Air University Review, September-October 1982

Readiness and Productivity: Friends or Foes

Colonel Jack P. Bujalski

The only reason for the existence for the Department of Defense is the security of the nation. Should defense leaders be concerned about issues of lesser magnitude, such as productivity? Indeed, are readiness and productivity even compatible, or do attempts to increase efficiency detract from and reduce readiness?

The following examples illustrate the positive effects of productivity.

• A Quality Circle at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, developed a better nickle plating procedure and reduced the parts reject rate from 50 percent to 3 percent.

• At Bitburg AB, Germany, an engine analyzer purchased under Fast Payback Capital Investment (FASCAP) paid for itself in less than eight months through reduced maintenance costs, with a two-year savings of $42,590.

• A civilian employee at McGuire AFB, New Jersey, received $6500 under the Suggestion Program for an idea to locally manufacture and install fiberglass components for the C-141, which resulted in almost $3 million in savings over the contractor price.

• A Job Enrichment intervention at Kelly AFB, Texas, reduced the J79 engine transition duct repair time from 19 days to 8 days.

• A Value Engineering proposal resulted in a C-l41 modification to permit fuel to be pumped back to the tanker after inflight refueling practice, saving $16 million per year in fuel costs.

These examples illustrate a few of the programs available to all commanders and supervisors to help them and their people achieve increased readiness through better use of resources, a goal of every Air Force member. These and similar programs fall under the umbrella of the Air Force Productivity Program and provide a menu from which Air Force members can select programs and techniques appropriate to their unit, shop, branch, or office. The investment is very reasonable—all it requires is a zest for mission accomplishment and the willingness to try something new.

Productivity Improvement

The Air Force approach to productivity is to develop a long-term program at the grass-roots level, capitalizing on the ingenuity and abilities of people. Consequently, the Air Force Productivity Program emphasis is on enhancement, complementing previously existing programs with new programs in order to provide a full spectrum of productivity techniques from which Air Force people can choose to develop and implement ideas. This is a decentralized approach, with full responsibility for productivity remaining with managers, supervisors, and commanders at all levels. The productivity office serves as a focal point, not as a control. The techniques and programs that promote enhancement are categorized as capital investment, methods improvement, and motivation and quality of work life.

The Air Force has five capital investment programs designed to provide funds for improvements that will increase productivity. (The motivational aspect of these programs is great, with fringe improvements to productivity that may exceed the direct, reportable payback.) FASCAP provides funds for off-the-shelf purchase of equipment. Cost of the equipment must be less than $100,000, and savings must be generated that will pay off all costs within two years. Project approval lies with the Air Force, permitting rapid turnaround, with a goal to provide funds within 60 days of the request. Aimed at serving the needs at the lowest organizational levels, FASCAP has provided funds for equipment such as engine analyzers, ultrasound scanners, limb chippers, word processors, electronic mailing systems, and roof moisture meters. The sum of $4.3 million spent in one recent program year is projected to generate $30.9 million in savings over the life of the equipment.

The Productivity Investment Fund (PIF) takes up where FASCAP leaves off, with a $100,000 minimum project cost and payback within four years. Due to the dollar cost of these projects, final approval for each project rests with the Congress, thus requiring longer lead times for funding, normally about two years. Projects recently funded by Congress include a sheltered aircraft protection system, costing $3.0 million and saving $9.7 million in the first four years, and numerical controlled equipment for an Air Logistics Center, costing $1.6 million with a four-year saving of $4.8 million.

Productivity reliability, availability and maintainability (PRAM) is a program in the acquisition and logistics areas to identify and fund systems improvements that result in long-term saving during the operational lives of weapons and support systems. Examples include a B-52 automatic anti-icing system, improved cargo mobility bins, and an improved TTU -205 pressure test set. The track record for PRAM indicates that for every dollar invested, the Air Force is projected to reduce future costs by $5.

Value Engineering, which could also be classed under methods improvements, is a two-part program. Contractors are rewarded for improvements they make that result in savings in acquisition costs of items purchased under contract. The reward is a share of the savings. Ideas for improvement may also originate within the Air Force, in which case the Air Force keeps all of the savings. Total Value Engineering savings during one recent year exceeded $200,000,000, most of which resulted from Air Force proposals.

The energy conservation investment program (ECIP) provides funds for investment in energy-saving ideas that will pay for themselves within the expected lifetime of the system or facility. Needless to say, many pay off sooner. Project investments often involve construction or refurbishment of buildings to capitalize on the latest technology in solar, thermal, or wind-generated energy or in insulation techniques. In addition, the Air Force is investing in fuel-efficient engines and fuel-saving advisory systems to reduce our requirement for motor vehicle and aircraft fuels.

In the area of methods improvement, the Air Force has several programs that provide commanders the means to obtain expert assistance to improve their organizations. The Management Engineering Program, in existence for more than 20 years, develops manpower standards for Air Force jobs, ensuring equitable distribution of scarce resources. Furthermore, productivity savings are thus captured and applied to all similar work centers. Two-thirds of Air Force jobs are covered by standards, and the program has been cited by Congress on more than one occasion as an example for the rest of the federal government.

The Commercial Activities Program, under the provisions of the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, investigates cheaper ways to accomplish nonmilitary essential work loads. Performance work statements, the first step in the cost-comparison process, ensure that work centers are streamlined for maximum efficiency with removal of superfluous work loads. Regardless of the outcome of the cost comparison, whether the work remains in-house or goes contract, the streamlining remains in effect. In fiscal year 1980 the Air Force accrued nearly $200,000,000 in cost advantage through this program.

In addition to these two Air Force-directed programs, consultant services are available at base level to help commanders solve problems. These services are provided on a client-consultant relationship, with release of the results at the discretion of the client. Management advisory studies are provided by the base management engineering team, and these studies bring a manpower and organization perspective to bear on problems. A recent example involved combining motor vehicle administration and operations functions to improve and streamline work conditions. Another source of consultant services is the comptroller at each base through management assistance studies to find less costly methods. A study was recently completed that designed a regression model to predict unscheduled F/RF-4 engine changes as an aid to engine shop management. Finally, the Air Force Audit Agency will provide analytical services and assistance to management through the Commander’s Audit Program. Items of special interest to local unit commanders can be evaluated by skilled auditors on a time-available basis. On an Air Force-wide basis, the Air Force Leadership and Management Development Center (LMDC) conducts organizational assessments of entire units at the request of the unit commander. They are able to pinpoint work centers where a productivity initiative would have the most benefit for the entire unit and then provide possible solutions for the commander’s consideration.

In the area of motivation and quality of work life, the Air Force has numerous programs, many that have been in existence for years. Some of them are the suggestion program, job enrichment, awards and decorations, junior officer and enlisted advisory councils, and quality circles. Not all of these programs are geared toward producing direct, tangible results. However, they all contribute to improving the morale and motivation of Air Force personnel and, that means a direct contribution to the bottom line of getting the job done as effectively and efficiently as possible.

The true source of productivity improvement is people. This does not mean increased productivity by working harder. It means that the individual concerned is normally the one most familiar with the ins and outs of the job and, thus, the one most likely to have constructive ideas on ways to do the job better. It is the commander’s task to provide an environment where ideas are encouraged. Unfortunately, leadership is more often than not the biggest impediment to productivity improvement. One reason for this is the American tendency to look to leadership for all solutions. Too many commanders and supervisors are afraid they will lose power, control, or prestige if they share problem-solving. This fear is groundless; sharing problem-solving does not mean sharing decision-making. The decision to select and implement a solution should always be the commander’s. An effective leader maximizes the probability that the best solution is implemented by deliberately stimulating multiple proposals from which to pick. One important aspect of free and open communications between workers and leaders is the fair evaluation of all ideas, no matter how small or unlikely they appear. The ideas are there, in the workers’ heads; it is leadership’s challenge to tap and implement them. As an incentive to commanders, Air Force policy encourages reinvestment of savings at the lowest practical level, provided legitimate deferred requirements exist. If these savings are used against high-priority requirements, they may be kept indefinitely. If not, the Planning, Programming and Budgeting System will reallocate them within two or three years.

Measurement

One aspect of productivity that invariably causes concern is measurement. People fear the misuse of measurement data for such purposes as implementing cuts or for comparing units or people. Such use is not, and should not be, the purpose of productivity measurement. Commanders need to evaluate their programs periodically. Every commander already has indices by which programs are evaluated, whether they are "measurement" or simply "eyeball" gauges. Measurement allows the commander to evaluate objectively. A productivity measurement system can be built from these indices for any function if sufficient time and resources are allocated. The need for doing this must be a commander’s decision, though, since the cost of developing a measurement system and of gathering data could exceed the benefits obtained, which leads us right back to the opening thesis.

The only reason for the existence of the Department of Defense is the security of the nation. The only productivity measure that matters is one that indicates how well we can ensure that security. However, short of the outcome of an actual war, such a measure does not exist. Consequently, we are forced to depend on the measure of individual functions or subfunctions, but there is a hazard to this. To concentrate on indicators several levels removed from national security can lead to decisions that may very well improve a low-level productivity indication but at the expense of our overall ability to win where it counts, in war. Many examples can be given where economies can be gained by civilianization and/or contracting, but at the expense of having that capability at the time and place needed, any place in the world our national interests dictate. Productivity measures, then, must be used by commanders with care to avoid the negative impact of misuse and with care not to use them in isolation. Productivity trend analysis is just one consideration among many that commanders should take into account in the decisionmaking process. Otherwise, productivity could have an adverse impact on readiness, not because of any inherent drawback in the concept of productivity but simply because leadership could end up making some decisions for the wrong reasons.

The Air Force Productivity Program is founded on the belief that the Air Force has a plethora of good leaders. Our commanders are doing their best to meet mission requirements. However, leaders are individuals with individual approaches and techniques. Furthermore, different situations require variations in approach and technique. Rather than try to build a productivity mold into which leaders must fit, the Air Force provides a menu from which leaders can select programs, techniques, and approaches to fit their style and particular situation. The purpose is always the same: to get the right job done and to get the job done right. The United States does not have a bottomless pocketbook, and the Air Force budget is limited. We owe it to ourselves and to every other taxpayer to maximize the defense security obtained for every dollar spent.

How does productivity fit into the context of defense readiness? Many of the functions accomplished by Air Force units in peacetime are similar to what they would be doing in combat. Discovering and implementing improved ways of performing these peacetime functions will both enhance their effectiveness in wartime and free resources for use in improving readiness in other areas. Readiness and productivity are and must be friends.

Colonel Jack P. Bujalski (USMA; M.A., North Carolina State University) is Professor of Aerospace Studies at the University of Northern Colorado, Greeley. His previous assignments include flight commander, 35th Tactical Fighter Wing, Phan Rang, Vietnam; Assistant Professor of Mathematics at the USAF Academy; and Chief, Productivity and Research Office, DCS, Manpower and Personnel, Hq USAF. Colonel Bujalski has a command pilot rating and has earned the jump wings of an army parachutist.

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.

Air & Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor