Executing strategic vision at base level

Air Force Comptroller, Summer, 2005 by Sam Grable

Throughout the history of armed conflict, failure to adapt to a changing environment has, at times, led to disaster. The cult of the offensive, characteristic of the First World War, grudgingly gave way to a realization that technology had changed the battlefield and this new environment demanded fresh strategic thinking. This realization came at a terrible human cost. Although the nature of financial management does not lend itself to a direct comparison, the point is instructive: we must constantly assess our environment and adapt.

Recent developments clearly make the case for transformation. Program Budget Decision (PBD) 720, Air Force Transformation Flight Plan, details what many have perceived-that the incredible cost of technology requisite for air, space, and cyberspace dominance in the 21st century demands substantial cost savings in other areas. One need only skim PBD 720 to discern that future manpower reductions require us to redefine what we do and how we do it.

Thankfully, our leaders have long recognized the need for change and have taken meaningful action over the course of several decades to prepare. For example, I recall undertaking the regionalization of my accounting operations to Germany as a young Accounting and Finance Officer at San Vito Air Station in 1993. We have since instituted a broad strategy based on improving the quality of actionable decision making information provided to warfighting leaders and automating and centralizing financial services. Today, this approach is not just sound business, it is a necessity.

Now, I am no apologist for transformation and have long held that we must think through the second- and third-order consequences of any course of action before jumping in with both feet. However, from the chair I presently occupy--Commander of the 12th Comptroller Squadron--I find it imperative to lace up and move out. And here is the crux of this article: how is transformation impacting us at base level and what challenges remain?

At Randolph AFB, the integration of the Accounting Liaison Office (ALO) and Financial Management Analysis (FMA) has resulted in a "one-stop shop" for our wing customers. Unfortunately, the same is not true for our tenants-which make up roughly 70 percent of our $1.2 billion annual obligations-because the larger ones retain their stand-alone budget function. Even so, we are beginning to recognize efficiencies because we chose to fully integrate the FMA/ALO now rather than simply realign ALO as a second section within FMA. Having completed physical integration in April, we are making headway toward our ultimate goal: developing one true team from two previously distinct sections. Given the incredible amount of time and energy requisite to develop culture, it would seem prudent for base-level comptrollers who have yet to integrate the FMA/ALO team in earnest to begin now. Clearly, much work remains.

Automation and centralization of Customer Service and Support offers the most visible element of FM transformation to the majority of our customers. This is also the most delicate area with respect to the impact on the FM workforce. Current plans call for our military to initially provide the majority of manpower in the Air Force Financial Services Center (AFFSC) planned at Ellsworth AFB. Eventually, most military personnel will be phased out and replaced by civilians. To date, our preparation at 12 CPTS for this element of transformation consists primarily of information sharing. Notably, I believe merging Customer Service and Customer Support functions in the very near term is necessary to help us better manage future manpower reductions and smooth this transition. Of course, we need top-level support to make any change to the standard organization structure. In the meantime, we are working hard to automate manual processes and train; for the more we train now, the better prepared we will be to deal with possible lags between manpower reductions and the eventual assumption of responsibility at the AFFSC.

In times of fiscal uncertainty, enhanced decision support is a commodity eagerly sought by our leaders. Over the past months PBD 720 arrived, FY06 execution became a bit rockier, and we heard of plans for a new Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SRM) appropriation for FY07 that would substantively decrease resource flexibility in the field. I have found my wing leadership turning more than ever to my team for counsel. To assume the entire FM community is prepared now for this increased dependence is folly. So, as we emphasize and advertise our decision support competence, we must develop robust and responsive training programs. Like us, many bases may be building local decision support training for ourselves and our RAs. In my opinion, we would be well-served by a centralized training cadre charged with developing challenging decision support curricula, updating them frequently with new techniques, and providing recurring training opportunities. Given the higher-order financial analysis we are after, I would caution an over-reliance on computer-based training. Though I do not believe this is in the current O&M Center of Expertise mission description, this may offer an incredibly important growth opportunity.