You are on page 1of 7

Officer Training Command Newport


Scott Hazelrigg

Officer Training Command Newport 2

Professor Wallace
December 7, 2008

Executive Summary

Officer Training Command Newport (OTCN) recently went through a re-alignment, bringing up three
programs that were based out of Pensacola Florida and integrated them into the two current programs being run at
Newport. Infrastructure and command organization were not sufficiently planned prior to the move, and therefore
has caused such inefficiencies in the current way business is ran. OTCN’s two major issues are command structure
and the impact on customer service, and the Information Systems Technology and how it is employed here at the
command. These two factors could have a significant impact on operations if they were reorganized and updated
with modern technology. In the following paragraphs I will discuss the two major problems and offer possible
solutions to aid in the updating and upgrading of current procedures and systems to provide the Navy with a better
product; a competent, confident Naval Officer ready to join the U.S Naval Fleet and lead young men and women
around the globe.

Officer Training Command Newport is located scenic Rhode Island, and is home to a multitude of Naval
Training entities. Specifically, it is responsible for the training of four different Naval Officer accession programs.
These include Officer Candidate School, Officer Development School, Direct Commission Officer and Limited
Duty Officer/Chief Warrant Officer schools. Up until late 2007, only Officer Development School was located at
Newport Rhode Island, the remaining three schools were located in Pensacola Florida. The Base Re-alignment and
Closure (BRAC) Committee closed the facility in Florida and consolidated the four programs in Rhode Island. This
transition and consolidation has been very difficult since the infrastructure in Newport was not fully equipped to
handle the program requirements to support these programs plus the existing programs located on the base. The
purpose of this document is to outline some of the discrepancies facing this command, identify areas of
improvement, and offer solutions to help minimize waste and streamline organizational performance.


Officer Training Command Newport is a customer service entity. Where we vary is the product description
that most businesses offer. Our product is human talent. We take customers (students) and in varying lengths of
time educate them in Naval History and procedures prior to sending them on to their specific schools or out to the
Naval Fleet. It is our responsibility to ensure they are ready to assume the responsibilities necessary to be Naval
Officer. In our service line, there are currently five major areas that work within the entity as a whole to service our
students. Below is a diagram to illustrate the structure of the command.

The structure was designed initially to accommodate every schoolhouse and the current personnel who
were still assigned to the commands. It brought together the existing organization of Newport, with the organization
brought up from Pensacola Florida. Were this a merger of two civilian corporations, certain job positions and
redundancies in management would have been eliminated to minimize the upper echelon being overstaffed and
personnel costs lowered. Within the Navy, no Naval Officer is ever technically fired. Officers are moved, or
separated from the Navy, but this usually occurs because of poor performance, not organization realignments.
Therefore, when the two organizations merged, you now had twice the amount of Senior Officers for a new
Officer Training Command Newport 3

organization that needed less than what was available. This is the reason for the segmentation of the command.
Now one year later we are seeing the following impact on the command and its mission:
• Segmented departments with poor internal communication.
• Little concept of a team approach to completing the overall mission. Individual departments
focus on their specific mission and loose site of the big picture.
• Overall poor communication between the five various departments.
• Lack of clear direction between the 5 departments from the Chain of Command.
This becomes very important when put into perspective, officer training command trains on average 4000
Naval Officer’s each year, which is 8% (DoD Personnel & Procurement Statistics, 2008) of the entire officer
population in the U.S. Navy. After one year of performance, it is apparent that the organization has the potential to
streamline the chain of command. Putting functional areas together under one Manager (Senior Officer) and
decreasing the number of departments, you cut out the number of obstacles you need to go through to provide the
most efficient service to our students. This also reduces the time spent requesting internal services, and provides
more support and capabilities within one department. Below is a proposed organization structure for the command.

This structure brings similar departments and puts them under one umbrella. It provides a more consistent
direction and will improve services based on time to service provided alone. This is a form of group technology
(Jacob & Chase (2008)) in which like items are grouped for better functionality. This is especially true in the
student services department. Staff Officers must be able to both teach and manage the day to day operations of the
classes themselves. This includes personnel issues, uniform issues and general problems encountered when dealing
with new accessions. They also must be familiar with the curriculum from all four school houses, and be able to
teach to any class with a reasonable amount of lead time. Same with the administrative services, although more
specialized there needs to be redundancy due to the nature of the business and that it is a year round endeavor that
takes no breaks. One example of how this will streamline services is; currently is you want to reschedule a class
around another event, you would have to submit a request to the Operations Department Head. He in turn would
forward the request to Training and Readiness to coordinate the schedule change and room availability. Then once
this was complete, they would route the request to the Academics Department to ensure that this didn’t conflict with
that scheduled instructors other duties or commitments. This could take up to three days to reschedule a 1 hour
class. Under the new structure, all the major players in this one request would work in the same department, so
there would be no lines to cross to achieve the same end result. Students would benefit from a more streamlined
academic process where their best interest is our priority not the red tape it takes to make adjustments happen.

Implementation of this new structure would be in three phases over a one year period.
Officer Training Command Newport 4

Revision of the

Facility Set-up

Roll out – Command


Phase one would consist of writing a new, comprehensive organizational manual outline the roles and
responsibilities of every department. This would include an overview of the department as well as specific position
description of all employees under its charge. This would give a clear and concise outline of expectations from all
involved. Phase two would consist of assessing all facility assets and developing a plan to maximize space and
provide the best set-up to ensure the most efficient operation. Phase three would be an all hands training evolution
to brief the new structure and ensure all parties are educated on any new processes. Also, providing a quick
reference guide to all employees would be beneficial to help with the transition.

This approach spread out over one year would also allow time for excess staff to transfer without backfill.
This ensures no single person has any adverse actions annotated on any evaluations that might affect further
promotions in the Navy.


Currently the information systems department is staffed by one Information Technologist (IT). This fact
alone is concerning, but to explain the system as it is set up at the command is even more alarming. Currently, our
command works off of two different systems. One is set up for the staff, and is run by the Navy and Marine Corps
Intranet (NMCI). This company is contracted by the Department of Defense to maintain, service, and protect our
vital information. They provide service to every shore based installation in the Navy and Marine Corps. All
requests on this system must go through our IT individual then to NMCI. For instance, if you wanted to have
Microsoft Publisher installed on your workstation, you would need to submit a request through our IT then he would
forward it to NMCI. They would request justification as to why the program is needed. Once approved, NMCI
would procure the required license and then they would remotely install the program on your computer. NMCI is
the only approved source to be able to modify computer workstations. Our second system is an internal server that
is maintained by our IT. It is set up solely for our student population, and is only capable of pulling information
from that one source. Students do have internet capability, but it is limited and internally monitored at all times.
Below is a diagram of our current systems.
Officer Training Command Newport 5

Share Drive
Student Email
Share Staff Email
Drive Accounts
and Class

Internal Information Systems External Information Systems

These two systems are not linked, so there are different workstations for each system. The internal
workstations are only in the classrooms and student resource centers. They are not located in the instructor or staff
officers or workspaces. As you can see from the diagram above, all of the instructor reference materials for all
classes are maintained on the internal server. This makes it difficult for instructors to review material and update as
necessary. For an instructor to update material, he must first transfer it from the internal server to their own
workstation on the NMCI network. This is usually done via external media such as a thumb drive. Then they must
update, and then transfer it back to the internal server and ensure the previous copy is deleted. This is difficult to
monitor to ensure that files are not being duplicated or deleted from the server.

O'Brien & Marakas (2008) discuss the use of Intranets and Enterprise Information Portals and how they can
increase the efficiency of the company and it use of information. Implementing a Command Intranet capable of
bridging the gap between the two systems would reduce the time spent locating, transferring and updating files and
provides faster access to needed information. Using a off the shelf system such as Microsoft Sharepoint could
greatly enhance not only information access, but could potentially be a platform for command policy, information,
scheduling and media information that could be accessible to the entire command. Having the ability for every
department to take advantage of the uses of this type of software could greatly enhance communication. Microsoft
Sharepoint has many features, such as each department having the ability to create there own department webpage.
Information could be posted, and meetings could be minimized with the distribution of information electronically.
Also, access could be limited based on the needs of staff and students. Below is a diagram of the system with an
enterprise information portal in place.
Combined Information System
Student Email Staff Email
Accounts/Workstations Instructor References Accounts/Workstations
and Class Material

Student Resources

Command / Student
Share Drive

It would be necessary to hire at least one more individual to maintain this system. This would allow for
redundancy of staff and ensure proper maintenance is coverage is present.

Officer Training Command Newport 6

The military is fortunate to be in a position where staffing is handled and decided at a level above the
operational commands. Our manning is decided based on our mission and quantity of work. Each command goes
through an efficiency review every 5 years to see if manning levels need increased or decreased. Once this is done,
the Department of the Navy will finance an increase in staffing or recoup the funding for billets that are found to be
unnecessary per the review. Therefore, when we discuss budget, it is usually done in man hours as it relates to the
individual assignments that are being impacted by removing or tasking a certain individual.
Discussing the two issues, structure and IT, we will break the budget down into the major financial factors.

Command Structure Information Systems Technology

5 Personnel to review and 2000 man Sharepoint 60,000
update Standard Org Manual hours
Facility Set up $100,000 Contract IT Employee 75,000/yr
Construction Hardware upgrade 45,000
Furniture and Equipment Purchase Training
Training 100 man Outside Training Professionals 20,000
Staff Training 200 man
Total Cost 100,000 200,000
Total Man Hours 2100 200

This is a basic overview of cost, but provides a quick estimate on the amount of funding that will need to be
requested from higher authority. Combining these two systems will provide greater capabilities for all the
employees and students.

Although these two items seem minor in nature, both have a great impact the way business is conducted.
Man hours are lost on countless meetings to try and revise processes and discuss communication issues between
departments. Information is not effectively disseminated which impacts daily operations. With the command
already going through major changes based on the command realignment, now is the optimal time to make these
changes before the current processes are more defined and harder to change.
Officer Training Command Newport 7


Jones, G. (2007). Organizational theory, design, and change. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

O'Brien, J.A., & Marakas, G.M. (2008). Management information systems (8th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill/Irwin.
Chapters 11-14

Jacob, F. R, & Chase, R.B. (2008). Operations and Supply Management, The Core. New York: McGraw Hill

DoD Personnel & Procurement Statistics (Oct 2008). Active Duty Military Strength Report retrieved December 1st,
2008 from