall What is the implementation strategy Personnel Impacts – Bills/Savings, Standards of Grade, Bill Payer Methodology No bill is best, but . . . If there is a bill, provide a statement of which specific required tasks or functions can not be conducted if a space is not resourced or if a lower grade is used. In example, “the current five man 75th Ranger Recon Team (FDU 00-1) will not be able to establish three sites (communications base & two hide sites) simultaneously without a sixth team member.” Lay out bill and billpayers by compo. Cover MARC impacts when applied to proposed force design update, when possible. Equipment Impacts–Bills/Avoidances/Savings, Availability, Changes to Fielding Plans If there is a bill, link it to the specific requirement shortfall (see Personnel Impacts example). If there is a cost avoidance or savings make certain to state the fact plainly. Don’t be shy about telling a good news story! If the proposal changes fielding plans, clearly state what coordination has been done to see if the proposed change is supportable. Lay out the cost of major equipment. Timeline – When do key elements of implementation need to be completed Sometimes a proposal can only be implemented after a specific piece of equipment is fielded or another organization’s design is changed. Make sure the proposal explains what its implementation is dependent on and what critical steps, if any, must occur before or after implementation. Coordinate -- with all affected proponents. FDU Review Board Review the proposal – if a chapter, paragraph, or verse doesn’t address one of the seven steps – cut it out! Keep it simple!

Organizations Included in Army Wide Staffing Step 3: Field Staffing - Dir, RID Approves Release of Proposals for Army Wide Staffing Following the FDU Review Board, TRADOC FDD prepares an executive briefing chart that condenses each of the issues into a single page for presentation to the TRADOC Director, Requirements Integration Directorate. The FDD briefing chart, “pony blanket”, along with the proponent’s concept papers and briefing charts are forwarded to the Dir, RID who determines if the issue should be released to the field for Army wide staffing. Dir, RID insures each FDU issue reflects viable personnel billpayer methodology. He may release an issue to the field for Army wide staffing on the condition that outstanding issues from the FDU Review Board be resolved prior to a final TRADOC decision on the proposed organizational solutions. Once approved for release to the field, the FDD horseblanket along with the proponent’s concept papers and briefing are placed on the AKO website for Army-wide field staffing. The field is notified through e-mail of the need to review and provide comments on the proposals. Additionally, addressees are advised to contact FDD for access to the FDU AKO website. FOR FDD ACTION OFFICERS: There are more than 200 offices that require a access to our AKO website. Confirm early-on which office is responsible for reviewing proposed design changes, verify the DMS address and phone numbers and then maintain contact. Remember, review of these FDU proposals is usually not the high priority for the field - help keep them on the task. Organizations Included in Army Wide Staffing Unified and Specified Commands Army Service Component Commands Army Commands Corps Headquarters Department of the Army - Organization Integrators & System Integrators TRADOC Proponents, TWVRMO, TRADOC AIMD

Step 4: DCG-CA or DIR, ARCIC makes a Requirements Determination TRADOC FDD works to resolve any issues raised during the Army wide staffing of the FDU proposals. Once issues are resolved or in the event that resolution is not possible, FDD briefs the proposal to Commander, CAC for Modularity issues or Director, ARCIC for all other issues to obtain TRADOC’s determination of the requirement. Requirements Determination decision maker: Approves the proposal and authorizes forwarding to HQDA G-3 for final requirements approval and implementation instructions. Returns the proposal to FDD and or the proponent for clarification or additional work Disapproves the proposal, determining that it is not an accurate statement of the minimum mission essential warfight requirement. - FDD continues to provide clarification and seeks TRADOC approval on issues returned for additional work as it prepares to present the FDU proposals to HQDA G-3 for acceptance and subsequent final requirements approval, and implementation instructions. Chart Layout 20 FORCE DESIGN DIVISION TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND P:/Force Design Update (Penix)/General/FDU Class.ppt (20 Mar 02) Title Proponent Wiring Diagram Current Use RDD Website to develop diagram down to the level of change Include all parts effected by the proposal (ie. Aug TDA or other units that give up spaces to the new design) Current Design Issues & Comments Identify unresolved issues & FDD or proponent response to outstanding issues. Comments/Issues Wiring Diagram Proposed Show all the parts effected by the proposal as they appear in the new organization. (ie. A platoon currently attached from another unit is made organic to the new design.) Proposed Design Mission Statement for Organization Mission Statement Seven Steps of the FDU Story 1. Capability 2. Change 3. Shortfall 4. COAs 5. Solution 6. How it Fixes 7. Implementation Backgnd & Discussion Standardized FDD Recommendation Recommendation Imbedded Excel Spreadsheet Highlights Equip Impact of Proposal Equipment Impact Highlights Personnel Impact of Proposal Personnel Impact FDU Cycle FDD condenses the proposal to its essential elements so TRADOC & Army leadership can quickly determine if it meets MMEWR criteria.

Step 5: HQDA Acceptance of Issue & Determination of Resourcing TRADOC Requirements Determination decision authority forwards issue to HQDA G-3. HQDA G-3 Coordinates ARSTAFF proposals. Reviews the FDU proposal(s) to determine the availability of resources for the proposed organizational solutions. Provides HQDA-G3 recommendation to the VCSA for each proposal: Recommends implementation instructions. Finalizes Force Integration Functional Area Analysis (FIFA). Returns issue to TRADOC for further action and subsequent re-determination of the requirement. Disapproves issue(s). Holds issue(s) in abeyance. TRADOC Requirements Determination authority directs forwarding FDU proposals to HQDA G-3 to allow finalizing FIFA analysis and an implementation and resourcing recommendation. Work with HQDA G-3 to resolve last minute concerns.

Step 6: Final Approval of the Organizational Solution HQDA G-3 packages FDU proposals to VCSA for final requirements approval and implementation instructions. DAMO-FM: - Reviews the FDU proposals to determine the availability and feasibility of resourcing the proposed FDU issue. - Packages the FDU proposals and forwards them through the HQDA G-3 to either the VCSA or CSA for final requirements approval. - Notifies FDD of HQDA Decisions. --FDD continues to provide clarification and seek TRADOC approval on issues returned for additional work at the same time that it prepares to present the FDU proposals to HQDA (DAMO-FM) for acceptance and subsequent final requirements approval, inclusion in TAA, or implementation. Follow-up weekly with HQDA G3 on status of VCSA decision – obtain copy of approval memo. Begin final assembly of FDU files. Save e-mail messages on shared drive. Screen participant briefings – save only latest brief – to keep only most current briefing. Scan pages of HQDA approval / disapproval message notification. File only final FDU issue as both electronic and paper file

Step 7: Track Status of FDU Implementation TRADOC FDD Retains an Interest in Implementation of Organizational Solutions FDD Work with USAFMSA TOE Div and Branch Proponents to facilitate TOE documentation of approved FDU issue. (Maintain fidelity of approved design) Work with DAMO-FM to Obtain copies of FIFA recommendations. Obtain final VCSA approval documents. Develop & maintain (with USAFMSA) a recommended prioritization of unresourced organizational changes generated by FDU, BOIP, ORD,etc. Track resourcing of approved FDUs in the TAA process - Consider the implementation process complete when units are resourced in Compo 1, 2, or 3 to the level outlined in the proponent developed operational concept and the concept of change papers prepared at the beginning of the FDU process.

ARMY The Force Design Update (JUNIOR) Process (Abbreviated FDU or Internal to FDD) GOOD IDEA! TRADOC PROPONENT SCHOOLS & CENTERS TRADOC FDD Field Units HQDA ASCC MACOM CMBT CMDR TP 525-68 Concept for Modularity Announcement and classes 7 US Army Force Management Support Agency Total Army Analysis TOE Development MTOE Development CSA/VCSA APPROVED DESIGN FIFA Recommends Implement Return to TRADOC Send to TAA VCSA APPROVAL OF DESIGN FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND RESOURCING 6 Development Process Decision Process Review & Development by Organizational Proponent (Operational Concept & Unit Reference Sheet) 1 FIFA ARMY Commandant Approves Concept Submits to HQ TRADOC for inclusion in FDU. No Bill Payer Proponent Bill Payer G1 G3 G4 G8 FDU Review Board 5 USAFMSA DOCUMENTS CHANGES Determines supportability. Validates: requirement shortfall. need for a new capability. Identifies potential implementation issues for action. HQDA-G3 ACCEPTS or REJECTS TRADOC DETERMINED REQUIREMENT MINOR CHANGES Coordinated with all affected proponents and MACOMs 3 DIR, RID, TRADOC Release for Field Staffing TRADOC ARCIC 4 Dir, FDD FDU JR or include in next FDU Cycle RESOLUTION OF REVIEW BOARD ISSUES FIELD STAFFING FDD Determination of Requirement for CG TRADOC LIMITED TO AFFECTED COMMANDS Represents Decision Point

Force Design Update Contacts Cycle 07-1 Mr. Duane Wittenburg DSN 552-8685 Duane.wittenburg@us.army.mil FDU Administrator Mr. Dave Trottman DSN 552-8666 David.trottman@us.army.mil Good morning/evening everyone. My name is Debbie Gendreau and I am the Headquarters DA Force Design Update (FDU) coordinator.   Today I will brief you on the process of Force Integration Functional Area (FIFA) analysis for FDUs once they are received here in the HQDA, G3 FM.

Force Integration Functional Area (FIFA) Analysis For FDUs HQDA Force Integration Functional Area (FIFA) Analysis For FDUs E P L U R I B S N M Good morning/evening everyone. My name is Lyn Lister and I am the Headquarters DA Force Design Update (FDU) coordinator.   Today I will brief you on the process of Force Integration Functional Area (FIFA) analysis for FDUs once they are received here in the HQDA, G3 FM. G-37 FM / DAMO-FMF

Purpose and End State Purpose: End State: To enable the Army to approve new organizational requirements that are feasible, suitable and acceptable more rapidly End State: To enable the Army to implement fully staffed organizational solutions Purpose and End State The purpose and end state are quite simple. The purpose of a FIFA is to enable the Army to approve new organizational requirements that are feasible, suitable and acceptable in a rapid approach.  The end state is to implement the approved organization requirements to a fully staffed organization solutions (authorizations) at C3 or better.

Methodology for FIFA Analysis Use requirements to solutions HQDA methodology G-37/FM assume function of Requirements Staff Officer for FDUs only Invite RC to participate in ALL issues review Invite TRADOC, Proponents, and/or Army Service Component Command (ASCC), Army Commands (ARCOM), and Direct Reporting Units (DRU) as required, to facilitate gaining common understanding of proposed requirements FIFA is HQDA staffing tool when FDUs are being considered for requirements approval and implementation. Methodology for FIFA Analysis:   The methods used for FIFA analysis are as follows:  To execute requirements to solutions (authorizations) G3FM assumes the lead to validate requirements in the FDU. Invite are the Reserve Components (ARNG/NGB/USAR/OCAR) to participate in all reviews – this provides us with information to considered like state authorities, mobilization restrictions, etc. Also invited, are TRADOC and/or proponents, ASCC, ARCOM, and DRUs who are the subject matter experts on the FDU which will enable us to gain a better understanding of proposed requirements. We provide TRADOC with the results of our initial review and updated thereafter. This will provide them situational awareness to the Director RID, or DCG TRADOC on the solutions of the requirements determination. FIFA is a HQDA staffing tool used when FDUs are being considered for the development of requirements approval and implementation plan.

Nine Areas of FIFA Analysis Structuring (G3 FM Lead) – Determines accuracy of USR to enable requirements documents Manning (G1 Lead) – Requirements identified at the Officer, Warrant Officer and Enlisted level by grade and MOS, to include additional skills (as required) Equipping (G8 lead/G4 assist) – Determines equipment and costs feasibilities Training (G3 TR lead) – Determines special training requirements or initial training costs (re-classification) Sustaining (G4 lead/G8assist) - Determines if the new organization has adequate organic assets for sustainment Funding (G8 lead/PAE assist) – Identifies all costs or development timelines to determine any unknown costs Deploying (G4 lead/G8 assist) – Determines the new organizations strategic relevance. Identifies any special deployment requirements Stationing/Facilities (ACSIM lead) – Determines any facility impacts and analysis the units stationing Readiness (G3FM lead) - The Force Validation Committee determines the best cycle to achieve the unit at C3 or better upon implementation. An lastly, all ARSTAF members implement the Bill Payer Methodology FIFA Analysis consists of nine areas of study.   Structuring (G3 FM Lead) – Determines the accuracy of the URS and determines which cycle is best suited for implementation of the issue. Manning (G1 Lead) – determines requirements at the OFC/WO/ENL level to include GRADE/MOS impacts or if additional skill level will be required. Determines if the personnel resources are available in the current inventory; can they man the unit by year of implementation. Equipping (G8 lead/G4 assist) – determines if the costs are feasible to the Army. Can the unit be equipped by the proposed year of implementation. Training (G3 TR lead) – analysis to see if any reclassifications are associated with the redesign Sustaining (G4 lead/G8assist) - determines impact, if any to the CSS system Funding (G8 PAE lead) – determines if the resources are available for year of implementation. If not, how do we get them? Deploying (G4 lead/G8 assist) – determines deployment impacts if any. Stationing (G37 FMI Lead / ACSIM assist) – G37 FMI will assess any stationing impacts, does this issue interfere impact GPBS, BRAC or other stationing initiatives? ASCIM will determine if there are any costs associated with stationing? Will new facilities be required? Readiness (G3FM lead) - determines which cycle is more apt to implement for C3 or better upon activation. Each ARSTAF proponent is invited to participate in a FIFA Analysis. In a round table venue, the proposed FDU is examined and each ARSTAF member provides their input, based on their areas of expertise, to determine if the FDU is feasible, suitable and acceptable in executing the proposed redesign. We also invite NGB/OCAR and MACOMs for consideration of their concerns. Along with the FIFA Analysis, a validation of Bill payer methodology is practiced. I’ll discuss this on a later slide.

Functional Area Rating Definitions The organizational issue is suitable, feasible and acceptable with Minor HQDA re-programming of resources G The organizational issue is suitable, feasible and acceptable with Moderate HQDA re-programming of resources A The organizational issue is NOT suitable, feasible and acceptable without major HQDA re-programming of resources R Suitability. It must accomplish the Army’s mission and comply with CSA’s guidance on Modularity/ Transformation. (Is this something that the Army needs to do?) Feasibility. The proposed organization design (unit, branch, echelon) must have capability to accomplish the mission in terms of available resources. (Is this something the Army can do?) Acceptability. The transformational advantage gained by executing the organizational design must justify the increase cost in resources. (Is this something that the Army is willing to do?) FUNCTIONAL AREA RATING DEFINITIONS: FIFA has three functional area rating definitions. They are Green, Amber and Red.   Green indicates the organizational issue is suitable, feasible and acceptable with minor HQDA reprogramming of resources. No major impacts to the Army. Amber shows the organizational issue is suitable, feasible and acceptable, but requires moderate reprogramming of resources. Example: may require some type of re-prioritization in the Army to execute this plan. Red implies the organizational issue is NOT suitable, feasible or acceptable without major reprogramming of resources. Bear in mind, if one or more of these issues are determined “red”, it doesn’t necessarily mean your FDU will be disapproved, it means there is/are issue(s) that have to have some reconsideration to the suitability, feasibility or acceptability of the redesign. Example: Bill Payers – if no bill payers are identified in the FDU and none are available for redistribution, the redesign may require competing in TAA to gain the resources prior to implementation. This could delay the implementation of the issue, due to issue competing with other issues, which could possibly mean the resources will not be available for up to 5+ years. Modularity. Current Army Force Modular initiatives could delay or kill issues that may be duplicated with Modular Designs.

Force Integration Functional Area Initial Analysis FIFA Initial Analysis Lead Structuring Accuracy of URS to enable requirements documents Accuracy of manpower bill / savings based on year of implementation Regular documentation within cycle or justification for out-of-cycle documentation G3 (FM) G1 assist Manning Requirements identified (Off , WO, Enl) by grade, MOS and additional skill (if necessary) Can the Army man the proposed organization by the year of implementation by COMPO? G-1 G-3 assist Equipping Determine equipment (& cost) feasibility Assess equipment fielding plans and $$ in POM Equipment available for redistribution Equipment new purchase (UFR - $ compete in POM 08-13) BLUF: Can we equip the proposed organizations (AC & RC) by the intended year of implementation ? G-8 lead G-4 assist The next three slides provide a sample definitions that each ARSTAF member uses in determining the rating definitions. The slides also identifies which ARSTAF member has the lead and who, if any, who would assist in providing additional information/details for each FIFA category. Structuring – What are the MARC implications? Will MARC increase the strength of the FDU once the TOE/MTOE is built? Which cycle is best suited for this issue? Manning – are resources available? If not, can they be redistributed from another unit that is inactivating in the same year of implementation? Reserve Components (ARNG/NGB/USAR/OCAR) will also weigh in with their manning assessments. Equipping - Bottom Line Up Front – can we equip the proposed organization by the intended year of implementation? Is it part of the fielding plan? If not, how do we get it in?

Force Integration Functional Area Initial Analysis FIFA Initial Analysis Lead Training Special Training requirements: digital training (NET) Initial Training costs (re-classification) G-3 (TR) G-8 Assist Sustaining Does the new organization have adequate organic assets for sustainment Impacts of new organization to the CSS system G-4 Funding Identify all organizational costs, or develop timeline to determine unknown costs What is currently in the POM to support the redesign G-8 lead, PAE and G-3 assist Deploying Is new organization more strategically relevant or less Identify any special deployment requirements G-4 lead G-3/G8 assist Training – determine special training requirements and costs associated (OPTEMPO, AMMO, STRAC). NET – Is New Equipment Training involved? Have the costs be identified? Sustaining - if the new organization doesn’t have sustainment, what’ an alternative course of action? Can it be imbedded into a Corp BN? Funding – If not in POM, how do we get it in there? Deploying – Is the unit more or less strategic – what impacts does it have on the Army if less strategic?

Force Integration Functional Area Initial Analysis FIFA Initial Analysis Lead Stationing / facilities Lay down of units’ stationing Determine impacts to facilities, MILCON Can the Army afford new facilities requirements and MILCON (if required) ACSIM Readiness Force Validation Committee (FVC) in cycle or out-of cycle to achieve C-3 or better upon activation G-3 (FM) G-8 Assist Stationing – what are the impact? Are there costs associated? Can it be implemented in the year of execution or do we have to put it in the POM? FVC – FVC tracks the implementation plan for a specific FDU. It also determines which cycle or out of cycle is best for the unit to achieve C3 or better upon activation. Once the analysis is complete: HQDA provides TRADOC with our findings and based on the analysis, the determination is made whether the issues is supportable. If so, HQDA will conduct an IPR to the Director Force Management. At the IPR, the Director will be briefed on any discovered impacts, provide him/her potential resolutions / recommendation. And will obtain DFM guidance on the issue. If the issue is determined non-feasible, HQDA will return the issue to TRADOC as a “non-action” with the justification for return (i.e., not supportable / feasible for the Army to implement). If DFM guidance is to proceed with the issue, HQDA (G-37 FM/ FMO) will prepare the FDU packet for approval thru the DFM, G-357 to the VCSA for approval. The VCSA is currently the approving authority for FDUs, unless he determines the issue requires higher approval authority in which the FDU will go to the CSA for approval.

Bill Payer Methodology  OSD Guidance:  No increases in Army end strength  No increases in Total Obligation Authority (TOA)  Director, Force Management Guidance: Proponents must provide bill payers for any strength increases from within the branch  As stated earlier – this is the Bill Payer Methodology Slide. The bill payer methodology is quite simple: The OSD guidance is to not allow any increases in Army End strength or in the Total Obligation Authority.  and - Director FM’s guidance states that any proponent who has strength increase in their issues must provide bill payers from within the branch.   One final guidance from FM: A FDU cannot coincide or be part of Army Modular Force initiative. Thus, we ask TRADOC to validate the FDU through the Modular Task Force prior to submission. TRADOC must validate FDU through Modular Task Force prior to submitting to HQDA 

HQDA FDU Timeline Day 1: Requirement Determination for FDU received. The OI is assigned as the lead and he or she starts staffing the packet with appropriate integrators. Day 10: OI chairs a FIFA Rock-drill and prepares EXSUM. Day 15: OI presents FDU overview, issues and recommendations to Dir, FM. Dir, FM provides guidance. DAY 32-38: OI presents a FDU recommendation Brief to Dir FM. DAY 38-44: Dir, FM releases pony blanket and form 5 through the G-3/5/7 to the VCSA. Note: Dir, FM is the approving authority for FDU Juniors; however, he may defer decision to the VCSA. Note: The DAMO-FMF/G-3/5/7 FDU Coordinator schedules the events for the OI.

Ms. Lyn Lister – HQDA FDU Coordinator P L U R I B S N M Ms. Lyn Lister – HQDA FDU Coordinator G-37 FM / DAMO-FMF (703) 692-4652 (DSN 222-4652) Lyn.johnson@US.Army.Mil This concludes my presentation on FIFA Analysis. I have my contact information displayed for your reference. Should you have any questions regarding FDUs or FIFA, please contact me either by email or telephonically. Are there any Questions? Thank you for your time.

FDU – Final Steps After FIFA, G-37 FM (DAMO-FMF & FMO) gathers AO coordinated concurrence / issues and prepares IPR brief to Dir, FM. FMF & FMO prepare FDU (horse blanket & Form 5) and begin ARSTAF concurrence process (minimum COL (O6) level concurrence). DAMO-FMF & FMO conducts approval recommendation brief to Dir, FM. Dir, FM forward FDU recommendation to G-3/5/7 for concurrence and forwards recommendation for approval to the VCSA / CSA.

SAMPLE of Approved Horse Blanket

ARMY The Force Design Update Process G1 G3 G4 G8 7 6 1 5 2 3 4 GOOD Announcement and classes TP 525-68 Concept for Modularity 7 GOOD IDEA! US Army Force Management Support Agency Field Units HQDA Total Army Analysis TOE Development ASCC MACOM MTOE Development CMBT CMDR VCSA APPROVED DESIGN TRADOC FDD FIFA Recommends Implement Return to TRADOC Send to TAA VCSA APPROVAL OF DESIGN FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND RESOURCING TRADOC PROPONENT SCHOOLS & CENTERS Development Process 6 1 Review & Development by Organizational Proponent (Operational Concept & Unit Reference Sheet) FIFA Commandant Approves Concept Submits to HQ TRADOC for inclusion in FDU. Decision Process ARMY Proponent Bill Payer G1 G3 G4 G8 No Bill Payer WE ARE HERE TRADOC HQ FDD (Lead Office) CD, LOG DIV AIMD RID, DOC DIV PPD DCSOPS&T CASCOM TWVRMO OCAR NGB HQDA (DAMO-FMF lead) ARMY G1 ARMY G4 ARMY G3 (DAMO-FMF,FMO,USAFMSA) ARMY G8 FORSCOM BRANCH PROPONENT (as required) The process used to establish the Minimum Mission Essential Warfight Requirement (MMEWR) for both new and existing organizations is the FDU process.  A quick summary of the process follows: Field units, Army Service Component Commands (ASCC), Major Army Commands (MACOM), and Commander in Chiefs (CINC) all identify requirements short falls effecting their organizations to the Army through the ASCCs and MACOMs.  When development of a long term solutions is desirable, HQDA forwards to TRADOC for requirements determination.  HQs TRADOC forwards the issue to the organizational proponent for review and, if appropriate, for further development. The proponent conducts an assessment, develops/refines the concept and proposes an organizational design to provide the capability.  After the proponent completes the development of an FDU packet, the issue is forwarded to TRADOC FDD for inclusion in the FDU process.  The packet is reviewed by TRADOC schools and centers and then passes through a review board to determine if it is mature enough and credible enough for Army wide coordination with organizations in the field.  Note the participation level at the review board includes not only TRADOC elements but HQDA, FORSCOM, NGB and USAR.  Based on the results of the review board, Dir FDD recommends to the ADCSDEV TRADOC whether to delay the FDU for further analysis or to field staff the proposal and continue the FDU process.  During field staffing, over 180 addressees have an opportunity to review, establish a position and provide comments on the FDU.  Substantive comments and issues of non-concurrence are addressed after field staffing by Dir FDD to TRADOC DCSDEV and potential adjustments are considered.  Dir FDD then recommends approval or rejection of the FDU to the DCSDEV who has the authority to make a requirements determination on the FDU for the TRADOC commander.  Approved FDUs are forwarded to HQDA, G-3, Dir-RFM (currently BG (P) Hardy) for HQDA staff recommendations on FDU approval.  G-3/Dir-RFM make the majority of the FDU decision on approval and forwards results to the VCSA.  Occasionally, significant FDUs (as defined by Dir-RFM) may eventually be briefed to the VCSA for decision (usually major restructuring initiatives). FDU Review Board Video Teleconference Determines supportability. Validates: requirement shortfall. need for a new capability. Identifies potential implementation issues for action. 5 2 TELECONFERENCE DAMO-FMF USAFMSA PROPONENT FDD HQDA-G3 ACCEPTS / REJECTS TRADOC DETERMINED REQUIREMENT Initial FIFA Analysis DCG-CA or DIR, ARCIC TRADOC DIR, RID Release for Field Staffing 3 Chief, FDD Include in FDU Cycle, or FDU Jr FDD RESOLUTION OF REVIEW BOARD ISSUES FIELD STAFFING 4 Determination of Requirement for CG TRADOC Ready Ready, but requires certain fixes Represents Decision Point

BACK UPS

Regulatory/Force Design Guidance G3 Resourcing Concerns Dir – FM Nov 02 email to DCSDEV TRADOC 2. As you know, given a fixed end strength, the Army continues to face significant Active Component (AC) force structure challenges – nothing new, but already growing far larger than is likely to be resolved within the context of TAA11. (We are currently showing almost 10K of high priority AC bills to be resolved in TAA11; without accounting for any of the proposals within the current FDU proposals.) Additionally, we continue to work with both OSD and the Joint community to shape a number of potentially significant new structure requirements, in support of emerging strategies and initiatives. The end result is no matter how good a set of ideas the various FDU proposals (that present bills) represent; they may be impossible to pay in the context of TAA11.   3. Accordingly, solicit your help, together with the various branches, in identifying bill payers, using existing branch structure. If successful, many of these requirements could be both approved and resourced, without waiting another year to compete against possibly much higher priorities in TAA11. Understand the challenges faced by the proponents, as matching grade structure (primarily senior enlisted and officer), as well as MOS’s remains essential.

1. REQUIRED CAPABILITY SHORTFALL OVERVIEW OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS HQDA TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND 2. ANALYSIS TO IDENTIFY PREFERRED DOTMLPF DOMAIN(S) D DOCTRINE FORCE DESIGN DIRECTORATE ORGANIZATIONAL SOLUTION 1. REQUIRED CAPABILITY SHORTFALL O ORGANIZATION 3. DETERMINE PROCESS TO EFFECT CHANGE Methods to Achieve Design Changes REQUIRED CAPABILITY 4. DEVELOPMENT OF O&O CONCEPT O&O Concept T 5. DEVELOP UNIT REFERENCE SHEETS 6. FORCE DESIGN UPDATE REVIEW BOARD ARMY WIDE STAFFING DETERMINATION OF REQUIREMENT UNIT REFERENCE SHEET TRAINING Force Design Division TRADOC PROPONENTS M Force Design Update MATERIAL USAFMSA-C/CSD L TOE Documentation DOTMLPF ANALYSIS Leadership and Education 7. TOE DEVELOPMENT & APPROVAL P Personnel Total Army Analysis (TAA) 8. REQUIREMENTS APPROVAL & RESOURCING TRADOC HQDA F Facilities HQDA