SUPPLY CHAIN PROCUREMENT IN THE US ARMY - Essay Example

Program: Master of Project Management Supply Chain & Procurement Management Fall Group Project_draft: Submitted to Dr. Anis BrikStudents Names: Abulhakim AlolamaAhmed alsheiMajid Ali Bin Omair ID#: 200004970Nael OmarDate: 29-11-2014SUPPLY CHAIN PROCUREMENT IN THE US ARMY Procurement for the US army is through the US Department of Defense. The department of defense has established three mechanisms that implement the supply procurement process of the military.

It should be noted here that the army is a non-profit making organization, and therefore, issues of shareholder interests do not come to play. The main aim of the US army procurement is to ensure that they have adequate resources to be able to carry out the functions that have been vested on it by the state. The first of the three mechanism is the Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) Process, which is vested with proper planning of the supply system, program investigation, and implementation, and resource budgeting.

This is the arm that is responsible for identifying the need for resources. The second division of the department of defense is the joint chief of staff integration that is vested with the responsibility of identifying gaps in the supply system and coming up with ways of filling those gaps. The last arm is the defense acquisition system which is vested with the procurement process of weapons and other resources that may be needed by the military. The military supply chain management of the DoD is composed of 7 components, which are suppliers, procurement, manufacturing, order management, transportation, warehousing and customers (soldiers).

The success factors of the army are customer needs, information need, environmental concerns, deployment, mission, and interoperation. The primary aim in the military supply chain is to acquire the best machinery for combat, and at the same time working within the budgetary allocations. The process of the supply chain procurement of the army starts with the acquisition from supplier, then on the process, which can be warehousing or transportation and finally on the order management after order from the soldier (customer).

The supply chain for the army may have a problem in implementing a customer-centric and process-centric supply chain in that the supply chain is very rigid and dependent on the regulations of army procurement (Weisgerber, 2014). There is no single step procurement process the way it is in the corporate and this means the procurement can also be long.Strategic inhibitionsThe strategy of the US army is something that is subject to confidentiality because it touches on the security of the state.

The suppliers are normally outsiders and are not privy to the confidential information, although they sign confidentiality agreements. It is, therefore, hard to align the procurement in line with the core strategy of the army. The strategy that can be disclosed is just the basic strategy of cost saving and suitability of the work, but the suppliers cannot integrate the supplies with the core strategy of the military (Elkins, 2014).The changing demands of the Army also inhibit the customer driven and process driven supply system.

This is because the army can procure something in real time depending on the need of the equipment. This is akin to just in time (JIT) technique, only that it is not planned to be so. The military supply system at times has to work at the last minute depending on the strategy of the enemy. Therefore, when such a situation occurs, there is even no time to follow the process centered system. The procurement system will be powered by the immediate need.StructureThe structure of the US army procurement process is also an inhibition of a process-centered or consumer-centered supply system.

This is because the driving force is not profit making, and thus the system is not customer driven. Being one of organs of the government, the US army also has no competition in the same manner that a business entity would have. And unlike in business organizations where waste and poor supply chain management could mean non-competitiveness in the market that would have inimical consequence to their existence as a business organization, the customers of a military organization cannot complain but will have to do with what is being supplied to them.

This would not also endanger its existence as an organization as a business organization would be when it becomes ineffective in its supply chain management.The overall objective of the army is not attached to the client the way it is in the corporate world. The soldiers have minimal or no input on the nature of the supplies to be acquired. Therefore, there is the risk that if the soldiers are given what they want, they may not consider the overall objective of the army. This structural inhibition is solved by the joint chief of staff integration that is charged with the overall responsibility of enquiring what may be needed by the military.

PerformanceThe primary performance inhibitor in the army procurement system is that it is not foreseeable. Issues like deployment of the military can just happen overnight when there is aggression. Therefore, the army has to be standby at all times regardless of whether the customer (soldier) needs the supplies or not. The military has been noted to procure stuff that is not used because they are procured from anticipation of something that never happens. There can also be over procurement of materials and resources because it is impossible for the military to depend on past statistics to project the future need.

This is because an occurrence requiring military intervention may not repeat itself, and the plan that had been made by the army is never used. Finally, a performance inhibitor in the army that prevents process centered supply management system is the complexity of the process in the military. The main objective of the military is winning a combat and protecting the state where procurement and logistics only play a supporting role. The various processes and structures in the military are rigid and ancient, and may not be compatible with the model notion of process-centered supply management system and its structure and policy of strict confidentiality prevents it from learning the best practices in procurement, supply chain and logistics management that would make the organization more efficient in the use of its resources (Mele et al, 2014).

Suggestions for future improvementThe US procurement for the military has been consolidated with government procurement. This has made it an enormous entity which may be hard to manage since each body in the government has its objective. When such a consolidation occurs, it becomes difficult to implement a customer or process centered supply chain management system. This is because the various arms of government have differing end users. The processes also differ and what works in one department may not work in the other.

Therefore, the only point where the procurement of government services is consolidated should be at the point of payment. Requisition and delivery should be different for the same reason that every department has different objective and end users (Dinerman, 2012).There is also need to define the end user of the army procurement not to be the soldiers, but to be citizens. It will be less complex if the soldiers are only likened to shopkeepers who deliver the service for the customer. This is because soldiers fight for the civilians and the state.

This will make it easier to implement a customer-centered supply management system because the needs of the end customer are known. It is that the army is a unique form of organization because it has no profit motive, and it does not make its money but gets its money from the taxpayer. Moreover, the nature of its organization being a defense apparatus of the state requires confidentiality of its operation which may be necessary in combat and military operations but could prevent it from integrating the best practices in supply chain management that could improve its logistical management.

The primary objective of the army may also not go in line with the applicable objective of a supply system because it is hard to plan ahead due to the contingency nature of the entity and the unreliability of past procurements to predict the future (Lanzini, 2002). It is made more complicated with how military success is measured. The army’s success and efficacy is not determined by its sound practice of its supply chain but rather on how effectively it dispensed its role as a defense apparatus of the state.

That is, to win the war in times of conflict and to maintain protect the state in times of peace where supply chain management only plays a minor and supporting role. ReferencesElkins, D. P., (2014). Army seeks sources for advertising contract, to hold industry day. Retrieved Nov 28, 2014 from http://www.army.mil/article/138305/Army_seeks_sources_for_advertising_contract__to_hold_industry_day/ Dinnerman, D., (2012). Should the US Remilitarize Military Procurement?. Retrieved Nov 28, 2014 from http://www.

gatestoneinstitute.org/3251/military-procurement Lenzini, J. M., (2002). Anticipatory Logistics: The Army’s Answer to Supply Chain Management. Army Logistian, 11-13.Weisgerber, M., (2014). How the Defense Departments Procurement Problems Are Hurting National Security. Retrieved Nov 28, 2014 from http://www.govexec.com/defense/2014/11/how-defense-departments-procurement-problems-are-hurting-national-security/98639/ Mele, J., et al. (2014). Small Business and Strategic Sourcing Lessons from Past Research and Current Data.

Retrieved Nov 28, 2014 from http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR410.html