USACE Human Capital Strategic Plan 2012–2017: Analysis
This paper critically analyzes the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Human Capital Strategic Plan for 2012–2017, a fifty-page document issued in April 2012. The analysis examines the plan's structure, mission alignment, workforce life cycle framework, retirement trends, new-hire retention rates, employee satisfaction data, and diversity metrics. It evaluates the plan's stated goals against survey evidence of managerial shortcomings, discusses budgetary constraints tied to taxpayer funding, and considers challenges posed by an aging Baby Boomer workforce and a competitive engineering labor market. The paper concludes with targeted recommendations for improving manager accountability, workforce engagement, and succession planning within the USACE.
- Introduction: Overview of the USACE plan and analytical scope
- Strategic Plan Structure and Mission Alignment: Mission, vision, lines of effort, and campaign goals
- Workforce Life Cycle, Retirement Trends, and Talent Competition: Plan-Recruit-Develop-Sustain cycle and retirement data
- Employee Satisfaction, Diversity, and Workforce Demographics: Survey scores, gender, race, and generational breakdown
- Human Capital Objectives and Army Values: Objectives, LDRSHIP values, and managerial accountability
- Final Analysis and Recommendations: Bulleted recommendations for workforce improvement
- Conclusion: Summary of USACE strengths and ongoing challenges
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Follows the source document page by page, providing a systematic and traceable analysis rather than a selective summary — this gives the critique credibility and allows readers to verify claims against the original.
- Balances praise with criticism effectively: the author acknowledges genuine strengths in the USACE plan (e.g., the Plan–Recruit–Develop–Sustain life cycle) while identifying specific weaknesses (e.g., vague language in Objective 4.2, poor manager feedback scores).
- Contextualizes internal findings with external data, such as Bureau of Labor Statistics engineering projections and Census demographic trends, strengthening the analytical depth.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates document analysis as a research method: the author systematically works through a primary source (the USACE plan), evaluates each section against stated organizational goals, cross-references with external evidence, and synthesizes observations into actionable recommendations. This mirrors how public administration scholars assess policy documents.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a framing introduction, moves into a section-by-section analytical body that mirrors the source document's own organization, and closes with a bulleted final analysis followed by a brief conclusion. This structure is appropriate for a policy document review at the graduate level, making individual findings easy to locate while preserving an overall argumentative arc about organizational accountability and workforce readiness.
Introduction
The United States Army Corps of Engineers issued a report in 2012 known as the Human Capital Strategic Plan, meant to serve as a benchmark and projection for the period from 2012 through 2017. As a public safety-oriented organization, the USACE's plan warrants careful analysis in terms of resource allocation, budgetary efficacy, and overall quality. The United States Army Corps of Engineers is a very competent organization, but no organization's plans — especially those whose funding involves taxpayer dollars in whole or in part — are beyond reproach.
This paper analyzes the Human Capital Strategic Plan for 2012–2017 as issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in April 2012. The report is approximately fifty pages in length and is analyzed cover to cover. The analysis examines what is in the report, what might be missing, and what could perhaps be done better. While the Army Corps of Engineers is a very reputable organization, all government and government-oriented organizations should have their plans analyzed and assessed.
References
CDC. (2015). Products — Vital Statistics of the U.S. — Homepage. Cdc.gov. Retrieved June 5, 2015, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/vsus.htm
Census.gov. (2015). FFF: Hispanic Heritage Month 2014: Sept. 15 – Oct. 15. Census.gov. Retrieved June 5, 2015, from http://www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2014/cb14-ff22.html
Kessler, G. (2015). Do 10,000 baby boomers retire every day? Washington Post. Retrieved June 5, 2015, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/07/24/do-10000-baby-boomers-retire-every-day/
Krumrie, M. (2014). How to incorporate diversity hiring goals and strategies. ZipRecruiter. Retrieved June 5, 2015, from
Michaels, P. (2015). Sustainability is too expensive. BusinessWeek. Retrieved June 5, 2015, from http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2011/12/sustainability_is_too_expensive.html
OPM.gov. (2015). Feedback is critical to improving performance. U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Retrieved June 5, 2015, from
Reed, S., & Bogardus, A. (2015). PHR/SPHR Professional in Human Resources Certification deluxe study guide.
Time. (2009). TIME.com. Retrieved June 5, 2015, from
USACE. (2015). 2012–2017 Human Capital Management Plan. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1–50.
WSJ. (2015). Employee retention — How to retain employees. Guides.wsj.com. Retrieved June 5, 2015, from http://guides.wsj.com/small-business/hiring-and-managing-employees/how-to-retain-employees/
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.