Skip to main content

Appendix: Implemented Initiatives

1. Calibrating DSCA’s Roles and Responsibilities

Initiative
1.1.a.

Conduct an internal review of existing DOD and Security Cooperation community directives and recommend necessary amendments to eliminate ambiguities, inefficiencies, misalignments, and gaps that inhibit the effective and efficient execution of DSCA-managed programs.

Impact: Collaborated with process and policy stakeholders to amend directives and key documents to eliminate ambiguity, inefficiencies, misalignments, and gaps.

1.1.c.

Engage Security Cooperation stakeholders to clarify roles and responsibilities related to program oversight, management, and the general execution of Security Cooperation activities.

Impact: Increased collaboration with Security Cooperation stakeholders and improved process for adjudicating requests.

1.1.d.

Review and update, as required, program-specific information papers, execution guidance, and training materials.

Impact: Updated DISCS curriculum, SAMM, and DOD guidance to reflect the latest information, and will continue to update functional and informational materials as needed.

2. Achieving Strategic Alignment of Human Capital

Initiative
2.1.a.

Structure DSCA’s organization and match its workforce to support the mission in a safe, effective, and efficient manner.

Impact: Conducted a review and realigned the DSCA Headquarters structure as part of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Delayering Initiative.

3. Enhancing Knowledge Management

Initiative
3.1.b.

Implement a detailed plan for DSCA's migration to the G-TSCMIS and for DSCA to help the community effectively use G-TSCMIS as the authoritative data system of the Security Cooperation community.

Impact: Provided an integrated view through G-TSCMIS of all completed, planned, and ongoing Security Cooperation activities for DSCA. Will continue to work diligently towards G-TSCMIS’s final release through FMS Improvement initiative L2.6 by both entering appropriate events and exporting data from DSCA-owned authoritative data systems and working with stakeholders to expand system usage.

Implemented Initiatives

4. Aligning Activities and Resource Allocation to Broader Strategic Priorities

Initiative
4.1.a.

Transition DSCA to a “matrixed organization” and establish Integrated Regional Teams that prioritize and synchronize DSCA-managed activities while balancing USG objectives with partner nation expectations.

Impact: Enabled workforce to better serve the full spectrum of capabilities by increased knowledge sharing and awareness.

4.1.b.

Use a DSCA-wide engagement calendar for tracking significant events, milestones, and recurring activities to improve the timeliness and quality of planning processes and products.

Impact: Fostered a more synchronized and efficient long-range work environment.

4.2.b.

Manage long- and short-term bilateral engagement strategies that inform the use of DSCA resources so that DSCA activities better align with USG strategic guidance.

Impact: Director, DSCA travel supports DOD's national security priorities and conserves FMS Administrative resources by engaging with his counterpart at the appropriate time and to achieve prescribed desirable results.

4.3.a.

Develop strategies for improving stakeholder understanding of DSCA’s tools and for positioning DSCA to better support Security Cooperation-related activities.

Impact: Director, DSCA and DSCA leadership built a greater understanding of DSCA’s tools, including DISCS, through bilateral engagement.

Implemented Initiatives

5. Enabling More Responsive Industry Participation in Security Cooperation

Initiative
5.1.a.

Annually publish increasingly accurate FMS Forecasts and “Javits” Reports that project FMS activities and support effective planning and budgeting for Security Cooperation.

Impact: Launched the DSCA, MILDEPs, and CCMD FY17-18 forecast, with the initial draft of Javits expected to be sent to the Department of State in the middle of October each year, ultimately better enabling USG to prepare for FMS activities in upcoming years.

5.1.d.

Identify and promote technology release decisions that support Security Cooperation priorities.

Impact: Updated the SAMM with additional guidance to promote early/advanced technology release decisions that went into effect in September 2016.

5.2.a.

Lead DOD support to tradeshows to ensure that Security Cooperation objectives are appropriately prioritized.

Impact: Promoted consistent messaging by the USG, which led to a better understanding of Security Cooperation goals.

5.2.c.

Promote a DOD methodology to implement approved advocacy plans.

Impact: Created consistent advocacy messaging in line with coordinated USG goals leading to expanded senior leader advocacy in various international meetings and fora.

6. Remaining a Provider of Choice for Our International Customers

Initiative
6.2.b.

Develop strategies to support defense equipment/training sharing initiatives.

Impact: Implemented the first FMS case under the Lead Nation Procurement initiative. A more complex case for procurement of precision-guided munitions by eight nations through the NATO Support and Procurement Agency is advancing toward offer.

6.2.c.

Reform the management of Supply Discrepancy Reports to improve responsiveness to the customer while making the review process less labor-intensive for USG implementing agencies.

Impact: Evaluated with the United States and partner stakeholders the management of Supply Discrepancy Reports and mutually determined the current policy and processes best met the needs of the customer and USG.

7. Applying Resources to Incentivize Community Performance, Innovation, and Responsiveness

Initiative
7.1.a.

Establish corporate workload measures to inform the allocation of the FMS Administrative budget.

Impact: Annual budget/Program Objective Memorandum process is more reliant on empirical data and workload measures to establish annual funding allocations, which significantly reduces the administrative effort in formulating and adjudicating budget requests.

8. Optimizing the Management and Execution of DSCA Programs

Initiative
8.1.a.

Implement the June 2015 guidance to reduce the average number of days from LOR receipt to LOA/Amendment Offer below FY13 levels, report quarterly on actual performance, develop recommendations for improving performance, and execute those recommendations.

Impact: Improved collaboration and data sharing between DSCA and the MILDEPs, which enabled agreement on new LOA processing timelines and allowed for frequent reviews of metrics, resulting in sharing of lessons-learned between MILDEPs. New functionality was programmed into DSAMS to identify potential candidates for process improvement efforts.

8.1.b.

Annually update a coordination matrix that minimizes the number of DSCA Headquarters reviews required and facilitates DSCA’s quick review of LOAs.

Impact: The coordination matrix improves LOA quality as errors are reduced. The coordination matrix ensures the correct functional entities with equities are reviewing the LOAs, while reducing the overall number of reviews. The matrix provides feedback to each functional entity reviewing LOAs on how they are performing against stated goals and whether any adjustment or support is needed by a functional entity to meet the goal.

8.1.d.

Work with the Office of the Office of Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (OUSD AT&L)) to reduce or eliminate the coordination requirements for NC waivers beyond DSCA.

Impact: Reduced average coordination time with OUSD (AT&L) from four to two days and streamlined coordination with DSCA Office of the General Counsel and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) via implementation of digital coordination with CAC signatures.

8.1.e.

Review quality assurance and coordination requirements and develop recommendations for future procedures using results from 8.1.a and b.

Impact: Processed LORs and LOAs more quickly while maintaining a high degree of quality and consistency.

8.2.a.

Rewrite the Case Managers’ responsibilities in the SAMM, C2.T1., making them clearer and more specific so that Case Managers can be more productive.

Impact: New guidance improved the productivity of Case Managers by providing clear and specific guidance to ensure case execution is managed more effectively, more transparently, and on time.

8.2.c.

Standardize key milestones in the execution of FMS projects and make them more visible to the Security Cooperation community; update the definition of the FMS Master Plan in the SAMM.

Impact: Standardized the milestones and defined the Master Plan. Reduced the number of Case Manager responsibilities and added a new responsibility for ensuring contracting milestones are met, requiring the issuance of a master plan with key program milestones.

Implemented Initiatives