網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版
[graphic][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

The top portion of Chart 3-5 shows the six major OSD organizations, three of which are mission integrators (nuclear deterrence, NATO defense, and regional defense and force projection) and three of which are functional integrators (readiness, sustainability, and support; research and engineering; and command, control, communications and intelligence). Highlights of the proposed changes are as follows. Offices not shown on this chart would continue to report to their current senior authority.

。 the Assistant to the Secretary (Atomic Energy) and the Defense Nuclear Agency would report to the Under Secretary (Nuclear Deterrence) instead of the Under Secretary (Research and Engineering);

。 the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization would report to the Under Secretary (Nuclear Deterrence) instead of the Secretary of Defense;

。 the Defense Advisor, U.S. Mission to NATO would report to the Under Secretary (NATO Defense) instead of the Secretary of Defense;

。 the Defense Security Assistance Agency would report to the Under Secretary (Regional Defense and Force Projection), but would coordinate with the Under Secretary (NATO Defense) on security assistance programs within the European region; o the position of Under Secretary (Readiness, Sustainability, and Support) would be created;

o the positions of Assistant Secretary (Force Management and Personnel), Assistant Secretary (Reserve Affairs), and Assistant Secretary (Health Affairs) would be retitled Deputy Under Secretaries and would report to the Under Secretary (Readiness, Sustainability, and Support) instead of the Secretary of Defense; 。 the installations and logistics functions would be transferred from the Assistant Secretary (Acquisition and Logistics) to a Deputy Under Secretary (Installations and Logistics) who would report to the Under Secretary (Readiness, Sustainability, and Support);

o the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences would report to the Under Secretary (Readiness, Sustainability, and Support) instead of the Secretary of Defense; o the new position of Assistant Secretary (Strategic Planning) would be created to replace the Under Secretary (Policy); reporting to this Assistant Secretary would be the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency (both of which currently report to the Secretary of Defense) and the Office of the Director, Net Assessment and Defense Investigative Service (both of which currently report to the Under Secretary (Policy));

。 the Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation would report to the Assistant Secretary (Comptroller) instead of the Secretary of Defense;

。 the Assistant to the Secretary (Intelligence Oversight) would report to the DoD Inspector General instead of the Secretary of Defense;

• the Assistant Secretary (Acquisition and Logistics) would be retitled Assistant Secretary (Acquisition); and

o the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation and the Director, Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization would report to the Assistant Secretary (Acquisition) instead of the Secretary of Defense.

• Option 1C-create a matrix organization with mission-oriented under secretaries and functional-oriented under and assistant secretaries.

This proposal is the same as Option 1B with one major exception: the functional cells or subunits placed within each mission-oriented office would retain an organizational link across all such functional activities within OSD. For example, each mission-oriented office would have a policy office in its vertical organization. These offices would also report horizontally to the senior policy official in OSD, who, in this proposal, would be the Assistant Secretary (Strategic Planning).

Matrix organizations, pioneered by the aerospace industry in the late 1950's and 1960's, are employed successfully by a number of large, diversified private businesses with organizational problems similar to those of OSD. The identifying feature of a matrix organization is that some officials report to two bosses rather than to the traditional, single boss. In essence, there is a dual rather than a single chain of command. In OSD, these dual command responsibilities would be to functional offices (strategic planning; program analysis and evaluation; research and engineering; readiness, sustainability, and support; and command, control, communications and intelligence) and to mission offices. The former are oriented to functional efforts or specialized inhouse activities while the latter focus on outputs. In the matrix proposed for OSD, power would not be balanced equally between the dual chains of command. The mission-oriented chain would be dominant; the other chain would serve to complement the dominant chain.

The functional structure that currently exists in OSD and elsewhere in the Washington headquarters of DoD was the hallmark of U.S. businesses for much of the first half of this century. As certain companies became larger and more diversified, they switched to a product organization with functional offices underneath, an organizational concept known as federal decentralization. Many private businesses were perplexed as to whether a functional or a product line organization better suited their needs. The matrix organization is designed to gain the best of both approaches.

Upon reflection, one might conclude that DoD currently has a federal decentralization organization with the Military Departments being the product lines. This is not the case. The Military Departments do not represent the central "products" or "businesses" of DoD, because DoD is not seeking separate land, sea, or air products. The "businesses" of DoD are the previously described major missions: nuclear deterrence, defense of NATO Europe, defense of East Asia, defense of Southwest Asia, maritime superiority, and power projection superiority.

[blocks in formation]

Chart 3-6 presents a detailed diagram of one possible OSD matrix organization. The offices in the upper right hand box of the chart would not be part of the matrix. The offices of the missionoriented under secretaries are shown vertically with their policy, analysis, and resource elements. The matrix is formed with five functional offices. At least three Defense Agencies (Defense Intelligence Agency, Defense Communications Agency, and Defense Logistics Agency) that report to these functional offices would also be included, either directly or indirectly, as part of the matrix. Two of these functional offices -strategic planning and program analysis and evaluation -have only staff responsibilities. The other three -research and engineering; readiness, sustainability, and support; and command, control, communications and intelligence -have important functional integration responsibilities.

The five functional offices overlay the mission-oriented offices in the horizontal dimension. These offices would seek to improve coordination among the various functional subunits located within the mission-oriented offices. The unbroken lines within the vertical, mission-oriented offices signify that this is the dominant command chain in the matrix. The dashed horizontal lines connecting the functional offices and functional cells or subunits signify a coordination —not a power sharing -responsibility.

• Option 1D-replace the current Joint Staff functional (J-1, J– 2, etc.) organization with a mission-oriented organization.

As in the case with OSD, the Joint Staff is organized along functional lines. As might be expected, this organizational arrangement focuses on the functional perspective. It is not clear, however, that this perspective is desirable in an organization that is responsible for providing unified military advice which must give careful consideration to missions and operational requirements.

This option proposes that the functional organization of the Joint Staff be replaced with a structure that includes mission-oriented offices. Under this option, there would be Directors of Joint Staff Directorates for each major mission area and a Director for Joint Resources who would continue to focus on the unfulfilled responsibilities of the current functional offices.

The same organizational principles used in proposing OSD mission-oriented offices would be applied to the Joint Staff. The following positions would be established:

• Director, Nuclear Deterrence

o Director, NATO Defense

• Director, Regional Defense and Force Projection

• Director, Joint Resources

and the following positions abolished:

• Director, J-1 (Manpower and Personnel)

o Director, J-3 (Operations)

• Director, J-4 (Logistics)

• Director, J-5 (Plans and Policy)

• Director, C3 Systems

Appropriate portions of the existing functional directorates would be transferred to the mission-oriented offices. Functional areas that should not be divided would be placed under the Direc

« 上一頁繼續 »