The DoD defines “readiness” as the ability of the U.S. military forces to fight and meet the demands of the National Military Strategy.
It needs to be put in the context of what goals an organization is trying to accomplish. That clarity drives the need for strategy and priority.
Agencies must be very purposeful about what it is they are trying to do while having limited resources.
They need to be able to crosswalk the investments they are going to make back to the strategy and demonstrate how it will deliver a more advanced stance towards readiness. Under sequestration-level funding, the military cannot continue to operate at current levels and provide a fully-ready, globally responsive force in the manner that the American people have grown to expect from their military.
But, does simply adding more money and more people fix everything?
Agencies must prioritize their most important assets and allocate those finite resources against those priorities intelligently.
A structured, disciplined, and repeatable decision-making framework ensures a portfolio of assets is prioritized to achieve goals and objectives with minimal risk and greater benefits.
Even more important to establishing the decision framework is the task of prioritizing the strategic objectives in relation to one another. It is critical to take a fresh look at objectives, not assuming what has worked in the past will continue to suffice.
Input from stakeholders is essential to incorporating needs and considerations from across the organization into the long-range plan. Assembling a group of internal stewards to champion the change is essential to implementation.
The introduction of greater transparency, collaboration, and analytical rigor into the readiness process will certainly lead to significant changes in how projects are selected and how funding is allocated in the future.
Watch these recorded webinars to listen to a senior expert level panel representing multiple military services give their perspective on readiness: