US Government at Work

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**biccat**

This is, sadly, not a joke

The Pentagon was inundated with so many studies in 2010 that it commissioned a study to determine how much it cost to produce all those studies.

Now the Government Accountability Office has reviewed the Pentagon’s study and concluded in a report this week that it’s a flop.

The study of a study of studies began in 2010 when Defense Secretary Robert Gates complained that his department was “awash in taskings for reports and studies.” He wanted to know how much they cost.

Two years later, the Pentagon review is still continuing, which prompted Congress to ask the GAO to look over the Pentagon’s shoulder. What they found lacked military precision.

The GAO found only nine studies that had been scrutinized by the Pentagon review, but the military was unable to “readily retrieve documentation” for six of the reports.

The Department of Defense’s “approach is not fully consistent with relevant cost estimating best practices and cost accounting standards,” the GAO concluded. In fact, they often did not include items like manpower, the report found.

The Pentagon “partially concurs” with the GAO’s report.

The cost of the study of the study of the studies was not available from the GAO.

**CptJake**

Nothing new. Congress levies a LOT of reporting requirements on the military, and has for decades.

**Melissia**

And it should, given the excessively expensive nature of the military-industrial complex.

**Nocturn**

They should commission a study to find out why the Pentagon only "partially concurs."

**WarOne**

Melissia wrote:And it should, given the excessively expensive nature of the military-industrial complex.

Given the expensive nature of the military-industrial complex, don't you think they can spend more money to keep track of the expensive nature of the military-industrial complex?

Or do they not want to know how many billions of dollars they sink into a ray gun that makes people get really hot and bothered?

**CptJake**

Melissia wrote:And it should, given the excessively expensive nature of the military-industrial complex.

You have it partially wrong. CONGRESS decides how much to spend and largely what to spend it on. Look up how congress critters have added a East Coast missile defense site that the Pentagon wants no part of into the upcoming DoD budget. Congress needs to explain to the tax payers why they choose to force the military to spend crap tons of money on crap the military doesn't want.

If you had even a tiny clue how many tax payer funded man hours are spend generating asinine (and often redundant) reports that inform no actual decision making efforts because congress mandates them you would hopefully be appalled at the waste. If instead they focused on making DoD accountable in areas that matter and allowing the whole acquisition process to be fixed vice pandering to special interests we would all be better off.

**dogma**

CptJake wrote:If instead they focused on making DoD accountable in areas that matter and allowing the whole acquisition process to be fixed vice pandering to special interests we would all be better off.

Given the size of the DoD, and of course the issues with security clearance, this will inevitably require a study.

**Melissia**

And? A lot of that congressional defense pork is derived from lobbying by the defense industry to begin with, thus my statements about the size and influence of the military-industrial complex are perfectly fine.

**CptJake**

Melissia wrote:And? A lot of that congressional defense pork is derived from lobbying by the defense industry to begin with, thus my statements about the size and influence of the military-industrial complex are perfectly fine.

The AND would be congressionally mandated reports to the military don't solve the problem and contribute to wasted tax payer dollars. Is that clearly stated enough for you to get?

**Melissia**

CptJake wrote:
Melissia wrote:And? A lot of that congressional defense pork is derived from lobbying by the defense industry to begin with, thus my statements about the size and influence of the military-industrial complex are perfectly fine.

The AND would be congressionally mandated reports to the military don't solve the problem and contribute to wasted tax payer dollars. Is that clearly stated enough for you to get?

Of course they don't. But they do give them information with which to judge whether or not they are worth keeping.

**dogma**

CptJake wrote:
The AND would be congressionally mandated reports to the military don't solve the problem and contribute to wasted tax payer dollars. Is that clearly stated enough for you to get?

When civilians control the military, you have to keep civilians informed. That doesn't mean there isn't waste in the system, of course there is, but you can't simply hand wave the need to report to Congress (or, at the very least, the Presidency).

Well, you can, but it fundamentally changes the role of the military in the American political system.

**Piston Honda**

**Kilkrazy**

This sort of thing happens in all large organisations.

I'm currently engaged in a large "metrics" exercise at work.

**Coolyo294**

Piston Honda wrote:

I has delicious flavor.

**dogma**

Kilkrazy wrote:This sort of thing happens in all large organisations.

I'm currently engaged in a large "metrics" exercise at work.

Aye, a big part of my job is correcting for methodological variances in the data sets we amalgamate. Pretty much reports on reports.