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



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



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)



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%



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



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



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



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



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)



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



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



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)



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



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



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.



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.



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.


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



Mission Client/Customer

Business Practices

Capability &Innovation

Balance Scorecard Quadrants



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




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?




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?




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?




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




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



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



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



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.



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%


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



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%



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)

US Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] - United...

Documents

Transcript of US Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] - United...