Choose an application

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

For a variety of reasons, including deployments, many Air Force organizations have been finding significant differences between the number of personnel they were authorized to have and the number of people actually available. RAND Project AIR FORCE undertook a detailed study of the related issues and policy implications. The researchers collected historical data and available manpower determinants; interviewed a variety of personnel; and analyzed the personnel strength histories of selected wings, functional areas, and specialties, eventually broadening the focus to the cumulative affect of the Air Force human resource system on wing-level manpower, skill levels, and personnel tempo. Among the resulting recommendations were ways the Air force can improve its manpower bookkeeping and how it determines requirements, including greater use of dynamic simulation models, as well as implementing metrics comparing planned and actual burdens on personnel, especially when on-the-job training is involved.

United States. --- Personnel management.

Choose an application

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

Since 2000, spending on military personnel (MILPERS) has grown at an average annual rate of 3.3 percent to approximately

Choose an application

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

"Air Force specialty codes, similar to Army and Marine Corps military occupational specialties and Navy officer designators and enlisted ratings, establish personnel-classification boundaries according to the work performed and the required skills, education, and training. The specialties combine duties and tasks into cohesive job clusters that may be matched to people possessing the essential aptitudes, attributes, and qualifications. Given the Air Force's evolving missions, changing nature of work, and changing workforce, several senior Air Force leaders have asked whether the existing specialty codes still provide the appropriate clustering of specialties. This technical report examines the current officer-classification structure while seeking to determine whether more fundamental changes are needed. It provides a brief primer on the specialty-classification system, encapsulates major changes that are in progress and planned, and offers additional changes based on interviews and comparative analyses. Although the research focused primarily on the officer structure, many of the observations have correlates in the enlisted-specialty structure. Specialty-classification components need continuous maintenance and periodic upgrades. One recommendation is that the continuous process improvement initiatives, such as Air Force Smart Operations 21, be expanded to include reducing the overall cycle time for specialty-classification changes."--Publisher's website

United States. --- Officers. --- Occupational specialties. --- Job descriptions. --- Personnel management.

Choose an application

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

The Department of the Air Force (DAF) promulgates directives, memorandums of instructions, and other guidance embracing the importance of diversity. Indeed, DAF Senior Leadership is on record stating that diversity is a mission imperative. Yet, demographic data have been masked for most boards making decisions about career development and promotions. The DAF wanted to assess the efficacy of making demographic data visible to board members. The 2021 Central Professional Military Education Program (CPME) Boards provided an opportunity to test the effects of unmasking the data to board members. In addition, the DAF implemented two other diversity and inclusion–related changes for the 2021 CPME board: (1) board members underwent unconscious bias training, and (2) instructions to board members concerning consideration of race, ethnicity, and gender were modified. In this report, the authors present the results of analyses comparing the 2020 outcomes (before the changes in guidance) with the 2021 outcomes (after the changes). In conducting this research, the project team used a mixed-methods approach. Specifically, the team analyzed board inputs and selection outcomes for the 2020 CPME board (before the changes) and 2021 CPME board (after the changes) to assess the effects on the selection likelihood for minority versus nonminority members; conducted semistructured interviews with 2020 and 2021 board members to learn about their experiences and how they interpreted and applied the new instructions to illuminate the quantitative patterns in the data; and reviewed relevant literature to identify trends that might assist the DAF in implementing the proposed changes.