1、 COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM COMMISSION ON PLANNING,PROGRAMMING,BUDGETING AND EXECUTION REFORM 2900 Crystal Drive,Suite 410 Arlington,VA 22202 March 6,2024 Our bipartisan Legislative Commission was established by section 1004 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fisc

2、al Year 2022 and directed to conduct a comprehensive examination of the Defense Departments Planning,Programming,Budgeting,and Execution(PPBE)process to examine its effectiveness,consider potential alternatives,and provide recommendations to improve the process.After two years of interviews,research

3、,and deliberation,we are recommending significant reform to bring the Departments resourcing into the 21st century.To say the PPBE process and its associated ecosystem is vast is an understatement.We could not have completed our taskings and this Final Report without a significant amount of input an

4、d time from stakeholders across this resourcing ecosystem,particularly in Congress,the Department of Defense,industry,and academia.We truly appreciate all those who shared insights with us and contributed to this Final Report.We are proud to have had the opportunity to serve as Chair and Vice Chair

5、of this Commission and of the work completed by our Commissioners and Commission staff.This Final Report reflects 24 months of research and deliberations culminating in the following recommendations that we strongly believe will transform and strengthen the resourcing process underpinning our milita

6、rys capability.The Honorable Robert Hale Chair The Honorable Ellen Lord Vice Chair COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM COMMISSIONERS ROBERT HALE CHAIR ELLEN LORD VICE CHAIR JONATHAN BURKS COMMISSIONER SUSAN DAVIS COMMISSIONER LISA DISBROW COMMISSIONER ERIC FANNING COMMISSIONER PETER

7、LEVINE COMMISSIONER JAMIE MORIN COMMISSIONER DAVID NORQUIST COMMISSIONER DIEM SALMON COMMISSIONER JENNIFER SANTOS COMMISSIONER ARUN SERAPHIN COMMISSIONER RAJ SHAH COMMISSIONER JOHN WHITLEY COMMISSIONER COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM Table of Contents Section I Executive Summary.

8、1 Section II Background and Research Approach.12 Section III PPBE and the Need for Change.16 Section IV Improve the Alignment of Budgets to Strategy.24 Section V Foster Innovation and Adaptability.67 Section VI Strengthen Relationships Between DoD and Congress.95 Section VII Modernize Business Syste

9、ms and Data Analytics.103 Section VIII Strengthen the Capability of the Resourcing Workforce.123 Section IX Complete List of Recommendations.130 Section X Required Assessments and Findings.138 A.Establishing Commission Language.138 B.Case Studies:Budgeting in the Private Sector.142 C.Case Studies:Ot

10、her Federal Agencies and Countries.161 D.Key Documents,Processes,and Outputs 177 E.PPBE Timelines.183 F.A Review of the Sufficiency of the Civilian Personnel Workforce in the OSD and the Office of CAPE.185 G.A Review of New and Agile Programming and Budgeting Techniques.194 H.A Review of the Frequen

11、cy and Sufficiency of Program and Budget Execution Analysis.217 I.Performance Measures Within the DoD.220 J.Financial Management Systems and Their Relationship to Financial Auditability.230 K.Legislative Language.246 Section XI Final Report Appendices.252 A.Commissioners 252 B.Commission Staff 256 C

12、.Research Partners.260 D.Commission Staff Research Papers.262 D1.Budget Structure 262 D2.Reprogrammings 278 D3.New Starts.298 D4.Expiring,Expired,or Cancelled Funds.307 D5.Presidents Budget,Appropriation Acts,and NDAA Release Dates.310 D6.Justification Materials.312 D7.Facilities Sustainment,Restora

13、tion,and Modernization Funding and Upward Obligations 324 D8.Service Programming and Military Department Budgeting Workforce Analysis.343 References.363 Acronym List.380 COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM Section I Executive Summary COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 1 Section I Executive Summary The Commission on Pl

14、anning,Programming,Budgeting,and Execution(PPBE)Reform has concluded that a new approach to the defense resourcing process is required to better maintain the security of the American people.For many years the current PPBE process has ably supported United States(U.S.)national security.However,the se

15、curity environment is rapidly evolving,and the current PPBE process is not capable of responding as quickly and effectively as needed to support todays warfighter.The Department of Defense(DoD)needs a new process,one that enables strategy to drive resource allocation in a more rigorous,joint,and ana

16、lytically informed way.The new process should also embrace changes that enable the DoD to respond effectively to emerging threats while leveraging technological advances.Two persistent trends affecting U.S.national security drive a need for transformational change to the current PPBE process.First,t

17、he emergence of the Peoples Republic of China(PRC)as a large,technologically advanced strategic adversary with corresponding global reach has profoundly threatened the rules-based order advocated by the U.S.in conjunction with partners and allies.After 30 years of focus on regional,asymmetric threat

18、s,the U.S.now faces strategic challenges with the PRC as a pacing threat while simultaneously contending with immediate threats from Russia,North Korea,Iran,and instability in the Middle East.This ever-evolving security environment demands rapid and large-scale evolution of current military capabili

19、ties.Over the last decade it has become increasingly clear that the current PPBE process does not provide the Departments senior leadership with the ability to implement change at the scale and speed the DoD requires.In response to these near-term challenges and existential threats,the Commission is

20、 recommending a fundamental restructuring of the process for converting strategy into a budget along with improvements in analytic methodology that enable DoD resourcing decisions.While these changes are primarily internal to the Department,they require close partnership with Congress for successful

21、 implementation.Second,the pace of global technological innovation only continues to accelerate.The defense laboratories and the defense industrial base no longer lead technological change as they did during the Cold War.Instead,commercial technology enables todays militarily-relevant modernization

22、in multiple applications like robotics and space,utilizing advances in areas such as artificial intelligence and cyber.Strategic adversaries are operationalizing this rapid technological change as they seek to overmatch U.S.military capabilities.The current budgeting and execution phases of the PPBE

23、 process,particularly in some key interfaces with Congress,do not provide the agility required to adopt technological advances at the speed of relevance.The U.S.risks losing more of its already diminishing technological edge without immediate transformational changes in resourcing,especially in the

24、year of execution.The Commissions recommendations include much-needed changes to the period of availability of funds,account structures,reprogramming processes,and data sharing with Congress.These reforms also leverage modern business systems and data analytics to better manage resourcing and commun

25、ications.PPBE reform can only be implemented through sustained collaboration between the legislative and executive branches.Section I Executive Summary COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 2 This Final Report provides a detailed review of the Commissions findings and recommendations as well as the transformati

26、onal change the recommendations will produce.Overview of Key Findings Since the inception of the Planning,Programming,and Budgeting System(PPBS),now known as the PPBE process,the DoD has had a structured repeatable process enabling senior leaders to guide the course of the DoD.The PPBE process has a

27、llowed leadership to identify key resourcing issues and bring analytic information to bear on budgetary decisions.The PPBE process has ensured that a wide variety of stakeholder voices are heard,which helps build proposals that can be defended before Congress,and allows senior leaders to drive chang

28、e.It has also ensured that multi-year budgetary impacts are considered to counterbalance tendencies toward short-term views.The Commissions reforms preserve these advantages and other positive aspects of the current PPBE process.However,as noted above,the U.S.is experiencing a dramatic change in its

29、 national security environment.Responding to this increasingly complex global security challenge requires large-scale and rapid changes in strategic objectives,posture,readiness,force structure,and capabilities.Meeting these challenges requires addressing limitations in the current PPBE process.For

30、example,the Commission is concerned that current strategic and resource allocation guidance documents are frequently consensus-driven,often late to need,and sometimes fail to provide actionable direction to the DoD Components.Although there has been much progress in recent years,the key analytic off

31、ices in the Office of the Secretary of Defense(OSD)and the Joint Staff do not have sufficient capacity and assessment tools,nor appropriate training programs and time,to provide the level of analytic support required to inform senior leader decision-making on so many high-stakes issues.As a result,m

32、ajor issues are often elevated to senior leadership too late in the process,limiting the available trade-space and analytic support,which forces compression of the essential subsequent steps in budget development.Commission on PPBE Reform Section 1004 of the National Defense Authorization Act(NDAA)f

33、or Fiscal Year(FY)2022 created an independent Commission on Planning,Programming,Budgeting,and Execution(PPBE)Reform,”within the legislative branch,and directed the Commission to conduct a comprehensive assessment of all four phases of the PPBE process that governs how the DoD creates its resourcing

34、 strategy for the following five years and provides the framework and input for the Presidents Budget request.The law directs a specific focus on budgetary processes that affect defense modernization.This Final Report documents the Commissions findings,reflecting 24 months of research and formal mee

35、tings.The Commissions staff carried out extensive quantitative research and also contracted with several outside research organizations.More than 400 interviews were conducted with experts in PPBE and related fields,including personnel from Congress,the DoD,industry,academia,and research organizatio

36、ns.The findings of this Final Report also draw on the expertise and experience of its 14 Commissioners and staff(see biographies in Section XI).Section I Executive Summary COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 3 These strategic challenges are further compounded by the increasing pace of technological change.Moo

37、res Lawthe prediction that the number of transistors on a microchip will double every two years is perhaps the best-known example of rapidly accelerating technological change.U.S.adversaries are taking advantage of this rapid technological change to build overmatch against U.S.military forces,puttin

38、g the Departments ability to execute the National Defense Strategy(NDS)at risk.One of the most consistent concerns the Commission heard over the past two years is that the current PPBE process lacks agility,limiting the Departments ability to respond quickly and effectively to evolving threats,unant

39、icipated events,and emerging technological opportunities.This message has been repeatedly articulated in statements from current and former congressional Members and staff,from senior DoD officials,from program budget and acquisition officials at all levels,and from both traditional and non-traditio

40、nal DoD industry partners.For example,a current DoD leader told the Commission that the amount of time it takes to approve and distribute funding through the current PPBE process to address a national security problem provides U.S adversaries with an innovation advantage.Another official added that

41、the time-consuming nature of the PPBE process makes it difficult to influence a modification or an upgrade to an existing product design or to counter new threats.Late enacted budgets,and long Continuing Resolutions(CR),pose another critical challenge to resource allocation.The CRs generally include

42、 a provision prohibiting new start activities,which can slow efforts to insert innovative technology in both new and current programs.Not knowing what the final appropriations will be until well into the fiscal year further hinders effective budget execution and the timely delivery of capabilities t

43、o the warfighter.Compounding this challenge,under current appropriation rules,operating funds must be fully obligated in the year they are appropriated which can result in a year-end spending spree that can allocate funding to lower-priority programs so that funding is not lost.The Commission also h

44、eard concerns that,under the current PPBE process,budgets presented to Congress cannot easily be linked to the defense strategy,in part because the budgets are presented in terms of appropriation title and DoD Component rather than by capability areas.While the Department has been modernizing its sy

45、stems for over a decade,the current PPBE process still depends on some antiquated information technology systems that make it difficult to quickly access and analyze validated data and effectively share information between the DoD and Congress.Vision To address these challenges,the Commission establ

46、ished a vision for a new resourcing process,drawing from the original set of six principles that guided creation of the original PPBS,1 and modifying and expanding them to meet todays changing strategic environment.The new process should:1.Closely align budgets to strategy for the Joint Force“based

47、on explicit criteria of national interest,”2 with the ultimate goal of faster delivery of capability to the warfighter.2.Base resource decisions on“choices among explicit,balanced,and feasible alternatives.”3 3.Formulate and assess budget alternatives and consequences over multiple years before maki

48、ng major decisions,and use analysis to compare costs and benefits.1 Enthoven and Smith 2005.2 Ibid.3 Ibid.Section I Executive Summary COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 4 4.Enable accountable leaders in acquisition,operational,and support organizations to foster innovation and agility by improving their abil

49、ity to react to changing threats and requirements,while ensuring the best technology and capabilities are fielded for the warfighter.5.Use common modern business systems with shared and accessible data to support decision-making,reduce duplicative efforts,and better communicate information inside th

50、e DoD and to Congress.6.Provide a dedicated,appropriately skilled,and resourced staff to support the Secretary of Defense and other senior leaders throughout the DoD.7.Appropriately signal near-and long-term technological and infrastructure priorities to the industrial base,enabling both non-traditi

51、onal and traditional vendors to supply capabilities to the DoD.8.Meet budget timelines while ensuring that stakeholders have a voice in the process.9.Provide Congress,the Office of Management and Budget(OMB),and the American people appropriate visibility into and understanding of key defense resourc

52、e decisions.Transformational Change:The Defense Resourcing System To implement this vision,the Commission recommends creating a new Defense Resourcing System(DRS)to support U.S.national security in an increasingly dangerous world.This new system builds on PPBEs many strengths while also addressing t

53、he weaknesses that have emerged.The new DRS fundamentally strengthens the connection between strategy and resource allocation while creating a more flexible and agile execution process and preserving congressional oversight.The proposed DRS replaces what was known as the PPBE process and consists of

54、 three processes:Strategy,Resource Allocation,and Execution.Strategy:The new system employs analytics at the start of the Strategy process to determine priorities and direction for the forthcoming budget while establishing the overall guidance for key budget decisions.The Office of Primary Responsib

55、ility(OPR)is the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy(USD(P).The key documents remain the National Security Strategy(NSS),NDS,and National Military Strategy(NMS).The DRS strategy process remains focused on these enduring,multi-year documents.Resource Allocation:This is where the most significant pr

56、ocess changes are proposed.In place of the current PPBE process the following steps occur within the Resource Allocation process:1.Guidance.Instead of the current process of circulating a lengthy document for coordination(the current Defense Planning Guidance or DPG),the new approach brings the resu

57、lts of wargaming and analytical efforts into established senior leadership forums to inform discussions that can lead to specific guidance or at least provide direction for budgetary debates.Development of the new guidance document involves existing leadership forums,including the Senior Leadership

58、Council and the Deputys Management Action Group,and concludes by February of the year before the budget submission.The OPR for the Guidance process is the Analysis Working Group(AWG),under the leadership of the Director,Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation(CAPE)as the Executive Secretary

59、.The key document resulting from this process is the Defense Resourcing Guidance(DRG),issued in February that now includes both the integrated program priorities and Fiscal Guidance(FG).A new continuous analytic process overseen by the AWG supports the development of the DRG and will focus debate th

60、roughout the new resourcing process.Section I Executive Summary COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 5 2.Build.This step centers around the Services and DoD Components and their construction of a strategically-informed Resource Allocation Submission(RAS)proposal in compliance with the DRG.The OPRs for this ste

61、p are the Services and DoD Components.The RAS replaces the current Program Objective Memorandum(POM)and Budget Estimate Submission(BES)as the single submission to the OSD for review.The DoD Components will likely start their RAS well in advance of the DRG,much like they do today,but will be guided b

62、y the actionable direction established during the Guidance step.3.Decision.This final step involves the OSD review of the RASs(formerly POM/BES),then issuance of Resource Allocation Decisions(RAD)and incorporation of OMB Passback changes,all of which culminate in a final DoD budget request.After app

63、roval by the OMB,this budget request becomes the DoD portion of the annual Presidents Budget submission to Congress.The OPR is the Under Secretary of Defense for Comptroller(USD(C),who establishes the necessary timelines and assigns the workload for review.The CAPE and USD(C)organizations will conti

64、nue to perform their respective tasks,with CAPE focused on DRG compliance and strategic or programmatic issues and USD(C)focused on budget year issues to include pricing,executability,most single-Service or Combatant Command requests,and late breaking or conflict-related issues.The USD(C),working wi

65、th CAPE,will also maintain a single database documenting all decisions.Execution:With the USD(C)as the OPR,this process involves distribution of funding,as authorized and appropriated by Congress,and execution of those funds by the Services and DoD Components to meet national security needs.Many Com

66、mission recommendations described below will significantly improve the execution process,providing significant mechanisms to allow the DoD to respond to emerging issues more quickly and effectively.Of particular note,this process will also establish a feedback loop to evaluate overall fiscal,program

67、,and operational performance,as well as alignment with strategic and planning goals.Key documents governing this process include budget execution reports,acquisition and operational reports,and other information useful to Congress,the DoD,and other stakeholders for carrying out oversight and analysi

68、s.Naming the New System The Commission recommends a new name for this processthe Defense Resourcing Systemto emphasize the streamlining and combination of several discrete steps and phases of the former PPBE process.The new name,along with changed names for key documents and roles,also emphasizes th

69、e extent of the changes recommended by the Commission.Figure 1 depicts the processes and steps in the new DRS.Section I Executive Summary COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 6 Figure 1 Defense Resourcing System Structure Key Recommendations:To shape the Commissions focus on critical areas for reform,the Commi

70、ssion organized its research and identified recommendations designed to:1)Improve the Alignment of Budgets to Strategy;2)Foster Innovation and Adaptability;3)Strengthen Relationships Between DoD and Congress;4)Modernize Business Systems and Data Analytics;and 5)Strengthen the Capability of the Resou

71、rcing Workforce.Key Recommendations that Improve the Alignment of Budgets to Strategy The Commission consistently heard that the current PPBE process does not show a clear alignment between DoD budget requests and overall defense strategies as articulated in the NSS and NDS.This remains a critical s

72、hortcoming in matching resources to the DoDs strategic vision and requirements of the Services,DoD Components,and the Joint Force.Under the current PPBE process,the programmed budgets are typically developed by the DoD Components before the appropriate strategic documents like the DPG have been fina

73、lized,and fact-of-life changes can easily overwhelm strategic choices.To address this,in addition to the DRS,the Commission recommends two key reforms and changes:Strengthen the Defense Resourcing Guidance through Continuous Planning and Analysis:As was noted earlier,the effectiveness of the DRG is

74、bolstered by continuous analysis including threat analyses,wargaming,and cost benefit assessments.Beginning these key analyses earlier,and holding leadership decision meetings that consider analytic results from November through February,will produce a timelier guidance document with a regular analy

75、tic cadence used to inform the Build step and shape resourcing decisions.Section I Executive Summary COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 7 Transform the Budget Structure:An effective and properly stratified budget structure is a crucial underpinning of any resource allocation process,whether in the current PP

76、BE process or the new DRS.The current budget structure begins with the designated life cycle phases(i.e.,Research,Development,Test and Evaluation(RDT&E),Procurement,and Operation and Maintenance(O&M).It then further aligns these to the separate Services and DoD Components before finally presenting d

77、ata for specific accounts and programs.These top-level appropriations reflect the phases of traditional industrial production,but this is not how the Department or Congress consider the budget when making decisions today.Instead,todays decision-makers focus primarily on capability.Under the current

78、budget structure,this requires pulling data from disparate sections of the budget in order to see the whole program.The Commissions reimagined structure starts with the Services and DoD Components,flows to Major Capability Activity Areas(MCAA)areas under their purview(examples might include ground m

79、aneuver units or tactical aviation),then to specific programs and systems,and finally to the relevant life cycle phases.Figure 2 below depicts these changes.Figure 2 Current and Reimagined Budget Structure The Commission believes this budget transformation will enhance congressional oversight by tra

80、nsmitting program and budgetary information to Congress in a way that combines related funding for a capability under a single program and/or portfolio.This change will increase transparency across all types of funding requested and more clearly link decision-making and resource allocation.Moreover,

81、the new budget structure will improve visibility and understanding of the resource allocations across the Services and for similar portfolios in the Joint Force.It also better matches 21st century Digital Age technological developments that no longer fit into the traditional Industrial Age categorie

82、s of research,procurement,operation,and sustainment.Key Recommended Changes that Foster Innovation and Adaptability The Commission recommends the following important changes to foster innovation and improve agility in the allocation and execution of resources.The combination of these key recommendat

83、ions has the goal of significantly increasing industry involvement and providing emergent technology to the warfighter more quickly and easily.Increase Availability of Operating Funds:The Commission recommends allowing a small portion(five percent)of operating funds to be carried over for obligation

84、 in a second year of availability,a type of flexibility that is already available to some non-DoD federal agencies.This change will reduce the high levels of year-end spending that hamper effective execution of funds,especially after a CR,as well as prevent the funding of lower-priority programs jus

85、t to avoid losing the money.Section I Executive Summary COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 8 Update Thresholds for Below Threshold Reprogrammings(BTR):Raising these thresholds to keep pace with historical budget increases will increase flexibility for Program Managers(PM),Program Executive Officers(PEO),and

86、others while also streamlining the decision-making process.Ultimately the Commission proposes eliminating BTRs and allowing a small percentage of an entire appropriation to be realigned with appropriate congressional briefings and oversight.Mitigate Problems Caused by CRs:This recommendation mitigat

87、es the adverse impacts of increasingly commonplace CRs by allowing the Department to proceed with new starts and increased program quantities under CRs in carefully delineated circumstances.Review and Consolidate Budget Line Items(BLI):This consolidation streamlines the current resourcing and execut

88、ion processes,retains and increases transparency for Congress,ends unnecessary duplication in the existing budget structures,and eliminates redundancies.Consolidation will also increase the DoDs ability to adjust rapidly to changing circumstances in the year of execution and inject innovation or ado

89、pt new technology to address changing threats.Address Challenges with Colors of Money:This recommendation aligns colors of money with the way in which programs are actually executed,enabling the Department to better meet mission needs through the funding of software programs,continuing improvements

90、to hardware,and program office accounts.Key Recommended Changes to Strengthen Relationships Between DoD and Congress The Commission remains mindful of the need to strengthen and improve relationships and communications between DoD and Congress regarding the Presidents Budget submission and throughou

91、t the resource allocation and execution phases.The Commission offers several recommendations to improve these critical relationships with a focus on data driven communications.Encourage Improved In-Person Communications:The DoD should work with Congress to determine the best time to offer in-person

92、updates that deal with execution-year issues as well as the budget proposal under review by the Congress.Updates should be informed by execution reviews and timed to support conference negotiations held by the authorization and appropriations committees.Establish Classified and Unclassified Communic

93、ation Enclaves:This recommendation will enable more robust communication between DoD and Congress.It will include but not be limited to a common set of reports and budget material that can be readily searched,sorted,and retrieved for analysis across all security classification levels.Enclaves will e

94、nable efficient and effective communications across the government,increasing trust,transparency,and relevancy.Key Recommended Changes to Modernize Business Systems and Data Analytics The systems DoD uses to manage data do not always allow searching or sorting of shared information,nor can data be e

95、asily used or shared for analysis and decision-making.This is a serious impediment to making DoD resourcing more effectively agile,as well as more coherent and transparent.The Commission makes a number of recommendations designed to improve data analytics,including this key recommendation:Section I

96、Executive Summary COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 9 Create a Common Analytics Platform:This will make information readily available and provide streamlined access to best of breed analytic capabilities and authoritative data across functional sectors,ensuring that all DoD organizations are leveraging the

97、same authoritative,transaction-level business and warfighting data.A single common platform will,for example,provide the capability to integrate prior year execution and operational data,thereby improving assessments of cost,schedule,and performance.Key Recommended Changes to Strengthen the Capabili

98、ty of the Resourcing Workforce The workforce that carries out defense resourcing tasks must be of adequate size,sufficiently trained,and enabled with the tools and resources to support leadership and decision-making.The Commission makes a number of recommendations designed to improve the workforce,i

99、ncluding these key recommendations:Continue the Focus on Recruiting and Retention:Both the Offices of the USD(C)and CAPE need to improve recruiting and retention to ensure they have staffs of sufficient size and skill to carry out their specified duties.Improve Training for Personnel Involved in Def

100、ense Resourcing:Improved training for personnel who support the DRS will ensure the Department has appropriately trained personnel who understand how their role supports the DRS in a number of ways.Training on preparation of the budget justification books,data analytics,and private sector practices

101、represent key areas to empower the DoD workforce.Additional Recommendations In addition to the key recommendations described above,the Commission makes a number of additional recommendations that will,if implemented,significantly improve the Departments resourcing processes.Some of these recommendat

102、ions may be interim steps before the implementation of the broader transformational changes identified above,but many will pay dividends for the long run.A full list of the Commissions recommendations,each of which is described in detail in the report,can be found at the end of this section.Implemen

103、tation The Commission commends the DoD for establishing implementation plans for the 13 Recommendations contained in the Commissions Interim Report that could be implemented prior to this Final Report.4 Full implementation of all the Commissions recommendations in this Final Report will require subs

104、tantial effort on the part of Congress and the DoD,especially its resource management community.The Commission recommends that the DoD establish an implementation team that reports directly to the Deputy Secretary of Defense.This temporary team would be made up of experts from various functional are

105、as and,for the next three to five years,provide staff support to implement the Commissions recommendations.The Commission further recommends that the Department engage with Congress on these recommendations and provide regular updates on implementation.4 DoD Implementation Plan 2024.Provided to the

106、Commission.Public release forthcoming.Section I Executive Summary COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 10 Commission Recommendations Improve the Alignment of Budgets to Strategy 1.Replace the PPBE Process with a new Defense Resourcing System 2.Strengthen the Defense Resourcing Guidance 3.Establish Continuous P

107、lanning and Analysis 4.Transform the Budget Structure 5.Consolidate RDT&E Budget Activities Foster Innovation and Adaptability 6.Increase Availability of Operating Funds 7.Modify Internal DoD Reprogramming Requirements 8.Update Values for Below Threshold Reprogrammings 9.Mitigate Problems Caused by

108、Continuing Resolutions 10.Review and Consolidate Budget Line Items 11.Address Challenges with Colors of Money 12.Review and Update PPBE-Related Guidance Documents 13.Improve Awareness of Technology Resourcing Authorities 14.Establish Special Transfer Authority for Programs Around Milestone Decisions

109、 15.Rebaseline the OSD Obligation and Expenditure Benchmarks 16.Encourage Use of the Defense Modernization Account Strengthen Relationships Between DoD and Congress 17.Encourage Improved In-Person Communications 18.Restructure the Justification Books 19.Establish Classified and Unclassified Communic

110、ation Enclaves Modernize Business Systems and Data Analytics 20.Create a Common Analytics Platform 21.Strengthen Governance for DoD Business Systems 22.Accelerate Progress Toward Auditable Financial Statements 23.Continue Rationalization of the OSD Resourcing Systems 24.Modernize the Tracking of Con

111、gressionally Directed Actions Strengthen the Capability of the Resourcing Workforce 25.Continue the Focus on Recruiting and Retention 26.Streamline Processes and Improve Analytic Capabilities 27.Improve Training for Personnel Involved in Defense Resourcing 28.Establish an Implementation Team for Com

112、mission Recommendations Section I Executive Summary COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 11 Conclusion The Commission concludes that the recommendations in this Final Report will enable the Department to more effectively meet national defense needs,while preserving the insight required for congressional oversi

113、ght.Today,the U.S.,its allies,and partners face multiple challenges and threats amid the most complex geopolitical environment since World War Two.The DoD must have an agile and responsive resourcing architecture and system,one that promotes innovation,agility,and speed,best harnesses defense resour

114、ces,and supports timely and accurate senior leader decisions.Time is short,the need for change is increasingly urgent.The Commission calls upon Congress and the Department to adopt these recommendations that will better enable the DoD to continue to preserve U.S.national security in light of the eve

115、r-changing landscape.Section II Background and Research Approach COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 12 Section II Background and Research Approach Background Section 1004 of the NDAA for FY 2022 established an independent“Commission on Planning,Programming,Budgeting,and Execution Reform.”Specifically,this Co

116、mmission is composed of“14 civilian individuals not employed by the Federal Government”with proven experience and expertise“in one or more of the following:(A)matters relating to the planning,programming,budgeting,and execution of the Department of Defense;(B)innovative budgeting and resource alloca

117、tion methods of the private sector;(C)iterative design and acquisition process;(D)budget or program execution data analysis.”5 In accordance with this language,the Commissions mandate included the following tasks:Conduct a comprehensive assessment of the efficacy and efficiency of all phases and asp

118、ects of the PPBE process with a focus on defense modernization;Review the DoD financial management systems,including an assessment of the Office of the Secretary of Defense(OSD)budget and programming workforces;Compare the DoD PPBE process with similar processes of private industry,other federal age

119、ncies,and other countries;Review the budgeting methodologies and strategies of strategic competitors to understand if and how such competitors can address current and future threats more or less successfully than the United States;and Develop and propose recommendations to improve the effectiveness

120、of the PPBE process.6 As amended by section 1057 of the NDAA for FY 2023,the Commission was tasked to present the results of its investigation in two reports:an Interim Report to be delivered in August 2023 and a Final Report due in March 2024.A Status Update was released on March 2,2023 and the Int

121、erim Report was released on August 15,2023.This document constitutes the required Final Report that presents all research and recommendations from the Commission including those discussed in the Interim Report.Research Approach Since its establishment,the Commission had approximately 40 formal in-pe

122、rson Commission meetings,each of which included a majority of Commissioners along with many of the Commissions professional staff.The Commission has depended heavily on the experience and expertise of its Commissioners and professional staff,many of whom have extensive experience with PPBE in Congre

123、ss,in DoD,or both.The Commission conducted interviews that included over 1,100 personnel from the multiple functional communities that support all the phases of PPBE,which involved multiple individual and group interviews along with open mic sessions.These interviews included 19 engagements with pro

124、fessional staff of the congressional defense committees.The Commissions interviewees included current and former senior congressional professional staff,current and former senior officials from across the DoD,5 P.L.117-81.6 Ibid.Section II Background and Research Approach COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 1

125、3 current DoD and industry practitioners from all phases of the PPBE process,and industry executives(see Section XI for details).The Commission also relied on extensive research conducted by various groups.The Commissions staff conducted extensive research on topics related to the PPBE process to fu

126、rther inform the Commissions Interim and Final Reports.This comprehensive research included interviews with industry on their processes;a review of the DoD Financial Management Regulation(FMR)and other PPBE related guidance;a case study on Facilities Sustainment,Restoration,and Modernization(FSRM)fu

127、nding;an in-depth analysis of reprogramming actions;an analysis of innovation funds;an analysis of program new starts;an analysis of expiring,expired,and cancelled funds;an analysis of the DoD budget structure;an assessment of the OSD Comptroller and CAPE workforces;an assessment of the development,

128、review,format,and utilization of formal and informal justification materials;an assessment of the Service programming and Military Department financial management workforces;analysis of performance metrics;and an analysis of defense business systems including financial management systems.Understandi

129、ng the importance of interacting with the entirety of the PPBE ecosystem,the Commission staff actively engaged the public through social media platforms to further conversations regarding PPBE reform and kept the public apprised of the Commissions progress.Commissioners and Commission staff also eng

130、aged with other stakeholders and practitioners by speaking at a number of professional forums and events,discussing the Commissions work and research areas.The Commission also engaged with several media outlets who have contributed to furthering this dialogue with DoD and congressional stakeholders.

131、As a result of these engagements and conversations,the Commission gained an extensive understanding of the current PPBE process and suggested areas in need of reform.At the Commissions request,research was also conducted by Federally Funded Research and Development Center(FFRDC)experts from the Inst

132、itute for Defense Analyses(IDA),the RAND Corporation,and the MITRE Corporation.The Commission also leveraged academia through the National Security Innovation Network(NSIN)and DoDs Acquisition Innovation Research Center(AIRC)to assist in research efforts.The Commission established an independent Fin

133、ancial Management(FM)Systems Tiger Team made up of Commission staff and outside experts to complete a review of the DoDs financial management systems as they relate to internal controls,auditability,and support to the DoD mission;this analysis is included in Section X of this report.The Service Desi

134、gn Collective also provided the Commission with research conducted under a grant from the Federation of American Scientists.A high-level list of research activities conducted by these organizations is provided on the following pages.Section II Background and Research Approach COMMISSION ON PPBE REFO

135、RM 14 FFRDC RESEARCH The RAND Corporation:Comparison to PPBE Processes in Other Countries and Federal Agencies:Allied and Partner Countries:Australia,Canada,the United Kingdom,France,Germany,Sweden,Japan,and Singapore Strategic Competitors:China and Russia Other Federal Agencies:Department of Homela

136、nd Security(DHS),Department of Health and Human Services(HHS),National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA),the Office of the Director of National Intelligence(ODNI),Department of Veterans Affairs(VA),and Department of Energys(DOE)National Nuclear Security Administration(NNSA)IDA:Examination o

137、f PPBE Documents,Timelines Involved for Each Phase,and the Ability to Make Changes:Development of Key PPBE Documents:the DPG,the Program Objective Memorandum(POM),the Future Years Defense Program(FYDP),the Budget Estimate Submission(BES),and the Presidents Budget(PB)Analysis of Timelines Associated

138、with Each Phase and the FYDP Examination of Reprogramming Actions The MITRE Corporation:General Use of Metrics and Performance Measures Correlated Change in Budget Structure versus Strategy Structural Incentives on Spending Behavior ACADEMIC RESEARCH NSIN:The College of William and Mary and the Univ

139、ersity of Virginia:Innovation and the Small Business Innovation Research Program Aligning Budgets to Strategy AIRC:George Mason University and Stevens Institute of Technology:Case Studies of Technology Transition PPBE Process Portfolio Budgeting,Justification Books,Selected Acquisition Reports,and I

140、ntegrated PPBE/Requirements/Acquisition Reform Options for Restructuring the DoDs PB Alternative Obligation and Expenditure Target Curves Section II Background and Research Approach COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 15 OTHER OUTSIDE RESEARCH FM Systems Tiger Team:Doug Brook former Acting USD(C)/Chief Financ

141、ial Officer,Visiting Professor Duke University;Phil Candreva Senior Lecturer Naval Post Graduate School;Mark Easton former Deputy Chief Financial Officer(DCFO),Professor Defense Acquisition University;David Fisher former Director Business Transformation Agency;Jared Terry Commission Staff Lead “Revi

142、ew of the financial management systems of the DoD,including policies,procedures,past and planned investments,and recommendations related to replacing,modifying,and improving such systems to ensure that such systems and related processes of the Department result in effective internal controls;the abi

143、lity to achieve auditable financial statements;and the ability to meet other financial management and operational needs”7 Service Design Collective:Eddie Hartwig,Kat Jurick,Shelly Smith,and Noah Firth Improving communication,information sharing,and data standards between Congress and the DoD through

144、 the development of technical enclaves In addition,the Commission was provided with papers related to PPBE reform from several universities including:The Naval Postgraduate School,Duke University Sanford School of Public Policy,the Defense Resources Management Institute,and the George Mason Universi

145、ty Center for Government Contracting.7 Ibid.Section III PPBE and the Need for Change COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 16 Section III PPBE and the Need for Change The Current PPBE Process The Planning,Programming,and Budgeting System(PPBS)was originally established in early 1961 to give the Secretary of Def

146、ense a way to make strategic and cost-effective decisions on force structure and major acquisition programs,while also setting the funding and personnel requirements each of these would entail.This new centralized system became feasible in part because of the merging of the separate Services into a

147、united DoD in 1947.It also benefited from research on defense decision-making in the 1950s.The new PPBE process made major changes in defense budgeting practices including addressing budget issues in broad program areas such as strategic forces,bringing analytic information to bear on decisions,and

148、considering budgets over multiple years.The system got a revised namethe PPBE processin 2003 to reflect increased emphasis on the importance of execution and evaluation as a feedback loop into the process.Changes to the PPBS began not long after its introduction,some of which shaped the system this

149、Commission was tasked to assess.In the 1970s,for example,Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird decided that the system Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara had introduced in 1961 over-centralized control in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and that more autonomy needed to be restored to the Servic

150、es in building and designing forces.This led to more significant involvement by the Services,which shapes many of todays PPBE processes.Congress also tightened controls on DoD budgeting in ways that have shaped PPBE.For example,even before PPBE,informal agreements between Congress and DoD permitted

151、the Department to move funds among programs during the execution phase of PPBE through reprogramming actions,but Congress has gradually restricted those movements over the years.Nevertheless,the reprogramming of funds during the year of execution still provides a key source of budgetary flexibility

152、for DoD and is an important issue the Commission researched and discussed extensively.Starting in 1977,Congress decided to change the end of the federal fiscal year from June 30th to September 30th,an important shift designed to give Congress more time to authorize programs and enact appropriations.

153、Unfortunately,this change has not solved the problem of late budget enactments which is another focus area the Commission examined and debated.These and other changes,applied to the basic provisions of the PPBS put in place in 1961,have created the current PPBE processes the Commission evaluated in

154、its Interim Report and this Final Report.The current PPBE process consists of four phases,which are outlined in further detail below.Planning Phase:This phase involves the identification of necessary updates to DoD military strategy,policy,and force manning,training,and equipping,given the evolving

155、strategic environment.During this phase,key DoD missions and goals are translated into prioritized strategic objectives and reviews of existing and programmed capabilities,force structure,and global posture are conducted to assess the sufficiency of the joint force to achieve the strategy and identi

156、fy current and future warfighting requirement priorities.This is a joint effort by both civilian and uniformed officials of the DoD(Under Secretary of Defense(USD)for Policy(USD(P),Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff(CJCS),military Services,and Combatant Commands(COCOM)and is guided by three docum

157、ents:the NSS as determined by the President of the Section III PPBE and the Need for Change COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 17 United States;the NDS issued by the Secretary of Defense;and the NMS issued by the CJCS.This phase of the process informs preparation of the DPG.The USD(P)oversees preparation of

158、the DPG,which goes to all DoD Components and guides development of their program and budget recommendations.Programming Phase:This phase is intended to focus decision-making on analytically based trade-offs about future end states.8 It includes an analysis and decision process that produces a detail

159、ed multi-year force and financial plan(the FYDP)that is the bridge to that future end state.This can involve identifying,prioritizing,and resourcing the DoDs manpower(including military end-strength and civilian full-time equivalent work years),acquisition and sustainment programs,facilities,and for

160、ces(identified as either items of equipment or combat units)that are required to deliver the future capabilities and forces,all within a fixed topline.This phase begins with the issuance of the DPG and Fiscal Guidance(FG)from the Deputy Secretary of Defense to each of the Military Departments and to

161、 the Principal Staff Assistants for their organizations and DoD Components under their purview.The Director,CAPE oversees this process at the OSD level on behalf of the Deputy Secretary of Defense.The DoD Components spend at least a year developing their POM and then formally submit that POM to OSD.

162、The POM describes how they want to allocate funding,how they comply with the requirements set forth in the DPG and specific Service and Component program guidance,and how they meet the priorities and objectives outlined in the various strategy documents released in the planning phase.The submission

163、and presentations of the POM to CAPE and OSD leadership begins the Program and Budget Review(PBR)during which CAPE evaluates the POM and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense(Comptroller)(OUSD(C)evaluates the Budget Estimate Submission(BES)in coordination with the OSD Secretariats,military Se

164、rvices,Joint Staff,COCOMs,and Defense Agencies.After analyzing the POM submissions,the Director,CAPE issues draft Program Decision Memorandums(PDM)(they have also been called Resource Management Decisions(RMD)that direct changes to the POM submissions,document approved manpower changes,and direct ap

165、propriate program reports and studies.This phase concludes with Deputy Secretary of Defense signature of the final approved PDMs that are then incorporated into the Presidents Budget(PB).Throughout the programming process,adjustments to programs,projects,funding type,and amounts can be made until th

166、e OUSD(C)budget database is locked.Of course,an increase in funds in one part of the program will have to be offset elsewhere as the Departments topline cannot exceed the level established in FG by the Deputy Secretary of Defense.Budgeting Phase:This phase includes activities executed in both the ex

167、ecutive branch and the legislative branch,with important roles played by DoD,the White House,and Congress.Within DoD,the purpose of this phase,overseen by the USD(C),is to develop and then prepare documentation to describe a budget that reflects the Presidents and the Secretary of Defenses prioritie

168、s and is balanced at the topline provided by the Presidents Office of Management and Budget(OMB).Budgeting is done in coordination with the CAPE-led Program Review and requires significant involvement from Service,DoD Component,and OUSD(C)analysts.Using the Service and other DoD Component BESs as it

169、s basis,along with changes made during the POM process,OUSD(C)reviews and appropriately adjusts the BES inputs to ensure the correct phasing and pricing of programs and compliance with laws and regulations and assesses the executability of programs within the appropriation lifecycle(obligations and

170、expenditures).In addition,OUSD(C)reviews and adjudicates numerous funding requests not covered in the Program Review,typically single-Service or command requests,and late breaking or conflict-related 8 Enthoven and Smith 2005.Section III PPBE and the Need for Change COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 18 issu

171、es.The budgeting phase also features preparation of the complex and voluminous documentation(justification books or J-books)that accompanies the budget when it is formally submitted to Congress.While PDMs should be completed during the programming phase,they have routinely been issued during the bud

172、geting phase due to concurrent reviews and delayed decisions.The budgeting phase includes the OUSD(C)review and issuance of draft Program Budget Decisions(PBD)(also previously called RMDs)that direct changes and shape the final DoD portion of the PB.During this time,the OMB participates in the OSD-l

173、evel review of the DoD budget and provides further guidance and direction known as Passback to the Department on programmatic and budget issues,Administration priorities,economic assumptions,and final topline guidance.These changes often happen very late in the process due to real world events or is

174、sues that arise during execution.As in the programming phase,changes can be made up until the last minute in the budgeting phase,but typically require OSD and sometimes OMB leadership support to ensure that previous decisions are not inadvertently overturned in the final days and hours before the PB

175、 submission to Congress.The Commission recognizes and supports DoDs on-going special relationship with the OMB that enables the OMB to actively participate in the concurrent review of the DoD budget during the PBR process and allows the Department to incorporate that feedback as senior leaders are m

176、aking decisions.The increased review and budget build time for the DoD is required to integrate the most complex of all federal budgets into the Executive Branchs overall budget request.It also allows the OMB to factor in critical information to inform its Passback while the process is ongoing.Incor

177、porating the OMB into the DoD process,and getting both to work together,is essential for this partnership to continue so that the Department can meet OMB timelines for delivering the annual budget to Congress as directed by law.The Commission,therefore,encourages this cooperative relationship to con

178、tinue especially because it provides the OMB with significant insight into the DoD budget,and it provides the DoD the flexibility to ensure the Defense section of the Presidents Budget is as current as possible.Anything that interferes with this process would run counter to the Commissions objective

179、s of developing a more responsive and agile resourcing process.The DoD budget,along with other federal agency budgets,are statutorily due to Congress the first Monday in February for the next fiscal year,which begins on October 1st of that same calendar year.This phase is completed inside the Depart

180、ment when it submits the DoD budget to OMB for inclusion in the PB to Congress,as well as when the Department delivers the detailed information that supports that budget to the congressional committees.Review of the defense budget continues with congressional hearings involving Department civilian a

181、nd military leadership;detailed rollout briefings from the Services,Combatant Commands,and other DoD Components to professional staff members on the congressional defense,intelligence,and military construction committees;submission of numerous unfunded priority lists(UPL)from DoD Components;and cong

182、ressional committee markups of the completed PB as reflected in NDAAs and DoD Appropriations Acts.This phase also includes significant informal interaction between Congress and DoD Components,as well as defense industry,academia,and other parties interested in influencing the final appropriations bi

183、ll.Execution Phase:The DoD has always executed its own budgets,but in May 2003,execution formally became the fourth phase of the PPBS,leading to a change of the name to the PPBE process.This phase was added to highlight the importance of managing execution and performance by providing a feedback loo

184、p to inform future program and budget decisions.The phase encompasses everything from the initial Section III PPBE and the Need for Change COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 19 apportionment of funds from the OMB(even while under a Continuing Resolution(CR)and issuance of Treasury Warrants;reconciling enacte

185、d changes(reductions and adds)against the request;realigning and reprogramming of funds to meet emergent needs;tracking,reporting,and balancing of the accounting systems for those resources;and a review of overall performance as communicated in the Annual Performance Report(required by the 1993 Gove

186、rnment Performance and Results Act(GPRA)and GPRA Modernization Act of 2010).It is important to note that the execution phase is always in process for many different years at the same time.Contracting for services and products is an important part of budget execution,which is provided by the Defense

187、Acquisition System,though it is not formally part of the PPBE process.Congressional staff,Members,and oversight organizations,such as the Government Accountability Office(GAO)and the DoD Inspector General,are also active during the execution phase of previously passed appropriations,performing their

188、 mandated oversight duties for multiple fiscal years of appropriated funds.The execution phase for a particular year begins on October 1st with the start of the fiscal year,even if that year starts under a CR.It proceeds in full force once funds have been appropriated and concludes on September 30th

189、 when that fiscal year closes.However,because programs have one to five years to obligate funds depending on the appropriation and another five years to make final payments,at any point in time DoD is executing funds from at least 10 different fiscal years.Analysis of execution includes determining

190、how well current appropriations are being spent compared to programmatic and financial plans.This ensures alignment to DoDs stated requirements and determines whether resources need to be realigned or reprogrammed to meet emerging or unplanned year of execution needs.The Services and DoD Components

191、conduct monthly execution reviews at the program and Command level and more formal quarterly reviews with higher headquarters.These reviews and assessments feed into the formal mid-year review with the OUSD(C),which informs the realignment requests contained in the Omnibus reprogramming submission w

192、hich is due annually by the end of June.They provide useful analysis and information to inform future budget decisions.Close monitoring of execution and reprogramming actions continue through the remainder of the fiscal year,especially for annual appropriations.This monitoring ensures that the 80/20

193、 Appropriations Act General Provision for O&M funding(statutory requirement for meeting the 80 percent obligation rate by the end of July every year)is sufficiently met and that funds will be appropriately executed for the highest priorities before the fiscal year closes.Strengths,Criticism,and the

194、Need for Change The Commission found that the PPBE system has many virtues.It serves a critical role in identifying key budget issues and brings analytic information to bear on budgetary decisions.The PPBE process has ensured that a wide variety of stakeholder voices are heard which helps build prop

195、osals that can be defended before Congress and enables senior leaders to drive change.It has also ensured that multi-year budgetary impacts are considered to counterbalance natural tendencies toward short-term views.The Commissions reforms preserve these advantages and other aspects of the current P

196、PBE process.These aspects of the PPBE process should be preserved in any reform effort.At the same time almost everyone the Commission spoke with,even those who praised aspects of the current PPBE process,agrees that changes are needed.There is also an extensive body of research that underscores the

197、 need Section III PPBE and the Need for Change COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 20 for improvements in PPBE,as well as a very active conversation in social media and panel discussions at industry and other association events.Strengths.The strengths of the current PPBE process the Commission worked to prese

198、rve include maintaining a repeatable process that enables senior leadership to guide the course of the Department,and maintaining the timeline set by the OMB for the PB request while still ensuring that all stakeholders are heard within the process,allowing time for that discussion of priorities and

199、 strategy inside the Department.While this can slow down decisions due to the time it takes to allow for this level of participation,this also preserves the opportunity for all voices to be heard on an issue,allowing senior leaders time to evaluate multiple courses of action to support the strategy,

200、and make the most-informed decisions possible,while understanding the impacts of those decisions on capabilities over multiple fiscal years.The current PPBE process also allows for excursions and alternatives to be developed and debated to meet budget requirements for the operational capabilities ne

201、eded to meet the DoD missions(e.g.,strategic forces,tactical air,etc.).It also brings considerable analysis and information into the discussions on major budget alternatives,assessing them in terms of both costs and benefits in the current and future years.The Commission generally heard from stakeho

202、lders that the PPBE process generates the budget justification materials(formal and informal)that provide Congress and the professional staff on the congressional defense,intelligence,and military construction committees with the necessary information to meet their oversight responsibilities.There i

203、s also a considerable volume of information that is made publicly available,such as all the unclassified justification materials,supporting exhibits,appropriation-level data,rollout briefings,and overview books that are available for viewing and can be downloaded from the OSD Comptroller and Service

204、 websites.This is a unique level of transparency that is not always available in other partner and allied nations,and the DoD goes through a tremendous process to ensure the information that can be provided,is posted publicly.The Commission believes this transparency is critical to providing taxpaye

205、rs with insight on the stewardship of public funds and allowing the defense industry to understand where its government customer spending priorities are so that it can plan and execute resources appropriately.Criticism.Although the PPBE process has served DoD well for many years,the Commission heard

206、 significant criticisms of the current PPBE process and calls for change that will be discussed in more detail throughout this Final Report.One of the most consistent concerns the Commission heard is that the lack of agility in the current PPBE process limits the Departments ability to effectively r

207、espond to evolving threats,unanticipated events,and emerging technological opportunities in a timely manner.This message has been reiterated in statements from current and former congressional Members and staff,from senior DoD officials,from program,budget,and acquisition officials at all levels,and

208、 from both traditional and non-traditional DoD industry partners.For example,a current DoD leader told the Commission that the amount of time it takes to distribute funding for a national security issue because of the PPBE process,gives an innovation advantage to U.S.adversaries.Another official rep

209、orted that the time-consuming nature of the PPBE Section III PPBE and the Need for Change COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 21 process makes it difficult to influence a modification or an upgrade to an existing design,and to pivot toward new threats.This is further exacerbated by the late enacted budgets an

210、d CRs,which include a provision prohibiting new start activities,slowing efforts to execute innovative solutions in both new and current programs.The Commission notes that the application of new start definitions is not consistently applied within the DoD as some military Services and DoD Components

211、 apply the strictest of interpretations whereas others do not,which affects their execution especially during a CR.The Commission encourages the OUSD(C)to provide clear and consistent guidance to the financial management community or other offices on the specific rules for applying new start definit

212、ions.Not knowing what the final appropriations will be,including the congressional adds and marks,with only a single year to execute operating funds,hinders DoD execution,typically for about a quarter of that fiscal year,or longer,depending on the length of the CR(s).This can lead to suboptimal obli

213、gations on lower-priority programs and less efficient budget execution while waiting for those final decisions.There are also concerns that the budgets presented to Congress and what is appropriated cannot be tied easily to the overall defense strategy since the budgets are presented to Congress in

214、terms of appropriation title and agency(e.g.,Aircraft Procurement,Air Force)rather than by capability areas.There are also antiquated information technology(IT)systems that do track resourcing proposals and make it difficult to quickly access decision quality data.In recent years,these difficulties

215、have been exacerbated by late delivery of the Presidents Budget(PB)Requests to Congress.The Commissions Vision for an Improved PPBE Process To address these challenges,the Commission established a vision for a new resourcing process,drawing from the original set of six principles that guided creatio

216、n of the original PPBS,9 and modifying and expanding them to meet todays changing strategic environment.The new process should:1.Closely align budgets to strategy for the Joint Force“based on explicit criteria of national interest,”10 with the ultimate goal of faster delivery of capability to the wa

217、rfighter.2.Base resource decisions on“choices among explicit,balanced,and feasible alternatives.”11 3.Formulate and assess budget alternatives and consequences over multiple years before making major decisions,and use analysis to compare costs and benefits.4.Enable accountable leaders in acquisition

218、,operational,and support organizations to foster innovation and agility by improving the ability to react to changing threats and requirements,while ensuring the best technology and capabilities are fielded for the warfighter.5.Use common modern business systems with shared and accessible data to su

219、pport decision-making,reduce duplicative efforts,and better communicate information inside the DoD and to Congress.6.Provide a dedicated,appropriately skilled and resourced staff to support the Secretary of Defense and other senior DoD leaders.9 Enthoven and Smith 2005.10 Ibid.11 Ibid.Section III PP

220、BE and the Need for Change COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 22 7.Appropriately signal near and long-term technological and infrastructure priorities to the industrial base,enabling both non-traditional and traditional vendors to supply capabilities to the DoD.8.Meet budget timelines while ensuring that sta

221、keholders have a voice in the process.9.Provide Congress,the Office of Management and Budget(OMB),and the American people appropriate visibility into and understanding of key defense resource decisions.Based on these principles,and relying on its interviews and research,the Commission proposes the s

222、ystematic transformation and reform of the current PPBE process.First,the Commission recommends the establishment of a new Defense Resourcing System(DRS)that consists of three elements:Strategy,Resource Allocation,and Execution.Second,the Commission recommends a series of critically important change

223、s to the period of availability of funds,budget structure,reprogramming processes,and data sharing with Congress.Through implementation of recommendations provided in this Final Report,the Commission proposes a system that ensures closer alignment of strategy and resources,modernizes resource alloca

224、tion for 21st century strategic and technological threats and opportunities,leverages business system and data analytics technology and processes to provide timely,authoritative data,enhances transparency with Congress and other stakeholders,and enables the DoD workforce that supports the new DRS or

225、 current PPBE process.The Commission believes that this new approach holds great promise to link capabilities to resources in a clear,consistent manner throughout the defense resourcing process,enabling strategy-and resource-informed decision-making across capabilities and missions,and empowering th

226、e Department to respond effectively to rapidly developing challenges and opportunities.The Commissions approach also reflects the 21st century realities of continuous research,development,production,modernization,and sustainment and empowers the Department to create an integrated,iterative approach.

227、The new DRS reflects these values as well,prioritizing metrics and feedback loops to drive data-informed decisions,with appropriately accessible analysis across the Department that provides diverse perspectives while adhering to common principles and a commitment to informed engagement and dialogue.

228、The Services and DoD Components maintain their unique characteristics and cultures in this construct.Data and information sharing,cooperation,and coordination are encouraged to maximize resources,talent,and experience across the Department.A well-trained,resourced,and enabled workforce is the backbo

229、ne of any resourcing system and key to a successful PB submission.Modern IT tools and systems reduce time-consuming manual labor and risks of knowledge loss,better leveraging the skills and talents of an engaged workforce focused on analysis and action rather than researching and reconciling data.Th

230、e Commissions recommendations are designed to achieve this vision.Successful implementation requires leadership,investment,time,and trust.Longstanding stakeholders will have to adjust to new systems and processes and course corrections and adjustments will,at times,need to occur.Resistance to these

231、changes will have to be navigated and accommodations reached.The status quo produces an executable budget,and the DoD and congressional workforces accomplish their missions.But the status quo is insufficient to the demands and realities of todays strategic and technological environment.Final Report

232、Organization During the course of the Commissions research and deliberations,the Commission took care to ensure that any recommendation would preserve the current PPBE process strengths.The recommendations Section III PPBE and the Need for Change COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 23 in this Final Report bui

233、ld on that foundation to create an even stronger link between the strategies of and direction to the Department and the allocation of limited resources,informed by the plethora of analytic products and data.The following sections of the Final Report discuss the Commissions findings and recommendatio

234、ns to strengthen the PPBE process to speed the delivery of capabilities to the warfighter.To shape the Commissions focus on critical areas for reform,the Commission organized its research and identified recommendations designed to:Improve the Alignment of Budgets to Strategy;Foster Innovation and Ad

235、aptability;Strengthen Relationships Between DoD and Congress;Modernize Business Systems and Data Analytics;and Strengthen the Capability of the Resourcing Workforce The Commission offers several recommendations across these five goals to improve the process,such as a new budget structure,consolidati

236、ng budget line items(BLI),addressing the availability of operating funds,increasing reprogramming thresholds,increasing access and transparency to budget documents and data,and improving training.These recommendations address critical areas for reform related to increasing innovation adoption and th

237、e ability for the Department to adjust and respond to the threat environment with speed.Several of the proposed recommendations can be implemented in relatively short time periods either entirely through DoD internal reforms or by communication and coordination with Congress.However,the Commission e

238、ncourages Congress and the Department to consider the proposed recommendations in a holistic manner to maximize improvements to the overall process.A phased approach will be required for some recommendations,for example the transformational recommendation regarding budget structure.In the interim,th

239、e recommendations related to BLI and budget activity(BA)consolidation and the uses of colors of money can be implemented to adjust within the current budget structure and enable agility.Individually,the proposed changes addressed in this Final Report address pain points throughout the PPBE process;m

240、any can be implemented rapidly inside the Department.Collectively,the recommendations offer a path to a Defense Resourcing System that comprehensively addresses current challenges,provides Congress with the necessary oversight information and strategic insight,and provides the Department with the au

241、thorities and tools to respond to emerging threats and opportunities.Section IV Improve the Alignment of Budgets to Strategy COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 24 Section IV Improve the Alignment of Budgets to Strategy Background A clear and direct linkage of the budget to strategy was one of the primary obj

242、ectives for originally establishing the PPBS.12 In January 1961,Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara introduced a new system for budgeting in the DoD based upon a process that he introduced at the Ford Motor Company.The PPBS was built on several guiding principles:resource decisions were based on ex

243、plicit criteria based on national interests;had to reflect choices among explicit and feasible alternatives where alternatives were evaluated based upon an assessment of the requirements and associated costs considered over a multiyear period;and was supported by a robust and independent analytic st

244、aff to carry out this vision and the required analyses.13 The PPBS was a modern and successful system that became a model for other federal agencies.Over the intervening decades,the PPBS underwent several changes.Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird changed the process significantly in the 1970s with h

245、is decentralized management of the PPBS.Under his version of PPBS,the Services received guidance on Secretarial priorities along with limits on their total funding.The Services would then submit their own budget proposals that were evaluated by the Secretary and,usually with changes,became the basis

246、 for the DoDs portion of the Presidents Budget.This change was fundamental and laid the foundation for much of what exists today.In 2003,then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made more modest alterations to the system to place more emphasis on the execution phase,when funds are actually spent to

247、 meet defense needs,and PPBS became the Planning,Programming,Budgeting,and Execution(PPBE)process.The Commission took this history into account,as well as its extensive research and interviews,in order to provide a comprehensive assessment of the current PPBE process and recommend changes.This secti

248、on of the Final Report discusses the Commissions proposed transformation of the current PPBE process into a new resourcing system for the DoD.What the Commission Learned and Heard The need to transform the PPBE process to improve the alignment of budgets to strategy is driven by a number of challeng

249、es identified by the Commission to include:Translating Strategy to Resource Guidance;Analytic Support;Focus and Administration of Programming and Budgeting;and Budget Structure 12 History and Library Directorate 2022,9.13 Enthoven and Smith 2005.Section IV Improve the Alignment of Budgets to Strateg

250、y COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 25 Translating Strategy to Resource Guidance Overview.Resource allocation in the DoD begins with the development of a national level strategy.After assessment of threats,risks,and other factors,strategy development culminates with important enduring or multi-year strategi

251、es,including the NSS,NDS,and NMS.These enduring strategies are then translated into annual guidance,such as the DPG,FG,and Military Department or DoD Component planning guidance as discussed in Section III of this report.Of these documents,the NSS,14 NDS,15 NMS,16 and DPG17 are required by law.Each

252、document has a regular cadence and expected publication date provided in law;however,in practice,the Department often does not adhere to those schedules(Figure 3).Figure 3 Statutory Strategic Guidance Documents As required by Title 10,U.S.Code(U.S.C.),the DPG is an annually prepared document“establi

253、shing goals,priorities,including priorities relating to the current or projected risks to military installation resilience,and objectives,including fiscal constraints,to direct the preparation and review of the program and budget recommendations of all elements of”the DoD.18 The DPG document should

254、include:“Priority military missions,”“including assumed force planning scenarios and constructs;”“Force size and shape,force posture,defense capabilities,force readiness,infrastructure,organization,personnel,technological innovation,”and other“defense program elements”that support the NDS;Projected

255、resource levels;and 14 50 U.S.C.3043.15 10 U.S.C.113.In years when an NDS is not required,the Secretary of Defense is required to provide an assessment of NDS implementation and if NDS revision is required.The USD(P)also has responsibilities for the NDS,provided in 10 U.S.C.134 16 10 U.S.C.153.The C

256、JCS is required to decide on the need to prepare a new NMS or update an existing NMS each even-numbered year.17 Ibid.The USD(P)also has responsibilities for the DPG,provided in 10 U.S.C.134.18 10 U.S.C.113.Section IV Improve the Alignment of Budgets to Strategy COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 26 Discussio

257、n of changes in the NDS and assumptions underlying the NDS.19 While the DoD has generally been supportive of the Commissions work,DoD leadership declined to provide the Commission with current or historical DPG documents citing the Commissions status as a legislative entity.Lack of access to actual

258、DPG documents limited the Commissions ability to assess how recent DPGs have informed budgetary decisions;however,the Commission was able to draw on extensive Commissioner and staff experience with past DPGs.It also used interviews to examine current practices and processes with regard to strategic

259、guidance documents and how effective they are in shaping the DoDs budget submission.During interviews with current military programmers and planners,former senior Department officials,COCOMs,and joint officials,the Commission was frequently told that Department-level strategic planning guidance is o

260、ften formally issued well after the Services and DoD Components start their programming phase and that strategic guidance documents also sometimes lack sufficient specificity and prioritization,particularly for areas of risk and divestiture,which can help to shape the direction of budgetary decision

261、-making.The lack of specificity and long timelines associated with final issuance of the DPG are in part attributable to a coordination process that often weakens guidance in response to critical comments from interested stakeholders.The Commission heard that due to schedule pressures,Service planne

262、rs provide guidance,based on prior year guidance or draft versions of the forthcoming DPG,to Service programmers who must start their work prior to receiving official OSD guidance to meet their deadlines.20 This can have a negative impact on ongoing programming efforts and decisions when there are s

263、ignificant changes to OSD guidance from fiscal year to fiscal year.It also reflects an ongoing tension between the demanding PPBE schedule and the timely release of strategic planning documents that are supposed to underpin the PPBE process.21 Challenges with Strategic Guidance.The multi-year NDS is

264、 not designed to be sufficiently specific enough to guide the programming phase of PPBE,which makes detailed choices among forces,weapons,and operations;that guidance is intended to be provided by the annual DPG.However,Commission research and interviews indicate that the DPG is often a lengthy pros

265、e,consensus-driven document that does not make hard choices,is overly broad,and lacks explicit linkages to prioritized goals,timeframes,risk assessments,and resource allocations.22 These deficiencies mean that the document is less useful in providing the top-down guidance needed during the programmi

266、ng phase of PPBE.The timing of the DPG also poses challenges.Figure 4 shows that,in seven of the ten years between 2014 and 2023,the DPG was formally issued after February,when it is due by statute.In a year with a normal budget cycle,the Service and DoD Component POMs,which outline their proposed b

267、udget plans,must be submitted in the summer.While the Services and DoD Components will know something about the guidance they should expect in the DPG because they have coordinated on drafts,the absence of a signed document by the February timeframe makes the DPG less useful or impactful.The Commiss

268、ion is pleased to note that the 2023 DPG was issued in February.19 Ibid.20 Commission interview with subject matter experts.21 Ibid.22 Bradsher et al.2023,2.Section IV Improve the Alignment of Budgets to Strategy COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 27 Figure 4 Publication Dates of Defense Planning Guidance FY

269、 2016 to FY 202523 The DPG is often late in part because there is also no forcing function for the USD(P),who is responsible for producing the DPG,24 to produce the document in a timely manner as there are no external deadlines that must be met.Department senior leaders are often reluctant to provid

270、e firm guidance about hard choices at an early stage in the resourcing process because,at that point,they lack the detailed insight and analysis about resource constraints and options and want to preserve decision space.This reluctance can understandably lead to late DPGs;however,the lack of a forma

271、l leadership-driven,and analytically informed process contributes to perceptions of the DPG as a late consensus-driven document that does not make hard choices.A more robust DPG and planning process will also address issues associated with how the Services and DoD Components navigate the programming

272、 process to maximize resources.The Commission identified three main ways that this could occur:First,the Services and DoD Components could prioritize funding for internal priorities and then request additional resources to address joint or other-directed issues.This approach could backfire if the Se

273、rvice or the DoD Component does not receive the resources as requested or is instructed to fund programs that support joint requirements from within their existing resources.For example,the Commission learned that Services will sometimes respond to Joint Urgent Operational Needs(JUON)and Joint Emerg

274、ent Operational Needs(JEON)with a“drive-by acquisition”solution,supporting the short-term acquisition and fielding of a capability but not 23 Dates provided to the Commission by the DoD.24 10 U.S.C.134 and DoDD 7045.14,5.Section IV Improve the Alignment of Budgets to Strategy COMMISSION ON PPBE REFO

275、RM 28 making longer-term programming adjustments to sustain those capabilities at the expense of Service priorities,particularly without additional resources.25 Second,the Services or DoD Components could prioritize funding for future requirements and programs and then request additional resources t

276、o address underfunded fact-of-life requirements.For example,between FY 2020FY 2022,the Department of the Navy did not fully fund the Departments utility bill in the programming and budgeting phases.Addressing this must-pay bill(between$101 and$182 million)in the year of execution required time-consu

277、ming administrative actions to manage cash flow,perform BTRs and above threshold reprogrammings(ATR),and delay projects until the requirement was included and then funded in the annual Omnibus reprogramming request.26 Direction in the DPG to fund recurring expenses or reprogramming uses could mitiga

278、te this issue.Third,the Services or DoD Components could adhere as closely as possible to OSD guidance while maintaining autonomy.Engaging earlier in the DPG development process instead of providing comments once it is released for coordination could provide a Service or DoD Component with the oppor

279、tunity to shape the DPG to support program and budget priorities and allow initial POM development to reflect the DPG once it is officially published.Coordination with stakeholders can also help Service efforts to successfully shepherd priority programs through the PPBE process.For example,the Air F

280、orces Collaborative Combat Aircraft programpart of the Next Generation Air Dominance effortworks closely with Navy,CAPE,the science and technology(S&T)community,and industry to address funding,interoperability,and industrial base issues.27 Other actors or events can affect this approach,such as a co

281、ngressional adjustments or changes to the security environment.While any process will likely result in efforts to maximize organizational benefits,more directive,timely DPG guidance would provide clearer expectations for what to include(or not)in POM submissions and the starting points for evaluatin

282、g the compliance and adequacy of submissions.A delayed or non-specific DPG means the Services and DoD Components have more time to develop programs independent of OSD guidance,which then leads to making program decisions late in the process(during the PBR),rather than at the beginning of the PPBE pr

283、ocess.The Services and DoD Components might still decide to deviate from guidance,but then be prepared to justify such choices during the PBR.Improvements in the Departments analytic approach and capabilities,such as the AWG,discussed later in this Section,allow for more transparent and standardized

284、 analysis to support decisions related to divergence from guidance.Other efforts to align strategic guidance and budgets include the U.S.Air Forces operational imperatives that seek to explicitly identify operational capabilities and functions for modernization required to respond to the strategic e

285、nvironment and then use those imperatives to create the POM.28 At the DoD-level,the AWG developed principles and standards to guide strategic analysis and provide a common analytic basis for strategic decisions.29 Difficulty Achieving Jointness.As DoD translates strategy into resource guidance,achie

286、ving jointness often poses a challenge.Even though the inclusion of joint perspectives in the defense resourcing 25 McGinn et al.forthcoming.26 FY 2020,2021,and 2022 Omnibus requests available on OUSD(C)“Budget Execution.”27 McGinn et al.forthcoming.28 For example,see discussion of operational imper

287、atives in Kendall et al.2023 and“Department of the Air Force Operational Imperatives”2022.29 DoD Memorandum 2022.Section IV Improve the Alignment of Budgets to Strategy COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 29 process was a motivation for initially establishing the PPBS,30 the Commission heard repeated concerns

288、 in interviews with former senior military program officials,and current and former OSD and COCOM officials about limited advocacy of the joint perspective making it difficult to incorporate jointness into the PPBE process.Todays PPBE process does offer several opportunities for joint perspectives t

289、o be expressed at various points during the PPBE process.These opportunities also cover a multitude of topics,in addition to joint concerns.While the Services and DoD Components largely produce their POM and BES proposals independently of each other,OSD-led PPBE processes enable deconfliction and pr

290、ioritization across the Joint Force by incorporating stakeholder views from across the DoD to develop a shared vision across the defense program.Data transparency,for example through CAPEs Defense Resources Data Warehouse site that makes all Component POM data widely available to DoD stakeholders an

291、d AWG Advana applications,provides information about joint resources and activities.The Office of the Director,CAPE also reviews POMs for gaps in joint priorities;the CAPE-led Program Review teams allow the Joint Staff(JS)to continuously participate in Program Review rather than inserting JS views t

292、hrough a Chairmans Program Assessment toward the end of the PBR.31 In addition to OSD,the Joint Staff and the COCOMs provide joint input on defense resource decisions,both to the Department and directly to Congress.Examples of Joint Staff and COCOM inputs in relation to PPBE are presented in Figure

293、5.32 30 History and Library Directorate,2022,6,9.31 The Chairmans Program Assessment(CPA)is described in CJCSI 8501.01B.In conversation with the Joint Staff,the Commission learned that an updated instruction is anticipated in early 2024 that removes the CPA as an input in the process.32 The Joint St

294、aff produces strategy and guidance,force employment,and force development products that contribute to the DPG.For additional information on the relationship of Joint Staff products to the PPBE process,see CJCSI 3100.01E.Section IV Improve the Alignment of Budgets to Strategy COMMISSION ON PPBE REFOR

295、M 30 FOCUSING ON JOINTNESS:A LONG-STANDING CHALLENGE The lack of focus on joint needs and decision-making is not new.In 2004,the Beyond Goldwater Nichols Phase 1 report identified this problem and related it to challenges with the fall programming and budgeting phases discussed later:“Although the O

296、SD(and the Services)attempt to provide front-end planning guidance,the Services build the first budgetary documents when they turn their POMs into OSD.As a result,there is weak advocacy of the joint perspective in this Service-centric process,as Service-prepared budgets,not surprisingly,reflect Serv

297、ice priorities.The process of allocating resources that are insufficient to meet the demand require Herculean efforts by all involved to avert the annual“train wreck”as the Pentagon scrambles to prepare the PB request to Congress.Few strategic decisions are made during the frenzied end game to make

298、the fiscal“bogey”that sets the“top line”for the defense budget.The entire process consumes so much time and resources that little attention is paid to policy implementation and program execution.”33 In another report in 2009,a reform approach was developed that recommended:“A.The Secretary sets the

299、strategy and uses it to drive the process-To implement that strategy,the planning and resources process should focus largely on mission needs Mission needs are derived from current operations,contingency plans,Theater Campaign Plans,and future scenarios derived primarily as logical extensions of cur

300、rent plans The SecDef should lead a thorough review of current plans and future scenarios to ensure their consistency with the strategy There should be a consistent set of current plans for future scenarios of interest The capabilities needed to address current operations and plans should be seen as

301、 important indicators of future needs-The Secretary should also set the agenda for other major aspects of the defense program,including mission support programs(e.g.,defense agencies,medical)B.Apply secretarial leverage early,rather than reactively at the end of the annual cycle-Revamp the planning

302、process to provide better analytical and decision-making mechanisms that allow the SecDef and DepSecDef to guide component program decisions(POMs)Conduct a broad planning assessment to set the Secretarys agenda for the annual cycle Address major issues selected by the Secretary for analysis and earl

303、y decisions to direct the component POMs Use Secretarys guidance to clearly convey themes and major priorities Create a capabilities-oriented analytical process to support the Secretarys strategy and priorities”34 The Commissions recommendations later in this section are consistent with the recommen

304、dations of this literature that also highlights the importance of analytic support to the translation of strategy to resource guidance.33 Murdoch et al.2004,37.34 Soule et al.2009.Section IV Improve the Alignment of Budgets to Strategy COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 31 Figure 5 Examples of Joint Staff an

305、d COCOM Inputs to the PPBE Process PPBE Phase Input Description Planning National Military Strategy By law,informs joint planning documents and force management products Joint Military Net Assessment Integrated assessment of ability to execute NMS today and through the FYDP Chairmans Program Recomme

306、ndation Direct input to the DPG;advice on programmatic priorities Programming COCOM Strategic Priorities Memos and Issue Papers COCOMs submit strategic priorities and issues for review and resource decisions in PBR Program Review Teams JS and COCOMs participate in CAPE-led Program Review teams,as we

307、ll as Resource Management Groups and Deputys Management Action Groups Budgeting COCOM Testimony COCOMs present missions and requirements to Congress during posture season hearings CJCS Testimony CJCS testifies on the budget request alongside the Secretary of Defense and USD(C)COCOM UPLs(legislative

308、requirement)By law,COCOMs present unfunded priorities to Congress(Title 10,U.S.C.222a)Execution Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell(JRAC)/JUON and JEON Process Responsible for overseeing fulfillment of JUONs/JEONs Despite these opportunities,the Commission heard that there are several challenges to present

309、ing and advocating for joint priorities within the PPBE process.One challenge is the broader tension between the COCOM fight tonight perspective and the Service responsibility for future fight requirements.For example,current and former COCOM officials stated that Services would sometimes ignore joi

310、nt requirements unless pressed to recognize them by the Joint Staff and related organizations,such as the JRAC.One DoD official observed that if the JRAC Director is not assertive and does not elevate JUONs or JEONs within the appropriate forums,then those requirements often fall between the cracks

311、and do not receive the appropriate funding,especially for sustainment of weapons systems.35 Another official noted that PPBE is focused on Service decisions and pushing those decisions up the chain throughout the process.36 The PPBE process can lead to long delays in meeting joint needs.The Commissi

312、on heard an example of a JUON identified in FY 2015 but not delivered until late FY 2023.This timeline was caused by the need to identify and develop a solution(around three years),time to prioritize the JUON against other 35 Commission interview with subject matter experts.36 Ibid.Section IV Improv

313、e the Alignment of Budgets to Strategy COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 32 operational requirements,adequately resource the solution in Service POMs,and communicate the need for the requirement(and its funding)in the Department and to Congress.37 Congress has taken action to increase the budget authority o

314、f the COCOMs to resource cross-cutting and joint requirements.38 In 1986,citing“the unending resistance in the Department of Defense to necessary organizational and other reforms of special operations forces”Congress provided the United States Special Operations Command(USSOCOM)Commander with“additi

315、onal authority to control or influence resource decisions and the execution of such decisions”and required consultation with USSOCOM on program and budget changes“to counter the low priority that the Military Departments have traditionally assigned to special operations forces funding and the tenden

316、cy of the Departments to shift such funding to meet their higher priorities.”39 Recently,the NDAA for FY 2022 provided the U.S.Cyber Command(USCYBERCOM)commander with enhanced budget control(EBC)for PPBE activities related to training,equipping,operating,and sustaining Cyber Mission Forces.40 The au

317、thority“gives USCYBERCOM the ability to directly allocate resources for greater efficiencies during the Departments programming phase and ensure they remain aligned with priorities through execution.Enhanced budget control will lead to better alignment between USCYBERCOM responsibilities and authori

318、ties for cyberspace operations.”41 In a statement to Congress,the USCYBERCOM director nominee stated that“Congress and the Department have set the conditions for U.S.Cyber Command to achieve this same success USSOCOMs success,leveraging expanded acquisition authorities and enhanced budget control to

319、 train and equip our cyberspace forces.”42 The USSOCOM and USCYBERCOM cases are examples of providing COCOMs with more direct budget authority and involvement to achieve their missions and ensure resources are available and prioritized from across the Joint Force,but they are unique to the Service-l

320、ike roles of these commands.The Department has also taken steps to speed resourcing for COCOM urgent or emergent operational needs and address this challenge,for example through the establishment of the JRAC.The JRAC coordinates efforts to fulfill urgent needs across the Joint Force,for example by v

321、alidating,designating,and monitoring the fulfillment of JUONs,JEONs,and other urgent requirements and by making recommendations on the use of the Rapid Acquisition Authority(RAA).43 However,the JRAC also faces funding and process challenges in successfully responding to urgent joint requirements.44

322、Although the JRAC has unique RAA(discussed further in Section X),the JRAC can have difficulty identifying funds available to support JUONs and JEONs,particularly with the end of separately appropriated Overseas Contingency Operations(OCO)funding.45 The RAA is an authority that does not 37 Ibid.38 Th

323、e two functional commands with enhanced authorities are USSOCOM and USCYBERCOM,which have special Service-like roles and authorities related to organizing,training,and equipping forces.39 H.Rpt.99-1001,534,536.40 S.Rpt.117-39,304.41 USCYBERCOM 2023.42 APQs 2023,28.43 DoDD 5000.71,5.44 For an in-dept

324、h case study on the JRAC,see McGinn et al.forthcoming.45 Ibid.Section IV Improve the Alignment of Budgets to Strategy COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 33 come with appropriated funds,so an offset must be found to fund the urgent need.Services can be reluctant to trade Service modernization priorities for J

325、RAC-identified solutions,leading to initial fielding without longer-term sustainment(so-called“drive-by acquisition”).46 The current PPBE process,with the emphasis on Service-driven POMs,highlights potential challenges with balancing Service priorities and joint requirements,that is further exacerba

326、ted when funding involves direct tradeoffs within constrained toplines.Despite these challenges,the JRAC does provide the Department with an accelerated resourcing authority and process to respond to emerging operational and strategic situations,as demonstrated by the increased use of the RAA in rec

327、ent years to support COVID-19 responses and requirements in the U.S.European Command and U.S.Central Command areas of responsibility(AOR)(see Figure 7).47 Figure 7 RAA Requests,FY 2020 FY 202348 Fiscal Year RAA Requests Purpose Recipient 2020 1 Acquire Solutions for Safely Airlifting COVID-19 Infect

328、ed Passengers Air Force 2021 0 2022 0 2023 4 Acquire Deep Persistent Warning for European AOR Air Force Field Long Endurance Airborne ISR Unmanned Aerial Platforms for USCENTCOM Air Force Acquire Improved Integrated Air and Missile Defense Sensor for USEUCOM Army Acquire Fixed Wing Counter Uncrewed

329、Aerial Systems Capabilities for USAFCENT Air Force Balancing between a Service-led POM process and joint requirements is a longstanding challenge for the DoD.As noted above,previous efforts to address this challenge include changes to authorities and the creation of organizations to advance joint re

330、quirements.Leadership engagement and advocacy for joint requirements in PPBE-related forums emerged as a best practice during Commission engagements with current DoD leadership and is a key value that OSD brings through its leadership of the PPBE process.As joint warfighting remains a preeminent ope

331、rational approach,and as joint capabilities such as Joint All-Domain Command and Control(JADC2)increase in prominence in the current and future strategic environment,the resourcing process must ensure that joint analysis,requirements,and resources are incorporated,prioritized,resourced,and supported

332、,from start to finish.The Commission kept this in mind as it considered reorganization and other changes to the PPBE process,for example through the modernization of budget databases and J-book development systems,as discussed in Section VII,to simplify congressional efforts to identify and understa

333、nd joint efforts across currently disparate appropriations and accounts,and the use of AI to support the identification of 46 Ibid.47 Commission interview with subject matter experts and RAA Reports to Congress provided to the Commission.48 Data provided to the Commission by the DoD.Section IV Improve the Alignment of Budgets to Strategy COMMISSION ON PPBE REFORM 34 related programs across justifi