General rules for ORI battle Published Jan. 18, 2007 By Lt Col David Marshall 71st Flying Training Wing Vance Air Force Base, Okla. -- In a recent issue of the Airscoop, I spoke of Team Vance's August 2005 Operational Readiness Inspection and its apparent distance in the future. Sun Tsu is an oft-quoted ancient Chinese warrior, philosopher and student of warfare. One of his thoughts is most appropriate when it comes to ORIs: "The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus many calculations lead to victory and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all. It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose." Each one of us is a "general" and to ensure victory, many "calculations" must be made. One of the pieces of information that must be made is to know the ground rules. The following was written by Col Worth Carter, Air Education and Training Command's Inspector General, and was published in the Jul-Aug 2004 issue of the TIG BRIEF. It gives an overview of what Team Vance is likely to experience in our ORI. In order for inspections to be meaningful, they must focus on those things that are most important to mission accomplishment. A major critique of inspectors in all commands is that they focus too much on dotting the I's and crossing the T's. There is no denying that some of that focus continues, since compliance with laws and Air Force instructions cannot be ignored. However, the AETC inspection team now employs a weighted scoring system in all our inspections that puts the greatest emphasis on those areas and items that most directly affect the mission. We commonly refer to this as "mission impact." This focus on mission impact has affected not only our inspection of blue suit operations but contracted functions as well. In years past, the IG wrote a separate report for contracted activities under a three-tier grading scale that focused completely on compliance. About a year ago, we began to inspect contract functions and to include a mission impact statement within the ORI report while maintaining a separate Contract Support Activity Inspection Report. Beginning in calendar year 2004, we began evaluating all contractor activities and incorporating the results into the main ORI report using mission impact as a main criterion and grading contractors on the same five-tier scale we use for blue suiters. The third tenet of our inspection program is to evaluate like we fight. AETC sends people to war just as the combatant commands do. There are approximately 1,000 AETC Airmen deployed on a daily basis, and those individuals need to be prepared and well trained. This demands that we evaluate how well AETC warriors are prepared to deploy when the call comes. As a result, we have made contingency operations a more robust aspect during ORIs. AETC units today are receiving a more in-depth deployment evaluation during ORIs than in the past. However, we do this through part-task evaluations. For example, we will test the skills of contracting activities, services and personnel support for contingency operations in a simulated deployment environment. In addition, we test all deployment eligible personnel in the ability to survive and operate, military operational protective posture levels and weapons firing. Compared to the past, part-task evaluations have doubled in number and duration. The good news is that this more demanding approach appeals to the warrior spirit, as recent ORIs have revealed in an improved performance in contingency operations. But the best news is that AETC is demonstrating that it is prepared to support wartime taskings. One thing is certain: AETC inspections have changed significantly over the years. These changes recognize the changes in how we conduct our recruit, train and educate mission, and how we posture ourselves to support the Air Force's war fighting mission. "The will to win is important, but the will to prepare is vital." - Joe Paterno, head coach, Penn State football team.