« 上一頁繼續 »
planning into specific defense programs and the development of defense programs into a budget request. DoD Directive 7045.14 states:
The ultimate objective of the PPBS shall be to provide the operational commanders-in-chief the best mix of forces, equip
ment, and support attainable within fiscal constraints. (page 1) In addition to the direct administration, operation, and employment of U.S. forces, the resource allocation process, as formalized in PPBS, is one of the central concerns of DoD. PPBS is also a source of numerous documents representing the official positions of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Military Departments, and Defense Agencies on a broad range of defense issues.
Five objectives were established for the review of the PPB system: o assess the extent to which the PPB system is equal to its pur
pose (i.e., effectively balancing ends with means); o evaluate the responsiveness of the PPB system to the manage
ment needs of DoD leadership; o identify problems in the PPB system and their causes; o assess the extent to which problems in the PPB system are a
product of organizational deficiencies; and o identify and evaluate alternative solutions to PPBS problems
that could either be a source or a product of changed organiza
tional relationships. B. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PPB SYSTEM
1. Pre-1961 Budget Process
The report, Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System, by the Joint DoD/General Accounting Office (GAO) Working Group on PPBS explains the budget process prior to the introduction of PPBS as follows:
The individual military departments had prepared their budgets following their individual interests with relatively little guidance. The involvement of the SECDEF [Secretary of Defense) was largely limited to dividing DoD's budget ceiling among the military departments and reducing the departments' budgets, if they exceeded their share of the pie. This was usually accomplished through across-the-board cuts. There was both little attempt and little ability within the Office of the SECDEF to review the programmatic aspects of the military department's budget submissions. This early approach to budgeting had the following weaknesses:
-Budget decisions were largely independent of plans,
- There was duplication of effort among the services in various areas,
--Service budgets were prepared largely independent of one another with little balancing across services,
-Services felt they were entitled to their fixed share of the budget regardless of the effectiveness of their programs or overall defense needs,
- The budget process focused almost exclusively on the next budget year, though current decisions had considerable consequences for future years, and
-There was little analytical basis on which the Secretary could either make choices among competing service proposals or assess the need for duplication in service pro
grams. (pages 17-18) Dr. K. Wayne Smith summarizes the pre-1961 budget process as follows:
...requirements planning was being done without explicit regard to cost, and budget planning was being done without regard to need. (Proceedings of the Conference on the Defense PPBS: Past, Present and Future, March 1983, page 50).
2. Initiation of the PPB System
The first elements of the current PPB system were introduced to the Department of Defense in 1961 by Secretary of Defense McNamara and were a product of earlier research by The Rand Corporation. The specific intent of the new PPB system was to introduce cost-benefit analysis and other quantitative techniques for the purpose of developing output-oriented programming. At the same time, programming was to be organized around functional mission areas and correlated with a budget process which was extended to project a 5-year defense plan. The broader effect of PPBS was to centralize planning, provide detailed program guidance to the Services, and make the budget a more effective instrument of policy. These broader effects were underscored through the centralized management style of Secretary McNamara.
3. Developments during the 1970's
Developments during the 1970's, both inside and outside the Department of Defense, have had an impact on how the PPB system has operated. Under Secretary Laird, the detailed program guidance from OSD to the Services was replaced with broader Fiscal Guidance. This had the effect of placing the responsibility for program development back in the Military Departments, a feature which has endured to the current system. Also during Secretary Laird's tenure, the Defense Systems Acquisition Review Council (DSARC) was developed to provide more specific oversight of major procurement programs.
The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 also affected the PPB system. By establishing the current congressional budget process, this legislation provided benchmarks against which PPBS participants could measure broad congressional support both for defense in general and for specific programs.
During the Carter Administration, Zero Based Budgeting (ZBB) was instituted with limited success. The goal of ZBB was to more clearly identify marginal programs through an array of decision packages at three different resource levels. ZZB was discontinued early in the Reagan Administration.
A final development of the late 1970's was the establishment on April 7, 1979 of the Defense Resources Board (DRB) by Secretary Brown. Creation of the DRB was recommended in the Defense Resource Management Study prepared by Dr. Donald B. Rice and submitted to Secretary Brown during February 1979. While originally intended to oversee a combined programming and budgeting phase of PPBS, the DRB has functioned with broader and less clear management and decision-making responsibilities, again subject to the style and preference of the Secretary of Defense. However, the DRB remains the senior organization for planning and resource allocation review within the PPB system. When initially established, the DRB had five formal members, one ex officio member (JCS Chairman), and six associate members. As of July 29, 1985, the DRB has 20 formal members and 5 de facto members:
Defense Resources Board
C. KEY TRENDS IN THE PPB SYSTEM
It is widely recognized that DoD's budget process would face serious confusion without the organizing influence of the PPB system. Thus, since its introduction, there have been no attempts to radically alter the resource allocation process. However, many initiatives have been undertaken to improve the process, make it consistent with individual management styles, and correlate other internal management review processes with the PPB cycle.
Currently, three key trends are discernible in the continuing evolution of the PPB system: (1) increased participation of senior military officers in the Defense Resources Board; (2) greater interest in measurements of operational readiness and support costs; and (3) more emphasis on budget execution and oversight. The current trends in the PPB system highlight its flexibility and openness and its ability to be responsive to changing management environments. This underscores the character of PPBS as a process designed to support current organizational relationships and the reasons for its secondary role in this review of DoD organization.
1. Increased Participation of Senior Military Officers in the DRB
Greater participation of the senior military in DRB reviews has been one of the most notable changes to the PPB system undertaken by Secretary Weinberger. It has taken essentially two forms, a change in practice and a change in procedure. In practice, the Service Chiefs have become de facto members of the DRB and are now more capable of influencing DRB outcomes than with the previous membership rules under which Service positions were represented only by the Service Secretaries. The change in actual proce dure is the receipt by the Defense Resources Board of formal comments from the unified and specified commanders. Particularly with regard to this latter change, the trend is toward providing greater input into PPBS from those responsible for "fighting the war.”
2. Greater Interest in Measurements of Operational Readiness and Support Costs
Central to the evolution of the PPB system is the continuing refinement of analytical models which improve for the decisionmaker the visibility of those complex interrelationships that cause either net gains or net losses to force capability. The bulk of those analytical tools have traditionally been oriented towards weapons system acquisition and force structure. However, a broader resource analysis capability tied to the measurement of less well-defined policy objectives, such as “readiness”, has been lacking. The ability to achieve more precise analysis in this area is still impaired by the difficulty of defining the ingredients of "readiness" and accurately relating resource inputs to the achievement of this policy objective. Even so, the need has been recognized, and the trend toward development of broader resource analysis techniques has been established.
3. More Emphasis on Oversight of Budget Execution
A third trend in the PPB system is toward more emphasis on oversight of budget execution. ÞPBS is very much a "forward-looking” process wherein results of the actual management of defense programs has been of secondary, even tertiary, importance. Recent moves towards greater integration of administration, review and oversight, and data processing functions have raised the possibility that more timely “feedback” mechanisms will strengthen PPBS as both a resource allocation and resource management process. D. CURRENT PPBS PROCEDURES
Policy, procedures, and responsibilities for PPBS are presented in DoD Directive 7045.14. Implementing guidance is contained in DoD Instruction 7045.7. The PÔB system represents a cycle of approximately 15 months duration. Chart 7-1 presents a diagram of the current PPBS with its three distinct phases. The Defense Resource Management Study describes the activities of these three phases as follows:
planning includes the definition and examination of alternative defense strategies, the analysis of exogenous conditions and trends, threat and technology assessment, and any other tasks associated with looking forward either to anticipate change or to understand the longer-term implications of current choices; programming includes the definition and analysis of alternative forces and weapons/support systems together with their resource implications, the analytical evaluation of options for variation therein, and other staff efforts necessary to construct and understand the Five Year Defense Plan (FYDP); budgeting includes formulation, justification to the Congress, execution, and control. (page 1)