SECDEF announces first round of Force of the Future reforms

Here is the list:

1. Improve and Enhance College Internship Programs
2. Establish the Defense Digital Service (DDS)
3. Launch Entrepreneur-in-Residence Program
4. Designate Chief Recruiting Officer
5. Expand Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellows Program
6. Increase Size of the Career Intermission Program
7. Update and Modernize Retirement System
8. Implement Web-Based Talent Management System
9. Establish Office of People Analytics
10. Implement Exit Surveys
11. Examine Ways to Improve Recruiting
12. Diversity Briefings
13. Talent Management Centers of Excellence
14. Civilian Skills in Reserve Component
15. Compensation Study
16. Increased Use of Reserve Component Service Members
17. Doctoral-Level Program in Strategy
18. Center for Talent Development
19. Civilian Human Capital Innovation Laboratory
20. Defense Innovation Network
21. Active and Reserve Component Permeability

Some of these are low hanging fruit (10, 12) and driven by need (7, 15). Also, the Department has been working on making better use of the Reserve Component (14, 16, 21) for many years. The Army (via OEMA) has operated an Office of People Analytics (9) and worked on talent management (8, 9, 13, 18) for many years.

Establishing a doctoral-level program in strategy (17) is not a comparative advantage of DoD. Many well-regarded business schools offer PhDs in Strategy. A homegrown program would focus more on military applications. But, it would be more valuable to send our officers to civilian programs but bring them back to well-placed post-doctoral positions to leverage their education and tie it to military applications. I believe this is true with AFIT and NPS as well.

I am especially excited that each of the services is directed to establish a "Talent Management Center of Excellence to provide labor economics data and [modeling] for Service personnel chiefs and senior leaders." This is an under-served area, and I hope the services truly invest in this area.

Ovearll, this is a great initial set of initiatives. Their success will depend on the level of resourcing (manpower and funding) and the talent DoD puts into these reforms.

Service academies boost the officer talent pool →

There is little doubt that the military, with its up-or-out promotion scheme and rigidities throughout its personnel system, must continually replenish its talent pool. I found this line from Barno and Bensahel's recent article interesting:

The U.S. military is in a competition for talent. The best and brightest graduates from American universities are in high demand. According to the Department of Defense, only a half of 1 percent of officers entering the military last year hailed from the top 20 U.S. colleges and universities—a percentage that is half that of just 20 years ago.

This top 20 list must exclude the service academies which produce roughly 20 percent of officers. Of course, there are many ways to rank colleges and universities. Forbes magazine, which focuses on a return-on-investment methodology, ranks all three service academies in the overall top 40 with the U.S. Military Academy ranked #11. And, in their Best Public Colleges category, West Point is ranked #1, the Naval Academy is ranked #2, and the Air Force Academy is ranked #5 -- all three in the top 5! In U.S. News's rankings, the Naval, Military, and Air Force Academies rank #9, #22, and #29, respectively. Either of these lists would boost the number of officers hailed from top 20 schools well above 1 percent. Unfortunately, the rankings that the Economist recently released did not include the service academies.

Also, the reestablishment of ROTC at other prestigious schools (e.g., Harvard and Yale) should bolster the top 20 talent provided by the academies. Regardless of the rankings, students who are capable of attending these elite programs have the highest opportunity cost. It will take substantial changes to attract these graduates to serve in the armed forces.

Competition in educational benefits from civilian employers →

The military may face additional competition from civilian employers who are increasingly willing to pay for their employees' education.

Large companies like the oil giant BP, accounting firm Deloitte, tech behemoth Google, and even food-maker Smuckers either provide discounts to select courses at eligible colleges or cover the full cost of tuition. An employer survey from 2013 found that 61 percent of companies make available some type of tuition-assistance program. Parcel firm UPS offers its employees a $15,000 tuition credit and cut deals with regional colleges in Illinois and Kentucky to provide its workers free courses.

One of the main benefits of military service is access to tuition assistance and the Post 9-11 GI Bill. If other companies offer similar benefits, the military may need to increase compensation in other areas to attract and retain servicemembers.

Data-driven personnel decisions →

The internal, hierarchical military personnel system requires constant attention.

Large-scale data collection and analysis will eventually provide the armed forces with a far richer understanding of their human capital than has ever been available before, paving the path for the services to take a fresh look at the qualifications and skills necessary for commissioning into the military. How we choose our officers will lay the groundwork for the management of the force of the future. Given the challenges that lie ahead, it is something we cannot afford to get wrong.

Send military members to Civilian schools →

The Pentagon wants to send more officers to earn graduate degrees at top-notch civilian universities, a key piece of soon-to-be released personnel reforms that could fundamentally alter the career tracks of senior military leaders.

Having spent several years in civilian graduate school, I know how beneficial this opportunity can be. But, the issue isn't how to replace the war colleges. As long as the military operates graduate schools – Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) and the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) – it will be difficult to justify sending members to civilian institutions.