The preliminaries for crafting a strategy map

AFTER the heat of the discussions concerning the Army of the future that the participants wanted to propose, the hard task of arriving at a “vision statement” for the Philippine Army (PA) that they could agree on and present up the chain of command had to be done. There was an additional complication: A set of core values had to be identified as anchors for an Army transformation program, together with the mission given as the core mandate for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine Army.

No discussion was necessary on the “mission statement”: this was a given, no less by law. But a long discussion, equally heated and long, ensued when it came to discussing the “core values” for the PA. There was a long list of values proposed; this was a reflection of the many challenges and needs the PA had to confront at a rather fundamental level. In the end, three umbrella core values were agreed upon, and under each of these all the other values that had been suggested were to be subsumed in the instructional materials that would explain what the three umbrella core values would cover and mean. The three are: “Honor; Patriotism; Duty.” Once this anchor for a governance and transformation program was finally put in place, the many drafts about the PA vision statement came down to a simple, agreed statement: “A World-Class Army, a Source of National Pride by 2028.” “World-Class” was taken to mean: “a professional Army,” “one that is responsive to the needs of the AFP,” and one that ultimately is “loved by the people.” In other words, it has to be an Army that performs its tasks and functions with “excellence” and professionalism, and whose capability “levels up” to the duties and tasks assigned to it, and always operating under the “tenets of good governance.” The “vision statement,” as formulated, looks simple and straightforward; but the meanings and explanations attached to it would make it sound tedious.

In any event, when the draft proposed governance charter – with core values, mission statement, and vision statement – was presented up the Army chain of command, many questions were raised, and long-winded answers had to be given. In the end, what came through was the burning ambition of the Army working group to initiate a governance and transformation process for the Army: this turned out to be much stronger than any reticence or reluctance to “go out into the deep.” The proposal went through the wringer, and the Army finally adopted a governance charter that has since served as the basic reference for the strategy map it eventually had to formulate as a consequence.

But before turning to the formal formulation and eventual adoption of a strategy map for the PA, a practical decision had to be made (to address the concern that 2028 was too far off). The Army decided to specify two base camps, 2016 and 2022, before reaching the final destination in 2028. Base camp 2016 was presented as an “intermediate vision” of a “well-equipped Army that has established a respectable image in Southeast Asia, while base camp 2022 was of a “modern and respected Army in “Asia.”

The serious task of preparing and presenting for approval an Army Road Map towards the attainment of the ultimate vision in 2028, with two base camps in 2016 and 2022 awaited the focus and heroic exertion of the Army working group.