The goal of this research is to change the negative perception of the Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support- Philadelphia employees regarding the Foreign Military Sales (FMS or Code OF) division and its activities within the Command, Department of the Navy and Department of Defense, which has caused aircraft parts requisition delays and deletion at the Integrated Weapon Support Teams (IWSTs or Code 03) as well as delays in the initiation of contracts at the Contracts Division (Code 02). The negative perception regarding FMS is due to the lack of knowledge that the Item Managers of Code 03 and Contract Specialists of Code 02 have about the basics of FMS and the importance of having a strong program within the Command. The lack of knowledge is due to the very limited information that is available to Codes 02 and 03 personnel, and the limited to almost non-existence of knowledge sharing and transfer from International Programs (FMS or Code OF) to the two said domestic Codes or Divisions.
This issue of constant delays and even deletion of FMS workloads at both divisions has been such an issue that in 2010 meetings and group projects had been put in place to solve the problem, which resulted to the creation of several desk guides and procedural manuals. These solutions were short lived and were never fully implemented because it targeted the systems processing challenges instead of the perception problems. In order to tackle the complex perception issues, this study looked at the historical root of the problem, which began in the 90’s from the acquirement of the former independent Command called Navy International Logistics Control Office (NAVILCO) and the Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support- Philadelphia (then called Naval Inventory Control Point or NAVICP). The silos that were created by the absorption and never resolved are also examined in this study to better understand the issue.
In order to find the solution, the research study analyzed data pertaining to the benefits of the Foreign Military Sales program such as yearly sales revenue and the jobs created by the program. Relationship building and its benefits was also examined and its unquantifiable information highlighted due to its importance as the bedrock of the FMS program. The data analysis revealed that the benefits of FMS were substantial enough to change the perception of non-FMS employees, but in order to disburse this information correctly; proper training methods have to be used to capture the attention of all generations working at the Command. Also, the FMS division should extend its rewards and recognition program to the non-FMS employees working the FMS workload to show that the Code OF supports and trusts the abilities and talents of the Codes 02 and 03 personnel. This will produce long-term results and sustain the goal of motivating the Item Managers and Contract Specialist to work FMS sales orders and contracts correctly and on-time.
Table of Contents ( required)
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………….…4
Chapter I: Definition of the Problem……………………………………………..…7
Description of Program Inputs and Activities………………….……………….12
Rationale and Theoretical Framework………………………………………….15
Definition of Terms……………………………………………………………..17
Chapter II: Literature Review………………………………………………………18
Historical & General Background……………………………………………….19
The Importance of Foreign Military Sales Immediately After the Soviet Era….20
The Importance of Foreign Military Sales Today………………………….……21
The Negative Effects of Irresponsible Foreign Military Sales……………….…23
Chapter III: Methodology………………………………………………………….30
Data Gathering Techniques…………………………………………………….33
Data Analysis and Synthesis…………………………………………………. 34
Reliability and Validity………………………………………………………. 34
Scope and Limitations…………………………………………………………35
Chapter IV: Data Analysis………………………………………………………..37
Analysis of Research Questions Supporting Project Objectives……….……..39
Chapter V: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations……………………55
CHAPTER I: DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM
The Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support- Philadelphia’s Code-OF: International Programs Division, commonly known as Foreign Military Sales (FMS) or NAVSUP WSS-OF, is one of the codes or divisions that make-up the Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support- Philadelphia (NAVSUP WSS- Philadelphia or NAVSUP WSS). The primary focus of all NAVSUP WSS- Philadelphia divisions, except for Foreign Military Sales (Code-OF), is to provide fleet support to the aviation activities of both the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps; while the focus of the International Programs Division or FMS is to provide logistical support to the Joint and Allied Forces or foreign militaries (https:// www.navsup.navy.mil/navsup/ourteam/navsupwss). The Foreign Military Sales as a program is the transfer or sale of weapons, training, information, parts and services to foreign militaries that are allies of the United States. “FMS falls under the umbrella of United States Security Assistance, authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961, and the Arms Export control Act (AECA) of 1976 (Yoo, Mallicoat & Simpson, 2009).
The clear difference between Code-OF’s and the other NAVSUP WSS codes’ focus puts the former in a situation where its support needs from various activities within the organization are constantly delayed and even ignored. The root of this problem stems from the negative perception of many seasoned NAVSUP WSS- Philadelphia employees towards supporting non-U.S. war fighters (T. Bickel, personal communication, December 9, 2010). Many have reservations about arms sales to United States allies due to various personal reasons. Many question the activity and its existence; and because the majority of NAVSUP WSS-Philadelphia employees have never directly been involved with Foreign Military Sales the lack of knowledge about the program have others question their actions when fulfilling or passing a Foreign Military Sales requisition or sales order and contracts. The said employees are located in several NAVSUP WSS divisions in which Foreign Military Sales activities are dependent on. The negative perceptions have been noticeable via delayed action on Foreign Military Sales requisitions or sales orders and initiation of contracts. It is a topic that is hard to confront due to the lack of supporting documents regarding the reasons on why FMS requisitions are delayed since metrics are solely measured by number of sales orders passed and not why they were delayed. Although the perception about FMS is not a secret, it has never been documented or put in record. This is the reason why it is imperative that all questions, misconceptions and perception in supporting the Allied Forces should be answered so that current issues that the FMS program has been experiencing are properly addressed.
Problem Statement (required)
The Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support (NAVSUP WSS)- International Programs (Code-OF), or Foreign Military Sales (FMS), became a part of the NAVSUP Command when its predecessor organization Navy International Logistics Control Office (NAVILCO) was absorbed by with the Naval Supply System Command Security Assistance Division (NAVSUP 07) and the foreign support units of NAVSUP WSS’s Integrated Weapon Support Teams (IWST) in Philadelphia (Aviation Code P037) and Mechanicsburg (Surface Code M102) in October 1, 1996 to form a separate division housed within the Naval Inventory Control Point (now called Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support) (Bennis, 1996). Since then, the various problems regarding aviation parts requisition or sales order delays, cancellations and the long waiting period for contract initiation and contract release have been the major issues both internally (within NAVSUP WSS) and externally (by the foreign military officers and liaisons) (E. McCants, personal communication, December 9, 2010).
The removal of Code P037, which is in charge of foreign military logistics support and parts repair, from the rest of the Integrated Weapon Support Teams (IWST or NAVSUP WSS Code-03) and its integration with the new International Programs Division at NAVSUP WSS contributed to the program’s loss of connection with its original parent IWST and the contract specialists or buyers that are located in NAVSUP WSS Code-02 Contracts. It is important to note that the transfer of Code P037 to the new NAVSUP WSS division and its Code change to three separate Codes within Code-OF (Code P751, Code P7512 and Code P7513) became a major blow to the Foreign Military Sales program in terms of support prioritization because foreign military logistics support is assigned a lower priority than the U.S. counterparts. Having FMS Logistics Management Specialists physically located within the Integrated Weapon Support Team branches unofficially gave P037 some of the benefits and direct access to the Integrated Weapon Systems Team’s insider support status by working next to and having rapport with the Item Managers within Code 03. Also, the removal of the former Code P037 team from NAVSUP WSS Code 03 lead to an outsider effect that the Logistics Management Specialists from Foreign Military Sales are still experiencing today; and as the gap grew wider from the time of separation and more of the original Code P037 personnel retired, or transferred to other U.S. Government agencies, the more pronounced the severed ties between the new NAVSUP WSS-OF logistics divisions and the IWST and Contracts branches became (S. Tucker, personal communication, December 2, 2010). The negative perception about Foreign Military Sales has always existed, but when an FMS Logistics Management Specialist is embedded within the Integrated Weapon Systems Teams, which is paired with their own Contracts Specialists, questions about the FMS programs were readily available and can be discussed immediately, unlike today.
An issue that is very common during an aircraft’s parts procurement at Code-OF is when a requisition or sales order is stuck at the Item Manager’s queue because it is ignored. Logistics Management Specialists from the Foreign Military Sales side are aware that foreign military requisitions take a lower priority (priority 3 or higher) than that of the Marine Corps and the U.S. Navy’s (priority 1). A common practice for Item Managers of the IWST branches is to ignore Foreign Military Sales requisitions for months and eventually delete them to lower their pending requisition status count. One Item Manager from the Common Avionics Branch of Code 03 has stated that FMS sales orders are just not a priority since these are not Navy Fleet orders so it is more than often ignored. A more troubling statement from another colleague from the same branch describes on how the management of the branch just do not put FMS as a priority. A more serious problem is the practice of deleting Foreign Military Sales requisitions as soon as it passes to the Item Manager’s queue. This practice became a serious issue in meetings between sections of FMS, the IWSTs and Contracts to address the issue that have become a common occurrence, especially before NAVSUP WSS- Philadelphia transitioned to SAP’s Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System. Unfortunately the effectiveness of these discussions proved to be minimal to convince the more seasoned and experienced staff of the two divisions on the importance of also supporting the Allied Forces due to the widespread negative perception paired with political views and indifference by seasoned Item Mangers and Contract Specialists toward Foreign Military Sales. Despite of the actions that were put in place, delays due to the lack of interest in processing FMS requisitions is still a problem. What is worse is that these perceptions have leaked outside of the seasoned employees’ age demographics that it has started to influence some of the new Code 03 and Code 02 trainees and interns. In order to motivate non-Foreign Military Sales employees, it is important to address their need for more knowledge of the importance of Foreign Military Sales as an integral part of NAVSUP WSS, the role of foreign fighters in the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan theaters, as well as the benefits of supporting the Joint Allied Forces. By taking this action it is hoped that non-FMS employees will cooperate with and answer the needs of the International Programs Division.
Description of the Program Inputs (optional)
In December of 2009, the Director of Foreign Military Sales –Aviation Logistics (Code OF-P751) has informed the section’s FMS team of its formal schedule to transition to SAP’s Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System. Code OF-P751 is a part of the first wave of divisions, departments and sections to be transitioned to the new Navy-wide system and there is a serious concern that ERP will magnify the current delay problems. The meeting produced three possible solutions which one was to add more manual and desk guides. The other two were Green Belt Projects which were to be coordinated by the Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) Division between Codes 02, 03 and OF. One Green Belt Project was to address requisition processing while the other was for contracts. The three solutions were to find ways to prevent further delays and to make sure that the Foreign Military Sales activities were kept in mind within the other two divisions during the data transfer and transition to ERP.
Description of Program Activities (optional)
The team that was formed to create more procedural manuals and process desk guides concerning FMS and the new ERP was successful and a separate FMS section was eventually added to the entire ERP manual book given to all employees of NAVSUP WSS – Philadelphia which served as the bible for the system. Separate trainings on FMS sales order processing in ERP were also conducted which helped lessen errors and delays as the system eventually became available to all divisions, sections and Codes at the Philadelphia Naval Facility. On the other hand, the two Green Belt projects stalled due to the length and manpower required to properly execute and complete a Lean Six Sigma Project. Both projects are still pending completion, but the charters were changed several times and eventually the resources originally given to the projects were shifted to more important issues concerning the growing pains of stabilizing and fixing the failed data in the ERP systems.
Research Objective (required)
The goal of this research is to change the negative perceptions that non-Foreign Military Sales employees of the Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support – Philadelphia have about the FMS program and its activities. The lack of knowledge and available resources to educate employees outside of NAVSUP WSS – Philadelphia are major contributors to the non-FMS employees’ negative perceptions, which resulted to aircraft parts requisition delays and deletion at the Integrated Weapon Support Teams as well as delays in the contracting initiation at the Contracts Division of the Command. By finding ways to transfer knowledge effectively and giving the non-FMS workforce the access to information regarding FMS, both the Item Managers and Contract Specialists will have the adequate knowledge about the importance and benefits of supporting a strong and competitive Foreign Military Sales program. The study will create another vehicle to compliment the procedural manuals and instructional desk guides that were put in place with facts and background about the Foreign Military Sales program to enhance its effectiveness.
Research Questions (required) (3-5 questions)
The study will try to tackle questions regarding how to solve the byproduct of the main issue which are delayed requisitions and contracts; and the root problem which is the lack of information and educational resources available to non-FMS personnel regarding Foreign Military Sales and its activities. In order to find the proper solution to the root issue, it isthe intention of this study to use the answers to the following questions:
- What kind of information should the International Programs Division (FMS) provide non-FMS personnel in the Integrated Weapon Support Teams and Contracts Division to motivate both Item Managers and Contract Specialists to properly process his or her Foreign Military Sales workload?
- How should the International Programs Division deliver the information on Foreign Military Sales to ensure that the desired goal is reached?
- Will the availability of information regarding FMS and its delivery enough to change the perception of Item Managers and Contract Specialists about the FMS program?
Operational Indictors (required)
The indicators of the study’s impact would be the gradual improvement of turnaround time in passing FMS requisitions or sales orders by Code 03 Item Managers and the initiation of FMS contracts by the Code 02 Contract Specialists which would eventually lead to the elimination of delays and deletion of FMS workload by the said non-FMS employees.
Rationale and Theoretical Framework (optional)
This study will reference Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory and Douglas McGregor’s Theory of X and Y. The rationale behind the selection of the two is based on a study by Lambright (2010) of Binghamton University; which states that “federal employees are managed differently than their counterparts in the private sector due to the often indirect subordination of public sector staff to management.” Although her study is focused on government sector management and its relationship with contractor subordinates, it can also be applied to the situation of the Foreign Military Sales division within the Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support in which two of its important processes (requisition processing and contracts) is done by non-Foreign Military Sales employees. Although non-FMS employees are government workers themselves, this arrangement mimics a government supervisor/management and non-government contractor relationship because in reality, Foreign Military Sales outsources these functions to other departments to accomplish its logistical cycle. Due to the current FMS management – non-FMS employee relationship, supervisors of the Foreign Military Sales programs do not have the direct authority to implement FMS rules and regulations and cannot impose disciplinary action against a Code 03 Item Manager or a Code 02 Contract Specialist that is not performing his or her job. Foreign Military Sales management can only rely on his or her relationship with the management of both the Integrated Weapon Systems Teams and Contracts Division to relay what he or she is dissatisfied about in regards to any unacceptable performance in working an FMS requisition or contract. FMS management can only motivate Item Managers and Contracts Specialists and secure a good relationship with the two divisions to avoid delays in any Foreign Military logistical lifecycle.
Motivation, as described by Vroom’s Expectancy Theory, depends on three factors:
- Expectancy- an individual’s expectation to complete his or her job based on the amount of effort he or she puts into the task at hand (Tyagi, 2010).
- Instrumentality- “the linkage between performance and outcomes” (Lambright, 2010).
- Value- the importance of the outcome of his or her performance (Tyagi, 2010).
McGregor’s X and Y theory states that human motivation by nature fall in two categories. Theory X states that workers are lazy, unsatisfied and are not motivated to work and should be dealt with fear in order for things to get done; while theory Y states the opposite and believes that workers can be motivated to do their job and enjoy productivity and eventually become independent and responsible member of an organization (Kopelman, Prottas, & Falk, 2010). The latter theory will help Foreign Military Sales management and Logistics Management Specialists give more trust to the Item Managers and Contract Specialists instead of the current practice of constantly threatening their supervisors if an FMS task is not done after several notices.
Summary of chapter-1( 2-3 sentences)
Definition of Terms ( if it is nedded)
Please see Terminology and Definitions section.
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW (required 8-10 pages)
The Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support’s International Programs Division (NAVSUP WSS-OF or Foreign Military Sales) was established in October 1, 1996 when the Navy International Logistics Control Office (NAVILCO) was decommissioned and absorbed, together with the Naval Supply System Command Security Assistance Division (NAVSUP 07) and the two foreign military assistance activities of NAVSUP WSS’s Integrated Weapon Support Teams, into the Naval Inventory Control Point- Philadelphia (now called Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support- Philadelphia) (Bennis, 1996). NAVSUP WSS-OF in Philadelphia is in charge of aircraft parts procurement and repair to foreign military allies of the United States which are mostly foreign air forces with some foreign navies and armies. The International Programs Division reports directly to the Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support, but also receives directions from the Navy International Programs Office (Navy IPO) located in Arlington, VA. Navy IPO controls and manages all foreign assistance programs and policies such as foreign military sales, training, humanitarian efforts and foreign relationship building via various Naval units and agencies of the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, the Allied Forces with guidance from the Defense Cooperation Security Agency (Tangredi, 2008) .
It is important to note that NAVSUP WSS Code OF’s activities share an equally important role with the rest of the Foreign Military Sales programs of other U.S. Navy and agencies of the Department of Defense. Having a strong and well supported Foreign Military Sales program at the Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support- Philadelphia benefits not only the International Programs Division, but also the entire Naval Support Activity facility, the City of Philadelphia and possibly the region. These benefits include job sustainment and creation of new ones, and growth in industries involved with defense, security and technology, and many more. But for the rest of NAVSUP WSS- Philadelphia to realize the importance of FMS, it is the International Programs Division’s job to make sure to inform and educate its non-FMS colleagues in order to gain the support it desperately needs. Several studies will support the argument of the need for a robust program, and these studies will be the bedrock of the information transfers that will help the International Programs Division in educating its colleagues.
Historical & General Background (reqired)
but need to be in the following criteria
I need to put the litruture review according to three respects : past, present and future
Studies and history have shown evidence of the benefits of responsible Foreign Military Sales or arms transfer for many years. The relationships that were created from this type diplomatic partnership helped build nations. A country that benefited from an early version of Foreign Military Sales is the United States. In 1778 France, with the assistance of Pierre Beaumarchais and his pseudo-company Roderigue Hortalez and Company, helped the American Revolution by funding its efforts against the British worth millions of livres (Frances’ currency at the time) arms and military support (Perkins, 1911/2010, p. 86). The monetary assistance combined with the help of the French Army and the French Fleet helped the Americans win battles against the British (Perkins, 1911/2010, p. 10). This gesture built a lasting relationship between the United States and the French Republic that is very visible throughout the nations’ recent histories from World War II to today’s efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Importance of Foreign Military Sales Immediately After the Soviet Era
The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 was an important event for Foreign Military Sales and arms transfer. The arms market was flooded by cheap Soviet weapons, parts and articles that were being sold to virtually any government in the world. The flooding of cheap weaponry became an alarming issue to many countries that were worried about rogue governments within and beyond their national boundaries acquiring these weapons. To counter this issue, higher and more effective technology was needed and the United States, at the time, can provide the need.
The tension in Europe after the Cold War has cooled down, but other regions such as the Middle East and East Asia remained active. In East Asia where the demand was focused on high-technology weapons, growth in arms spending was steadily hovering around 25 percent from 1985 to 1991 and remained steady (Spear, 1994). It was the demand of countries that required high-technology arms that the United States focused on to counter balance the flooding of cheap weapons in the market. In 1992 the United States Government signed Foreign Military Sales contracts of approximately 7 billion dollars, in which $4.2 billion were agreements signed directly to the U.S. defense companies by Japan, South Korea and Taiwan making the United States its number one supplier (Kapstein, 1994).
Many will argue that the involvement of the United States in the arms race after the fall of the Soviet Union only added to the proliferation of weapons around the world. Given the situation where cheap weapons and small arms have already spread to many conflict stricken regions at the time, the United States actually helped tackle the problem by using higher and more advanced technology in weaponry. The flooding of cheaper Soviet weapons had a serious potential to wipe out a portion of the U.S. defense industry, but through superior technology jobs were sustained and new ones were created.
Numerous articles and studies were published about the concerns of Soviet arms flooding the marked immediately after the fall of the USSR. Approximately 70 percent of the literatures available were focused on this issue, while the rest are focused on the benefits that the United States can take advantage as the sole super power and the responsibilities of counter balancing the Soviet arms that were available at that time. The latter half also discussed the benefits in job sustainment and job creation as new technologies were produced by both the U.S. Department of Defense and the American private defense companies.
The Importance of Foreign Military Sales Today
FMS is a very active program today than many think. “Foreign Military Sales program is the U.S. Government’s program for transferring defense articles, services, and training to other sovereign nations and international organizations” (http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/fmsadvantagev2.pdf). In a broader definition, FMS agreements pave ways for the American defense industry to do business directly with foreign nations under strict guidelines and regulations. Today, FMS agreements with the Allied Forces are stronger than ever, with Asia and the Middle East as its major consumers. “Malaysia’s military budget more than doubled between 2000 and 2008, from $1.7 billion to $3.5 billion (as measured in constant 2005 dollars) (Bitzinger, 2010). Indonesian defense spending over the same period went from $2.2 billion to $3.8 billion, a 72 percent increase, while Thailand increased military expenditure by 43 percent, from $2.1 billion to $3 billion” (Bitzinger, 2010).
Elsewhere in the world, the United States is using foreign military assistance with its efforts in combating terrorism and defending its national security. The fact that the U.S. has already been stretched too thin with its involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan; it needs the help of its allies to combat terrorism and stabilize their own regions. Examples of these foreign military assistance are: groups that the U.S. Army established in Iraq to train the local forces as the transition of power continues in that country; the U.S. Air Force’s establishment of training facilities and programs to assist and train foreign pilots; and the U.S. Navy’s efforts in the training of the local maritime forces in the Africa-Indian Ocean region to fight pirates (Gates, 2010).
The most important benefit that Foreign Military Sales can offer Americans today are job sustainability and creation. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the unemployment rate, as of June of 2012, is 8.2% (http://www.bls.gov/cps/). In order to bring down the unemployment rate and create more jobs opportunities, the United States must produce more goods and export it to other countries. The National Export Initiative that President Barak Obama introduced in January of 2010 pushes for doubling the country’s export production by so that more local jobs are created in a period of five years (Tong, C & Tong L, 2010). Foreign Military Sales will be an excellent vehicle to promote and execute this initiative that will help, not just the local, but also the national economy.
The literatures that are available for this topic are focused on the opportunities that are available in Asia. Many studies also highlight China’s power into the equation. Military cooperation and interoperability are also well covered by many of the available material. There are also less negative articles produced about Foreign Military Sales and its surrounding activities at this period. A suspected reason is because of the struggling economy and the fact that arms sales has indeed been proven as an activity that supports and creates jobs.
The Negative Effects of Irresponsible Foreign Military Sales (not required)
The positive side of Foreign Military Sales can be more than plenty, but the reality is that a weak and poorly managed Foreign Military Sales program has the danger of producing negatives that can outweigh its positives. An example is the issue of total asset visibility of Foreign Military Sales articles within the Department of Defense supply chain network. The Department of Defense’s Defense Transport Services only handles six percent of FMS cargoes and the rest are shipped via approved commercial freight forwarders (Gates, 2007). Because of this arrangement, inconsistencies in tracking an article heading overseas continues to be plagued with visibility challenges and unexplained loss. Even articles that go through the Defense Transport Services, which uses radio frequency identification, are also troubled as thirty-five percent of the containers heading to Iraq and Afghanistan in the latter half of 2006 and the former half of 2007 were not identifiable (Gates, 2007). This issue should be taken seriously because of the very real possibility of sensitive materiel ending in the hands of terrorist groups and nations that are not friendly with the United States. Additionally, spare parts that are vital to the sustainment of older military weapon systems that were sold to countries that are now unfriendly to the United States can end up in those same countries (e.g. Iran and Venezuela) which can produce disastrous outcomes.
Inadequate support of the foreign military allies will push them away from doing business with the United States. Foreign governments do not have to buy or have their parts repaired with the United States Government or an American commercial defense company, they can go to other foreign governments and companies to fulfill their requisitions and repairs. According to a three year study that commenced in 2002 by the Defense Logistics Agency, follow-on support has declined 50 percent due to backorders that lasted way over the given or acceptable time frame, which 28 percent are FMS Navy orders (Bernard, 2003).
The material and literature regarding this topic is difficult to locate especially since the majority of the journals and publications are published by institutes and organizations within or associated with the United States Government. Many articles are focused on Iran, which was a former ally of the United States. Iran is the only nation that operates F-14 Tomcats and is desperately in need of the spare parts, which is why it is imperative that the U.S. Navy with the help of the Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support and other government agencies make sure that these parts are either destroyed or unavailable to the public (United States General Accountability Office, 2008).
Existing Studies (not required)
This study focuses on the benefits of Foreign Military Sales which are based on the basics of International Cooperation. Benefits such as “exchanges of people, information and material; cooperative research and technology; materiel solutions; and joint acquisition of equipment help solidify relationships” (Koepnick, 2005), which the United States needs to execute its mission of fighting terrorism. This is why a robust and well supported Foreign Military Sales program at the Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support- Philadelphia is needed; and by information and education that will explain to employees what the Foreign Military Sales process is about, its benefits, and the dangers of an improperly managed program that the goal of the study will be reached.
Other Navy and Department of Defense agencies are the immediate beneficiaries of this study since the majority of Foreign Military Sales activities in the various Department of Defense organizations are also facing the problem of explaining the benefits of FMS to their non-FMS colleagues. Another beneficiary of this study is the commercial defense industry which will either sustain their business as domestic support slows down as the United States military gradually pulls out of the Middle East and new business from foreign nations becomes more important. These benefits flow directly to job retention and possible new job opportunities that Americans desperately need due the current struggling economy. An example of the immediate effects of Foreign Military Sales activity is the hiring of 15 new employees at the International Programs Division composed of college graduates and veterans. These openings were a direct effect of increased Foreign Military Sales demands which prompted the International Programs Division to promote 15 employees to head or assist new programs which opened the 15 positions they formerly held (R. MacWilliams, personal communication, February 18, 2010).
Process ( not required)
A study that was presented in by Teeney (2010) of the Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base via his article titled “United States Government Benefits as a Result of Foreign Military Sales Program” on the benefits of Foreign Military Sales incorporates both quantitative and qualitative information. The quantitative portion shows the financial benefits of foreign military sales. Examples are:
- The $21 billion FMS agreement that the United States Government signed in the fiscal year of 2006
- FMS agreements averages from $10 to $13 billion dollars since 2001
- A country that signs an FMS contract with the United States typically becomes it’s partner for 30 to 35 years
Some examples of qualitative benefits of Foreign Military Sales that Al Teeney discussed are:
- Shared effort in technological innovation, research, development and production of new weapon systems like the Joint Strike Fighter or F-35
- Interoperability between the United States military and its allies
- Increased business for both the U.S. Government and the commercial defense industry
- Military cooperation and partnership during certain efforts such as Operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom
Instrumentation (not required)
A Lean Six Sigma Green Belt project that started in 2009 and completed in mid 2010 by the Logistics Division of the International Programs Division (Code OF) and the Integrated Weapon Systems Teams (Code 03) tackled the issues of ignored and deleted Foreign Military Sales requisitions (K. Mueller, personal communication, January 11, 2010) . The project used subject matter experts from the H1 helicopter division, E2C Aircraft Division and the F-18 Aircraft Division of Code 03 and mapped out their tasks in several systems, including ERP to find out what is the cause of the delays. A simple but detailed desk guide was produced by the team advising Item Managers on what to do with a Foreign Military Sales requisition based on several scenarios like fulfilling an entire requisition, partially fulfilling a requisition, and rejecting a requisition that cannot be fulfilled due to low spare parts inventory (N. Domingo, personal communication, November 18, 2010). The data regarding this study is not available for release due to internal information that is not for public release, but the final product is used by many Item Managers. Because Green Belt project only focused on the processing of FMS sales orders in several systems and not on the perception of the program, the product produced by this research will compliment the desk guide created by the Green Belt project. Otherwise, no other study that is similar to the objectives of this one can be used to reference the instruments used for conducting the research.
Statistical Approach (not required)
The research done for this study produced figures on the amount of signed Foreign Military Sales agreements in a given fiscal year and the amount of investment a country has committed when using a Foreign Military Sales program. Some figures on job creation and sustainment exist but many articles use assumptions and generalized statements. This study will attempt to bridge the gap between the quantitative financial data and the qualitative benefits of Foreign Military Sales by adding quantitative data to the benefits.
Summary of chpter-2 (2-3 sentences)
Solving the issues of ignored and delayed requisitions was given attention to by a Lean Six Sigma Green Belt project conducted by the International Programs and the Integrated Weapon Systems Teams. On the other hand, meetings have been conducted to address the same issues plus the issue of unprocessed and unreleased contracts by the Contracts Division (T. Bickel, personal communication, December 9, 2010). The lack of understanding by the Item Managers of Code-03 and Contract Specialists of Code-02 of Foreign Military Sales is the reason why many are not motivated to put to action the guide and directions that followed these discussions.
It is important that the International Programs Division inform its non-FMS colleagues of the benefits of Foreign Military Sales to the Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support, the entire U.S. Navy, Department of Defense, and the communities outside the military. Also, the negative effects of a poorly supported Foreign Military Sales activity should be discussed. Many non-FMS employee do not know that an accidental delivery of a spare part to an unfriendly government or an unauthorized group can put the security of the United States in jeopardy and that their full attention and willingness to work a Foreign Military Sales requisition or contract is vital to the overall success of the program and security of the country.
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY (3-5 Pages)
Foreign Military Sales data is always measured by the number of agreements signed and the values associated with the agreements. Also, the financial value per fiscal year that the program brings in to the government and the private sector are measured quantitatively. On the other hand, the benefits of Foreign Military Sales are often measured intangibly by international relationships that were forged and the lasting non-military programs that come along after an agreement is signed. This is why a hybrid of quantitative and qualitative approach will be used for the study.
One would think that benefits such as the number of jobs created are plentiful, but the reality is that they are not easy to locate. Foreign Military Sales is not typically put in a positive light, but is rather marred with negative news and suspicion. This is because many have limited or no knowledge of the Foreign Military Sales process and its benefits. This lack of knowledge about the program is the root of the issues that the International Programs Division or Foreign Military Sales of the Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support- Philadelphia is facing. Many of its requisitions are ignored or deleted, and its contracts delayed or unprocessed. The fact that its processing priority status is behind that of the United States Navy and Marine Corps already put all FMS activities behind a few days, but this is a procedure that is enforced by the Command and is understood. The real issue is the lack of motivation to work Foreign Military Sales order and contracts, which is more than often is because of the negative perception of many towards FMS and their political views about supporting foreign war fighters.
The chosen typology is a Program Evaluation.
The study assumes that educating Item Managers and Contract Specialists of the basic function of Foreign Military Sales within the Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support – Philadelphia will motivate him or her to process his or her FMS workload in a timely and proper manner. It is also assumed that educating non-FMS personnel about the benefits of Foreign Military Sales to the workforce will motivate him or her to cooperate with the International Programs Division. Another assumption made is that informing the staff of Codes 02 and 03 of the positive impact of Foreign Military Sales to the micro and macro economy will lessen their negative perception and ignore their own political views about Foreign Military Sales when processing FMS requisitions or sales orders and contracts. In addition, positive assumptions such as FMS’s role in new job creation and sustainment of existing ones is highlighted in this study; that interns and trainees of the Integrated Weapon Support Teams and Contracts Specialists are more willing to adapt to changes. Addressing negative assumptions about FMS are also important such as the negative perception of people who have limited or no knowledge of the subject matter; and the resistance to change which exist amongst seasoned Item Managers ad Contract Specialists.
The study’s primary focus was on the delays of FMS sales order and contract initiation at the Integrated Weapon Systems Team divisions (Code 03) and the Contracts division (Code 02). The research also focused on the effectiveness of having information about the Foreign Military Sales program readily available to non-FMS employees to provide them a better understanding and appreciation of the benefits of U.S. arms sales and the reason why the United States Government is involved with foreign government allies in which some are perceived by the public as questionable.
Data Collection (required)
Pre-existing data and studies were used to gather all necessary information since surveys were not permitted by the International Programs Directorate due to the sensitivity of information pertaining to international arms sales and foreign military security. Also, a survey conducted and published by the University of California- Irvine was used in place of a self conducted survey. Some non-sensitive personal correspondences were used since qualitative data was needed as information regarding the non-FMS employees’ perception of the FMS program. Scholarly journals and supported by reputable news articles were also heavily used to capture current events related to the subject matter. The majority of journal and news articles were from 2010 and 2012 which mainly focused on the tangible benefits of FMS such as sales figures and jobs created. The oldest data came from 1994 which focused on the basic facts and history about Foreign Military Sales and focused more on the qualitative information of the program. The DISAM Journal, a publication by the Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management (DISAM) and the DISAM agency itself has been numerously consulted due to its role as the educational wing of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency- a Department of Defense agency that handles all FMS activities liaised by the Department of State. Various military journals, as well as some online business news agencies were referenced to capture the business portion of the program.
Data Gathering Techniques (optionl)
Pre-existing data was gathered from scholarly studies conducted by the University of California- Irvine, George Mason University and the United Nations as well as scholarly journals such as the DISAM Journal. Government agency data that is accessible to the public were also used to extract both qualitative and quantitative data. Data concerning current events and figures that were recently released were gathered from U.S. Government agencies’ and U.S. private contractors’ press releases as well as reputable news agencies such as CNN and Bloomberg. Personal correspondence was also used to gather some qualitative data such as employee perception.
Data Analysis and Synthesis (required)
Chapter 1 stated that the objective was to determine the availability of information on the Foreign Military Sales program can change the negative perception of the employees of the Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support- Philadelphia. Also, the research evaluates the different types of methods available to effectively and efficiently delivery the information. Finally, the research looks at long term ways to prevent the problem from reoccurring by using different types of employee motivational approach. The decrease in FMS order delays and contract initiation will serve as a way to measure the relationship between the study and the improvement on FMS metrics for Codes 02 and 03.
Reliability and Validity (required)
Qualitative data such as NAVSUP-WSS employees’ perception of Foreign Military Sales is subjective and its reliability is based solely on the perception by each individual and groups. Individual perception itself is a variable factor that can change and fluctuate based on many situations such as change in the IWST’s or Contracting division’s focus from domestic to FMS programs or an IWST’s position in the supply cycle where a new weapon systems program may not pay as much attention to FMS as much as a stable or a program that is sun-downing or ending. The reliability of the qualitative data is sensitive to these situational factors and the surrounding environment plays a big role in the swing of an individual or a group’s perception so it is valid to question the reliability of a qualitative data.
Quantitative data such as yearly Foreign Military Sales figures and the number of jobs created were all gathered from various United States Government sources and websites such as the Department of Defense, Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management and the Department of State. These figures were further validated by the data acquired from articles from independent news agencies such as CNN and Bloomberg that reported the same figures.
Scope and Limitations (required)
The study focused on finding an alternative to the process desk guides and procedure manuals provided by the NAVSUP WSS – Philadelphia Green Belt Project which are both useful, but only served as instructions rather than the final solution to the real issue. The study will also focus on finding a solution only for the Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support – Philadelphia’s International Programs or FMS Division but due to the lack of quantitative information about the problem and the proprietary and legal limitations of releasing government data as well as the limitations of doing a survey within the Command, pre-existing data was used. The absence of NAVSUP WSS quantitative data supporting the problem limited the research as well, which is why a macro to micro view (using pre-existing data gathered from industry, the greater Department of Defense and its sub-departments due to its availability and larger population) is used to fill-in the missing information not available for extraction from the Command. Finally, the study will only tackle the stated issues via disbursement of information and access to the necessary information that non-FMS employees will need through various forms of delivery.
Summary of chapter-3 (required) 2-3 sentences
The limited availability data due to restrictions on data extraction from various U.S. Government agencies has been a challenge. The Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management was able to release information through their scholarly journal and public access archives which became the base that lead to the research to other organizations, educational institutions and watch groups that follow arms sales. Pre-existing data gathered from these scholarly journals, news articles, studies and a survey conducted by the University of California- Irvine were used complete the quantitative portion. On the other hand, perception as a subjective and qualitative data is also challenging to measure; and personal correspondence from various non-FMS employees and the general knowledge of the negative perception regarding FMS is used to measure this factor.
CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS ( required 10-12 pages)
The data gathered and its interpretation through a summary is discussed in this chapter. It tackles the stated problem and the issues about the need to address the lack of knowledge and resources available for non-Foreign Military Sales employees regarding basic background information of the Foreign Military Sales program and its importance and benefits to the Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support as well as the Department of the Navy and the entire Department of Defense.
Due to the small size and limitations in releasing data regarding the demographics of NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support – Philadelphia employees, the researcher has decided to use a macro-micro approach. The data collected for the macro portion of the research are from organizations outside of NAVSUP WSS – Philadelphia, which are the Departments of the Navy (including the Marine Corps), Army and Air Force, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and U.S. defense contractors. The micro portion of the research contains information from the Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support – Philadelphia. The research focused solely on three of the six Codes of NAVSUP WSS – Philadelphia: Code OF or International Programs (commonly known as Foreign Military Sales), Code 02 or the Contracts Division, and Code 03 or the Integrated Weapon Systems Teams
The objective of this research is to evaluate an alternative information disbursing method that will complement the existing procedural manuals and process desk guides that were created as a result of various inter-code Green Belt Projects geared toward minimizing or even eliminating sales order processing and contracts initiation delays. The researcher hopes that by having information readily available regarding the background, purpose and benefits of Foreign Military Sales through various forms of delivery formats will encourage and motivate non-FMS employees to work on their FMS workload.
Objective Questions (required)
Pre-existing and relevant historical data were analyzed and delivered in the form a statement in order to answer the research questions covered in this research.
- What information should FMS provide Codes 02 and 03 to motivate its employees to properly process his or her FMS workload?
- How should FMS deliver the information to the two Codes to see results?
- Will the availability of information and its delivery be enough to change the perception of the employees of Codes 02 and 03 about the FMS program?
Analysis of Research Questions(required) but Supporting Project (not required)
There research consists of a two part analysis. The first part is the analysis of macro data which are information extracted from factors outside of the NAVSUP WSS – Philadelphia. The macro data focused on the benefits of the FMS program and contains FMS sales figures, jobs created by the program and the relationship building aspect of arms sales. The second part is the analysis of micro data collected within NAVSUP WSS – Philadelphia. The micro data should mirror some of the types of macro data except at a small scale. Due to the limitations previously stated regarding data collection within NAVSUP WSS – Philadelphia, the pre-existing macro data will fill the missing portions that the micro data cannot provide.
QUESTION 1: “What information should FMS provide Codes 02 and 03 to motivate its employees to properly process his or her FMS workload?” The data gathered focused solely on the benefits of the Foreign Military Sales. The first two of benefits are tangible which are visible through the annual sales figures and jobs created by the program.
Figure 1: Total Foreign Military Sales from all U.S. Government agencies (fiscal year 2000-2012)
FMS Sales Figures: The Foreign Military Sales revenue hovered around $10 to just over 13.5 billion U.S. dollars from fiscal year 2000 to 2005, but jumped to $20 billion then eventually doubled in its 2000-2005 figures when it catapulted to $36.38 billion dollars in fiscal year 2008. From then on it stayed in the 30’s mark and the obsession in maintaining sales in this level was achieved for the next four years from fiscal year 2008 to 2011. The most recent of the four record breaking years where recorded at $34.8 billion dollars included sales from the United States allies such as “the Afghan Security Forces ($5.4 billion); the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States ($4.9 billion); India ($4.5 billion); Australia ($3.9 billion); Saudi Arabia ($3.5 billion); Iraq ($2.0 billion); the United Arab Emirates ($1.5 billion); Israel ($1.4 billion); Japan ($0.5 billion); and Sweden ($0.5 billion) (Defense Security Cooperation Agency, 2011).
The U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) forecasted in the beginning of Fiscal Year 2012 that the $30 billion sales trend was to continue, but by June of 2012 sales figures exploded and surpassed $50 billion dollars. The $20 billion dollar jump is in response to the United States Government’s efforts to increase exports and to boost the local economy. During a special briefing by Andrew Shapiro, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs (a division of the U.S. Department of State), he stated that combined efforts from the U.S. diplomats and senior officials of the State Department in promoting and advocating for U.S. companies for foreign defense contracts bids and government related business opportunities through meetings, official visits and conferences, is the reason why the FMS program has grown and stayed strong throughout the recent economic downturn (United States Department of State, 2012). The focus on U.S. military allies by the defense industry is also a reaction to scheduled budget cuts of at least $450 billion for the next ten year, which contractors are hoping to at least gain some revenue to replace expected losses to come (Lerman, 2012). This was echoed on June 29, 2012 by U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta when he announced that a threat of sequestration, which is built into the Budget Control Act, will start the said decade long budget cuts if reduction in spending is not immediately identified by Congress (Parrish, 2012).
The continued success of fiscal year 2012 as it approaches its end is due to sales efforts that have been in continuous negotiation for over a decade which included previous sales and deliveries of military equipment and materiel. In 2008 the United States signed a $29.6 billion arms transfer agreement as reported by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which is the same agency that reported the United State’s delivery of 184 combat helicopters from 2000 to 2004 and an additional 160 from 2005 to 2008 to its foreign allies (Chavanne, 2010). But the sales transaction most responsible to the staggering increase in fiscal year 2012’s figures is the agreement with Saudi Arabia. The Saudi’s signed an agreement worth $29.4 billion in December 2011 that included the purchase of 84 F-15SA fighter jets and its future parts and supply support, training, logistics and maintenance, plus upgrades to its current fleet of 70 F-15 jets (Shapiro, 2012). Japan’s $10 billion purchase of the Joint Strike Fighter has also contributed to this number. These two sales contracts were significantly higher than the previous fiscal year’s much anticipated sales agreement with the Commonwealth of Australia when it announced on June 15, 2011 the purchase of 24 MH-60R helicopters via an FMS agreement with the United States Navy worth approximately $3 to 3.5 billion. (www.defence.gov.au/dmo/hsd/air9000/phase8.cfm).
Moving forward fiscal year 2012, the FMS pipeline (see Table 1) looks strong and promising with various announcements and public notices posted on DSCA’s Security Cooperation News website www.dsca.mil/sc_news/. The following are just some of the possible foreign military sales which are still under negotiation:
Sample of most recent public announcement of possible FMS by DSCA as of 7/1/12
Complete list is available in Appendix A
|Country||Approx Value in USD||Quantity||Description||Announcement Date|
|United Kingdom||$300 million||20||F-117-PW-100 engines, logistics support, maintenance||3/7/2012|
|Poland||$447 million||n/a||F-16 munitions, parts, training and logistics and supply support||2/2/2012|
|Saudi Arabia||$120 million||n/a||Continuation of services for the PATRIOT
Systems Engineering Services Program (ESP).
|Australia||$950 million||10||C-27J aircraft and associated equipment,
parts, training and logistical support
|Iraq||$18 billion||18||F-16IQ aircraft and associated equipment,
parts, weapons, training and logistical support
FMS and Job Creation: A study conducted at the George Mason University and published in 2011 proposed that a decade long defense budget cuts will significantly affect American jobs. The initial set of military spending cuts valued at $45.01 billion ($25.686 have already been approved and the remainder expected in fiscal year 2013) will result in the loss of 1,006,315 full time jobs: 352,745 is expected come directly or indirectly from major U.S. defense contractors; 124,428 from prime contractors and suppliers; 228,318 from other businesses that support the defense industry; 65% of the loss or 653,570 jobs will be the result of personal spending cuts due to the decrease in take home pay; adding another .6 percentage points to the unemployment rate (Fuller, 2011).
This is enough reason why many U.S. contractors have refocused their targets overseas in which the Foreign Military Sales program with the Department of Defense would be an excellent vehicle to save some of the expected job losses. The Department of State stated that the FMS agreement with Saudi Arabia is forecasted to produce 50,000 U.S. jobs from 600 contractors based in 44 states, and add $3.5 billion to the U.S. economy per annum which will also positively affect other sectors that directly and indirectly support the defense industry (Shapiro, 2012). FMS also support employment of specific sociological demographics. One example was the U.S. Army’s selection of CABVI through the AbilityOne program – geared to create a source of employment for the blind and people with other disabilities (Mohawk Valley Chamber of Commerce, 2012). The $6.5 million contract in which CABVI will manufacture military equipment and clothing for FMS customers has an indefinite delivery and quantity in its contract clause, which promotes long term relationship and future contract extensions (Kozak, 2012). In addition, defense programs where a type of equipment or weapon systems have seen a significant decrease in sales orders from the U.S. military are given a second chance. Two prime examples the production activities for the F-15 and F-16 fighter jets. The F-15 production line was almost closed by Boeing until FMS orders came from Japan and South Korea and resulted to its life extension until Saudi Arabia caught its attention and kept the program going, while FMS program serves as a lifeline extension or a bridge program to employees working at the F-16 facility in Forth Worth, TX while waiting the full production of the F-35 aircraft (Wall, 2009).
The Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management (DISAM) the formula used to determine out how many jobs are generated by the FMS program is: $1 Billion = 35,000 man-years of direct employment = 26,250 man-years of indirect employment or 1 man-years of direct employment = .75 man-years of indirect employment (Bajuzs & Louscher, 1988). Using the formula with the recent Saudi Arabia FMS at $29.4 billion, the agreement should produce 1,029,000 man-years of direct employment and an additional 771,750 of indirect employment from surrounding industries and support activities. To put in perspective, Table 2 shows the man-years directly generated by the Foreign Military Sales from fiscal year 2000 to portions of 2012.
|Man-Years as a Direct Result of FMS per FY|
|Fiscal Year||Total Sales in Billions (USD)||Man Years|
|FY 2012 figure not finalized and official as of June 2012|
FMS and Relationship Building: The main intangible benefit of Foreign Military Sales is the relationship building forged between the United States and the foreign ally. Through FMS, the United States Government solidifies existing diplomatic ties and creates new ones through open inter-government dialogue. Through these relationships, the United States can communicate its interests and deliver it in a particular region of the world where the foreign ally is located. The exchange of information is vital to the growth of both the U.S. military and the foreign country. Each foreign country that participates in FMS has an opportunity to send foreign military representatives and liaisons to the United States and vice-versa. Since the sale of equipment, hardware and materiel require training; foreign military personnel and foreign civilian workers get a chance to visit the United States to train as well. For example, the continued agreement with Saudi Arabia has benefited both countries relationship by having over 1,000 Royal Saudi Air Force students train in the United States since 2007 (Gordon, 2012) This might be alarming to others that are not familiar with international relationship building and security cooperation, but it is a good assumption that a government that is interested in forging military and defense ties with the United States is most likely to share the country’s security interests (Shapiro, 2012). “The United States strengthens its military-to-military ties with the new owner through training opportunities and increased equipment interoperability (Lopez, 2012). This relationship building aspect of FMS also opens up doors to possible business opportunities in emerging markets such as India, Brazil, and many Southeast Asian countries where growth margins are higher. FMS is another window that America can use to position its influence while keeping its military’s strategic dominance in these growing regions.
FMS and its Benefits to NAVSUP WSS: The Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support- Philadelphia has been a dedicated contributor to the Department of the Navy’s Foreign Military Sales program efforts since the Navy International Logistics Control Office (NAVILCO) was absorbed by the Command in 1996. Since then it has created FMS specific jobs for almost two decades. FMS or Code-OF currently has three logistics divisions, a policy department, several country program management teams, a transportation department, its own technology support department and a contractor division. Each FMS division has a workforce of about 8 to 15 individuals, while the contractor division has over 20 to 25 employees. FMS as a division of NAVSUP is located in two buildings and is currently growing. In 2010 Code-OF hired 15 college graduate trainees through the Federal Government’s 7-9-11 career ladder program as a direct result of sales agreements signed by the United States Navy and other military services.
The FMS division is also the main driver in forging relationships with foreign countries within NAVSUP. There are a number of foreign liaison offices staffed by both foreign military Security Assistance Foreign Representatives (SAFRs) and civilians. The presence of these foreign offices and foreign military personnel within the two FMS occupied buildings allow very close interactions between FMS and non-FMS U.S. Government military, civilian employees and contractors and the foreign liaisons. These interactions do not only happen in formal settings but also in informal gatherings such as picnics, athletic events or just through casual conversation. This mini United Nations environment allows both sides a chance to open cross cultural dialogue where everyone gets to learn a foreign liaison’s traditions, customs, business etiquette and beliefs.
Figure 2: NAVSUP FMS Contribution to the overall Department of the Navy/US Coast Guard FMS Program
Figure 2 shows that NAVSUP has contributed about a quarter to three quarters of a billion dollar revenue as a Systems Command (SYSCOM) to the combined U.S. Navy/Coast Guard FMS efforts, which had a mean of 5.013 from fiscal year 2004 to 2011 (Holub, 2012). The Command’s FMS program is expected to grow as new programs like Australia and India began with their procurement of NAVSUP specific items. Every year since 2004 (with exception to fiscal year 2010) its steady growth has made FMS an exciting place to work. NAVSUP’s importance to the entire Navy FMS efforts has increased as the Command’s input on FMS subject matters have been more and more consulted by bigger SYCOMS such as the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) and Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVEA) during FMS conference calls, meetings and conferences as it continuously expands. The expected increase in sales plus the rising importance of NAVSUP to the Department of the Navy’s FMS efforts makes it more imperative that the issues of delayed response from the Integrated Weapon Systems Team (Code 03) and Contracts (Code 02) are answered now as volumes are also expected to rise.
QUESTION 2: “How should FMS deliver the information to the two Codes to see results?” Having an understanding of the age demographics of an organization’s population allows a more tailored approach to training corporate personnel. It is safe to assume that the majority of organizations today include a mixture of four worker generations which are the Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y. These four groups are found at NAVSUP WSS- Philadelphia where there is an approximate population split of 40% Traditionalists (born 1925-1945) who are ready for retirement; 30% Baby Boomers (born 1945-1964) which some are also retiring while the rest hold most of the upper management positions; 20% Generation X (born 1965-1980)- a group that are usually in middle management and are team leaders; and 10% Generation Y (born 1981 and after) who are currently completing their trainee programs or were just promoted to lead their own teams.
Based on the descriptions of each generation’s qualities (Table 3) referenced from a training guide of the Executive Office of the United Nations Join Staff Pension Fund, the Traditionalists group fairs well in a traditional instructor lead classroom based training, while the Baby Boomers do better in team oriented, interpersonal and interactive training methods where an entire group is involved. Generation X and Generation Y will do better in online based training.
Figure 3: Association of age with methods of training
A telephone survey conducted from April to July of 2004 and published in 2005 by James Danzinger and Debora Dunkle of the Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations (CRITO) of the University of California- Irvine’s School of Social Sciences identified four training methods used by the three working generations. The sample survey (Figure 3) of 1150 individuals divided in to the ages of 18-34 (Generation X and Y), 35-54 (Baby Boomers) and 55 and over (Traditionalists) use variations of instructor led training, online based training and self-guided training via manuals, and trial and error. According to the survey all age groups (18-34, 35-54 and – over) used instructor based training the most, which the Traditionalists and Baby Boomers using slightly more of this method than its Generation X and Y counterparts. On-line based training came in second, but this time the Generation X and Y are the groups with the highest percentage users and the Traditionalists lagged 7.6% behind them in terms of usage. Self-training methods was the least preferred by all age groups, where the Baby Boomers had the least percentage usage. This is a bit surprising considering the personality traits described by the U.N. study stating that this group was described as independent, disapproves structure and likes self gratification. A self-training method would have been a perfect choice, but given the fact that this group functions well in team oriented activities might be the reason why this method is the Baby Boomers’ least favorite.
Based on the two studies conducted by the United Nations and the University of California- Irvine, it is best to use all three training methods in order to reach all four generations. At NAVSUP- WSS, training manuals and process desk guides have already been available for both Codes 02 and 03 to use and are available in electronic form and as a hard copy. But since the U.N. study shows that this method is the least liked by all four generations, the Command should also conduct traditional classroom trainings and collaborative and interactive team based training that is used by agencies of the Department of Defense such as the Defense Acquisition University, Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management, and various Department of the Navy Continuous Process Improvement Teams.
QUESTION 3: “Will the availability of information and its delivery be enough to change the perception of the employees of Codes 02 and 03 about the FMS program?” The lack of information about FMS has not deterred personnel from Codes 02 and 03 from processing FMS sales orders and contracts. If it did, then the problem would have been bigger since no FMS work would have been completed. The issue is matching the work output with the priority number that the Command puts on every FMS sales order and contracts. It is accepted by the International Programs community that FMS will never take priority over U.S. Navy and Marine Corps domestic requisitions and contracts, but if the priority number given to a requisition and contract is 3, then the work output should be that of a priority 3 and not delay it to a point that the work output seemed like it was a priority number 8.
Revisiting the two theories presented in Chapter 1 on motivating government employees in doing their FMS workload helped determine the right approach in order to determine if the availability of information on the FMS program alone helped motivate NAVSUP-WSS Code 02 and 03 personnel in improving process time. One of the two theories is presented in Chapter 1 is McGregor’s Theory X and Y. Since it has been determined that NAVSUP-WSS employees has been slowly working their FMS sales orders and contracts even at the current lack of available information to motivate them to do so is enough evidence that the Code 02 and 03 group fall within Theory Y, which states that workers by nature can be motivated to do their job and enjoy productivity and eventually become independent and responsible member of an organization (Kopelman, Prottas, & Falk, 2010). Knowing this, Foreign Military Sales management and Logistics Management Specialists can give more trust to the Code 03 Item Managers and Code 02 Contract Specialists instead of the current practice of constantly threatening their supervisors if an FMS task is not done after several notices. Since it was found in Chapter 1 that this negative practice has very little or no impact on the Contract Specialists’ and Item Managers’ performance since FMS has no real power to reprimand individuals from other Codes or divisions it is better for FMS management and personnel to change their attitudes and accept the Theory Y approach in order to further motivate their colleagues in the two non-FMS Codes.
To complement McGregor’s Theory, it was decided that Vroom’s Expectancy Theory will be referenced to understand what motivates the two groups to work FMS orders and contracts. Vroom’s Theory believes that individuals will be motivated due to their belief that they can get what their desired outcome (rewards) from performance and efforts (Redmond, 2012). This theory works when the individual is give the right tools and information plus support from colleagues to do his or her job well, which is why it is imperative that information is available in order to further motivate Codes 02 and 03 personnel. Also, in order sustain and keep the motivation going FMS management need to extend its reward programs such as recognition certificates, time-off awards, and monetary awards given to high performing individuals to keep the motivation high. This combination should cover both individuals that value monetary rewards and intangible recognition.
summary of chapter-4 (required) 2-3 sentences
The availability of information will help change the perception of non-FMS employees of the FMS process which will motivate them to work FMS requirements. The Financial benefits of FMS which shows its sales revenue per year and the jobs created by the program paired with the intangible benefits are solid information that shows non-FMS personnel that there benefits to having a strong FMS program throughout the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy and NAVSUP- WSS. Although the availability of information can have a positive impact on the way Code 02 and 03 work their FMS workload, it would be smart to disburse this information to all age groups that are currently working for the Command by using self-paced, traditional classroom, team oriented, and electronic training methods. Add motivation and trust to this equation, the goal to get personnel of both Codes to work FMS orders and contracts in a timely matter can be achieved.
CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMEDATIONS
(3-5 pages) (required)
Summary of the whole progect
The purpose of this research study was to evaluate the delays in Foreign Military Sales requisitions or sales orders and contract initiation by the Item Managers of the Integrated Weapon Systems Team (Code 03) and the Contracts Division (Code 02) of the Naval Supply Systems Command, Weapon Systems Support- Philadelphia and to find out the correlation between the current lack of information about the FMS program and the delays. Also, the research evaluated on how the availability of FMS information can have a relational effect on reversing these delays. The analysis looked at yearly sales revenue generated by the FMS programs of different Department of Defense divisions, departments and agencies including NAVSUP- WSS. Hard to locate job data was also examined in addition to the relationship building opportunities produced by the program. Also, the study evaluated the different U.S. Government agencies and private contractors that took advantage of both tangible and intangible benefits of the FMS program and how it NAVSUP WSS- Philadephia can use the same data and correlate the relationship between the FMS workload delays caused by the non-FMS employee perceptions and the availability of information.
After reviewing the data collected in the program evaluation, it is concluded that providing non-FMS employees information such as the benefits of FMS and how it can have a positive impact to the overall macro and local economy can have an impact in the perception of the FMS program, which would then positively affect the less than satisfactory metrics concerning Code 02 and 03 FMS workloads. In order to efficiently disburse the information, it be made available to all age groups presently working at NAVSUP- WSS and each group since each has its way of acquiring information. Hence, different training methods should be used in order to better relate the availability of FMS information to the upward swing of FMS metrics at Codes 02 and 03.
The information extracted and analyzed for this study that were not readily available to non-FMS employees of NAVSUP- WSS should be distributed correctly and effectively in order to gain the best results. Manuals on how to pass FMS sales orders through different systems, and desk guides on how to initiate FMS contracts are all available, but it has been observed that even manuals and desk guides alone are not effective if the employees are not properly trained. There are several methods of training readily available at NAVSUP- WSS that other Codes use in order to get information about their divisions transferred to other Codes. Code 02 and 03 are two divisions that are very good at cross training their personnel, and FMS should utilize these resources and should get an agreement with both Codes to include it with its cross training events. These cross training events include traditional classroom training done at least once a month on general and specific topics which range from processing workload in a specific system to fun and interesting facts about their division. Each classroom style training lasts for an hour and copies of each training presentation are posted in the shared drive accessible to any employee who needs it.
Another recommendation is to do batch training to speed up the desired results by allowing all employees from the helicopter IWSTs and Contracting teams to go first since NAVUP WSS- Philadelphia has more interaction with these divisions than any other divisions of both Codes 02 and 03. Then the F-18 team and its Contracting counterpart should be trained next, then “other aircrafts” divisions and their Contracting colleagues should go after. Finally the Common Avionics and Engines IWSTs and the Code 02 divisions associated with them will receive their FMS training.
It is also recommended that Code OF or FMS forge an agreement with the two codes regarding employee rotation. It is through these rotational training where non-FMS employees can get hands on experience of the different programs and teams in FMS and vice-versa. This is also a chance for FMS to build rapport with their non-FMS counterpart. Relationship created between FMS employees, Item Managers and Contract Specialists during these rotational training can have a greater impact than any other mode of training available. It is through these training methods that FMS can increase its visibility and share their knowledge and highlight its benefits to the Command and the greater Department of Defense community.
TERMINOLOGY & DEFINITIONS ( not required)
Contract Specialist – also called a buyer is a government employee that initiates contracts for all NAVSUP WSS Codes located in the Contracts Division or Code 02.
Contracts Division – commonly known as NAVSUP WSS-02 or Code-02 is the contracting arm of the Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support. Its primary purpose is to support the contracting needs of the Integrated Weapon Systems Teams. It also provides contracting support for NAVSUP WSS’s Foreign Military Sales division, but on a lower priority level.
Foreign Military Sales program (FMS) – is the government-to-government method for selling U.S. defense equipment, services, and training.
Green Belt – is an employee of an organization who has been trained on the improvement methodology of Six Sigma and will lead a process improvement or quality improvement team as part of their full time job.
Integrated Weapon Systems Teams (IWST) – commonly known as NAVSUP WSS-03 or Code-03, are the various teams in charge of the logistics support for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. Its primary function is to support the fleet. It also supports Foreign Military Sales activities and programs but on a lower priority level.
Item Manager – is the unofficial title of a Logistics Management Specialist located in the Integrated Weapon Systems Teams that is in charge of managing specific parts or materiel.
International Programs Division – commonly known as NAVSUP WSS-OF, Code-OF, Foreign Military Sales or FMS is a component of the Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support that is in charge of supporting the foreign military allies’ program and weapon systems. It is headquartered in Philadelphia, PA.
Joint and Allied Forces – are the United States’ foreign military allies.
Lean Six Sigma – is an increasingly popular combined management approach that emphasizes use of Lean methodologies and tools to identify and remove waste and increase process velocity, followed by use of Six Sigma methodologies and tools to identify and reduce or remove process variation. This process is called also called Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) at NAVSUP WSS.
Logistics Management Specialist – is the official title of Logistics Managers located at the Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support. For the purpose of this paper, Foreign Military Sales Logistics Managers will be called Logistics Management Specialists, while Integrated Weapon Systems Teams Logistics Managers will be called Item Managers to avoid confusion. IWST Logistics Management Specialists have various other names depending on their functions (e.g. Item Manager, Equipment Specialist, etc), while Foreign Military Sales Logistics Management Specialists are just called that.
Man-Year: A method of describing the amount of work done by an individual throughout the entire year. The man-year takes the amount of hours worked by an individual during the week and multiplies it by 52 (or the number of weeks worked in a year). The man-year calculated will be different for various industries depending on the average number of hours worked each week and the number of weeks worked per year.
Materiel – in the English language, refers to military equipment and supplies.
Naval Air Systems Command- is a U.S. Navy Systems Command (SYSCOM) that provides material support for aircraft and airborne weapon systems for the United States Navy.
Naval Sea Systems Command- is the largest of the U.S. Navy’s five Systems Commands (SYSCOM), or materiel (not to be confused with “material”) organizations. Its primary objective is to engineer, build and support the U.S. Navy’s fleet of ships and combat systems.
Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support (NAVSUP WSS) – is one of the five components that make-up the Naval Supply Systems Command. NAVSUP WSS provides the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Joint and Allied Forces program and supply support for its weapon systems. NAVSUP WSS’s aviation division is located in Philadelphia, PA, while its surface division is in Mechanicsburg, PA. Formerly called the Naval Inventory Control Point or NAVICP. Locally known as the former Depot, NAVSUP WSS, NAVSUP, or just WSS.
Navy International Logistics Control Office (NAVILCO) – is the predecessor organization of NAVSUP WSS’s International Programs Division that was in charge of providing supply and weapon system support to the Joint and Allied Forces. NAVILCO was located in Bayonne, NJ before it was decommissioned.
Requisition – A sales order.
Security Assistance Foreign Liaison (SAFR): is a fully accredited member of a foreign military of defense establishment tasked with representing that government’s official business with the United States Navy.
Systems Command (SYSCOM): a materiel organization of the U.S. military
REFERENCES (20 refrences)
Bajusz, W , & Louscher, D. (1998). The economic cost of arms sales curb. DISAM Journal of Security Assistance Management, 10(3), 19-20 (Reprinted from Defense News, 1987, November 30, 84-86). Retrieved from http://www.disam.dsca.mil/pubs/Vol%2010-3/Bajusz%20&%20Louscher.pdf
Bennis, R. (1996). The U.S. Naval Supply Systems Command Security Assistance reorganization. The DISAM Journal of Security Assistance Management, 19(2), 101-107. Retrieved from http://www.disam.dsca.mil/Pubs/Indexes/Vol%2019_2/Bennis.pdf
Bernard, S. N. (2003). A Naval Aviation Foreign Military Sales Logistics Process Improvement Team update. The DISAM Journal of Security Assistance Management 25(1/2), 98-104. Retrieved from www.disam.dsca.mil/pubs/v.25_1&2/Bernard,%20Stephen%20N.pdf
Bitzinger R. A. (2010). A new arms Race? explaining recent Southeast Asian military acquisitions. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 32(1), 50-69. doi:10.1355/cs32-1c
Chavanne, B. H. (2010, July 19). Foreign focus. Aviation Week & Space Technology, 172(27), 97. Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic
Cooper, D. R. & Schindler, P. S. (2010) Foundations of research methods in administration. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Danzinger, J. & Dunkle, D. (2005) Methods of training in the workplace. Retrieved from
Defence Materiel Organization (2012). Projects Air 9000 Phase 8 – MH-60R Seahawk Romeo. Retrieved from http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/hsd/air9000/phase8.cfm
Defense Satellite Communications System, (2010). The FMS advantage: frequently asked questions about Foreign Military Sales. Retrieved from http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/fmsadvantagev2.pdf
Defense Security Cooperation Agency. (2011, December 3). Fiscal Year 2011 Foreign Military Sales Exceed $30B [Press Release]. Retrieved from http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/by-date/2011/FMS_Sales_Exceed_30B.pdf
Fuller, S. S. (2011). The U.S. economic impact of approved and projected DoD spending reductions on equipment in 2013. Retrieved from http://secondtonone.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/AIA-Impact-Analysis-plus-State-Impacts1.pdf
Gates, R. M. (2010). Helping others defend themselves. Foreign Affairs, 89(3), 2-6.
Gordon, J. (2012, January 24). Robins to add jobs as part of Saudi defense package. Robins Air Force Base News. Retrieved from http://www.robins.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123287242
Hawkins, J. B. (2007). Where’s My Stuff? Examining the challenges of tracking Foreign Military Sales material moving through the Defense Transportation System. The DISAM Journal of Security Assistance Management, 29(4), 123-132. Retrieved from http://www.disam.dsca.mil/pubs/Vol%2029_4/Hawkins.pdf
Holub, P (2012). Navy International Programs Office [PowerPoint Slides]. Retrieved from http://www.navyleague.org/files/corporate/events/CENTCOM%20Regional%20Brief%20CAPT-HOLUB.pdf
Koepnick, T. (2005). International armaments cooperation: a key to coalition interoperability. The DISAM Journal of Security Assistance Management, 18(1), 19-24. Retrieved from http://www.disam.dsca.mil/Pubs/Indexes/Vol%2028_1/Koepnick.pdf
Kapstein, E. (1994). America’s arms-trade monopoly: lagging sales will starve Lesser Supplier. Foreign Affairs. 73(3), 13-19.
Kopelman, R. E., Prottas, D. J., & Falk, D. W. (2010). Construct validation of a Theory X/Y behavior scale. leadership & organization development Journal, 31(2), 120-135. doi:10.1108/01437731011024385
Kozak, B. (2012, May 24). ACC-APG forges new ties with AbilityOne. United States Army News. Retrieved from http://www.army.mil/article/80511/ACC_APG_forges_new_ties_with_AbilityOne/
Lambright, K. T. (2010). An update of a classic: applying Expectancy Theory to understand contracted provider motivation. Administration & Society, 42(4), 375-403. doi:10.1177/0095399710362714
Lerman, D. (2012, June 21). Foreign military sales set to double since 2008, pentagon says. Bloomberg. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-21/foreign-military-sales-set-to-double-since-2008-pentagon-says.html
Lopez, C.T. (2012, April 25). Foreign military sales make partnership strong, keep production lines hot. United States Army News. Retrieved from http://www.army.mil/article/78614/Foreign_military_sales_make_partnerships_strong__keep_production_lines_hot/
Mohawk Valley Chamber of Commerce (2012, April 4). CABVI Named Prime Vendor for Foreign Military Sales [Press Release].Retrieved from http://www.mvchamber.org/mvchamber_news.asp?id=1865
Naval Supply Systems Command. (2012). NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support (NAVSUP WSS). Retrieved from https://www.navsup.navy.mil/navsup/ourteam/navsupwss
Parrish, K. (2012, June 29). DoD leaders: sequestration threatens military’s successes. U.S. Department of Defense. Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=116968
Perkins, J. B. (1911/2009). France in the American Revolution. Boston, MA & New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Redmond, B. F. (2012, July 4). Expectancy theory. Retrieved from https://wikispaces.psu.edu/display/PSYCH484/4.+Expectancy+Theory
Shapiro, A.J. (2012, June 14). Economic statecraft: defense trade builds diplomatic relationships [DipNote]. Message posted to http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/site/entry/economic_statecraft_defense_trade
Spear, J (1994). Beyond the Cold War. Harvard International Review. 17(1) 8-12.
Tangredi, S. J. (2008). Naval International Programs: ‘it’s about relationships.’ U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, 134(3), 62-66.
Teeney, A. (2010). United States Government benefits as a result of Foreign Military Sales programs. The DISAM Journal of Security Assistance Management, 13(4) 73-78.
Tong, C. H. & Tong, L. (2010). Increasing U.S. exports through government-industry-academia partnerships. Competition Forum, 8(1), 136-141.
Tyagi, P. K. (2010). Expectancy Theory and social loafing in marketing research Group Projects. The Business Review, 14(2), 22-27
United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (n.d.). Overcoming generational gap in the workplace: traditionalists, baby boomers, generation x, generation y (and generation z) working together- what matters and how they learn? How different are they? fact and fiction. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/staffdevelopment/pdf/Designing%20Recruitment,%20Selection%20&%20Talent%20Management%20Model%20tailored%20to%20meet%20UNJSPF’s%20Business%20Development%20Needs.pdf
United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012, June). Unemployment Rate. Retrieved from Bureau of Labor Statistics Website: http://www.bls.gov/cps/
United States Department of State (2012, June 14). Briefing on Department of State Efforts to Expand Defense Trade [Press Release].Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/06/192408.htm
United States General Accountability Office. (2008, February). Export controls: State and Commerce have not taken basic steps to better ensure U.S. interests are protected. (Publication No. GAO-08-710T). Retrieved from General Accounting Office Reports Online: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/gaoreports/index.html
Wall, R. (2009, November 30). Sales surge. Aviation Week & Space Technology, 171(20), 44. Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.com.catalog.lib.cmich.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=6931&sr=HLEAD(Sales+Surge)%2BAND%2BDATE%2BIS%2B2009-11-30
Yoo, B. B., Mallicoat, D. W. & Simpson, T. K. (2009) Can applying organic and industry best practices improve Foreign Military Sales supportability? Defense AR Journal, 16(3), 304-319. Retrieved from http://www.dau.mil/pubscats/PubsCats/Yoo.pdf
List of some of the most recent public announcement of possible FMS by DSCA as of July 1, 2012