Session 1: Challenges and C2 After Action Report

1. Session 1: Challenges and C2After Action Report 22-23 October 2009 Challenges and Command & Control Strategic Planning Session 1

2. Agenda for Session DAY 1 – Thursday, 22 October 2009 0730 – 0800 Registration 0800 – 0815 Welcome and Introductions 0815 – 0900 Presentation: Why are we here? 0900 – 1000 Team Session 1 - Core Competencies and Major Activities 1000 – 1015 Break 1015 – 1030 Presentation: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats 1030 – 1200 Team Session 2 – SWOT Development 1200 – 1300 Lunch 1300 – 1400 SWOT Completion 1400 – 1415 Presentation: Strategic Issues and Challenges 1415 – 1430 Break 1430 – 1530 Team Session 3 – Strategic Challenges 1530 – 1545 Crystal Ball Homework Exercise 1545 – 1600 Questions & Comments 1600 Adjourn

3. Agenda for Session DAY 2 – Friday, 23 October 2009 0730 – 0800 Homework Exercise Review: Stump the Chump 0800 – 0830 Presentation: Army Cases 0830 – 0915 Team Session 4 – Current C2 System 0915 – 0925 Break 0915 – 1000 Team Session 5 – Ideal C2 System 1000 – 1030 Team Session 6 – Synthesis 1030 – 1050 Team Session 7 - Prepare Out-Brief to Command Group 1050 – 1100 Break 1100 – 1130 Out-brief to Command Group 1130 – 1200 Team Session 8 - Identify Additional Stakeholders 1200 Adjourn 8/25/2014 3

4. Core Competencies and Major Activities

5. Security

6. Core Activities Emergency Services Police (US & German) Fire (US & German) Medical (Bavarian Red Cross (BRK)) Antiterrorism – Force Protection Physical Security Access Control (Installation Access Control System (IACS) Access Control Points (ACPs) & Security Force Intelligence Antiterrorism Officer (ATO)

7. Significant Issues Leased housing areas makes security more complex German Police responsible for off post Evolving requirements and understaffed workforce Response time is too slow Force Protection mediation costs

8. Challenge Statement Given a dispersed housing configuration, evolving requirements and understaffed workforce… How can USAG Grafenwoehr provide US Forces a safe and secure environment for living and working and be ready to respond to any security threat or emergency situation?

9. Stakeholders German Police Presidium County Fire Representatives B-MEDDAC Bavarian Red Cross (Ambulances) 18th MP Bde Contract Guards (Ponds) USAREUR Office of the Provost Marshall IMCOM-Euro DES DRM DPTMS DPW 2nd Bn 66th MI 69th Sig Bn

10. SWOT Matrix Core Competency: Security Key Activities: Emergency Services, AT-FP/Physical Security/Access Control Environment Mission Community Cost • Secure and safe community and installation • Economic and social benefits to local community (jobs, purchases, open recreation like hunting) • Police and Law Enforcement • Fire response on/off-post • HAZMAT Training/personnel • Trained guard force • Host Nation support • Response plan for QRF • Protected, undeveloped space on-post preserves habitat • Compliant with requirements Strengths • Meeting AT/FP requirements for new construction projects • Rotational duty for AT/FP TD • Dispersed housing areas • First medical responders are FD/EMT not ambulance or emergency • Number of assigned police and fire personnel (Staffing) • Building construction takes a long time • Response time for emergency response is dependent upon HN • Patrol distribution limited due to number assigned • Land use and impacts • Various pollution – light, emissions, bandwidth • Fuel consumption • High cost associated with hiring, training contracted labor • Fire Dept vehicles beyond life cycle Weaknesses • Rigid AE Reg 190-16 • Poor gate design • Long wait times for in-bound traffic • Emissions • Safety due to traffic backlog • Delayed ES response time • High cost to redesign and rebuild gates Threats • Decrease time of ES response • More familiarity of installation by Host Nation • Host Nation coordination on ES/MP/FME • Civilian workforce instead of military workforce • Continue Mil to Civ workforce conversion • New patrol systems – ATVs, bikes, etc. Opportunities

11. Community Well-being

12. Core Activities • Life Sustaining Services: • Health Services • Spiritual Services/Fitness • Social Enhancements • Educational services • Leisure/travel services • Childcare • Special events • Fitness • Legal and advocacy services • Recreational services • Various registration and licensing services • Community welcome and in-processing services

13. Significant Issues • Inflexible facilities that do not meet needs or number. Outdated, inefficient designs. • Resourcing expectations – “free services”, “retiree promises” • Resourcing top-drive – campaigns like Army Family Covenant • Medical – requirements of HN vs US Standards. On-post services are fragmented and availability is not well communicated. • Lack of a communication plan for managing expectations of services offered. • Inadequate staffing to provide service programs

14. Challenge Statement Given that USAG Grafenwoehr is required to provide comprehensive life sustaining and social enhancing services in light of: • Inflexible, insufficient, outdated, and aging facilities; • Limited financial and staffing resources to meet customer expectations and top-driven campaigns and programs; • Fragmented services such as medical, dental, HRC; and • Insufficient communication to manage the expectations of customers regarding services. How will USAG Grafenwoehr provide state-of-the-art life sustaining and social enhancement services that are flexible, synchronized, and adequately resourced to support mission requirements and meet customer expectations?

15. HRD RSO FMWR DPW HN-SME GRO Working Council Rep DoDDs “CAC” PAO IMCOM G IMCOM FMWR BMEDDAC BDENTAC Hospital Admin FRSA Sr. Spouses (CG, 172nd, 25cr Stakeholders

16. SWOT Matrix Core Competency: Community Well-being Key Activities: Life Sustaining Services, Social Enhancing Services Environment Mission Community Cost • Soldier recognizes availability of spiritual services • Dedicated workforce • PX/DECA Services and facilities • Community education • Good facilities • Robust services • Communication structure • Special events (retreats, etc.) • SB Funding (APF) • COLA • Family member health care during deployment • Primary education • Quality childcare • Program diversity • Soldier medical and dental readiness • Partnerships with HN (medical) • Spiritual tasks met satisfactorily • Army leadership emphasis on QOL and well-being • HN support for US Army • Environmental program • FMWR Recycling • HN Support for Army Strengths • Unable to meet community demand for variety of spiritual support services • FM and Civilians unsure spiritual services exist for them • Inadequate facilities • Vet support for non-active duty • Customer service • Lack of childcare options • Targeting services to needs • Expectation management • Knowing customer needs • Nomenclature • Users can’t identify services • FM, Civ, Retiree medical care • Limited faith representation • Inadequate staffing • Inadequate facilities • Building design is consistent with the IDG. This may not result in facilities that best provide function needed. • Work flow – ergonomics. • Aging infrastructure for various services (chapel, etc) • CDR choices in funding. • Medical waste • Funding decisions • Cost of travel to Landstuhl • Convincing customer of value service or program • Extended program cost during deployments • Resourcing expectations Weaknesses • Funding cuts for Adult ED • Cost to Army for Child Care subsidies • Foreign currency echange rate • Haves and have nots • Funding formula for Chaplain SPT • Absenteeism costs (10-15%) • Language and cultural differences • Funding formula for Chaplain • OPTEMPO • Top-driven “CONUS-centric” changes to programs • FM employment opportunities • HN unable to meet its own childcare demands • Water quality and availability to meet growing community demands • “More with less” mentality impacts quality • Social outlets • Changing demographics of soldiers that have different needs Threats • Communicating with customers • Educate leadership about available resources • Off-post churches • Off-post health and dental facilities • Education on the use of TriCare insurance • Numerous HN medical facilities • BTL Housing • WAQ • Army Family Covenant • Distance learning services • HN partnerships on environmental issues • NAF (Tithes and offerings) • ASAP demonstration program • Cost recuperation • Cost of care Opportunities

17. Infrastructure

18. Core Activities • Define Requirements • Develop comprehensive Master Plan • SRM/Utilities • New Construction • Resource Protection

19. Significant Issues • Cost and availability of energy • Ever increasing restrictions on land use due to encroachment, noise, development • Cost and complexity of security with loss of useable space is hindering mission • Aging facilities – Camps are WWII design/obsolete, uses excessive energy and are not relevanent to modern warfare • Workforce – aging workers may not have all the skills needed to support emerging technology. We don’t upgrade training to insure workers can support increasingly computerized systems

20. Challenge Statements Given that: • We are faced with increasing costs of utilities and future scarcity of natural resources; • The land we control is instrumental in why we are here with increasing restrictions; • Increasing security requirements in cost and space; • That we still use facilities that were built prior to 1990; and • Our current workforce is aging and has difficulty keeping pace with emerging technologies. How will we: • Reduce or eliminate our dependence on external energy sources; • Manage our lands to remain relevant and available for current and future mission requirements; • Reduce security costs and restrictions to enable us to continue OPTEMPO; • SRM with evolving technology and limited funding; and • Insure the workforce is trained and available to maintain facilities and systems?

21. DPW PAI Mission Commander (G3) Command Group EUD AAFES GM FST Forest Meister Energy providers Co-Ops DRM DPTMS CPAC Director DHR DPW ENV FMWR DoDDS Signal University Partners Stakeholders

22. SWOT Matrix Core Competency: Infrastructure Key Activities: Define requirements, Master Planning, SRM and utilities, New Construction, Resource Protection Mission Community Environment Cost • Clear senior command Guidance • LN workforce continuity • Streamlined WO process • Regulatory guidance • Quality, agile staff • Documentation (GIS & studies) • Soldier live near workplaces • Requirements ID process • Facilities for units & deployment • Well-define zoning • Clear senior command Guidance • LN workforce continuity • Streamlined WO process w feedback • Quality staff • Modern designs for new facilities • UEMCs • SORT program • Co-locate modern housing w/ services • Privatization of utilities (improving) • SRM model for funding • Well-defined Zoning • Clear senior command Guidance • LN workforce continuity • Streamlined WO process • Regulatory guidance • Quality staff • Excellent Host Nation relations • Clean up of new construction sites • Good open space • Clear senior command Guidance • LN workforce continuity • Streamlined WO process • Quality staff • Flexibility of MCA dollars • Savings from prevention training • Construction methods • Execution of funds Strengths • User knowledge of SRM process • Lack of leadership continuity • Resistance to change • Communication • W.O. Volume • Difficult to obtain MCA approval • 1391 is inflexible • Not enough housing • Inefficient designs • User knowledge • Lack of leadership continuity • Resistance to change • Communication • Growth and development consumes land and increases congestion • Resident culture of waste/unsustainable designs • Camp proximity to services • Similarity to CONUS community • Too many facilities to maintain/improve • User knowledge • Lack of leadership continuity • Resistance to change • Communication • W.O. Volume • Finite Resources • Habitat protection limits usable space • Land use inherently damages env • Fuel for commuting • Energy use for all infrastructure • User knowledge • Lack of leadership continuity • Resistance to change • Communication • W.O. Volume • Budget priorities and limitations • New construction require more workforce and O&M support • Range maintenance is expensive • Impact of deployment on infrastructure Weaknesses • Policy changes/OCONUS forced decisions • Competing requirements between new construction and preserving land for training • Reg restrictions and liability • BRAC • No available land nearby • OPTEMPO • Policy changes • Invasive species introduction • New species discovery • Building restrictions • Occupancy (too many or too few) • BRAC • Community expectations • Congestion and encroachment • Policy changes • Regulatory restrictions can stop development or increase costs • BRAC • Asbestos/ lead identified in old construction • Restrictive laws • Policy changes • Exchange rates and budget priorities • Clean costs rising • BRAC Threats • ICE generated improvements • CMS • Adaptability to and from community on development • Penalties for violations • Incentive programs • Joint ventures w/ local community • South Camp WWT • Sustainable design/off grid for camps • Customer/user education • Leverage technology to improve communication • AT/FP incorporation flexible to change construction methods • Requests can be made for anything (not always funded) • Education for arriving personnel • New technology and tools • Partnerships that leverage economic benefit from USA • Leverage partnerships with HN • Adaptability of new construction to existing master plan • Co-Op programs with forest meister • MOAs with other Garrisons • Cost savings from new technology • Planning to budget costs for specified requirements • MCA funds are available • Generate revenues from fines • Cost reducing options (Troop construction) • Economic benefit to surrounding communities • OPM and end of year funds Opportunities

23. Workforce

24. Core Activities • Employee hiring and development • Workforce Reshaping • Secession planning

25. Significant Issues • Employee development and our ability to monitor our performance effectiveness of efforts. • Secession planning OCONUS is problematic due to the “five-year” rule for DACs and our inability to build a team that provides cohesion to the Garrison workforce. • Workforce reshaping is restricted (German law and US Regulation) because of limitations on what types of jobs LN (66% of total) workforce can perform (limited with IT, EEO, etc). • Rotational workforce (PCS, deployment) impacts several professions (for example medical, childcare, etc)

26. Challenge Statement Given that the Garrison: • Has an ineffective system to monitor and quantify the employee development program; • Has limitations on sustaining a well-trained workforce; • Has limitations on DAC workforce continuity; and • Workforce re-shaping is impeded by German Labor Laws and US Army regulations. How will USAG Grafenwoehr maintain and sustain a well-trained workforce through a viable secession plan and a robust employee development program?

27. DHR – Mary Cooper DGC – Mr. Corbin CPAC – Manfred Lobeivhofer LN Works Council – District Representative IMCOM XO – Phyllis Wiggins EEO – Clint Covert Representative for the HN Field Operating Agency Region – Fred Lang Local University Representatives IMCOM G1 Stakeholders

28. SWOT Matrix Core Competency: Workforce Key Activities: Employee Hiring and Development, Workforce Reshaping, Secession Planning Environment Mission Community Cost • Installation a source of employment in region • Secondary economic benefits associated with US DACs living on the economy is substantial. • Good pool of staff that know the mission. • Staff accomplish mission critical tasks. • Qualified HN staff represent 66% of workforce. • Community supports US DACs who live and work in the area. • Staff are aware of requirements but do not always know what to do. Strengths • By German Law and US Regulations, HN staff can only perform certain jobs. Workforce reshaping is difficult. • Staffing is not always sufficient to execute all support services that impact morale and community. • Staffing is not always sufficient to execute all support services that impact morale and community. • Aging workforce without a viable plan to replace – this may impact mission as support functions will being losing expertise over time. • Installation workforce creates impacts through transportation and use of materials. • Cost to train DACs is difficult to justify when staff leave after 5 years. • Training is constant due to turnover, PCS, 5-year rule. Difficult to invest what is needed during High OPTEMPO. • Cost to relocate DACs is increasing and expensive – exacerbated by 5-year rule. Weaknesses • Workforce supported by spouses who leave during deployments and PCS – creates workforce instability. • Skilled labor lost during deployments and PCS (medical, dental) – continuity of service is difficult. • By German Law and US Regulations, HN staff can only perform certain jobs. • Cost to train DACs is difficult to justify when staff leave after 5 years. • Cost to relocate DACs is increasing and expensive – exacerbated by 5-year rule. • Five-year rule makes it difficult to maintain continuity because of loss of critical skills and experience – impacts performance. • Relocation of staff from CONUS creates significant environmental impacts for moving house goods and people from CONUS. Threats • Partnerships with local community and universities to bring qualified HN skills to labor pool. In conjunction with changes in workforce reshaping requirements could reduce the number of personnel brought from the US. • Change of period to move staff to and from the US could reduce env impacts. • Partnerships with local community and universities to bring qualified HN skills to labor pool. • Workforce re-shaping and secession plan could address aging workforce and staff availability issues. • Partnerships with local community and universities to bring qualified HN skills to labor pool. • Partnerships with local community and universities to bring qualified HN skills to labor pool. • Reduce application of 5-year rule can reduce cost to move personnel to and from CONUS. Opportunities

29. Mission Services

30. Core Activities • Training • Logistics • Housing • Deployment/Redeployment

31. Significant Issues • Aging workforce – losing personnel with knowledge and replacing with personnel with less experience and need for training – impacts ability to effectively provide services that support mission and community. • Encroachment of training areas on local community and community on Army(LN complaints, noise, development near boundaries) of training areas requires work-arounds. • Environmental awareness/training for troops and community • Deployment and re-deployment (lack of APOD nearby) • Budget impacts and priorities (CLS, UFRs)

32. Challenge Statement Given that USAG Grafenwoehr: • Has an aging workforce that currently provides the Garrison’s continuity and will lose these workers to retirement over the next 10 years; • Regional population growth could encroach upon training areas; and • Maintaining environmental awareness and compliance is expensive and time consuming due to the rotation of personnel. How will USAG Grafenwoehr meet its mission, provide premier customer services, and protect resources now and into the future?

33. Range Control JMTC Director of Training 172nd BCT Community Services DPW Environmental Host Nation Forest Meister SRP Personnel: ITAM and RTLP 2nd SCR Medical/DENTAC Sr. Mission Commander Stakeholders

34. SWOT Matrix Core Competency: Infrastructure Key Activities: Environment Mission Community Cost • Accessibility • Location to both Camps • HN involvement in planning • Deployment-specific programs • Army family covenant • Employment for LN population • Joint training with HN military • Dedicated/motivated workforce • Accomplishment of mission • Clearly defined requirements • DFAC Ops customer service • Erosion control • Env mitigation technologies • HMMP/reuse center • Competent soldiers • Availability of land for training • T&E species management • Cooperation with HN env officials • EMS • HMMP reuse center • Use of rail transport over road convoys • Maintaining training lands and providing services expensive • HMMP • Training areas shared with Vilseck and Graf • Mission-specific funding sources • Redeployment costs Strengths • Language barriers • Services supporting QOL • Impact on businesses due to varying military family populations during deployments • Fewer services provided to FM during redeployment • Proximity of community to ranges • Energy consumption and env impacts • Maintaining training lands and providing services is expensive. Limited funds and new and unbudgeted requirements makes success difficult • Transport to and from Landstuhl • Energy and water consumption • Remediation • Reservation system that restricts use of training lands • Extended services during redeployment • Funds spent on unused services • Costs for temp set-up and trans • Time between deployments to train • Env awareness training • Dependence on POL • Lack of qualified candidates for new staff • Training time • Planning time is short • POL usage creates env impacts • Hazardous waste generation • Env awareness with soldiers • Wasted material • More training needed before redeployment • Manpower allocations Weaknesses • Supply system is cumbersome and requires a lot of transportation • Invasive species • Competing priorities for limited funds • Cost to update training areas for new weapon systems • Cost to update inadequate, outdated facilities • Increasing legal requirements • Invasive species • Encroachment • Outdated doctrine often results in more costly behavior • Simultaneous moves • Aging workforce • Invasive species • Destruction of natural and cultural resources • UXO • Concerns over env impacts • Flexibility to accomplish mission within resource constraints and requirements • Unit enrollment • Required timelines for re-integration services • Noise and other impacts of training on local QOL Threats • Local workforce employment • Summer employment and intern programs • Economic benefit to HN community • More service to FM during deployment • Learn from HN env protection approach • Recreational opportunities off-post • Volunteers for env projects • Mission augmentees • ICE Quest to mod LimFacs • Combined training with other nations • HN relations • Controlled and limited land and vegatation disturbance during training • Land/vegetation disturbance • Expanding cooperation with HN • Good public relations • Learn from HN env protection approach • Automated paperwork • Increased unit enrollment • Switch GPC/GSA to reduce costs • Partnerships with HN universities • Insourcing expensive service contracts with permanent workforce • Consolidated training • Community suport Opportunities