In October 2011, the United States Army published doctrine espousing its newest core competencies: Combined Arms Maneuver (CAM) and Wide Area Security (WAS). The Army's use of the term core competencies introduced questions of validity since the Army failed to provide a common understanding of the terms, methods for competency identification, or their applicability in capability based planning or operations. The use of these terms is neither academic nor arbitrary as they are required by US Code Title 10, Department of Defense Directives, defense acquisitions, and joint doctrine. Core competency theory originated when Prahalad and Hamel introduced the terms in their 1990 Harvard Business Review article in which they also outlined the roots of competitive advantage and the linkage of core competencies, core products, and value in end products. Firms follow methods to identify core competencies using definitions, characteristics, and properties to make resource and strategy decisions to outperform their competition. The currently espoused Army core competencies are not based on this business theory and therefore fail to provide the same value that businesses realize. Improperly identifying core competencies places the Army at risk of expending precious resources and time towards the wrong assets and strategies. Placing core competencies in Army operations doctrine only exacerbates the poor adaptation of business theory. The Army's difficulty in identifying core competencies indicates the need for developing the theory that includes definitions and methods of identification. If the Army can correctly identify its core competencies, it can better manage capabilities in a resource constrained environment and design strategies and approaches that capitalize on organizational strengths.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)