The Director for Joint Force Development retains responsibility  to support the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the joint  warfighter through joint force development, in order to advance the  operational effectiveness of the current and future joint force. DOD’s Study Was Intended to Identify Leader Attributes, Career-Long Education Goals, and Educational Gaps

The purpose of DOD’s issued study of the JPME program was to identify  desired leader attributes by defining what is needed from the JPME  career-long learning experience to support DOD’s strategic vision, as well  as any gaps in the current educational program to facilitate the  development of the leaders needed to achieve that vision. In addition to retaining the  existing institutional structure for providing JPME education, however, in  its report the MECC also emphasized the importance of self-directed,  career-long learning and development. These include changes to teaching  methodologies, assessment mechanisms, and other areas in support of  the newly-identified desired leader attributes. Study’s Methodology Generally Included Leading Practices, but DOD Has Not Yet Fully Planned for Follow-on Actions and Engaged All Stakeholders, or Considered Potential Implementation Costs

The methodology DOD used for its study of JPME generally included  leading practices for evaluating strategic training and other programs,  such as reviewing existing literature, using available data, and assessing  skills gaps. Further, the department has not yet fully  evaluated the potential costs associated with the implementation of the  MECC’s recommendations to provide decision makers with more  complete information and assurance that the recommendations will be  cost-effective. DOD’s study also focused on the ability to anticipate  and respond to surprise and uncertainty, and critical thinking in joint  operations. In turn, this gap analysis helped inform the MECC’s 21  recommendations. According to the July 16, 2012 memorandum that directed the MECC  study, the March 1, 2013 deadline for the results of the study was  intended to help shape the fall 2013 academic year. The MECC  completed its report on June 24, 2013, and provided us with a copy of the  final report on July 1, 2013. For nine of the recommendations, the document identifies  potential target dates for completion, one of which is to be completed later  in 2013, and eight of which are to be completed not later than September  2014. We have previously  concluded that leading practices such as accounting for program  resources enables managers to better manage existing resources and  plan for future programmatic needs. However, by not assessing the cost of the  MECC’s recommendations, as well as any efficiencies that may be  achieved through their implementation, DOD may not be in a position to  know if it has the resources to implement them or whether efficiencies will  be achieved, and, without plans to assess cost in the near term as part of  continued efforts to implement the results of the JPME study, decision  makers may not know if implementing their recommendations will be cost  effective. For instance, without establishing  milestones and timeframes for conducting follow-on actions, and involving  necessary stakeholders and developing an implementation approach that  provides for accountability, the department may not be assured that the  study’s findings and recommendations will be incorporated into the JPME  program at institutions across the department and the services in a timely  manner. Additionally, without reliable information on the costs of  implementing the study’s recommendations, decision makers could be  hindered in determining the most efficient allocation of departmental  resources for JPME. Recommendations for Executive Action

To guide the implementation of actions DOD identified in its study on  JPME, we recommend that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff  direct the Director for Joint Force Development to take the following two  actions: establish well-defined timeframes for conducting follow-on actions,  coordinate with all stakeholders, and identify key officials  responsible for implementing the study’s recommendations to help  ensure the usefulness, timeliness, and implementation of any  actions DOD takes in response to the findings and  recommendations contained in its study, and assess the costs of implementing recommendations made and  efficiencies to be derived from the recommendations in order to  implement DOD’s recommendations in a cost-effective manner. GAO staff who made major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To identify the purpose of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) study of  the Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) program, we reviewed  relevant DOD guidance and other documents related to the study,  including the final report dated June 24, 2013, and met with  knowledgeable officials. To assess the methodology DOD used to conduct the joint professional  military education study and its planning for follow-on actions, we  reviewed the MECC’s final report and supporting documents.
Why GAO Did This Study

To facilitate unified operations across the services, DOD has provided JPME programs at departmental and service academic institutions for almost 30 years. In July 2012, the Director for Joint Force Development, who reports to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tasked the MECC to review DOD's joint education objectives and institutions to help ensure that outcomes match requirements for the strategic environment projected for Joint Force 2020. Subsequently, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 mandated GAO to report to Congress on the analytical approach used by the MECC not later than 90 days after the Director submitted the MECC's report to GAO, which the Director did on July 1, 2013. In this report, GAO (1) identifies the purpose of DOD's study of the JPME program, and (2) assesses DOD's methodology used to conduct the Joint Professional Military Education study and its planning for follow-on actions. GAO analyzed the MECC's final report and relevant planning documents, interviewed DOD officials who conducted portions of the study, and reviewed leading practices for evaluating programs by GAO and other entities.

What GAO Found

The purpose of the Department of Defense's (DOD) study of its Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) program was to identify (1) desired leader attributes as part of the JPME career-long learning experience needed to support DOD's strategic vision and (2) any gaps in the current educational program to facilitate the development of the leaders needed to achieve that vision. Specifically, a Military Education Coordination Council (MECC)--following direction from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director for Joint Force Development--proposed six desired leader attributes, including, for example, the ability to anticipate and respond to surprise and uncertainty, and concluded that the existing institutional structure for providing JPME should be retained. The MECC's gap analysis, however, indicated that in order to support the development of these attributes, a greater emphasis on career-long self-directed learning is also needed, among other things. In line with its findings, the MECC made 21 recommendations to improve the JPME program that address increased accessibility of educational programs, changes to teaching methodologies and assessment mechanisms, and enhanced use of technology.
DOD's methodology generally included leading practices for assessing training programs, but DOD has not yet fully planned for follow-on actions and engaged all stakeholders, nor has it assessed the costs of the MECC's recommendations to provide decision makers with more timely and complete information and help ensure that the study's results are implemented. Specifically, the MECC reviewed other related studies, conducted a gap analysis to identify gaps based on existing and future needs, used the best available data and acknowledged limitations--all practices identified by GAO and other government agencies and research institutions as leading practices for successful evaluations of training and other programs. By contrast, DOD documents state that the results of the study were intended to inform and shape the fall 2013 academic year, but the MECC did not complete its study until June 24, 2013 and provided its report to GAO on July 1, 2013. Further, DOD has not yet identified milestones and timeframes for implementing all of its recommendations. Subsequently, the department developed an update to inform actions for moving forward on its recommendations. DOD identified target dates for completion not later than September 2014 for 9 recommendations, but did not include interim milestones, and has not yet developed target dates for 12 recommendations. In addition, the MECC did not formalize plans to achieve the buy-in of all stakeholders for recommendation implementation. Without this information, it may be difficult for DOD to ensure that stakeholders agree on and are accountable for implementing the recommendations in a timely manner. Finally, the MECC did not analyze the costs or efficiencies associated with implementing its recommendations, but it identified 5 recommendations that could incur additional costs because they require further study. Leading practices such as accounting for program resources enable managers to better manage existing resources and plan for future programmatic needs. Without cost data on the study's recommendations or plans to assess cost in the near term as part of continued efforts to implement the results of the JPME study, decision makers could be hindered in determining the most efficient allocation of departmental resources for JPME.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD establish well-defined timeframes for conducting any follow-on actions and include stakeholders necessary for implementation, and assess the costs of implementing recommendations made in the MECCs recent study of joint professional military education. DOD concurred with both of GAOs recommendations.