[PDF] Planning Programming Budgeting And Execution System eBook

Author :
Publisher :
Page : 77 pages
File Size : 49,67 MB
Release : 1999
Category :
ISBN :

GET BOOK

In 1997 the Army asked that RAND Arroyo Center assist in the reengineering of The Army Plan (TAP). The Army also reinstituted strategic planning and the product was the Army Strategic Planning Guidance (ASPG), which provides strategic guidance to TAP. Planning and programming in the Army are centralized within the Department of the Army's headquarters. This document discusses the Arroyo Center's work on TAP.

Author : Leslie Lewis
Publisher : RAND Corporation
Page : 0 pages
File Size : 25,72 MB
Release : 1999
Category : History
ISBN : 9780833026705

GET BOOK

This project was part of a special assistance activity for the Director of the U.S. Army's Program Analysis and Evaluation Directorate (PA & E) conducted beginning in 1995 and continuing into 1997. The purpose of this project was to assist the Director of PA & E in creating a new program development process and methodology. The director's principal objective in this project was to improve the Army's Program Objective Memorandum (POM) development process. These improvements would be designed to (1) enhance the Army's ability to view the totality of its resources, (2) improve its resource decision process, and (3) justify those choices within the Army and to the external community, including the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), and the Congress.

Author :
Publisher :
Page : 111 pages
File Size : 49,79 MB
Release : 1999
Category :
ISBN :

GET BOOK

This project was part of a special assistance activity for the Director of the U.S. Army's Program Analysis and Evaluation Directorate (PA & E) conducted beginning in 1995 and continuing into 1997. The purpose of this project was to assist the Director of PA & E in creating a new program development process and methodology. The director's principal objective in this project was to improve the Army's Program Objective Memorandum (POM) development process. These improvements would be designed to (1) enhance the Army's ability to view the totality of its resources, (2) improve its resource decision process, and (3) justify those choices within the Army and to the external community, including the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), and the Congress.

Author : Leslie Lewis
Publisher : RAND Corporation
Page : 0 pages
File Size : 42,91 MB
Release : 2000
Category : Political Science
ISBN : 9780833028181

GET BOOK

This report documents an examination of the planning phase of the Army Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution System, to determine the extent to which the Army's reengineering of planning and programming was successful and to suggest improvements.

Author : Irv Blickstein
Publisher :
Page : 0 pages
File Size : 49,44 MB
Release : 2016
Category : History
ISBN : 9780833096142

GET BOOK

This tool documents key but enduring aspects of how the Navy implements the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution process so that action officers and Navy leaders can successfully navigate and effectively contribute to the process.

Author : Stephanie Young
Publisher :
Page : 0 pages
File Size : 40,18 MB
Release : 2024-06-30
Category : History
ISBN : 9781977413017

GET BOOK

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) System is a key enabler for DoD to fulfill its mission. But in light of a dynamic threat environment, increasingly capable adversaries, and rapid technological changes, there has been increasing concern that DoD's resource planning processes are too slow and inflexible to meet warfighter needs. As a result, Congress mandated the formation of a legislative commission to (1) examine the effectiveness of the PPBE process and adjacent DoD practices, particularly with respect to defense modernization; (2) consider potential alternatives to these processes and practices to maximize DoD's ability to respond in a timely manner to current and future threats; and (3) make legislative and policy recommendations to improve such processes and practices for the purposes of fielding the operational capabilities necessary to outpace near-peer competitors, providing data and analytical insight, and supporting an integrated budget that is aligned with strategic defense objectives. The Commission on PPBE Reform asked RAND to provide an independent analysis of PPBE-like functions in selected countries and other non-DoD federal agencies. This report, part of a seven-volume set, presents case studies of PPBE functions in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to provide additional insights for improving DoD's PPBE processes.

Author :
Publisher :
Page : 51 pages
File Size : 37,49 MB
Release : 1994
Category :
ISBN :

GET BOOK

This revision describes an enhanced Army Planning, Programming, and Budgeting, and Execution System (PPBES) that responds to the following: (1) The new biennial cycle that began with the Program Objective Memorandum (POM) for fiscal years (FY) 1990-1994 (para 1-5); (2) Implementation of the DoD Reorganization Act of 1986 (Act of 1 October 1986, Public Law 99-433, volume 100, U.S. Statutes at Large, p. 992), and later organizational changes (para 1-5); (3) Implementation of recommendations of the President's Slue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management adopted into law (section 2436, title 10, United States Code) (para 1-5); (4) A 1987 statutory requirement to submit to Congress the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) underlying the President's Budget (section 221, Title 10, United States Code) (para 1-5). (Beginning in 1990, the new 6-year Future Years Defense Program replaced the former Five-Year Defense Program) (para 2-2); (5) Initial actions from the Defense Management Review directed by the President in February 1989 (paras 2-3 through 2-6 and 3-2 through 3-6); and (6) Change in which: (a) Army major commands (MACOMS) and other operating agencies (now including program executive offices (PEGs)), submit operating requirements using field POMs instead of Program Analysis and Resource Reviews (PARRS) used before the FY 1992-1997 PPBES cycle (para 2-16 and chap 4). (b) The Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) staff uses appropriation-based Program Evaluation Groups (PEGs) instead of functional panels to help build the Army program (POM), which then, unlike the functional panels, remain in operation throughout the PPBES cycle to track the program through budget analysis, program and budget defense, and execution (paras 2-15, 4-8, and 5-9).