United Stated Army Inspector General Process Optimization

The Inspector General is an investigative personnel in the military or any other civil organization (AR 20-1, 2010). Different government as well as different arms of civil organizations have a designated office of the Inspector General. This is essential as it ensures that the investigative, inspection, assistance, teaching, and training functions are conducted in an effective and efficient manner (Delaney, 2005). As a result, therefore, such organizations are capable of performing their functions more effectively and efficiently.

This is essential as it ensures that each and every one of these organization is sustainable in the short run and in the long run. At the same time, such organizations are capable of meeting their short-term and long-term goals and objectives.

In the United States, the office of the Inspector General is surrounded with critical roles and duties that have to be performed to ensure the overall. In the United States, the office of the Inspector General can be found at various government agencies, military organizations, military contracting firms and so on. In these organizations, the main role of the Inspector General is to the individual who is in charge of the operations of these organizations with eyes, ears, and conscience (Burchill, 2000: Black, 2003).

In the army, for example, the Inspector General reports to and provides the Army Commander with the eyes and ears to the operations of the army (Beveridge, 1998). At the same time, it is the duty of the Inspector General to ensure that the operations of the army are effective and efficient. To achieve this, he/she needs to conduct audits, investigations, offer professional and technical support and guidance, and improve the knowledge and skills of army officials through teaching and training. According to AR 20-1 (2010), the main role that Inspectors General have to the United States public, the government and the United States Army is to detect and prevent any acts of fraud, mismanagement, misrepresentation, waste, abuse, and violation of fundamental rights and laws that govern the US army and the United States in general.

The army has been experiencing a lot of advancements in its statutory duties. At the same time, there has been additional coverage in the armys operations especially in high risk areas such as the Middle East. In addition, the level of army contracting, use of information technology (IT), major weaponry inventory, security systems, and human capital have also increased. Other areas in the army that have experienced drastic changes include:

1. Charge cards
2. Personnel medical readiness
3. Financial management
4. Homeland security

The increase and development of these activities have come about as a result of the demands of the community. The world that we are living in at the present moment is characterised with increased insecurity especially from terrorism. Therefore, according to Miller (n.d), to safeguards its interests at home and overseas, the duties and obligations of the United States, the operations of the US army have expanded tremendously.

Despite the fact that these developments are essential to the United States, the ease at which these processes are conducted within the army needs to be checked. This should be done to eliminate any delays that may develop in the course of these processes. Therefore, to achieve a desirable level of operations in the army, several amendments have to be done at the office of the Inspector General.

This is essential as all of these processes are under the discretion and supervision of this office. Therefore, to ensure that the stakeholders of the army are satisfied with its operations as well as guaranteeing effectiveness and efficiency in its operations, the manner in which the office of the Inspector General handles, processes and implements its operations has to be modified to meet its current and future demands. Once this is done, it the operations of the army shall be effective characterised with reliability, accountability and transparency.

The Inspector General

In the United States, the office of the Inspector General falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defence (DoD). The Office of the Inspector General is thus an independent body that was created to create an oversight of the operations and activities of the Department of Defence (Donal, 2003; Davis, 2000). This office was created as a result of the amendment of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (AR 20-1, 2010).

The main mission of this office is to improve the ease of operations and activities of the army. To achieve this, the office of the Inspector General thus ensures that the operations of the army as well as its personnel and the army have integrity, transparency, and accountability. This is essential as it promotes the operations and activities of the army ensuring that it meets its short terms and long terms demands and obligations in an effective and efficient manner. The vision of this office is to ensure that the army becomes a professional team by strengthening the operations of the Department of Defence via integrity, effectiveness, and efficiency (Cohen, 2002). To achieve all this, the office of the Inspector General has the following core values:

1. Integrity
2. Accountability
3. Efficiency

As stated earlier, the Department of Defence Inspector General (DoD IG) office was created in 1982 after the amendment of the Inspector General Act of 1978. In the course of its existence, this office has been assigned with several roles and duties. However, according to AR 20-1 (2010), the office itself was created to do the following:

1. To conduct, oversee, initiate, audit, evaluate, and investigate programs and activities of the Department of Defence.
2. To lead, coordinate and develop policies that will ensure improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the administration of the department of defence. At the same time, the Inspector General is expected to detect frauds, irregularities, and abuse within such programs. This will lead to the development of a strong economy within the Department of Defence.
3. Acts as a means of providing the Secretary of Defence together with the Congress with detailed and up to date information with regards to any deficiencies or setbacks that might be experienced in the operations and programs of the Department of Defence and possible means through which such problems and setbacks may be solved.
4. To promote the national security of the United States of America by through regular and independent auditing, investigations and other activities that will lead to the detection and prevention of problems within the Department of Defence in order to ensure that its operations and activities are effective and efficient.

The above-mentioned actions form part of the background of the office of the Inspector General. However, the responsibilities of the Inspector General are somewhat different. The of the Inspector General is advisor to the secretary of defence in matters that related to fraud, waste and abuse within the department of defence. To detect all these, the Inspector General normally conducts audits and investigations (Maguire, 2009).

Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the General Inspector to report to the Secretary of Defence and the Congress the problems, difficulties or obstacles that the Department of Defence may be facing. To ensure that his functions are carried out effectively and efficiently, the Inspector General is authorized to access all materials that may give him/her relevant information in the respective task that he/she may be conducting.

This may be either an audit or an investigation (Lewin, 2001). Sources of information for such an activity may include reports, reviews, audit reports, recommendations and so on. With this information, the Inspector General will have sufficient evidence to present his/her case and come up with a verdict or conclusion with regards to the issue at hand. Therefore, the final decision that he/she may come up with shall be informed based on actual facts. This therefore ensures that his operations are effective and efficient free from any form of biasness (DHS, 2012).

The organization of the Inspector General office revolves around a number of functions. According to AR 20-1 (2010), these functions are:

1. Auditing
2. Assessment of special programs
3. Policy and oversight
4. Special plans and operations
5. Investigations
6. Administrative investigations

According to Fisher (2003), it is essential for the financial reports to represent a true and fair view of an organization. This is essential as it ensures that any forms of fraud and irregularities are prevented and detected on time. To achieve this, organizations normally have internal control systems (ICS), internal auditors, and external auditors. In the Department of Defence, this responsibility falls under the jurisdiction of the Inspector General.

It is his sole role to conduct all audits that fall under the facet of the Department of Defence. The main aim of these audits include elimination of any wastes that may accrue, abuse of power, stopping, detecting and eliminating and elements of fraud. These acts are essential as they improve the operations of the Department of Defence ensuring that they are more effective and efficient in the short run and in the long run.

For the operations of an organization to be effective and efficient, it is essential for the management or the supervisory committee to come up with strategies and policies that will ensure the sustainability of operations in the short run and in the long run (Wheelwright, 2001). To achieve this, careful considerations have to be put in place to ensure that an organization has a clear and deeper understand of internal and external factors that affects its operations. In addition, careful monitoring and scrutiny of these activities is essential to ensure that an organizations operations reflects its true and fair view.

To ensure that all this is achieved in the department of defence, the Deputy Inspector General is the one who is responsible of ensuring that all these considerations are put in place. To exercise this role, the Deputy Inspector General usually conducts investigations, evaluations, and audits on the policies, enterprises, programs, functions and procedures of the department of defence. This ensures that the operations within the Department of Defence are effective and efficient.

Thus, to ensure that these roles are conducted as per the specifications of the Department of Defence, it is the role of the Deputy Inspector General to ensure that favourable policies and oversights are developed. These policies are essential as they control the manner in which investigations and audits are conducted. In addition to this, it is the role of the Inspector General to offer technical advice within the Department of Defence (Taylor, 2010).

At the same time, he/she is supposed to support all the programs that are conducted in the department of defence. The Inspector General is also expected, by the virtue of his/her office and the position that he/she holds in the Department of Defence to operate and manage the subpoena program. It is also the role of the Inspector General to head special plans and operations within the Department of Defence.

This is a crucial role as it facilitates the decision making process of senior civilians and members of the armed forces with regards to the development, evaluation and monitoring of the policies and regulations that have been put in place to safeguard the security and national interests of the United States of America. With precise and professional information and advice from the Inspector General, the senior civilians and military personnel in the Department of Defence together with the members of the congress are able to come up with sustainable, effective, and efficient policies, rules, and guidelines that safeguard the national security of the United States (Stead and Stead, 2003). This has guaranteed the safety of US citizens, their properties, and national interests within and outside the nation.

Investigative Functions of the Inspector General

As per the specifications of the army doctrine 20-1, the Inspector General has four main functions (AR 20-1, 2010). These functions include teaching and training, inspections, assistance and investigations (AR 20-1, 2010). All these roles are essential to ensure that the operations of the Department of Defence are effective and efficient in the short run and in the long run. Never has the services offered by the Department of Defence have a high demand as the present moment.

This is due to the fact that there are a number of external and internal affairs that the United States Army has to attend to in order to guarantee the peace and security of the United States. However, to achieve all this, it is essential that the internal operations of the United States army are effective and efficient. It is with regards to this that the Department of Defence rely mostly on the roles, functions, and duties of the Inspector General (AR 20-1, 2010).

According to Tellis and Golder (1996), for the operations of an organization to be effective and efficient, it is essential for the management to ensure that the organization has no elements of fraud, misrepresentation, misconduct, and abuse of power. Thus, to ensure that is achieved, internal control mechanisms have to be put in place. These mechanisms assist in the detection and elimination of such acts and activities hence leading to a self-sustaining system that is capable of meeting its own needs and the needs of its stakeholders (Betz, 2006). The Department of Defence, like any other organization, is not immune to such acts of misconduct.

Therefore, to detect and eliminate such acts as well as monitoring its operations, regular investigations have to be conducted. It is thus the role of the Inspectors General to undertake the investigative function within the Department of Defence and ensure that this role is conducted as per the rules and guidelines of the Department of Defence (Roper, 2011).

Thus, as per the guidelines of the United States Army, investigations form part of the primary function of the Inspectors General (Seaton, 2007). This function offers the commanders or any other authority the chance to resolve in instances of impropriety that may arise within the Department of Defence. Under the investigative docket, the Inspector General has the mandate to investigate any issues pertaining to misconduct, breaching of the law, policies, or regulations, abuse of office, mismanagement, and unethical behaviour (Reijers, 2005). Depending on the severity of the case at hand, commanders normally have to options on handling the issue.

First, the commanders may advocate for an independent body to solve the case at hand. This normally occurs in extreme cases where discretion in the case is necessary. This option may also be chosen when it is necessary to find facts that support the case at hand before its final decision is arrived at. On the other hand, the Inspector General may undertake an investigation in order to come up with facts with regards to a specific case at hand. All these options are utilized by the commanders while investigating impropriety in command within the Department of Defence (Reisner, 2002).

According to Wheatly and Flexner (2008), the main purpose of the Inspector Generals investigative function and investigations is to eliminate any acts of impropriety in command within the Department of Defence. This investigation thus maintains the confidence of the chain of command. This process also preserves the name and the reputation of the suspect from the allegations that have been presented against him/her if the evidence from the investigations were not substantial.

Therefore, while conducting an investigation, it is the Inspectors Generals primary goal to gather evidence relating to the case at hand. Once this information has been collected and analyzed, it is the duty of the Inspector General to determine whether the allegations that have been presented against the suspect or the subject have substantiated or they have unsubstantiated. From this decision, the Inspector General thus comes to a decision as to whether any matter that is related to the case is founded or unfounded (Souvik, 2006). To ensure that their investigative function is effective and efficient, Inspectors General can employ two different methodologies in an investigative inquiry. These methods are investigations and investigation inquiry (Tickner, 2005).

As per the roles and duties of the Inspector General, investigations forms part of the formal fact-finding process while examining facts, issues, or adverse conditions of that are serious in nature. This information gives the authority power the basis on which they can come up with a decision with regards to the case at hand. It is also this very facts that are used to determine the course of action that shall be taken against the subject.

However, this mainly depends on the verdict that shall arise after investigating the facts at hand. To ensure that all details are included in this investigative process, the Inspector General normally has a systemic way of collecting and analyzing evidence that relate to a specific case (Peters, 2009). To gather the evidence that is required in the case, the Inspector General can source this information from recorded statements and testimonies that have been taken under oath and relevant documents. However, in some rare cases, physical evidence can also be used as a source of information in an investigation.

This systemic process ensures that a lot of care and caution is taken to ensure that all relevant information is collected, analyzed an interpreted with regards to the case at hand. However, it should be noted that it is only the directive authority that has the mandate to direct the Inspector General to use written and signed documents as a source of evidence in this investigative process. Once all information and evidence with regards to a specific case has been collected, the Inspector General usually draws up a conclusion of the case.

This conclusion is usually prepared with the use of an ROI (Sodaro, 2007). However, the Inspector General cannot use the information that he/she has gathered from the investigations to come up with the final verdict of the case at hand. To achieve this, Inspectors General usually use a different approach; the investigative inquiry approach.

The investigative inquiry process is non-formal in nature. It aims at investigating issues, allegations and conditions and adverse situation. However, unlike in investigations where the allegations that were being investigated were significant in nature, in investigative inquiry, the allegations that are being investigated are usually not significant in nature (Pawlas, 1995). However, this has to be determined by the commanding Inspector General or any other directive authority that is concerned with the case at hand. This option is normally used when there is no potential risk to the operations of the Department of Defence or when a soldier is not injured or does not suffer from any form of harm whatsoever.

These considerations are put in place to ensure that the Army maintains a positive image and reputation within the United States community and all around the globe. Like in investigations, the Inspector General collects and examines information from statements, recorded testimonies, documents, and physical evidence (Patton, 2002). To ensure that this process is effective and efficient, the Inspector General controls and guides the operation. He/she guides the processes that have to be undertakes and offers advice and recommendations to other subordinate authorities that may be involved in the process. Inspectors General usually resolve most of the allegations that have been presented in their office using this method. Once the process is complete, the Inspector General usually writes a conclusion of the entire process following the directions of the ROII (Northrop, 2002).

There are standard steps that an Inspector General has to use in an investigative and inquiry process. These steps have been outlined in the Assistance and Investigations guide. According to this guide, an Inspector General is expected to follow a 7-step process to ensure that investigations are conducted effectively and efficiently. This guideline can be found at the Army Inspector General School. The guidelines can also be accessed online at the schools website.

This ensures that the steps are publicly available to any individual who may have an interest in the process. This step has been taken to ensure that the investigative operations of the Department of Defence as well as its other operations are transparent to its stakeholders, the public, and any other individual who may have an interest in the operations of the US Army. This processes that results from the guidelines that have been stated above represent the Inspector General investigative process.

This process is authoritative in nature (AR 20-1, 2010). This is so since Inspectors General may take, adopt or shape any of the steps and techniques that are present in the guide to ensure that the investigative process is rigorous and is carried out as per the guidelines of the Department of Defence in order to maintains its reputation, image and ensure that its operations are effective, efficient and sustainable in the short run and in the long run.

However, at this point, it is essential to note that the Inspectors General functions of investigations and assistance share the IGAP (AR 20-1, 2010). Due to this fact therefore, the Inspector General can receive matters, complains or issues that may concern both issues. Thus, in such a situation, the Inspector General normally attends to both of these issues concurrently. Thus, in an investigative process, the seven steps that the Inspector General is expected to take are the following:

The Inspector General is expected to receive the Inspector General Action request.

The next step is to conduct a preliminary analysis. In this process, the Inspector General is expected to follow the prescriptive approach regardless to whether the process is an investigation or an investigative inquiry. At this step, it is the duty of the Inspectors General to notify the next higher Inspector General or the directive authority of any issues or allegation, which if not attended to or is not carefully scrutinized may lead to the development of adverse effects that may impact negatively on the public perception of the Department of Defence, especially in its chain of command. Such issue may include sexual harassment, media interest, abuse of power, misappropriation of funds or fraud. There are instances in which the Inspector General may know the identity of the complainant. In such situations, the Inspector General may decide to interview him/her at this stage or at stage 4 of the process.

Commence referrals and early notifications. Like the previous step, this step also has prescriptive measures that have to be put in place. At this point, it is the duty of the Inspector General to inform the complainants that he/she may refer the case to the chain of command. At the same time, the Inspector General may also refer the case to other non-IG officials for resolution. However, it should be noted that the complainant might object or decide otherwise with regards to the referrals. However, the final decision always lies at the hand of the Inspector General. In this respect therefore, the Inspector General shall arrive to the final verdict but he/she would have considered the preference of the complainant while making such a decision. In the process of an investigation or an inquiry, the Inspector General is supposed to notify the subject, commander or supervisory verbally. This should be done before the Inspector General commences to conduct interviews at the commanders or supervisors organization.

Fact-Finding is the fourth step of the process. This step also has provisions depending on whether the process is an investigation or an investigative inquiry. If the process is an investigation, the Inspector General is expected to have a written directive from the directive authority. The Inspector General is also expected to inform the complainant, the subject, the commander, or the supervisor about the allegations that have led to the investigations or investigative inquiry.

This should be done verbally. Once this has been done, the Inspector General is expected to develop an investigative plan. This plan is supposed to include a list of witnesses, the complainant, the subject matter, and the subject. He/she is also expected to develop the sequence with which the interviews will be carried out. At the same time, the Inspector General is also expected to develop the sequence and questions that shall be directed to each and every witness to the case at hand.

It is in investigations that the Inspector General is supposed to use recorded information from witnesses. However, this information has to be taken under oath and should comply with the rules and guidelines of the FIOA and the PA. This process is also recommended to be used in investigative inquiries.

Once the recorded information under oath is available, it is the duty of the Inspector General to transcribe this information into written form. This information is taken as an attachment to the case and is presented to the ROI. In some instances, the same information is made available to ROII. However, this is only done when the rules and guidelines permit such an act to be conducted. However, to ensure that the information that has been transcribed is correct and tallies to the recorded information, investigative officers usually verify this information. This is done before it is included as an attachment to the case and presented to either the ROI or the ROII.

Individuals who provide evidence in investigations or investigative inquiries under the Inspector General investigative process are not supposed to provide recorded testimonies in form of a recorded tape or any other means. This is done to protect the confidentiality of such individuals. Once the process is complete, be it an investigation or an investigative inquiry, individuals who have provided evidence in the case at hand have the right to review their testimonies. This is done to ensure and guarantee that the information that they have provided in the process is accurate. However, it should be noted that such individuals and no one else for that matter has the right to alter, change, or modify the content of the testimony that has been provided for the process.

Presentation of notifications of results is the fifth step of the procedure. Just like the other processes, this step also has prescriptive measures that have to be put in place to ensure that the process is effective and efficient. Once the results have been arrived at, the Inspector General, in writing is expected to inform the subject of the case at hand of the approved results. The same results are also supposed to be recorded in the IGARS database. The information that is presented at this database is supposed to be correct and precise. It should include the findings, conclusion, recommendations, and the actions of command that have been taken with regards to the case at hand.

It is also the duty of the Inspector General to explain to the suspect or suspects, in writing, the steps, and procedures that they need to take to obtain the copy of ROI or ROII that has been recorded at the IGARS. Once this has been done, the Inspector General is expected to inform the suspects commander or supervisor the findings that have been arrived at in the case. However, if this is not possible, the Inspector General is expected to inform a higher body of command the results that have been arrived at.

This should only be done if informing the suspects commander or supervisor is inappropriate. It should however be noted that the Inspector General shall notify the commander or the supervisor with the substantiated conclusions. This should be done regardless of whether the Inspector General informed the commander or the supervisor about the investigation or the investigative inquiry. However, this should only be done when the subject or subjects were not appraised. In some cases, it may be difficult of impossible for the Inspector General to electronically attach all the notifications to the IGARS file. In such instance, the Inspector General is expected to maintain the notification that could not be attached.

The sixth step of the process if the follow-up process. Just like the other steps of the process, this stage also has prescriptive measures that ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the investigative process. First, the Inspector General is expected to ensure that any response that arose from the suspect or the subject of the case with regards to unfavourable information is attached with the case file. If such responses cannot be attached electronically to the case file, the Inspector General is expected to maintain such records. Consequently, it is the role of the Inspector General to ensure that any information that is contrary to the unfavourable information is made known and is maintained in the files of the case. Therefore, if such information cannot be attached electronically to the IGARS file, the Inspector General is supposed to maintain it.

The seventh step of the process is to close the Inspector General investigative action request. At this stage, the Inspector General is expected to inform the complainant of the overall outcome of the process. This should be done in writing. This notification should also be filed together with the other records and documents of the case. Therefore, if it is impossible for the Inspector General to attach this file electronically to the IGARS file, then the Inspector General is expected to maintain the file.

These steps have been set up to ensure that the investigative process of the Inspector General is effective and efficient. This is essential as it gives the Inspector General the guidelines and procedures that should be followed in order to investigate, prevent and eliminate instance of abuse, waste, harassment and misconduct within the department of defence.

The office of the Inspector General coupled with its activities, roles and duties are play a vital role in all the operations that are carried out within the department of defence. It is due to this fact that Schneider (2004) asserted that to guarantee the operations of the office of the Inspector General and the army at large, it is essential for guidelines and procedures to be put in place to moderate the activities of the office. Thus, with regards to the investigative and assistance function of the Inspector General, common guidelines have been put in place. These guidelines control the manner in which the office conducts its investigative and assistance operations.

In addition, it ensures that the chain of command is respected during these operations. This ensures that the Inspector General, the complainant and the subject or suspect rights, duties and obligations are respected. This in turn ensures that the processes and services offered by the Inspector General are transparent, free from bias, effective and efficient.

At the same time, to ensure that the investigative process is carried out effectively and efficiently, the jurisdictions of different personnel and their authorities has been clearly by the regulations of the Department of Defence. In the event of an investigative inquiry or an investigation, it is the Secretary of the Army who has the overall power to authorise an investigation. In such a situation, it is only the Inspector General who has the power and authority to investigate any matter that affects the army. It should however be noted that the State AG, the HQDA heads or Army Commanders may request Inspectors General to conduct an investigation or an investigative inquiry.

However, these individuals do not have the mandate to direct Inspectors General to conduct an investigation. This is because this authority does not fall under their jurisdiction (AR 20-1, 2010). On the other hand, an Inspector General has the mandate to request, direct and conduct an investigation at all levels of command within the Department of Defence. According to AR 20-1 (2010), this flow of command and jurisdiction is essential as it ensures all protocols are followed and adhered to in the course of an investigation (AR 20-1, 2010).

Investigations and conducting investigative inquiries is one of the main functions of Inspectors General within the United States army. Due to this fact therefore, several guidelines, rules, and regulations have been put in place to ensure that this process is carried out effectively and efficiently. Of most importance is the respect of the office of the Inspector General and the authority that it commands. Due to this fact therefore, Inspectors General have the duty and mandate to investigate any individual within the Armed Forces. This may be members of the commanding force or other subordinate personnel within the Department of Defence (AR 20-1, 2010).

However, while conducting these investigations, it is essential for the Inspectors General to act according to their spheres of influence and the mandate that has been given to then directing authority. According to the jurisdiction of the army, commanding officers have the mandate to direct an investigation allegation to the Inspector General. At the same time, an Inspector General of a higher rank will always investigate an Inspector General of a lower command. However, if the Inspector General is of a higher rank, the case may be directed to the DIAGs investigative division. In normal occasion, this move is supposed to be done within 48 hours (AR 20-1, 2010).

This time period has to be during business days. Exceptions arise on weekends and public holidays. In the course of an investigation or an investigative inquiry, there are some instances in which circumstances or individuals who were not included in the process during the begging get included. In such circumstances, this move shall only be valid if and only if the directing authority agrees upon it. As Black (2003) asserted, this is essential as it results to an increase in the scoop of activities that the Inspector General is involved in and thus, it requires the approval of a higher authority.

In the course of an investigation or an investigative inquiry, the Inspector General may come to a realisation that some of the issues, matters or evidence that have been presented in the case so far are not related to the case or do not provide substantial information with regards to the issue at hand. In such instances, the Inspector General is expected to report such issues to the directive authority for clarification. The directive authority may, in this situation ask the Inspector General not to investigate these issues.

In such a situation, the Inspector General is expected to follow this directive and record the issue in the ‘Other Matters’ paragraph of the ROI or ROII (AR 20-1, 2010). However, if these issues are resolved in due time and they become substantial once more on the case at hand, the Inspector General is expected to record the origin of these issues in the introductory paragraph of the ROI or the ROII.

There are also a number of issues that concerns the investigators who have the mandate to undertake an Inspector General investigation or investigative inquiry. First, in the course of an investigation or an investigative inquiry, it is only qualifies Inspectors General who are supposed to undertake such process. This is due to the importance, vitality, and complexity of actions and procedures that are involved in this process (AR 20-1, 2010).

According to AR 20-1 (2010), a detailed Inspector General is expected to conduct an investigation or an investigative inquiry. In the course of this process, he/she may be assisted by one or more Assistant Inspector(s) General. However, it should be noted that an Assistant Inspector General cannot conduct an investigation or an investigative inquiry on his/her own without assistance or supervision from a detailed Inspector General. Thus, while being assisted in conducting an investigation or an investigative inquiry, the detailed Inspector General is expected to have full knowledge and understanding of the investigation and fact-finding processes of the Assistant Inspector(s) General.

This is essential as it ensures that the Inspector General has full knowledge of the case at hand and thus the final decision that he/she may arrived at has been from a just process, followed each and every protocol that has been set by the guidelines of the department of defence and its is free from any bias. This is essential as it promotes effectiveness and efficiency in the investigative process of the Inspector General. However, in situations where the detailed Inspector General may not be available, the assistant Inspector General may conduct interviews for the case at hand. In such a situation, the assistant Inspector General has the mandate to administer oaths to the suspects, subjects, complainant, and witnesses to the case at hand. All this can be done at the absence of the detailed Inspector General (AR 20-1, 2010).

In an investigative process, unfavourable information may come up. In such an instance, it is the duty of the Inspector General to inform the subjects to the case of the issue. This may be the complainant, the subject, suspect, or witnesses. This information should also be included in the ROI or the ROII. In the Inspectors General investigative process, unfavourable information is any kind of information that brings about a negative picture or reputation to an individual.

Due to this fact, the character, integrity and trust of the alleged individual is usually altered in a negative manner. In an investigation or an investigative inquiry, this information may arise from allegations from the subjects, suspects, witnesses or the complainant. It may also arise from the issues that have been included in the ‘Other Matters’ paragraph in the ROI or ROII (AR 20-1, 2010). Once such an issue arises in a case, it is the Duty of the Inspector General to inform the suspect and the complainant about it. This can be done orally or in writing. Once this step has been taken, the Inspector General is then expected to record the matter in the ROI or the ROII.

In some instances, the Inspector General may be forced to report the unfavourable information that has been presented in the case to the subject or the suspect (AR 20-1, 2010). This step is only taken in an event where the Inspector General hopes to gather more information from the suspect or the subject against the information that has been presented against him/her. However, while undertaking this process, the Inspector General is expected to follow a number of processes.

This is essential as it ensures that the confidentiality of the witness is maintained. Therefore, to ensure that all these conditions are met, the commanding investigator should disclose the information to the suspect or subject and give him/her the chance to respond to the allegation. The information that is presented to the subject or the subject should be the same information that is contained in the ROI or ROII.

However, if the Inspector General alters the content of the information that is contained at the ROI or the ROII, by adding or deleting or modifying any sections of the information, the Inspector General is thus expected to alert the suspect or subject about these changes. In addition, he/she is expected to give the suspect or subject a chance to respond to the new version of the unfavourable condition that has been presented in the case. If the suspect decides to respond to the unfavourable information, he/she has the following options:

1. Respond in the form of an interview in the presence of an Inspector General
2. Present a written testimony to the Inspector General
3. Presenting issues with regards to the case via an attorney
4. Request the Inspector General to consider physical evidence
5. Request the Inspector General to conduct a new interview on the witnesses of the case using the new information
6. Ask the Inspector General to review the documentary evidence that may be present in the case

To ensure that the Inspectors General investigative process is carried out effectively and efficiently, it is essential for the process to be guided by true, reliable and precise information. Therefore, to ensure this, the suspects, subjects, complainants, and witnesses to a case have their respective rights and duties that have to be respected and adhered to (AR 20-1, 2010). Due o this fact, the guidelines of the Department of Defence have clearly differentiated between these individuals. As per these guidelines, a subject is an individual against whom non-criminal allegation have been presented against him/her (AR 20-1, 2010).

On the other hand, a suspect is an individual who criminal allegations that have come about as a result of breach of sections or parts of the rules and regulations that govern the Department of Defence and the United States Army. A witness in an Inspector General investigative process is an individual who presents evidence or testifies in the process for or against the suspect or subject. Finally, the complainant is the individual who presents criminal or non-criminal allegations for investigation against a suspect or a subject respectively.

Thus, during an investigation or an investigative inquiry, suspects, regardless of whether they are soldiers or civilians have the right to be represented by a lawyer during the entire process. In addition to this, they also have a right to have a lawyer in an event whether they present evidence in form of an interview or a testimony under oath. However, it should be noted that at this point, the lawyer is not supposed to speak on behalf of his client but he/she is only expected to advice the suspect on the best action to take (AR 20-1, 2010). At the same time, the suspect has the right to remain quiet during questioning. He/she also has the right to bring to an end a questioning session against him.

In such a situation, the Inspector General who is directing the investigation or investigative inquiry is expected to explain to the suspect the rights that he/she has. It is after this that the suspect may decide to invoke his/her rights. On the other hand, the suspect may also decide to waive the rights that have been destined to him/her. At this point, the Inspector General is thus supposed to terminate the questioning without a read-out. It should however be noted that invoking is one of the rights that a suspect has. Thus, when a suspect decides upon taking this option, his/her actions are not supposed to be viewed as an act of violation or lack of cooperation on the investigation or investigative inquiry.

Therefore, this act should not be used as a basis of taking an adverse or corrective action against the suspect. This is due to the fact that an Inspector General is only supposed to use facts in coming up with a verdict for the case at hand. Therefore, he/she can only resume to the case with the facts that have been presented so far. If it occurs that the Inspector General is in doubt, he/she is supposed to seek for further clarification from the SJA or the DAIGs legal advisor.

Military personnel who act as suspects or witnesses to an investigation or an investigative inquiry are not supposed to deny answering any questions that have been laid to them. This is as per the rules and guidelines of the Department of Defence. The only exception to this guideline only arises in an event whereby answering such a question may incriminate them, affect the command of communication or go against the rights of representation that have been laid by the union. However, if none of the factors that have been mentioned before have not been met, a witness or a suspect is expected to answer all the questions during an investigation or an investigative inquiry (Sodaro, 2007).

In a situation where the Inspector General suspects that the suspect may have been involved in a criminal activity, he/she is expected to advise the suspect on his/her rights. This is essential as it ensures that the investigation or investigative inquiry follows the legal path and doctrines for which it has been created to achieve. This includes respecting the rights of all parties involved in the process and to ensure that justice is achieved in the long run.

There are instances where a personnel who is involved in an investigation or an investigative inquiry is a member of a bargaining inquiry that is represented by a labour organization that is acknowledged by the Department of Defence as an exclusive representative unit. In such a situation, the suspect or subject is entitled to get the union representation. This might come about in an event whereby the customer believes that the action that might be taken against in as a result of the findings of the investigation or investigative inquiry may lead to a disciplinary action against his/her (AR 20-1, 2010). In such a situation, the subject or suspect may thus request for representation from the union. In some cases, the union may offer representation even if the suspect or subject has not requested for it in the first place.

In this event, it is the role of the Inspector General to verify the contents of the contract of the representing union. Additionally, the Inspector General may seek further clarification from the management-employee specialist. This will ensure that all the considerations that need to be put in place are respected in the process of an investigation or an investigative inquiry (AR 20-1, 2010). Therefore, if an employee who is either a witness or a subject in an investigation or an investigative inquiry requests for representation, the Inspector General is expected to agree to these conditions.

Furthermore, the Inspector General is also expected to ensure that the representative is present in the course of an interview. In the course of the interview, the representatives of the witness, suspect, or subject may comment, speak, or make statements. However, they are not supposed to disrupt, take control of the interview, or assume full responsibility of the individuals whom they are representing. While determining the level of disruptiveness of the representatives, the Inspector General is supposed to apply the concept of reasonableness. If the representatives exceed the standard level of reasonableness that has been set by the Inspector General, then he/she has no option but to take action against the representatives (AR 20-1, 2010).

Therefore, representatives in an investigation or an investigative inquiry have similar rights to attorneys. Thus, the Inspector General should take all the steps necessary to ensure that the representatives of a witness, subject, or suspect are present in the course of an interview. The Inspector General is also expected to ensure that a witness, suspect, or subject has union representation in the course of an investigation or an investigative inquiry. It is thus, the duty to the Inspector General to notify the union so that it comes up with means through which it will represent the employee (AR 20-1, 2010). This step should however be taken if the witness, subject or suspect has difficulty in finding a representative or attorney.

In the course of an investigation or an investigative inquiry, there are issues that the Inspector General cannot consider. These issues are stipulated under the Court Martial (2008) military rules (AR 20-1, 2010). These issues include the communication that arises between an attorney and the individual that he/she is representing. It also includes any communication that may arise between an individual and the clergy. Additionally, it this clause also includes the privilege that exist between a man and his wife, deliberations that may arise from courts or the jury. Also included in this clause is any privilege that may arise from a psychotherapist.

There are also other sources of evidence that cannot be used in an investigation or an investigative inquiry. This includes any information that may be collected from acts that result to the electronic violations of 18 USC 2511 (AR 20-1, 2010). These privileges should not be used as they may lead to biasness in the process of an investigation or an investigative inquiry. Therefore, only the evidence that is acceptable under the Court Martial (2008) directives should be used in the process. This ensures that the investigation process under the office of the Inspector General is carried out effectively and efficiently without any bias or preference on any party that is involved in the case.

The Inspector General has the mandate to investigate frauds, abuse of power, misconduct and other related issues that affect the operations of the Department of Defense in one way or the other. However, the Inspector General may not handle in some instances. As such, he/she should conduct neither an investigation nor an investigative inquiry. Thus, the Inspector General cannot investigative process cannot be used to resolve several allegations.

One of the allegations that an Inspector General cannot investigate includes the cases that are related to serious criminal misconduct. Therefore, an issue that due to its nature, if it becomes substantiated may lead to criminal misconduct cannot be investigated under the office of the Inspector General (AR 20-1, 2010). Therefore, an Inspector General needs to have a clear understanding of the matter at hand and ensure that all aspects of the case and the factors that affect its outcome are within his scoop of operations. This will ensure that all the cases that he/she handles fall under his jurisdiction.

However, if some of the allegations that are presented before him are beyond his scoop of operation, the Inspector General is this expected to seek advice from the legal councilor for further directions on the matter. This normally ensures that adequate consideration and attention is given to cases that cannot be handled by the Inspector General (AR 20-1, 2010).

In the course of conducting an investigation or an investigative inquiry, an Inspector General is not expected to respond to redress that arises from the case only. Therefore, in an event whereby a specific case can be solved through redress, Inspectors General are not expected to take up an investigate such issues. Due to this fact therefore, it is the role of the Inspector General to determine whether a given case or allegations can be solved using redress or not. If Redress cannot be used to resolve the issue, then the Inspector General may process with the allegations. However, if the Inspector General discovers that the allegations can be resolved by redress, then he/she should not investigate the case any further (AR 20-1, 2010).

An Inspector General is also not supposed to conduct an investigation or an investigative inquiry on a case or allegations, which fall under the docket of the command inquiry. For an allegation to fall under this docket, it has to be elected by the commanding authority. Thus, once the command has elected that an allegation should be investigated under the commanding inquiry, the Inspector General does not have the mandate to undertake an investigation or an investigative inquiry on the allegations.

Thus, in an event whereby allegations were presented to an Inspector General for investigation and the commander elects that the issue should be resolved using the commander inquiry, the Inspector General is expected to direct the case to the commanding officer in charge. Once this is done, the Inspector General is expected to await the command product. This is essential, as it is what the Inspector General will use to resolve the allegation (AR 20-1, 2010). At this point, it should be noted that any allegations that were presented to the Inspector General for investigation are expected to end with an action from him/her (AR 20-1, 2010).

It is with regards to this fact that once a commander has elected that an allegation should be investigated under the commander inquiry, the commander is expected to give the Inspector General the final product with which he/she will use to come up with the final action with regards to the allegations that were presented to his/her office. However, there are situations in which an individual presents his/her allegations to the commander. At the same time, the same individual presents his/her allegations to the Inspector General. In such a situation, the Inspector General is not expected to solve the matter using the Inspector General system. The allegations, at this point, should be solved using the commanders system. This is because a higher authority has been given the mandate to resolve the allegations at hand.

Different people within the Department of Defence can be involved in acts that go against the rules and regulations that have been set be organization. These individuals may be military personnel or civilians. As it has been stated, it is the role of the Inspector General to conduct an investigation in order to ensure that the operations of the organization are effective and efficient by detecting fraud, misconduct, abuse of power and office and other related allegations.

However, an Inspector General is not expected to conduct an investigation on allegations that involve an army lawyer on the grounds of professional misconduct (AR 20-1, 2010). Therefore, in such an event, the Inspector General is expected to refer the case to the senior council via the advice of the DAIG. However, once the allegations have been investigated by the senior council and it is determined that they do not raise reasonable doubt on the grounds of misconduct, honesty or trustworthiness, the issue may be reverted back to the Inspector General office where a normal investigation or investigative inquiry shall be carried out.

On the other hand, if the substantial evidence with regards to the allegations that have been presented against the lawyer are arrived at, then all the information, documents and other forms of evidence that the Inspector General may have for the case should then be presented to the acting senior council (AR 20-1, 2010). However, for the acting senior council to incorporate any of the information that has been presented by the Inspector General with regards to the allegations against the lawyer, the Inspector General is then expected to approve this move.

This approval is essential as it guarantees that the consent of the Inspector General was sought before the information provided was used. In addition, by approving the information, the Inspector General also guarantees the authenticity of the information that he/she has presented on the case at hand. This therefore ensures that the information provided is true and correct ensuring that the investigations that shall be carried by the senior council are effective and efficient.

Additionally, the Inspector General may be presented with allegations concerning misconduct by an Army Chaplain. These allegations are either spiritual or religious in nature. In such an event, the Inspector General is expected to revert the case to a higher commanding chaplain. However, if it may not be clear who the higher commanding chaplain is, the Inspector General may consult with the senior commander in order to ensure that corrective actions are taken to resolve the allegations.

In the course of their investigations or investigative activities, there are some allegations that may not be handled by a specific Inspector General. In light of this, it is essential for such issues to be referred to other Inspectors General (AR 20-1, 2010). Thus, the issue that should be noted here is the fact that these allegations still fall under the jurisdiction of the Inspectors General office. However, the allegations are to be handled by senior Inspectors General who are present within the army or at the Department of Defence (AR 20-1, 2010).

One of the allegations that should be handles by senior Inspectors General is the allegations against a fellow Inspector General. The suspect or subject in this case may be a civilian or a military personnel (AR 20-1, 2010). According to AR 20-1(2010), in such a situation, the allegations that have been presented against an Inspector General should be presided over by an Inspector General of a higher echelon. These allegations should be presented within two working days.

If the allegations against the Inspector General come about as a result of him/her breaching the rules and guidelines on the AR 20-1 form, then any other Inspector General of a higher rank that the suspect or subject can take up the case. A similar procedure is also taken when the same allegations have been presented against an Inspector General when the subject or suspect goes against any other guidelines that have been set to control the conduct of an Inspector General. However, while conducting an investigation or an investigative inquiry, the acting Inspector General usually gets advice and assistance from the DAIG (AR 20-1, 2010).

However, if the allegations that have been presented against an Inspector General amount to acts that do not involve the violations of the rules and guidelines that have been set up by the AR 20-1 or any other guidelines that control the actions and operations of an Inspector General, then the commander may decide to use any other form of investigative process or administrative action against the subject or suspect. Some of the allegations that may result to a commander taking this action include misconduct or abuse of office.

Once the commander has decided to resolve the allegations that have been presented against and Inspector General either through administrative actions or through other investigative avenues, the possible consequences that the alleged Inspector General may face include warnings, suspension, or termination of service (AR 20-1, 2010). However, this may only come about if the evidence that has been presented in the case is substantial enough. However, if the evidence is not substantial, the subjects or suspects name is cleared and he/she resumes back to his/her normal duties. These regulations are essential as they ensure due process is followed while investigating an Inspector General.

Investigation Reports

After conducting an investigation or an investigative inquiry, an Inspector General is expected to write a complete report on the entire process. This report should include all the details of the allegations that were presented in the case. According Mietzner and Reger (2005), these reports are usually prepared by following a special format. It must include a clear objective of the process, the evidence that was gathered, and the final verdict that was arrived at. The report is also expected to be impartial (Kapuscinski, 2007). However, at this point, it is essential to note that in the different process that Inspectors General are involved in, they are supposed to make up a different report.

Thus, while conducting an investigation, an Inspector General is expected to prepare an ROI. On the other hand, while an Inspector General is conducting an investigative inquiry, he/she is expected to prepare an ROII. There is a guide, which assists Inspectors General to make these reports. However, of essence, the reports should contain command products. Thus, it is essential for the Inspector General to include all the products that form part of the allegations that have been presented against a subject or a suspect and record them in either the ROI or ROII.

While preparing the report of an investigation or an investigative inquiry, an Inspector General is expected to draw conclusions to the entire exercise. While drawing these conclusions, the allegations and issues that were presented in the case have to be included. Thus, while preparing the conclusions of an ROI or ROII, an Inspector General should include all the issues and allegations and state whether these allegations or issues were substantiated or founded in the case or whether they were unsubstantiated or unfounded (AR 20-1, 2010).

These findings are essential, as they will support the final decision upon which the Inspector General shall use to resolve the issue at hand. Therefore, these statements need to clearly state the violations that an individual might have committed. An Inspector General should therefore avoid at all costs to make vague statements (Deusen and Mueller, 2002).

After the Inspector General made the conclusion of the report, he/she is expected to come up with recommendations of the process. However, while coming up with these recommendations, he/she is not supposed to recommend adverse effects against any individual who was involved in the process (subject, suspect, witness, or complainant). However, it is the commander who advocated for the Inspector General process to be followed who determines the level at which an action that has been taken by an Inspector General.

Thus, after determining several factors including the evidence that was presented in the case, the rights of the individuals who were involved in the process, personal information and testimonies that were included in the process, the commander will have a baseline with which he can determine the adversity of the recommendations of an Inspector General. However, in most cases, an Inspector General normally recommends administrative action to be taken against the suspect or subject. However, an Inspector General might also recommend to close the case. He/she may also recommend for a follow on investigator (HO, 2012).

Once all the logistics of preparing an investigation or investigative inquiry report have been completed, the report now enters the processing stage. Here, the Inspector General needs to follow a standard procedure to ensure that the process is conducted effectively and efficiently. In the first step of processing, the Commanding Inspector General is expected to ensure that the commanding authority is aware and familiar with process that needs to be followed in order to approve the investigations and investigative inquiry reports (DeLozier, 2006). At this point, it should be noted that the directing authority has the mandate to approve all investigations reports.

At the same time, the directing authority may approve all the reports that are prepared from investigative inquiries with substantial allegations (AR 20-1, 2010). However, it is the role of the commanding Inspector General to approve reports from investigative inquiries. However, the commanding Inspector General is expected to notify the directing author whether an investigative inquiry report is substantive. However, before these reports are fully approved, the Inspector General normally sends them to the senior council. This is essential, as it is the role of the senior council to ensure whether or not the report conforms to the legal sufficiency review.

A written legal review is required for an investigative report regardless of the fact that it may be substantiated or unsubstantiated. Additionally, a legal review is also requires for an investigative inquiry report that is substantiated. However, if the report is unsubstantiated, an ROII does not require a legal review. Once this process is complete, the Inspector General is thus expected to present the report (ROI or ROII) to the directing authority.

This is essential, as it is the directing authority that approves investigative reports. However, it should be noted that a commanding Inspector General might approve or disapprove an entire report. This process is done in writing. The parts that have been approved or disapproved should be clearly marked and they must contain the signature of the commanding Inspector General. Hence, when the directing authority goes through the report, he/she will only receive the approved portions of the ROI or the ROII. However, this process may depend on the command that the directing authority possess and their jurisdiction.

This is essential as it ensures that the directing authority acts according to the command that has been given to them by the Department of Defence (AR 20-1, 2010). On the other hand, the commanding Inspector General has the authority to forward the reports that have been prepared from investigations or investigative inquiries to a higher authority if the reports require approval from personnel who are above the directing authority. In such an event, the individuals to whom the reports shall be presented to have the mandate to approve or disapprove the entire report or parts of it according to their jurisdiction and the authority that they have.

Command Products

During the Inspector General process, an Inspector General is expected to resolve all the issues and allegations that have been presented to his office. In addition, an Inspector General is also expected to resolve allegations that have been referred to his office by the commanding authority (Hoffman, 2010). Referrals may follow two different paths. On the first option, the referrals may be taken to a directing authority from the Inspectors General office for resolution.

On the other hand, the same allegations might be forwarded to another commanding authority via the actions of the directing authority. Regardless of the option that might be taken, after the allegations have been resolved, a commanding product is expected to be presented to the Inspector General. These command products should then be used as evidence in the case at hand during the Inspector General process (DeLozier, 2006). Ultimately, this command product should also be included in the ROI or ROII that will be prepared at the end of the entire process. Examples of command products that may be used in an Inspector General investigation process include:

1. Rule of Court Martial
2. Uniform Code for Military Justice
3. Formal and Informal Investigations

However, it should be noted that under no circumstance should a command product be substituted for an investigation or investigative inquiry report. Once a command product has been received by the Inspector General, it is up to him/her to critically analyze its content to determine whether it is substantial with regards to the issue or allegation at hand. If he approves it, he/she should use it to resolve the issue or allegation at hand.

However, he/she needs to ensure that the commanding product sufficiently addresses the issue or allegation at hand, it respects the rights of the individuals who are involved in the process, if has followed a legal process and the information that it provides is precise and correct (Krueger, 2004). In such a case, an Inspector General is expected to include the command product in an ROI or ROII modified file. However, while doing this, he/she needs to stick to the rules and guidelines that have been set to govern the modification of an ROI or ROII. However, there are those instances when an Inspector General will not agree with the information that has been presented in the command product. This may come about when the command product does not effectively address the issue or allegation at hand.

This may also arise if the due process was not followed in the preparing of the command product. Additionally, if the subject or suspect has not been given a chance to commend about the unfavourable information that has been presented against him/her, an Inspector General may disapprove the command product. In such an event, an Inspector General is supposed to prepare a report for the investigation or investigative inquiry, quoting the flaws that have been experienced in the due process. In addition, he is supposed to use the command product as evidence in the investigation or investigative process (Wyatt, 2010).

While preparing an ROI or ROII, an Inspector General needs to ensure that the conclusion that he/she arrives at contradicts the command product. In this respect therefore, the Inspector General needs to ensure that a legal review of his/her conclusions are considered. It should however be noted that while preparing the command product, a legal review was conducted. Due to this fact, it is not of essence to conduct another legal review for the command product at this point. Thus, it is only the conclusion of the ROI or ROII that needs a legal review.

Once the review has been conducted and it has been determined that the decision that has been arrived at overrides the legal review of the allegations, it is the duty of the Inspector General to ensure that fresh investigations to the differences are conducted. In the end, the Inspector General will also incorporate the information that has been gathered from the investigations with regards to the difference in legal reviews of the command product and conclusions of the ROI or ROII in the final report that shall be prepared. This ensures that all the information that was found in the investigative process is included in the case and the final documents of the case.

Special Investigations

It is the duty of the Inspector General to conduct investigations and investigative inquiry against the personnel of the Department of Defence in order to prevent, determine, and eliminate any instances of fraud, misconduct, abuse of office and other related issues and allegations. However, there are instances whereby and Inspector General may be required to conduct special investigations within the Department of Defence (Weinberg, 2011).

Some of these investigations may require the Inspector General to follow special rules and guidelines to ensure that the process is carried out effectively and efficiently. However, there are those investigations that may require the Inspector General to adhere to the rules and guidelines that have been set to govern the normal investigative process (Smith, 2006). Therefore, regarding the former incident, the Inspector General is expected to adhere to the Assistance and Investigations Guide that govern the investigation and investigative inquiry processes (Norman and Thoman, 1998).

One of the main areas, which an Inspector General may be forced to conduct a special investigation, is Department of Defence Hotline Complains (Heidensohn, 2005). In the course of his/her operations, an Inspector General is expected to receive numerous issues and allegations from the Department of Defences Hotline branch. Once these allegations have been presented, they are normally forwarded to the acting Inspector General in two different forms. In the first form, the issues or allegations may be presented to an Inspector General as information only. On the other hand, the allegations or issues may be presented to an Inspector General in the form of an action.

Thus, if an action is needed to resolve the issues or allegations that have been presented, an Inspector General is expected to resolve the issue or allegation as an investigation, investigative inquiry or as an assistance inquiry (Figueiredo, 2002). Once the investigations have been conducted, the Inspector General is expected to report the outcome of the process in a report format. The rules and guidelines that govern the preparation of this report are similar to the guidelines that govern the preparation of an ROI or an ROII (Dow, 2000).

While preparing these reports, the Inspector General is expected to ensure that all the corrective actions that have been taken to resolve the issues or allegations at hand are resolved. He/she is also expected to include the evidence and documents that were used to provide information with regards to the investigations that were taken. This is essential as it ensures that all the considerations of the case were adhered to while resolving it.

Another special investigation that in Inspector General may conduct involves investigating allegations against military whistleblowers (Bradford, 2011: Boyce, 2006). In the course of their operations, Inspectors General within the United States army are expected to grant protection for whistleblowers (Morgensen, 2011). Members or personnel of the military normally present allegations against such individuals to the Inspector General. In such an event, the Inspector General is expected to conduct a deep investigation with regards to the allegations that have been presented to him/her.

These allegations may include threatening, taking of unfavourable action or withholding a member of the armed forces as a result of making or preparing protected communication. The information that may be included in such communication is in the form of audits, statements, inspection, or any other form of investigation. In such an event therefore, the Inspector General is expected to investigate the allegations that may have led to the development of lack of communication between a soldier and any other military personnel with superior individuals in the chain of command within the Department of Defence. However, it should be noted that these condition might not be sufficient enough for a reprisal to be conducted.

Optimization of the Inspector General Investigative Process

The Inspector General assistance and investigative process within the department of defence is wide. It involves a number of rules and regulations that have to be adhered to in order to ensure that the process and its outcome are effective and efficient. Due to its nature, an investigation or an investigative inquiry usually takes a considerable amount of time to be completed. This is essential as it guarantees that all the technicalities that need to be considered in the process have been adhered to. Therefore, the action that an Inspector General arrives at is fair, just and will maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of the military and the Department of Defence (Drakulic, 2002).

When the processes, rules and guidelines that govern the investigative and assistance process of the Inspector General within the United States army, these rules and regulations were set to ensure that the entire process is effective and efficient. However, these rules and guidelines were set over three decades ago. At the present moment, the size of the army has increased tremendously. At the same time, there has been a lot of advancement in other fields that affect the operations of the United States army. This includes social, political, economic, and environmental factors. Due to these facts, the Inspector General assistance and investigative process has been facing an ever-increasing demand.

The United States army has been involved in several wars in the last few decades. The country also has an increased need of maintaining its internal and external security. War crimes, cyber terrorism and other acts of terror are just but some of the main priorities of the United States Army. However, in the process of trying to achieve the goals and objectives that underlie in these missions, it is inevitable for acts of misconduct and breach of the rules and regulations of the Department of Defence to occur (AR 20-1, 2010).

Therefore, in this process, Inspectors General usually conduct a lot of investigations and investigative inquiry in addition to the other roles and duties that fall under their docket. Due to the increase in the number of investigations and investigative inquiries that Inspectors General within the United States Army conduct, the process is no longer carried out with the level of effectiveness and efficiency that it is expected to have (AR 20-1, 2010). As a result, the stakeholders of the United States Army have increasingly become unsatisfied with the entire process.

With this realization, optimizing the Inspectors General assistance and investigative process has become an issue of great concern within the Department of Defence. This is essential, as it will aim at rejuvenating the effectiveness and efficiency that the process used to be associated with initially. However, to achieve this, several considerations have to be put in place. These considerations include the size of the United States Army, its activities, the rates of misconduct, abuse of office, fraud and related activities, the dependence of investigations and investigative inquiries to resolve these issues and the reputation that the United States Army has on its stakeholders.

In the course of operations, it is normal for organizations to come face to face with a number of problems and obstacles. These problems and obstacles usually act as a barrier that prevents a specific organization from meeting its set goals and objectives. It is thus the role of the management to come up with strategic plans. To achieve this, a firm needs to have a clear understanding of the environment that it is operating in, the possible challenges that it may be facing, its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. With a clear understanding of these factors, a firm will stand a better chance of formulating strategic plans that will ensure that its operations are sustainable, effective, and efficient in both the short run and in the long run (Shaw, 1999).

Thus, to ensure that the assistance and investigative responsibility of an Inspector General meets the current demand and expectations within the department of defence, it is essential to optimize this process. According to Shim and Siegel (1999), in the running and management of an organization, process optimization is an essential and inevitable process. Process optimization is the act of modifying the operations of an organization to achieve better results in terms of product development or service delivery using the available assets, resources, and personnel that a firm may have at a given time (Pintelas, 2006).

In optimizing the investigative process of an Inspector General, for example, the directing authority within the department of defence needs to utilize the resources that it has and the capability of its personnel to ensure that the process is carried out in an effective and efficient manner. The main aim of process optimization is to improve the quality or the product or service of a given organization. This is mainly dependent on the effectiveness and efficiency of its operations.

As Hollowitz and Wilson (2003) asserted, it is essential for organization to employ the concept of process optimization at different levels of production of goods or services or the development of an organization. This is essential as it ensures that the operations of the firm are up to date with the needs and requirements of its target group. To reflect this within the Department of Defence, several amendments are made by the directing authority, the senate, or the congress to enhance its operations. This is done especially to enhance the services that the United States Army offered in relation to the national security of the nation.

Thus, with increased insecurity in the globe, several amendments have been done in order to optimize the internal and external operations of the military (Byman, 2012). Process optimization therefore should be a continuous process within an organization. However, an organization cannot be successful in the long run if its puts all its efforts in process optimization alone. It needs to incorporate other managerial segments such as innovation, segmentation, and environmental analysis. These critical factors affect the overall operations of an organization.

As it has been emphasized, process optimization is an essential concept in ensuring that effectiveness and efficiency is maintained in the operations of a given organization. Several concepts and models have been developed to enhance process optimization activities within an organization. Some of these models and concepts include:

1. Lean for service
2. Lean six sigma
3. Balance scorecard
4. Discrete event simulation
5. Business workflow model

A lot of people and organization have always had the belief that process optimization is highly dependent on statistical tools and methods (James, 2010). According to James (2010), this has been a common mistake. Essentially, statistical methods provide critical information in process optimization. This is because they are used to identify the optimum level, at which an organization can operate at. However, while conducting process optimization, it is essential to consider time as the main input in the process. This is because, with time, one gets a clear understanding of the operations of an entity, factors that govern these operations and their possible outcomes.

Once this has been identified, the next step involves the creation of a process map. It is at this point that concepts such as lean six sigma, discrete event simulation, business workflow model, and lean for service are applied. These concepts are useful in determining the input, intermediate and output factors that affect the entire optimization process. Additionally, these concepts are also used to determine whether a relationship exists between the factors that have been identified. It is common practice for people to assume that a relationship exists between these factors. However, after conducting a correlation tests and with the help of these concepts and models, it has been identified, in most cases that there is not relationship between all these factors.

Organizations usually take a number of steps to ensure that the optimization process is effective and efficient. The main step that firms need to incorporate in order to ensure that the optimization process is sustainable in the short run and in the long run is to ensure that it is ever running within an organization (Champy, 2005). This ensures that the optimization process modifies the operations of an organization enabling it to meet its current needs and overcome the possible obstacles that it might be facing at the same time. Another step that firms have to take to ensure that this process is effective is to assume the ‘what if’ scenario.

This is achieved by firms assuming a hypothetical situation and the effects that this may have on the operations of the organization. Once this is done, the management usually comes up with policies and strategies that will alleviate the firm from the hypothetical adverse situation. However, it is essential at this point to note that the hypothetical situation that the management would come up with should reflect the situations of the firm. This will thus ensure that the strategies and policies that will be implemented improve on the overall operations of the firm given its current status (Johnsons et al, 2005).

However, before assuming the ‘what if’ scenario, it is essential for the management to validate that the models which they have chosen (Madura, 2010). To achieve this, it is essential for the management to determine what the inputs and outputs of the process are. In addition to this, it is also essential for the management to ensure that a relationship exists between the inputs and the outputs. This is essential as it ensures that the overall outcome of the process reflects to the goals and objectives that it was designed to achieve in the first place.

Lastly, it is essential for the management to optimize the process. This is achieved by maintaining an optimum level of operations within the firm given the inputs and outputs that have been used in the process. While using the six-sigma model, this phase is referred to as the control phase. It is at this phase that the management control the operations of a firm, given its resources and capabilities, to achieve a desired level of output given its nature of operations.

This could be either the production of goods or provision of services. Documentation is also an essential process at this stage. This will ensure that the strengths and weaknesses of the process that have been identified so far are recorded. As it has been stated, process optimization is a continuous process. Therefore, keeping records of the present process will provide critical information in the formulation of policies and strategies that shall be used in the future processes in order to optimize the operations of the firm.

Firms have different reasons that advocate for process optimization. The United States Army, for example, is regarded as one of the bodies that offer protection to the citizens of the United States, the properties and interests within and outside the nation. Due to this fact, the operations of the army are under the observation of a wide variety of stakeholders. Due to this fact, it is essential for the Department of Defence to maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of its operations.

This includes the assistance and investigative functions of the Inspector General (Henderson, 2008). At this point therefore, the main factor that may push the Department of Defence to optimize its processes is the need of maintaining best practices in its operations in order to satisfy the needs and desires of its stakeholders. The incorporation and collaboration of new and old personnel provides a perfect avenue for the need and realization of a firm to undertake an optimization process.

The interaction of these individual creates a better understanding of the needs and desires of the stakeholders of the firm, the changes in its operating environment and the possible policies and strategies that shall be put in place to enhance its operations in the short run and in the long run through effectiveness and efficiency. However, as Elliot et al (2006) suggested, it is best if a firm hires an external consultant to critically investigate the operations of the firm and come up with the best means through which a firm can develop and implement the optimization process. This is one of the recommendations that the lean/six sigma model advocates for (Dunnton, 2008).

An external consultant is a professional. He has the capabilities of identifying the means through which a firm can modify its activities in order to optimize its entire operations. Thus, to ensure that a firm operation meets its current and future needs, process optimization is not an option but a necessity that has to be done to ensure the maintenance of effectiveness and efficiency in its operations. Due to this fact, it is essential to have a clear understanding of the models and concepts that can be used in this process.

Lean for Service

A firm usually operates in order to achieve its short term and long-term goals and objectives. The goals and objectives of organizations vary depending on the nature of an organization, the environment in which it is operating and its main purpose of operations. Most business entities have profit maximization as their long-term objectives. Humanitarian organizations aim at ensuring the living standards of individuals within a given organization and the entire globe at large have improved. The Department of Defence on the other hand operates to safeguard the people of the United Stated and the national interests of the government (Adamchak, 2000).

However, in order to achieve the vision, mission, goals, and objectives that an organization has set, it needs to satisfy the needs and desires of its target group. For business entities, this is mostly its target market; the consumers of the products and services that it produces. On the other hand, the target group of an organization like the United States Army is normally its stakeholders. The stakeholders of the United States Army include the personnel who work within the army and other branches of the Department of Defence, the presidents of the United States, the Congress, Senate, government officials and personnel and most importantly, the citizens of the United States of America (DHS, 2012). Thus, the United States Army operates to satisfy the needs, desires, and expectation of this group of individuals.

Thus, for an organization like to optimize its operations, it needs to ensure that the services that it offers or the products that it manufactures are of great value to its target group (Hofstede, 2001). It is due to this fact that organizations always strive to maximize the value that their products or service offer to their target market. This is essential especially in business organization as it ensures that such firms stand at a competitive edge over their rivals within the same industry (Jago, 1982).

This is due to the fact that the business world is currently characterized with high levels of competition. Customers have a variety of options for a specific product given the broad range of substitutes that are available. Thus, for a firm to maintain its customers, it needs to ensure that customers achieve maximum utility from consuming their products or services (Cote, 2002).

It is due to this fact that the lead model was developed. According to this model, for a firm to maximize the value that their products or services have on their target market, it is essential for an organization to minimize the possible wastes that may occur in the process of producing these goods or providing these services (Adler, 2002). According to Castellanos (2004), an organization that operates under the lean principles must have a clear understanding of the needs and desires of its customers. In addition to this, the organization must have developed means though which it can optimize its products and services to ensure that meets the expectation of its target group.

It is through the normal operations and understanding the needs, desires, and trends of the target group that an organization will fully have a clear understanding of the value of its target market (Jovanovic, 2011). Business entities that operate under the lean principles usually have a clear understanding of the value of the customers. Due to the importance of this factor, such organizations normally strive to maximize the value of their customers.

In most cases, this is normally achieved by such organization developing and implementing principles, strategies and techniques that normally result into zero waste in the process of manufacturing their products or providing services to their customers. To achieve this, the management of organizations normally have to modify their strategies. In most cases, organizations strive to have the most qualified personnel as part of their team, adopt the best technologies, and come up with innovative and creative strategies and policies. However, it should be noted that while using the lean model, the management of organization needs to implement these strategies.

However, to ensure that the value of its customers or target market is maximized, firms need to adopt concepts that enable the flow of products and service horizontally in line with the technologies that a firm has adopted. This not only ensures that superior quality products or services are delivered but also minimizes the waste that may accrue in the process (Hackathorn, 2002). This in turn increases the value that such a product or service would have to a customer. According to the studies that have been conducted with regards to the process of lean, it has been identified that the fact that the process results to the elimination of waste along the entire process of producing a good or service (Baker et al, 2002). This is unlike other processes where the elimination of waste only occurs on isolated points within the entire manufacturing system.

Thus, by ensuring that waste is eliminated in the entire manufacturing process, a firm tends to improve the value of its products and services in the form of reduced human effort, capital, space and time of production. As a result, the final product or service is normally of a superior quality with minimal defects as compared to the product or service that may be produced using traditional models (Du Plessis, 2001).

Therefore, the lean model is ideal for organizations that operate at the present time. This is because, such organizations are capable of responding to the ever-changing tastes, preferences, and expectations of their customers within the shortest time possible. In addition, the products or services that they come up with are usually cheaper and of a superior quality as compared to the ones rivals within the industry produce that. Such firms are thus capable of satisfying the needs and desires of their target group building their brand loyalty (Erasmus, 2001).

Initially, people used to believe that the lean model was only applicable to manufacturing companies. Indeed, the model was developed in a manufacturing company. The lean model was developed by Toyota during the 1980s (Ekart and Nemeth, 2006). It is during this time that the company need to optimize its operations. At this time, the company needed to improve the quality of its products in order to improve the value of its customers in its expansive program. At this time, the company was facing a stiff competition from General Motors in the international automotive market (Dunne, 2010).

Toyota used the model to enhance its production activities. The concept was successful and Toyota managed to have a larger global market as compared to their main rivals, General Motors. Due to the success of Toyota, different organization have adopted and implemented the lean model. This includes business institutions, government, and health organization. This is because the lean strategy can be used to enhance the activities of an organization regardless of its nature or the industry that it is operating in. However, different organizations use different names to describe the lean model that has been to enhance their operations. It is perhaps due to this fact that many people believe that lean model is only used to enhance production activities.

The different names that have been used to by organization while referring to the lean model include production program or transformational program. These names have been selected carefully as they are used to explain the fact that the lean model not just used to reduce the cost of production or assist a firm to achieve its short-term goals and objective but it is a concept that is used to modify the entire operation of an organization. This move is essential as it ensures that the firm reduces its wastes to zero and enhance the value of its customers by improving the quality of its goods and services.

To ensure that the lean process is adopted and implemented effectively in an organization, several principles have to be adhered to. The model needs to ensure that the value of that the program aims at achieving is from the standpoint of the target group. In most cases, this can be either the consumers or stakeholders of a given organization. The lean model is usually designed to improve the value of the target market.

Thus, for this to be achieved, an organization needs to have a clear understanding of its target group. Once this has been done, the model is then designed in such a way to ensure that the need, desires and expectation of this target group is achieved (Haspeslagh, 2010). Identification of the steps that are involved in the production of the goods of services that a firm offers is the second principle that has to be adhered to in the process (Fisher, 2003). At this step, it is essential to determine the critical steps that are used to create value to the product and the unnecessary steps that are present in the production process.

Those steps that are deemed as essential in the production process are maximized upon while those steps that are deemed as unnecessary are eliminated from the production process. The development of a production flow is the next principle that should be considered in the process. This step is highly dependent on customers and stakeholders. This is because, it is the customers and the shareholders who determine the next step that should be involved in the production process while producing the final good or service (Austin, 2008). This step is normally referred to as flow pull. The final principle that has to be considered in this model is to review the entire process over and over again.

The iterative nature of this process ensures that the quality and value of the product or service is improved at each and every cycle of production. This is because at each cycle, wastes are eliminated and value is added to the product. Thus, the final product or service that will be arrived at will be of a superior value as compared to the initial product or service or other counterparts within the market (Awasthi, 2008). The diagram below clearly shows the different stages that are present in the lean model.

The assistance and investigative function of the Inspector General within the Department of Defence plays an essential role in ensuring that the operations of the United States Army are effective and efficient. This is due to the fact that the process is used to detect, prevent, and eliminate any instances of fraud, misrepresentation, misconduct, abuse of office and any other factor that may affect the reputation of the entire army.

However, the process has been facing a lot of challenges especially due to the fact that the size of the army and the scoop of its activities have increased. As a result, the entire assistance and investigative process requires to be modified in order to ensure that its effectiveness and efficiency is maintained. This modification is also essential, as it will lead to the maximization of value from the stakeholders of the process.

The application of lean for service model can be an essential move to modify the assistance and investigative function of the Inspector General. From the studies that have been conducted and the application of the concept, it has been identified that the lean method can also be applied in government institutions and service industry (Eden and Miller, 2004). The office of the Inspector General falls under the jurisdiction of the government.

In addition, the office was created to provide assistance and investigative services within the Department of Defence. Due to this fact therefore, the operations of the office can be optimized by the application of the lean model. Due to the increase in the size of the army and the number of investigations and investigative inquiries that are carried out by Inspectors General at the present moment, the level of effectiveness and efficiency that was once associated with the office has been declining. This has resulted in an increase in the level of dissatisfaction from the stakeholders of the United States Army.

Therefore, for the Department of Defence to rejuvenate the investigative function of the Inspector General and to reinstate the loyalty of its stakeholders, the assistance and investigative process has to be modified in order to maximize the value of its stakeholders. To achieve this, the directing authority needs to identify the input, intermediate and output factors of the process, determine the relationship that exists between them. In addition, the directing authority needs to examine the processes that are involved in investigations and investigative inquiry. Given the current and expected future needs and expectations of the stakeholders of the process, the directing authority needs to identify the critical steps that are involved in this process and maximize on this. In addition, those processes that are deemed as not being useful should be eliminated from the process.

At the same time, those processes that are advocated for by the stakeholders should be introduced into the process. This entire process should be iterative. This will give a platform for the directing authority to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the entire process. In the end, the final steps that shall be involved in the process shall reflect on the current and future needs of the process hence will yield maximum value to its stakeholders.

Lean Six Sigma

Lean Six Sigma is another model that can be used to enhance the production process of an organization. This model was developed from the combination of the lean model and six sigma models (Brown, 2004). Like the lean model, the lean six sigma aims at eliminating wastes in the process of producing a good or service. However, this model is specific on the process that it aims at minimizing or eliminating. Referred to as mudas, the processes that this model seeks to eliminate include:

1. Over-production
2. Waiting
3. Transportation
4. Inventory
5. Motion
6. Over-processing
7. Defects

To determine whether the model has been effectively adopted and implemented in an organization, Han and Kamber (2006) stated that the overall outcome of production should be 3.4 defects for 1 million processes (Fulop, 2006). This concept is commonly referred to as DPMO. Thus, an organization that adopts this model is seeking to eliminate any defects that may be involved in its process of production.

Additionally, such organizations also aim at reducing the variability in their form of management. This is due to the fact that the manufacturing and business management model of an organization by enhancing the management process. This is essential especially at the present moment when organizations strive to improve the quality of their services in order to maximize the value of their customers as well as their stakeholders.

To achieve the desired goals of an organization, the lean six sigma model incorporates the use of a variety of methods. This includes quality management methods and system controls. In addition to this, other methods such as statistical analysis are also incorporated in the model. According to Doan and Halevy (2005), to ensure that the model is implemented in an effective and efficient manner, an organization usually has different groups of employees who implement the model at different stages within the organization. These personnel are divided into groups. Each group has a special name and function attributed to them.

The names that are given to these groups include black belts, green belts, white belts, yellow belts and so on (Hammer and Champy, 1993; Gitman, 2008). The different names attribute for different levels and complexity with which the personnel are involved in implementing the model within an organization. Thus, in the course of its application within an organization, the model is usually implemented under defined steps. These steps are carefully calculated and have specific goals and objectives to obtain. In most cases, these steps aim at reducing costs, eliminating wastes, and increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of operations within an organization.

There are two different models that can be used to implement the six sigma model within an organization (Gofman and Mets, 2010). The application of these methods depends on the change or modification that an organization seeks to introduce within its operation. The first method is referred to as DMAIC. This method has been developed to improve the existing operations that may be present within a given organization. Therefore, while adopting this model, the management of an organization needs to have a clear understanding of the operations that are present within their organization, their strengths, and weaknesses. Once this has been identifies, this model is thus introduced to maximize on the strengths of the current processes and to eliminate any weaknesses that may be present (Fitzsimmons, 2000).

The DMAIC method has five different steps. Problem identification is the first step of the method. In this step, the problem(s) that may be present in the process or activities of an organization are determined. This is an essential phase as a clear understanding of these problems is essential to ensure that proper modifications are done to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the operations of the firm in its course of producing goods and services (Alessio, 2010).

Therefore, to ensure that all possible problems are identified, feedback from the customers, stakeholders or any other individual who has interest on the goods and services provided by the organization is essential. Once this has been done, the management critically analyzes this information and finally comes up with the goals and objectives that shall be used to govern and regulate the entire process. Data collection with regards to the importance, effectiveness, and efficiency of the current processes in the next step.

This is followed by the analysis and investigation of cause and effect factors within the production process of an organization. Of importance in this step is the identification of the relationship that exists between the input, intermediate and output processes of production. At this point, a firm is capable of coming up with a detailed plan that will be used to achieve the newly formulated goals and objectives of the process. Implementation is the last step of this process.

In case the process fails to achieve a desired level of output, the entire process is repeated once again. This is done to determine and eliminate and wastes or defects and maximize on the strengths that have been identified. This finally results in the modification of the processes of an organization to meet the needs and requirement of its customers and stakeholders hence maximizing their value (Becker, 2003).

DMADV is another method that can be used by an organization in the process of implementing a new product or service while under the lean six sigma approach. In the course of operations, an organization is prone to a number of factors and challenges. Changes in the tastes and preferences of the customers, increase the level of competition, advancement in technology coupled with other internal and external factors may completely disrupt the manner in which an organization is operating. Due to this fact therefore, an organization may be forced to formulate and introduce a new product or service as a means of maximizing the value of its customers from the consumption of its goods and services (Minkov, 2007). Therefore, to ensure that this process is carried out effectively and efficiently, organizations normally adopt the DMADV method (Bass, 2010; Asenova, 2009).

Like the DMAIC method, DMADV is implemented in a sequential manner. The first step of this method is the development of goals and objectives of the entire exercise. These goals and objectives should conform to the current and future needs of the target group of an organization. At the same time, they should be in line with the overall strategy of an organization. This is essential as it guarantees that the final product or service that shall be arrived at is capable of maximizing the value of customers and at the same time, it is able to ensure that the company is capable of achieving its short term and long-term goals and objectives.

This in turn ensures the sustainability of operations of an organization in the short run and in the long run. Measuring of the characteristics that are capable of improving the quality of the product or service that a business is about to come up with is the next step. This step is critical as it plays an essential role in the design of the final product or service. In addition, at this step, the possible risks that might be encountered in the process of developing the product are also identified and taken into consideration. The process of actually designing the product or the service is the next step. Here, the considerations that had been put in place in the previous step are now put into practice.

However, at this moment, stringent measures have to be out in place to ensure that the design that shall be arrived at should be at a high level and the best that can be produced given the available factors of production and conditions that the firm is operating under (Miller, n.d). The next step after this involves the selection of the final design which the product or service will take after. The ultimate design that shall be arrived at is selected from the alternatives that were proposed at the previous step. Thus, once a given design is selected, all details and considerations are put in place to optimize the product (Law et al, 1998; Kotler, 1997).

To ensure that the design fits its description, several verification procedures are usually taken. In addition to this, simulations are also carried out to test the product or service before it is released into the market or put into practice. Finally, several verifications steps are carried out to ensure that the product or service is fit for implementation or utilization. This is achieved with the help of pilot runs. Once the product or service has been approved, the final product or service is released into the market or utilized by the owners or stakeholders.

The assistance and investigative function of the Inspector General can also be optimized using the lean six sigma model. However, the method that will be used in this process may vary depending on the overall needs and requirements of the Department of Defence, military personnel, civilians, the government, or any other stakeholder. If this group of individuals feel that the failure of the system is due to laxity in its systems and processes, the DMAIC method can be used to modify and optimize the operations that are involved in the Inspectors General investigative function.

Here, the processes that are deemed to be of value shall be enhanced while those processes that are viewed to be of no value shall be eliminated from the entire process. This may have an overall result of eliminating the wastes that were involved in the entire process. This will ensure that the overall process is effective and efficient. As a result, the value of the stakeholders of the process shall be maximized. Hence, all its stakeholders as capable of meeting the goals and objectives that it was developed to attain shall view the modified investigative process under the office of the Inspector General.

On the other hand, the stakeholders of the entire process may have the belief that the entire investigative process under the office of the Inspector General needs to be developed all over again. In the light of this, the DMADV method can be used to develop new processes that shall be used to optimize the investigative function of the Inspector General once again. In this process, a new process shall be designed. This process should be capable of meeting the needs of the stakeholders and those of the Department of Defence. With this new process, the investigations under the Inspector General shall be capable of meeting the ever-increasing demand of the stakeholders and at the same time be in line with the vision and mission of the office of the Inspector General and the Department of Defence at large.

Balance Scorecard

According to Kaplan and Norton (2006), the best method that can be employed to align operational structures with strategy is through a management system based on a balanced scorecard framework (p.103). In this method, managers from all the levels of the organization and from regional settings to the CEOs can utilize the tools of this framework to derive their unit performance. This method has proved to be a powerful tool in the management and monitoring of the units strategy. Managers can therefore communicate the cause-effect relationship that delivers the preposition of the values of their units.

As Kaplan and Norton (2006) asseted, it is through a mix of operational perspectives that a company can succeed in its operations currently in the world. Financial, customer, process and learning and growing perspectives do affect corporate strategy. In the financial perspective, companies can bring about an enterprise value through the allocation of resources while using an effective method (Kaplan and Norton, 2006). The aims of resource allocation can range from corporate governance, merging and acquisition of new businesses and negotiation with external stakeholders such as governments, other businesses, shareholders, and suppliers. If this activity is done in the best way possible then a company will have created strong financial synergies. By doing so a company will have a strong financial base that will enable it to grow and expand the size of its business (Fitzsimmons, 2000). The figure below can be used to show the different perspectives of the model.

In the consumer perspective, companies that produce the same goods or offer the same services can integrate their services to lower the prices of their products (Kaplan and Norton, 2006). This moves aim at making their services or products to be affordable by consumers. This move creates corporate synergies across multiple businesses in the market. In doing so the businesses consumers will have goods and services at better prices and at a greater convenience than what an individual competitor would have offered (Wheelwright, 2001). Hilton Hotel and McDonalds for example have entered in this form of agreement to offer the same form of proposition in their chains of hotels and restaurants all over the world where they are found (Kaplan and Norton, 2006).

The third method in the balanced scorecard perspective is called the process perspective. In this method, corporate synergies can save a lot of money by reducing their costs through the sharing of costs such as manufacturing, transportation, research, storage, advertisement, and purchases (Kaplan and Norton 2006, p. 104). This can only be possible if and only if these processes are common for the companies involved. In the past, businesses had a competitive advantage by owning relevant resources that other companies in the industry did not have. However, in the present times most companies are consolidating together to share costs of conducting common processes even though they are competitors (Swamidass and Newell, 1997).

The learning and growing perspective enable corporations to partner up and develop methods to recruit personnel in the industry and come up with up to date knowledge and skills, which will enable the industry to grow and develop in the right direction. These activities include recruiting and training of personnel, coming up with ideas and innovation and the use of IT in the operation of businesses. Currently, intangible assets account for around 80% of a company’s value therefore companies should develop synergies that will enhance the development of the human capital (Kaplan and Norton 2006, p. 104).

Discrete Event Simulation

Discrete event simulation is another model that can be used to optimize the process that a given organization is involved in. Just like the other models, discrete event simulation works by maximizing the value of products or services that an organization is involved in (Niedermann, 2010). This ensures that an organization is capable of satisfying its target group regardless of the nature of activities that it conducts. According to the study that was conducted by Kleibohmer and Cammann (2003), it was identified that organizations that use this approach to optimize their operations usually operate in a system that is governed by a chain of events. This has always been regarded as the trademark of discrete event simulation.

While adopting this model to optimize the process of an organization, organizations normally wish to come up with a series of events that are carried out simultaneously in the entire process to ensure that the final product or service meets the expectations of the customers as well as the organization. With regards to this model, in the process of its operations, several activities and events are conducted at any given time.

Each time an activity is carried out, it outcome has an effect in all the other activities that are present within the same organization (Benjamins, 1992). Thus, to optimize the entire output of an organization, it is essential to design the manner in which all the events within an organization are carried out so that they can boost each other resulting into a desired outcome. Thus, while implementing this model in the investigative functions of an Inspector General, it is essential to ensure that all the processes involved in conducting an investigation or an investigative inquiry are designed in a manner that they increase the effectiveness and efficiency of each other and the entire process at large.

Business Workflow Model

Business workflow model is an effective and efficient model that can be used to optimize the operations of a wide range of organizations (McGinnis, 2008). Just like the other models, the business workflow model operates by improving the effectiveness and efficiency of processes that are involved in the manufacturing and provision of goods and services by an entity. However, according to Belbin (2010), the key difference that arises in this model is the involvement of stakeholders in the modification and optimization process. This is because stakeholders are not only involved in the process during decision-making stages only but in all the stages that are involved in the production of goods and services by an organization.

Several stages are involved in this model. These stages are essential in ensuring that the final product or service is in line with the requirements and expectation of stakeholders. At the same time, the product or service that shall be arrived at should ensure the sustainability of the organization within the short run and the long run by being in line with its goals, objectives, vision, and mission. The diagram below shows in detail the stages that are involved in this model (Karen, 2000).

The business workflow model has been implemented successfully in a number of organizations. The model can also be adopted to optimize the investigation duty of the Inspector General. This is due to the fact that a lot of complains that have been reported with regards to the process have come from the stakeholders of the United States Army. Thus, to maximize their value, it is essential for them to be fully incorporated in the optimization process of the investigative function of the Department of Defence.

Involving stakeholders in this optimization process will ensure that the entire process and the outcome that shall be arrived at not only conforms to their needs and expectations but also to the mission and vision of the office of the Inspector General and the entire Department of Defence. In the process, the effectiveness and efficiency that was associated with the Inspectors General investigative process shall be rejuvenated.

References

Adamchak, S. (2000). A Guide to Monitoring and Evaluating. Boston: Thousand Oaks.

Adler, S. (2002). The Isolationist Impulse: Its Twentieth Century Reaction. Insight, 4(1), 15-22.

Alessio, D. (2010). Monopoly Imperialism: Social Affairs Europe. London: Sage.

AR 20-1. (2010). Inspections, Assistance, and Investigations Inspector General Activities and Procedures. Web.

Asenova, D. (2009). Partnership, Value for Money and Best Value In PFI Projects: Obstacles and Opportunities. Public Policy and Administration, 17(4), 6-21.

Austin, A. (2008). The Historical Method. Management Research 7(1), 4-11.

Awasthi, V. (2008). Managerial Decision-Making on Moral Issues and the Effects of Teaching Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(1), 200-220.

Baker, D., Bridges, D., Hunter, R., Johnson, G., Krupa, J., Murphy, J. and Sorenson, K. (2002). Guidebook to Decision- Making Methods. Washington DC: Department of Energy.

Bass, B. (2010). From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share the Vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18 (3), 19-31.

Becker, H. (2003). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press.

Belbin, R.M. (2010). Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail. London:Elsevier.

Benjamins, D. (1992). Development in the Detection and Identification of Evidence. Forensic Sci Rev , 4 (1), 18–49.

Betz, S. (2006). Automatic User Support for Business Process Modeling. Proceedings SBPM, 2(1), 1–12.

Beveridge, A. (1998). Forensic Investigation. London: Taylor and Francis Ltd.

Black, R. (2003). Organizational Culture: Creating the Influence Needed for Strategic Success. London: Penguin Books.

Boyce, C., & Neale, P. (2006). Conducting in-depth Interviews: A Guide for Designing and Conducting In-Depth Interviews for Evaluation Input. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Bradford, R.W. (2011). Communicating Your Strategic Planning With Your Employees. New York: Wiley.

Brown, T. K. (2004). The Costly Myth of Growth through Acquisition. Business Director, 1 (2), 14-19.

Burchill, S. (2000). Theories of International Relations. New York: Palgrave Publishers Ltd.

Byman, D. (2012). Israeli Counterterrorism: Tactics Over Strategies. Web.

Castellanos, F. (2004). A Comprehensive and Automated Approach to Intelligent Business Processes Execution Analysis. Distributed and Parallel Databases, 16(3), 239–273.

Champy, J. (2005). Reengineering Management. Chicago: HarperCollins.

Cohen, J. (2002). Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT press.

Cote, S. (2002). Criminology Theories: Bridging the Past and the Future. London: Sage.

Davis, P. S., A. B. Desai, and J. D. Francis. (2000). Mode of International Entry: An Isomorphism Perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(2) 239–258.

DeLaet, D. (2000). U.S. Immigration Policy in an Age of Rights. Chicago: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Delaney, T. (2005). The March of Unreason: Science, Democracy, and the New Fundamentalism. European Journal of Politics, 52(3), 22-31.

DeLozier, M. (2006). The Marketing Communications Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Deusen, C. and Mueller, C. (2002). What Goals do Business Leaders Pursue: A Study in Fifteen Countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(4), 785-803.

DHS (2012). National Strategy of Counterterrorism. Web.

Doan, J. and Halevy, A. (2005). Semantic Integration Research in the Database Community: A Brief Survey. AI Journal Review, 26(1), 83-91.

Donal, E. (2003). Deviants: Victims or Victimizers. Beverly Hills, California: SageGary.

Dow, D. (2000). A Note on Psychological Distance and Export Market Selection. Journal of International Marketing, 8(1), 51-64.

Drakulic, S. (2002). A Letter from the United States: The Critical Theory Approach. New York: W. W. Norton.

Du Plessis, P. (2001) Consumer Behaviour: A South African Perspective. Pretoria: Sigma.

Dunne, T. (2010). International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. London: Sage.

Dunnton, J. (2008). The Beginnings of Social Understanding. Basil: Oxford.

Eden, L., and Miller, S. (2004). The Evolving Theory of the Multinational Firm. Advances in International Management, 4(16), 187–221.

Ekart, A. and Nemeth, S. (2005). Stability Analysis of Tree Structured Decision Functions. European Journal of Operational Research, 160(10), 676-695.

Elliott, G., Granger, C. W. J., & Timmermann, A. (2006). Handbook of economic forecasting. Amsterdam: Elsevier North-Holland.

Erasmus, A. (2001). Consumer Decision-Making Models within the Discipline of Consumer Science: A Critical Approach. Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences , 29(1), 83-90.

Figueiredo, C. and Marcos, N. (2002). Ethics in Public Administration and In The Exercise of Citzenship. Sao Paulo: Mimeo.

Fisher, J. (2003). Surface and Deep Approach to Business Ethics. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 24(2), 96-101.

Fitzsimmons, J. (2000). Service Management: Operations, Strategy, and Information Technology. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Fulop, J. (2006). Introduction to Decision Making Methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 164(3), 1-5.

Gitman, L. (2008). The Future of Business: The Essentials. Dallas: Cengage Learning.

Gofman, A. and Mets,T. (2010). Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27 (2), 157–168.

Hackathorn, R. (2002). Minimizing Action Distance. DM Review, 12 (1), 22–23.

Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. London: Brealey.

Han, J. and Kamber, D. (2006). Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann.

Haspeslagh, P. (2010). Corporate Governance and the Current Crisis. Corporate Governance, 9(1), 375-377.

Heidensohn, F. (2005). People and Crime. London: Macmillan.

Henderson, G. (2008). Steps to the Ecology of the Mind. Boston: Paladin.

HO. (2012). Counter-Terrorism Strategy. Web.

Hoffman, D. (2010). The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and Its Dangerous Legacy. Washington: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hollowitz, J. and Wilson, C.E. (2003). Structured Interviewing in Volunteer Selection. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 21, 41-52.

Jago, A. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in Theory and Research. Management Science, 28 (3), 315-336.

James, B. (2010). From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share the Vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.

Johnsons, W., Yamauchi, G.K., and Watts, M.E. (2005). NASA Heavy Lift Rotorcraft Systems Investigation. NASA TP, 3 (1), 1141-87.

Jovanovic, M. (2011). International Handbook on the Economics of Integration: Competition, Spatial Location of Economic Activity and Financial Issues. Sacramento: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2006). How to Implement a New Strategy without Disrupting Your Organization. Harvard Business Review, 84(3), 100-109.

Kapuscinski, R. (2007). Imperium. California: University of California Press.

Karen, D. (2000). Fundamentals of Employment Law. New York: American Bar Association.

Kleibohmer, W. and Cammann, K. (2003). Essentials of an Optimization Process. London: Sage.

Kotler, P. (1997). Marketing Management. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Krueger, R.A. (2004). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Law, M. Fred, E. Moon, B. and Michael, F. (1998). Guidelines for Critical Review Form-Qualitative Studies. Web.

Lewin, K. (2001). Field Theory in Social Science. Journal of Social Sciences, 2(1), 9-15.

Madura, J. (2010). International Financial Management. Australia: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Maguire, L. (2009). The Foreign Policy Discourse in the United Kingdom and the United States in the “New World Order.” Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

McGinnis, S. (2008). Organization Behavior and Management Thinking. Key Topics in Organizational Behavior. New Jersey: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Mietzner, D. and Reger, G. (2005). Advantages and Disadvantages of Scenario Approaches for Strategic Foresight. International. Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 1(2), 220–239.

Miller, M.G. (n.d). Public Scrutiny and Accountability: Dilemma in State Administration. The Messenger, 3 (2), 87-99.

Minkov, M. (2007). What Makes us Different and Similar: A New Interpretation of the World Values Survey and Other Cross-Cultural Data. Sofia: Klasika i Stil Publishing House.

Morgensen, G. (2011). How The Whistle Blower Conquered Country Wide. The New Yorker, 2(3), 13-14.

Niedermann, F. (2010). Design-time Process Optimization through Optimization Patterns and Process Model Matching. Washington DC: Longhorn.

Norman, P. and Thomas, A. (1998). Spy Book: The Encyclopedia of Espionage. London: Random House.

Northrop, D. M. (2002). Sample Collection, Preparation, and Quantitation. Journal of Business Review, 14(2), 51-66.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Pawlas, G.E. (1995). The Structured Interview: Three Dozen Questions to Ask Prospective Teachers, NASSP Bulletin, 79, 62-65.

Peters, M. (2009). Business Analysis. New York: Sage.

Pintelas, D. (2006). Data Preprocessing for Supervised Learning. International Journal of Computer Science, 1(2), 111–117

Reijers, H. (2005). Process Design and Redesign. Texas: Southware.

Reisner, R. (2002) When a Turnaround Stalls. Harvard Business Review, 45(1), 15-18.

Roper, A. T.(2011). Forecasting and Management of Technology. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons.

Schneider, A. (2004). Ethical Decision Making on Various Managerial Issues. JAMAR , (2) 2, 29-35.

Seaton, C. (2007). Katahdin Consulting: Business Plan. Business Planer Magazine , 3(2) 44-67.

Shaw, W. (1999). Business Ethics. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Shim, J. K., and Siegel, J. G. (1999). Operations Management. Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s Educational Series.

Smith,S. (2006). International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sodaro, M. (2007). Comparative Politics: A Global Introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Souvik, D. (2006). Case Studies on Market Entry Strategies. Nagarjuna Hills, Punjagutta: ICFAI Books.

Stead, W. and Stead, J. (2003) Management for a Small Planet. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Swamidass, P.M. and Newell, W.T. (1997). Manufacturing Strategy, Environmental Uncertainty and Performance. Management Science, 33(4), 509–524.

Taylor, B. M. (2010). Introduction to Management Science. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Tellis, G. and Golder, P. (1996). First to Market, First to Fail: The Real Causes of Enduring Market Leadership. Sloan Management Review, 34(2), 66-79.

Tickner, A. (2005). Sustainable Practices in International Relations. Columbia: Columbia University Press.

Weinberg, A. (2011). Manifest Destiny: A Study of Nationalist Expansionism in American History. Journal of Humanity, 3(5), 254-270.

Wheatly, K.L., and Flexner, W.A. (2008). Dimensions that Make Focus Groups Work. Marketing News, 22(10) 16-17.

Wheelwright, S.C., (2001). Restoring Our Competitive Edge: Competing Through Manufacturing. New York: Wiley.

Wyatt, E. (2010). For Whistle Blowers, Expanded Incentives. Bank Director, 1 (2), 31-40.