LEADER 00000cam  2200565Ki 4500 
001    ocn861119962 
003    OCoLC 
005    20170927054015.4 
006    m     o  d         
007    cr ||||||||||| 
008    131020s2013    caua    obt   000 0 eng d 
020    9780833083753|q(electronic bk.) 
020    0833083759|q(electronic bk.) 
035    (OCoLC)861119962 
037    22573/ctt4cxdh8|bJSTOR 
040    DID|beng|erda|epn|cDID|dKLG|dJSTOR|dOCLCF|dOCLCQ|dTEF|dCUS
043    n-us--- 
049    CKEA 
050  4 UA25|b.P36 2013 
082 04 355.00973|223 
088    RAND RR230 
100 1  Pernin, Christopher G.,|d1973- 
245 10 Readiness reporting for a different Army /|cChristopher G.
       Pernin, Dwayne M. Butler, Louay Constant, Lily Geyer, 
       Duncan Long, Dan Madden, John E. Peters, Jim Powers, 
       Michael Shurkin. 
264  1 Santa Monica, CA :|bRAND,|c[2013] 
264  4 |c©2013 
300    1 online resource (xxiii, 139 pages) :|bcolor 
       illustrations. 
336    text|btxt|2rdacontent 
337    computer|bc|2rdamedia 
338    online resource|bcr|2rdacarrier 
347    text file|bPDF|2rda 
490 1  RAND Corporation research report series ;|vRR230 
504    Includes bibliographical references (pages 131-139). 
505 0  Introduction. -- Building new capabilities and readiness 
       reporting. -- Exploring the value of the MTOE for 
       readiness reporting. -- From readiness to capabilities: 
       ready for what? -- Transitioning to the future and 
       recommendations. -- Appendix A. Literature -- Appendix B. 
       Selected rapid capability organizations -- Appendix C. 
       MTOE scrubs -- Appendix D. Framework for considering root 
       causes of assigned missions. 
520    The Army has developed an impressive capacity to adapt to 
       emerging requirements by providing units with new 
       capabilities rapidly and flexibly as units prepare for 
       deployment through the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) 
       process. The Army's ability to report on readiness 
       throughout these adaptations, however, is challenged. The 
       readiness reporting system is largely predicated on a 
       bottom-up, deliberate process with known milestones and 
       pre-determined designs to which the Army would build 
       readiness. As those targets are changed, for instance when
       deploying to a changing operational environment as was 
       seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, the reporting system cannot 
       easily keep up. The key challenge to readiness reporting 
       is that Army units now routinely prepare for assigned 
       missions that sometimes differ in meaningful ways from 
       their designed missions. This study examines the Army's 
       readiness reporting system in light of the increased 
       adaptiveness demonstrated by Army units in the past 
       decade. In this study we found that while the readiness 
       reporting system still works as originally intended, the 
       current readiness reporting system captures only a portion
       of the adaptations readily seen in recent years. The study
       offers recommendations to better reflect these adaptations
       in the readiness reporting system. 
536    The research described in this report was sponsored by the
       United States Army under Contract No. W74V8H-06-C-0001. 
588 0  Online resource; title from PDF title page (RAND, viewed 
       Oct. 20, 2013). 
610 10 United States.|bArmy|xOperational readiness|xEvaluation. 
610 10 United States.|bArmy|xReorganization|xEvaluation. 
610 17 United States.|bArmy.|2fast|0(OCoLC)fst00533532 
650  7 TECHNOLOGY & ENGINEERING|xMilitary Science.|2bisacsh 
650  7 Administrative agencies|xReorganization|xEvaluation.|2fast
       |0(OCoLC)fst00796799 
650  7 Operational readiness (Military science)|xEvaluation.
       |2fast|0(OCoLC)fst01353913 
710 2  Arroyo Center. 
710 2  Rand Corporation. 
830  0 Research report (Rand Corporation) ;|vRR230. 
914    ocn861119962 
994    92|bCKE