Sound  management practices include (1) establishing a coherent mission and  integrated strategic goals to guide the transformation, including resource  commitments; (2) setting implementation goals and a timeline to build  momentum and show progress from day one; and (3) establishing a  communication strategy to create shared expectations and report related  progress. However,  other actions taken by the Navy do not fully incorporate these practices. Sound management practices, such as those noted above, were not fully  used by the Navy because senior leaders wanted to quickly implement the  Fleet Response Plan in response to the Chief of Naval Operations’ desires. However, without an overall management plan containing all of these  elements to guide the implementation of such a major change, it may be  difficult for the Navy and Congress to determine the extent to which the  Fleet Response Plan is achieving the desired results, measure its overall  progress, or determine the resources needed to implement the plan. Navy Has Not Fully Tested and Evaluated the Fleet Response Plan or Developed Lessons Learned

The Navy has not fully tested and evaluated the Fleet Response Plan or  developed lessons learned to identify the effectiveness of its  implementation and success over time. The methodical testing, exercising,  and evaluation of new doctrines and concepts is an established practice  throughout the military to gain insight into how systems and capabilities  will perform in actual operations. However, instead of methodically  conducting realistic tests to evaluate the Fleet Response Plan, the Navy  has tried to demonstrate the viability of the plan by relying on loosely  linked events that were not part of an overall test and evaluation strategy,  which impairs the Navy’s ability to validate the plan and evaluate its  success over time. In addition, the Navy has not used its lessons learned  system to share the results of its Fleet Response Plan tests or as an  analytical tool to evaluate the progress of the plan and improve  implementation, which limits the Navy’s ability to identify and correct  weaknesses across the fleet. Abraham Lincoln carrier strike  group while it was in surge status in October 2004. Recommendations for Executive Action

To facilitate successful implementation of the Fleet Response Plan and  enhance readiness and ensure the Navy can determine whether the plan  has been successful in increasing readiness and is able to identify and  correct performance weaknesses and trends across the fleet, we  recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following two actions:    Direct the Secretary of the Navy to develop a comprehensive overarching  management plan based on sound management practices that will clearly  define goals, measures, guidance, and resources needed for  implementation of the Fleet Response Plan, to include the following  elements:    establishing or revising Fleet Response Plan goals that identify what  Fleet Response Plan results are to be expected and milestones for  achieving these results,    developing implementing guidance and performance measures based  on these goals,  identifying the costs and resources needed to achieve each  performance goal, and    communicating this information throughout the Navy.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Navy has been transforming itself to better meet 21st century needs. Since 2000, the Congress has appropriated about $50 billion annually for the Navy to operate and maintain its forces and support around 376,000 military personnel. In recognizing that the Navy faces affordability issues in sustaining readiness within its historical share of the defense budget, the Chief of Naval Operations announced a concept called the Fleet Response Plan to enhance its deployment readiness status. The Fleet Response Plan is designed to more rapidly prepare and sustain readiness in ships and squadrons. GAO evaluated the extent to which the Navy has (1) employed a sound management approach in implementing the Fleet Response Plan and (2) tested and evaluated the effectiveness of the plan and shared results to improve implementation.

What GAO Found

In establishing the Fleet Response Plan, the Navy has embraced a major change in the way it manages its forces. However, the Navy's management approach in implementing the Fleet Response Plan has not fully incorporated sound management practices needed to guide and assess implementation. These practices include (1) establishing a coherent mission and strategic goals, including resource commitments; (2) setting implementation goals and a timeline; and (3) establishing a communication strategy. While the Navy has taken a number of positive actions to implement the plan, it has not provided readiness goals for units other than carrier strike groups; resource and maintenance goals; performance measures and timelines; or a communications strategy. Sound management practices were not fully developed because senior leaders wanted to quickly implement the plan in response to changes in the security environment. However, without an overall management plan containing all of these elements, it may be difficult for the Navy to determine whether its efforts to improve the fleet's readiness are achieving the desired results, adequately measuring overall progress, or identifying what resources are needed to implement the Fleet Response Plan. The Navy has not fully tested and evaluated the Fleet Response Plan or developed lessons learned to identify the effectiveness of its implementation and success over time. Systematic testing and evaluation of new concepts is an established practice to gain insight into how systems and capabilities will perform in actual operations. However, instead of methodically conducting realistic tests to evaluate the Fleet Response Plan, the Navy has tried to demonstrate the viability of the plan by relying on loosely linked events that were not part of an overall test and evaluation strategy. This approach could impair the Navy's ability to validate the plan and evaluate its success over time. In addition, the Navy has not used its lessons learned system to share the results of its Fleet Response Plan events or as an analytical tool to evaluate the progress of the plan and improve implementation, which limits the Navy's ability to identify and correct weaknesses across the fleet.