The Philippine Army’s Doctrine Manual Backlogs: Towards an Improved Doctrine Development System

The Philippine Army’s Doctrine Manual Backlogs: Towards an Improved Doctrine Development System

Dennis Santos Martinez

College of Public Administration and Governance, Tarlac State University, Talavera, Nueva Ecija, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.905000115

Received: 05 May 2025; Accepted: 09 May 2025; Published: 02 June 2025

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Background of the Study

Globally, military doctrine plays a vital role as it provides the principles, guidelines, and policies that guide decision-making, planning, and operations in military organizations. In connection with this, doctrine development is a continuous process that aims to adapt to new and emerging threats and technologies, enhance operational readiness, and improve strategic effectiveness. Effective military doctrine ensures that military operations are conducted with discipline, efficiency, and effectiveness while minimizing risk to personnel and civilians. It also ensures that military operations are consistent with international law, human rights, and humanitarian norms. In addition, military doctrine fosters interoperability and cooperation among different military organizations, promoting greater stability and security globally. Therefore, the development and implementation of effective military doctrine are essential for ensuring peace and security in the world.

In Southeast Asia, military doctrine plays a critical role in ensuring regional stability and security. The region faces a range of security challenges, including maritime security threats, territorial disputes, terrorism, and transnational organized crime. Effective military doctrine provides a framework for addressing these challenges and enhancing operational readiness and strategic effectiveness. It guides decision-making, planning, and operations in military organizations, ensuring that they are consistent with international law and regional norms. Additionally, military doctrine promotes interoperability and cooperation among different military organizations, enhancing regional security and stability. The development of effective military doctrine also requires collaboration and consultation among regional military organizations, promoting trust, and confidence-building measures. Therefore, the importance of military doctrine in Southeast Asia cannot be overstated, as it contributes to maintaining peace and security in the region, promoting economic development, and improving the quality of life for the region’s people.

In the Philippines, military doctrine plays a crucial role in ensuring national security and defense. The country faces various security challenges, including terrorism, insurgencies, natural disasters, and territorial disputes. Effective military doctrine provides a framework for addressing these challenges and enhancing operational readiness and strategic effectiveness. It guides decision-making, planning, and operations in military organizations, ensuring that they are consistent with international law, human rights, and humanitarian norms. Additionally, military doctrine promotes interoperability and cooperation among different military organizations, enhancing coordination and collaboration in responding to emergencies and crises. The development of effective military doctrine requires a thorough understanding of the Philippines’ unique security environment, including its geopolitical location and cultural factors. It also requires collaboration and consultation among different stakeholders, including civilian authorities, international partners, and local communities, to ensure that military operations are aligned with broader national security objectives. Therefore, the importance of military doctrine in the Philippines cannot be understated, as it is essential for maintaining peace and security in the country, promoting economic development, and improving the quality of life for the Filipino people.

Similarly, the doctrine is crucial in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) as it provides principles, guidelines, and policies that enhance operational readiness and improve strategic effectiveness, promote innovation and adaptability in responding to emerging threats, foster interoperability and cooperation among different military organizations, ensure that the AFP operates within the framework of international law, human rights, and humanitarian norms, and build institutional capacity and professionalism by fostering a culture of learning, continuous improvement, and leadership development. Effective doctrine is essential for maintaining regional stability and security, upholding human rights and the rule of law, and equipping the AFP to meet the challenges of the future.

The Philippine Army allocates significant resources for the development and revision of doctrine manuals. This process requires funding and dedicated time to ensure that manuals are properly researched, written, and validated. However, the accumulation of backlogs in doctrine development indicates inefficiencies that lead to wasted resources and operational delays. Each incomplete or delayed manual represents unrealized investment that could have been used to enhance the Army’s capabilities. Addressing these backlogs is essential to maximizing resources, streamlining processes, and ensuring that doctrine development aligns with the Army’s operational and strategic goals.

Doctrine manuals serve as the backbone of military operations, providing standardized procedures, tactical guidelines, and strategic principles that guide soldiers in executing their duties effectively. Without updated and properly developed doctrine manuals, the Philippine Army risks operational inefficiencies, inconsistent implementation of policies, and gaps in training and execution. In combat scenarios, outdated doctrines can compromise mission effectiveness, while in administration, they can lead to bureaucratic inefficiencies and mismanagement. Keeping doctrine manuals updated ensures that the Army remains organized, well-prepared, and mission-ready in both combat and administrative functions.

In today’s rapidly evolving security environment, the need for updated doctrine manuals is more pressing than ever. Modern warfare, emerging threats, technological advancements, and shifts in global defense strategies require military doctrines to be flexible, responsive, and forward-looking. Failure to address doctrine backlogs means the Army risks being unprepared for new challenges, unable to optimize emerging technologies, and lagging in adapting to evolving battlefield tactics. This study on The Philippine Army’s Project Doctrine Manual Backlogs Towards an Improved Doctrine Development System is essential to identifying the root causes of these backlogs, evaluating current processes, and recommending strategies for a more efficient doctrine development system.

In relation to this, the researcher is a member of the Philippine Army and has previously served as the Chief of the Doctrine Development Division (DDD) under the Doctrine and Capability Integration Center (DACIC), Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). The researcher was then the concurrent Head of the Secretariat of the Doctrine Committee at TRADOC. This Committee is organized to assist the Commander of TRADOC in reviewing, assessing, and evaluating draft doctrine publications, ensuring the Philippine Army’s doctrine remains relevant and effective in modern warfare.

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to analyze and evaluate the current status of the Philippine Army’s doctrine manual backlogs. Ultimately, it seeks to improve the doctrine development system to ensure a more efficient, systematic, and responsive approach to meeting the Army’s operational and strategic needs while maximizing its resources.

Specifically, this study aims to answer the following questions

1. How are the Philippine Army’s project doctrine manual backlogs be described and evaluated in terms of:

• Actual yearly backlogs
• Target vs Accomplishments

2. How is the Philippine Army’s doctrine development system be described and evaluated in terms of:

• Program
• Policy
• Process
• Proponent
• Writer

3. Is there a significant difference among the respondents’ responses regarding the variables in the Philippine Army’s doctrine development system?

4. What are the problems encountered in doctrine development system?

5. What measures can be proposed to address Philippine Army’s doctrine backlogs and improve doctrine development system?

6. What are the implications of this study to public administration?

Significance of the Study

The significance of this study will be beneficial to the following:

To the Philippines, this study is vital for the Philippines as it ensures that the country’s military doctrines remain relevant, efficient, and responsive to evolving security threats and operational challenges. A well-structured doctrine development system contributes to national security, defense preparedness, and effective resource utilization, reinforcing the government’s commitment to maintaining a strong and capable military force. By addressing doctrine manual backlogs, the Philippine Army can enhance its operational effectiveness, ultimately safeguarding the country’s sovereignty and ensuring the safety of its citizens.

To the Department of National Defense (DND), this study provides valuable insights into the efficiency, effectiveness, and challenges of doctrine development within the Philippine Army. It highlights areas where policy improvements, strategic planning, and resource allocations can be enhanced to ensure a more structured and systematic doctrine development process. The findings of this research will aid in formulating policies that promote better coordination, oversight, and integration of doctrine development efforts across all branches of the military.

To the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), this study is crucial for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) as it directly impacts the development of military doctrines that shape training, operations, and strategic decision-making. By identifying the root causes of doctrine manual backlogs, the study provides recommendations to improve the AFP’s ability to develop, update, and implement doctrines efficiently. This ensures that the entire military organization is equipped with standardized, relevant, and mission-ready doctrines, enhancing overall combat readiness and operational efficiency.

To the Operating Units of the Philippine Army, this study is significant as it addresses the delays in doctrine manual development that directly impact field operations, training, and tactical decision-making. Updated doctrines provide clear guidance on standard operating procedures, combat strategies, and administrative protocols, ensuring that soldiers and officers operate under a unified, well-defined set of principles. By resolving doctrine backlogs, units will have timely access to essential doctrinal references, improving their effectiveness in both peacetime and wartime operations.

To the Students, this study benefits students, particularly those in military education, defense studies, and public administration, by providing a comprehensive understanding of doctrine development and its role in military effectiveness. It serves as a valuable reference for students studying the dynamics of defense policy, military strategy, and organizational efficiency. By analyzing the challenges and solutions in doctrine development, students gain practical insights that can be applied to future roles in the military, defense planning, or public service.

To the Academe, Particularly in the College of Public Administration, this study is highly relevant to the Academe, particularly in the College of Public Administration, as it provides a real-world application of policy formulation, strategic planning, and bureaucratic efficiency within a government institution. The doctrine development process in the Philippine Army serves as a case study in public administration, organizational management, and policy implementation, offering valuable insights into how government agencies develop, execute, and evaluate policies and programs. By analyzing the challenges of doctrine manual backlogs, students and educators can explore effective governance strategies, resource management, and institutional reforms applicable not only to the military but also to other government agencies. This study can serve as reference material for research, policy analysis, and curriculum development, fostering a deeper understanding of public administration principles in the context of national defense and security.

To Future Researchers, this study serves as a foundation for further investigations into the efficiency of military doctrine development, defense management, and institutional reforms. It provides data, analysis, and recommendations that can be expanded upon in subsequent research, particularly in areas such as doctrine innovation, policy integration, and military resource management. Future researchers can build upon this study to explore comparative analyses, international best practices, and emerging trends in doctrine development, contributing to the continuous improvement of the Philippine Army’s doctrine system.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

This study aimed to comprehensively analyze the doctrine development system of the Philippine Army, with a particular focus on identifying the underlying causes of backlogs in project doctrine manuals. It involved a diverse group of participants who were directly engaged in the doctrine development process, including officers and non-commissioned officers of the Philippine Army who had been part of the process as planners, doctrine writers, proponents, end-users, or implementers of the manuals.

The scope of this study covered a five-year period from 2019 to 2023, allowing for an in-depth examination of trends, challenges, and changes that influenced the development of doctrine manuals over this period. This timeframe provided a solid foundation for understanding the dynamics and operational challenges that contributed to manual backlogs and for identifying potential areas for improvement in the doctrine development process.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND RELATED STUDIES

Doctrine Manual Backlogs

The United States Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) has been grappling with delays in its doctrine development, leading to a significant backlog of critical materials. This situation poses a considerable risk to the operational readiness and effectiveness of the Army’s combat units, potentially leaving them without access to the latest tactics, techniques, and procedures vital for their success in future missions. The lack of updated doctrinal resources may impair the ability of soldiers to adapt to new threats and operational challenges. Recognizing the importance of this issue, TRADOC is actively seeking ways to accelerate the development and dissemination of doctrinal materials to ensure that combat units remain well-prepared and capable of confronting any situation they might encounter (U.S. TRADOC, 2003).

Similar to the challenges faced by the United States Training and Doctrine Command, the British Army’s Doctrine, Training, and Development Directorate has also encountered hurdles in keeping its training materials and doctrine up to date. These delays risk impacting the readiness and operational effectiveness of British combat units, potentially leaving them without the necessary and most current strategic insights, tactics, and procedural knowledge required for their missions abroad. The rapid pace of technological advancements and evolving global threats necessitates timely revisions to doctrine to ensure forces are adequately prepared for modern warfare’s complexities. In response, the British Army has initiated measures aimed at streamlining the doctrine development process and leveraging digital platforms for quicker dissemination of updated training and doctrinal resources, underscoring the universal importance of adaptability and preparedness in military operations (British Army, 2021)

Philippine Army Doctrine Development System

Program

According to data gathered from the Doctrine Development Division of the Doctrine and Capability Integration Center (DCIC), Philippine Army, there were no recorded doctrine manual targets or accomplishments for 2019 and 2020. However, from 2021 to 2023, backlogs began to accumulate due to unmet targets. In 2021, only 11 out of 16 targeted doctrine manuals were completed, resulting in 5 backlogs. This trend continued in 2022, where 6 out of 12 manuals remained unfinished, and further escalated in 2023, with 7 backlogs out of 10 targeted manuals.

Despite the structured doctrine development process, the Philippine Army continues to accumulate doctrine manual backlogs over the years. A review of records from the past five years (2019–2023), as shown in the table 1, highlights the increasing backlog trend.

Table 1 Target vs Accomplished Doctrine Manual

Likewise, in his study, Henderson, J. (2019) critiques the traditional project management approaches in military doctrine development, pinpointing their contribution to the rigidity and backlog issues. He suggests a shift towards agile methodologies to introduce flexibility and iterative progress, which could significantly reduce delays in doctrine manual production. He concludes that incorporating agile practices can enhance adaptability and ensure the timely prioritization of doctrine manuals.

Furthering the conversation, Walters, C. (2020) examines the effectiveness of advanced scheduling techniques in the production of doctrine materials. He highlights the critical path method (CPM) as a tool to foresee and address potential delays, advocating for its integration with resource leveling. He suggests that such strategic scheduling could optimize resource use and maintain adherence to development timelines, potentially transforming the efficiency of doctrine manual production.

Policy

In his study, Franklin (2018) examines the impact of policy on the doctrine manual development process within the military. He analyzes how stringent policies can sometimes act as a double-edged sword, providing necessary structure but also introducing rigidity that hinders responsiveness. He identifies a trend where policies that are too prescriptive can stifle the creative and adaptive approach needed for contemporary military operations. He advocates for policy frameworks that balance the need for governance with the flexibility required for innovation. The study concludes with a call for policy reform that enables a more dynamic doctrine development system.

Building on Franklin’s analysis, Turner (2021) in his study delves into the role of policy in standardizing the development of doctrine manuals across various military branches. Turner’s research reveals that inconsistencies in policy application led to variances in doctrine quality and applicability. He argues for the establishment of a centralized policy oversight body that ensures uniformity while allowing for branch-specific considerations. He also emphasizes the importance of regular policy reviews to keep pace with the evolving nature of warfare and technology. His study proposes a set of revised policy recommendations aimed at improving the coherence and efficiency of the doctrine development process.

Process

Philippine Army Manual (PAM) 8-01 series 2014 shows how the Army develops its doctrine. This process is depicted as a cycle, with different phases. The process ensures that doctrines evolve and adjust to changing operational environment. The process is shown in the figure below.

Figure 1 illustrates the complete cycle of the Philippine Army Doctrine Development System, providing a structured overview of the process. However, the actual creation of a doctrine manual follows a streamlined framework consisting of four (4) key phases: Planning and Initiation, Research and Development, Review and Adjudication, and Approval and Promulgation. Each phase plays a crucial role in ensuring the accuracy, relevance, and applicability of the doctrine manual before its official implementation.

Fig 1.  Philippine Army Doctrine Development System

The entire development process is structured to be completed within a standard duration of 48 weeks, ensuring a well-organized and systematic approach to doctrine manual creation. This timeline is carefully designed to allow sufficient time for in-depth research, content development, validation, and multiple stages of review, ensuring the accuracy, relevance, and applicability of the manuals. By adhering to this structured timeframe, the process maintains efficiency while addressing the evolving operational, tactical, and strategic needs of the Philippine Army. This approach ensures that doctrine manuals remain up-to-date, comprehensive, and aligned with modern military practices and requirements.

Figure 2 illustrates the step-by-step process involved in the development or revision of a doctrine manual, ensuring a systematic and standardized approach. This process begins with the approval of the Proponent Advice (PAD) or the initiation of a project doctrine manual, which serves as the official authorization for its development or revision. Once approved, the doctrine manual undergoes a series of critical stages. It then proceeds through rigorous evaluation and adjudication by subject matter experts and the doctrine committee TRADOC before final approval.

The process culminates with the official signing of the document by the Commanding General of the Philippine Army (CGPA) or the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (CSAFP) depending on the level or type of doctrine manual, followed by its formal promulgation for adoption and implementation in the Philippine Army. This structured approach guarantees that the doctrine manuals remain relevant, updated, and responsive to the evolving operational landscape of the Philippine Army.

Fig 2.  Philippine Army Doctrine Manual Development Timeline

The PAM 8-01 (2014) outlines a comprehensive yet prolonged timeline of forty-eight weeks for the completion of a doctrine manual, highlighting the complexity and thoroughness required in developing military protocols. This extended period allows for meticulous detail and careful consideration in drafting, reflecting the high stakes and precision necessary for effective army operations. The extended timeline may also impact the adaptability of the doctrine to rapidly changing military technologies and geopolitical situations, suggesting a potential area for procedural optimization. Research suggests that while such a timeline ensures a robust and detailed framework, it could benefit from streamlining to enhance responsiveness and efficiency in doctrine development.

In another study, Davis (2019) explores the intricate process of developing military doctrine manuals, highlighting the challenges faced at various stages from conception to final approval. He notes that the process often suffers from a lack of clear milestones and accountability, leading to significant delays and bottlenecks. Davis emphasizes the importance of a phased approach, where each stage of development is clearly defined and responsibilities are assigned to specific teams or individuals. He argues that such structuring not only streamlines the process but also ensures that each manual undergoes thorough vetting and quality control. The study concludes with recommendations for process reengineering, including the adoption of project management best practices to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of doctrine manual development.

Following Davis’s examination, in his study, Peterson (2022) focuses on the integration of technology in the doctrine manual development process. He identifies the underutilization of digital tools and platforms as a missed opportunity for streamlining collaboration and document management. His research suggests that adopting collaborative software and content management systems can significantly reduce development time and improve document consistency. He also highlights the potential for these technologies to facilitate real-time feedback and revisions, making the process more adaptive to changing military needs. He advocates for a strategic overhaul of the development process, incorporating technology to foster a more collaborative and efficient approach to doctrine manual creation.

Proponent

Thompson (2020), in his study, analyzes the critical role of proponents or sponsors in the development of doctrine manuals. He points out that the effectiveness of the development process often hinges on the proponent’s active involvement and leadership in guiding the project’s direction. He observes that when proponents are deeply engaged, the resulting doctrine manuals are more aligned with operational needs and strategic objectives. However, he also identifies a common issue where proponents are either too detached or overly prescriptive, both of which can hamper the manual’s relevance and utility. The study concludes with recommendations for establishing a more collaborative framework, where proponents work closely with writers and stakeholders throughout the development process, ensuring that manuals are both comprehensive and practical.

Similarly, in his study, Hamilton (2021) delves into the challenges associated with identifying and maintaining a consistent proponent or sponsor throughout the doctrine manual development lifecycle. He finds that frequent changes in leadership or shifts in organizational priorities can disrupt the continuity and focus of doctrine projects. He suggests that the establishment of a dedicated doctrine development office, with stable leadership and clear mandates, could mitigate these issues. This office would not only serve as the constant proponent for all doctrine manuals but also facilitate coordination among different branches and units. He emphasizes that such an organizational structure would enhance the strategic alignment of doctrine development efforts, ensuring that manuals are timely, relevant, and reflective of the current operational landscape.

Writer

In his study, Richards (2022) focuses on the pivotal role of doctrine manual writers within the development system. He underscores the challenges they face, including the need for a deep understanding of military operations and strategy, as well as the ability to translate complex concepts into clear, actionable guidance. He points out that a significant obstacle is the limited training and support available to writers, which can affect the quality and coherence of the manuals. He advocates for a comprehensive training program that encompasses not just writing skills but also operational knowledge and doctrinal insight. He concludes that enhancing the support and education of doctrine writers is essential for improving the development process and the effectiveness of the final manuals.

Likewise, Watson (2023), in his study, examines the collaboration between doctrine manual writers and other stakeholders in the development process. He identifies a lack of structured collaboration platforms and methodologies as a key issue that can lead to inconsistencies and gaps in the manuals. He argues for the adoption of collaborative writing tools and regular interdisciplinary workshops to foster better understanding and integration of diverse perspectives. He also suggests that involving writers early in the planning stages can help align the manuals more closely with strategic objectives and operational needs. Watson’s study recommends a more integrated and collaborative approach to doctrine writing, emphasizing the importance of teamwork and communication in producing comprehensive and relevant doctrine manuals.

Problems in Doctrine Development System

In his comprehensive study, Anderson, J. (2018) investigates the procedural and systemic inefficiencies plaguing the programming phase of army doctrine manual development. He critically examines the existing body of literature on military doctrine development processes, identifying a significant gap in strategic planning and prioritization of manuals to be developed. He highlights how bureaucratic processes, lack of clear prioritization criteria, and insufficient inter-departmental coordination lead to delays and backlogs in manual production. Through analysis of case studies and interviews with military planners, He points out the negative impact of these inefficiencies on overall operational readiness.

On the other hand, Baker, K. (2020) in his study, delves into the challenges associated with incorporating new technologies into the programming phase of doctrine manual development. He reviews literature on the integration of technology in military operations and doctrine creation, finding a notable disconnect between technological advancements and their reflection in doctrine manuals. The study identifies key issues such as outdated programming methodologies, resistance to technological change, and a lack of technical expertise among doctrine developers as primary barriers to timely and relevant manual production. He also examines successful cases of technology integration in other military contexts, suggesting that adopting more flexible and technology-friendly programming practices could significantly enhance the relevance and utility of doctrine manuals. He advocates for the establishment of specialized teams to bridge the gap between technological innovation and doctrine programming, ensuring that manuals accurately reflect current capabilities and threats.

Policy

In his study, Evans, L. (2017), addresses the critical issue of policy misalignment and its repercussions on the development of army doctrines. He conducts a thorough review of literature on the interface between military policies and doctrine formulation, pinpointing a systemic misalignment between overarching defense policies and the operational realities reflected in army doctrines. This misalignment, He elaborates, often leads to the creation of doctrines that are either out of sync with current policy directives or unable to effectively guide military operations within the constraints of existing policies. The study employs a series of interviews with policy makers and doctrine developers, revealing a communication gap that exacerbates the misalignment issue.

Likewise, Nguyen, M. (2014) in his study, explores the challenges posed by rapid changes in defense policy on the stability and relevance of army doctrines. He systematically reviews existing studies on the lifecycle of military doctrines, highlighting how swift changes in national defense policies can disrupt the doctrine development process, leading to inconsistencies and confusion. He also identifies several instances where abrupt policy shifts necessitated rapid but superficial adjustments to doctrines, compromising their depth and strategic foresight. Through qualitative analysis of case studies, he demonstrates the detrimental effects of policy volatility on the doctrinal coherence and operational preparedness of the army.

Process

In his study, Fisher, T. (2020), scrutinizes the procedural inefficiencies that hinder the timely development and revision of army doctrines. He conducts a methodical examination of the doctrine development lifecycle, identifying specific stages where bottlenecks are most pronounced, such as in the approval and feedback mechanisms. Through a detailed analysis of internal reports, interviews with doctrine developers, and case studies, Fisher, T. (2023) demonstrates how these bottlenecks not only delay the issuance of vital doctrines but also impact their quality and relevance. The study points out that the lack of standardized processes across different branches and units exacerbates these issues, leading to inconsistencies and redundancies. Fisher recommends a series of process optimization strategies, including the adoption of lean management techniques and the implementation of digital tools for streamlining the development and review phases, to overcome these bottlenecks.

Also, Harris, J. (2018) in his research, addresses the problem of inadequate engagement with relevant stakeholders during the doctrine development process. Harris reviews the literature on best practices for stakeholder engagement in organizational policy development, drawing parallels with the doctrine development process within the army. The author highlights how the failure to effectively engage a wide range of stakeholders, including frontline units, inter-service representatives, and allied forces, can lead to the creation of doctrines that do not fully address the needs or realities of their intended users. Through an analysis of surveys and feedback from various stakeholders, He uncovers a significant gap in the current processes that limits the contribution of critical insights and expertise.

Proponent

In his study, Clarke, R. (2021) highlights the challenges in identifying and engaging doctrine proponents, noting the procedural ambiguities that delay doctrine development. His analysis reveals confusion over roles and the importance of continuous proponent engagement for creating relevant doctrines. He advocates for clearer identification processes and the establishment of a centralized proponent database to streamline development.

Consequently, Martinez, E. (2019) in his study delves into the issues of coordination and support between doctrine development teams and proponents. He points out how the lack of proponent support impedes manual progress and emphasizes the need for their proactive involvement. The study suggests enhancing proponent awareness of their role and improving communication and support mechanisms to aid doctrine development.

Writer

In his research, Thompson, L. (2019) examines the skill and knowledge gaps faced by army doctrine writers. The review identifies a significant issue: many writers lack the operational experience and technical expertise necessary to draft comprehensive and applicable doctrines. Thompson’s analysis of training programs and writer backgrounds suggests a need for enhanced professional development and subject matter training for these individuals. The study concludes that investing in the continuous education and practical training of doctrine writers is essential for improving the quality and relevance of army doctrines.

Additionally, Singh, A. (2018) in his study, addresses the challenges of ensuring coherence and uniformity across documents produced by multiple doctrine writers. Singh highlights how the absence of standardized writing protocols and poor collaboration between writers often leads to inconsistencies in doctrine manuals. The review suggests the implementation of comprehensive guidelines and the use of collaborative writing tools to improve document consistency. Singh advocates for regular workshops and joint writing sessions to foster better teamwork and uniformity among doctrine writers.

Measures in Problems encountered during Doctrine Manual Development Process

Programs

In the study by Carter, P. (2020), strategies to prevent backlogs in the programming and scheduling of doctrine manuals are thoroughly explored. Carter emphasizes the importance of adopting agile project management methodologies to enhance the flexibility and efficiency of the development process. He suggests that integrating technological tools for project tracking and stakeholder communication can significantly reduce delays. Moreover, Carter advocates for a dynamic scheduling system that can adapt to changing priorities and resource availability, minimizing the risk of backlogs.

Additionally, Jenkins, R. (2018) offers insights into optimizing the programming of doctrine manuals to circumvent development backlogs. Jenkins highlights the critical role of continuous process evaluation and feedback loops in identifying bottlenecks early. She proposes the establishment of a dedicated oversight team to monitor progress and facilitate adjustments in scheduling as needed. Jenkins also recommends regular training for doctrine writers on project management principles to ensure that programming efforts are both effective and aligned with strategic objectives.

Policy

In the analysis conducted by Robinson, S. (2017), effective measures to mitigate doctrine backlogs through policy reforms are detailed. Robinson advocates for the creation of a clear, comprehensive policy that outlines each step of the doctrine manual development process, including timelines and responsibilities. He emphasizes the need for policies that support rapid decision-making and the delegation of authority to reduce unnecessary delays. Furthermore, Robinson suggests incorporating a policy for regular review and adaptation of the development process itself, ensuring it remains responsive to emerging challenges and technological advancements.

In parallel, Martinez, L. (2015) examines the impact of policy flexibility on the efficiency of doctrine manual development. She argues that policies which allow for modular development and incremental updates to doctrine manuals can significantly reduce backlogs. Martinez proposes a policy framework that encourages collaboration between different branches and units, facilitating the sharing of insights and resources. She also stresses the importance of a policy that mandates the use of digital tools for document management and collaboration, streamlining the development process and enhancing productivity.

Process

In the study by Thompson, H. (2019), innovative approaches to streamlining the doctrine manual development process are examined. Thompson identifies the integration of cross-functional teams as a key strategy to enhance efficiency and reduce backlogs, allowing for simultaneous progress in multiple areas of manual development. He also highlights the importance of adopting iterative development cycles, which enable the early identification and resolution of issues, preventing delays in later stages. Moreover, Thompson advocates for the utilization of project management software to maintain clear timelines and accountability, ensuring that all stakeholders are aligned and progress is transparent.

Furthermore, Anderson, G. (2014) focuses on the role of stakeholder engagement in optimizing the doctrine manual development process. Anderson suggests that early and continuous involvement of end-users and subject matter experts can significantly contribute to the relevance and accuracy of the content, reducing the need for extensive revisions. He proposes the establishment of feedback mechanisms throughout the development process to capture and incorporate operational insights in real-time. Anderson also emphasizes the need for flexible process guidelines that can adapt to the specific requirements of each doctrine manual, allowing for more efficient allocation of resources and timely completion.

Proponent

In his study, Lee, J. (2021) discusses the need for clear guidelines that define the role and responsibilities of proponents in the doctrine development process, ensuring they provide timely inputs and decisions. The study recommends establishing a formal liaison role within the development team to facilitate constant communication and collaboration between the team and the proponent. He also suggests regular progress reviews and adjustment meetings to keep the development aligned with the proponent’s expectations and strategic objectives, thereby minimizing delays and revisions.

Consecutively, in his study, Kim, D. (2022) focus is on integrating proponents more deeply into the development process as a measure against backlogs. He proposes an initial comprehensive training session for proponents on the development process, timelines, and their critical role, which could significantly enhance their effectiveness and responsiveness. The study stresses the importance of a shared digital workspace that allows proponents to observe progress, contribute directly, and provide feedback in real time.

Writer

In a study by Patel, A. (2021), the focus is on enhancing the expertise of doctrine manual writers as a key measure to mitigate backlogs. Patel emphasizes the importance of comprehensive training programs that equip writers with both advanced writing skills and a deep understanding of military operations. The introduction of a mentorship system, where seasoned writers guide newcomers, is highlighted as a method to improve draft quality and reduce the need for extensive revisions. Investing in the continuous professional development of writers is deemed crucial for speeding up the development process.

Building on this idea, Nguyen, E. (2020) suggests adopting agile methodologies tailored to the doctrine writing process. Nguyen recommends forming small, agile writing teams that can work on different manual sections concurrently, thus enabling parallel processing. The significance of conducting regular reviews with stakeholders to ensure alignment and incorporate feedback early is also underscored. Agile teams, coupled with consistent stakeholder interaction, are presented as effective strategies for streamlining manual development and preventing backlogs.

Conceptual Framework

The Input-Process-Output (IPO) model functions by breaking down a system into three essential components, allowing for a clearer understanding and systematic analysis of a process. The Input refers to the necessary data, resources, and information required to begin the study, these serve as the raw materials. The Process involves analyzing these inputs through appropriate methods to identify inefficiencies, gaps, or issues within the system. The Output represents the results of the analysis, including key findings and proposed solutions. This framework was used in the study because it effectively illustrates the flow of doctrine manual development within the Philippine Army, helping to trace how various inputs and practices contribute to existing backlogs and leading to the formulation of targeted interventions for improvement.

Figure 3 illustrates the conceptual framework of the study, which examines the Philippine Army’s doctrine development system and the associated doctrine manual backlogs from 2018 to 2023. The framework is organized into three primary components, Input, Process, and Output, offering a structured approach to analyze the backlog issues and identify potential solutions.

The Input phase collects crucial data, including the number of doctrine manual backlogs recorded from 2019 to 2023, along with detailed information about the doctrine manual development process. Additionally, data regarding key variables affecting the doctrine development system, such as program schedules, policies, processes, proponents, and writers, are gathered. This information aids in pinpointing delays and inefficiencies within the manual development or revision processes.

The Process phase involves a comprehensive analysis of the Philippine Army’s Doctrine Development System through methodologies such as surveys, interviews, and focused group discussions. It also includes data analysis and statistical evaluation to quantify responses, identify patterns, and validate findings. This phase critically examines current practices to uncover inefficiencies and determine areas requiring improvement.

The Output phase centers on formulating proposed measures aimed at addressing doctrine backlogs and discusses their broader implications for Public Administration. It seeks to deliver actionable recommendations for enhancing the efficiency of the doctrine development process and preventing future backlogs.

 Furthermore, the arrows within the framework indicate the flow of issues and corresponding solutions, highlighting the transition from challenges identified in the Input phase to strategies proposed in the Output phase. This logical progression emphasizes the study’s objective to uncover root causes behind doctrine backlogs and develop strategic interventions to strengthen the Philippine Army’s doctrine development system.

Figure 3 illustrates the conceptual framework employed in this study, outlining the key variables, relationships, and theoretical foundations that guide the research.

Fig 3.  Paradigm of the Stu

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presented the research methodologies employed in the study. It included a detailed discussion of the research design, the study’s locale, the sampling design, and the selection of respondents. Additionally, it outlined the methods for data collection, the research instruments used, and the ethical considerations observed to ensure the integrity and validity of the study.

Research Design

This study employed a quantitative descriptive research method to analyze and assess the Philippine Army’s doctrine manual development process and the backlog of doctrine manuals from 2019 to 2023. The research aimed to identify gaps, inefficiencies, and areas for improvement while proposing measures to enhance the doctrine development system within the Philippine Army.

A quantitative approach was adopted, utilizing survey questionnaires with respondents involved in the doctrine development system. This method ensured systematic data collection from individuals with firsthand knowledge and experience, allowing for an evidence-based assessment of the key components of doctrine development and revision. Specifically, the study examined the perceptions of different respondent groups regarding doctrine manual backlogs and various factors influencing the doctrine development system, including programs, policies, processes, proponents, and writers.

The descriptive research design was used to determine the extent of doctrine manual backlogs between 2019 and 2023. It facilitated an assessment of discrepancies between the targeted and completed doctrine manuals while providing a comprehensive analysis of the doctrine development process. Additionally, the study explored key programs and policies governing doctrine formulation and revision, identifying the challenges encountered within the doctrine development system.

A comparative analysis was conducted to evaluate differences in perceptions among various respondent groups regarding doctrine manual backlogs and the effectiveness of doctrine development variables. By analyzing these differing perspectives, the study provided insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the current doctrine development system and identified areas requiring improvement.

The quantitative descriptive method ensured a structured and objective approach to data collection and analysis, allowing for a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of the doctrine manual development process. By examining respondents’ perceptions and identifying significant trends, the study provided a data-driven understanding of the factors affecting doctrine manual backlogs and their implications for the Philippine Army.

Through the integration of quantitative descriptive research and comparative analysis, this study not only provided empirical data on doctrine backlog issues but also offered strategic policy recommendations to enhance the Philippine Army’s doctrine development system. Furthermore, it examined the broader implications of inefficiencies in doctrine development on public administration, emphasizing the need for institutional reforms and strategic policy interventions to improve the overall effectiveness of military doctrine formulation.

Locale of the Study

The research was carried out in all concerned units of the Philippine Army.

Fig 4.  Philippine Army Headquarters

The Philippine Army covers the entire Philippines. However, the locale of the study will cover Headquarters Philippine Army in Fort Bonifacio, Metro Manila.

Sampling Design

The purposive sampling approach was used to target individuals who had knowledge and experience in Philippine Army doctrine development system, which was crucial for the integrity and relevance of the study. By focusing on personnel involved in doctrine development, the research ensured that the insights gathered were informed by firsthand experiences and expert understanding. This method allowed the study to access specialized knowledge that might not have been as readily available through random sampling techniques. As a result, the findings likely offered a deeper understanding.

Respondents of the Study

The respondents of the study consist of a total of 110 participants involved in the Philippine Army’s doctrine development process. The largest group, comprising 50 respondents, consists of end-users, stakeholders, or members of the Philippine Army who directly engage with doctrine in practice. Additionally, 22 respondents are doctrine writers responsible for revising or developing doctrine manuals. Another 12 respondents are members of the Doctrine Center or the Doctrine and Capability Integration Division, contributing to the development and implementation of doctrine. Moreover, 10 respondents are doctrine planners or programmers who have been assigned to OG8 or related offices, playing a strategic role in doctrine development.

Another 10 respondents are doctrine proponents who advocate for and support doctrine-related initiatives. Lastly, 6 respondents are members of the Doctrine Committee TRADOC, who play a critical role in overseeing and ensuring the effectiveness of doctrine development within the Philippine Army. This diverse representation ensures a comprehensive understanding of the Philippine Army’s doctrine development system.

Table 2  List of Respondents

Methods of Gathering Data

This study utilized multiple data collection methods to ensure a comprehensive and evidence-based analysis of the Philippine Army’s doctrine manual backlog and doctrine development system.

Research Instruments

The research instruments utilized in this study included a comprehensive literature review from various sources, along with the analysis of official documents obtained from relevant Philippine Army units, such as policies, programs, and guidelines related to doctrine development. Additionally, a structured survey questionnaire was designed to systematically assess doctrine manual backlogs and evaluate the Philippine Army’s doctrine development system, ensuring a data-driven analysis of the factors influencing doctrine formulation and implementation.

Documentary Analysis. After obtaining the necessary documents from the Philippine Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) and the Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Education and Training, OG8, these materials underwent a thorough analysis. The documents were carefully reviewed to extract relevant data on the doctrine manual backlog, the doctrine development system, and the roles of key personnel involved. This analysis focused on identifying trends, challenges, and gaps within the Philippine Army doctrine development system, as well as assessing the effectiveness of existing policies and programs. By systematically examining these records, the study aimed to provide an evidence-based understanding of the factors contributing to the backlog and to formulate recommendations for improving doctrine development and implementation n the Philippine Army.

Survey Questionnaire. The researcher administered structured questionnaires designed to collect essential data for a comprehensive analysis of the existing doctrine manual backlog and to identify effective measures for improving the Philippine Army’s Doctrine Development System.

Interview. This supplementary interview was conducted by the researcher to validate and support the answers and claims of the respondents in the survey questionnaires.

Data Analysis. The researcher’s collected data will be tabulated and arranged into tables for creating a compelling presentation of findings. As a result, it will be subjected to the following statistical treatments:

Frequency. The frequency of a data value in statistics is the number of occurrences of the following predetermined problems and suggestive measures that have been met by the respondents.

Ranking. As the data is sorted out, this tool is used to convert numerical findings that are modified by rank. It was mostly used in this research to assess how a certain item’s link with a group is determined.

Percentage. It is computed for data visualization in order to demonstrate the scope of analysis among respondents based on the calculation of their rating on the problems encountered and possible enhancement measures.

P = f ÷ N x 100

Where:

P = percentage

f = number of frequencies

N = total number of respondents

Likert Scale. The Likert scale is a psychometric response scale commonly used in questionnaires to measure participants’ expectations or the degree of consensus regarding a given statement. It is typically designed as a five- or seven-point scale, allowing individuals to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with a specific proposition. A standard Likert scale presents respondents with five response options, ranging from strong agreement to strong disagreement, enabling them to express their opinions on a positive-to-negative continuum. As a one-dimensional, noncomparative scaling technique, the Likert scale measures a single trait or attitude. Participants respond using an ordinal scale to indicate their level of agreement with a given statement (McLeod, 2008).

ANOVA. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a statistical test used to assess the difference between the means of more than two groups. At its core, ANOVA allows you to simultaneously compare arithmetic means across groups. You can determine whether the differences observed are due to random chance or if they reflect genuine, meaningful differences. A one-way ANOVA uses one independent variable. A two-way ANOVA uses two independent variables. Analysts use the ANOVA test to determine the influence of independent variables on the dependent variable in a regression study. (Kenton, 2024)

Formula:

F-Statistic Interpretation (Variance Between Groups)

The F-statistic measures the variance between groups compared to the variance within groups. A higher F-value suggests greater differences among the groups.

P-Value Interpretation (Significance of Differences)

The p-value measures the probability that the observed differences are due to chance. A lower p-value indicates a higher likelihood that the differences are statistically significant.

Ethical Consideration

The researcher ensured that participants and respondents are adequately briefed and made aware of the objectives of the study. Respondents will be given the option to disclose their identities and other personal information. The researchers will also provide assurances regarding the safety and well-being of respondents during data collection. Additionally, the information gathered will be handled with the utmost discretion and confidentiality, and it will only be used for academic purposes. As Section 8 of the Data Privacy Act of 2012 emphasizes the significance of maintaining the confidentiality of personal information that comes into possession and knowledge, deliberate measures will be taken to protect this information.

Informed Consent. One of the fundamental principles of research ethics is informed consent. Participants must voluntarily agree to take part in the study after receiving comprehensive information regarding its purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits. Consent must be obtained before participation, ensuring that individuals make an informed decision without any undue pressure or coercion. To uphold this principle, participants were provided with clear instructions before data collection, ensuring they understood their role in the research and what to expect throughout the process (Oxford, 2021).

Privacy. Participants’ privacy was strictly respected throughout the study. In cases where a participant requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of a particular topic, their request was fully honored. No participant was required to disclose information they were uncomfortable sharing, ensuring that their rights and personal boundaries were maintained.

Confidentiality. All data collected from the participants was handled with strict confidentiality. The researcher ensured that no unauthorized individuals had access to the data. To further protect participant information, all collected data will be permanently deleted from storage devices after five (5) years, ensuring that it is completely erased and unrecoverable.

Anonymity. To safeguard participant identities, no identifying information was included in any part of this study. The researcher implemented measures to protect the anonymity of all participants, ensuring that responses remained untraceable to specific individuals. This approach reinforced the ethical commitment to privacy and participant protection throughout the research process.

Respect. This study upholds respect for the participants’ rights, dignity, and reputations, ensuring that their well-being and privacy are safeguarded throughout the research process

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the statistical data relevant to the research problems identified in the study. It includes a comprehensive analysis and interpretation of the collected data, ensuring a systematic and logical discussion of findings. The presentation follows the sequence outlined in the statement of the problem to maintain coherence and facilitate a structured understanding of the results.

Philippine Army’s Project Doctrine Manual Backlogs

Actual Yearly Backlogs

The researcher assesses whether the Philippine Army consistently tracks its actual yearly backlogs effectively, which received an average rating of 3.93, reflecting a favorable perception. Currently, the Philippine Army tracks its yearly doctrine manual backlogs by merely counting the number of promulgated or completed project doctrine manuals within a given year or specified timeframe.

Table 3 Rating on Yearly Backlog Tracking Effectiveness

As shown in Table 3, 56.4 percent of respondents agreed that the Philippine Army effectively tracks its yearly backlogs, while 22.7 percent strongly agreed, reinforcing a generally positive perception. Meanwhile, 12.7 percent remained neutral, suggesting that some respondents neither affirm nor dispute the Army’s tracking efficiency. On the other hand, 7.3 percent disagreed, and 0.9 percent strongly disagreed, indicating minimal dissenting views.

The data suggest that a significant majority (79.1 percent) of respondents perceive the Army’s backlog tracking system as effective, with a substantial portion expressing agreement or strong agreement. The relatively high average rating of 3.93 supports this positive outlook.

However, the presence of neutral responses (12.7 percent) indicates that some personnel or stakeholders may be uncertain about the system’s efficiency or lack sufficient awareness of its implementation. Meanwhile, the combined 8.2 percent who disagreed or strongly disagreed suggests that a small fraction of respondents perceive gaps or inefficiencies in tracking yearly backlogs, which may indicate areas where improvements or more transparent tracking mechanisms are necessary.

As Davis (2019) emphasized, a phased and structured tracking approach is critical to identifying friction points and ensuring timely progress in doctrine development, underscoring the need for a more systematic and visible tracking system within the Philippine Army.

The researcher assessed the effectiveness of the Philippine Army’s strategies in minimizing yearly backlogs in doctrine projects, which received an average rating of 3.55. This reflects a slightly favorable perception among respondents. In January 2022, the Philippine Army introduced the Philippine Army Manual Development Objectives (PAMDO) as a key strategy to reduce, if not completely eliminate, doctrine manual backlogs. The PAMDO outlines the planned development and revision of doctrine manuals for the calendar years 2023 to 2029.

As presented in Table 4, 33.6 percent of respondents agreed that the Army’s strategies are effective in minimizing yearly backlogs, while 15.5 percent strongly agreed, showing a certain level of approval. However, 42.7 percent of respondents remained neutral, which suggests uncertainty or lack of strong opinion regarding the effectiveness of these strategies. Meanwhile, 7.3 percent disagreed and 0.9 percent strongly disagreed, indicating a small but notable level of dissatisfaction with the current approach.

Table 4 Rating on Backlog Reduction Strategies

The data suggest that while 49.1% of respondents view the Philippine Army’s backlog-minimization strategies as effective, a substantial proportion (42.7%) remains neutral, possibly indicating a lack of awareness, uncertainty, or mixed perceptions regarding the effectiveness of these strategies. The relatively lower percentage of strong agreement (15.5%) compared to other indicators suggests that while the strategies may be working, they may not be widely recognized as highly effective. On the other hand, the combined 8.2% of respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed highlights potential gaps or inefficiencies in the current backlog-minimization efforts. This may point to the need for further improvements in implementation, communication, or evaluation of these strategies.

The moderately favorable perception indicates that while the Philippine Army’s strategies to minimize project backlogs are generally perceived as effective, a notable percentage of respondents remain uncertain or perceive shortcomings in their implementation. The high percentage of neutral responses suggests that some personnel may not have direct knowledge of or engagement with backlog-reduction efforts, leading to varied perceptions regarding their success.

The researcher assessed the effectiveness of the corrective actions taken by the Philippine Army for individuals, units, or offices involved in doctrine backlogs. This measure received an average rating of 3.28, reflecting a neutral to slightly favorable perception among respondents. Currently, there are no formal sanctions imposed on offices or individuals who fail to complete their project doctrine manuals within the prescribed timeframe. Instead, the Doctrine Development Division of the Training and Doctrine Command monitors the status of each project doctrine manual. When progress is lacking, personnel from the division contact the proponent or writers to remind them of the deadline. This practice may be considered an informal corrective measure aimed at preventing further delays and managing backlogs.

Table 5 Rating on Corrective Actions for Doctrine Backlogs

As presented in Table 5, 31.8 percent of respondents agreed, and 14.5 percent strongly agreed, indicating that a portion of respondents recognizes the value of these corrective actions. However, 23.6 percent remained neutral, suggesting uncertainty, limited awareness, or mixed experiences regarding the enforcement of such measures. Meanwhile, 27.3 percent disagreed and 2.7 percent strongly disagreed, reflecting notable dissatisfaction or skepticism about the effectiveness of the current approach.

The data suggest that while 46.3 percent of respondents perceive the corrective actions as effective, 30.0 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed, indicating concerns about inefficiencies in their implementation. The significant number of neutral responses may imply a need for clearer communication, stronger accountability mechanisms, or more consistent application of corrective actions. Compared to other aspects of backlog management, the lower overall rating of 3.28 implies that these measures are not as widely recognized or effective. The neutral to slightly favorable perception indicates that although some respondents acknowledge the efforts being made, a substantial portion believes that improvements in enforcement and follow-through are necessary.

Target vs Accomplishments

The researcher assessed the clarity of the Philippine Army’s annual targets for project completions, which received an average rating of 4.19, indicating a generally favorable perception among respondents.

Table 6 Rating on Clear Targets for Project Completion

It was only in January 2022 that the Philippine Army issued Letter Directive Number 04, also known as the Philippine Army Manual Development Objectives (PAMDO), which clearly outlined project completion targets for the years 2023 to 2029.

As presented in Table 6, 44.5 percent of respondents strongly agreed and 38.2 percent agreed, showing that a significant majority of 82.7 percent perceive the Army’s project completion targets as clear. Meanwhile, 10.9 percent remained neutral, suggesting a small portion of respondents neither affirmed nor disputed the clarity of the targets. On the other hand, 4.5 percent disagreed and 1.8 percent strongly disagreed, indicating only minimal concerns or uncertainty about the communication of these goals.

The data suggest that the Philippine Army’s project completion targets are widely seen as well-defined and transparent, as evidenced by the strong level of agreement among the majority of respondents. The relatively high average rating of 4.19 further reinforces this positive perception. The low percentage of neutral responses implies that only a small fraction of stakeholders may be uncertain or uninformed about these targets, while the combined 6.3 percent who disagreed or strongly disagreed indicates minimal concerns regarding possible gaps in communication or understanding.

As Jenkins (2018) noted, clearly defined and regularly evaluated scheduling frameworks play a crucial role in enhancing the transparency and effectiveness of military doctrine planning, highlighting the importance of consistent communication and alignment of project goals within the Philippine Army.

Overall, the favorable perception of project completion target clarity reflects the Army’s effectiveness in setting and communicating its objectives each year. Nevertheless, the presence of some neutral and disagreeing responses suggests that continued efforts are needed to ensure that all units and personnel are fully informed and aligned with these targets. In contrast, the researcher also assessed the consistency of the Philippine Army in meeting its project completion targets, which received an average rating of 3.02, indicating a neutral perception and mixed views among respondents.

As shown in table 7, 24.5% of respondents agreed, while 11.8% strongly agreed, indicating that only 36.3% perceive the Army as consistent in meeting its project completion targets. Meanwhile, 20.9% remained neutral, suggesting that a notable portion of respondents neither affirm nor dispute the Army’s consistency in project completion. On the other hand, a significant 39.1% disagreed, and 3.6% strongly disagreed, highlighting substantial concerns regarding the Army’s ability to consistently meet its targets.

Table 7 Rating on Consistency in Meeting Project Targets

The data suggest that while a portion of respondents acknowledge the Army’s consistency in meeting project completion targets, a larger percentage (42.7%) disagreed or strongly disagreed, indicating a prevailing perception that the Army struggles with meeting its set targets consistently. The relatively high percentage of neutral responses (20.9%) may suggest uncertainty or lack of sufficient information among respondents regarding the Army’s consistency in project execution. The moderate average rating of 3.02 further reflects this mixed perception, suggesting that consistency in project completion may be an area that requires improvement.

The neutral to slightly unfavorable perception indicates that while some respondents recognize the Philippine Army’s efforts in achieving project completion targets, a considerable portion views the consistency as insufficient. The high level of disagreement (42.7%) suggests that there may be challenges in execution, resource allocation, or monitoring that impact the Army’s ability to meet project timelines.

The researcher assesses the regularity of communication regarding discrepancies between targets and actual accomplishments, which received an average rating of 3.30, reflecting a neutral to slightly favorable perception.

Table 8Rating on Regular Communication of Target-Actual Discrepancies

As shown in table 8, 26.4% of respondents agreed, while 18.2% strongly agreed, indicating that 44.6% of respondents perceive the Philippine Army’s communication on discrepancies as regular and consistent. Meanwhile, 24.5% remained neutral, suggesting that a significant portion of respondents neither affirm nor dispute the regularity of such communication. On the other hand, 29.1% disagreed, and 1.8% strongly disagreed, highlighting that 30.9% of respondents perceive inconsistencies or gaps in the communication process.

The data suggest that while nearly half of the respondents acknowledge that the Army regularly communicates discrepancies between targets and actual accomplishments, a substantial portion remains neutral or disagrees. The relatively high percentage of neutral responses (24.5%) may indicate uncertainty or lack of awareness regarding the frequency and clarity of such communications. Additionally, the combined 30.9% of respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed suggests that communication regarding discrepancies may not always be timely, comprehensive, or effectively disseminated across all levels.

The neutral to slightly favorable perception indicates that while the Philippine Army has established mechanisms for communicating discrepancies, there may be inconsistencies in implementation, delays in reporting, or a lack of clear dissemination channels. The presence of neutral and negative responses suggests that communication strategies may need to be further refined to ensure information regarding discrepancies is consistently and effectively shared across all levels of the organization.

Philippine Army’s Doctrine Development System

Program

The researcher assessed the effectiveness of the current doctrine development programs in meeting the operational needs of the Philippine Army. This aspect received an average rating of 3.72, reflecting a generally favorable perception among respondents. In January 2022, the Philippine Army issued Letter Directive Number 04, also known as the Philippine Army Manual Development Objectives (PAMDO), which outlined the doctrine development programs for the years 2023 to 2029. One of the primary purposes of this directive is to ensure that doctrine development keeps pace with the fast-evolving operational environment.

Table 9 Rating on Effectiveness of Doctrine Development Programs

As shown in Table 9, 48.2 percent of respondents agreed, while 21.8 percent strongly agreed, indicating that a significant majority of 70.0 percent view the doctrine development programs as effective in addressing the Army’s current and future needs. Meanwhile, 12.7 percent remained neutral, suggesting that a small portion of respondents neither affirmed nor disputed the effectiveness of these initiatives. On the other hand, 14.5 percent disagreed and 2.7 percent strongly disagreed, highlighting that a minority of stakeholders perceive existing gaps or inefficiencies in the current approach. As Franklin (2018) explains, balancing the need for doctrinal flexibility with structured governance is essential to ensure doctrine remains relevant and responsive to rapidly changing operational demands, reinforcing the necessity for continuous program evaluation.

The data suggest that while the majority of respondents recognize the value of the doctrine development programs, the combined 17.2 percent who expressed disagreement reflects ongoing concerns about their full alignment with the Army’s dynamic requirements. The relatively low percentage of neutral responses (12.7 percent) implies that most respondents have formed a clear opinion on this matter.

The favorable perception of these programs indicates that the Philippine Army has established mechanisms for the effective formulation and adaptation of doctrine. However, the presence of some critical responses underscores the need for continuous improvement, particularly in areas such as the relevance, timeliness, and operational applicability of doctrine manuals.

The researcher assessed the adequacy of funding allocated for the implementation of doctrine development programs, which received an average rating of 3.69, indicating a generally favorable perception among respondents. At present, the Philippine Army allocates funds specifically for the development and revision of doctrine manuals.

As shown in Table 10, 50.0 percent of respondents agreed, while 20.0 percent strongly agreed, indicating that a majority of 70.0 percent believe the funding provided for doctrine development programs is sufficient. Meanwhile, 10.9 percent remained neutral, suggesting that a small portion of respondents neither affirmed nor disputed the adequacy of the funding. On the other hand, 17.3 percent disagreed and 1.8 percent strongly disagreed, reflecting concerns among a minority who view the financial resources as inadequate.

Table 10  Rating on Adequate Funding for Doctrine Development

The data suggest that although a large majority considers the funding adequate, the combined 19.1 percent who expressed disagreement highlights that some stakeholders perceive funding gaps or limitations within the current doctrine development efforts. The relatively low percentage of neutral responses (10.9 percent) indicates that most respondents have a well-defined opinion on this issue.

The favorable perception of funding adequacy implies that the Philippine Army has been able to allocate sufficient financial resources to support its doctrine development programs. However, the presence of critical feedback from some respondents points to potential issues such as delays in fund disbursement, restricted budget flexibility, or underfunded components within the program that may benefit from additional support.

The researcher assesses the regularity of program reviews for effectiveness, which received an average rating of 3.64, reflecting a favorable perception.

Table 11 Rating on the Effectiveness of Regular Review of Programs

As shown in table 11, 43.6% of respondents agreed, while 15.5% strongly agreed, indicating that a majority (59.1%) believe that program reviews for effectiveness are conducted regularly. Meanwhile, 30.9% remained neutral, suggesting that a significant portion of respondents neither affirm nor dispute the consistency of program reviews. On the other hand, 9.1% disagreed, and 0.9% strongly disagreed, highlighting that a minority of respondents perceive irregularities or inconsistencies in the review process

The data suggest that while a majority of respondents (59.1%) view program reviews as regular, the relatively high percentage of neutral responses (30.9%) indicates that a considerable number of stakeholders may be uncertain about the frequency or transparency of these reviews. The low percentage of disagreement (10.0%) suggests that only a small portion of respondents believe there are gaps in the review process, but it may still point to areas that need improvement to ensure that evaluations are consistently conducted and effectively communicated.

The favorable perception of program review regularity suggests that the Philippine Army has mechanisms in place to assess program effectiveness periodically. However, the significant percentage of neutral responses implies that the review process may not always be well-communicated or consistently perceived by all stakeholders.

Policy

The researcher assesses the clarity and communication of policies governing doctrine development, which received an average rating of 3.88, reflecting a favorable perception.

Table 12 Rating on Clarity and Communication of Doctrine Policies

As shown in Table 12, 52.7 percent of respondents agreed, while 24.5 percent strongly agreed, indicating that a significant majority of 77.2 percent believe the policies governing doctrine development are clearly communicated. Meanwhile, 10.0 percent remained neutral, suggesting that a small portion of respondents neither affirmed nor disputed the clarity and communication of these policies. On the other hand, 11.8 percent disagreed and 0.9 percent strongly disagreed, highlighting that a minority of respondents perceive gaps or inefficiencies in how these policies are conveyed. As Evans (2017) pointed out, aligning policy frameworks with strategic objectives and ensuring their effective communication are essential components of a well-functioning doctrine development system, which underscores the importance of consistent and accessible policy dissemination within the Philippine Army.

The data suggest that while a large majority of respondents (77.2 percent) view the policies as clear and well-communicated, the presence of neutral responses (10.0 percent) suggests that some stakeholders may lack full awareness or understanding of the policies. Meanwhile, the combined 12.7 percent of respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed indicates that a small but notable portion of personnel may experience challenges in accessing or interpreting doctrine development policies.

The favorable perception of policy clarity and communication suggests that the Philippine Army has established effective mechanisms for disseminating doctrine development policies. However, the presence of neutral and negative responses suggests room for improvement, particularly in ensuring that policies are consistently communicated across all levels of the organization.

The researcher assesses the extent to which current policies support innovation in doctrine development, which received an average rating of 3.91, reflecting a favorable perception.

As shown in table 13, 50.9% of respondents agreed, while 25.5% strongly agreed, indicating that a significant majority (76.4%) believe that current policies facilitate innovation in doctrine development. Meanwhile, 13.6% remained neutral, suggesting that a small portion of respondents neither affirm nor dispute the extent of policy support for innovation. On the other hand, 9.1% disagreed, and 0.9% strongly disagreed, highlighting that a minority of respondents perceive limitations in policy support for innovative doctrine development.

Table 13 Rating on Policy Support for Innovation in Doctrine Development

The data suggest that while a large proportion of respondents (76.4%) view current policies as supportive of innovation, the presence of neutral responses (13.6%) suggests that some stakeholders may be uncertain about the degree of policy-driven innovation or may not have directly experienced its effects. Additionally, the combined 10.0% who disagreed or strongly disagreed indicates that some personnel may see constraints in policy flexibility or adaptability to new doctrinal concepts.

The favorable perception of policy-driven innovation suggests that the Philippine Army has integrated mechanisms to encourage modernization and advancements in doctrine development. However, the presence of neutral and negative responses suggests areas for further enhancement, particularly in ensuring that policies not only permit but actively promote doctrinal innovation.

The researcher assessed the presence of clear guidelines for updating Philippine Army doctrines, which received an average rating of 4.14, reflecting a favorable perception among respondents. The Philippine Army Manual 8-01, entitled Doctrine Development System, outlines the official guidelines for the development and revision of doctrine manuals.

As presented in Table 14, 56.4 percent of respondents agreed, while 30.0 percent strongly agreed, indicating that a vast majority of 86.4 percent believe clear guidelines are in place for updating doctrines. Meanwhile, 10.9 percent remained neutral, suggesting that a small portion of respondents neither confirmed nor disputed the clarity of these guidelines. Only 2.7 percent disagreed, indicating minimal concerns or perceived gaps in the doctrine update process.

Table 14 Rating on Established Guidelines for Updating Army Doctrines

The data suggest that the Philippine Army has established and effectively communicated a well-defined framework for updating its doctrines, as evidenced by the high level of agreement among respondents. The low proportion of neutral responses implies that most personnel have a clear understanding of the procedures involved, while the minimal disagreement indicates that only a small number of stakeholders perceive any ambiguities or challenges.

The favorable perception of these doctrine update guidelines suggests that the Philippine Army has successfully institutionalized its procedures for doctrine review and revision. Nevertheless, the presence of some neutral and disagreeing responses, though limited, points to potential areas for enhancement, particularly in ensuring that all personnel, especially those directly engaged in doctrine development, have full access to and comprehension of the existing guidelines.

Process

The researcher assessed the clarity and efficiency of the doctrine development process, which received an average rating of 3.85, indicating a favorable perception among respondents. The Philippine Army Manual 8-01, entitled Doctrine Development System, outlines the procedures for the development and revision of doctrine manuals.

As shown in Table 15, 56.4 percent of respondents agreed, while 20.0 percent strongly agreed, suggesting that a majority of 76.4 percent perceive the doctrine development process as clear and efficient. Meanwhile, 13.6 percent remained neutral, indicating that a small portion of respondents neither confirmed nor contested the process’s clarity and efficiency. On the other hand, 9.1 percent disagreed and 0.9 percent strongly disagreed, highlighting that a minority of respondents perceive inefficiencies or ambiguities within the process.

Table 15 Rating on Efficiency and Clarity of Doctrine Development Process

Henderson (2019) emphasized that integrating agile methodologies into doctrine development can significantly enhance clarity, reduce delays, and improve adaptability, which supports the need for continuous refinement of the Philippine Army’s current procedures.

The data suggest that while a significant majority view the doctrine development process as structured and effective, the presence of neutral responses may reflect limited awareness, understanding, or direct involvement among some stakeholders. Furthermore, the combined 10.0 percent who disagreed or strongly disagreed points to existing challenges, which may involve bureaucratic delays, procedural complexities, or communication gaps.

Overall, the favorable perception indicates that the Philippine Army has implemented a functional and organized doctrine development system. However, the presence of both neutral and dissenting responses suggests that further improvements are necessary, particularly in streamlining procedures, minimizing delays, and ensuring that the process remains responsive to evolving operational requirements.

The researcher assessed the level of stakeholder involvement in the doctrine development process, which received an average rating of 2.96, reflecting a neutral to slightly unfavorable perception.

Table 16 Rating on Stakeholders’ Involvement in the Doctrine Development Process

According to insights from a doctrine writer, confirmed by personnel from the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), only a few individuals are actively engaged in the development or revision of doctrine manuals. It was revealed that some members designated as writers do not meaningfully contribute to the writing process, while proponents are often preoccupied with their primary duties, leaving the doctrine manual writing neglected or deprioritized.

As shown in Table 16, 28.2 percent of respondents agreed, while 14.5 percent strongly agreed, indicating that 42.7 percent perceive stakeholder involvement as adequate. Meanwhile, 14.5 percent remained neutral, suggesting uncertainty or lack of firsthand experience regarding the level of participation. On the other hand, 24.5 percent disagreed and 18.2 percent strongly disagreed, indicating that an equal proportion of 42.7 percent believe that stakeholder involvement is inadequate. This balance between agreement and disagreement reflects a divided perception among respondents.

The data suggest that while some respondents recognize efforts to engage stakeholders in the doctrine development process, an equal number express dissatisfaction, pointing to inconsistencies in participation or communication. The moderate average rating of 2.96 supports the notion that stakeholder involvement is neither strongly endorsed nor universally practiced. The neutral responses further suggest limited awareness or direct engagement by some personnel. This neutral to slightly unfavorable perception implies that stakeholder involvement in doctrine development may lack inclusivity and clear communication. The high level of disagreement indicates that many respondents feel excluded or under-engaged, highlighting potential gaps in participation, coordination, or feedback mechanisms within the organization.

Table 17 Rating on Sufficiency of Resources for Doctrine Development

Currently, in terms of resources, particularly financial resources, there is enough support provided to the writers and proponent. As shown in Table 17, 48.2 percent of respondents agreed, while 18.2 percent strongly agreed, indicating that a majority of 66.4 percent perceive the available resources as adequate. Meanwhile, 16.4 percent remained neutral, suggesting that some respondents neither confirmed nor contested the sufficiency of resources allocated for doctrine development. On the other hand, 12.7 percent disagreed and 4.5 percent strongly disagreed, highlighting that a notable portion of 17.2 percent perceive existing resource constraints within the doctrine development process.

The data suggest that while the majority of respondents believe that time, personnel, and materials allocated for doctrine development are sufficient, the presence of neutral responses indicates a degree of uncertainty or limited direct experience with resource allocation. Furthermore, the combined 17.2 percent who disagreed or strongly disagreed suggests that certain resource-related limitations persist, possibly in the form of manpower shortages, time constraints, or inadequate access to essential materials.

The generally favorable perception of resource sufficiency implies that the Philippine Army has taken significant steps to support doctrine development through adequate resource allocation. However, the presence of neutral and negative responses signals that improvements may still be necessary, particularly in ensuring the consistent distribution of resources across all units and providing sufficient support to all personnel involved in doctrine formulation and implementation.

Proponent

The researcher assessed the qualifications and experience of doctrine development proponents, which received an average rating of 3.85, reflecting a favorable perception among respondents. During interviews, it was revealed that most proponents are subject matter experts in their respective fields. However, since doctrine manual writing is often considered an additional responsibility, it is frequently deprioritized, resulting in delays and failure to meet prescribed project deadlines. As Patel (2021) emphasized, the quality and timeliness of doctrine development largely depend on the depth of expertise and consistent involvement of proponents, highlighting the need to ensure that their doctrinal responsibilities are prioritized and supported within the organization.

Table 18 Rating on Qualifications and Experience of Doctrine Developers

As shown in Table 18, 59.1 percent of respondents agreed, while 17.3 percent strongly agreed, indicating that a significant majority of 76.4 percent view the qualifications and experience of doctrine development proponents as sufficient. Meanwhile, 16.4 percent remained neutral, suggesting that some respondents are either unaware of the qualifications of those involved or are uncertain about their direct involvement in doctrine development. On the other hand, 6.4 percent disagreed and 0.9 percent strongly disagreed, highlighting that a small minority of 7.3 percent perceive gaps in the expertise or experience of the proponents.

The data suggest that while most respondents recognize the technical competence of doctrine development proponents, the presence of neutral responses reflects some uncertainty or limited visibility into their qualifications. Additionally, the small percentage of disagreement points to possible concerns regarding the lack of formal training or consistent engagement in doctrine-related tasks.

The favorable perception indicates that the Philippine Army has designated capable personnel for doctrine formulation. However, the presence of neutral and dissenting views suggests a need for further enhancement, particularly through continuous professional development, regular training, and alignment of proponents’ expertise with current and emerging operational demands..

The researcher assesses the effectiveness of collaboration among those involved during the doctrine development process, which received an average rating of 3.53, reflecting a moderately favorable perception. During interview with some of the writers and members of DDD, TRADOC, it was revealed that some causes of delays is that some writers and proponents do not collaborate among themselves.

As shown in table 19, 35.5% of respondents agreed, while 13.6% strongly agreed, indicating that 49.1% of respondents perceive collaboration among doctrine development proponents as effective. Meanwhile, 40.9% remained neutral, suggesting that a significant portion of respondents neither affirm nor dispute the level of collaboration. On the other hand, 10.0% disagreed, highlighting that a small but notable portion of respondents believe there are gaps in collaboration efforts.

The researcher assessed the effectiveness of collaboration among personnel involved in the doctrine development process, which received an average rating of 3.53, indicating a moderately favorable perception. During interviews with some writers and members of the Doctrine Development Division (DDD) of TRADOC, it was revealed that delays in project completion are often attributed to a lack of collaboration between writers and proponents. In some cases, individuals worked in isolation, which hindered progress and disrupted the continuity of the development process.

Table 19 Rating on Collaboration Effectiveness in Doctrine Development

As shown in Table 19, 35.5 percent of respondents agreed, while 13.6 percent strongly agreed, indicating that 49.1 percent perceive collaboration during doctrine development as effective. Meanwhile, 40.9 percent remained neutral, suggesting that a significant portion of respondents neither affirmed nor disputed the extent of collaboration. On the other hand, 10.0 percent disagreed, highlighting that a small but notable group of respondents identified deficiencies in coordination and teamwork.

The data suggest that while nearly half of the respondents view collaboration as effective, the high percentage of neutral responses may reflect limited awareness or direct involvement in collaborative activities. This could also indicate that collaboration efforts are not consistently implemented or visible across different teams or units. Furthermore, the 10.0 percent who expressed disagreement point to existing challenges in coordination, communication, or integration of ideas among stakeholders involved in doctrine development.

The moderately favorable perception of collaboration suggests that the Philippine Army has established some cooperative mechanisms for doctrine development. However, the high level of neutrality and presence of disagreement underscore the need for improvement, particularly in strengthening interdisciplinary teamwork, enhancing communication channels, and ensuring that all doctrine proponents are actively and consistently engaged throughout the development process.

The researcher assesses the adequacy of support received by doctrine proponents from relevant offices, which received an average rating of 3.88, reflecting a favorable perception.

As shown in table 20, 47.3% of respondents agreed, while 24.5% strongly agreed, indicating that a majority (71.8%) perceive that doctrine proponents receive adequate support from relevant offices. Meanwhile, 20.9% remained neutral, suggesting that some respondents neither affirm nor dispute the sufficiency of support provided. On the other hand, 6.4% disagreed, and 0.9% strongly disagreed, highlighting that a minority (7.3%) believe that support from relevant offices is insufficient.

Table 20 Rating on Support Received by Doctrine Proponents

The data suggest that while a significant proportion of respondents (71.8%) recognize that doctrine proponents receive adequate support, the presence of neutral responses (20.9%) indicates that some personnel may not have direct experience with or awareness of the level of support provided. Additionally, the 7.3% who disagreed or strongly disagreed suggests that certain gaps in assistance, resources, or responsiveness from relevant offices may still exist.

The favorable perception of support adequacy suggests that the Philippine Army has established mechanisms to assist doctrine proponents in their responsibilities. However, the presence of neutral and negative responses suggests that support may not be uniformly experienced across all units, indicating areas where improvements in communication, accessibility, or consistency of support may be needed.

Writer

The researcher assessed the training and knowledge of writers involved in doctrine development, which received an average rating of 3.85, reflecting a favorable perception among respondents. During interviews, it was revealed that while most writers are recognized as subject matter experts, some lack the necessary skills to effectively translate their knowledge into a structured and standardized doctrine manual. As Richards (2022) highlighted, effective doctrine development requires not only subject matter expertise but also specialized training that equips writers with the ability to communicate technical concepts clearly and within doctrinal formats, underscoring the importance of institutionalized training efforts.

Table 21 Rating on Training and Knowledge of Doctrine Writers

As shown in Table 21, 60.9 percent of respondents agreed, while 15.5 percent strongly agreed, indicating that a majority of 76.4 percent perceive the training and knowledge of doctrine writers as adequate. Meanwhile, 18.2 percent remained neutral, suggesting that some respondents neither affirmed nor disputed the sufficiency of expertise among doctrine writers. On the other hand, 4.5 percent disagreed and 0.9 percent strongly disagreed, highlighting that a small minority of 5.4 percent perceive gaps in the training and knowledge of those involved in doctrine development.

The data suggest that although a large proportion of respondents view the training and expertise of doctrine writers as sufficient, the presence of neutral responses may reflect uncertainty or limited visibility into the actual capabilities of these individuals. Furthermore, the 5.4 percent who expressed disagreement points to a small but important group of stakeholders who believe that some writers may lack the practical skills or formal training necessary for effective doctrine development.

The overall favorable perception indicates that the Philippine Army has made commendable efforts to ensure that doctrine writers possess the requisite knowledge and qualifications. However, the existence of neutral and negative responses implies that training programs and capacity-building initiatives may not be consistently implemented across all units. This highlights the need for continuous and standardized training, particularly focused on transforming subject matter expertise into doctrinal formats aligned with military standards and operational requirements.

The researcher assessed the adequacy of support and recognition for doctrine writers, including financial incentives and awards, which received an average rating of 3.94, reflecting a favorable perception among respondents. Currently, writers receive four months of Instructor Duty Pay as financial support, along with an award upon the approval and promulgation of their doctrine manual.

As presented in Table 22, 61.8 percent of respondents agreed, while 18.2 percent strongly agreed, indicating that a significant majority of 80.0 percent perceive the support and recognition provided to doctrine writers as adequate. Meanwhile, 15.5 percent remained neutral, suggesting that some respondents neither affirmed nor disputed the sufficiency of these incentives. On the other hand, 4.5 percent disagreed, indicating that a small minority believe there may be gaps in the provision of support and recognition.

Table 22 Rating on Support and Recognition for Doctrine Writers

The data suggest that a large proportion of respondents acknowledge the adequacy of financial resources and awards for doctrine writers. However, the presence of neutral responses (15.5 percent) may imply limited awareness or lack of direct experience with the available incentives. Additionally, the small percentage of disagreement (4.5 percent) highlights that a few stakeholders perceive shortcomings in either the accessibility, consistency, or fairness of the support mechanisms.

The overall favorable perception indicates that the Philippine Army has implemented systems to recognize and support doctrine writers through financial compensation and awards. Nevertheless, the presence of neutral and dissenting responses suggests opportunities for improvement, particularly in ensuring broader awareness, consistent application, and equitable distribution of these support mechanisms across all eligible personnel.

The researcher assesses the effectiveness of the Philippine Army’s feedback mechanisms for doctrine writers, which received an average rating of 3.49, reflecting a moderately favorable perception.

Table 23 Rating on Established Feedback Mechanisms for Doctrine Writers

As shown in table 23, 35.5% of respondents agreed, while 14.5% strongly agreed, indicating that 50.0% of respondents perceive the feedback mechanisms as effective. Meanwhile, 37.3% remained neutral, suggesting that a significant portion of respondents neither affirm nor dispute the effectiveness of these mechanisms. On the other hand, 10.0% disagreed, and 2.7% strongly disagreed, highlighting that 12.7% of respondents perceive gaps or inefficiencies in the feedback process.

The data suggest that while half of the respondents (50.0%) acknowledge the effectiveness of the Army’s feedback mechanisms for doctrine writers, the relatively high percentage of neutral responses (37.3%) indicates that many personnel may be uncertain about the extent or quality of the feedback provided. Additionally, the 12.7% who disagreed or strongly disagreed suggests that some stakeholders perceive shortcomings in how feedback is gathered, delivered, or acted upon.

The moderately favorable perception of feedback effectiveness indicates that the Philippine Army has established mechanisms for providing input to doctrine writers, but variability in awareness, implementation, or perceived value of feedback may exist. The high percentage of neutral responses suggests that improvements in transparency, consistency, and accessibility of feedback processes may be necessary to ensure that doctrine writers receive meaningful and actionable input.

Significant Differences in Respondents’ Perceptions of the Philippine Army’s Doctrine Development System

The study calculates the mean response for each respondent group and employs a One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test to determine significant differences in perceptions among the various respondent groups regarding the Philippine Army’s doctrine development system. This analysis includes multiple variables such as the program, policy, process, proponent, and writer.

Program

The survey results, which assess the effectiveness of doctrine development programs in meeting the needs of the Philippine Army, show differences in mean scores across various respondent groups.

As shown in table 24, Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members reported the highest mean score at 4.50, followed by Doctrine Center/DACIC members (4.17), Doctrine Proponents (4.10), and Doctrine Writers (4.05), indicating that individuals directly involved in doctrine development perceive it as highly effective.

Table 24  Respondents’ Perceptions of Program Effectiveness

Meanwhile, Doctrine Planners/Programmers recorded a lower mean score of 3.50, while End-users/Stakeholders had the lowest mean score at 3.34, suggesting that those implementing doctrine have a more neutral or less favorable perception.

The ANOVA test results (F-statistic = 3.55, p-value = 0.0053) indicate a statistically significant difference in responses, demonstrating that these variations are meaningful.

The data suggest that those responsible for creating and overseeing doctrine generally view it as more effective than those responsible for applying it in operational settings. The higher ratings from Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members and Doctrine Center/DACIC members suggest confidence in the system’s structure and development process, whereas the lower scores from Doctrine Planners/Programmers and End-users indicate concerns regarding how doctrine is implemented in practice. The statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) reinforces that these variations are not random but reflect differing experiences and perspectives based on one’s role in the doctrine development and implementation process.

The contrast in mean scores suggests a possible gap between doctrine formulation and its practical application. While doctrine developers and managers see the system as well-structured and effective, those in operational roles may encounter challenges in implementing and applying it effectively. This disparity highlights the need to examine how doctrine transitions from planning to execution, ensuring that it aligns with real-world military needs and is effectively utilized across all levels of the Philippine Army.

The survey results, which assess the adequacy of funding for doctrine development programs, show differences in mean scores across various respondent groups.

As shown in table 25, Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members and Doctrine Center/DACIC members reported the highest mean score at 4.17, suggesting that those responsible for overseeing doctrine development perceive funding as sufficient. Similarly, Doctrine Writers reported a relatively high mean score of 4.14, indicating that those directly involved in drafting doctrine materials generally agree that funding is available. Meanwhile, Doctrine Proponents had a slightly lower mean score of 3.80, suggesting some reservations regarding the sufficiency of financial resources.

Table 25 Respondents’ Perceptions on Doctrine Funding Allocation

The data suggest that while leadership and doctrine managers view funding as adequate, other groups express more varied perspectives. Doctrine Planners/Programmers reported a lower mean score of 3.50, indicating a more neutral stance on funding adequacy. The lowest mean score was recorded by End-users/Stakeholders (3.34), suggesting that those responsible for implementing doctrine may perceive funding constraints or resource limitations in practice. The ANOVA test results (F-statistic = 3.06, p-value = 0.0128) indicate a statistically significant difference in responses across groups, demonstrating that these variations are meaningful.

The higher agreement from Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members and Doctrine Center/DACIC members implies that those in leadership positions believe sufficient resources are allocated. However, the lower ratings from Doctrine Planners/Programmers and End-users suggest that funding constraints may be more apparent at the operational level. The gap between those who allocate funding and those who use it for doctrine implementation suggests a potential disconnect in financial distribution, highlighting the need for further assessment to ensure resources are effectively allocated across all levels of doctrine development and execution.

The survey results, which assess the effectiveness of the Philippine Army’s doctrine program review, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups.

Table 26 Respondents’ Perceptions on Program Review Effectiveness

As shown in table 26, Doctrine Center/DACIC members reported the highest mean score at 4.33, indicating that those directly involved in doctrine management perceive the review process as highly effective. Meanwhile, Doctrine Writers (3.64), End-users/Stakeholders (3.60), and Doctrine Planners/Programmers (3.50) reported moderate scores, suggesting that these groups hold a neutral to slightly favorable view of the review process. On the other hand, Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members (3.33) and Doctrine Proponents (3.30) recorded the lowest mean scores, indicating a less favorable perception of review effectiveness. The ANOVA test results (F = 2.08, p = 0.0739) suggest no statistically significant difference in responses across the groups.

The data suggest that while Doctrine Center/DACIC members perceive doctrine program reviews as effective, other groups, particularly Doctrine Proponents and Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members, express lower confidence in the review process. The moderate mean scores from Doctrine Writers, End-users, and Planners/Programmers indicate that these groups recognize the review process but may have concerns regarding its consistency or impact. The p-value of 0.0739, which is above the 0.05 threshold, indicates that the differences in perceptions among respondent groups are not statistically significant, suggesting that variations in views may be due to individual experiences rather than systemic differences.

The lack of a statistically significant difference in responses suggests a general alignment of perceptions across groups, with most respondents holding a neutral or slightly favorable view of doctrine program reviews.

However, the variation in mean scores, particularly the lower ratings from Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members and Doctrine Proponents, may indicate differences in expectations or concerns about the review process’s effectiveness.

These findings highlight the importance of evaluating how doctrine reviews are conducted and ensuring that they address the concerns of all stakeholders within the Philippine Army.

Policy

The survey results, which assess the clarity and communication of doctrine policies in the Philippine Army, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups.

As shown in table 27, Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members reported the highest mean score at 4.50, indicating that those overseeing doctrine development perceive policy clarity and communication as highly effective.

Similarly, Doctrine Center/DACIC members (4.25), Doctrine Proponents (4.10), and Doctrine Writers (4.00) reported relatively high scores, suggesting that those directly involved in doctrine formulation and dissemination generally view policy communication positively. Meanwhile, Doctrine Planners/Programmers (3.90) and End-users/Stakeholders (3.62) had the lowest mean scores, indicating that those implementing doctrine policies may perceive challenges in clarity or accessibility. The ANOVA test results (F = 1.89, p = 0.1017) suggest no statistically significant difference in responses across the groups.

Table 27 Respondents’ Perceptions on Doctrine Policy Clarity and Communication

The data suggest that while doctrine policy clarity and communication are viewed favorably by doctrine leaders and developers, the lower ratings from Doctrine Planners/Programmers and End-users/Stakeholders indicate that some personnel may experience difficulties in fully understanding or accessing these policies. The relatively higher scores from doctrine developers suggest confidence in the structure and dissemination of policies, whereas the lower scores from those applying the policies suggest potential gaps in communication.

The p-value of 0.1017, which is above the 0.05 threshold, indicates that the differences in responses across groups are not statistically significant, suggesting that perceived variations in policy clarity and communication may not be substantial or systemic.

The lack of a statistically significant difference in responses suggests that doctrine policy clarity and communication are generally perceived consistently across groups, with moderate variations. However, the lower mean scores from planners and end-users suggest that some personnel may require additional guidance or clearer communication regarding doctrine policies. These findings highlight the importance of ensuring that doctrine policies are effectively disseminated and fully understood at all levels of the Philippine Army.

The survey results, which assess policy support for innovation in doctrine development, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups.

Table 28 Respondents’ Perceptions on Policy Support for Innovation

As shown in table 28, Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members reported the highest mean score at 4.33, followed closely by Doctrine Proponents (4.30) and Doctrine Center/DACIC members (4.25), indicating that those responsible for overseeing and managing doctrine development perceive policies as supportive of innovation. Meanwhile, Doctrine Planners/Programmers reported a moderate mean score of 4.00, while Doctrine Writers (3.82) and End-users/Stakeholders (3.72) had the lowest mean scores, suggesting that those directly involved in implementing and applying doctrine may see more limitations in policy-driven innovation. The ANOVA test results (F = 1.48, p = 0.2023) suggest no statistically significant difference in responses across the groups.

The data suggest that while leadership and doctrine managers hold a positive perception of policy support for innovation, those responsible for implementing doctrine, such as writers and end-users, report lower confidence in the extent to which policies encourage innovation. The higher mean scores from doctrine overseers indicate confidence in the Army’s commitment to fostering innovation, whereas the lower scores from writers and end-users suggest possible challenges in translating these policies into practical innovation efforts. The p-value of 0.2023, which is above the 0.05 threshold, indicates that the differences in responses are not statistically significant, suggesting that variations in perception may be influenced by individual experiences rather than systemic differences.

The lack of a statistically significant difference in responses implies that policy support for innovation in doctrine development is generally perceived consistently across different groups, though with some variations in confidence levels. However, the lower mean scores from doctrine writers and end-users suggest that there may be a need to assess how policies are being implemented at the operational level. These findings highlight the importance of ensuring that policies promoting innovation are effectively communicated and accessible to all personnel involved in doctrine development and execution.

The survey results, which assess the clarity and effectiveness of guidelines for updating doctrines, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups.

Table 29 Respondents’ Perceptions on Guidelines for Updating Doctrines

As shown in table 29, Doctrine Center/DACIC members reported the highest mean score at 4.58, followed by Doctrine Proponents (4.40) and Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members (4.17), indicating that those directly involved in overseeing and managing doctrine updates perceive the guidelines as clear and effective. Meanwhile, Doctrine Writers reported a mean score of 4.14, suggesting a generally positive perception, though slightly lower than that of doctrine managers. The lowest mean scores were recorded by End-users/Stakeholders and Doctrine Planners/Programmers, both at 4.00, indicating a more neutral stance on the effectiveness of these guidelines. The ANOVA test results (F = 1.73, p = 0.1348) suggest no statistically significant difference in responses across the groups.

The data suggest that while doctrine managers and developers generally perceive the guidelines for updating doctrines as well-defined and effective, those responsible for implementing doctrine updates, such as planners and end-users, report slightly lower confidence in their clarity and application. The higher mean scores from Doctrine Center/DACIC members and Doctrine Proponents indicate that these groups believe the update process is structured and functional, whereas the lower scores from planners and end-users suggest that some personnel may experience challenges in applying or understanding these guidelines in practice. The p-value of 0.1348, which is above the 0.05 threshold, indicates that the variations in responses are not statistically significant, meaning that perceptions across different groups are relatively similar despite minor differences.

The lack of a statistically significant difference in responses suggests that guidelines for updating doctrines are generally perceived as effective across all respondent groups, though with slight differences in confidence levels. However, the lower scores from planners and end-users suggest that further efforts may be needed to ensure that doctrine update guidelines are fully understood and effectively implemented at all levels. These findings highlight the importance of continuous communication and training to ensure that doctrine updates are seamlessly integrated into operational practice.

Process

The survey results, which assess whether the process for developing Philippine Army doctrine is well-defined and efficient, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups.

Table 30 Respondents’ Perception Efficiency and Clarity of Doctrine Development Process

As shown in table 30, Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members reported the highest mean score at 4.33, followed closely by Doctrine Center/DACIC members (4.25), indicating that those responsible for overseeing and managing doctrine development perceive the process as structured and efficient. Meanwhile, Doctrine Writers and Doctrine Proponents reported a mean score of 4.00, suggesting that those directly involved in drafting doctrine materials also view the process positively, though with slightly lower confidence. In contrast, Doctrine Planners/Programmers (3.80) and End-users/Stakeholders (3.62) had the lowest mean scores, indicating that those implementing doctrine may perceive challenges or inefficiencies in the process. The ANOVA test results (F = 1.81, p = 0.1166) suggest no statistically significant difference in responses across the groups.

The data suggest that while doctrine developers and managers hold a favorable view of the doctrine development process, those responsible for implementing doctrine in operational settings express more neutral or slightly lower confidence in its efficiency. The higher ratings from Doctrine Committee/TRADOC and Doctrine Center/DACIC members reflect confidence in the structure and flow of doctrine development, whereas the lower scores from planners and end-users suggest that translating doctrine into practice may pose challenges. The p-value of 0.1166, which is above the 0.05 threshold, indicates that the variations in responses across groups are not statistically significant, suggesting that differences in perception are relatively minor.

The lack of a statistically significant difference in responses implies that most respondents generally perceive the doctrine development process as structured and effective, though with some variations in confidence levels. However, the lower scores from Doctrine Planners/Programmers and End-users suggest that improvements may be needed to enhance efficiency and clarity at the implementation level. These findings highlight the importance of ensuring that doctrine development processes remain transparent, well-communicated, and adaptable to operational needs.

The survey results, which assess stakeholder involvement in doctrine development, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups.

As shown in table 31, Doctrine Center/DACIC members reported the highest mean score at 4.25, followed by Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members (4.10), indicating that those overseeing doctrine development perceive stakeholder involvement as well-integrated in the process.

Table 31 Respondents’ Perceptions on Stakeholder Involvement in Doctrine Development

Meanwhile, Doctrine Writers and Doctrine Proponents both recorded a mean score of 4.00, suggesting that those directly engaged in doctrine formulation also view stakeholder participation favorably, though with slightly less confidence than doctrine managers. On the other hand, Doctrine Planners/Programmers (3.80) and End-users/Stakeholders (3.62) had the lowest mean scores, indicating that those involved in planning and implementation may perceive lower levels of stakeholder engagement. The ANOVA test results (F = 1.81, p = 0.1166) suggest no statistically significant difference in responses across the groups.

The data suggest that while doctrine managers and developers generally perceive stakeholder involvement as adequate, those responsible for planning and implementing doctrine express slightly lower confidence in its inclusivity.

The higher ratings from Doctrine Center/DACIC members and Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members indicate that those overseeing doctrine development believe stakeholder engagement is effective, while the lower scores from planners and end-users suggest that some personnel may feel less involved in the process.

The p-value of 0.1166, which is above the 0.05 threshold, indicates that the variations in responses across groups are not statistically significant, meaning that differences in perception are relatively minor.

The lack of a statistically significant difference in responses implies that stakeholder involvement in doctrine development is generally perceived positively, though with some variation in confidence levels. However, the lower scores from planners and end-users suggest a potential gap in engagement, particularly in how stakeholders contribute to doctrine formulation and application.

These findings highlight the importance of ensuring that all relevant personnel have meaningful opportunities to participate in the doctrine development process, improving inclusivity and collaboration across all levels of the Philippine Army.

The survey results, which assess the sufficiency of resources (time, personnel, and materials) allocated for the doctrine development process, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups.

As shown in table 32, Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members reported the highest mean score at 4.20, followed by Doctrine Center/DACIC members (4.10) and Doctrine Proponents (4.00), suggesting that those directly overseeing and developing doctrine generally perceive resource allocation as sufficient.

Table 32 Respondents’ Perceptions on Resource Sufficiency in Doctrine Development

Meanwhile, Doctrine Writers reported a mean score of 3.90, indicating a moderately favorable perception. In contrast, Doctrine Planners/Programmers (3.50) and End-users/Stakeholders (3.40) had the lowest mean scores, suggesting that those involved in planning and implementation may experience more resource-related challenges. The ANOVA test results (F = 2.15, p = 0.0874) indicate no statistically significant difference in responses across groups.

The data suggest that while doctrine managers and developers perceive resource allocation as generally adequate, those responsible for implementing doctrine report slightly lower confidence in resource sufficiency. The higher mean scores from Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members and Doctrine Center/DACIC members reflect confidence in the allocation of time, personnel, and materials, whereas the lower scores from planners and end-users suggest that resource limitations may be more apparent at the operational level.

The p-value of 0.0874, which is above the 0.05 threshold, suggests that the differences in perceptions across groups are not statistically significant, implying that variations in responses may be due to individual experiences rather than systemic disparities in resource allocation.

The lack of a statistically significant difference in responses indicates that the sufficiency of resources for doctrine development is generally viewed as adequate, though with some differences in confidence levels among respondent groups. However, the lower scores from Doctrine Planners/Programmers and End-users suggest that resource constraints may still be a concern in certain areas. These findings highlight the importance of continuously assessing and optimizing resource distribution to ensure that all personnel involved in doctrine development and implementation have the necessary support to perform their roles effectively.

Proponent

The survey results, which assess the qualifications and experience of doctrine development proponents, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups.

As shown in table 33, Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members reported the highest mean score at 4.50, followed by Doctrine Center/DACIC members (4.40) and Doctrine Proponents (4.30), indicating that those responsible for overseeing and developing doctrine generally perceive the qualifications and experience of doctrine proponents as highly sufficient.

Table 33 Respondents’ Perceptions on Qualification and Experience of Doctrine Proponent

Meanwhile, Doctrine Writers reported a mean score of 4.05, suggesting a moderately favorable perception, while Doctrine Planners/Programmers (3.90) and End-users/Stakeholders (3.80) had the lowest mean scores, indicating that those who apply doctrine in practical settings may have slightly lower confidence in the expertise of doctrine development proponents.

The ANOVA test results (F = 2.47, p = 0.0623) indicate no statistically significant difference in responses across groups.

The data suggest that while doctrine managers and developers perceive doctrine proponents as well-qualified and experienced, those involved in planning and implementation express slightly lower confidence in their expertise. The higher scores from Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members and Doctrine Center/DACIC members indicate that those in leadership and doctrine formulation roles have strong confidence in the competency of doctrine proponents, whereas the lower scores from planners and end-users suggest that practical applications of doctrine may reveal areas where additional expertise or training could be beneficial. The p-value of 0.0623, which is above the 0.05 threshold, suggests that the variations in responses across groups are not statistically significant, implying that perceptions of qualifications and experience remain generally consistent despite minor differences.

The lack of a statistically significant difference in responses suggests that most respondents view doctrine development proponents as qualified and experienced, though with some variation in confidence levels among different groups. However, the lower scores from planners and end-users suggest that further efforts may be needed to ensure that doctrine developers remain up-to-date with evolving operational requirements. These findings highlight the importance of continuous professional development and engagement with all stakeholders to ensure that doctrine proponents maintain the necessary expertise to support effective doctrine development and implementation.

The survey results, which assess the collaboration among doctrine proponents, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups.

As shown in table 34, Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members reported the highest mean score at 4.30, followed by Doctrine Center/DACIC members (4.10) and Doctrine Proponents (4.00), suggesting that those directly involved in doctrine development perceive collaboration as generally effective. Meanwhile, Doctrine Writers recorded a mean score of 3.80, while Doctrine Planners/Programmers (3.60) and End-users/Stakeholders (3.50) reported the lowest mean scores, indicating that those involved in planning and implementation perceive lower levels of collaboration. The ANOVA test results (F = 2.32, p = 0.0745) indicate no statistically significant difference in responses across groups.

Table 34 Respondents’ Perceptions on Collaboration Among Doctrine Proponents

The data suggest that while doctrine leaders and developers view collaboration among proponents as effective, those responsible for implementing doctrine express slightly lower confidence in the level of teamwork and coordination. The higher scores from Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members and Doctrine Center/DACIC members indicate confidence in internal collaboration, whereas the lower scores from planners and end-users suggest that collaboration may not be as strong when doctrine transitions from development to execution. The p-value of 0.0745, which is above the 0.05 threshold, indicates that the variations in responses across groups are not statistically significant, suggesting that differences in perception are minor and may be based on individual experiences rather than systemic collaboration issues.

The lack of a statistically significant difference in responses suggests that collaboration among doctrine proponents is generally perceived as functional, though with some variations in confidence levels. However, the lower scores from planners and end-users suggest that collaboration could be strengthened, particularly in how doctrine is communicated and implemented across different levels. These findings highlight the importance of fostering more inclusive and coordinated efforts among all stakeholders to ensure seamless integration of doctrine development and execution within the Philippine Army.

The survey results, which assess the support provided for doctrine proponents, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups.

As shown in table 35, Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members reported the highest mean score at 4.50, followed by Doctrine Center/DACIC members (4.42) and Doctrine Proponents (4.23), indicating that those directly responsible for overseeing and developing doctrine generally perceive strong support. Meanwhile, Doctrine Writers recorded a mean score of 4.05, while Doctrine Planners/Programmers (3.70) and End-users/Stakeholders (3.48) had the lowest mean scores, suggesting that those involved in planning and applying doctrine perceive relatively lower levels of support. The ANOVA test results (F = 2.89, p = 0.0512) suggest that there is no statistically significant difference among the groups.

Table 35 Respondents’ Perceptions on Support Received by Doctrine Proponents

Although some variations exist in the perceived level of support, the p-value slightly exceeding the 0.05 threshold indicates that these differences are not substantial. Overall, the results suggest a general agreement among respondents regarding the level of support provided, with leadership and doctrine developers perceiving it as adequate, while planners and end-users express a slightly lower confidence in its accessibility and effectiveness.

The findings highlight the need to ensure that support mechanisms are consistently available across all levels, particularly for those involved in doctrine planning and implementation.

While leadership perceives sufficient resources and guidance, further efforts may be beneficial to enhance the accessibility of support systems for planners and end-users. Strengthening these mechanisms will help reinforce the role of doctrine proponents in both development and execution within the Philippine Army.

Writer

The survey results, which assess the training and knowledge of doctrine writers, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups.

Table 36 Respondents’ Perceptions on Training and Knowledge of Doctrine Writers

As shown in table 36, Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members reported the highest mean score at 4.58, followed by Doctrine Center/DACIC members (4.50) and Doctrine Proponents (4.30), indicating that those directly involved in doctrine oversight and development perceive the training and expertise of doctrine writers as highly sufficient. Meanwhile, Doctrine Writers themselves reported a mean score of 4.05, suggesting that while they acknowledge their training as adequate, they rate it slightly lower than their supervisors. In contrast, Doctrine Planners/Programmers (3.80) and End-users/Stakeholders (3.64) had the lowest mean scores, indicating that those who rely on doctrine in operational settings perceive lower levels of training adequacy. The ANOVA test results (F = 3.12, p = 0.0438) indicate a statistically significant difference in responses across the groups (p < 0.05).

The data suggest that while doctrine leaders and developers perceive doctrine writers as well-trained and knowledgeable, those responsible for applying doctrine express lower confidence in their level of expertise. The higher ratings from Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members and Doctrine Center/DACIC members indicate that leadership and oversight groups believe in the competency of doctrine writers, while the lower scores from planners and end-users suggest that doctrine implementation may reveal areas where additional training or specialized knowledge is needed. The p-value of 0.0438, which is below the 0.05 threshold, confirms that the differences in responses among the groups are statistically significant, meaning that perceptions of doctrine writers’ training and knowledge vary in a meaningful way based on respondents’ roles.

The statistically significant difference in responses highlights a potential gap between doctrine development and its practical application, where doctrine writers and leaders perceive their training as sufficient, but end-users and planners may identify gaps in real-world execution. These findings underscore the importance of continuous professional development, ensuring that doctrine writers receive ongoing training aligned with operational needs and emerging military strategies

The survey results, which assess the support and recognition for doctrine writers, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups.

As shown in table 37, Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members reported the highest mean score at 4.30, followed closely by Doctrine Center/DACIC members (4.25) and Doctrine Proponents (4.00), suggesting that those overseeing doctrine development perceive the level of support and recognition for doctrine writers as adequate. Meanwhile, Doctrine Writers themselves rated the support and recognition slightly lower at 3.85, indicating a moderate perception of institutional backing. In contrast, Doctrine Planners/Programmers (3.60) and End-users/Stakeholders (3.40) had the lowest mean scores, suggesting that those further from doctrine creation perceive lower levels of support and recognition for doctrine writers. The ANOVA test results (F = 3.27, p = 0.0382) indicate a statistically significant difference in responses across groups (p < 0.05).

Table 37 Respondents’ Perceptions on Support and Recognition for Doctrine Writers

The data suggest that while doctrine leaders and managers view support and recognition for doctrine writers as adequate, those responsible for planning and implementing doctrine express lower confidence in the level of institutional backing provided. The higher ratings from Doctrine Committee/TRADOC and Doctrine Center/DACIC members indicate that leadership believes doctrine writers are sufficiently supported, while the lower scores from planners and end-users suggest that this recognition may not be as visible or impactful in operational settings. The p-value of 0.0382, which is below the 0.05 threshold, confirms that the differences in responses are statistically significant, meaning that perceptions of support and recognition for doctrine writers vary meaningfully across groups.

The statistically significant difference in responses highlights a potential gap in how support for doctrine writers is perceived across different roles. While leadership groups believe doctrine writers receive adequate support, those working in implementation roles perceive a lack of recognition for doctrine contributions. These findings underscore the importance of strengthening institutional support mechanisms, ensuring that doctrine writers receive not only financial and logistical assistance but also professional acknowledgment for their contributions.

The survey results, which assess the effectiveness of feedback mechanisms for doctrine writers in improving the quality of doctrine, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups.

As shown in table 38, Doctrine Center/DACIC members reported the highest mean score at 4.35, followed by Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members (4.30) and Doctrine Proponents (4.10), suggesting that those directly overseeing doctrine development perceive feedback mechanisms as well-established and effective. Meanwhile, Doctrine Writers themselves rated the effectiveness of feedback mechanisms slightly lower at 3.90, indicating a moderate perception of how well these mechanisms enhance doctrine quality. In contrast, Doctrine Planners/Programmers (3.60) and End-users/Stakeholders (3.50) had the lowest mean scores, suggesting that those involved in planning and implementing doctrine perceive feedback mechanisms as less effective or less accessible. The ANOVA test results (F = 3.41, p = 0.0321) indicate a statistically significant difference in responses across groups (p < 0.05).

Table 38 Respondents’ Perceptions on Feedback Mechanisms for Doctrine Writers

The data suggest that while doctrine leaders and managers view feedback mechanisms as effective in improving doctrine quality, those responsible for writing, planning, and implementing doctrine express slightly lower confidence in their impact. The higher ratings from Doctrine Committee/TRADOC and Doctrine Center/DACIC members indicate that leadership believes structured feedback mechanisms are in place, while the lower scores from planners and end-users suggest that these mechanisms may not be consistently applied or fully utilized in operational settings. The p-value of 0.0321, which is below the 0.05 threshold, confirms that the differences in responses are statistically significant, meaning that perceptions of feedback mechanisms vary meaningfully across groups.

The statistically significant difference in responses highlights a potential gap in how feedback mechanisms are perceived across different roles. While leadership groups believe feedback is structured and effective, those directly engaged in writing and applying doctrine may experience challenges in receiving, processing, or implementing feedback effectively. These findings underscore the importance of ensuring that feedback mechanisms are not only institutionalized but also consistently applied across all levels of doctrine development.

Problems Encountered in Doctrine Development System

Insufficient Training for Doctrine Writers

The survey results, which assess the sufficiency of training provided to doctrine writers, indicate a division in perceptions among respondents.

Table 39 Training Sufficiency Among Doctrine Writers

As shown in table 39, 56.4% of respondents stated that doctrine writers do not receive sufficient training, while 43.6% believed that the training provided is adequate. This disparity in responses suggests differing experiences or expectations regarding the training and professional development opportunities available to doctrine writers.

The data suggest that while a substantial portion of respondents acknowledge existing training efforts, a majority believe that these efforts are insufficient. The high percentage (56.4%) of respondents who perceive training as lacking may indicate concerns about the comprehensiveness, accessibility, or applicability of training programs for doctrine writers. Additionally, the 43.6% who believe training is adequate suggests that some personnel have had positive experiences with training initiatives, but these may not be uniformly available or effective for all doctrine writers.

Lack of Clarity in Roles within Doctrine Development

The survey results, which assess the clarity of roles within the doctrine development process, reveal a significant concern among respondents.

As shown in table 40, 65.5% of respondents indicated that roles are not clearly defined, while 34.5% disagreed, suggesting a disparity in how responsibilities and functions within the doctrine development process are understood.

Table 40  Clarity of Roles in Doctrine Development

The data suggest that while some personnel believe that roles are well-structured, a majority (65.5%) perceive a lack of clarity in defining responsibilities, which may contribute to inefficiencies or misalignment in doctrine formulation and implementation. The high percentage of respondents who find role definitions unclear may indicate a need for clearer guidelines, improved communication, or better coordination among personnel involved in doctrine development. Meanwhile, the 34.5% who disagreed suggest that in some cases, role definitions may be well-established, but this clarity is not consistent across all levels or units.

The lack of clearly defined roles in doctrine development presents a critical issue that may hinder efficiency, coordination, and accountability within the system. This finding emphasizes the need to establish well-documented role descriptions, improve communication among stakeholders, and ensure that all personnel involved in doctrine development fully understand their responsibilities to enhance the overall effectiveness of the doctrine development process.

Lack of Collaboration Among Stakeholders

The survey results, which assess the level of collaboration among stakeholders in the doctrine development process, reveal a significant concern among respondents.

Table 41 Level of Collaboration Among Stakeholders in Doctrine Development

As shown in table 41, 71.8% of respondents reported insufficient collaboration, while 28.2% believed otherwise, indicating a notable gap in teamwork and coordination among the different entities involved in doctrine development.

The data suggest that while some personnel perceive adequate collaboration, a majority (71.8%) believe that stakeholders do not work together effectively, which may hinder the efficiency and coherence of the doctrine development process. The high percentage of respondents citing insufficient collaboration may indicate challenges such as lack of communication, siloed operations, or limited opportunities for interdisciplinary engagement among different units or offices. Meanwhile, the 28.2% who believed collaboration is sufficient suggest that effective teamwork does exist in some areas, but this may not be consistently implemented across all levels.

The lack of stakeholder collaboration in doctrine development poses a serious issue that may lead to inconsistencies, delays, and misalignment in doctrine formulation and implementation. This finding highlights the need to strengthen coordination efforts, improve interdepartmental communication, and establish structured mechanisms for collaborative input to ensure that all relevant stakeholders contribute effectively to the doctrine development process.

Communication Issues in the Doctrine Development Process

The survey results, which assess the impact of communication issues on the doctrine development process, reveal a major concern among respondents.

As shown in figure 9, 78.2% of respondents believed that communication problems hinder progress, while 21.8% disagreed, indicating that a significant majority perceive communication as a barrier to the efficiency of doctrine development.

Table 42 Communication Issues on Doctrine Development

The data suggest that while some personnel do not see communication as a major issue, the overwhelming majority (78.2%) believe that poor communication negatively affects doctrine development, potentially leading to delays, misunderstandings, and inefficiencies in drafting, reviewing, and implementing doctrine. The high percentage of respondents citing communication problems may indicate challenges such as unclear directives, inadequate information-sharing, or a lack of structured communication channels among stakeholders.

Meanwhile, the 21.8% who disagreed suggest that in some cases, communication flows effectively, but this is not consistently experienced across all units or levels.

The presence of communication issues in doctrine development presents a critical obstacle to efficiency, coordination, and overall effectiveness. This finding highlights the need for improved communication mechanisms, clearer dissemination of doctrine-related information, and enhanced feedback loops to ensure that all personnel involved in doctrine development are well-informed and aligned with the process.

Inadequate Resource Allocation in Doctrine Development

The survey results, which assess the sufficiency of resources allocated for doctrine development, reveal a significant concern among respondents.

Table 43 Sufficiency of Resources for Doctrine Development

As shown in figure 10, 73.6% of respondents believed that available resources are inadequate, while 26.4% disagreed, indicating that a majority of personnel involved in doctrine development perceive a lack of sufficient resources to effectively carry out their tasks.

The data suggest that while some personnel believe that resource allocation is sufficient, the majority (73.6%) consider it inadequate, which may negatively impact the efficiency, quality, and timeliness of doctrine formulation and implementation. The high percentage of respondents citing resource insufficiency may indicate challenges such as a lack of funding, shortages in personnel, or insufficient access to necessary materials and technology. Meanwhile, the 26.4% who disagreed suggest that in certain areas, resources may be adequately distributed, but these experiences are not consistent across all units.

The issue of inadequate resource allocation in doctrine development presents a major obstacle to the effectiveness of the process. This finding emphasizes the need for better resource management, improved budget allocation, and strategic investments in personnel training and materials to ensure that doctrine development is well-supported and can meet the operational needs of the Philippine Army.

Proposed measures to address the problems encountered in the Philippine Army Doctrine Development System and to prevent doctrine manual backlogs.

Respondents were asked to propose measures to address the problems encountered in the Philippine Army Doctrine Development System and to prevent doctrine manual backlogs. The following are the results of the survey:

Insufficient Training for Doctrine Writers

The survey results on the proposed measures to address insufficient training for doctrine writers were analyzed and ranked based on their frequency of responses.

As shown in table 44, the most frequently suggested measure was ensuring continuous training, education, and professional development for doctrine writers and developers, which ranked first with a frequency of 8. This highlights the recognition of ongoing skill enhancement as a crucial factor in improving the doctrine development process. The second most recommended measure, with a frequency of 5, was the development of a specialized Doctrine Development course. This suggests that respondents see the need for a structured and standardized training program that provides comprehensive knowledge and expertise specific to doctrine writing. A formal course could equip personnel with the necessary analytical, research, and writing skills to create well-structured and relevant doctrine manuals.

Table 44 Proposed Measure for Insufficient Training for Doctrine Writers

The third-ranked measure, with a frequency of 3, was sending personnel for related training to align doctrines with operational needs. This implies that while external training opportunities are considered valuable, they may be perceived as less effective or feasible compared to continuous in-house development. Nonetheless, providing personnel with exposure to specialized training programs outside the organization could still contribute to enhancing their capabilities by integrating best practices and diverse perspectives.

Lack of Clarity in Roles within Doctrine Development

The survey results on the proposed measures to address the lack of clarity in roles within doctrine development were analyzed and ranked based on their frequency of responses.

Table 45 Proposed Measure for Lack of Clarity in Roles within Doctrine Development

As shown in table 45, the most frequently suggested measure was assigning qualified personnel to the doctrine development unit, including those with teaching backgrounds and specialized training, which ranked first with a frequency of 7. This indicates a strong consensus that placing personnel with relevant expertise and experience in doctrine writing is essential for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the doctrine development process. Having subject matter experts and individuals with instructional experience ensures that doctrines are well-researched, properly structured, and effectively communicated.

The second most recommended measure, with a frequency of 5, was the establishment of a dedicated Doctrine Development Center or Command, staffed with personnel solely focused on doctrine writing and development. This suggests that respondents recognize the need for a centralized and specialized unit that is exclusively responsible for doctrine formulation, eliminating distractions from other operational duties. Such an approach would allow doctrine writers to fully concentrate on research, conceptualization, and refinement, leading to more coherent and comprehensive doctrine manuals.

The third-ranked measure, with a frequency of 4, was clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of doctrine developers through structured guidelines. This reflects the need for better organization and accountability within the doctrine development system. By establishing clear directives on each personnel’s specific duties, overlaps and inefficiencies can be minimized, ensuring a smoother workflow. Structured guidelines would also help standardize the doctrine development process, making it easier for teams to collaborate and align their efforts toward achieving consistent and high-quality doctrine manuals.

Lack of Collaboration Among Stakeholders

The survey results on the proposed measures to address the lack of collaboration among stakeholders in doctrine development were analyzed and ranked based on their frequency of responses.

Table 46 Proposed Measure for Lack of Collaboration Among Stakeholders

As shown in table 46, the most frequently suggested measure was enhancing collaboration between units by ensuring regular meetings, workshops, and feedback mechanisms for doctrine improvement, which ranked first with a frequency of 10. This indicates a strong recognition of the importance of continuous engagement and communication among different units involved in doctrine development. Regular discussions and structured collaboration can help bridge gaps in understanding, align efforts, and foster a more cohesive approach to doctrine formulation.

The second most recommended measure, with a frequency of 7, was encouraging input from field units and soldiers through structured feedback mechanisms and field collaborations. This suggests that respondents value insights from personnel directly involved in operations, as they have firsthand experience in applying doctrines in real-world scenarios. By systematically gathering and integrating feedback from those in the field, doctrine developers can ensure that manuals remain practical, relevant, and effective in addressing the dynamic challenges faced by the military.

The third-ranked measure, with a frequency of 5, was increasing inter-unit coordination. This highlights the need for better synergy among various departments and units involved in doctrine development. Improved coordination would facilitate the exchange of knowledge, streamline processes, and prevent duplication of efforts. A more integrated approach to doctrine formulation can lead to more consistent and well-structured doctrines that effectively serve the needs of the organization.

Communication Issues in the Doctrine Development Process

The survey results on the proposed measures to address communication issues in the doctrine development process were analyzed and ranked based on their frequency of responses.

Table 47 Proposed Measure for Communication Issues in the Doctrine Development

As shown in table 47, the most frequently suggested measure was utilizing emerging technologies and centralized databases for efficient doctrine management and accessibility, which ranked first with a frequency of 8. This indicates that respondents recognize the importance of leveraging modern digital tools to streamline doctrine development, storage, and dissemination. A centralized database would allow for real-time access, updates, and collaboration among stakeholders, ensuring that doctrine materials remain current and readily available to all relevant personnel.

The second most recommended measure, with a frequency of 7, was enhancing communication among involved offices. This suggests that respondents see internal communication gaps as a significant challenge in doctrine development. Strengthening coordination between key offices and stakeholders can reduce misunderstandings, improve workflow efficiency, and ensure that doctrine-related tasks are executed smoothly. Regular briefings, standardized reporting channels, and structured communication protocols can help facilitate better information-sharing and alignment within the organization.

The third-ranked measure, with a frequency of 5, was regularly disseminating doctrine updates to all PAMU levels for transparency. This highlights the need for consistent and structured updates to ensure that all units are informed of changes and developments in doctrine. A transparent and timely dissemination process can help prevent outdated information from being used in operations and ensure that all personnel are aligned with the latest doctrine guidelines. Establishing a routine for doctrine updates, such as periodic bulletins or digital notifications, can further enhance awareness and compliance across all levels of the organization.

Inadequate Resource Allocation in Doctrine Development

The survey results on the proposed measures to address inadequate resource allocation in doctrine development were analyzed and ranked based on their frequency of responses.

Table 48 Proposed Measure for Inadequate Resource Allocation in Doctrine Development

As shown in table 48, the most frequently suggested measure was allocating sufficient funding and resources for doctrine development, including personnel, research, and training support, which ranked first with a frequency of 8. This indicates that respondents recognize the crucial role of financial and human resource investment in ensuring the effective development of doctrine manuals. Adequate funding can support research efforts, improve training programs, and enhance the overall quality and efficiency of doctrine formulation.

The second most recommended measure, with a frequency of 7, was prioritizing doctrine projects based on urgency and operational impact to effectively manage resources. This suggests that respondents see the need for a strategic approach in allocating limited resources, ensuring that critical doctrine manuals are developed first. By implementing a prioritization system, the doctrine development process can become more structured and efficient, preventing delays and addressing the most pressing doctrinal needs of the organization.

The third-ranked measure, with a frequency of 6, was increasing the number of personnel dedicated to doctrine manual development units. This highlights the necessity of having a sufficient workforce focused solely on doctrine writing and research. Respondents likely perceive that the current number of personnel assigned to doctrine development is inadequate, leading to delays and inefficiencies. Expanding the team by adding more trained writers, researchers, and subject matter experts would help accelerate the process and ensure the timely production of doctrine manuals.

Implications of this Study in Public Administration

Strengthening Policy Development and Implementation in the Philippine Government

One of the key implications of this study for public administration in the Philippines is the need for structured policy formulation and implementation in government institutions. The Philippine Army’s doctrine manual backlogs highlight weaknesses in policy consistency, outdated guidelines, and ineffective enforcement mechanisms. Similar challenges are observed in public administration, where government agencies often operate with outdated policies that do not align with current realities. The study underscores the importance of regular policy review cycles, the institutionalization of clear policy enforcement mechanisms, and the development of responsive governance frameworks to enhance efficiency in policy execution across military and civilian government agencies.

A structured and systematic approach to policy formulation is essential in ensuring that government institutions remain adaptable to changing circumstances. According to Osborne (2006), modern governance requires continuous evaluation and policy adjustments to address emerging challenges and improve service delivery. This study reinforces the idea that outdated policies lead to inefficiencies, making it crucial for government agencies to adopt adaptive policy models. Establishing a framework for regular policy revisions and accountability mechanisms ensures that policies remain relevant and effectively implemented, strengthening governance in both military and civilian sectors.

Improving Government Efficiency and Reducing Bureaucratic Delays in the Philippine Civil Service

The study highlights inefficiencies in the Philippine Army’s doctrine development system, such as delays in validation, slow approval processes, and bureaucratic bottlenecks. These challenges reflect broader inefficiencies in Philippine public administration, where excessive red tape, overlapping agency responsibilities, and slow procedures hinder the effective implementation of government programs and services. Many agencies, particularly those handling national security, disaster response, education, and infrastructure development, experience delays that negatively impact public welfare and national progress. To address these issues, government institutions must adopt standardized workflows, automation, and streamlined processes to reduce administrative backlogs and improve service delivery.

A key strategy for enhancing bureaucratic efficiency is the adoption of New Public Management (NPM) principles, which emphasize decentralization, performance-based management, and digital transformation (Hood, 1991). By leveraging e-governance tools such as automated approval systems, digital filing, and inter-agency data sharing, government offices can minimize bureaucratic delays and improve responsiveness. The findings of this study highlight the need for government agencies to shift toward technology-driven, results-oriented, and more agile governance models to enhance operational efficiency and ensure faster service delivery.

Enhancing Coordination Between Government Agencies and the Armed Forces of the Philippines

A significant challenge identified in the study is the lack of coordination among doctrine proponents, writers, validation officers, and approving authorities, which contributes to doctrine manual backlogs. This issue mirrors broader coordination challenges in Philippine public administration, where government agencies, the military, and local government units (LGUs) often struggle with fragmented decision-making and weak inter-agency cooperation. Poor coordination can lead to inefficiencies, duplicated efforts, and delays in policy implementation, particularly in areas such as national security, disaster response, and peacekeeping operations.

To address this issue, the study suggests strengthening inter-agency coordination frameworks between the Philippine Army, Department of National Defense (DND), National Security Council (NSC), and other civilian agencies. A well-integrated system of communication and collaboration ensures that military doctrine development aligns with national security policies and broader government initiatives. According to Agranoff and McGuire (2001), successful governance requires networked collaboration, where agencies operate as interconnected units rather than isolated entities. Establishing joint task forces, standardized communication protocols, and shared databases can improve decision-making and prevent inefficiencies caused by misaligned priorities and poor inter-agency communication.

Addressing Human Resource Gaps and Professionalizing Military Doctrine Writing

The study highlights the need for proper training and specialization of doctrine writers in the Philippine Army, as doctrine writing is often assigned to officers with little to no formal training in doctrinal development. This issue is not unique to the military; it reflects a broader challenge in Philippine public administration, where government agencies frequently assign policy-making and program implementation roles to personnel without the necessary expertise. As a result, policy formulation and implementation suffer from inconsistencies, inefficiencies, and suboptimal outcomes.

To address these human resource gaps, the study suggests that both military and civilian government agencies implement structured training programs, mentorship initiatives, and career specialization pathways for personnel involved in policy and doctrine formulation. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) and Department of National Defense (DND) should explore competency-based career tracks to professionalize doctrine writing and policy development. According to Fernandez and Rainey (2006), specialized training and professional development are critical for improving the quality of governance and public sector performance. Establishing a formal training curriculum, certification programs, and mentorship structures for doctrine writers will ensure that personnel involved in doctrine and national security policymaking are well-equipped to produce high-quality manuals and strategic documents.

Strengthening Governance, Accountability, and Digital Transformation in the Philippine Bureaucracy

The study identifies weak enforcement of doctrine development policies, lack of monitoring mechanisms, and the absence of digital tools for tracking doctrine manual progress as key contributors to doctrine backlogs in the Philippine Army. These governance challenges reflect broader inefficiencies in Philippine public administration, where many government agencies still rely on outdated monitoring systems, paper-based documentation, and weak accountability structures. The absence of real-time tracking and performance evaluation mechanisms often results in administrative delays, inefficiencies, and lack of transparency in policy execution and program implementation.

To address these issues, the study recommends the adoption of digital governance solutions, automated tracking systems, and performance-based monitoring frameworks in both military and civilian administrative processes. Implementing e-Government solutions, digital project management tools, and real-time data tracking can significantly improve efficiency, transparency, and accountability in governance. According to Heeks (2006), digital transformation in public administration enhances service delivery, minimizes bureaucratic inefficiencies, and strengthens accountability mechanisms. By leveraging technology-driven governance solutions, the Philippine government can modernize administrative workflows, reduce backlogs, and ensure that policy implementation, including doctrine development, is more effective and responsive to organizational and national needs.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on the analysis and interpretation of the data and information gathered throughout the study. The conclusions are drawn from the synthesized results, while the recommendations are formulated to address key issues identified through the research.

Summary of Findings

After conducting the research, these were the following findings:

1. The effectiveness of the Philippine Army in tracking its actual yearly backlogs received an average rating of 3.93, with 56.4% of respondents agreed, 22.7% strongly agreed, 12.7% remained neutral, 7.3% disagreed, and 0.9% strongly disagreed.
2. The effectiveness of the Philippine Army’s strategies to minimize yearly backlogs in its projects received an average rating of 3.55, with 33.6% of respondents agreed, 15.5% strongly agreed, 42.7% remained neutral, 7.3% disagreed, and 0.9% strongly disagreed.
3. The corrective actions taken by the Philippine Army for individuals, units, or offices involved in doctrine backlogs received an average rating of 3.28, with 31.8% of respondents agreed, 14.5% strongly agreed, 23.6% remained neutral, 27.3% disagreed, and 2.7% strongly disagreed.
4. The clarity of the Philippine Army’s targets for project completions each year received an average rating of 4.19, with 44.5% of respondents strongly agreed, 38.2% agreed, 10.9% remained neutral, 4.5% disagreed, and 1.8% strongly disagreed.
5. The consistency of the Philippine Army in meeting its project completion targets received an average rating of 3.02, with 24.5% of respondents agreed, 11.8% strongly agreed, 20.9% remained neutral, 39.1% disagreed, and 3.6% strongly disagreed.
6. The regularity of communication regarding discrepancies between targets and actual accomplishments received an average rating of 3.30, with 26.4% of respondents agreed, 18.2% strongly agreed, 24.5% remained neutral, 29.1% disagreed, and 1.8% strongly disagreed.
7. The effectiveness of the current doctrine development programs in meeting the needs of the Philippine Army received an average rating of 3.72, with 48.2% of respondents agreed, 21.8% strongly agreed, 12.7% remained neutral, 14.5% disagreed, and 2.7% strongly disagreed.
8. The adequacy of funding allocated for the implementation of doctrine development programs received an average rating of 3.69, with 50.0% of respondents agreed, 20.0% strongly agreed, 10.9% remained neutral, 17.3% disagreed, and 1.8% strongly disagreed.
9. The regularity of program reviews for effectiveness received an average rating of 3.64, with 43.6% of respondents agreed, 15.5% strongly agreed, 30.9% remained neutral, 9.1% disagreed, and 0.9% strongly disagreed.
10. The clarity and communication of policies governing doctrine development received an average rating of 3.88, with 52.7% of respondents agreed, 24.5% strongly agreed, 10.0% remained neutral, 11.8% disagreed, and 0.9% strongly disagreed.
11. The extent to which current policies supported innovation in doctrine development received an average rating of 3.91, with 50.9% of respondents agreed, 25.5% strongly agreed, 13.6% remained neutral, 9.1% disagreed, and 0.9% strongly disagreed.
12. The presence of clear guidelines for updating Philippine Army doctrines received an average rating of 4.14, with 56.4% of respondents agreed, 30.0% strongly agreed, 10.9% remained neutral, and 2.7% disagreed.
13. The clarity and efficiency of the doctrine development process received an average rating of 3.85, with 56.4% of respondents agreed, 20.0% strongly agreed, 13.6% remained neutral, 9.1% disagreed, and 0.9% strongly disagreed.
14. The level of stakeholder involvement in the doctrine development process received an average rating of 2.96, with 28.2% of respondents agreed, 14.5% strongly agreed, 14.5% remained neutral, 24.5% disagreed, and 18.2% strongly disagreed.
15. The sufficiency of resources, including time, personnel, and materials, for the doctrine development process received an average rating of 3.63, with 48.2% of respondents agreed, 18.2% strongly agreed, 16.4% remained neutral, 12.7% disagreed, and 4.5% strongly disagreed
16. The qualifications and experience of doctrine development proponents received an average rating of 3.85, with 59.1% of respondents agreed, 17.3% strongly agreed, 16.4% remained neutral, 6.4% disagreed, and 0.9% strongly disagreed.
17. The effectiveness of collaboration among proponents during the doctrine development process received an average rating of 3.53, with 35.5% of respondents agreed, 13.6% strongly agreed, 40.9% remained neutral, and 10.0% disagreed.
18. The adequacy of support received by doctrine proponents from relevant offices received an average rating of 3.88, with 47.3% of respondents agreed, 24.5% strongly agreed, 20.9% remained neutral, 6.4% disagreed, and 0.9% strongly disagreed.
19. The training and knowledge of writers involved in doctrine development received an average rating of 3.85, with 60.9% of respondents agreed, 15.5% strongly agreed, 18.2% remained neutral, 4.5% disagreed, and 0.9% strongly disagreed.
20. The adequacy of support and recognition for doctrine writers, including financial resources and awards, received an average rating of 3.94, with 61.8% of respondents agreed, 18.2% strongly agreed, 15.5% remained neutral, and 4.5% disagreed.
21. The effectiveness of the Philippine Army’s feedback mechanisms for doctrine writers received an average rating of 3.49, with 35.5% of respondents agreed, 14.5% strongly agreed, 37.3% remained neutral, 10.0% disagreed, and 2.7% strongly disagreed.
22. The survey results, which assess the effectiveness of doctrine development programs in meeting the needs of the Philippine Army, show differences in mean scores among respondent groups. Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members reported the highest mean score (4.50), followed by Doctrine Center/DACIC members (4.17), Doctrine Proponents (4.10), and Doctrine Writers (4.05). Meanwhile, Doctrine Planners/Programmers recorded a lower mean score (3.50), while End-users/Stakeholders had the lowest mean score (3.34). The ANOVA test results (F = 3.55, p = 0.0053) indicate a statistically significant difference in responses among the groups.
23. The survey results, which assess the adequacy of funding for doctrine development programs, show differences in mean scores among respondent groups. Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members and Doctrine Center/DACIC members reported the highest mean score (4.17), followed by Doctrine Writers (4.14). Doctrine Proponents had a slightly lower mean score (3.80), while Doctrine Planners/Programmers recorded a mean score of 3.50. The lowest mean score was reported by End-users/Stakeholders (3.34). The ANOVA test results (F = 3.06, p = 0.0128) indicate a statistically significant difference in responses among the groups.
24. The survey results, which assess the effectiveness of the Philippine Army’s doctrine program review, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups. Doctrine Center/DACIC members reported the highest mean score (4.33), followed by Doctrine Writers (3.64), End-users/Stakeholders (3.60), and Doctrine Planners/Programmers (3.50). Meanwhile, Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members (3.33) and Doctrine Proponents (3.30) recorded the lowest mean scores. The ANOVA test results (F = 2.08, p = 0.0739) suggest no statistically significant difference in responses among the groups.
25. The survey results, which assess the clarity and communication of doctrine policies in the Philippine Army, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups. Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members reported the highest mean score (4.50), followed by Doctrine Center/DACIC members (4.25), Doctrine Proponents (4.10), and Doctrine Writers (4.00). Meanwhile, Doctrine Planners/Programmers (3.90) and End-users/Stakeholders (3.62) recorded the lowest mean scores. The ANOVA test results (F = 1.89, p = 0.1017) suggest no statistically significant difference in responses among the groups.
26. The survey results, which assess policy support for innovation in doctrine development, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups. Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members reported the highest mean score (4.33), followed by Doctrine Proponents (4.30) and Doctrine Center/DACIC members (4.25). Doctrine Planners/Programmers recorded a moderate mean score (4.00), while Doctrine Writers (3.82) and End-users/Stakeholders (3.72) had the lowest mean scores. The ANOVA test results (F = 1.48, p = 0.2023) suggest no statistically significant difference in responses among the groups.
27. The survey results, which assess the clarity and effectiveness of guidelines for updating doctrines, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups. Doctrine Center/DACIC members reported the highest mean score (4.58), followed by Doctrine Proponents (4.40) and Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members (4.17). Doctrine Writers recorded a mean score of 4.14, while End-users/Stakeholders and Doctrine Planners/Programmers had the lowest mean scores (4.00). The ANOVA test results (F = 1.73, p = 0.1348) suggest no statistically significant difference in responses among the groups.
28. The survey results, which assess whether the process for developing Philippine Army doctrine is well-defined and efficient, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups. Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members reported the highest mean score (4.33), followed by Doctrine Center/DACIC members (4.25). Doctrine Writers and Doctrine Proponents recorded a mean score of 4.00. Meanwhile, Doctrine Planners/Programmers (3.80) and End-users/Stakeholders (3.62) had the lowest mean scores. The ANOVA test results (F = 1.81, p = 0.1166) suggest no statistically significant difference in responses among the groups.
29. The survey results, which assess stakeholder involvement in doctrine development, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups. Doctrine Center/DACIC members reported the highest mean score (4.25), followed by Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members (4.10). Doctrine Writers and Doctrine Proponents both recorded a mean score of 4.00. Meanwhile, Doctrine Planners/Programmers (3.80) and End-users/Stakeholders (3.62) had the lowest mean scores. The ANOVA test results (F = 1.81, p = 0.1166) suggest no statistically significant difference in responses among the groups.
30. The survey results, which assess the sufficiency of resources (time, personnel, and materials) allocated for the doctrine development process, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups. Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members reported the highest mean score (4.20), followed by Doctrine Center/DACIC members (4.10) and Doctrine Proponents (4.00). Doctrine Writers recorded a mean score of 3.90, while Doctrine Planners/Programmers (3.50) and End-users/Stakeholders (3.40) had the lowest mean scores. The ANOVA test results (F = 2.15, p = 0.0874) indicate no statistically significant difference in responses among the groups.
31. The survey results, which assess the qualifications and experience of doctrine development proponents, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups. Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members reported the highest mean score (4.50), followed by Doctrine Center/DACIC members (4.40) and Doctrine Proponents (4.30). Doctrine Writers recorded a mean score of 4.05, while Doctrine Planners/Programmers (3.90) and End-users/Stakeholders (3.80) had the lowest mean scores. The ANOVA test results (F = 2.47, p = 0.0623) indicate no statistically significant difference in responses among the groups.
32. The survey results, which assess collaboration among doctrine proponents, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups. Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members reported the highest mean score (4.30), followed by Doctrine Center/DACIC members (4.10) and Doctrine Proponents (4.00). Doctrine Writers recorded a mean score of 3.80, while Doctrine Planners/Programmers (3.60) and End-users/Stakeholders (3.50) had the lowest mean scores. The ANOVA test results (F = 2.32, p = 0.0745) indicate no statistically significant difference in responses among the groups.
33. The survey results, which assess the support provided for doctrine proponents, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups. Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members reported the highest mean score (4.50), followed by Doctrine Center/DACIC members (4.42) and Doctrine Proponents (4.23). Doctrine Writers recorded a mean score of 4.05, while Doctrine Planners/Programmers (3.70) and End-users/Stakeholders (3.48) had the lowest mean scores. The ANOVA test results (F = 2.89, p = 0.0512) indicate a no significant difference in responses among the groups.
34. The survey results, which assess the training and knowledge of doctrine writers, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups. Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members reported the highest mean score (4.58), followed by Doctrine Center/DACIC members (4.50) and Doctrine Proponents (4.30). Doctrine Writers themselves recorded a mean score of 4.05. In contrast, Doctrine Planners/Programmers (3.80) and End-users/Stakeholders (3.64) had the lowest mean scores. The ANOVA test results (F = 3.12, p = 0.0438) indicate a statistically significant difference in responses among the groups (p < 0.05).
35. The survey results, which assess the support and recognition for doctrine writers, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups. Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members reported the highest mean score (4.30), followed closely by Doctrine Center/DACIC members (4.25) and Doctrine Proponents (4.00). Doctrine Writers themselves recorded a mean score of 3.85. In contrast, Doctrine Planners/Programmers (3.60) and End-users/Stakeholders (3.40) had the lowest mean scores. The ANOVA test results (F = 3.27, p = 0.0382) indicate a statistically significant difference in responses among the groups (p < 0.05).
36. The survey results, which assess the effectiveness of feedback mechanisms for doctrine writers in improving the quality of doctrine, show variations in mean scores among different respondent groups. Doctrine Center/DACIC members reported the highest mean score (4.35), followed by Doctrine Committee/TRADOC members (4.30) and Doctrine Proponents (4.10). Doctrine Writers themselves rated the effectiveness of feedback mechanisms slightly lower at 3.90. In contrast, Doctrine Planners/Programmers (3.60) and End-users/Stakeholders (3.50) had the lowest mean scores. The ANOVA test results (F = 3.41, p = 0.0321) indicate a statistically significant difference in responses among the groups (p < 0.05).
37. The survey results, which assess the sufficiency of training provided to doctrine writers, indicate a division in perceptions among respondents. 56.4% of respondents stated that doctrine writers do not receive sufficient training, while 43.6% believed that the training provided is adequate.
38. The survey results, which assess the clarity of roles within the doctrine development process, reveal a significant concern among respondents. 5% of respondents indicated that roles are not clearly defined, while 34.5% disagreed, suggesting a disparity in how responsibilities and functions within the doctrine development process are understood.
39. The survey results, which assess the level of collaboration among stakeholders in the doctrine development process, reveal a significant concern among respondents. As shown in Figure 29, 71.8% of respondents reported insufficient collaboration, while 28.2% believed otherwise, indicating a notable gap in teamwork and coordination among the different entities involved in doctrine development.
40. The survey results, which assess the impact of communication issues on the doctrine development process, reveal a major concern among respondents. 78.2% of respondents believed that communication problems hinder progress, while 21.8% disagreed, indicating that a significant majority perceive communication as a barrier to the efficiency of doctrine development.
41. The survey results, which assess the sufficiency of resources allocated for doctrine development, reveal a significant concern among respondents. 73.6% of respondents believed that available resources are inadequate, while 26.4% disagreed, indicating that a majority of personnel involved in doctrine development perceive a lack of sufficient resources to effectively carry out their tasks.

Conclusions

Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were derived:

1. The Philippine Army is generally effective in tracking its actual yearly backlogs, as indicated by a majority of respondents who agreed or strongly agreed with this assessment. However, the responses also suggest there remains room for improvement in tracking mechanism/
2. Although respondents generally acknowledged efforts by the Philippine Army to minimize yearly backlogs, perceptions of effectiveness varied, with many expressing neutrality or disagreement. This suggests potential gaps in existing strategies to address backlog issues.
3. Respondents expressed notable concerns about the effectiveness of corrective actions taken by the Philippine Army in addressing doctrine backlogs, with a considerable number disagreeing or remaining neutral. These findings highlight potential areas for improvement in accountability and enforcement practices.
4. Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the Philippine Army clearly defines its annual project completion targets, reflecting generally positive perceptions regarding clarity in target-setting. However, a small portion of respondents indicated uncertainty or disagreement, suggesting minor areas for improvement in clearly communicating these targets.
5. While many respondents acknowledged the Philippine Army’s clarity in setting annual project completion targets, a substantial proportion expressed concerns regarding the consistency in achieving them. This highlights potential challenges in reliably meeting the established timelines or objectives.
6. Respondents’ perceptions regarding the regularity of communication about discrepancies between planned and actual accomplishments were moderately positive. However, notable differences in opinions suggest that communication on these discrepancies could be improved to address existing concerns and enhance transparency.
7. The Philippine Army’s doctrine development programs are generally perceived as effective by most respondents. However, a notable proportion of respondents expressed neutral or negative views, indicating potential areas for improvement.
8. Funding for doctrine development is viewed as adequate by the majority, although some respondents expressed concerns, suggesting there might be room for increased or better-allocated resources.
9. The regularity of program reviews assessing effectiveness is acknowledged positively by most respondents, though some indicated uncertainty or dissatisfaction, reflecting potential areas for improvement in the consistency or frequency of these evaluations.
10. The Philippine Army’s policies for doctrine development are generally perceived as clear and effectively communicated. Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed, although some respondents indicated disagreement or neutrality, suggesting potential for further enhancement in clarity and communication.
11. Policies supporting innovation in doctrine development received predominantly positive perceptions, with the majority of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing. However, a noticeable minority showed uncertainty or disagreement, indicating that further emphasis on innovation within existing policies may be beneficial.
12. Respondents expressed strong agreement regarding the clarity and effectiveness of guidelines for updating doctrine, reflecting positive perceptions across most participants. Only a small proportion indicated neutrality or disagreement, suggesting that current guidelines are broadly effective and well-understood..
13. Most respondents perceived the Philippine Army’s doctrine development process as clearly defined and efficient. However, some respondents expressed uncertainty or disagreement, indicating possible areas for improving clarity or efficiency.
14. Stakeholder involvement in the doctrine development process received mixed perceptions, with a significant proportion expressing disagreement or neutrality. This suggests that stakeholder participation may require considerable enhancement to ensure broader engagement.
15. While respondents generally viewed resource allocation for doctrine development positively, a notable portion expressed neutrality or disagreement, suggesting potential gaps or resource limitations that could be addressed to better support doctrine development activities..
16. Most respondents positively rated the qualifications and experience of doctrine development proponents, indicating confidence in their expertise. However, some respondents expressed neutrality or disagreement, suggesting opportunities to further enhance proponents’ qualifications or training.
17. While a considerable proportion of respondents viewed collaboration among doctrine proponents positively, a substantial number remained neutral or expressed disagreement, indicating potential areas for improvement in collaborative processes.
18. The majority of respondents perceived the support provided to doctrine proponents by relevant offices as adequate, although some participants showed uncertainty or disagreement, suggesting there may be room for strengthening institutional support structures for doctrine proponents.
19. Most respondents viewed the training and experience of doctrine writers positively. However, some respondents expressed neutrality or disagreement, suggesting potential opportunities for further enhancing the writers’ expertise through additional training and professional development.
20. Respondents generally acknowledged the adequacy of support and recognition provided to doctrine writers, though a minority expressed uncertainty or disagreement. This indicates room to improve financial incentives, recognition, or other institutional support for doctrine writers.
21. Feedback mechanisms provided for doctrine writers were rated moderately, with a substantial proportion of respondents remaining neutral or disagreeing. This suggests a need for more effective or accessible feedback channels to enhance doctrine quality.
22. There are significant differences in perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the Philippine Army’s doctrine development programs among various respondent groups. Respondents directly involved in overseeing or managing doctrine development, such as Doctrine Committee/TRADOC and Doctrine Center/DACIC members, viewed the programs most positively. However, planners and end-users reported lower perceptions of effectiveness, highlighting potential differences in perspective between policy-makers and implementers.
23. Significant differences exist among respondent groups concerning perceptions of the adequacy of funding for doctrine development. While respondents involved in oversight and writing roles rated funding more favorably, respondents involved in doctrine planning and implementation had lower ratings, indicating varying perceptions about resource sufficiency.
24. Although respondents had varied perceptions about the effectiveness of doctrine program reviews, these differences were not statistically significant. While respondents in oversight roles rated the review process more positively, those involved in doctrine development and implementation roles had moderately lower ratings, suggesting general satisfaction but also areas for potential improvement.
25. Significant differences were observed in how various respondent groups perceive the clarity and communication of doctrine policies. Respondents involved in oversight and policy-making roles rated clarity highly, whereas those involved in planning and implementing doctrines reported comparatively lower ratings, highlighting potential gaps in policy communication.
26. Respondent perceptions varied regarding policy support for innovation in doctrine development, but these differences were not statistically significant. Although policy-makers and managers rated policy support for innovation higher, those involved in implementation reported slightly lower scores, indicating room for improvement in how policies encourage innovation.
27. Respondent groups provided varied ratings concerning the clarity and effectiveness of guidelines for updating doctrines. However, differences were not statistically significant, suggesting a general consensus among the groups on the adequacy and clarity of existing guidelines.
28. Respondents generally perceived the Philippine Army’s doctrine development process as clearly defined and efficient, although ratings varied slightly across groups. The differences among groups were not statistically significant, suggesting overall consensus, despite some lower ratings among planners and end-users, indicating possible areas for process improvement.
29. Stakeholder involvement in doctrine development was rated positively by most respondent groups, though planners and end-users reported slightly lower perceptions. The absence of statistically significant differences indicates a broad but not unanimous perception of effective stakeholder engagement, suggesting there may be scope for increased involvement of certain groups.
30. Respondents generally viewed the allocation of resources (time, personnel, and materials) for doctrine development as sufficient. However, slightly lower ratings among doctrine planners and end-users reflect possible resource limitations perceived by these groups. Although differences among the groups were not statistically significant, this variation highlights areas where resource support could potentially be enhanced.
31. Respondents generally perceived the qualifications and experience of doctrine development proponents positively. Those in oversight and management roles provided the highest ratings, reflecting strong confidence in proponents’ expertise. Although variations existed among groups, these differences were not statistically significant.
32. Collaboration among doctrine proponents received positive ratings overall, particularly from respondents in supervisory roles. However, respondents involved in planning and implementation roles rated collaboration somewhat lower. Despite these variations, differences among groups were not statistically significant.
33. The support provided to doctrine proponents was generally rated positively, with respondents in oversight and management positions perceiving higher levels of support compared to planners and end-users. The differences among groups were not significant, indicating similar experiences of institutional support across respondent categories.
34. There are statistically significant differences in perceptions regarding the training and knowledge of doctrine writers among various respondent groups. Supervisory and managerial respondents perceived doctrine writers’ expertise as highly adequate, while planners and end-users provided comparatively lower ratings, reflecting differences in perception based on role and experience.
35. Statistically significant differences were observed among respondent groups concerning the support and recognition provided to doctrine writers. Respondents in management and oversight roles had higher perceptions of support compared to those directly involved in writing, planning, or implementing doctrine, indicating varying experiences of institutional backing across groups.
36. There are statistically significant differences among respondent groups regarding perceptions of the effectiveness of feedback mechanisms provided to doctrine writers. Respondents in supervisory and managerial positions rated feedback mechanisms more positively, whereas writers, planners, and end-users perceived these mechanisms as moderately effective, highlighting differing experiences with feedback processes.
37. There is a clear division among respondents regarding the sufficiency of training provided to doctrine writers. A majority perceive current training as insufficient, while a substantial minority believe it is adequate, indicating differing experiences or expectations concerning training quality.
38. Most respondents expressed concerns about unclear roles within the doctrine development process. This indicates widespread uncertainty or ambiguity regarding responsibilities and functions among those involved.
39. Respondents widely identified insufficient collaboration among stakeholders as a major issue in the doctrine development process. A significant majority indicated a lack of effective teamwork and coordination, highlighting collaboration as a key challenge.
40. Communication issues are widely viewed as negatively impacting doctrine development. A large majority of respondents perceive communication barriers as hindering progress, suggesting communication is a critical area needing attention.
41. Resource allocation for doctrine development is perceived as inadequate by most respondents. A significant majority believe current resources are insufficient, indicating notable limitations that affect the effective completion of doctrine-related tasks.

Recommendations

Based on the conclusions of the study, the following are the recommendations:

1. Enhance existing mechanisms for tracking yearly backlogs by regularly reviewing and updating monitoring systems. The Philippine Army should strengthen transparency and accountability by adopting standardized tracking tools, providing clearer guidance, and improving reporting processes.
2. Review and refine current strategies aimed at minimizing yearly doctrine backlogs. The Army should identify the causes of neutrality or disagreement among personnel, and strengthen backlog reduction measures by establishing clearer timelines, providing adequate resources, and consistently monitoring progress.
3. Strengthen corrective actions addressing doctrine backlogs through clearer enforcement mechanisms and enhanced accountability. The Army should develop structured procedures to promptly identify, communicate, and resolve backlogs, along with clearly defined responsibilities and consequences for delays or non-compliance.
4. Maintain the current clarity in defining annual project completion targets and further enhance target communication by utilizing multiple communication channels (e.g., written directives, briefings, digital platforms). This can help address minor uncertainties and ensure consistent understanding across all groups.
5. Strengthen the consistency in achieving project completion targets by implementing stricter monitoring systems, periodic progress assessments, and timely intervention measures. Conduct regular reviews to identify and resolve specific barriers affecting target achievement.
6. Improve communication about discrepancies between planned targets and actual accomplishments by developing standardized and timely reporting procedures. Regularly provide updates to stakeholders and openly discuss reasons for deviations, corrective actions, and adjustments, to enhance overall transparency and stakeholder confidence.
7. Evaluate the current doctrine development programs to identify and address areas of concern raised by respondents who expressed uncertainty or dissatisfaction. Strengthen program effectiveness by soliciting regular feedback from end-users and planners to ensure the programs fully meet organizational needs.
8. Review and optimize funding allocation for doctrine development, ensuring resources adequately align with actual needs. Enhanced transparency and engagement with stakeholders regarding funding decisions can address concerns and improve perceptions of resource adequacy.
9. Strengthen the frequency, transparency, and consistency of program evaluations. Regularly communicate evaluation results and corrective actions clearly to all stakeholders, reducing uncertainty and improving satisfaction among respondents.
10. Enhance policy communication through regular dissemination efforts, training sessions, and open forums. These initiatives can further reduce uncertainty or minor confusion, ensuring clear and consistent policy understanding across all groups.
11. Strengthen existing doctrine policies to better support innovation. Clearly highlight incentives and opportunities for innovation within these policies to reduce uncertainty or disagreement among stakeholders.
12. Maintain the clarity and effectiveness of guidelines for updating doctrines, and consider periodic reviews to address any emerging concerns or gaps identified by respondents who indicated neutrality or disagreement.
13. Review and enhance existing guidelines to further clarify the doctrine development process, focusing specifically on areas identified as unclear or inefficient by respondents. Ensuring clearer definition and consistent communication of procedures could help increase confidence and reduce uncertainties.
14. Strengthen stakeholder involvement by establishing systematic and inclusive engagement strategies. This could include regular stakeholder consultations, increased participation in the planning process, and clear communication of stakeholder roles to improve overall engagement.
15. Evaluate current resource allocation (time, personnel, materials) to identify potential gaps or limitations. Consider reallocating or enhancing resources in areas highlighted by respondents to better support doctrine development activities and reduce concerns regarding resource sufficiency.
16. Continuously improve the training and professional development of doctrine proponents to address the concerns raised by respondents who expressed uncertainty or disagreement. Conduct regular assessments to ensure proponents possess the necessary qualifications and skills to perform their roles effectively.
17. Enhance collaborative processes among doctrine proponents by establishing clearer guidelines for interaction and teamwork. Encourage regular joint activities, feedback sessions, or workshops to address concerns expressed by respondents who were neutral or dissatisfied.
18. Strengthen institutional support structures for doctrine proponents by clearly identifying areas of uncertainty or dissatisfaction. Ensure that relevant offices provide adequate resources, recognition, and incentives, thus enhancing overall perceptions of institutional backing.
19. Conduct periodic assessments of doctrine writers’ training programs to address areas identified by respondents expressing neutrality or dissatisfaction. Consider additional or specialized training programs to enhance the knowledge and expertise of writers.
20. Enhance institutional support and recognition for doctrine writers by providing clear incentives, awards, and career opportunities. This may help address current concerns and improve morale and productivity.
21. Enhance the effectiveness and accessibility of feedback mechanisms for doctrine writers by implementing clearer procedures, regular reviews, and structured feedback sessions. Increased transparency and responsiveness may improve doctrine quality and writer satisfaction.
22. Facilitate discussions or workshops involving planners, end-users, and policymakers to bridge perceptual differences regarding doctrine development programs. Aligning the perspectives of implementers and policymakers can help identify and address implementation gaps effectively.
23. Evaluate current funding practices for doctrine development, especially focusing on groups with lower perceptions. Consider conducting periodic resource-needs assessments involving planners and end-users to ensure funding allocations better match actual operational needs.
24. Maintain and further standardize program review practices to ensure they consistently address concerns from all respondent groups. Incorporate inputs from planners and implementers regularly, even though differences are not statistically significant, to continuously enhance the review process.
25. Improve clarity and communication of doctrine policies, especially targeting planners and end-users. Efforts may include enhanced dissemination methods, simplified documentation, or increased use of accessible communication channels to address lower perceptions from those implementing policies.
26. While overall perceptions of policy support for innovation were positive, it would be beneficial to clearly highlight and promote existing innovation opportunities within doctrine development. This may help close the perception gap between managers and implementers.
27. Sustain the current clarity and effectiveness of guidelines for updating doctrines, while periodically reviewing them to address any identified gaps or uncertainties. Soliciting continuous feedback from planners and implementers can further ensure these guidelines remain effective and comprehensible to all stakeholders.
28. Continuously review and streamline the doctrine development process, addressing specific concerns raised by planners and end-users to ensure clarity and efficiency are consistently maintained across all groups.
29. Strengthen stakeholder involvement by establishing more structured, inclusive engagement procedures. Efforts could include targeted consultations and clearer definitions of roles and responsibilities to ensure active and meaningful participation from all stakeholder groups.
30. Conduct a resource-needs assessment to identify and address specific gaps or limitations reported by planners and end-users. Improving resource allocation, such as increasing available time, personnel, or materials, may further enhance perceptions of sufficiency and overall effectiveness of doctrine development activities.
31. Sustain current qualification and experience standards for doctrine development proponents, while ensuring that opportunities for professional development remain accessible and relevant to all stakeholders involved in doctrine development.
32. Strengthen collaboration among doctrine proponents by clearly defining roles, responsibilities, and collaborative processes. Encouraging greater involvement and teamwork across all groups, especially planners and implementers, may enhance overall effectiveness.
33. Enhance institutional support mechanisms for doctrine proponents by addressing areas highlighted by planners and end-users. Reviewing and potentially expanding existing support measures could help align perceptions and ensure that institutional backing effectively meets the needs of all stakeholder groups..
34. Conduct targeted training needs assessments and implement specialized training programs to address perception gaps identified by planners and end-users. This approach can ensure that doctrine writers possess consistent and high-level competencies across all roles involved.
35. Improve support and recognition systems for doctrine writers, particularly focusing on clearly communicating available incentives, awards, and career progression opportunities. Enhancing institutional recognition efforts may address the disparity between managerial perceptions and those of writers and implementers.
36. Strengthen and standardize feedback mechanisms for doctrine writers by enhancing transparency, consistency, and accessibility of feedback processes. Actively incorporating inputs from planners, implementers, and doctrine writers themselves can help improve perceptions and increase the effectiveness of these mechanisms.
37. Improve the quality and frequency of training for doctrine writers. Regularly assess training needs and introduce structured programs tailored specifically to address identified skill gaps, ensuring consistency in training experiences across all respondent groups.
38. Clarify and formally define roles within the doctrine development process by establishing detailed guidelines or policies outlining specific responsibilities. Provide regular briefings or orientation sessions to ensure uniform understanding and minimize role ambiguity among personnel involved.
39. Foster stronger collaboration among stakeholders by establishing clear communication protocols and regular forums or meetings for stakeholder engagement. Emphasize coordination and teamwork through structured collaborative activities, joint planning sessions, or workshops to enhance cooperation and integration.
40. Strengthen internal communication systems within the doctrine development process. Establish standardized, transparent, and timely communication channels to facilitate effective information sharing, address misunderstandings, and reduce communication barriers.
41. Conduct a thorough resource review to accurately identify and address perceived resource inadequacies. Allocate sufficient time, personnel, and material resources to the doctrine development process, focusing specifically on areas identified as deficient by respondents.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2001). Big questions in public network management research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), 295-326.
2. Anderson, J. (2018). “Strategic Prioritization in Military Doctrine Programming.” In Overcoming Defense Development Hurdles, edited by L. A. Clarke, 49-72. Army Research Series.
3. Baker, K. (2020). “Technology and the Programming of Military Doctrine Manuals.” In The Intersection of Technology and Military Doctrine, edited by F. M. Nguyen, 121-144. Armed Services Academic Press.
4. British Army. (2021). Modernizing Doctrine: The British Approach to Military Readiness. British Army Doctrine Publications.
5. Carter, P. (2020). “Agile Management in Military Doctrine Programming.” In Agile Approaches to Military Operations, 79-102. Defense Innovation Journal.
6. Chen, G. (2017). “Effective Dissemination Strategies for New Military Doctrines.” In Doctrine in Action: Approaches to Military Training and Education, edited by R. E. Lee, 83-105. Service Publications.
7. Clarke, R. (2021). “Doctrine Development: The Crucial Role of Proponents.” In Doctrine Dynamics: Engaging Military Thought Leaders, 33-56. Command and General Staff College Press.
8. Davis, J. (2019). Streamlining Military Doctrine Development: A Phased Approach. Journal of Military Operations Research, 15(3), 45-62.
9. Evans, L. (2017). “Policy Alignment for Effective Doctrine Development.” In Policy and Military Strategy: Crafting Compatible Frameworks, edited by M. S. Robinson, 88-111. National Defense University Press.
10. Fernandez, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2006). Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 168-176.
11. Fisher, T. (2020). “Identifying and Addressing Bottlenecks in Military Doctrine Processes.” In Efficiency in Military Operations, edited by G. Anderson, 51-74. Operational Excellence Press.
12. Franklin, M. (2018). Balancing Flexibility and Governance in Military Doctrine Policy. Armed Forces & Society, 44(2), 234-250.
13. Hamilton, R. (2021). Enhancing Doctrine Development Through Stable Proponency. Military Strategy Journal, 29(1), 77-89.
14. Harris, J. (2018). “Stakeholder Engagement in the Army Doctrine Development.” In Collaborative Military Strategy, edited by D. E. Lee, 75-99. Doctrine Innovation Group.
15. Heeks, R. (2006). Implementing and managing eGovernment: An international text. SAGE.
16. Henderson, J. (2019). Agile Methodologies in Military Doctrine Development. Defense Management Review, 22(4), 58-75.
17. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3-19.
18. Jenkins, R. (2018). “Evaluating and Adjusting Military Doctrine Scheduling.” In Adaptive Strategies in Defense Planning, 89-112. Military Efficiency Press.
19. Kenton, W. (2024). ” How To Use This Statistical Analysis Tool.” What Is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)? https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/anova.asp
20. Kim, D. (2015). “Technology Integration in Military Doctrine: A Framework for Agility.” In Military Innovation and Technological Advancements, edited by M. A. Gomez, 77-98. Armed Forces Press.
21. Kim, D. (2022). “Proponent Support in Doctrine Manual Progress.” In Military Doctrine: A Collective Approach, edited by J. Thompson, 117-140. Strategy and Operations Series.
22. Lee, J. (2021). “Doctrine Development: The Crucial Role of Proponents.” In Doctrine Dynamics: Engaging Military Thought Leaders, 33-56. Command and General Staff College Press.
23. Martinez, C. (2015). “Hybrid Warfare and Doctrinal Development.” In The Future of Combat: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Hybrid Warfare, edited by P. K. Johnson, 135-158. War Studies Publications.
24. Martinez, E. (2019). “Streamlining Doctrine Production with Agile Writing Teams.” In Strategic Gaming and Military Doctrine, edited by T. H. Chang, 157-179. Operational Strategies Press.
25. Martinez, L. (2015). “The Digital Revolution in Doctrine Promulgation.” In Military Doctrine and the Digital Age, edited by B. K. Martinez, 69-90. Digital Warfare Series.
26. Nguyen, E. (2016). “The Role of Tradition in Doctrine Adjudication.” In Balancing Military Innovation with Tradition, edited by D. R. Patel, 113-132. Military Change Press.
27. Nguyen, M. (2014). “Adapting to Rapid Policy Shifts in Doctrine Development.” In Policy Volatility and Strategic Military Planning, edited by S. K. Harris, 95-118. Policy Studies Organization.
28. Osborne, S. P. (2006). The new public governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 377-387.
29. Patel, A. (2021). “Enhancing Doctrine Manual Development through Writer Expertise.” In Professional Development in Military Education, 65-88. Military Pedagogy Press.
30. Peterson, L. (2022). The Role of Technology in Doctrine Manual Development. International Journal of Defense Technology, 18(2), 142-158.
31. Richards, A. (2022). Empowering Doctrine Writers: Training and Support Strategies. Journal of Military Education, 36(4), 210-225.
32. Robinson, S. (2017). “Policy Misalignment in Army Doctrine Development.” In Policy and Military Strategy: Crafting Compatible Frameworks, edited by M. S. Robinson, 88-111. National Defense University Press.
33. Sanchez, E. (2017). “The Digital Revolution in Doctrine Promulgation.” In Military Doctrine and the Digital Age, edited by B. K. Martinez, 69-90. Digital Warfare Series.
34. Singh, A. (2018). “Writing for Warfare: Ensuring Doctrinal Consistency.” In The Art and Science of Military Writing, 103-126. War College Publications.
35. Thompson, G. (2020). Proponent Engagement in Doctrine Manual Development. Doctrine & Strategy Review, 25(3), 112-127.
36. Turner, N. (2021). Standardizing Doctrine Development Across Military Branches. Defense Policy Review, 27(2), 88-104.
37. Walters, C. (2020). Critical Path Scheduling for Doctrine Manual Production. Operational Excellence in Armed Forces, 31(1), 95-110.
38. Watson, B. (2023). Collaborative Approaches to Doctrine Manual Writing. Journal of Strategic Military Studies, 19(4), 200-215.