TO:	Ken Roberts, Assistant Administrator, FAS
	Kirk Miller, General Sales Manager, FAS
FROM:	Laura Scandurra, AFSA VP
SUBJ:	FAS Strategic Organizational Review
DATE:	November 30, 2004

AFSA supports the initiative to conduct a strategic organizational review. Periodic assessments of the Agency's strategic direction coupled with on-going efforts to minimize costs and enhance organizational effectiveness are vital to a well-managed organization.

There are a number of external factors impacting on the Agency that call into question both our traditional focus and our reliance on increased exports/market share as an indicator of success. The United States is on the verge of becoming a net food importer for the first time in 40 years. Low-cost competitors are continuing to gain market share at the expense of U.S. exports. There is pressure from the WTO to revise and/or eliminate some of our programs. There are growing concerns about bioterrorism. The agricultural sector is growing increasingly complex with many new ag-based technologies on the horizon. There is a growing linkage between national security and the level of economic development and food security in other countries. The Presidential Management Agenda is putting pressure on all government agencies to show measurable results.

What does this all mean for FAS? By anticipating and preparing for the environment we expect to work in five to ten years down the road, we can begin to organize ourselves in a way that leverages our core strengths, engenders organizational capability, enhances organizational effectiveness and efficiency, and increases worker productivity. AFSA solicited input from members in an attempt to provide constructive suggestions on how this can be accomplished. The comments and suggestions below are from individual members and may or may not represent the views of AFSA membership.

Market Intelligence

Recommendation: FAS should form a task force, which includes stakeholders and customers, to conduct a thorough review of our market intelligence role. We should have a clear understanding of the value-added of each report, the specific needs of the internal or external customer for which the report is intended, and the amount of staff time needed to produce the report. Ideally, the reporting review would result in fewer but more focused reports from the field that directly reflect FAS strategic objectives. (A real test of the value of our reports would be if our customers were willing to pay for them.)

Market Development

Recommendation: In the current budget environment, the Agency's role in carrying out marketing activities should be re-evaluated. We need to clearly define our role vis a vis that of the cooperators and the private sector. While an important function of our overseas offices is to understand the market and know the players, we could do a better job of working closely with state regional trade groups, state departments of agriculture and other strategic partners to implement marketing programs at a lower cost and with greater impact.

Recommendation: FAS management should re-evaluate the Agency's extensive oversight of USDA cooperators. The Agency could save countless staff hours by holding cooperators accountable for achieving results over a two to three-year period as opposed to overseeing the management and implementation of individual activities on an annual basis.

Trade Capacity Building

Recommendation: Trade capacity building (TCB) presents a significant opportunity for FAS, especially in view of the growing linkage between national security and the level of economic development in other countries. This is also the one place where we might have a reasonable chance of increasing our budget – perhaps significantly. Our network of overseas offices, our skilled cadre of FSOs, FSNs and civil servants, and our unique ICD programs all can contribute to the effort to enhance policy, institutional, technical and human capacity in target countries. Our overseas offices are uniquely positioned to help frame the TCB strategy as every single development activity should be linked to our strategic goals. This implies a need to work more strategically with AID and other partners to ensure we are tapping into all available resources and that activities support a common agenda. FAS management should take a close look at this somewhat neglected strategic goal in light of the current global situation and budgetary opportunities.

Management Infrastructure

Recommendation: Create a Chief Administrator Officer (CAO) position in the Administrator's Office. This position would be responsible for carrying out initiatives such as the Presidential Management Agenda and for creating a management "infrastructure" so that the Agency can focus on achieving enhanced organizational efficiencies and effectiveness in knowledge management, information technology, training, budget and financial services, and human resources. Among other things, this position would be responsible for working with HRD to conduct a skills assessment so that we can put recruitment, training, staffing and career development policies in place that reflect the Agency's future needs. FSNs would be included in this initiative as they often seem to be overlooked by HRD.

Recommendation: Develop a management infrastructure that facilitates communication and decision making, aligns resources with strategic goals, and focuses the Agency on achieving desired outcomes. While FAS has a strategic plan, the Agency is hampered by the lack of a mechanism to "operationalize" the strategic plan. This is an area where the Agency would likely benefit from outside expertise in terms of how to go about developing, implementing and communicating a system that links the strategic plan to day-to-day operations.

Recommendation: Human resources is an area that needs management attention. Management should define the specific services to be provided, develop benchmarks that gauge both the timeliness and quality of the service provided, and conduct regular reviews to determine if goals are being met and, if not, why not. As a benchmarking exercise, FAS management should compare the HRD services other foreign affairs agencies receive with those provided to FAS.

Recommendation: Management should consider implementing a domestic review process as a complement to the global review process. This year alone, FAA has closed one post and has achieved a 27% cut in discretionary savings. A similar initiative on the domestic front with the objective of achieving a balance between cuts in our domestic and international operations should be encouraged.

Recommendation: FAS management should strive to "delayer" the organization by increasing the ratio of supervisors to employees so that we can steam line decision-making, enhance innovation and achieve cost savings. The number of reports for each individual supervisor would depend on the nature of the work. Supervisors would need to work with employees to develop well-defined performance measures and hold employees accountable for achieving results. In addition, there would need to be a commensurate effort on the part of management to push decision-making down to the lowest level in which competent decisions could be made.

Recommendation: Develop cross-functional teams that have real authority and are held accountable for achieving results. While there is broad general agreement regarding FAS functional areas – market access, marketing intelligence, market development and trade capacity building - there is a lack of clarity regarding the core services provided within each of those areas and how we should organize ourselves to effectively deliver those services. For example, how should ITP, C&MP, ICD and our overseas posts be working together to develop and implement TCB activities that support our free trade agreements? How should the Biotechnology Office be working with ICD to develop science-based biotechnology policies and regulations? This lack of clarity is, in large part, a reflection of our organizational structure and our organizational culture. It is unlikely that revising our organizational chart will solve this problem. Instead, we need to develop insight into how we approach our work, and systematize how we share information, make decisions and achieve results. One approach is to create cross-functional teams that are organized along regional lines and/or on the basis of Agency priorities. While this is already being done to some degree, it should be institutionalized so that employees understand what they are expected to achieve and how to do it. As noted above, teams would also need to have real authority and be held accountable for achieving results.

Recommendation: More clarity is needed regarding the budget. It is difficult for managers to make informed decisions unless we know more about the costs related to our decisions. In addition, those who are achieving budget targets should be recognized and/or rewarded.

Recommendation – FAS should identify the specific leadership, management and technical competencies FSOs should develop over the course of their careers and create a career development program to help them develop those skills. The objective would be to build a cadre of FSOs with broad experience and leadership ability to meet the increasingly complex demands of agricultural diplomacy and to compete for promotion into the SFS. (AFSA is in the process of developing professional attributes for FSOs. A draft version is attached.)

On behalf of AFSA members, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment!