Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Defense- Case
Analysis
The army’s brigades, battalions, and companies were arranged around the
conveyances tanks or Bradley fighting vehicles that take unit to the flight.
According to Chung and Beamish (2003), “The U.S. Army’s institutional identity
was reflected by its heavy pieces, especially the near invisible Abrams tanks.
None of these tanks was destroyed by the enemy in the 1991 Gulf War. The
Abram tanks first had been completed in 1980, and it had been a peerless war
machine. It could kill enemy tanks at standoff range, beyond the reach of enemy
fire. Because of its armor, the Abrams could survive almost any strike. It had a
layer of metal protection so thick that the tank weighed 70 tons.” (Pg- 127) The
problem the army had with the Abram tanks was that it was too big to be
transported efficiently to the battlefield by air, it guzzled a gallon of fuel per half
mile traveled, which created a division’s cumbersome logistic tail.
According to Chung and Beamish (2003), “In the 1980s, as a colonel, Shinseki
commanded American forces in Germany. While in charge of the U.S. Army, he
witnessed the Soviet Union collapse. In the absence of a major confrontation
with the Soviet Union, he was later responsible for peacekeeping in Bosnia. In
1998, Shinseki became Chief of Staff serving under General Dennis Reimer. ”
(Pg. C-128) General Shinseki was appointed the U.S. Army’s 34 th Chief of Staff
in June 1999. Shinseki proposed to make the U.S. Army nimble as well as lethal.
“He wanted to create a U.S. Army that would be flexible enough to perform
peacekeeping missions or to fight an all-out war against Iraq and North Korea.
Moving away from traditional, ponderous tanks and armored vehicles, Shiseki
proposed to bring whole new advanced systems and technologies into the Army.
(pg. C128)
GMD’s Facilities:
GMD’s research, design, and manufacturing facilities are located in London,
Ontario; Goleta, California; Troy, Michigan; Kreuzlingen, Switzerland; and
Adelaide, Australia. GM also has offices in Washingotn, D.C.; Ottawa, Canada;
and Canberra, Australia, for government regulation. (pg-C126)
Trivial Issues:
The trivial issues contributing to the main issue are: maintaining and developing
a competitive advantage over other competitors such as GD and UD, time
management to make sure the prototype is delivered on the deadline,
commitment of partners before forming a joint venture, lack of government
Functional Areas:
It is important to define the main issues pertaining to each individual department
related to, “How GMD was going to win the multibillion dollar bid.” The following
functional areas defined are the R&D, Sales, Marketing, Productions, Operations,
Distribution, Management, and Financial Departments.
R&D Department:
According to Chung and Beamish (2003), “The operational problems of the U.S.
Army in the Gulf, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo made it clear that there was an
apparent gap between the U.S. Army’s light units, which were too vulnerable,
and its heavy units which were too slow. Politically, the Army was losing ground
to the more glamorous sister services operating from the sea and especially,
from the air and space.” In other words, the army needs its defense contractor,
for example GMD, to research and develop a vehicle that was more efficient,
lighter but protective, and faster in speed to cover more ground. Tim Deady
(1993) notes, “The List figures, based on research, development and testing
contracts from the U.S. Department of Defense, show that among the 25 largest
contractors, total local project grants have dropped from $3.2 billion in 1987 (the
last time the Business Journal compiled this List) to $1.87 billion in 1992. The
latest figures indicate the county has been hit hard not only by declines in
defense spending for weapons production, but also for research and
development.” (Time Deady, 1993) GMD conducts independent research and
development activities as a part of its normal business operations. In the 1990s,
the majority of GMD sponsored R&D expenditures was in the defense business.
In accordance with government regulations, the company recovers a significant
portion of these expenditures through overhead charges to U.S. government
contracts. GMD also conducted R&D activities under U.S. government contracts
to develop products for large development and technology programs. One
problem for the research and development department is finding the funds to
support the expensive research and development required to develop a
prototype. The main problem is continually researching and developing high
quality products under budget, which will enhance the Army’s operations abilities.
Sales Department:
GMD sales’ department depends significantly of the U.S. government for a large
portion of its sales. A problem with depending on the U.S. government for sales
is the U.S. government contracts generally are not fully funded at inception and
are subject to termination. Another problem for GMD is being subjected to U.S.
and foreign government regulations and procurement policies and practices.
GMD is also subject to regulations relating to import-export control, investments,
exchange controls and repatriation of earnings which affects its international and
domestic’s sales. Other factors can affect international sales, such as currency
Marketing Department:
GMD’s main marketing campaign is building and maintaining relationships with
its clients, such as the United States Army.
Production/Operations/Distribution Departments:
In 1999, GMD had a strong production, operation, and distribution network. GMD
possessed advanced production techniques. Chung and Beamish (2003) states, “GMD’s
weapons and electronics operations had proven experience in designing, manufacturing,
and integrating turrets and fire control systems.” (pg-126) However, GMD’s production
department relies on subcontractors and other companies to provide raw materials, major
components and subsystems for it products or to perform a portion of the services that it
provides to its clients. GMD occasionally relies on only one or two sources of supply,
which, if disrupted, could have an adverse effect on the ability to meet its commitments
to its clients. GMD depends on its subcontractors and vendors to fulfill their contractual
obligations in a timely and satisfactory manner in full compliance with client’s
requirements. If one or more of the company’s subcontractors or suppliers is unable to
satisfactorily provide on a timely basis the agreed-upon supplies or perform the agreed-
upon services, the company’s ability to perform its obligations as a prime contractor may
be adversely affected. The central problem for the production, operations, and
distribution problem is relying of its subcontractors and vendors to fulfill their contractual
obligations in a timely and satisfactory manner in compliance with client’s requirements.
This problem causes a chain reaction affect because if the production department receives
resources late; it will delay the entire process for the operations and distribution
departments to meet its deadline.
Management Department:
GMD’s management is committed in creating shareholder value through disciplined
program management, business practices, and continuous operational improvements.
The company’s solid performance in its history is measured in its sustained revenue and
earnings growth and strong cash flow. According to Chung and Beamish (2003), “GM
has a rich history of military vehicle production. GM supplied its first vehicle for the
U.S. military During WWI and had continued to supply vehicles ever since.” (pg. 126)
GMD’s record as an industry leader in cash flow generation has enabled it to consistently
deploy resources to enhance shareholder returns through strategic and tactical strategies
set emplaced by its management team. In 1999, GMD’s appointed successor, Bill
Kienapple was recognized as a strong leader and manger. “Pettipas was both visionary
and possessed a keen ability to focus on the core of an issue, with common sense, he
could get an idea of how to achieve his goals, and do it through the power of
personality.” (C-127) The main problem observed in the management department is
reaching a strategic decision and implementation plan that will win GMD the multibillion
dollar contact.
Demographic:
1.) Enlisted:
A.) Race/Ethnicity/Gender
a.) Male- 85.9%
b.) Female- 14.1 %
c.) White- 58.2 %
B.) Education
a.) GED- 6.9%
b.) HSDG- 76%
c.) Some College- 7.2%
d.) BA/BS- 4.7%
e.) MA/PHD- .6%
f.) Other- 4.6%
B.) Education
a.) GED- 0%
b.) HSDG- <.1%
c.) Some College- 1.3%
d.) BA/BS- 58.4%
e.) MA/PHD- 40.3%
f.) Other- < .1%
B.) Education
a.) GED-< .1%
b.) HSDG- 8.4%
c.) Some College- 61.3%
d.) BA/BS- 24.9%
e.) MA/PHD- 5.2%
f.) Other- <.1%
Army Budget/Income:
According to Chung and Beamish (2003), “The personnel budget allocated to the
active Army was 40% more than the Navy and the Air Force and more than three
times of that for the Marines.” (pg.-C127)
Economic:
Political/Legal:
It is important to note that the United States government contracts are subject to
procurement laws and regulations. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
governs the majority of the GMD’s, or now GD/GMD’s, contracts. The FAR
mandates uniform policies and procedures for U.S. government acquisitions and
purchased services. There may also be agency-specific acquisition regulations
that provide implementing language for, or that supplement, the FAR. For
example, the Department of Defense implements the FAR through the Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulation supplement (DFARs). For all federal government
entities, the FAR regulates the phases of any products or services acquisition,
including: acquisition planning, competition requirements, contractor
qualifications, protection of source selection and vendor information. GMD’s
international sales are subject to U.S. and foreign government regulations and
Sociocultural:
Overall, the people of the United States, exhibit a strong patriotism towards its
soldiers and United States Military Regime and Service. The United States of
America strengths and protection is displayed through the United States Military.
Overall, there is admirable respect towards the soldiers, “Who risk their lives for
the United States people’s freedom.” The United States military is comprised of a
set of rituals and traditions. All of the military services including the Navy, Air
Force, Marines, and Army, have their own set of traditions and rituals. The
sociocultural towards these rituals and traditions revolves around a hierarchy of
duties including: order, pride, patriotism, and respect.
Technological:
“GMD’s advanced production technologies included computer-driven laser
cutters, rectilinear robotic welders, CAD-CAM systems, and flexible machining
centers.” (pg. C-126) GMD also had a information systems and technology group
which offered technology and service capabilities that support a wide range of
government and commercial needs, including systems integration expertise;
hardware and software products; engineering, management and support
services. GMD designs, builds and supports secure command, control,
communications and computing systems for defense clients worldwide. GMD
also specialized in the design, development and integration of wireline and
wireless voice, video and data networks, mission simulation and training
services, and secure identification and credentialing capabilities. GMD further
concretes specializes in providing the U.S. Government highly specialized
capabilities such as signals and information collection, processing and
distribution systems; special-purpose computing; multi-level security; data mining
and fusion; special-mission satellites and payloads; and information operations
services.
Global:
GMD is a global competitor, and was recognized globally as the leading
manufacturer in multipurpose lightweight turrets.
Opportunities-
– Long-term U.S. Army contract
– Future contracts
– Strategic position
– Building an evolving relationship with the U.S. Army
Threats-
– “Kill the program”
– Being bought out
– Competitors catching up
– Unable to protect proprietary knowledge, techniques,& technology
– Lack of commitment from JV partner
– Declining U.S./Global Economic Conditions
Weakness
Industry Analysis:
The top competitors today in 2008 have changed from this case study. It is
important to remember that GMD is now part of the GD organization. Today the
top 10 World-Wide Defense contractors are Lockheed Martin, Boeing, BAE
Systems, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, EADS, L-
3Communications, Finmeccanica, and United Technologies. However,
pertaining to this case study GMD’s top competitors where General Dynamics
and its subsidiary General Dynamics Land System and United Defense. The
following paragraphs provide background information regarding GD, GDLS and
UD.
General Dynamics:
General Dynamics is a market leader with sales of $10 billion and 1999 and
revenues of 27.2 billion in 2007. Currently General Dynamics is a leader in
business aviation; land and expeditionary combat vehicles and systems;
armaments; and munitions; shipbuilding and marine systems; and mission-critical
information systems and technologies. In 1999, GD employed 43,000 people
worldwide, but today GD employs approximately 83,500 people worldwide.
United Defense:
United Defense (UD) is an international leading company engaged in the design,
development and support of advanced defense and aerospace systems on land,
at sea, and in the air and space. United Defense designs, manufactures, and
supports combat vehicles, military aircraft, surface ships, submarines, radar,
avionics, communications, electronics, and guided weapon systems. It is a
pioneer in technology with a history stretching back hundreds of years and is at
the forefront of innovation. United Defense is always working to develop the next
generation of intelligent defense systems. United Defense has major operations
across five continents and customers in over 130 countries. UD today has a total
of nearly 100,000 employees and generates annual sales of approximately 25
billion through its wholly owned venture operations.
Constraints:
The main constraints involved in this case study are:
1.) Not being able to win the Bid- this condition could occur through Pettipas and
the management team decision. This also could occur through not eliminating
the “Risk to Kill”, the potential lack of commitment of the JV Partner, and if GMD
is unable to meet the U.S. Army’s requirements and deadline.
2.) Eliminating the “Risk to Kill”-
3.) Protecting Proprietary Information, Techniques, Technology, and Knowledge-
4.) The Potential Lack of Commitment of the JV Partner-
5.) Meeting the Requirements and Deadline-
Relevant Alternatives:
General Motors Defense’s Solo Bid:
General Motors Defense has a strong history of winning bids on its own, such as
the winning solo bid for the vehicle program for the U.S. Maries in 1982. The
reason GMD won this program was because it was technically capable of
designing and manufacturing advanced 8 by 8 prototypes. This victory led to
other winning programs as well as through the U.S. Department of Defense.
“With superior design and manufacturing capabilities, GMD focused on
commonality across its product lines of light armored vehicles. GMD also
emphasized its commonality with the U.S. Army support units.” Pettipas also
believed that GMD’s 8 by 8 light armored vehicles were technically competitive
and would provide significant benefits to the U.S. army. If GMD decided to go
solo there would not be any threats of having to protect proprietary information,
technologies, and techniques and it would eliminate the lack of the JV partner’s
commitment.
If the program was cancel no one would win the multibillion dollar contract and
the Army would still be in need of newly innovative equipment. Even though
another contract could evolve in the future for the companies, Shinseki’s offer
was very appealing and unusual.
Chung and Beamish (2003) states, “If GMD and GD formed a JV, GD might add
value by contributing its Mobile Gun Systems (MGS) that would be installed on
turrets of light armored vehicles. Recently, GED had acquired CDC and
enhanced its technologies on MGS. To save in-house development costs, the
MGS and GMD’ light armored vehicles was being outsourced from GD Canada.
Pettipas felt that GD was a better fit than UD, in every aspect. GMD focused on
commonality across its product lines. He thus believed that GD would be a
better candidate for a JV because GMD not only shared the manufacturing
process of Canadian combat vehicles with GD in 1997 but also it outsourced
MGS from GD Canada. Pettipas would not hesitate in choosing GD as a partner,
if he decided to form a JV for the BCT program.
Joint Venture with General Dynamics/GDLS (if GD drops solo bid), United
Defense, and GMD
If GD/GDLS, UD, and GMD could negotiate and form a Joint Venture it would
eliminate the possibility of “Killing the Program.” The reason it would eliminate
the “kill of the program” risk is because if all three U.S. competitors are working
together there will not be any lobbying to cancel the program. UD and GMD
could convince GD of the benefits to only submit a bid with the joint venture to
eliminate the risk of GD submitting a bid of its own. Pettipas considered all the
merits of partnering with UD and GD/GDLS. Even though Pettipas felt that GD
could offer more to the JV than UD, UD still had strengths which could benefit
both of the other companies.
If Pettipas was able to form a JV with UD and GD and eliminated GD’s solo bid, it
would be able to combine all three companies’ strengths. This JV would give
GMD the ability to win the contract, eliminate the risk of kill, provide commitment
Comparison of Alternatives:
3.) JV with
GD/GDLS Positive Negative Negative Negative Positive
4.) JV with
GD/GDLS(if
Positive Negative Negative Positive Positive
GD drops
solo bid)
4.) JV with
UD Positive Negative Negative Positive Positive
5.) JV with
UD and
GD/GDLS
(if GD Positive Positive Negative Positive Positive
drops solo
bid)
6.) JV and
Positive Negative Negative Negative Negative
going solo
Best Alternative
The best alternative is to first negotiate to persuade GD to drop its solo bid then
negotiate with GD/GDLS and UD to form a joint venture. If the negotiation fails,
negotiate with GD/GDLS privately to remove its solo bid and form a JV between
GMD/GD/GDLS. If that negotiation fails the best alternative would be for General
Motors Defense to submit a solo bid.
Conclusion/Synthesis:
In May of 2000, the competitors for the Brigade Combat Team multibillion dollar
contract submitted the following prototypes:
1.) General Dynamics (GD) teamed with General Motors Defense- 8x8 wheeled
LAV III family, made by General Motors Dynamics of Canada.
2.) United Defense, L.P – tracked M8 Armored Gun System and M113 variants.
General Motors Defense pg. 20
3.) Textron- 6x6 wheeled LAV-200 Mk II and 4x4 XM117 Armored Security
Vehicle, AM General- 4x4 XM114 up-armored HUMVEE and 4x4 Cobra (with
Turkey’s Otokar)
4.) Steyr-Daimler-Puch (Austria)- 6x6 Pandur (in cooperation with GD)
5.) GIAT Industries (France)- 6x6 VAB
6.) Henschell (Germany)- 6x6 TPz-1 Fuchs
7.) FMC- Nurol (Turkey)- M113 variants.
In 2000, a winning bid for the BCT contact was awarded to General Motors
Defense and General Dynamics/General Dynamics Land System Defense. The
BCT contract included a six-year contract approximately worth $4 billion to
produce 2,131 of its new “interim armored vehicles.” The unveiling of the
versatile wheeled weapons platform is the Army’s first new armored combat
vehicle since the Bradley came on line in 1980, and is the most visible symbol to
date of the service’s commitment to reinventing itself into a leaner, more
deployable force for the 21st century. (CNN News)
Paul Hoeper, the service’s assistant secretary for acquisitions, logistics and
technology stated, “In seeking its new infantry combat vehicle, which strongly
resembles the vehicles used for years by the Marine Corps, the Army wanted a
weapons platform that would move fast, be light enough to fit on the smallest
combat transport planes but still pack a powerful combat punch, and fulfill a
variety of roles and missions. The new vehicle design fits the requirement to “get
to the fight quickly and come alive in every respect.” – (Paul Hoeper, 2000)
The new vehicle will have a top speed of 60 mile per hour, a range of more than
400 miles, wrap-around 14.5. Mm armor plating that will withstand .50 caliber
machine-gun fire, and a weight of less than 19 tons. This is a drastic change
from the armored 70-ton tracked M1A2 tank. (CNN News, 2000) In the end,
General Motors Defense won the bid through its joint venture with General
Dynamics/GDML and accomplished its goal through strategic methods!
References:
CNN News. (2000). Army announces $4 billion contract for new combat vehicles.
The Associated Press. Retrieved April 17, 2008 from:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/11/17/army.vehicles.ap/index.html
General Motors. (2008). General Motors Goal and Mission. Retrieved April 15th,
2008 from:
www.gm.com
Matthews, Lloyd & Pavri, Tinaz. (1999). Population Diversity in the U.S. Army.
Retrieved April 15th, 2008 from:
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub283.pdf
United States Army. (2005). Army Profile, FY5. Retrieved April 16th, 2008 from:
http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/demographics/FY05%20Army%20Profile.pdf