Assumption Speech of MGEN EMMANUEL T BAUTISTA, Incoming CGPA during the PA Change of Command Ceremony on 09 November 2011 at the PA Grandstand.

I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY HONORING THE GOD ALMIGHTY, THANKING HIM FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO LEAD THE PHILIPPINE ARMY AND IMPLORING HIS DIVINE GUIDANCE AS I CARRY OUT MY DUTIES.

LET ME ALSO EXPRESS MY GRATITUDE TO ALL THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR MY DESIGNATION AS CGPA, MOST ESPECIALLY HIS EXCELLENCY, BENIGNO S AQUINO III, PRESIDENT AND COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF ALL ARMED FORCES; THE HONORABLE VOLTAIRE T GAZMIN, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN EDUARDO OBAN, THE CHIEF OF STAFF AFP; AND ALL OTHERS WHO BELIEVED IN ME, SUPPORTED ME AND PRAYED FOR ME.

TO GENERAL ORTIZ, MY IMMEDIATE COMMANDER, THANK YOU SIR FOR YOUR GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT. YOU HAVE DONE A LOT FOR THE ARMY. WE SHALL ALWAYS REMEMBER YOU SIR AS OUR HERO.

TO MY PREVIOUS COMMANDERS AND SUPERIORS; TO MY MENTORS AND CLASSMATES; TO MY COLLEAGUES AND SUBORDINATES; TO THE SCHOOLS WHERE I CAME FROM NAMELY MARIST SCHOOL, THE PHILIPPINE MILITARY ACADEMY AND THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES; MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY, MOST SPECIALLY MY MOTHER GLORIA; AND ALL OTHERS WHO HAVE SHAPED ME TO WHAT I AM NOW, I THANK YOU ALL.

ALLOW ME ALSO TO PAY TRIBUTE TO MY LATE FATHER, BGEN TEODULFO S BAUTISTA, A SOLDIER OF PEACE, WHO’S LEGACY IS MY SOURCE OF INSPIRATION. HE DID NOT LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO BE CGPA BUT HIS SON NOW STANDS BEFORE YOU IN HIS STEAD. HE DID NOT SEE THE DAWN OF PEACE, BUT HIS SON WILL CARRY ON THE TORCH.

I AM EXTREMELY HONORED TO HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED AS THE 54th COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE ARMY. THE PHILIPPINE ARMY HAS A GLORIOUS HISTORY WHICH DATES BACK TO THE REVOLUTIONARY ARMY OF ANDRES BONIFACIO AFTER WHOM THIS CAMP IS NAMED AFTER. THEN AND THROUGHOUT ITS HISTORY, THE ARMY HAS ALWAYS FOUGHT FOR THE FILIPINO PEOPLE, WINNING FOR THE FILIPINOS INDEPENDENCE AND DEFENDING THIS COUNTRY FROM VARIOUS THREATS. TODAY, THE ARMY CARRIES ON THIS TRADITION IN ITS EFFORTS TO WIN THE PEACE FOR THE FILIPINO PEOPLE.

THE PHILIPPINE ARMY HAS GONE A LONG WAY IN ITS GROWTH AS AN ORGANIZATION. WE SHALL CONTINUE TO BUILD UPON OUR GAINS AND THE LEGACIES OF PREVIOUS ARMY COMMANDERS TO FURTHER BRING THE ARMY TO GREATER HEIGHTS.

I SHALL LEAD THE ARMY GUIDED BY TWO STRATEGIC PRECEPTS: IN THE CONDUCT OF OUR OPERATIONS, BY THE INTERNAL PEACE AND SECURITY PLAN BAYANIHAN AND; IN STEERING THE ARMY, BY THE ARMY TRANSFORMATION ROADMAP OR ATR.

IPSP BAYANIHAN IS OUR BLUEPRINT FOR WINNING THE PEACE. THE ROAD TO PEACE IS LONG AND DIFFICULT. HOWEVER, IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITIES AND CHALLENGES, WE SHOULD REMAIN FOCUSED ON THE OBJECTIVE. WE HAVE TO PUSH ON. THE PHILIPPINE ARMY REMAINS FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE PEACE PROCESS. WE WILL CONTINUE TO REACH OUT TO OUR BROTHERS TO CHOOSE THE PEACEFUL PATH AND THOSE WHO DO SO MERIT OUR UNWAVERING SUPPORT. BUT FOR THOSE WHO INSIST IN USING ARMS TO THREATEN THE SAFETY AND WELL BEING OF OUR PEOPLE, WE WILL APPLY LEGITIMATE FORCE. YES, WE WILL SEEK JUSTICE AGAINST THOSE WHO COMMIT ATROCITIES THROUGH APPROPRIATE, CALIBRATED AND FOCUSED RESPONSE WITHOUT NECESSARILY JEOPARDIZING THE PEACE PROCESS AND WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF HUMAN RIGHTS, INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW AND RULE OF LAW. AFTER ALL, THE USE OF LEGITIMATE FORCE WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT’S OVERALL FRAMEWORK OF ACHIEVING PEACE AND SECURITY IS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF IPSP BAYANIHAN.

WE HAVE MADE A LOT OF STRIDES UNDER BAYANIHAN SINCE WE IMPLEMENTED IT LAST JANUARY. LET US SUSTAIN OUR MOMENTUM BY GAINING A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF IT, BY BEING MORE CONSCIENTIOUS IN ITS IMPLEMENTATION, BY GIVING IT MORE IMPETUS AND BY SUPERVISING IT MORE KEENLY TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS IMPLEMENTED DOWN THE LINE. WE HAVE TO TRANSLATE BAYANIHAN, OUR NATIONAL STRATEGY, TO THE OPERATIONAL AND TACTICAL LEVEL – HOW IT IS IMPLEMENTED ON THE GROUND.

BAYANIHAN PRESENTS TO OUR PEOPLE A CHOICE BETWEEN CONTINUOUS ARMED STRUGGLE AND PEACE. IT’S BEEN MORE THAN FOUR DECADES THAT WE HAVE BEEN EMBROILED IN CONFLICT. ARMED STRUGGLE IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO OUR PROBLEMS. ON THE CONTRARY, IT HAS BROUGHT A LOT OF SUFFERING AND MISERY TO OUR PEOPLE; SO MANY LIVES HAVE BEEN LOST, SO MANY FUTURES HAVE BEEN DESTROYED, NOT ONLY ON BOTH SIDES BUT ALSO THOSE CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE AS WELL. WE HAVE LOST DEAR FRIENDS AND FAMILY. LET THIS BE OUR MOTIVATION TO WIN THE PEACE!

WE KNOW THAT WE CANNOT WIN THE PEACE IF WE DO NOT HAVE THE NECESSARY CAPABILITY. WE SHALL SEEK TO CONTINUOUSLY EMPOWER AND DEVELOP THE PHILIPPINE ARMY THROUGH THE ARMY TRANSFORMATION ROADMAP, WHICH HIGHLIGHTS OUR COMMITMENT TO PURSUE GENUINE TRANSFORMATION FOUNDED ON GOOD GOVERNANCE. IT SEEKS TO TRANSFORM THE PHILIPPINE ARMY INTO A BETTER, MORE RESPONSIVE, MORE CAPABLE AND MORE PROFESSIONAL ARMY COMMITTED TO ITS MANDATE. IT AIMS TO PROMOTE GOOD GOVERNANCE AND PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE; INSTITUTIONALIZE VARIOUS REFORM INITIATIVES; AND PROVIDE A RATIONAL AND LONG-TERM BASIS FOR THE ORGANIZATIONAL THRUST OF THE ARMY.

THE ATR IS A GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK TO ATTAIN OUR VISION OF A “WORLD CLASS ARMY THAT IS A SOURCE OF NATIONAL PRIDE”. LET ME WALK YOU THRU THAT VISION.

WE ENVISION AN ARMY THAT IS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING ITS MANDATE, IS OWNED AND LOVED BY THE FILIPINO PEOPLE AND IS A SOURCE OF NATIONAL PRIDE.

IN THE NEAR TERM, THE ARMY SHOULD BE ABLE TO WIN THE PEACE RELATIVE TO INTERNAL SECURITY THREATS. TO DO THIS, IT SHOULD UNDERGO A TRANSFORMATION PROCESS IN THE CONTEXT OF SECURITY SECTOR REFORM. THIS SHOULD INVOLVE THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAPABILITIES AND ENHANCING THE PROFESSIONALIZATION OF THE ARMY UNDER FIRM DEMOCRATIC CONTROL. CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT IS TO FURTHER ENHANCE THE ABILITY OF THE ARMY TO MILITARILY DEFEAT ARMED THREAT GROUPS. IT ALSO INCLUDES THE ACQUISITION OF NON-TRADITIONAL SKILLS SUCH AS STAKEHOLDER AND INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AS WELL AS PEACE BUILDING. PROFESSIONALIZATION, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS FOCUSED ON THREE THINGS. FIRST IS GOOD GOVERNANCE WHERE THE ARMY ADHERES TO BEST PRACTICES AND IS DEVOID OF MALPRACTICES AND CORRUPTION. SECOND IS SHIELDING THE ARMY FROM PARTISAN POLITICS. FINALLY, WE LOOK FORWARD TO AN ARMY THAT ADHERES AND BELIEVES IN HUMAN RIGHTS, INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW AND RULE OF LAW. WHILE DEVELOPING OUR CAPABILITY MAY TAKE TIME, ACHIEVING A HIGHER LEVEL OF PROFESSIONALISM CAN TAKE PLACE SOONER.

IN THE MEDIUM TO LONG-TERM, WE ENVISION AN ARMY WHO IS RESPECTED BY ITS NEIGHBORS. BY THIS TIME, THE ARMY HAS NOW REFOCUSED TO ITS TRADITIONAL ROLE OF DEFENDING THE COUNTRY AND ITS INTEREST. WE WOULD HAVE DEVELOPED A MODICUM OF CAPABILITY FOR PROTECTING OUR INTERESTS. ITS PERSONNEL ARE PROFESSIONALS AND OUR PEOPLE APPRECIATE AND ARE PROUD OF THEIR ARMY.

BY 2028, WE WOULD HAVE ATTAINED A WORLD CLASS ARMY THAT IS A SOURCE OF NATIONAL PRIDE. THAT IS THE ARMY VISION. THAT IS WHERE WE WILL TAKE THIS ARMY TO, AND IN SO DOING; WE HOPE TO BE A SOURCE OF INSPIRATION TO OUR PEOPLE. IN THE SPIRIT OF BAYANIHAN AND THROUGH THE ATR, WE HOPE TO ENCOURAGE OUR PEOPLE TO JOIN US IN OUR DREAMS AND TOGETHER MOVE FORWARD AS A NATION.

AS I STARTED BY IMPLORING DIVINE GUIDANCE OF GOD ALMIGHTY, LET ME CONCLUDE BY SEEKING THE SUPPORT OF ALL MEMBERS OF TEAM ARMY AND ALL OUR STAKEHOLDERS TO INCLUDE THE ENTIRE FILIPINO PEOPLE. TOGETHER, LET US WIN THE PEACE. WE WILL WIN THE PEACE! WE OWE IT TO THOSE WHO CAME BEFORE US, WE OWE IT TO OURSELVES, AND WE OWE TO OUR PEOPLE. TOGETHER LET US BUILD AN ARMY THAT WE CAN ALL BE PROUD OF. AFTER ALL, THIS IS YOUR ARMY, OUR ARMY.

MABUHAY ANG HUKBONG KATIHAN NG PILIPINAS! MABUHAY ANG SAMBAYANANG PILIPINO!

One hears or reads about the Ligots and the Garcias, or for that matter all the other rogues who have brought scandal and shame to the military in one way or another — corruption, coup attempts, election influencing — and one wonders how our armed forces can have sunk so low (the answer generally given is the Marcos dictatorhip, and his coddling of the military).

By LTC ROMMEL R CORDOVA (INF) PA

Introduction

In 2010, the Philippine Army took a bold step forward when it embarked on an 18-year transformation program that aims to build a more responsive and competent Army fully capable of undertaking its mandated tasks. Through this program aptly called the Army Transformation Roadmap (ATR), the Army envisions itself to be “a world-class Army that is a source of national pride” by 2028. This initiative demonstrates the Army’s strong resolve towards the righteous path of good governance, which is in line with the policy thrusts of the current Aquino Administration.

However, implementing a dramatic and total change involving the Philippines’ largest uniformed service is a huge and challenging task. This requires the firm determination of the leadership and the strong support of its stakeholders, both internal and external; without which carrying out a large-scale change program will most likely fail. Thus, the success of a transformation initiative is largely hinged on the commitment and involvement of all stakeholders.

In this light, this article will discuss and outline the key strategy mechanisms implemented in order to align the entire organization to the strategic direction set by the ATR and ensure that the Army is prepared for the full implementation of the strategy through increased awareness and accountability. This will be carried out in three (3) sections. The first section will provide an overview of the Army’s journey towards good governance by defining the key concepts that guides the Army Transformation Roadmap. The second section will highlight the four alignment mechanisms that are implemented in order to ensure that all Army units, offices and personnel are aligned to the set direction and are committed to support the implementation of the ATR. Finally, the third section will outline the early gains that came as a result of the ATR and the ways ahead in order to sustain the momentum of the transformation program. Overall, this essay will conclude that the success of this reform initiative and the realization of the Army 2028 vision rest on the strong commitment and full involvement of the Army’s stakeholders, both within and without the organization.

Road to Army Transformation

Transformation is not new to the Army. Its history is a story of evolution from a revolutionary army during its early years to a dynamic partner in peace and nation-building over a century later. In the course of time, it has remained receptive to various initiatives for reforms.

More recently, the Army has embarked on a transformation program that placed emphasis in a change in paradigm which involves thinking beyond self, short-term, and single issues. Through this program, the Army must focus on the institution rather than the personalities; must consider long-term strategies rather than short-term tactics; and must approach all matters from a systems perspective in order to address interrelated priorities rather than single issues.

Specifically, the Army’s reform program must address organizational issues at three levels. Firstly, the Army must reengineer current systems and process to make it more efficient, responsive and transparent. Secondly, it must address identified capability shortfalls to make Army units more capable and operationally ready to perform its mandate. Finally, the Army must address issues related to the competence, discipline, motivation, and professionalism of individual soldiers.

In order to pursue these reform agenda, the Army, in partnership with the Institute for Solidarity in Asia (ISA), has formulated the Army Transformation Roadmap, which is a governance and transformation program anchored on the Performance Governance System (PGS).

The ATR highlights our commitment to pursue a genuine transformation program founded on good governance. It seeks to transform the PA into a better, more responsive, more capable and more professional Army committed to its mandate. It aims to promote good governance and performance excellence; institutionalize the various reform initiatives; and provide a rational and long-term basis for the organizational thrusts of the Army.

It’s an 18-year transformation program that intends to provide stability to thrusts and policies despite frequent changes in leadership. The ATR is also a governance program that serves as a guide and constant reference for decisions and actions taken on a day-to-day basis.

The ATR has three important components namely: the Army Governance Charter which defines the Army’s strategic direction, the Army Strategy Map that outlines our strategic approaches, and the CGPA Governance Scorecard which facilitates strategy execution.

The Governance Charter sets and defines the strategic direction that the Army wants to pursue for the next 18-years. It highlights our core values of “Honor, Patriotism, and Duty”; our Core Purpose of “serving the people, securing the land”; and our vision to be “a world-class Army that is a source of national pride” by 2028.

The Army has also developed a transformation roadmap that visually captures its strategy on how to realize our vision. The strategy map highlights the three strategic themes of good governance, organizational excellence, and operational excellence. It considers the 5 strategic perspectives used to define the 13 strategic objectives of the ATR. It emphasizes the importance of stakeholder involvement to support its good governance agenda. Moreover, it illustrates the cause-and-effect relationship of the strategic objectives and describes the story on how the Army will be able to realize our vision.

In order to ensure that the ATR goals are attained and the vision is realized, the Army crafted the Commanding General’s (CGPA) Governance Scorecard that translates the vision into objectives, measures and performance targets. The Army identified 21 measures which are used to evaluate the success of the Army in relation to the strategic objectives outlined in the ATR. (In the interest of time I will not discuss in detail the various performance indicators but feel free to refer to the ATR pamphlet provided.)

Strategy Execution and Alignment

Aligning the Army & Cascading the ATR

The success of the Army’s transformation initiative rest on the proper implementation of the ATR, otherwise it will just remain as a planning document or at the conceptual level. To jumpstart its execution, the Army needs to align key aspects of the organization to the ATR. The concept of strategic alignment aims to ground the Army better to its strategy by increasing awareness, creating accountabilities and building focus. In this regard, strategic alignment is attained in the Army through the following mechanisms:

(1)  Alignment in functions, systems and policies in which, through the scorecard infrastructure as a common framework, different offices and units in the Army are aligned to the ATR through the scorecard cascading process.

(2)  Alignment in resources in which the Army prioritized the allocation of resources to support the programs, activities and projects identified in the ATR that are designed to produce the desired strategic outcomes.

(3)  Alignment in message in which the Army endeavors to promote greater awareness and commitment to the ATR.

(4)  Alignment in expectations in which the Army actively reaches out to and closely partners with its external stakeholders in order to attain its long-term vision.

Aligning Functions, Systems and Policies

The realization of the Army vision and the attainment of the ATR goals necessitate that the day-to-day operations of all the units and offices in the Army must be synchronized and linked to the strategic direction set by the ATR. This is achieved by aligning to the ATR the various systems and policies governing the Army as well as the functions and programs of key Army units and offices through a scorecard cascading process.

To generate greater impact on the cascading process, the Army initially pursued the horizontal cascading philosophy. This means that the Army choose to cascade first to the key staff at the Headquarters Philippine Army (HPA) because they are the policy-making arm of the CGPA and manages a specific functional program; hence, they influence how the entire Army operates through its policies, plans and programs. Moreover, cascading the ATR to these functional staff offices will align the various functional systems to the thrusts and goals of the ATR. The succeeding table identifies the eleven (11) offices that underwent the initial ATR cascading process.

The Army started the cascading process last 02-03 December 2010 through a pilot cascading session for the Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Plans, G5, PA in order to familiarize the ATRTWG with the process. After which, a series of two cascading working sessions were conducted last 25-28 January and 01-04 February 2011 involving the rest of the identified offices which were divided into groups of five per session. This was followed by individual working sessions per office last August 2011 in order to refine the various outputs.

Each office went through the process of analyzing its customers vis-à-vis its outcome and evaluated the office processes through the value chain analysis framework in order to derive the desired change agenda where they based their respective strategic objectives. They then proceeded to develop their respective second-level scorecards with specific measures and targets; and outlined the initiatives which must be implemented to attain the outlined office objectives.

Illustrating the Cascading Process

To illustrate how the cascading process was done, we have chosen the Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Education and Training, G8, PA as an example because of the big impact it has on the accomplishment of the mission of the PA as well as on the ATR. As the principal staff responsible for all matters related to education, training and doctrines development, aligning the policies, plans and programs of OG8, PA with the goals of the ATR will greatly affect the accomplishment of the Army mission and the realization of the Army vision. Moreover, the thrusts of OG8, PA will directly influence the training programs of the various training and operating units of Army.

During the cascading workshops, OG8 has clarified its roles and responsibilities vis-à-vis the thrusts of the ATR using the customer-outcome analysis framework. Though this framework, OG8 clearly defined its outcome of having a “well-educated and well-trained Army” which is directly contributory to the desired outcome of the ATR to have a “professional Army loved by the people.”

Secondly, through the Value Chain Analysis framework, OG8 has defined the processes, key outputs and activities related to education and training management and doctrine development leading to the identification of the gaps and issues that became a basis for their change agenda as outlined in the table below.

Thirdly, based on the customer-outcome analysis and the change agenda, OG8 identified the following eleven (11) second-level objectives majority which are aligned to the CGPA strategic objectives:

Fourthly, OG8 then identified a total of fourteen (14) measures with corresponding targets which would assess its performance vis-à-vis the stated second-level objectives. The second-level objectives, measures and targets formed the second-level scorecard of OG8.

Finally, OG8 identified two initiatives that will drive their performance. The first is the Enhancement of Doctrine Development System project which intends to revise the Army Doctrine Feedback System Manual, recruit highly competent civilian researchers, and establish a lessons learned system. The second OG8-sponsored initiative is the Enhancement of the PA Education and Training Management System project broken down into the following project components or activities:

(5)  Improve the Training Information Management System

(6)  Enhance and standardize unit and staff training system

(7)  Enhance the pre-entry training system

(8)  Strengthen training of Army personnel on HR, IHL, and rule of law

(9)  Improve the marksmanship training system

(10)       Improve the leadership training and development

(11)       Ensure responsive and efficient instructor certification system

(12)       Improve the system of analysis, design, development, and evaluation (ADDE) of training programs

(13)       OG8 Personnel skills development program

In sum, by undergoing the cascading process, OG8 has clearly defined its roles and identified its thrusts in line with the thrusts of the ATR. It built consciousness and focus to all its programs towards the strategic direction set by the ATR. Moreover, definite accountabilities were defined as far as its contribution to the CGPA’s scorecard is concerned.

Aligning Resources

The ATR will remain a piece of paper unless the strategic initiatives identified to drive its performance are funded and implemented. Hence, another key to successfully implementing the ATR is ensuring that it is linked to the budgeting process.

In line with this, as early as November 2010, the ATRTWG had been closely coordinating with the Office for the Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations, G3, PA, who is responsible for the formulation of the Annual Army Operating Program (AOP) to prioritize the programming of those activities and projects under the ATR strategic initiatives. As a result, for CY 2011, a new priority program under the name ATR Quick-Win Projects was created comprising of the key ATR activities that must be implemented within CY 2011. In consultation with the Army Resource Management Office (ARMO) and the Program and Budget Advisory Committee (PBAC), the 2011 ATR Quick-Win Project was allocated about P78.66M under the 2011 Annual Plan and Budget (APB).

However, in order to ensure that the ATR initiatives for 2012 onwards will be prioritized and funded, there is a need to institutionalize the practice of aligning the budget process to the strategy. Towards this end, the Army established the PA Strategic Management System (SMS) last 20 May 2011 by virtue of HPA Standing Operating Procedure Nr. 5. The PA SMS aims to reconcile and align the Army systems with the new process mandated by the ATR and the Defense System of Management (DSOM) to produce a coherent and logical framework that would allow the Army to work in a single direction towards a desired end-state. While the ATR provides the strategic framework in terms organizational development of the Army, the DSOM is an integrative strategic, capability development and resource management framework designed to support current, medium-term, and long-term requirements of DND and the AFP. The key output of DSOM is the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) which defines the medium-term priorities of the DND. Through the PA SMS, the development of the Army’s APB is now informed not only by the DPG but also by the priorities under the ATR.

Communicating the ATR

The third critical factor for the successful implementation of the ATR is generating the support and commitment of key internal and external stakeholders. Thus, in order to push the transformation initiative towards attaining the desired end-state, it is imperative for the Army to get the buy in not only of the Army top leadership, and the majority of the officers, non-commissioned officers (NCO), and civilian employees, but also the support of the Army’s external constituents. To realize this, the PA needs to promote greater awareness and appreciation of the ATR both within and without the organization.

Towards this end, LTGEN REYNALDO B MAPAGU, then CGPA, issued a letter directive last 19 July 2010 outlining the ATR implementing plan and guidelines. This was further strengthened by the Command Guidance issued by the new CGPA, LTGEN ARTURO B ORTIZ last 03 January 2011 enjoining all unit commanders and chiefs of offices to ensure the timely, effective, and sustained implementation of the ATR. This message was further reiterated in the Command Guidance issued last 21 March 2011.

In line with this, the Army pursued an ATR information and advocacy campaign as early as May 2010 involving the conduct of lectures and presentation on the ATR during the various forums sponsored by HPA like the Battalion Commanders’ Symposia, Company Commanders’ Seminar, Senior NCO Leaders Symposia, and the annual family conferences hosted by the different HPA staff. A module on the ATR was also included in the Staff Officer Course.

Moreover, articles and papers about the ATR were also published in the different Army publications like the Army Journal, the Army Troopers Newsmagazine, and Army calendars, etc. To have a ready reference on the ATR, an ATR special edition of the Army Journal for the January-March 2011 issue and the ATR Information Booklet were also published.

Despite these communication initiatives, the Army needs to synchronize and sustain the ATR information and dissemination activities in order to ensure that critical information, key themes, and messages regarding the ATR are effectively relayed to, understood, and articulated by our internal target audience (ITA). In line with this, the Army implemented the ATR Communication Plan (ComPlan) “Breakthrough Results” Alpha effective 01 June 2011. The ATR ComPlan “A” calls for the utilization of all available communication media and tools to relay critical information, key themes, and messages on the ATR like print, audio-visual, and social media through the internet.

Involving the Community

The fourth key success factor to realize the ATR goals and aspirations is the active involvement, support and commitment of our external stakeholders. In this light, the Army must work closely with the key sectors of the society and get them to partner and support the Army as it journey towards attaining its vision to be “a world-class Army that is a source of national pride” by 2028. Thus, to ensure stakeholder participation in the ATR, the Army formed and organized the PA Multi-Sector Advisory Board (MSAB) last 26 Jul 2011.

The PA MSAB is an advisory body of the CGPA composed of distinguished representatives from various sectors of the society who are willing to partner with and help the Army pursue its transformation initiatives. The MSAB is primarily organized to promote the continuity and sustainability of the ATR and to encourage shared responsibility in the success of the ATR.

The MSAB is composed of Dr. Jesus P Estanislao of ISA as Board Chair with the following as members: Mr. Ramon del Rosario Jr. of the Makati Business Club, Ms. Victoria Garchitorena of Ayala Foundation, Atty. Alexander Lacson, Ms. Solita Collas-Monsod, Mayor Oscar Rodriguez on San Fernando, Pampanga, Congressman Mel Senen Sarmiento of Western Samar and Ms. Samira Gutoc-Tomawis. They had their inaugural meeting last 26 July 2011 and a special working session last 08-09 September 2011.

Sustaining the Momentum

Early Gains

Pursuing the ATR has been a great challenge. However, despite changes in the Army leadership, we have shown our commitment to pursue our reform program. By undergoing the various PGS processes and continuous ATR advocacy, we have also earned the support and commitment of our internal stakeholders by involving more personnel, units and offices in the ATR implementation process especially the formulation of second-level scorecards.

Moreover, through the MSAB, the Army had obtained the support and commitment of our key external stakeholders. In fact, last 10 September 2011, Prof. Solita Collas-Monsod wrote an encouraging article about the Army’s transformation initiative in her weekly column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

However, at this early stage of implementation, the greatest benefit we gained from the ATR is the fact that we have defined our strategic priorities and have linked our day-to-day operations to our long-term direction.

Ways Ahead

As evidenced by the things that we had undertaken, we have shown that the Army is fully committed to implement the ATR and realize our vision. However, to sustain our momentum and build on the gains we had achieved, the Army intends to pursue the following:

(1)  Ensure the execution of the ATR strategic initiatives, especially the ATR Quick-Win projects for CY 2011-2013;

(2)  Monitor the institutionalization of the PA SMS in order to ensure the alignment of the planning, programming and budget execution system to the strategic direction set by the ATR;

(3)  Institutionalize the second-level scorecards of the General Staff, ARMO, and MFO by involving the Army Inspector General in the monitoring of these scorecards and conduct ATR Cascading Workshops for other HPA Staff and Major Subordinate Units to generate second-level scorecards and initiatives, promote greater awareness and understanding of the ATR, and ensure that the effects of the ATR implementation will be felt by every soldier in the field;

(4)  Continuously pursue the ATR advocacy and information campaign in accordance with the ATR Communications Plan;

(5)  Actively work and closely partner with PA MSAB in order to pursue the goals of the ATR by optimizing their expertise and exploiting the opportunities that can be made available to support our transformation initiatives; and

(6)  Build-up the organizational capacity and transform the Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Plans, G5, PA to act as the “Office for Strategy Management” (OSM) in order to ensure the effective and proper implementation of the ATR. As the OSM, OG5 shall be tasked to oversee the strategy execution and track the performance of the organization through the Scorecard infrastructure system. It addresses the gaps in strategy execution by providing facilitative leadership for the entire strategy management process.

Conclusion

In sum, the ATR is a governance framework that seeks to transform the current systems and processes, and synchronize our current programs and activities in order to attain our vision to be a “world-class Army that is a source of national pride” by 2028. The Army has put countless efforts in implementing the ATR. Still, a lot of things have to be done. The entire process of completing one loop that will bring about reaping breakthrough results takes years in practice. To realize the 2028 vision, we need the commitment and strong support of our key external and internal stakeholders. The entire Army, from the soldiers in the frontlines to the top leadership in the headquarters as well as the various sectors of our society need to work hard together.

About the author:

Lieutenant Colonel Rommel R Cordova is currently the Chief of the Strategy Management Branch of OG5, PA, which is primarily tasked to manage, supervise and monitor the implementation of the ATR. He is a member of PMA “Maalab” Class of 1993 and holds a Master’s Degree in Strategic Affairs from the Australian National University and a Master’s Degree in Business Management from the Asian Institute of Management.

By: Solita Collas-Monsod

Philippine Daily Inquirer 09 September 2011

The Philippine Army has a new face—and a new body to match. Either that or it had me completely fooled for two days, and pulled the wool over the eyes of the likes of Jess Estanislao, Alex Lacson and Samilra Tomawis as well. The four of us are part of the nine-member Philippine Army Multi-Sector Advisory Board (MSAB).

The MSAB is part of the Army’s face-lifting, body-building process. It had its inaugural session only six weeks ago. But its initial working session was held at Fort Magsaysay yesterday (Friday), and that’s where I got almost literally bowled over.

The camp was the first eye-opener. Time was when it went by the nickname “Fort Magsisi” (given by the soldiers themselves) because if you were assigned there, magsisisi ka (you will regret it). Well, I saw the 46,000-hectare (it used to be 70,000 but got “encroached”) Fort Magsaysay for the first time on Thursday, and it had tiled roofs, paved roads, landscaped gardens, and top-grade facilities for the officers and enlisted men of the Special Operations Command and the Seventh Infantry Division.

I wasn’t the only one impressed. US officers who went there recently for the Balikatan training exercises apparently couldn’t believe that they were in the same camp that they had been in for previous exercises. Apparently Commanding General Arturo Ortiz, who has the reputation of improving the surrounding infrastructure wherever he is assigned, was the one who started the ball rolling at Fort Magsaysay. It certainly beats Camps Aguinaldo and Crame.

After our meeting on Thursday, the MSAB was treated to “Capability Demonstrations”—and that was another eye-opener. Do you know that the Army has snipers of so high a caliber that they can pick off targets up to 1.2 kilometers away? I saw them do it.

And they had their version of William Tell. Remember the story of the marksman who was forced to prove his prowess by shooting at an apple perched on his own son’s head? Well, in this modern version, one sniper stood with two balloons on either side of him filled with red-colored water, while his sniper buddy, from 25 meters away, shot at the balloons and burst them. I kid you not. Then the buddies changed places, so that the buddy holding the target balloons was now the shooter. How about that for a confidence-building exercise?

There were other capability demonstrations which unfortunately I cannot write about for security reasons. But I can assure you that they boosted my confidence in the Philippine Army and its capabilities. The image of a fumbling, bumbling, inept organization is definitely gone.

But the best is yet to come. The main purpose of our visit to Fort Magsaysay and our MSAB “introductory working session” was for us to be brought up to speed and get our feedback on the “Army Transformation Roadmap” (ATR). The ATR is an ambitious, 18-year strategic plan whose ultimate objective is to convert the Philippine Army into “A World-Class Army That Is A Source of National Pride by 2028.”

The ATR was compared to scaling a high, Everest-like mountain, by 2028, with base camps (intermediate targets) to be reached along the way. And it wasn’t just big words: there were indicators galore that would allow an objective assessment of whether the roadmap was indeed being followed, with scorecards for all levels, from the top (the commanding general) to the bottom (the company commander).

Truth to tell, probing questions were asked by the MSAB. There seemed to be a sense of cynicism about whether this plan was “owned” by the Army at all levels (which is a necessary condition for its success), or whether it was the brainchild of someone at the top (which would then be discarded when he retired).

It turned out—and this is where we saw the first sign of a real transformation—that the ATR was the product of a week-long brainstorming session participated in by 49 officers, enlisted personnel and civilian employees (talk about participatory decision-making), assisted by 12 staff and facilitators. The sessions, which sometimes lasted until the wee hours of the morning, were described as stormy, passionate, but always with views that came from sincere and committed hearts.

The most senior and most junior officers present during the brainstorming (in Tagaytay) were also present: Maj. Gen. Emmanuel Bautista, a principal figure in both the AFP’s Bayanihan (“winning the peace”) paradigm shift and the ATR, and 2nd Lt. Mario Feliciano, an Iranian-Filipino who started his military studies at the Philippine Military Academy and then finished at West Point.

The witness given by Feliciano was most powerful: The scandals wracking the Army (Garcia, Ligot) so disillusioned the fresh graduate that he thought seriously of resigning. Then he was asked to participate in the brainstorming, and what he saw and experienced there—the sincerity, the commitment, and the rank-free openness of the discussions—made him change his mind. He is solidly behind the ATR and will stake his life on it. The young lieutenant’s testimony, interrupted by his attempts to hold back his tears, brought most of his listeners to tears.

MSAB Chair Jess Estanislao asked all the other officers present to speak their minds, and it was clear to everyone in the room that the ATR was wholly “owned.”

Which bodes very well for the Army, and for the Philippines.
Complete stories on our Digital Edition newsstand for tablets, netbooks and mobile phones. Subscribe and get several chances to win tickets to the Black Eyed Peas concert in Manila as well as tickets to Stomp. Promo details. About to step out? Get breaking alerts on your mobile.phone. Text ON INQ BREAKING to 4467, for Globe, Smart and Sun subscribers in the Philippines.

Introduction

The Philippine Army (PA) is on a long-term journey towards transforming itself to be “a world-class army that is a source of national pride.” It firmly believes that to attain this goal, it is imperative that the Army reform and enhance its critical systems and processes in order to be a more credible, reliable, responsive and professional Army. In its determination to embrace a sustainable transformation that will permeate through every level of the organization, the PA, in partnership with the Institute for Solidarity in Asia (ISA), formulated the Army Transformation Roadmap (ATR).

The ATR is an 18-year transformation and governance program largely based on the Performance Governance System (PGS), which is an adaptation of Harvard’s Balance Scorecard framework into the local circumstances of the Philippines. The PGS espouses a performance-based good governance culture and ensures the sustainment of strategies by establishing the participation of external stakeholders. More importantly, the PGS guarantees that external stakeholders are genuine partners in strategy formulation and execution. This will not only enhance transparency and accountability but will also ensure that strategies and programs are responsive to the needs of the public.

In recognition of the important role of external stakeholders in the PGS process and, hence, the ATR, the PA is moving towards establishing a multi-sector governance coalition, to be aptly named as the PA Multi-Sector Advisory Board (MSAB). The PA is currently undergoing the Compliance Stage, the second stage of the four-stage PGS Governance Pathway, and the establishment of the MSAB is one of the critical requirements to hurdle this stage.

In this light, this paper will present the proposed organizational concept of the MSAB. Firstly, it will highlight its importance vis-à-vis the implementation of the ATR. Secondly, it will discuss the organizational framework that will govern the MSAB. Finally, it will present the proposed composition of the MSAB and the value they will bring to the PA and the Board. Overall, this paper will argue that the organization of the MSAB is one important step in our journey towards good governance and performance excellence and attaining our goal of transforming the Army in an institution that can truly be a source of national pride for all Filipinos.

Importance of the Multi-Sector Advisory Board

One of the requirements to pass the PGS Compliance Stage is to achieve ‘alignment in expectations and support mechanisms’ in which the PA must work closely with its external and internal stakeholders and must get them to partner and support the organization in realizing the 2028 Vision. To attain this, therefore, the MSAB must be established and formalized. The MSAB will serve as the PA’s partner in generating the necessary support from its external stakeholders in relation to implementing the ATR and realizing the 2028 Vision.

The establishment of the MSAB highlights the PA’s commitment to genuine reforms. The MSAB will promote good governance through transparency and accountability. Also, it will encourage a stronger private-public partnership which is one of the key policy thrusts of President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III. Additionally, it will encourage the concept of shared responsibility in good governance. And it will encourage continuity of policies and programs, will provide expert opinion and advice on program execution, and will help generate additional resources which will contribute to the attainment of the goals of the ATR and the realization of the 2028 Vision to be ‘a world-class Army that is a source of national pride’.

      Roles and Responsibilities

The MSAB will be organized as an advisory board, primarily to provide the Commanding General, Philippine Army (CGPA) expert advice and opinion on how to successfully attain the goals underscored in the ATR. In this regard, the MSAB exist for the following purpose, namely: (1) to promote the continuity and sustainability of the Army Transformation Roadmap; and (2) to encourage shared responsibility in the success of the Army Transformation Roadmap.

Based on this two-fold purpose, the following responsibilities of the Board are outlined. With regard to its role of “promoting the continuity and sustainability of the ATR”, the responsibilities of the MSAB are as follows:

1. To recommend relevant policies to the PA which are critical for the latter to achieve breakthrough results;
2. To provide strategic assessment of the ATR programs as the needs arise;
3. To act as external auditor of the Army’s performance relative to the scorecard;
4. To assist in the generation of additional resources for the ATR in the form of donations, grants, and the like; and
5. To ensure that the PA completes its PGS and that all the processes contained in it are properly installed.

In line with its role of ‘encouraging shared responsibility in the success of the ATR, their responsibilities are the following:

1. To help generate public support for the ATR;
2. To help enhance partnership with key sectors and stakeholders which are crucial to the ATR implementation; and
3. To help validate the results of the stakeholder surveys that will be conducted, i.e. Net Trust Rating and Net Satisfaction Rating.

Organizational Framework

The PA Multi-Sector Advisory Board is a Board organized by the CGPA to ensure the sustained and successful implementation of the ATR. It will be supported and funded by the PA. The MSAB shall comprise a maximum of fifteen (15) representatives of the key stakeholders of the PA. Its members shall be invited and appointed by the CGPA for a two-year term that will be renewable. To ensure an overlap of tenure, half of the initial members will be appointed for one year.

The Board will have three (3) key officers, namely: Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Secretary. The Chairman will be appointed by the CGPA. On the other hand, the Vice-Chairman will be elected by the members of the Board while the designated Secretary of the Board is the Assistant Chief of Staff for Plans, G5, PA.

Standing Committees

Moreover, in light of its purpose, roles and responsibilities, it will have six standing committees with three of the committees focusing on the strategic themes of the ATR. The table below outlines the committees and their respective functions:

Board Activities

In line with its responsibilities, the MSAB will have four (4) regular activities: one (1) activity per quarter. Two of the activities will be the regular board meetings that will be done every first and third quarters of the year. Another regular activity will be the mid-year meeting with the Army leadership and management team comprising the Chief of Staff, PA, the general and coordinating staff and other key staff of the CGPA. This will be done every second quarter of the year. The last activity for the year will be the year-end strategy review with the CGPA together with his key staff.

The other activities of the MSAB which will be done as required or on the need basis are as follows: committee meetings, consultations with respective sectors, and field visitations. The members may also be invited to important PA activities like the Change of Command Ceremony, the PA Foundation Day, and the annual PA Senior Leaders Conference.

Communication Flow

For the Board to function effectively and efficiently, the flow of communication between the PA and the MSAB must be clearly defined. Both are expected to report to each other. On the side of the PA, it is expected that the following documents are submitted to the MSAB in line with its advisory function:

1. PA Annual Accomplishment Report, which details the accomplishment by mission area as well as the operational readiness condition report;
2. ATR Accomplishment Report, which outlines accomplishment relative to the 13 strategic objectives based on the CGPA Performance Governance Scorecard;
3. ATR Project Management Plans, which will highlight the unfunded requirements; and
4. ATR Stakeholder Engagement Plan that will contain the updates on the ATR Communications Plan and the results of the stakeholder surveys; and
5. Regular ATR updates and other related information needed by the Board in line with its advisory functions.

As far as the MSAB is concerned, it expected that based on the outlined reports and information the Board will provide the PA with assessment, advice and policy recommendations. Specifically, the following are the expected deliverables of the Board:

1. Annual Assessment, which will include an audit of the PA’s ATR progress, corrective measures and policy recommendations; and
2. Fund Generation Plan, which will include a fund generation strategy and a list of probable sources of funds and resources for the PA to pursue its ATR initiatives.

Proposed Composition

The MSAB shall comprise a maximum of fifteen (15) representatives of the various sectors of our society who are willing to partner and help the PA pursue its transformation initiatives. The following sectors are proposed to be represented in the MSAB because of the value and expertise the will be able to bring and contribute:

1.    Business Sector

The PA needs to formalize linkages with the business sector. Representatives from the aforementioned may be tapped as sources of creative ideas in resource generation to ensure that programs and projects related to the ATR are successfully implemented. Moreover, they can also provide expertise relative leadership and management.

2.    Media

With the media’s power to influence public perception and effectiveness in information dissemination, it is necessary for the MSAB to have media representatives. They could help the PA strengthen linkages with media organizations thereby enhancing the flow of communication. Most importantly, they could provide expertise on how the PA could effectively reach out and communicate with its other stakeholders.

3.    Academe

Representatives from the academe would be able to provide the PA with their expertise in security sector reform, leadership, management, and governance. With their expertise, they would then be able to help steer the PA towards the attainment of its vision. Most importantly, they have a heavy influence on the next generation and will be able to help the Army on how to effectively reach out the next generation of leaders.

4.    Congress

The PA needs support of our legislators to pursue a successful transformation program because to be implementable the proposed programs and projects that will bring about the desired changes should be properly funded. Moreover, there may be a need to come up with legislative proposals in order to institutionalize these changes. In this regard, the representation from Congress will enhance the composition of the Board.

5.    Local Government Units (LGU) and National Government Agencies (NGA)

The LGUs and NGAs are critical actors in development and security. They also act as alternate conduits for political participation. Thus, the MSAB needs representative from both the LGU and the NGA so that they can provide expert opinion on how to enhance cooperation and coordination among government entities as well as optimize the impact of current government programs.

6.    Youth

The youth, characterized with spirit and resilience, must be represented in the MSAB because they provide fresh ideas and vigor to the Board. Moreover, they could provide the perspectives on how the Army could satisfy the expectations of the next generation and how the PA can tap the youth to pursue the ATR goals.

7.    Church/Religious Sector

Another important representative of the MSAB should come from the religious sector because they act as the conscience of the community and this perspective could be helpful to the MSAB. Said representative could work on helping the PA find venues of greater participation as well as aid the Army in implementing programs with great social impact.

8.    Legal

Of course, in the course of the activities of the MSAB, legal expertise will be necessary. Thus, the MSAB should have a representative from the legal sector who can provide legal advice and expertise.

9.    Non-Government Organizations (NGOs)

Representation from the NGOs is beneficial to the PA because it encourages the greater involvement and participation of the community and society to the programs of the PA. They could also help advance good governance practices as well as facilitate in helping the PA generate resources to support its programs.

10. International Partners

The PA has a lot of international partners and allies who are willing to support the PA’s transformation goals. Giving them representation in the MSAB will benefit the Army because they could help in the generation of additional resources needed to implement ATR-related projects. Moreover, since the vision of the Army is to adopt world-class standards, they could provide regional and global perspectives.

Conclusion

The implementation of the ATR is a great challenge to the PA. In order to realize its vision to be “a world-class Army that is a source of national pride” by 2028, the organization needs the support of both its internal and external stakeholders. However, leveraging stakeholder support has always been a problem for the PA due to the inadequacies of the organization to effectively engage and partner with the various sectors of the society as well as the apparent lack of commitment of key external stakeholders brought about by the military’s weak credibility in carrying out genuine reforms. Therefore, formally establishing the Multi-Sector Advisory Board could be one of the concrete steps that the PA can undertake to highlight our commitment to genuine transformation founded on good governance and performance excellence.

Through the MSAB, the PA promotes transparency and accountability by opening institution to the scrutinizing eyes of our key stakeholders. They can assess the PA programs relative to the desired end-state as well as their impact to the Army’s constituents. They can also help ensure the successful and sustained implementation of the ATR through their expert opinions and recommendations. Moreover, they can facilitate the generation of additional resources to support ATR program implementation. Furthermore, the MSAB promotes stronger a stronger private-public partnership and advances the concept of shred responsibility in good governance.

Dramatic shifts in transformation occur on organizations which have exercised strategic focus and alignment in functions. These enable units to independently perform their tasks well and which when aggregated sum up to a high level of effectiveness seen and felt in the entire organization.

New models of leadership and management techniques point to the same direction – signaling a shift from control and supervision to autonomy and empowerment. Michael Irwin Meltzer, Louis Mischkind, and David Sirota assert that the [absolute] command and control style is a sure-fire path to demotivation.[i] While centralized decision-making guards the quality of work and results to a more consistent implementation of policies, this approach does not work on large-scale organizations with varied functions and operating in several geographical areas such as the Philippine Army (PA). Imagine if all the functions of the organization down to the hiring of civilian employees, the issuance of communications, and the publication of journals would have to be done by the CGPA, the number of decisions that must be made and the volume of transactions that must be acted upon will necessarily be compromised.

For this reason, functions must be distributed to a wide array of individuals who are more capable and knowledgeable in performing such tasks.  In this way, the scope of responsibility will increase. And more decisions and transactions, of different concerns and kinds, will be made and acted upon by the organization.

While the distribution of functions has its own set of advantages, it however allows turf issues and areas of misalignment to arise. This is especially true for big organizations with clearly identified roles to portray. Their units may run the risk of operating in silos characterized by uncoordinated functions resulting to duplication of programs and projects as well as wastage of resources and time.

Organizations, therefore, are faced with the inherent need to find the right balance or mix between control and autonomy, and between supervision and empowerment. Several approaches have been adopted to spell the balance such as decentralization of authority and open door policy. These approaches empower middle managers to take a more proactive role in so far as the management of functions is concerned.

The same principle is carried and reflected in the Performance Governance System (PGS) particularly in the process of aligning the functions of the units of the organization. This process is known as CASCADING.

II.    RATIONALE FOR CASCADING

 The accurate description of the cascading process is as follows:

Cascading a balanced scorecard means to translate the corporate-wide scorecard (referred to as Tier 1) down to first business units, support units, or departments and then to teams or individuals. The end result should be focus across all levels of the organization that is consistent. The organization’s alignment should be clearly visible through the strategy.[ii]

Basically, cascading allows the organization to effectively manage its strategy by sharing the accountability to all units. It also enables greater focus, stronger integration, and synergism. Hence, the accomplishment of the strategic direction depends mainly on the ability of the organization to get everyone to work in realizing its vision.

The Institute for Solidarity in Asia (ISA) illustrated the strategy implementation gap between the organization’s strategy and its day-to-day operations through the following statistics:

• Only ten percent of organizations surveyed can execute their strategy.
• Less than fifty percent of senior officers surveyed work well together.
• Less than sixty percent of senior managers surveyed believe they have a clear understanding of their organizations’ strategy. Furthermore, less than thirty percent of these senior managers believe their organizations’ strategy is effectively implemented.
• Only ten percent of employees surveyed can describe the key elements of their organizations’ strategy.[iii]

These statistics point to the low awareness level of the strategy and the absence of a link to the budget. Moreover, these suggest that the strategy is not institutionalized and the actions of the organization are not anchored on it resulting to difficulty in implementation.

Consequently, problems arise when dissociating to the strategy being implemented. If the strategy is neither explained nor handled well, then it can be divisive and can result to non-performance of some units. Often, a number of questions occur in the minds of the individuals associated with the strategy. These questions include:

• Am I involved in the vision?
• How does my work contribute to the vision?
• How about the other things that I am doing but that are not directly captured in the vision?
• Does this mean I have to drop them? Aren’t they equally important as well?
• Every unit will have their respective contributions at varying degrees; does this mean I can perform less?[iv]

The presence of these questions indicates the absence of alignment in the organization as well as the need to prioritize the alignment of the functions of the units. Achieving full alignment in functions through the cascading process will allow units to focus on the strategy in the light of performing their respective tasks – strategy as an integral component and not as an entirely different component.

The benefits of the full alignment in functions cannot be discounted. Apart from the impact it will generate through the setting up of performance standards, cascading will also solidify the base for the other mechanisms of alignment to take place and shape in the organization.

When the functions of the units of the organization are aligned to the strategy, the alignment in resources will be much easier. The choice of operational and strategic initiatives to be funded and implemented will be based on the identification of programs and projects that can bring about the expected positive results, likewise, can contribute to the attainment of the performance commitments agreed upon.

In the same way, the alignment in personnel incentives for performance can capitalize on the full alignment in functions. The second-level scorecards particularly the performance targets can be used as a reference for managing the performance of personnel. Cascading will set up one framework to uniformly guide the actions of all personnel in the organization.

The process of aligning the functions of the units of the organization to the strategy will increase the level of awareness of these units. Whether it is in a simple form of understanding the strategic direction or in a more detailed form of examining how the strategy works, cascading will bring about an alignment in message. It will only be through the effectiveness of the communication campaigns and the proper comprehension of the communication messages that the units can be able to build their scorecards.

As a result, it will be much easier for the organization to sell its brand due to a consistent and closely-tied strategic focus permeating all actions. And it will be much easier to align the expectations of the external stakeholders as they touch-base with the units of the organization.

These are the raison d’être behind the cascading process.

III.   TYPES OF CASCADING

 The full alignment in functions is achieved following the systematic process of cascading. As it is methodical in plan and procedure, cascading requires clarity of the first-level strategic direction which will be the basis for the second-level scorecards. The latter will be dependent on the quality of the first-level scorecard produced.

Second-level units are easily identified through the organizational chart. These units directly report to the head of the organization in which the latter exercises complete domain and supervision. Cascading the strategy to the second-level units, nonetheless, will depend on their classification. It is imperative for the organization to categorize these units in order to determine the type of cascading required and guarantee the accuracy and excellence of scorecard produced.

Usually, the classification of the second-level units is determined by their nature. The following are the areas to be considered in identifying the nature of these units:

• The structure and role of the organization;
• The primary mandate and functions of the units; and
• The expected outputs delivered by the units.[v]

Based on these areas, second-level units are categorized either as operating units (vertical cascading units) or as supporting units (horizontal cascading units).

Consequently, the classification of the second-level units will determine whether the organization shall follow a vertical or horizontal type of cascading. Organizations, though, are not confined with only one type of the cascading process. The vertical and horizontal types of cascading can co-exist at the same time. In fact, the PA is a good example of an organization with both types of the cascading process present.

A.   Vertical Cascading

 Vertical cascading applies to second-level units which directly share the mandate; likewise, perform almost the same functions as those of the first-level unit. These units are co-accountable with the first-level unit in producing the expected results and reaching the specified targets. In effect, these units mirror even the organizational structure of the first-level unit in order to deliver the same outputs as those of the latter.

The vertical cascading units of the PA are its operating units – the Infantry Divisions, the Light Armor Division, the Special Operations Command, the Engineering   Brigades, the Army Artillery Regiment, the Army Reserve Command, the Army Support Command, and the Training and Doctrine Command. The commanders of these units are co-accountable with the Commanding General (CGPA) in guaranteeing that the organization is operationally ready to perform the missions and tasks by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Department of National Defense (DND). In doing so, the operating units also have their respective line staff.

In a vertical type of cascading, the second-level units adopt almost the same objectives and measures as those of the first-level unit. There are only minor revisions in format and probably little insertions to include the uniqueness of the geographical area being covered by the unit. For instance, the concerns of field units in Mindanao where internal security operations are adamant differ from the concerns of field units in other areas where aggression cases are minimal. The same holds true for field units in areas where political activities are heated and in areas that are coastal by nature. The uniqueness of the geographical area being covered by the unit can be captured by introducing new objectives and measures.

The usual approach to vertical cascading involves the creation of scorecard templates for the different levels of command (division, brigade, battalion, company, etc). The working sessions are carried out to do target setting which necessitates the approval at the executive leadership level.

The field units of the PA, however, have a distinct characteristic that is not found on the other second-level units of the organization: the presence of two first-level units – the PA and the AFP – to which they report to. The latter, which oversees all three major service commands, has the prerogative to hand down missions and tasks directly to these units especially if it shall require a joint and concerted effort with the other major services. In doing the vertical type of cascading, therefore, the demands of both the PA and the AFP must be taken into account.

B.   Horizontal Cascading

Horizontal cascading applies to second-level units which have a different mandate as that of the first-level unit. These units cannot represent the organization for their functions are rather limited in scope and cannot be divorced to the first-level unit. In the process of creating value to the stakeholders, the outputs of these units form part of a continuum and are essential in achieving the strategic direction of the organization.

The horizontal cascading units of the PA are its supporting units – the General, Personal, and Special and Technical Staff of the CGPA. These units provide assistance, primarily in the fields of administration and logistics, to sustain the operating units of the organization. These units cannot represent the PA; nonetheless, their outputs are essential in carrying out the functions of the organization.

Unlike the vertical cascading process of using scorecard templates, the horizontal cascading process cannot be templated.  The usual approach to horizontal cascading requires the clarification of the roles of the supporting units in order to come up with objectives that will match their functions alongside the objectives of the first-level unit. For instance, the first-level objective ‘responsive to the needs of the AFP’ is translated to ‘timely, accurate, and relevant Intelligence’ by OG2, PA; ‘operationally ready Army units’ by OG3, PA; ‘effective and relevant plans useful for the organization’ by OG5, PA; ‘relevant CMO policies’ by OG7, PA; and ‘well-educated and trained personnel and units’ by OG8, PA. Though different in scope, these second-level objectives play a significant role in enabling the organization to be the Army envisioned in the Army Transformation Roadmap (ATR).

A Special Study: Classifying the Objectives

From the discussions of both the vertical and horizontal types of cascading, it is apparent that the nature of the units affects how first-level objectives are translated to second-level objectives. The Institute for Solidarity in Asia has identified four kinds of objectives which include the following:

Identical Objectives apply when the second-level unit can directly and entirely own the first-level objective without altering its main purpose. Although the area of where the objective applies may be limited to where the second-level unit operates, the essence of the objective is still preserved. Often, identical objectives or shared objectives between the first and second level units are seen in the learning and growth perspective as well as the resource management perspective.

Contributory Objectives apply when the second-level unit can indirectly contribute to the attainment of the first-level objective in the process of performing its inherent mandate and functions. However, the said unit cannot be made accountable for attaining the first-level objective.

Not Applicable Objectives apply when a particular objective that is prioritized and given utmost importance at the first-level unit cannot be implemented at the second-level unit. This arises due to the difference in mandate and functions between the first and second level units.

New Objectives apply when first-level objectives do not suffice to cover the entire operations of the second-level unit. These objectives are necessary for the second-level unit to address its concerns and to determine its effectiveness and efficiency. Nonetheless, these objectives are not organization-wide concerns.[vi]

The kind of objectives adopted by the second-level units depends on the latter’s nature of operations. Differences in concerns to be prioritized are understandable as first-level concerns transition to second-level concerns. This means that strategic concerns become more detailed, operational, and tactical when going down the organizational chart.

As a general rule, vertical cascading units adopt identical objectives and measures though their targets may be different depending on the area of jurisdiction. The first-level measure ‘overall operational readiness’ covering the five key measurement areas of equipment, facilities, maintenance, personnel, and training can be adopted by all field units.  Conversely, horizontal cascading units can be accountable to a particular key measurement area only – overall equipment, facilities, and maintenance readiness by OG4 and OG6, PA; overall personnel readiness by OG1, PA; and overall training readiness by OG8, PA.

Concisely, the scorecards of the second-level units must capture their mandate and functions. More so, these scorecards must be in synch with the needs of the organization and must be contributory to the strategic direction.

IV.  FACTORS AFFECTING THE CASCADING PROCESS

In as much as it is to the benefit of the organization to proceed with a full alignment in functions, the cascading process is not as easy as a snap of a finger. Results of a study presented before the international community during the 2010 Palladium Asia Pacific Summit[vii] reveal that alignment is among the hardest to achieve. On the average, organizations take around two to four years before a full alignment in functions is achieved. The following are the factors affecting the cascading process:

A.   Openness of the Organization

Leadership support is essential in the cascading process. It calls for the buy-in and participation of all the leaders of the organization.

For the PA, the cascading process must be welcomed by all chiefs and commanders as they shall be accountable for whatever commitments and targets will be spelled out in the second-level scorecards. In effect, the resistance on the part of these leaders will derail the process.

As such, the guidance and participation of the CGPA will play a primordial role in shaping the commitment of the PA chiefs and commanders. Sans the buy-in and endorsement of the CGPA, the cascading process will not work.

B.   Complexity of Operations

The extent of the cascading process depends on the complexity of operations, on the organization’s structure and functions. Take the case of the PA in which the second-level units are its operating units and supporting units. Both these types of units directly report to the CGPA.

On one hand, the operating units derive their mandates and perform critical missions both from the PA and the AFP. In creating second-level scorecards for these units, it is imperative to find the right mix that will consider both their contributions to the CGPA and the Chief of Staff, AFP.

On the other hand, the supporting units perform a diversity of functions covering personnel management, intelligence, operations, logistics support, civil military operations, education and training, resource management, etc. Achieving alignment in functions will demand guiding these units to come up with scorecards that shall reflect their contributions to the PA and shall consider the uniqueness of their functions as separate but coordinating units.

With these inputs, achieving functional alignment in the PA will demand more time and expertise. The cascading process requires a parallel initiative to cover both the operating units and the supporting units in the organization.

C.   Size and Reach of Operations

Corollary to the complexity of operations is the size and reach of operations. Cascading to an office with ten people is definitely different from cascading to a big organization with hundreds of thousands of people. The difference is seen by the number of sessions that must be conducted and scorecards that must be produced which increases with the number of units created and the number of areas covered.

In the case of the PA, as the largest military service unit of the AFP and operating in all regions of the country, achieving full alignment in functions will take longer to complete and will require a stronger handholding process.

V.   CHALLENGES TO THE CASCADING PROCESS

The PA is affected by these factors. It is faced with the enormous task of bringing information and creating stronger awareness on the ATR to units outside of the headquarters. Furthermore, the operations of the PA is characterized as inherently complex due to the size of the organization, the nationwide presence of the Army, and the  composition of the organization – different units performing different functions. As a result, the limitations to the cascading process include:

A.   Limitation in Resources

One of the biggest challenges to the cascading process is the availability of resources. Organizing cascading sessions would entail financing the administrative and logistical requirements of these activities, likewise, travel requirements of the individuals involved.

B.   Limitation in Time

With the absence of an Office for Strategy Management (OSM) to take care of the alignment functions on a full-time basis, the PA finds it difficult to go full-swing with the cascading process as it would require spending time – both on the part of the individuals who will undertake the alignment functions and on the part of the second-level units which will undergo the cascading process.

Recalling the experiences of the PA in conducting working sessions, one of the problems it is faced with is requiring the presence of key personnel.

C.   Limitation in Expertise and Manpower

Cascading follows a technical process as prescribed in the PGS, processes that are new to the PA. As such, it is natural for the organization to experience what is termed to as the ‘learning curve’. In effect, the PA has to build up its capability and competency in performing the inherent functions brought about by the scorecard framework.

Expertise and manpower requirements cover not only the demands on the cascading sessions but also the implications of setting up the scorecard infrastructure. The actual test of the usefulness of the scorecard lies on its accuracy as a guide in making real-time critical decisions. As such, it is imperative that the PA gains expertise in tracking the scorecards and in ensuring that each of the actual performance data is complete and precise so as to reflect the current state of the organization and substantiate assumptions. If on the average, the scorecard has twenty performance measures distributed in twelve strategic objectives, the technical requirement is multiplied by the number of scorecard that will be set up.

Therefore, the cascading process must consider both the realities of the PA and the limitations it is faced with. The consideration of the resources, time, and expertise and manpower requirements of doing the cascading will guide the organization in plotting the plan to achieve functional alignment. Because of the existing limitations, the PA must be selective and strategic in its approach of the units who will cascade first and the pace by which the cascading process will be undertaken.

VI.  THE ARMY CASCADING PHILOSOPHY

 The Army Cascading Philosophy pertains to the approach being used by the PA in aligning the second-level units to the ATR. In designing the cascading philosophy for the organization, four essential components are taken into consideration:

Impact, in which the PA must target units that will create a strong impact in the organization. In most cases, organizations are looking at high performing units which have the potential to create a strong effect in terms of outputs produced, likewise, to encourage other units in seriously pursuing their scorecards.

Contribution, in which the identification of units is referred to the Army Strategy Map, the CGPA Performance Governance Scorecard, and the ATR Strategic Initiatives. The PA must select units which will be directly accountable to the performance targets that shall be reached as well as the programs and projects that shall be deployed.

Willingness, in which the identification of units is based on their willingness to participate in the scorecard process. According to Malcolm T Gladwell, the individuals in the organization are often distributed following a bell curve – from willingness to unwillingness in accepting and implementing change. At one end of the spectrum are the innovators who lead in the change aspect and the early adopters who open the organization for change. At the other end of the spectrum are cavemen (constantly against virtually everything) who are totally against any form of change and laggards who need thousands of evidences before accepting change.[viii] On this regard, it is best for the PA to capitalize on units which display openness to the ATR and are readily available to contribute towards its success.

Control, in which the PA must target units that are within a strong control of the leadership so as to accurately gauge and track the success of the cascading process.

On the basis of these criteria, the ATR Technical Working Group headed by the Assistant Chief of Staff for Plans, G5, PA has selected twelve supporting units as the pilot units to undergo the cascading process because of four important considerations:

• First, In consideration of the parallel initiative of the AFP to undertake the PGS. It is best to wait for the AFP to set up its own strategy map and scorecard that shall also serve as reference in doing the scorecards of the operating units;
• Second, in consideration of the cost. It is best for the PA to cascade first to the headquarters which may not require greater administrative and logistical requirements so as to complete the necessary outputs.
• Third, in consideration of the extent of awareness and knowledge to the ATR. The twelve supporting units are selected given their prior exposure to and competent command over the ATR. Moreover, the ownership of the scorecard and the strategic initiatives are at the headquarters level.
• And fourth, in consideration to the impact that will be derived from the cascading process. Policies (i.e. how personnel are to be distributed, how missions are to be carried out, and how resources are to be distributed and maximized) which are implemented by field units emanate at the headquarters. Taking this into account, stronger impact is created when a strong alignment to the strategic direction within the headquarters is showcased and when policies are aligned with the ATR. And when it is the turn of the field units to cascade, these units can even work on the existing scorecards at the headquarters as basis for setting their strategic direction.

VII. CONCLUSION

  It is true that the cascading  process is a long and arduous journey of setting the accountabilities among the second-level units of the PA. The journey will be even more difficult as it is envisioned for the alignment in functions to reach as far as the lower-level units and finally the personnel. However, the choice of the PA to go to the process of cascading is reflective of the relevance of the ATR to the organization.

The full alignment in functions may be among the most challenging tasks to achieve as literatures will describe it. Nonetheless, it is attainable as long as there is commitment and focus from all units and personnel of the PA.

THE ARMY TRANSFORMATION ROADMAP IS THE SHINING LIGHT GUIDING THE PHILIPPINE ARMY TOWARDS ITS 2028 VISION OF A WORLD CLASS ARMY THAT IS A SOURCE OF NATIONAL PRIDE.

The initiative to transform is not new to the Philippine Army (PA) as an organization. The PA has been receptive to various transformation initiatives designed to bring about institutional reforms in the organization. The Department of National Defense (DND) remains proactive in launching and enforcing these reforms that are conceived to effect dramatic changes on how military organizations conduct their business, likewise, move forward. The most noteworthy institutional reforms being championed by DND in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and its major services include the following:

• The continued implementation of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Modernization Program;
• The institutionalization of the Philippine Defense Reform Program; and
• The institutionalization of the Defense System of Management.

These reforms are aimed at addressing the various needs of military organizations by looking into their capabilities, conduct of missions, and critical processes.

Best practices require an examination of initiatives as a closely knitted approach towards carrying out the envisaged changes. Quoting directly from the Balanced Scorecard Collaborative (BSCol) Research[i] published in March 2006, “organizations with a formal strategy execution process in place DRAMATICALLY OUTPERFORM those without formal processes”.

Using these findings as a starting point for further discussions, it is therefore not enough that programs and projects (and even looking at their potential impact) have been identified.

These programs and projects must be situated and referred to using a common framework – a common platform – that ties the entire strategy execution process of the PA and all of its initiatives together. This is what the Performance Governance System (PGS) of the Institute for Solidarity in Asia (ISA) intends to bring into the PA – a single and unifying governance framework through which all the current and the envisaged initiatives of the organization will be anchored into.

A single and unifying governance framework for the PA will offer two significant benefits to the organization, namely focused governance communications and focused strategy execution.

FOCUSED GOVERNANCE COMMUNICATIONS

This will allow the PA to echo and cascade a single governance initiative. Also, this will allow the PA to accurately describe all of its initiatives as mechanisms to accomplish the said initiative that will cut across all units in the organization. In turn, it will be easier to galvanize the support of all units by referring to a single yet highly strategic governance initiative that will spell the direction of the organization.

FOCUSED STRATEGY EXECUTION

A single and unifying governance framework puts more focus in strategy execution as all units will look only into a single governance initiative. Activities and components of the PA will be anchored on the said initiative. Hence, the units need not be confused which of the initiatives must be given more attention. The PGS introduces a mechanism that will enable the units to see how initiatives are aligned to certain commitments and performance measures in the governance framework.

THE STRATEGY EXECUTION PROCESS

Relating the presence of a strategy execution process to the Philippine Army, a study was made by the Institute for Solidarity in Asia on this matter – referred to as the Strategy Focused Organization (SFO) Survey.[ii] The objective of the study was to benchmark the existing strategy systems of the PA to the five SFO Principles, namely:

• Mobilize change for executive leadership;
• Translate the strategy into operations terms;
• Align the organization around its strategy;
• Motivate to make the strategy everyone’s job; and
• Govern to make the strategy a continual process.^[iii]

These principles are a compilation of the best practices spanning from an analysis of progressive private and public organizations around the world that have demonstrated breakthrough performances as a result of proper systems in strategy execution. Thus, a sincere response on the study will reveal the quality of the strategy execution systems of the PA vis-à-vis the successful strategy focused organizations in the world.

Quoting from the results of the SFO Survey conducted by ISA to the PA:

“The reported SFO Readiness Profile of the Philippine Army shows that in all of the five SFO Principles, the readiness is below the average… The impression on the presence of gaps on these areas is shared and observed across all ranks and composition of the organization who participated in the survey…”[iv]

ISA, however, mentioned that while the results may seem not ideal, these are common not only to organizations in the Philippines such as the PA but also to other organizations around the world.

In a study made by Drs. Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton[v], ONLY 10% of effectively formulated strategies are executed properly and successfully. This research validates why STRATEGY EXECUTION is considered the single most important issue facing organizations today, more than financial performance and risk management.

This highlights the need for a single and unifying governance framework that will see through the implementation of the Army Transformation Roadmap (ATR) and the cementing of its execution in the PA.

THE PERFORMANCE GOVERNANCE SYSTEM

The Assistant Chief of Staff for Plans and Policy, G5, PA conceptualized the Army Transformation Roadmap in compliance to the Command Guidance[vi] issued by the Commanding General of the Philippine Army. The ATR project is anchored on the Institute for Solidarity in Asia’s Performance Governance System for three reasons:

• The principles of the Army Transformation Roadmap are consistent with the principles behind the Performance Governance System.
• The envisaged benefits and changes through the Performance Governance System will magnify the gains of the Philippine Army following the governance framework.
• The success stories of other partners show the competency and the credibility of the Institute for Solidarity in Asia in terms of its command over applying the Performance Governance System to its partners.

Furthermore, the PGS of ISA is a recognized Philippine adaptation of the Balanced Scorecard (BSC). It has the same principles but with culture-sensitive practices. It is designed to help organizations execute their transformation initiatives that will bring about breakthrough results.

In determining whether the PGS is the best Strategy Execution Process that fits to the general requirements of the ATR, three considerations were made:

• What is the Performance Governance System?
• What does the Performance Governance System envision to accomplish?
• Why the Performance Governance System of the Institute for Solidarity in Asia?

WHAT IS THE PERFORMANCE GOVERNANCE SYSTEM?

The Performance Governance System emphasizes on three critical aspects needed by organizations such as the Philippine Army in this day and age. These are Performance, Governance, and System.

PERFORMANCE demands the delivery of the expected level of results from a clear set of measures, targets, and initiatives that serves as a yardstick for measuring and evaluating the success of the organization. The objective of performance is to veer away from a word-based reporting of progress towards a score-based reporting of progress that can easily be validated.

The establishment of a common scorecard system acceptable to the stakeholders will benefit the PA in two ways:

• This will allow the organization to be transparent in its conduct of business, in the same way, to be accountable to certain targets that are deemed valuable to the stakeholders.
• This will enable the organization to report on performance gains and on historical performance progression through objective scores and data that can be subjected to public scrutiny and validation.

In effect, there will be a common scorecard system to judge whether the PA is a highly performing organization or not.

 GOVERNANCE gives greater emphasis on the institutions more than the personalities. Governance-practicing institutions adhere to the three principles of governance[vii] to which the PGS is built on. These governance principles are as follows:

FIRST AND FOREMOST: People have to be convinced that they cannot get good governance unless they complement it with responsible citizenship.[viii]

For governance to work in the PA, it is necessary that governance must be perceived as a responsibility of all units forming the organization: the top leadership, the senior officers, the field grade officers, the junior officers, the enlisted personnel, the civilian employees, and the reservists. Governance initiatives must be synchronized in which reforms are championed and shared in all levels in the organization.

The candles of governance must be lighted and seen in all levels in the PA to create pockets of success that will radiate ever so strongly and will continue to burn allowing the governance campaign to thrive. It is clear that GOVERNANCE IS NOT SOLELY THE CRUSADE OF THE TOP LEADERSHIP. IT WORKS BEST ONLY WHEN IT IS COUPLED BY RESPONSIBLE CITIZENSHIP.

SECOND: There is much more to good governance than simply giving and doling out various ‘goodies’ to constituents; there is also the corresponding duty of asking for civic participation and social involvement.[ix]

Governance calls for getting involved with the stakeholders. For public sector organizations, governance demands the organization not only to do acts of goodness but also to respond directly to its mandate – on the service to the stakeholders that it must produce.

For this to be attainable, it is inherently essential for the PA to work closely with the stakeholders in pursuit of such undertaking. The stakeholders can be effective governance partners of the organization. They can also perform a number of roles, such as:

• Being the best judge to know whether the Philippine Army is contributing to the society or not;
• Providing data and information that will serve as good inputs to the strategy development process;
• Serving as watchdogs to guard the execution of programs and projects and to see through the continuity of the governance strategy;
• Being co-owners of the governance strategy; and
• Serving as gate-openers of opportunities that will make possible the attainment of planned targets.

THIRD: Words, slogans, and rhetoric are great but only if they are connected with and lead to corresponding actions that provide the desired outcomes.[x]

In other words, governors and governed as well as public officials and responsible citizens must observe a system by which they can translate their common aspirations for their community to specific commitments and initiatives. These must aim at targets which are measured, regularly assessed, and duly reported for the information of all.[xi]

The Institute for Solidarity in Asia advocates a culture of governance promoting responsible citizenship in all aspects and in all levels in the organization. The culture of governance is attuned towards building synergistic partnerships with the stakeholders to drive aspirations and performances through a clear set of commitments and initiatives coupled by an action-based plan.

The culture of governance will bring about these transformations:

Governance, therefore, transcends personalities with focus on institutions. As the PGS aspires to become the governance framework of the PA in active partnership with the stakeholders, it focuses on programs and projects that can continue beyond the current leadership and can survive the changes in the command. These programs and projects can be mechanisms to build a better and stronger PA.

In effect, perspectives are changed from short-term to long-term resulting in the creation of proactive strategies that address interconnected issues and not of reactive tactics that address mainly a single issue.

 SYSTEM requires situating all activities and components of the PA as mechanisms in reinforcing the strategic direction that the organization intends to pursue. This necessitates:

• Looking at the strategic direction of the Philippine Army and relating it to the organization’s current operations;
• Linking all the systems of the Philippine Army to work on the strategy; and
• Allowing the long-term strategy of the Philippine Army to determine the short-term direction that will be pursued by the organization.

Deliberating through systems will increase the awareness on how the PA and its elements must be analyzed drawing on a stronger command of the cause and effect relationship among the elements of the organization – Core Values, Mission, Vision, Strategy Map, Governance Scorecard, Units and Offices, Internal and External Stakeholders, Strategic Priorities, and Performance Reports. This is best seen by looking at the various perspectives governing organizations in general:

Concisely, the Performance Governance System meets the good governance and responsible citizenship needs for performance breakthrough results; for governance that is institution-focused, long-term, strategic, and interconnected; and for system that has continuous and sustained efforts with quarterly assessments and recalibrations.

WHAT DOES THE PERFORMANCE GOVERNANCE SYSTEM ENVISION TO ACCOMPLISH?

MAIN THING, the Performance Governance System envisions to bring about breakthrough results in good governance and responsible citizenship in the Philippine Army. This is possible through the various systems that will be installed in the organization as a result of using the governance framework.

The benefits of the PGS are distributed on the four-stage Governance Pathway, namely: Initiation, Compliance, Proficiency, and Institutionalization. Each of these stages contributes to the continuing initiative to formalize the governance culture that is being envisaged for PGS partners.

THE PGS INITIATION STAGE kicks off the process of the governance culture in the organization. The PGS provides the infrastructure for public officials and citizens to work together in pursuing long-term goals. Embedded in the PGS is a system of scorecards, a tool for monitoring the organization’s progress.[xii]

At the first stage of the Governance Pathway, the strategy will be translated into a clear set of objectives and targets on a balanced perspective of constituency and stakeholders, organizational learning and growth, finance and resource management, and internal processes and infrastructures. The visual representation of the interconnection of the objectives forms part of the Strategy Map which is directed towards achieving the vision. The Strategy Map is guided by the Governance Scorecard which tracks the performance of the organization relative to its commitments.

At the PGS Initiation Stage, the PA aims to accomplish the following objectives:

• To allow the Philippine Army to review its strategic direction – Core Values, Mission, and Vision – taking into account the inputs of the stakeholders;
• To translate the strategic direction into objectives considering a holistic view of the organization;
• To draw the relationship of the objectives that will capture the strategy of the Philippine Army; and
• To produce objective indicators and measures of success that will gauge the progress of the organization.

Initiation, in effect, will cement the long-term strategic direction of the PA that will be the basis of all commitments and initiatives of the organization.

 THE PGS COMPLIANCE STAGE builds on the strategic direction formed at the PGS Initiation Stage. With the direction in place, the second stage of the Governance Pathway intends to galvanize and to align units and processes to the strategy.

At the PGS Compliance Stage, the PA aims to accomplish the following objectives:

• To align the units of the Philippine Army to the strategy through a common scorecard system with clear accountabilities;
• To form a committed group of external stakeholders determined to see the Philippine Army transform and realize its vision; and
• To enable the full-functioning of the strategy by linking the budget of the Philippine Army with those of the strategic initiatives.

Alignment is crucial in ensuring the success of the strategy. The process translates the organization-wide commitment into clear accountabilities by the units, which when summed up, attains the organization-wide commitment.

Compliance, in effect, will facilitate the sharing of accountabilities to the units of the PA until the strategy reaches all units down to the individual level as the organization continues to progress in the PGS Governance Pathway.

THE PGS PROFICIENCY STAGE sets the platform for successful strategy execution. With the strategy cascaded to the units, the third stage of the Governance Pathway features a thorough analysis and examination of the actual execution. The critical components in the PGS Proficiency Stage are the mechanisms to document and to evaluate the performance of the organization as inputs to the further planning and enhancement of the strategy. The various mechanisms installed are aligned to such functions.

At the PGS Proficiency Stage, the PA aims to accomplish the following objectives:

• To formalize a unit that will perform the tasks of the Office of Strategy Management committed to see through the execution of the strategy as well as to oversee the coordinated implementation of the Performance Governance System in the Philippine Army;
• To develop systems that will institutionalize the review of the strategy in the Philippine Army; and
• To install mechanisms for reporting on the performance of the Philippine Army.

Through the constant organization and performance review process, similarly, the constant infrastructure build-up to align units and individuals, partners in the PGS Proficient Stage are envisioned to document breakthrough results from the continuous implementation of the PGS.

THE PGS INSTITUTIONALIZATION STAGE sees evidence of breakthrough performance in most of the measures specified in the scorecard. Two other crucial expectations are: that the PGS is linked to the performance appraisal of the individual employees and that some form of outreach to propagate the PGS has been done by the organization through its OSM that is expected to evolve into a Center for Leadership at this stage.[xiii]

At the PGS Institutionalization Stage, the PA aims to accomplish the following objectives:

• To document breakthrough results in the Philippine Army after a successful implementation and execution of the strategy;
• To create mechanisms that will enable an alignment to the Performance Governance System down to the individual level;
• To formalize a culture of governance in the Philippine Army with the Office of Strategy Management taking on the functions of the Center for Leadership; and
• To become advocates and champions of governance as well as to propagate the advocacy of governance and the use of Performance Governance System to other organizations.

Through these mechanisms, the cultures of governance and performance will be well-institutionalized in the PA. The breakthrough performance that the organization is expecting to realize demonstrates the close association between governance and performance. Formalizing a culture of governance will result to the cultivation of a culture of performance in the PA.

Therefore, the identified benefits derived from using the Performance Governance System is consistent with the objectives set forth in the Army Transformation Roadmap, namely:

• To determine the organizational and capability gaps, issues, and other challenges that affect the accomplishment of the Philippine Army’s vision, mission, and strategic goals;
• To establish and set the Philippine Army’s strategic direction by reviewing and validating its current vision, mission, and core values as well as by defining its strategic goals and desired capabilities;
• To develop the Philippine Army’s institutional strategy that will provide the overarching framework to bring the organization from where it is now towards its vision for the future;
• To formulate the implementing plans that will translate the broad objectives to specific actions and will enable the Philippine Army to realize its vision and to perform its functions; and
• To institute a monitoring and evaluation system that will ensure that the plan is implemented accordingly.^[xiv]

WHY THE PERFORMANCE GOVERNANCE SYSTEM OF THE INSTITUTE FOR SOLIDARITY IN ASIA?

The Institute for Solidarity in Asia was established in December 2000 with the primary purpose of pushing for comprehensive and systemic reforms at both the national and the local levels. As it envisions to become the leading public governance reform institute in East Asia by 2015, it advocates a paradigm shift from short-term to long-term perspective, from tactics to strategies, from an individual issue problem-solving to interconnected issues problem-solving, and from personalities to institutions.

Since the Performance Governance System of ISA was first launched in 2004 to a select group of local government units, the system is currently being used by a varied set of public sector organizations, local government units, and national government agencies including government owned and controlled corporations. These institutions have benefitted from implementing the system. To date, more than forty five institutions are making their journey on the four stages of the Governance Pathway including more than thirty local government units from metro giants such as Iloilo City, Marikina City, and San Fernando City to small municipalities such as Bani and Sta. Fe; public sector organizations such as the Accountancy Profession Association and the Nursing Profession Association; national government agencies such as the Philippine Military Academy and the Philippine Navy; and even government owned and controlled corporations such as the National Electrification Administration.

The PGS partners have spread their wings soaring mightily and reaching greater heights. Two of the most successful partners of ISA include the City of San Fernando and the City of Iloilo.

The City of San Fernando was awarded the Galing Pook Awards when they entered the PGS, hence, making governance a shared responsibility. Successful breakthrough results include raising a total of Php1.6B of funds outside the City Government Accounts, a satisfaction rating of ninety nine percent, and an improvement in business permits and licensing from two weeks to two hours among others.[xv]

The City of Iloilo proved to the world that Filipinos can be good strategy executioners when it bagged the prestigious Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame for Executing Strategy given to a few and select institutions world-wide. It demonstrates breakthrough results by having twelve Business Process Outsourcing Locators from initially having none, billions of additional investments in the manufacturing industry, high National Achievement Test Averages, and Billion-mark City Government Income (one of the few cities outside Manila with such income).[xvi]

Because of the success of the PGS in local government units, it is used by the National Government – through an order issued from the Office of the President dated July 2009 – as the governance framework in pursuing the Millennium Challenge Corporation Compact Status. The Malacañang Palace saw the potential of the PGS to reform and to transform institutions mandating its adoption to the six national government agencies. These include the Department of Education, the Department of Health, the Department of Public Works and Highways, the Department of Transportation and Communications, the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and the Philippine National Police

In effect, the PGS is elevated as a policy improvement project of the Government of the Philippines. The Philippines is listed as a Compact Status Partner of the Millennium Challenge Corporation and is due to be given grants.

Most importantly, the PGS of ISA has guided military and uniformed institutions in identifying and implementing their own strategic initiatives. It enabled the Philippine Military Academy to craft their own Roadmap and the Philippine Navy together with the Philippine Marines and the Philippine Fleet to craft their own Sail Plan. Even the Armed Forces of the Philippines expressed their interest to create their own roadmap but is asked by the Department of National Defense to defer such undertaking. It is because the DND is closely being considered among the next batch of national government agencies to adopt the PGS which also include the Bureau of Customs, the Civil Service Commission, the Department of Budget and Management, the Department of Social Welfare and Development, the Development Academy of the Philippines, the National Economic Development Authority, and the Presidential Management Staff.

As such, the Army Transformation Roadmap is anchored on the Performance Governance System of the Institute for Solidarity in Asia.

THE PERFORMANCE GOVERNANCE SYSTEM AND THE ARMY TRANSFORMATION ROADMAP

The discussions on the Performance Governance System of the Institute for Solidarity in Asia put emphasis on three points:

• The Performance Governance System is neither a short-term solution nor a quick fix on how things are approached. Rather, it is an institutional governance initiative aimed at transforming organizations.
• The Performance Governance System banks on a transparent and verifiable performance reporting of initiatives, measures, and targets that are set and accomplished in partner with the stakeholders and the constituents.
• The Performance Governance System is not a single program or project that can be championed and executed by one unit only. To be more precise, it is a governance initiative championed and executed in all aspects and in all levels in the organization.

These points, alongside the other points mentioned in the discussions, are the reasons why the Performance Governance System is the framework and the platform to which the Army Transformation Roadmap builds into. Using the three points raised draws a closer look at the said project.

FIRST, the Army Transformation Roadmap is a long-term initiative. It is not a quick fix. It entails assessing and understanding the Philippine Army as well as uprooting and disabling the issues plaguing the organization to realize its direction. The governance advocated by the Institute for Solidarity in Asia is the same kind of governance the Philippine Army needs to truly launch its institutional governance initiative.

SECOND, the Army Transformation Roadmap can be self-serving. The results of which can be easily questioned by a scrutinizing public that speaks little of government organizations.

With a governance scorecard and a measuring tool deeply ingrained in the system, this will enable the Philippine Army to track its progress after executing the Army Transformation Roadmap. The results of these will be objectively reported as the system embeds three essential components:

• The scores itself are verifiable. The scores as well as the definitions of the scores are well established and are in place.
• The scores and the measures are available and are open for the public to verify.
• The system is installed with external stakeholders through whom the Philippine Army holds accountable.

THIRD, the task of transforming an organization is not easy. Not only will the Army Transformation Roadmap demand so much time in terms of its execution, the project cannot be solely championed by one office or unit. Transforming the Philippine Army entails transforming the biggest service unit of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. As such, it is just but logical to see that the transformation must come across all units in the organization. The Performance Governance System, thus, will provide a mechanism for all units forming the Philippine Army – the top leadership, the senior officers, the field grade officers, the junior officers, the enlisted personnel, the civilian employees, and the reservists – to work together in carrying out the Army Transformation Roadmap.

To conclude, the Philippine Army envisions to become a world-class Army that is a source of national pride by 2028. This strategic direction charts the destiny that the Philippine Army will pursue in the next three horizons or eighteen years. The Performance Governance System of the Institute for Solidarity in Asia contains all the essential ingredients that will enable the success towards the attainment of the envisioned future in the Army Transformation