Air Force Materiel Command Case Study

AirForce Materiel Command Case Study

AirForce Materiel Command Case Study

Withinthe federal government, the Air Force Materiel Command is a supportorganization sprawling and horizontally integrated. The supportorganization, which is headquartered at the Wright-Patterson, Ohio,employs over 90,000 people, both the military and civilian, andoperates a physical plant worth $45 billion across 10 states. Thesupport organization, AFMC, mainly offer services to internalcustomers, which includes the combat air forces, the Air Force SpaceCommand, the Air Mobility Command, and the Air Training and EducationCommand (United States, 2008). For all these potential customers, thesupport organization overhauled the jet engines, conducts laboratoryresearch, and tests prototypes.

Inthe organization, there was a need to sort out an acute, visibleperformance problem. However, the issue was that the organization wasviewed to be the solution, but the corporate Air Force viewed it asbeing too costly in the long long-term (United States, 2008). Topofficials in the organization were also confronted with unexpectednews that the organization in the previous year had spent a lot ofmoney in excess of $100,000 million dollars to carry out itsoperations of maintenance activities and centralized supply.

Thesituation and dynamics of the people and organizations involved withthe AFMC were the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) with General Babbittestablishing a command-wide structural pursuit of the organization(United States, 2008). The dynamics were that the appointment ofGeneral Babbitt from DLA would bring about the cost of culturalmanagement down considering the support organization was huge.

Fromwithin the context of organizational behavior, management, theory,and practice, the support organization, The Air Force MaterielCommand is entangled in the concept of high costs of outputs with nooperational meaning, except the use of working capital operationalfunds of supply and maintenance. From the context of managementprocess, the modern technology applied in the organization is basedon functional and hierarchical procedure, according to the currentGeneral Babbitt. The organizational behavior revolves around thebroadest sense that defines collection of activities and tasks havehelped transform the inputs to outputs. According to Catlin-Legutko &ampKlingler (2012), the inputs put and the outputs coming out in anorganization like AFMC is varied, for example materials used,information incorporated as per the organization’s behavior, andpeople.

TheAFMC’s budget information when General Babbitt arrived at Daytonhad been organized by the field activity and Congressionalappropriation type. This kind of situation, according to Eoyang &ampHolladay (2013), is expressed by process theories that often appearin an organization theory, operations management, strategicmanagement, group dynamics, and the organization’s managerialbehavior that was later introduced by General Babbitt (Eoyang &ampHolladay, 2013). Additionally, the problems in AFMC’sconceptualizing unit costs, was used a concept that targeted thesystems engineering technology field, and would be seen as thecomponent activity for work breakdown structure described by theoutputs and inputs terms.

Recommendedcourse of action targeted at solving the problems and issuespresented by the case include first identify the root course of theproblem, which will include evaluation of the organization as awhole. Secondly, there has to be new insights put in place that wouldoversee the managerial behavior of the company from the past towardsthe past. Considering the organization is aligned towards technologyand engineering, I would also recommend that an approach process bedone with regard to transformation of technology execution review.The review will focus on the organization’s ability to cut costs,while doing corrective action and performance accountability.


Catlin-Legutko,C., &amp Klingler, S. (2012). Organizationalmanagement.Lanham, Md: AltaMira Press.

Eoyang,G. H., &amp Holladay, R. J. (2013). Adaptiveaction: Leveraging uncertainty in your organization.Stanford, Calif: Stanford Business Books.

UnitedStates. (2008). AirForce Materiel Command.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Air Force.