DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

355TH FORCE SUPPORT SQUADRON (ACC)

DAVIS-MONTHAN AIR FORCE BASE, ARIZONA

21 October 2020
MEMORANDUM FOR 355 FSS/CC
3515 S 5TH Street
Davis-Monthan AFB 85707

FROM: 355 FSS/FSV

3515 S 5TH Street
Davis-Monthan AFB 85707

SUBJECT: Installation Fitness Program Training

1. PROBLEM: Customer service for installation fitness training does not meet the needs of
Davis-Monthan AFB. 13 of 20 Unit Fitness Program Managers (UFPMs) evaluated during
vertical inspections expressed that training was lacking and infrequent. 355 Wing Inspector
General identified insufficient training as a trend during the Commanders Inspection
Management Board (CIMB).

2. FACTORS BEARING ON THE PROBLEM:

a. Clarifying and validating the problem. Two tools were used to clarify and validate, Go &
See and Voice of the Customer. The Fitness Assessment Cell (FAC) Staff was tasked to
go to units and speak to UFPMs and investigate their programs. This allowed them to
speak to the customer directly and look at areas within the program that needed to be
addressed. They were then, able to take that data to help them get after what “insufficient”
was. The FAC then engaged the 355 Wing Inspector General (IG) to get the Voice of the
Customer. During the vertical inspections conducted in the years 2019 and 2020 the IG
was able to compile data-based metrics from units and detachments assigned to the Desert
Lightening Team. This also allowed the FAC to see identified deficiencies and trends that
are Air Force Instruction driven. Moreover, to further clarify and validate the problem, a
Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis was conducted. You
will find the complete SWOT in attachment one. Barriers and risks will be highlighted
here. The biggest barriers are the Operations Tempo (OPSTEMPO) of Davis-Monthan
(DM) and COVID-19. DM is the most tasked installation within Air Combat Command
(ACC). This means rapid turnover of UFPMs. Additionally, being ACC’s “Dynamic
Wing” requires units to shift priorities to being lethal and agile warfighters. This barrier
makes it difficult to have sufficient turnover within the unit. It can create a single point of
failure, if replacement UFPMs are not directed to the FAC for training. Lastly, the post
COVID-19, new normal, introduces both barriers and risks. Face-to-Face training
increases risk of spreading the virus. Venues that are able to support social distancing and
meet the resource requirements for teaching the course are at a premium. There are
significant impacts to Strategic Alignment & Deployment. Non-compliance is in direct
 violation of the 355 Wing Strategic Guidance and the call to action The Chief of the Staff
outlined in Accelerate Change or Lose. Unit Fitness Programs must be managed as
outlined in Air Force Guidance to ensure fair and equitable assessments. Failed and
overdue assessments directly impact promotion, Permanent Change of Station,
deployments and attendance of Professional Military Education. Airman must be ready to
execute their mission set. Additionally, there is a large margin of risk to earn a marginally
effective in the upcoming ACC Unit Evaluation Inspection. All of these factors required
us to further breakdown the problem.

b. Breaking down the problem and identifying performance gaps. Gap Analysis was the best
tool to determine where the performance gaps are. Attachment 2 contains the full gap
analysis. Two areas were specifically assessed for performance gaps, compliance of
training and customer satisfaction. The gap between the desired and current state was
greatest in customer service. Our desired state is at least an 85% customer satisfaction
rate. Based on the data received from the IG we currently have a 65% satisfaction rate.
This leaves a performance gap of about 20%. The desired state for compliance of training
is 100% of appointed UFPMs. 95% of all appointed UFPMs are trained. This leaves a 5%
performance gap. The 5% that are untrained, were identified for training during the fight
COVID stage. Training and operations halted in response to COVID directly impacting
that 5%. There were no wastes identified during the gap analysis. Once performance gaps
were identified, active steps were developed to close the performance gaps. Those are
listed in attachment 2 and detailed in the implementation plan. Once active steps were
developed, the next step would be to set improvement targets.

c. Setting Improvement Targets. To clearly set improvement targets, two value stream maps
were conducted. Attachment 3 contains both future and ideal maps. The future state
begins with 100% of UFPMs trained by 21 January 2021. It is augmented with monthly
training conducted at the monthly meetings. Training would begin 1 November 2020.
Additionally, the FAC would be required to conduct one Staff Assisted Visit and one
Assessment per month. The feedback and data compiled from these visits would drive the
training requirements. The FAC staff will conduct monthly feedback surveys to get the
voice of the customer so that training is tailored to meet the needs of DM. The ideal
requires newly assigned UFPMs to completed required initial training within 30 days of
appointment. This is supplemented with bi-monthly training during monthly meetings.
UFPMs would annual and refresher training as needed. FAC staff would still conduct
monthly assessments and Staff Assisted Visits that are augmented by standout UFPMs
and Wing Inspection Team (WIT) members. Timelines would begin 6 months after the
future state has been standardized and validated.
d. Determining the Root Cause. The 5 Why’s tool was used to determine the root cause of
the problem. The root cause was determined to be OPSTEMPO at DM is extremely high.
This lends to rapid turnover of UFPMs. This led to new program managers who had
deficiencies in their program. Which ultimately led to a customer satisfaction rate of 65%
and the Wing IG determining training was insufficient. Attachment 4 contains the tool
used.

e. Developing Countermeasures. The countermeasures that were built, were built to keep in
mind the consensus of the stakeholder and to mitigate barriers to success. The first
countermeasure is to tether unit access to Air Force Fitness Management System II to
training requirements and compliance. Essentially, Airman in non-compliance will not be
able to input fitness assessment scores or run reports that are necessary for personnel
actions like promotion. This will ensure that the barriers associated with our high
OPSTEMPO are mitigated. The second countermeasure is to implement surveys. Surveys
will be sent electronically. Additionally, our FAC staff will call or engage a sampling of at
least 4 UFPMs per quarter to ask the questions directly. There are minimal resources
required to execute the action plan. Most are associated with previously identified risks,
COVID-19 precautions. Cleaning supplies will need to be purchased to sanitize surfaces.
Classrooms large enough to support small groups that are socially distant will be needed.
The largest resource required will be the time of the instructor and UFPM. The action plan
begins with conducting refresher training. It would begin 1 November 2020 and be
completed by 1 January 2021. Monthly meetings would begin 1 December 2020. Staff
assisted visits and inspections would begin 1 January 2021.

f. Seeing Countermeasures Through. The FAC staff will have to employ an improvement
event as this process requires a team and will take longer than one week to implement.
The FAC staff will need to see these countermeasures through using visual management.
They will have a status board in their facility that will allow them to track progress of
milestone completion of the goals outlined in the action plan. It will also outline customer
service satisfaction rates and training completion. Metrics will be reported at the monthly
meetings. UFPMs are stakeholders, this further enforces buy-in.

g. Confirming Results and Standardizing Processes. The Unit Evaluation Inspection is

impending. This will start the Commander’s Inspection Program cycle over. This means
that there will be vertical assessments being conducted. This is the perfect way to formally
confirm results. In the interim, the FAC staff can assess the performance gap monthly.
This will allow the FAC and stakeholders to see progress and adjust improvement targets.
Once we have closed the performance gaps, and sustained those metrics for at least 90
days we can begin standardizing the processes by publishing an operation instruction and
submitting best practices for Command benchmarks.
3. DISCUSSION: Approval and implementation of the attached plan will significantly decrease
deficiencies within units across the Wing. This creates airman that are agile and lethal as defined
by the Installation Commander in the Wing Strategic Guidance. The Wing Strategic Guidance is
in direct alignment with the Chief of the Staff’s charge to have a lethal, agile and innovative
force. Furthermore, the actions in this plan will create a climate of fair and equitable fitness
assessments. Fitness assessments are tied to significant career impacting personnel actions.
Additionally, Airman who are fit to fight are able to support the combatant commanders and
reduce the strain on medical infrastructure.

4. CONCLUSION: UFPMs identified dissatisfaction with training offered from the FAC. A gap
analysis was conducted and determined that there was a 20% gap in performance for customer
service with a 5% gap regarding compliance. Improvement targets will be implemented 1
November 2020. The 5 Why’s were used as a tool to determine the root cause, which is high
OPSTEMPO. Countermeasures were developed considering the consensus of the stakeholder.
The FAC staff will use visual management to see the countermeasures through. Two
mechanisms to validate and standardize the successful processes were provided.

5. ACTION RECOMMENDED: Approve outlined action plan.

JACQUELINE N.J. CUNNINGHAM, MSgt, USAF

Superintendent, Sustainment Flight
 ATTACHMENT 1

SWOT ANALYSIS

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
1. All minimum standards are met 1. Low Unit Fitness Program Manager (UFPM)
participation
2. staff is innovative and knowledgeable 2. Rapid turnover of UFPMs

3. Support agencies in place (network/HHQ)

4. Standardized Curriculum

OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
1. Enhance services 1. COVID-19 mitigation requirements

2. Benchmarks 2. resource constraints

3. Improve Wing statistics 3. Operations Tempo (OPSTEMPO)

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 5
1. Air Combat Command Inspector General, Draft Unit Effectiveness Inspection Report, 18
September 2020, 14 -16 52, https://igems.hill.af.mil/igems/home.do
2. General Charles Brown, Accelerate Change or Lose, August 2020, 1-2,
https://www.af.mil/portals/1/documents/csaf/CSAF_22/CSAF_22_Strategic_Approach_Accelera
te_Change_or_Lose_31_Aug_2020.pdf

3. Colonel Joseph Turnham, 355 Wing Strategic Guidance, 2 October 2020, 1-8,
https:/usaf.dps.mil/sites/Davis-Monthan