Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Hazard mitigation --- Organizational effectiveness --- Organizational resilience --- Cost effectiveness. --- Measurement. --- Evaluation.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Soldiers in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) have traditionally been required to attend 39 days of training per year: one weekend per month (24 days, equivalent to 48 periods of inactive duty training [IDT]) and 15 days (about two full weeks) of annual training (AT). However, across the readiness cycle, some units may have increased training requirements, while others may have their requirements changed with minimal notice. The authors examine how changes in training requirements affect soldiers' interest in staying in the USAR and how their civilian employment and family situations influence that decision. The authors examined administrative data on USAR soldiers and units to identify past changes in unit-level training requirements and whether they affected soldier retention or transfers to other units. The authors also surveyed currently serving Troop Program Unit soldiers to gather information on the effects of changes in training requirements on their retention intentions and their preferences for different training options. In their analysis of the survey, the authors found that, on average, soldiers prefer a slight increase in the number of AT days (2.5–3 weeks, or 18–21 days) and prefer the status quo of 48 IDT periods. In addition, most soldiers prefer a weekend IDT schedule to shifting some training to weeknights and one continuous period of AT rather than splitting it into multiple periods. However, these averages obscure important differences in preferences across the sample, prompting the authors to review how demographic and service-related characteristics affect intentions to stay in the USAR.

United States. --- Reserves --- Training of.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The U.S. Army has several levers at its disposal to try to meet its recruiting mission, with resources jointly used for both Regular Army (RA) and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) accessions. These resources differ in their cost per additional recruit produced and the lead time necessary to change individual resourcing levels and affect enlistments. The Army can also modify recruit eligibility policies to help it achieve its accession requirement within available resources. Recruiting resources and enlistment eligibility policies work together as a system to produce RA and USAR recruits, and understanding their interactions under varying requirements and environments enables decisionmakers to use their limited resources more effectively and efficiently to achieve the Army's accession requirements. The authors present a model-the Reserve Recruiting Resource Model (RRRM)-designed to optimize the resource levels and mix needed to achieve future USAR recruiting goals under changing enlisted accession requirements and recruiting environments and alternative eligibility policies for potential recruits. The model also enables comparison of alternative courses of action. This research builds on prior work by the RAND Arroyo Center on the effectiveness and lead times of alternative recruiting resources. In their results, the authors discuss using the RRRM to predict annual accessions from a specified baseline resourcing plan and provide several examples of how the tool can be used to assess potential recruiting resource and policy trade-offs or to prepare for alternative recruiting requirements via optimization of recruiting resources used for USAR recruiting.

Soldiers --- Supply and demand --- Forecasting. --- United States. --- Recruiting, enlistment, etc. --- Evaluation. --- United States

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

"This report describes the methodology for risk-informed trade-space analysis developed by the U.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity Risk Integrated Product Team and researchers from the RAND Corporation and the first iteration of the associated Risk-Informed Trade Analysis Model. The framework combines elements of system engineering, production economics, and risk analysis to functionally and probabilistically relate performance, schedule, and cost outcomes and their uncertainties holistically and understandably. The technology development process is conceptualized as one in which the physical system is described as a portfolio of technologies with associated technical capabilities, and the completion of each technology's development is a discrete random variable. The performance characteristics of the final system are stochastic. In addition, the time of technology development is also stochastic and, in part, drives the overall cost of the system. In a departure from previous analyses, the authors incorporate technology-specific courses of action, or risk-mitigation behaviors, that are assumed to take place in the event that the technology is not developed at the milestone date. For example, one might assume that a lesser-performing but existing substitute could replace a particular developmental technology or that, if that technology is of critical importance, the schedule might be allowed to slip. Through analysis of alternative courses of action and their effects on the resultant probability distributions estimated for performance, schedule, and cost, decisionmakers have a means to understand the implications of certain risk-mitigating actions. Technology, schedule, and cost trades can be examined between or within individual systems"--Publisher's web site.

Risk management --- Weapons systems --- Risk assessment --- Stochastic systems. --- Visual Basic (Computer program language) --- Mathematical models. --- Cost control --- United States. --- Procurement --- Microsoft Excel (Computer file)

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

To help inform decisionmaking in the event that the Army experiences significant changes to its budget, the U.S. Army Quadrennial Defense Review Office asked the RAND Arroyo Center to provide an update to a previous report that provides an empirical understanding of how Army spending affects communities and states. The second edition of the main report, The Army's Local Economic Effects, presents findings on the economic activity supported by Army spending at the local level. This appendix is an ancillary volume. It provides detailed results of the analysis, organized by state and congressional district. It includes descriptions of the overall economic effects for each state, then delves into more detail by fiscal year, from 2014 through 2017, concluding with a parsing of the data by congressional district, providing maps and calculations. This volume includes Mississippi through Wyoming.