US Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] - United...
Transcript of US Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] - United...
US Army Corps of Engineers[USACE]
US Army Corps of Engineers[USACE]
Balanced Scorecard Interest Group
March 2004
Balanced Scorecard Interest Group
March 2004
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 2
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
USACE TitleSlide IndexGlobal EngagementUSACE Organization FY04 USACE Funding – Direct/ReimbursableFY 04 Funding by Customer)Program Funding Trends (FY95-06)Military+Civil Workload TrendsLabor Costs ComparisonCorporate Strategic Planning ProcessCorporate Strategic Management SystemStrategic Management Board Focus – 1999Senior Leadership Focus Teams – 1999Vision 1999 & 2004Mission 1999 & 2004Desired End State 1999Strategic Goals – 1999Strategic Goals – 2004CMR versus CMR+Balance Scorecard QuadrantsA Balance Scorecard CMR+CMR+ Balanced Scorecard MeasuresBalance Scorecard – 9 MeasuresCMR+ LinkagesToolsLessons Learned
TitleSlideNumber
1234567891011121314151617181920
21 - 24252627
28 – 3132
Slide IndexSlide Index
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 3
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
SOUTH AMERICAARGENTINABOLIVIACHILECOLOMBIAECUADORPARAGUAYPERUURUGUAYVENEZUELA
NORTH AMERICA /CENTRAL AMERICABELIZECANADACOSTA RICAEL SALVADORGREENLANDGUATEMALAHONDURASMEXICONICARAGUAPANAMA
USACE USACE Around the WorldAround the World
ASIAAFGHANISTANAZERBAIJANBAHRAINCHINAGEORGIAINDIAIRAQISRAELJAPANJORDANKAZAKHSTANKUWAITKYRGYZSTANOMANPHILIPPINESQATARSAUDI ARABIASOUTH KOREATAJIKISTANTHAILANDTURKEYU.A.E.VIETNAM
OCEANIAAM. SAMOAEAST TIMORGUAMMICRONESIAMARSHALL ISLN. MARIANA ISLREP. OF PALAUANTARCTICA
ARCTIC
EUROPEARMENIABELGIUMBOSNIABULGARIACROATIADENMARKESTONIAFINLANDFRANCEGERMANYHUNGARYITALYKOSOVOLITHUANIA MACEDONIAMOLDOVANETHERLANDSNORWAYPOLANDROMANIARUSSIASWEDENSWITZERLANDUKRAINEUNITED KINGDOM
CARIBBEANDOMIN. REPUB.HAITIJAMAICAPUERTO RICOTRINIDAD &
TOBAGO
AUSTRALIANEW ZEALAND
AFRICACAPE VERDECAMEROONCHADDJIBOUTIEGYPTERITREAGHANAKENYAMADAGASCARMALIMOZAMBIQUENIGERNIGERIARWANDASENEGALSOUTH AFRICA
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 4
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
USACE OrganizationUSACE Organization
Data as of Oct 03 *MSC Centers=HNC,TAC **MIL=MILCON,DERP,RE FOAs=HECSA,IWR,MDC,UFC
Commander,USACE
Divisions(8)
EngineeringR&D
Center
Centers*(2)
FOAs(4)
249 EN BN(PrimePower)
Military**(31)
MILCON(21)
Civil Works(38)
Real Estate(33)
OCONUS(4)
Districts (41)
Centersof
Expertise
AreaResident
Project Offices
MaterialTest Labs
06 05SES
HQUSACEOrganization
DistributionCivilian FTE/Uniformed End Strength (ES)
Civilians:
Uniformed:
34,740 FTE Allocated
599 Authorized (Officer/Enlisted)
HQUSACE:853 (2%)(55 UniformedMilitary)
Division HQ:1,009 (3%)(26 UniformedMilitary)
ERDC, Centers& FOAs:3,651 (11%)(36 UniformedMilitary)
Prime Power:31 FTE(220 Uniformed
Military)
Districts:29,196 (84%)(262 UniformedMilitary)
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 5
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
FY04 USACE ProgramFY04 USACE ProgramCivil & Military Funding SourcesCivil & Military Funding Sources
Direct vs ReimbursableDirect vs Reimbursable
Civil$6,280
Total $19,779 ($M)
Military$13,499
Direct Army, Air Force+DOD(MCA, MCAF, BRAC, OMA-DERP+RE,
HAP, etc.)35%
Direct(GI, CG, O&M, FUSRAP, etc.)
82%
Reimb (Spt for Others)- Envir Rest Spt
(EPA Superfund)- Infra Structure
(EPA, Constr Grants)18%
Reimb Army, Air Force+DOD(Inst Spt, OMAF, OMA-DERP+RE,
FMS, HN, NAF, etc.)32%
Current $ as of Oct 03
Global War on Terrorism(GWOT)
33%
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 6
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
USACE Resource GroupsUSACE Resource GroupsFY04 Funding by CustomerFY04 Funding by Customer
Civil SFO20%
Military (DOD, AF, FMS, etc.)
80%
Total $19,779 ($ Millions)
Army Work for Others
Civil Works Direct
Direct66%
Reimb34%
$4,57623%
InstallationsAir Force/NavyDOD AgenciesFMS/Host NationFederal Agencies
$5,62528%
$5,17826%
Current $ as of Oct 03
Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)
$4,40022%
FederalStateLocal
Restore Iraqi Oil (RIO)Restore Iraqi Electric (RIE)Captured Enemy Ammunition Spt Beddown of US Forces
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 7
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
USACE Program Funding TrendsUSACE Program Funding TrendsFY95FY95--0606
95 96 97 98 99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '060
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Fiscal Year
FY04 Constant $ as of Oct 03
Program (Budget Authority) ($M)
Total USACE
Military
Civil
$14,485
$19,779$19,048
$15,069
$8,645
$13,499$12,366
$6,355$5,840 $6,280$6,682
$8,714
$12,739
$7,664
$5,075
$15,043
$8,671
$6,372
(FY03 and FY04Includes GWOT)
Mil = MILCON, RDT&E, RE, Reimb and GWOT Civil = Direct + Reimb
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 8
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
USACE Military + Civil WorkloadUSACE Military + Civil WorkloadBy Element of ResourceBy Element of Resource
FY92FY92--0303
CODB Data as of Oct 03
92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 '00 '01 '02 '030
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Fiscal Year
Workload ($Millions)
All Other
Labor
Contracts (Except A/E)
IT
Training
Travel
Rent (SLUC, Other)
Equip, Supp & Matls
Contracts A/E
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 9
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
1.0
52.00%
36.00%
65.00%
152.00%
Total Labor Multiplier (TLM) Comparison
USACE Labor CostsUSACE Labor CostsComparison between USACE and IndustryComparison between USACE and Industry
DepartmentalOverhead
General & Administrative Overhead, to include:
Fringe Benefits
TOTAL 2.53 TOTAL 2.52 + Profit
Indirect Cost &Fringe
Direct Labor Costs
CORPS’ TOTAL
INDIRECT& FRINGE
1.53%
(2)(1)
(1) Average Cost of All Districts(2) Source: PSMJ Resources, Inc
1.0 Direct Labor Costs
• Engineering• Construction• Real Estate• R&D
• Counsel• Resource Management• Human Resources• Equal Opportunity Office• etc.
CODB Data as of Oct 03
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 10
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
USACE Corporate Strategic Planning USACE Corporate Strategic Planning Process 1996 Process 1996 –– 2000 (2000 2000 (2000 –– 2004)2004)
• Commander• Strategic Management Board – HQ SES and
HQ General Officers– 7 Senior Leader Focus Teams
• Board of Directors – General Officers from HQ and Divisions (= field commanders)
• Strategic Management Office – Senior Level Staff, Scenario Based Strategic Planning (SBSP)
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 11
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
A Strategic Management System
5
USACE 2020
Focus TeamsProgram InitiativesCampaign PlansOperations Plans
3. SpecifyPerformanceGoals &Targets
4. MeasurePerformance Results
2. DevelopActionPlans
Strategic Direction
1. Develop Goals &Objectives
5. Report&DiscussResults
CMR +
Use for strategicplanning andcontinuousimprovement
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 12
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
Strategic Management Board Focus - 1999Strategic Management Board Focus - 1999
CMR
PLUS
XXX
BusinessPractices
CorporateOutreach
CapableWorkforce
Support
Management
MissionSupport
Invest inPeople
XXX
Strategic Direction Setting
(HQ GO/SES, BOD)
Vision
SBSP Analysis
(Scenarios, Segments,
Core Comp, KSFs)
XX
XX
X
X
Inte
grat
ion
Knowledge
RevolutionizeEffectiveness
Army
Tech
Performance Measurement
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 13
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
HQ Strategic Management Board~ Senior Leader Focus Teams 1999 (& 2004) ~
Integration: 4 SES, 3 GO’s, 1 SP. (2004: All retired but 1)
Capable Work Force: 3 SES, 1 GO, 1 SP. (2004: All retired but SP)Outreach: 2 SES, 1 GO, 1 SP. (2004: 1 SES & 1 SP remain)
Knowledge/Technology Management: 1SES, 2 GO, 2 SP). (2004: SES & 1 GO & 1 SP retired/gone)Business Practices: 3 SES, 1 GO, 2 SP. (2004: 1 SES & 1 GO retired/gone.) Support the Army: 2 SES, 2 GO, 2 SP. (2004: 1 SES & 1 GO retired/gone.)Performance Measurement: 2 SES, 1 GO, 3 SP. (2004: 1 SES & 1 GO retired/gone)
Integration: 4 SES, 3 GO’s, 1 SP. (2004: All retired but 1)
Capable Work Force: 3 SES, 1 GO, 1 SP. (2004: All retired but SP)Outreach: 2 SES, 1 GO, 1 SP. (2004: 1 SES & 1 SP remain)
Knowledge/Technology Management: 1SES, 2 GO, 2 SP). (2004: SES & 1 GO & 1 SP retired/gone)Business Practices: 3 SES, 1 GO, 2 SP. (2004: 1 SES & 1 GO retired/gone.) Support the Army: 2 SES, 2 GO, 2 SP. (2004: 1 SES & 1 GO retired/gone.)Performance Measurement: 2 SES, 1 GO, 3 SP. (2004: 1 SES & 1 GO retired/gone)
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 14
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
USACE VisionUSACE Vision1999 & 20041999 & 2004
The world’s premier public engineering organization responding to our Nation’sneeds in peace and war
A full spectrum engineer force of high quality,dedicated soldiers and civilians:• Trained and Ready • Vital Part of the Army• Dedicated to Public Service• Army Values-Based
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 15
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
USACE MissionUSACE Mission1999 & 20041999 & 2004
One Corps Serving the Army and the NationOne Corps Serving the Army and the Nation
Spectrum of USACE OperationsSpectrum of USACE Operations
WARPE
ACE
WA
TER
R
ESO
UR
CES
WA
TER
R
ESO
UR
CES
ENVI
RO
NM
ENT
ENVI
RO
NM
ENT
DIS
ASTE
RS
DIS
ASTE
RS
WA
RFI
GH
TIN
GW
AR
FIG
HTI
NG
INFR
AST
RU
CTU
RE
INFR
AST
RU
CTU
RE
Building and sustaining the
critical facilities for
military installations
and the public
Building and sustaining the
critical facilities for
military installations
and the public
Creating synergy
between water resource
development and
environment
Creating synergy
between water resource
development and
environment
Restoring, managing and and enhancing ecosystems,
local and regional
Restoring, managing and and enhancing ecosystems,
local and regional
Responding to local, national
and globaldisasters
Responding to local, national
and globaldisasters
Providing full spectrum engineering
and contingency
support
Providing full spectrum engineering
and contingency
support
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 16
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
USACE StrategicallyUSACE StrategicallyDesired End State Desired End State -- 19991999
• In the year 2020, the Corps is the Agency of choice for delivering engineering & environmental solutions for the Army and the Nation.
• The Corps maintains strong in-house engineering, project management and R&D capabilities to execute it’s responsibilities and satisfy customer requirements.
• The Corps has enhanced partnering relationships with America’s engineering and construction industry in support of the National Security Strategy.
• The Corps becomes a principal staff advisor for infrastructure policy throughout DoD.
• Corps provides leadership and technical expertise in formulating and implementing U.S. environmental stewardship, water resources and infrastructure policy.
• State and foreign governments increasingly come to the Corps for support in meeting their infrastructure needs.
• In the year 2020, the Corps is the Agency of choice for delivering engineering & environmental solutions for the Army and the Nation.
• The Corps maintains strong in-house engineering, project management and R&D capabilities to execute it’s responsibilities and satisfy customer requirements.
• The Corps has enhanced partnering relationships with America’s engineering and construction industry in support of the National Security Strategy.
• The Corps becomes a principal staff advisor for infrastructure policy throughout DoD.
• Corps provides leadership and technical expertise in formulating and implementing U.S. environmental stewardship, water resources and infrastructure policy.
• State and foreign governments increasingly come to the Corps for support in meeting their infrastructure needs.
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 17
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
USACE Strategic USACE Strategic Goals Goals -- 19991999
Revolutionize Effectiveness. Best business practices, bold processre-engineering and innovative use of technology.
Support Mission RequirementsSupport Mission Requirements. Focusing response to meetemerging Army and national needs, sustaining and enhancing corecompetencies, and maintaining a full spectrum of capabilities critical tothe Army.
Invest in People. Ensure enlightened leadership and a talented, productive and diverse workforce to enable the Corps toenhance its value to the Army and the Nation.
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 18
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
USACE Strategic USACE Strategic Goals Goals -- 20042004
People. Be recognized for the technical and professional excellence of our world class workforce, functioning as teams delivering projects and services.
Process. Use the Project Management Business Process to operate as One Corps, regionally delivering quality goods and services.
Communication. Communicateeffectively to build synergisticrelationships that serve the nation.
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 19
US Army Corpsof Engineers ® CMR versus CMR+
• Focuses on operationalmeasures
• Concentrates on “lagging” indicators (what we did) --but too late to intervene
• Emphasizes Division andDistrict report cards
• Inclines HQ to micro-manage
• Focuses on quantitativemeasures
• Adds strategic measures and operational measures that relate to strategic goals
• Adds “leading” indicators(what we might or shoulddo)
• Discuss accomplishmentof strategic goals, objectives
• Aligns all levels to strategic goals and objectives
• Includes qualitative and quantitative measures
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 20
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
Mission Client/Customer
Business Practices
Capability &Innovation
Balance Scorecard Quadrants
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 21
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
A Balanced Scorecard CMR+
Ask key questions in 4 critical dimensions of performance. For example...
Mission
• Are we achieving our mission purpose and goals for the Army and Nation?
• Are we strengthening our total programto be able to serve the Army and Nation?
Answer with qualitative and quantitative measuresand action plan updates
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 22
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
A Balanced Scorecard CMR+
Client/Customer
• Are we satisfying our clients and customers?
• What are we doing to improve client, customer,and stakeholder relationships?
• Are we acting as advocates for the privatesector A/E and Construction industry on behalf of the Nation?
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 23
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
A Balanced Scorecard CMR+
Capability & Innovation
• Do we have the work force capability to executeour current and future programs?
• Are we translating innovations, expertise, andour learning into knowledge and improvedbusiness practices for mission accomplishment?
• Do we have the command climate to promoteexcellence?
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 24
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
A Balanced Scorecard CMR+
Business Practices
• How efficient are our processes?
• What are we doing to improve the delivery of our products and services to our clients and customers?
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 25
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
Mission Client/Customer
Business Practices Capability & Innovation
• Mission Fulfillment• Program Results • Program Strength
• Client/Stakeholder Commitments Met and Outreach Initiatives
• Overall Client/Customer Satisfaction
•Productivity• Initiatives to:
• Lower Delivered Cost• Reduce Delivery Times
• Work Force Capability(Current, Future)
• Application of R&D Innovations to Corps
CMR+ Balanced ScorecardMeasurement Concepts
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 26
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
Mission Client/Customer
Business Practices Capability & Innovation
M-1: Corporate Program M-2: Strategic Client
Relationship
CC-1: Strategic Client Positioning
CC-2: Client/Customer Satisfaction
B-1: Business Efficiency Indicator
CI-1: Leadership Capabilities and Effectiveness
CI-2: Workforce CapabilitiesCI-3: Command ClimateCI-4: Strategic Research and
Technology Support
9 Strategic Measures [CMR+ → SMR]Balanced Scorecard
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 27
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
MissionGoal: Demonstrate Mission Accomplishment
Client/CustomerGoal: Improve Client/Customer Satisfaction
Business PracticesGoal: Revolutionize Effectiveness
Capability and InnovationGoal: Invest in People
Fulfilling Public Purpose
Program $ Trends
Relationship Maintenance Customer Satisfaction
Project DeliveryTime and Cost
Workforce SkillsCommand Climate
M-1: Corporate ProgramM-2: Client Relationship
CC-1: Client PositioningCC-2: Client Satisfaction
B-1: Business Efficiency
CI-1: Leadership CapabilityCI-2: Workforce CapabilityCI-3: Command ClimateCI-4: R&T2 Effectiveness
CMR+ [SMR] Linkages
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 28
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
SMR Performance Measure Assessment(Instructions on back)
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
1. Strategic Question,Performance Goal &Definition
2. Graphic Display
3. Data & Benchmark
4. Status & FutureActions
5. Proposed DiscussionTopics
Comments: ___________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________0 20 40 60 80 100
Overall Assessment:
SMR Measure: _______ ___________________________________ __________I.D. Title Date
Percent Complete
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 29
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ASSESSINGTHE DEVELOPMENT STATUS OFSMR PERFORMANCE MEASURES
OBJECTIVE: To establish a benchmark and assess progress in implementing USACE SMR Performance Measures.
INSTRUCTIONS:
• Assess the Performance Measure’s percentage of completeness in the following five aspects:
1. Strategic Question, Performance Goal & Measure Definition. Is the Strategic Performance Questionappropriate, clear, and stable? Does it clearly relate to supporting the USACE 2020 Bottom Lines? Is the Performance Goal appropriate for the Strategic Performance Question? Is the Performance Measuredefinition clear, precise, and understandable? Are any assumptions (implicit or explicit) defined? Are all terms of the measure defined ? Are the measure’s mathematical procedures clear to assure consistent application?
2. Graphic Display. Is the graphic display clear and understandable? Is it consistent and compatible with the Performance Goal and Strategic Performance Question and other SMR Performance Measures?
3. Data & Benchmark. Are data sources identified, consistent, available, collected, verified, and validated? Is the data manager identified? Is there a plan for data collection, update, and warehousing? Is the benchmark defined and computed.
4. Status, Future Actions, & Inhibitors. Is the status of the development of the Performance Measure accurate? Are future actions described? Are inhibitors considered?
5. Proposed Discussion Topics and Lead. Are the discussion topics appropriate for discussion at the next SMR session? Who will lead lead the discussion?
• In the Comments area, describe what needs to be accomplished to complete the full development of the Performance Measure.
• Finally, assign in Overall Assessment for the Performance Measure.
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 30
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
CI-2 Workforce Capabilities (1999)
Proposed Strategic Discussion Topics:Discussion Leader: Susan Duncan
• Does USACE possess the appropriate mix of capabilities to meet current and future workforce needs?
• What strategic initiatives could be implemented to improve our workforce capability?
Graphic is notional. Graphic would identify critical shortfalls in workforce capability. In addition, either through attrition or retraining, USACE may need to cut back its pool of available capability in certain areas, as defined by future needs.
Definition: Ratio between the number of employees with identified capabilities and the total projected need by capability category.
Strategic Performance Question: Do we have the critical capabilities needed to perform our missions?
Linkages: M-1 Corporate Program Trends,CC-2 Strategic Client Relationship,CI-1 Leadership Capabilities and Effectiveness,CI-3 Command Climate
Vision Goal: Invest in People, Mission Support Opportunities
Corporate Goal: Obtain, develop, position, and maintain USACE workforce core capabilities at the required projected levels to support our direct and reimbursable programs. Needed levels of capability TBD.
Status: USACE currently has neither a capability inventory nor a breakdown analyses of our future key success factors (KSFs) to determine capability needs.
Future Actions:• Determine capability needed to support core
competencies.• Conduct a capability assessment survey for all
employees.• Develop strategies to close gap between current and
future needs.Inhibitors: Funding (Estimated at $125,000 for FY99-00).
Capability & Innovation Capability & Innovation
Critical Capabilities
60%
70%80%
90%100%
110%120%
130%
'99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 FY
% o
f Nee
ded
Ski
lls
Project Management EngineeringEnvironmental Sciences Other Technical
NotionalGoal = 100%
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 31
US Army Corpsof Engineers ® CI-4
Strategic Research and Technology Support (1999)
Proposed Strategic Discussion Topics:Discussion Leader: Ed Link
• Have we identified future critical technological needs for major mission areas?
• Is the planned investment schedule for the development of these capabilities adequate?
• Do we have an adequate acquisition strategy that will enable the new capability to be transferred effectively to the field as scheduled?
Definition: Assessment of (1) effectiveness of the Research and Development investment strategy in supporting strategic objectives, and (2) corporate value-added of technology investments.
Strategic Performance Question: How effectively are we using R&D to meet USACE strategic objectives?
Linkages: M-1 Corporate Program Trends,CC-2 Client/Customer Satisfaction
Vision Goal: Revolutionize effectiveness
Corporate Goal: • Achieve 2% total R&D investment by FY05.
• Achieve 50% R&D focus on strategic goals by FY03.
Status:• FY02-05 CW R&D program is projected.• Projected ROI estimated for Envr. Quality R&D.
Future Actions:• Complete process for ROI forecasting.• Finalize CW and MP strategic operational capabilities
and determine R&D investment and transition strategies.
• Define technology transition schedule and mechanism for strategic products.
Inhibitors: ROI projection difficult and imprecise; ROI must allow time, dollars, or capability as parameters.
Capability & Innovation Capability & Innovation R&D % of Direct Programs
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
'99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 FY
MP R&D % ofMP DirectProgram
CW R&D %of CW DirectProgram
Strategic R&D Projects
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
'99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 FY
MPStrategicProjects
CWStrategicProjects
Goal = 50% Focus
Goal = 2% of Direct
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 32
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
Definition: Measure of USACE project delivery process efficiency, in terms of cost and time, as a function of total project delivery. For cost efficiency, the numerator includes planning, design (including A/E), construction management, and overhead costs.
Strategic Question: What are we doing to improve the delivery of our products and services to our customers and clients?
Linkages: M-1 Corporate Program TrendsVision Goal: Revolutionize EffectivenessCorporate Goals: By end FY02:
• Decrease project development costs as a proportion of total delivered project cost by 3%.
• Decrease average project delivery time by 2%.
B-1
Proposed Strategic Discussion Topics:Discussion Leader: Steve Coakley
• Are we becoming more efficient in project delivery processes?
• What strategic initiatives will drive down our project delivery time and cost to achieve our targets?
• How do these improvements support our vision and align with our strategic direction?
Status: Data availability to be established.Future Actions:
• For measures: Establish database, develop means of aggregating and baseline, and refine performance target premised on asymptotic function.
• For business efficiencies: Develop initiatives nomination process and identify basis of measurement.
Inhibitors: Asymptotic function presumed to constrain outyear efficiency gains.
Business Practices Business Practices Business Efficiency Indicator (1999)
Average Project Delivery Time
'99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05
Year
s
Project Development Cost / Total Project Delivery Cost
'99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05
% o
f Tot
al D
eliv
ery
Cos
t
Notional
NotionalFY
FY
Goal = 3%
Goal = 2%
H:BalanceScorecardMarch 04.ppt Slide 33
US Army Corpsof Engineers ®
LESSONS LEARNED
A. Corporate Leadership Driven1. Align Vision, Mission, Goals, Objectives and Performance2. Communication Vehicle3. Move from Process to Mission Outcome Focus4. Focus on Strategic Questions that Focus on Mission Accomplishment
B. Long Term CommitmentC. Principles DrivenD. Challenge: Asking Right QuestionsE. Absent some of A, B or C
1. Be Flexible2. Let C & D guide3. Focusing on right Q’s will advance you
F. Take a Long View (= Be Patient & Persevere)