Research for CRM

Between 1994 and 1996, CNA conducted a study to determine ways in which the Marine Corps could improve its ability to conduct humanitarian assistance operations (HAOs). The study identified requirements for HAOs and alternative ways to meet those requirements. CNA found that some HAO tasks match warfighting tasks, such as operating a reverse osmosis water purification unit. Many HAO tasks are similar to warfighting tasks, but by have a different focus. For example, in an HAO, logistics may be the primary mission rather than a support function for the primary mission of warfighting. In addition, some tasks in HAOs are completely different from warfighting tasks, such as using the military to support civilian organizations rather than as the focus of an operation. In this analysis, we address the following question: How can the military adapt to the HAO environment so that appropriate military tasks can be determined? Our analysis focuses on how to derive tasks, particularly implied tasks, in HAOs. We define implied tasks as those tasks that have not been specified to accomplish or not, but that need to be conducted to accomplish the mission.

In January 1997, CNA published a report (CRM 96-133) that identified the most cost-effective and operationally suitable strategy for testing and repairing electronic components on AEGIS destroyers. The study concluded that alternatives that included the sue of the USM-646 tester on board the DDGs (and, by implication, on other ships as well) were the most cost-effective. The USM 646 tester, which is based on a personal computer, uses diagnostic software (called gold disks) on a CD-ROM to test electronic components for faults. Once the faults are identified, they can be repaired if the correct equipment and parts are available. By doing tests and repairs on board, a ship can avoid considerable depot-level repair costs and other costs as well. A full test ad repair capability requires five elements: the USM-646; a gold disk library; a PACE 2000 tool station; a supply of repair piece parts; and qualified technicians. Subsequently, OPNAV asked CNA to develop an investment strategy that would state the order in which surface ships should receive the elements. N43 further asked that we identify the costs and cost avoidance associated with this strategy.

To improve the quality of life of service members and increase overall efficiency, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Facilities asked CNA to examine Department of the Navy (DON) housing processes, identify options and alternatives to the current system, and evaluate these options. In this paper, we present our analysis of current DON housing practices. Its purpose is to describe the current state of housing benefits, including costs, conditions, processes, and value to the service members. These descriptions will serve as a baseline for comparison with proposed alternatives to the current housing system. This paper has five parts. In the first, we give a short overview of current DON housing benefits and summarize the results of the study. In the three sections that follow, we discuss current family housing, bachelor housing, and off-base allowances. In the last section, we list our conclusions.

In the wake of a changing defense climate, the Navy is continuing to find ways to adjust to its smaller size while maintaining its ability to respond when required. An important part of strategy is to monitor readiness during the downsizing process. The first step toward managing readiness is to understand what readiness is and why it changes over time or among units. This paper contributes to the further understanding of readiness by identifying the relationship between standard readiness measures and their determinants for Navy fighter, attack, and fighter/attack aircraft. The analysis is an extension of our earlier work on explaining the readiness of surface combatants. Our objective was to build a comprehensive database of navy fighter and attack units over time and identify readiness trends and relationships between readiness determinants and readiness measures where they exist.