IRM_Problem_Statement_(Redacted)_20161213.docx

United States Army

Integrated Resource Management

Problem Statement

Version 5.0

August 2014

Based on Business Case Template Version 3.0, May 2012

Document Revision History

Table of Contents

ii Problem Statement Signature

Functional Sponsor: Date:

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Information Management)

Problem Statement Approval

Investment Review Board (IRB) Chair: Date:

Functional Sponsor: Date:

Program Manager: Date:

Business Case MS A, Pre-ED, and MS C Approvals

Component Acquisition Executive: Date:

Test Plan Summary Director, Operational Test & Evaluation Date:

Test Plan Summary Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Developmental Test & Evaluation Date:

SEP Summary Director, Systems Engineering: Date:

MDA: Date:

Executive Summary Problem Statement The Army is unable to efficiently reconcile budget execution against program & strategic plans, create forward looking predictive cost analytics, or efficiently manage its Table of Distribution and Allowances (TDA) structures without costly manual processes because it does not have Integrated Resource Management[footnoteRef:1] (IRM) capabilities that can provide full visibility into manning and budget execution planning & programming processes and data across Army Commands. [1: Integrated Resource Management refers to the integration of Command (1) manpower management, (2) budget planning & programming, and (3) budget execution & reconciliation business processes and data into an enterprise capability.]

Problem Description The Army's existing manning and budget formulation capabilities across the Business Mission Area (BMA) enterprise are dependent upon disparate processes and business systems with dissimilar data architectures creating reconciliation errors, data latency and inconsistency among interrelated data sets. Integrated budget planning and analytical capabilities needed to meet the needs of Army Senior Leaders and Commanders have yet to be delivered within an Army ERP environment. Consequently, Commands have developed non-standard and unique legacy systems to meet local needs. Until an enterprise solution is provided, the Army’s IRM business process will lack enterprise-level visibility, and will be unable to author and manage Command TDA force structures that satisfy Global Force Management (GFM) requirements for an Army in motion.

Problem Scope The problem scope affects approximately 250 Army Resource Management offices, 75 military personnel divisions, and approximately 5000 financial management and personnel specialists across the Army who are responsible for budget formulation and developing spend-plans integrated with manpower planning/programming requirements as well as Command TDA authoring and management requirements.

Problem Solution Solving the problem requires migration of current disjointed business processes and supporting IT system into an enterprise solution that provides commanders with enterprise manpower and budget formulation capabilities aligned to the Army’s business architecture and target environment and leverages existing ERP capabilities. While not calculated, a reduction in Army-wide operational costs associated with Command budget formulation/reconciliation, manning, and data consolidation is expected to produce significant financial benefit over the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP).

Introduction Purpose The purpose of this problem statement is to meet preliminary DoD 5000.2 requirements for the development and implementation of an enterprise Integrated Resource Management capability supporting the business mission area (BMA).

Background The lack of an integrated budget formulation/manning solution restricts Commands’ ability to plan, program and budget Army resources effectively. Specifically, this problem statement addresses three specific problem spaces within the context of Integrated Resource Management capabilities: Command Programmed Manning, Command Budget Execution Planning and Programming, and IRM Business Processes and Data. Within the context of this problem statement, following are definitions and historical background for each problem space:

Command Programmed Manning –Legacy systems today are designed with disparate business processes, some systems having greater capabilities than others or an inability to address needs at an enterprise level. Commands receive President’s Budget Guidance that includes both manpower and dollars information and an Authorized TDA. Commands employ these inputs and leverage a variety of non-standard, unique applications to support the Programming Phase. Such activities include the ability to align spaces to organizations, organizations to work years and people to authorized spaces and produce budgetary documents associated with authorized manpower requirements. An additional output of the process is for Commands to submit proposed TDA changes to the authoritative Force Management systems in the Army.

Command Budget Execution Planning and Programming – Budget planning and programming includes both dollars and manpower. Similar to the manning problem described above, Commands rely on multiple budget preparation systems to submit requirements to Headquarters Dept of the Army (HQDA) during the Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) process. Commands struggle with creating spend plans and responding to HQDA guidance for programming and execution, with particular challenges during Continuing Resolution Authority and at mid-year reviews. Commands require greater levels of flexibility to plan at different levels of detail such as Commitment Item or Cost item hierarchies in order to meet their mission requirements. The Army Budget Office (ABO) also recognizes additional opportunities to improve the use of the Spend Plan to support budget formulation. Specifically, the Investment Directorate in ABO requests additional versions for available carryover (two years for procurement, one year for RDT&E). Other versions requested by ABO would be used for planning obligations for reporting to Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and planning post mid-year reprogramming. This increased utilization of spend plan report by appropriation would support numerous activities within HQDA including funding decisions during periods of Continuing Resolution, mid-year reviews, and OSD reporting.

IRM Business Processes and Data – Includes programmed manning and budget execution planning & programming business processes and data across Army Commands needed for reporting and forecasting purposes (audit, statistical analysis, trending, comparison generation and legal requirements). Historical financial and transaction level data created before the General Fund Enterprise Business Systems (GFEBS) Go-Live date is stored in legacy systems and/or DFAS' Operational Data Store (ODS). However, there are still missing capabilities to help Army organizations plan and manage their budget execution. The current environment requires Army organizations to operate in non-standard, unique information systems and applications with significant manual intervention.

Problem Statement “As-Is” Analysis The Problem The Army is unable to efficiently reconcile budget execution against program & strategic plans, create forward looking predictive cost analytics, or efficiently manage its TDA structures without costly manual processes because it does not have Integrated Resource Management capabilities that can provide full visibility into programmed manning and budget execution planning & programming processes and data across Army Commands.

Problem Description and Context The lack of an integrated budget formulation/programmed manning solution that spans the Army’s Business Mission Area (BMA) restricts a Commands’ ability to plan, program and budget Army resources effectively. In the absence of an enterprise solution for programmed manning, Commands have developed or adopted legacy solutions to meet their very real IRM business needs. However, over time the Army’s suite of legacy IRM systems has expanded into a portfolio of disjointed business processes, mismatched data structures, and duplicative functionality. They are unable to conduct enterprise analysis of conduct analysis of manpower wedge impacts, easily reconcile budget planning to budget execution, or identify real-time force structures within an Army in motion.

The Army's business systems portfolio includes eleven systems that are used to collect organizational program requirements. Specifically, this means the current portfolio of IRM systems are:

· Localized business processes that do not interface or synchronize with various financial, manpower, and personnel systems;

· Severely restricted reporting capability with no Army-wide forecasting capability.

Below are two charts which show the Army’s current portfolio IRM systems used to produce manning, and forecasting capabilities. Each of these systems varies in capability and generally processes only a portion of the full suite of requirements. This portfolio does not include any of the dozens of custom installation solutions optimized for that particular installation’s requirements.

Chart 1 – Sample of Command Manning Systems

Chart 2 – Budget Execution Systems[footnoteRef:2] [2: The business systems identified within Charts 1 and 2 do not include multiple other offline tools and excel spreadsheets Commands use to support their planning and analytical tasks. In addition, vendors are approaching Commands and offering new local solutions in the absence of an enterprise solution.]

While these system have met local IRM business needs, Commands still struggle with creating spend plans or with responding to HQDA guidance for programming and execution as well as Continuing Resolution Authority data calls and mid-year reviews. Lastly, Commands require greater levels of flexibility to plan at different levels of detail such as Commitment Item or Cost item hierarchies in order to meet their mission requirements. Commands also require reports that include Program Budget Guidance, Annual Funding Program, Allotment, Obligation and Spend Plan amounts on a single report.

Root Cause Analysis The problem exists because an integrated enterprise programmed manning and budget formulation planning and analytical capability has yet to be delivered by the Army’s ERP capabilities. Specifically, programmed manning, budget preparation, budget execution planning, and historical reporting capabilities are represented by a portfolio of non-standard and unique legacy IRM systems with dissimilar data architectures and inconsistency among interrelated data sets. In addition, users must obtain, rationalize, and collate data from a variety of financial management legacy, core/enduring, and ERP systems containing IRM data in order to solve enterprise problems. Data quality, context, timeframes, etc. can differ among these systems, thus reducing the efficacy of comparative analyses and enterprise analytics. The table below provides several examples of the systems containing this data today.

Chart 3 – Financial Systems Relied on by Army Commands

DOTMLPF-P Constraints, “As-Is” State Table 1 – DOTMLPF-P Constraints, “As-Is” State

· Army doctrine that outline enterprise requirements for IRM reporting requirements have not been updated since 1994 which has perpetuated non-enterprise solutions.

· Global Force Management Data Initiative (GFMDI) doctrinal requirements not supported by current TDA approach

· G-1 for manpower processes and data

· ABO for budget processes and data

· HQDA for enterprise IRM processes and data

· IRM support functions not supported by GFEBS hinders enterprise-wide analytics

· Enterprise reporting requirements using local IRM systems is conducted through point to point interfaces with considerable degree of manual re-input and error

· 5000+ financial and personnel specialists produced integrated budget and manpower estimates and reconciliation annually creating opportunities for error

· HQDA personnel lack enterprise capabilities needed to maximize the use of modern analytical toolsets thus leading to the acquisition of contractor services

“To-Be” Analysis High-Level Outcomes (HLOs) The focus of this Business Process Reengineering effort is the optimization of current IRM business processes and the transition of the supporting IT portfolio into a cost-effective ERP environment that features shared resources and maximizing use of standardized end-to-end processes.

Table 2a – HLOs

Strengthen DoD Financial Management to respond to warfighter needs and sustain public confidence through auditable financial statements.

(USD(C)/CFO)

Strengthen DoD Financial Management to respond to warfighter needs and sustain public confidence through auditable financial statements. (USD(C)/CFO)

Build agile and secure information capabilities to enhance combat power and decision-making while optimizing value. (DoD CIO)

Table 2b – HLOs and Acceptance Criteria

· Reduced costs associated with manpower management

· Integrating IRM business processes into an enterprise service sub-optimizes local performance

· Reengineered business processes cannot be instantiated using current government-off-the-shelf (GOTS) solutions

(A) An Integrated Resource Management capability requires interdependent processes. For example, during program development, manpower requirements are not always constrained by resourcing. However, manning decisions during year of execution may be resource constrained.

(C) No funding available (no POM)

(C) Availability of functional SMEs

(D) HQDA enterprise oversight

· Reduced material weakness

· Increased operational efficiencies

(C) Availability of financial subject matter experts (SMEs)

(D) GFEBS schedule

(D) Funding availability

· Compliance with target IT architecture

· Legacy solutions cannot retire due to multi-functional requirements

· ERP solutions not available without major update

(A) Army Chief Information Officer (CIO) defines Target Technical Environment such as platform standards.

(C) None

(D) Army transition plan & schedule

Business Process Re-Engineering (BPR)

Table 3a – Business Outcomes

· Improved TDA management

· Standard IRM capability provides an enterprise solution for integrated manning and programming reporting requirements that can be used to reduce operational costs and drives efficiencies

· Enterprise TDA authoring business process supports creation and management of a GFMDI enabled organizational structure capable of supporting an Army at rest and in motion.

· Consolidated open and historical transactions

· Creates automated detailed budget data needed by GFEBS and greatly reduces costly, manual IRM business processes

· Enables the consolidation of transactions into a single source to support archiving requirements.

· Improved data quality

· Solution can be reused based upon the target ERP architecture for COTS-based solutions

· Data adheres to Standard Line of Accounting (SLOA) and provides improved machine readable transactions

Table 3b – Business Outcomes and E2E Classification (“To-Be” State)

· Standard IRM capability integrating both enterprise programmed manning and budget reporting requirements

· Hire-to-Retire (H2R)

· Hire-to-Retire (H2R)

· Manage Organization

· Manage Organization

· Manage Organization

· Manage Organization

· Integrated programmed manning & budget data

· Budget-to-Report (B2R)

· Budget-to-Report (B2R)

· Perform Reporting

· Manage Assets and Liabilities

· Perform Reporting

· Manage Assets and Liabilities

· Manage Financial Assets and Liabilities

· Distribute & Manage Budget

· Manage Financial Assets and Liabilities

· Investment Reuse

· Concept-to-Product (C2P)

· Budget-to-Report (B2R)

· Introduce Product

· Perform Reporting

· Investment Reuse

· Manage Investments

Table 3c – Business Outcomes and Acceptance Criteria (“To-Be” State)

· Standard IRM capability integrating both enterprise programmed manning and budget reporting requirements

· % of people unassigned to billets/authoritative spaces visible to the enterprise

· % of billets without resource assignments visible to the enterprise

· % of manpower TDA changes automatically available to GFEBS

· 0%

· 0%

· 50%

· 100%

· 50%

· 100%

· Automated manpower, planning, programming consolidation capability

· Accurate data

· Increased availability of data for enterprise analytics

· Poor user acceptance

· Unacceptable integration costs

· Overly complex business rules

· (D) User involvement

· (D) Solution approach

· (D) SME availability

· (D) GFEBS schedule and funding

· Integrated programmed manning & budget data

· % Command IRM data readily available to enterprise

· Number of staff required to reconcile programs and planning data to execution data

· % of reconciliation errors due to manual processes

· 0%

· 5000

· 25%

· 100%

· 4000

· 10%

· 100%

· 2500

· Increased enterprise data analytics

· Increased efficiency leading to greatly reduced operational costs

· Increased auditability

· None

· Accurate business rules

· (D) GFEBS interface

· (D) SME availability

· (D) Funding availability

· Investment Reuse

· % investment reused

· % SLOA compliant

· 0%

· 100%

· 100%

· Reduced marginal costs

· Improved enterprise financial reporting

· GOTS solution incompatible with ERP target architecture

· Too costly to restructure GOTS

· (A) Government owned code or COTS solution

· (A) High degree of SLOA compatibility

DOTMLPF-P Impact, “To-Be” State Table 4 – DOTMLPF-P Impacts, “To-Be” State

· Updated process standards for E2E business processes and Army-wide operational activities, especially those that support IRM business processes and data requirements

· Updated Army doctrine clearly outline enterprise requirements for IRM reporting requirements

· GFMDI doctrinal requirements supported by updated business processes for TDA management

· Manpower and Budget business processes closely aligned

· Clear roles and responsibilities of enterprise-wide IRM business processes ensures internal controls and data integrity

· HQDA provides oversight and governance of enterprise IRM processes and data

· IRM solution provide forward looking enterprise-wide analytics

· Enterprise solution readily accepted by Command Finance and HR specialists

· 5000+ financial and personnel specialists produce integrated budget and manpower estimates resulting in enterprise analytics

· HQDA personnel leverage enterprise analytics needed to provide full visibility of manpower/budget projections

Recommended Course of Action Obtain IRB approval of the Problem Statement and continue the analysis to identify a material solution that supports the Army’s need for an enterprise IRM solution.

image1.jpeg