Eliminating the Weakest Link Approach to Army Unit Readiness

References

• Barish NN, Ehrenfeld S (1975) Utilities estimated from actual decisions in readiness measurement. Technical report, Graduate School of Public Administration, New York University, New York.Google Scholar
• Barron FH (1992) Selecting a best multi-attribute alternative with partial information about attribute weights. Acta Psychologica 80(1–3):91–103.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barron FH, Barrett BE (1996) Decision quality using ranked attribute weights. Management Sci. 42(11):1515–1523.Link, Google Scholar
• Betts RK (1995) Military Readiness: Concepts, Choices, Consequences (Brookings Institution, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Bipartisan Policy Center (2017) The building blocks of a ready military: People, funding, tempo. Report, Bipartisan Policy Center, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Cannon-Bowers J, Salas E, Tannenbaum S, Matheiu S (1995) Toward theoretically based principles of training effectiveness: A model and initial empirical investigation. Military Psych. 7(3):141–164.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Congressional Budget Office (1994) CBO testimony: Statement of Neil M. Singer, acting assistant director, National Security Division, Congressional Budget Office, on trends in selected indicators of military readiness. Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Congressional Budget Office (2011) Linking the readiness of the armed forces to DoD’s operation and maintenance spending. Letter to the Honorable C. W. Bill Young, Congressional Budget Office, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Davis S, Jondrow J, Dacus C (2008) Aggregating readiness metrics. Research Memorandum D0017960.A2, Center for Naval Analyses, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
• Department of the Army (2001) Unit status reporting. Army Regulation 220-1, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Department of the Army (2003) Unit status reporting. Army Regulation 220-1, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Department of the Army (2006a) Unit status reporting. Army Regulation 220-1, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Department of the Army (2006b) Unit status reporting. Army Regulation 220-1, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Department of the Army (2010) Army unit status reporting and force registration—Consolidated policies. Army Regulation 220-1, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Derringer GC (1994) A balancing act: Optimizing a product’s properties. Quality Progress 27(6):51–58.Google Scholar
• Derringer GC, Suich R (1980) Simultaneous optimization of several response variables. J. Quality Tech. 12(4):214–219.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frank G, Hubal R, O’Bea M (2007) Using competency definitions to adapt training for mission success. Proc. Interservice/Indust. Training, Simulation, Ed. Conf., Orlando, FL, No. 7131, 1–9.Google Scholar
• Frank SA, Gruttke WB, Marlow WH, Mathis SJ (1968) Readiness measurements via subresource C-ratings. Report, George Washington University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Galloucis MS (2003) The Army’s Strategic Readiness System (SRS): The road to improved readiness or just another bright idea? Report, National War College, National Defense University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Gaver DP, Mazumdar M (1967) Statistical estimation in a problem of system reliability. Naval Res. Logist. Quart. 14(4):473–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenberg I (1972) On the determination of the “closeness” to complete readiness and of dynamic readiness. Technical Report Number 2, Graduate School of Public Administration, New York University, New York.Google Scholar
• Grier RA, Fletcher RA, Morrison JE (2012) Defining and measuring military cognitive readiness. Proc. Human Factors Ergonom. Soc. Conf., Boston, Vol. 56, 435–437.Google Scholar
• Harrington E (1965) The desirability function. Indust. Quality Control 21:494–498.Google Scholar
• Harrison T (2014) Rethinking readiness. Strategic Stud. Quart. 2014(Fall):38–68.Google Scholar
• Jareb AM, Roepke DM, Damm EM, Pham HT, Macilvaine ME (1999) Marine Corps Resources to Readiness Study. Report, Center for Naval Analyses, Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
• Jiang W, Murphy T, Tsui KL (2006) Statistical methods for quality and productivity improvement. Pham H, ed. Springer Handbook of Engineering Statistics (Springer, London), 173–192.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Junor LJ (2017) Managing military readiness. Report, Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Kaczynski B, Foote BL (2005) A capabilities based readiness metric. Report Number DSE-TR-0522, Operations Research Center of Excellence, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY.Google Scholar
• Kaplan S (1972) A production function approach to the measurement of short term readiness of Navy units. Technical report, Graduate School of Public Administration, New York University, New York.Google Scholar
• Kaplan S (1975) An approach to the measurement of the short term readiness of military systems. Technical report, New York University, New York.Google Scholar
• Kim KJ, Lin DKJ (2000) Simultaneous optimization of mechanical properties of steel by maximizing exponential desirability functions. J. Royal Statist. Soc.: Ser. C (Appl. Statist.) 49(3):311–325.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lockman RF, Stoloff PH, Manheimer BH, Hardgrave JR, Story WF (1970) Navy readiness analysis system methodology study. Report, Institute of Naval Studies of the Center for Naval Analyses, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.Google Scholar
• Matheson JE (2013) Decision analysis in practice. Gass S, Fu MC, eds. Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science (Springer Science and Business, New York), 372–381.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Menko RH (2004) Process enhancement and database support for vehicle operational readiness reporting. Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.Google Scholar
• Moore SC, Hanser LM, Rostker BD, Holroyd SM, Fernandez JC (1995) A Framework for Characterization of Military Unit Training Status (RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA).Google Scholar
• Moore SC, Stockfisch JA, Goldberg MS, Holroyd SM, Hildebrandt GG (1991) Measuring Military Readiness and Sustainability (RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA).Google Scholar
• National Institute of Standards and Technology (2013) NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods. Accessed August 13, 2017, http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/.Google Scholar
• Nickel RH, Goodwyn SC, Brown KS (2008) Readiness impact of reduced funding for ship repair parts. Report, Center for Naval Analyses, Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
• Office of the Secretary of Defense (2017) Implementation guidance for budget directives in the National Security Presidential Memorandum on Rebuilding the U.S. Armed Forces. Memorandum, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Orlansky J, Hammon C, Horowitz S (1997) Indicators of training readiness. Paper P-3283, Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
• Otto KN, Antonsson EK (1991) Trade-off strategies in engineering design. Res. Engrg. Design 3(2):87–103.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parnell GS, Bresnick TA, Tani SN, Johnson ER (2013) Handbook of Decision Analysis (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peltz E, Robbins M, Boren P, Wolff M (2002) Diagnosing the Army’s Equipment Readiness: The Equipment Downtime Analyzer (RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA).Google Scholar
• Pernin CG, Butler DM, Constant L, Geyer L, Long D, Madden D, Peters JE, Powers JD, Shurkin M (2013) Readiness Reporting for an Adaptive Army (RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA).Google Scholar
• Raffensperger JF, Schrage LE (1997) A new paradigm for measuring military readiness. Military Oper. Res. 3(5):21–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Randazzo-Matsel A (2009) Organizational analysis primer: A synthesis of CNA’s work. Report Number D0016576.A1, Center for Naval Analyses, Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
• Rumbaugh R (2017) Defining readiness: Background and issues for Congress. Report, Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Scala NM, Pazour J (2016) A value model for asset tracking technology to support naval sea-based resupply. Engrg. Management J. 28(2):120–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scala NM, Kutzner R, Buede DM, Ciminera C, Bridges A (2012) Multi-objective decision analysis for workforce planning: A case study. Lim G, Herrmann JW, eds. Proc. 2012 Indust. Systems Engrg. Res. Conf., Orlando, FL (Institute of Industrial Engineers).Google Scholar
• Seppälä J, Basson L, Norris GA (2002) Decision analysis frameworks for life-cycle impact assessment. J. Indust. Ecology 5(4):45–68.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shisko R, Paulson RM (1982) Relating resources to the readiness and sustainability of combined arms units. Report, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
• Stafford D, Moore C (2004) A metric for surge capability: Personnel. Research Memorandum D0009694.A2, Center for Naval Analyses, Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
• Tolins IS (1968) A continuous time Markov process model of naval operational readiness. Technical report, George Washington University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Trunkey RD (2013) Implications of the Department of Defense Readiness Reporting System. Working Paper 2013-03, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• U.S. General Accounting Office (1996) Military readiness: Data and trends for January 1990 to March 1995. Report Number GAO/NSIAD-96-111BR, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• U.S. General Accounting Office (1997) Military readiness: Improvements still needed in assessing military readiness. Report Number GAO/NSIAD-97-107, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• U.S. General Accounting Office (2003) Military readiness: New reporting system is intended to address long-standing problems, but better planning is needed. Report Number GAO-03-456, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Accountability Office (2011) Military readiness: Army and Marine Corps reporting provides additional data, but actions needed to improve consistency. Report Number GAO-11-526, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Accountability Office (2016) Military readiness: DoD’s readiness rebuilding efforts may be at risk without a comprehensive plan. Report Number GAO-16-841, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services (2010) The current readiness of the U.S. forces. Senate Hearing 111-868, before the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Yoon KP, Hwang CL (1995) Multiple Attribute Decision-Making: An Introduction (Sage University, Thousands Oaks, CA).Crossref, Google Scholar