Does the Army Need to Better Define Missions in Terms of Resources to More Effectively Manage in a Resource-Constrained Environment?
Abstract
This thesis asserts the Army does not define missions in terms of resources consumed, in sufficient detail to assist decision-making. This is primarily the result of the current budget structure which restricts resource classification to broad functional categories. These broad categories have little or no meaning at the lower echelons of the Army where tough resource decisions are usually made. Reaching decisions, without relevant information being presented in an understandable and usable format, almost insures suboptimal results. Unless the Army can better discipline the resource management process, it runs the risk of compromising the modernization and readiness gains made possible by the liberal appropriations of the Reagan era. The thesis investigates the rational and traditional schools of budgeting in order to examine how the practice of budgeting evolved and some of the realities of the budget process. The study gains valuable insight by comparing the two schools and attempting to determine which school has the greatest application for today's Army. A useful by-product of this examination and comparison is that it tends to explain how the Army's present resource management philosophy and supporting systems developed.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Jun 03, 1988
- Accession Number
- ADA198350
Entities
People
- Thomas E. Roberts
Organizations
- United States Army Command and General Staff College