Write a 1- to 2-page answer for each of the three questions. There is one question each covering the F104, F105 and F106 lessons. Instructors will grade your paper in accordance with the attached rubric.
When answering all three questions, remember that these questions are less concerned with you detailing the specifics of any particular item (getting into the weeds), but are more concerned with you understanding the interrelationships, inputs and outputs, and demonstrating understanding of how the Army manages change with limited resources and uses prioritization requirements. While there are three individual questions, they are very much related and should support one another.
Short Answer Questions:
F104 Question: In the previous lessons, you have learned how the Force Management process translates changes in strategic guidance, enemy capabilities, and input from operational commanders into potential DOTMLPF-P solutions to identified capability gaps. These solutions can be materiel and/or non-materiel in nature. Briefly describe how Capability Developers and other force modernization proponents across the Army translate those potential solutions into the Force Design Update (FDU), and how the FDU creates approved requirements documents. (The focus is Phase 2 and 3 of FD)
F105 Question: Describe how the Army uses the Total Army Analysis to translate validated force design proposals into actionable changes to the Army’s force structure, creates the budget request for that structure, and communicates those changes to the force. (The focus is Phase 4 and 5 of FD)
F106 Question: Planning, Programming, Budget and Execution (PPBE) is the process that aligns strategy to resources. Explain how PPBE encompasses the entire FM model, is cyclical, and is not simply an action that only occurs in Phase 4 of FD. Ensure to address how PPBE is affected by and affect the other two primary decision support processes.
If something is not your original thought, you need to cite your source. This includes direct quotations, paraphrases, summaries of the assigned readings, doctrinal references, or outside sources. Refer to ST 22-2, Appx A for guidance about citations and footnotes/endnotes. Citations do not count towards page count.
PLEASE USE THE ATTACHED REFERENCES AND THE RUBRIC BELOW TO ANSWER EACH QUESTION.
Writing Assignment Rubric
| STUDENT NAME: | DDE COHORT: | DATE: | ||||||||||||
| COURSE TITLE: F100 How the Army Runs | ASSIGNMENT: F106Short Essay Questions | |||||||||||||
| INSTRUCTOR: | DEPARTMENT: | |||||||||||||
| Requirement: Effective writing at CGSC is “understandable in a single rapid reading that answers the question asked; is generally free of errors in grammar, mechanics and usage; and properly cited. Standard: Writing demonstrates proficiency in— 1. Substance, 2. Style, 3. Organization and 4. Correctness. | ||||||||||||||
| Overall Assessment: | ||||||||||||||
| 97+: A+ | 96.99-94: A | 93.99-90: A- | 89.99-87: B+ | 86.99-80: B | 79.99-78: C+ | 77.99-70:C | <70: U | Total: | ||||||
| Instructor Comments | ||||||||||||||
| Cognitive Level Attained (Higher levels include characteristics of lower levels) | Elements of Thought | Universal Intellectual Standards | ||||||||||||
| EVALUATION (Judging or weighing by building and using criteria and standards) | -Clarity -Accuracy -Precision -Relevance -Depth -Breadth -Logic -Significance -Fairness | |||||||||||||
| SYNTHESIS (Integrating parts into a new whole) | ||||||||||||||
| ANALYSIS (Breaking material down into component parts to determine structures and relationships) | ||||||||||||||
| APPLICATION (Use of knowledge to solve problems) | ||||||||||||||
| COMPREHENSION (Understanding of the material) | ||||||||||||||
| KNOWLEDGE (Recall of specific information) | ||||||||||||||
| Instructions: Write a 1- to 2-page answer to each of the three questions. One question applies directly to each applicable lesson of F104, F105 and F106. While the questions are answered individually, they are related. In addition, as FM is an integrated process, processes from F101-F103 may need to be incorporated or mentioned to demonstrate your understanding of the FM model. | ||||||
| Student Assessment | Faculty Assessment | |||||
| Exceptional | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory | ||||
| Substance | ||||||
| Points | Content (30 points) | Points | ||||
| The military problem is clearly and succinctly defined with strong ties to strategic guidance, explains why problem is relevant. Shows superior understanding of the FD and PPBE, and how it is affects JCIDS and DAS. Clearly understands how process links to the capability gap and strategic guidance. Everything is accurate. Articulates risk associated with decisions. Explanations and descriptions of content are clear and precise. Clearly demonstrates understanding of FM processes, and the interconnected and dependent nature. | The military problem is identified and understandable. Appropriate ties to strategic guidance or concepts. Shows general understanding of FD and PPBE. Some minor inaccuracies, but primarily accurate. May occasionally include irrelevant details or omit important details. Explanations and descriptions are almost always clear and precise. Analysis is sufficient but requires refinement. Demonstrates basic understanding of FM processes. | The military problem is poorly defined or not defined. Ties to strategic guidance is weak or poorly communicated. Poor, confused, or indirect understanding of FD and PPBE. Does not address the effects of PPBE on JCIDS and DAS. Risks associated with solutions not addressed. Information (facts, assumptions, concepts/theories) are not accurate, and/or content is irrelevant, missing, or misrepresented, and/or insufficient detail. | ||||
| Points | Analysis/Problem-Solving/Conclusions (25 points) | Points | ||||
| Analysis is complete and ready for senior leader briefing. Insightful, original analysis; conclusions superbly supported by evidence clearly explained; consideration of ethical/legal issues when relevant; consideration of alternative points of view or counter-evidence is fully addressed. | Attains an adequate cognitive level appropriate to the assignment. Thorough analysis, though perhaps not as insightful or original as it could be; conclusions adequately supported by evidence clearly explained; legal/ethical issues addressed but may be superficially treated; alternative points of view or counter-evidence, but may not be fully addressed. | Remains at a low cognitive level. Analysis superficial or disjointed; little or no relation between conclusions and evidence; ethical/legal issues ignored; fails to address alternative points of view or counter evidence. | ||||
| Points | Style (15 points) | Points | ||||
| Words are precise; language is concise and without wordiness; writer’s tone is appropriate to the audience and purpose; sentences track clearly even to the rapid reader; transitions lead smoothly from one idea to the next. Active voice predominates. Student provided complete citations and bibliography IAW instructions and Turabian style / CGSC ST 22-2. | Some language is imprecise but generally understandable. Style is adequate but lacks polish and directness. Some first person and unsupported generalities are included, but do not detract from understanding or accuracy of the paper. Proper citation is attempted but flawed. | The language is awkward, hard to read. The reader must backtrack to understand the writer’s meaning, or the reader cannot understand the meaning. Language is extremely wordy, or primarily in passive voice, or inappropriate in tone. Citation of sources is missing or inaccurate. | ||||
| Points | Organization (15 Points) | Points | ||||
| Uses CGSC essay style/format. Supporting Points are clear and logically arranged to develop the content and analysis most productively for the audience. Conclusion reinforces thesis. | Uses but deviates from the CGSC essay style. Points are mostly clear but generalized. In general, points establish a logical line of reasoning. Could be improved with stronger topic sentence use. | Does not use or weakly uses the essay style / format. Points are not clear or the sequence of points is illogical or inadequate to the needs of the task or audience. Conclusion deviates from or counters thesis. | ||||
| Points | Correctness (15 points) | Points | ||||
| Few if any departures from the published standard (grammar, punctuation and usage) with no discernable pattern to existing errors. Used and provided a 1009W. | A few departures from the published standard (grammar, punctuation and usage), but not enough to confuse or distract the reader. Provided a 1009W. | Departures from the published standard (grammar, punctuation and usage) significantly confuse or distract the reader. Did not provide a 1009W. | ||||
| Student Self-Assessment Total Points | Instructor Assessment Total Points | |||||
