We believe in the required solutions to U.S. military Facilities Management be developed with and at the Installations. The Installation organizations are the ones who will have to support the programming actions up their respective chains of authority.
Our experience and expertise can provide an augmentation to the responsible Installation organizations in developing a defensible strategy of programming actions to address their facilities challenges.
The last 15 or so years have seen a sharp increase in central funding for several reasons. One was to satisfy the need of the Department of Army to support the Army Modular Force requirements development along with the Grow the Force initiative. ACSIM saw a requirement to also support the MILCON program and started funding Planning Charrettes along with some Requirements Analyses.
Other centrally funded initiatives also were in support of the Transformation, two wars, Growth and BRAC05 initiatives:
Also in during time USACE were developing their MILCON transformation in reaction to the absolute glut of MILCON to include the BRAC05 initiatives.
This approach, in support of Army Installations/Garrisons has continued – mainly in support of MILCON and the development of capacity based planning with the Area Development Guides.
We have noticed the A-E community has become fixated on the centrally funded and centrally managed support to the RPMP. They have very capable Landscape Architects and Urban Planners, of which few if any have Installation/Garrison level experience, other than the on-site visits they perform for the contracted efforts.
This has also resulted in a lack of understanding of the real problems faced by the Installations/Garrisons in dealing with their individual challenges. The centrally funding and centrally managed support has also led Installations/Garrisons to generally “expect” the headquarters to help them.
This is partly due to the reduction in Garrison staff and other resources. This is of course true, insofar as the initiative that is supported helps the headquarters.
It would seem that the A-E community has abandoned the consultancy aspect of support to Army RPMP support.
Having worked at the Installation, MACOM, USACE, IMA Region and HQ IMCOM over many a year and been involved in many of the centrally funded efforts in support of our Nation in peace and at war and then working for over 5 years at A-E’s, it was noticed that the tenor of support from the A-E community has changed to a more reactive mode.
So, we have a multitude of very capable Landscape Architect, with AICP certification - and not enough Military Community Planners to help the Installations through the facility management jungle.
These are just Frank's views
This approach, while laudable. has not in any way addressed the Left-Brained aspects of Installation management. The Left-Brained addressing of the more analytical aspects of RPMP especially in regard to adequacy, condition, availability of Installation facilities to meet the Installation and their authorized Tenants mission needs.
If the Installation facility base was addressed in the Vision, Goal and Objectives, those decisions should be carried on to the CIS development.
If the existing Vision, Goal and Objectives do not address those issues, a revision may be necessary.
The development of the Left-Brained portion of the RPMP would allow for confident, defensible facility programming strategies to be developed by the Installations.