全球智库信息集成服务系统

Comparing As-Is Roles and Responsibilities to the PAF Vision of Combat Support Enterprise Capabilities Revealed the Following

• The present AFSC and AFIMSC organizational structure can support global management processes supporting the warfighter.
• Global management of combat support capabilities is still divided among and between organizations.
• Vertical processes (within functional communities) for global management of combat support resources are in varying stages of development, with some almost complete and others requiring enhancement.
• Within any particular stovepiped functional area, the community appears to work from a common understanding of what is needed to accomplish the mission.
• Integration of horizontal (across stovepipes) and vertical (within stovepipes) processes still needs improvement to provide senior leaders with better visibilities into global combat support capabilities and constraints.
• Identified characteristics of successful global managers include (1) an established relationship with the warfighter, (2) an analysis cell to conduct global assessments of capabilities and constraints, (3) rule-based decision-support tools, and (4) standard processes that are well understood by the warfighter.

Gaps Exist Between the Current Processes and Those Outlined in the PAF Vision

• Neither AFSC nor AFIMSC has a clear vision for global capability management across and among its stovepiped functions.
• Processes, instructions or guidance, and decision-support tools vary across functions and within each center.
• Individual functional analyses are not integrated to provide capability analyses.

This analysis recommends ways the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) and its centers, specifically the Air Force Sustainment Center (AFSC) and the Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center (AFIMSC), can provide better-quality information to component staffs so they can be aware of global resource capabilities and risks, ultimately paving the way for these relatively new organizations to adapt and better support the warfighter. With years of research and several reports already written describing an overall vision (which much of Air Force leadership supports) and a range of actions available (or necessary) to achieve it, the next logical step seemed to be to focus very concretely on near-term actions each center could take. The authors compare the current state of AFMC capability management, including the organization construct currently in place, with RAND Project AIR FORCE (PAF) concepts developed over the past 20 years defining a combat support enterprise. They then identify gaps between processes, tools, systems, and doctrine in place and being used now in these organizations and the processes, tools, systems, and doctrine recommended in the previous PAF work and recommend near- and longer-term implementation actions to address the gaps.

• Chapter One

  Introduction

• Chapter Two

  Analytic Approach

• Chapter Three

  Current Process Findings and Identified Gaps

• Chapter Four

  Air Force Sustainment Center Recommendations for Enhancing Support to the Warfighter

• Chapter Five

  Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center Recommendations for Enhancing Support to the Warfighter

• Chapter Six

  Conclusions

• Appendix

  Excerpts from the PAF Operational Architecture