Abstract
Amphibious operations are a major organ of defense both locally and globally. However, the demand has failed to uphold the supply of the available shipping vessels. As a result, the situation has necessitated a review of the strategic management of organizations that are involved in this industry to guarantee more success during combat operations. This paper focuses on the United States Marine Corps’s external environment, including the strategies used by similar organizations that the Marine Corps can effectively apply to improve on its mandate.
Brief Explanation of the Industry
The United States Marine Corps has an internal shipping department that is mainly contracted by the US Department of Defense, the United Nations, and other international defense agencies to provide ground support for forces that are located on enemy territory. The corporation operates this activity using specially designed shipping vessels referred to as amphibious assault ships. The shipping vessels have a well-designed deck that allows amphibious takeoff or landing of aircraft. However, the primary function of these amphibious warships is to host airliners to sustain armed military officials who are fighting close to the shores.
Additionally, they also have the secondary role of carrying vertical and short takeoff landing aircraft. Other corporations that are involved in this industry are the American fleet, Italian fleet, French armada, the Korean flotilla, the Royal fleet, the Australian flotilla, and the Spanish fleet. Nevertheless, the US Marine Corps Company does not face any competition from private entities since the amphibious shipping industry is highly regulated and that only state governments can own and run amphibious warships.
Key Characteristics of the Amphibious Shipping Industry
The structure of the amphibious operations is such that there has been an increase in the demand for amphibious ships by over 80 percent (CBO, 2011). This situation has been witnessed due to the increase in the number of global peaceful missions that require military deployments such as the US military. For instance, in 2007, there was an estimated demand for 10 amphibious ships, a number that almost doubled in 2010.
Currently, the demand for amphibious operations exceeds the supply and hence the need to increase in the number of amphibious ships globally. The US needs close to 350 ships to meet the rising global demands. In regards to the combat, a commandant such as the US regional combat senior officer makes a formal request stating the number of deployment ships that are required. After the request is processed and approved, the amphibious ships are then deployed (Rourke, 2016).
Concerning research and development, the office of the Naval research has been conducting a series of meetings aimed at bringing together leaders from the academic, military and industry settings with the agenda of tackling the challenges that the industry is facing (Barney & Hesterly, 2006; McKinsey&Company, 2008). The leaders unanimously agreed that there was a need to advance the technology of amphibious operations to improve on the maneuver speed capability of the US Marine Corps (Smalley, 2015).
Current Conditions in the Organization’s Industry
The amphibious operations generally include amphibious raids, amphibious withdrawals, amphibious assaults, and amphibious demonstrations. An amphibious raid refers to a swift temporary incursion of an area followed by a well-planned extraction of the forces. On the other hand, an assault refers to the establishment of a more permanent landing force on an enemy’s shore. A pulling out refers to the planned removal of the military using maritime ships from an enemy coast. The US Amphibious taskforce is composed of the US Navy and the US Marine working together in training and during operations (CBO, 2011).
Successful amphibious procedures require strict setting up of the logistics. This process involves the coordination of action plans of defense such as air control and counter-air shore operations among others. Over the years, the industry has undergone tremendous modernization of its platforms and equipment (McKinsey&Company, 2008). One of the changes that have taken place in culture. Cultural changes begin with the comprehension of the major concepts of maneuver combat. According to the theory of maneuver warfare, war is a natural disorder dominated by uncertainty and rapid changes (Jacob, 2003).
Based on this concept, maneuver warfare tactics were created. The maneuver combat concepts apply to aircraft, ships, and other combat systems. The modernization of maneuver feud tactics has transformed the expeditionary force of the industry (Jacob, 2003).
Analysis of the Organization’s Environment using the Five Forces Model
Risk of Entry of Potential Competitors
The US Marine Corps does not own a transport branch. The body is part of the United States Department of Defense and subdivision of the Department of the Navy. These entities contract all of The US Marine Corps’ overseas shipping. Since shipping is done internally, the US Marine Corps does not experience competition companies such as Maersk. Amphibious operations are a non-profit industry run by state government corporations. As a result, there are no real competitors in the industry. In this regard, the risk of entry of potential competitors is quite low since there is a strict restriction of entry by private companies.
Intensity of Rivalry
Demand is more compared to supply in the industry due to the restriction of entry by private companies. Because amphibious operations are a non-profit industry, the intensity of rivalry is low.
Bargaining Power of Suppliers
The suppliers in the industry are mainly state governments. Moreover, the active providers of amphibious services are governments from developed nations such as America, the UK, France, Italy, Hong Kong, Korea, Spain, and Australia. Additionally, the demand for amphibious operations is increasing due to the increase in the number of peaceful missions. Due to these two factors, the suppliers can be viewed to have relatively powerful bargaining power.
Bargaining Power of Buyers
The buyers in the industry are defense bodies such as the United States Defense Department that contracts the United States Marine Corps through its internal shipping department for amphibious services. Due to the restriction of entry by potential private suppliers, the industry is characterized by a higher demand for amphibious services compared to supply. As a result, the buyers have a very weak bargaining power relative to suppliers.
Threat of Substitutes
The heavy-lift ships are one of the major threats to the industry. These heavy vessels are capable of lifting other ships out of water for transport. Therefore, they may be useful as substitutes for amphibious services. As a result, they pose a threat to the industry. One the other hand, the heavy-lift ships can be an important complementary tool for amphibious vessels such as in sealifting and the transport of vessels. Nevertheless, because the lift ships are built to commercial standards, they offset the limitation of amphibious ships that are slow and heavily reliant on suitable conditions at sea (Borgu, 2004).
The Organization’s Strategic Group: Amphibious Operations
Description
Amphibious operations support military services on a hostile shore by landing forces through aircraft or ships. Amphibious operations require extensive air participation (CBO, 2011). They integrate highly trained, equipped, and organized combat forces. An outstanding level of effort, harmony, and equipped consistency is needed to offset the convolution and susceptibility of such activities. The primary function of amphibious operations is to provide/supplement combat operations, deny the use a specific area to a targeted enemy, and/or fix enemy attention and forces to provide opportunities for combat operations, which include assault operations, raid operations withdrawal, and amphibious demonstrations (Jacob, 2003).
Positioning Map
Strategic Moves of “rivals”
The British defense executed a strategy of expanding amphibious operations by the Royal Navy from a peripheral-based activity to a core business of its Navy. This strategic approach was due to the realization of the importance of amphibious operations to the implementation of government policy (Harding, 2005). The Royal Navy has also integrated an innovative strategy to improve the method and technology of its amphibious operations. The Royal Navy continues to invest in ships, aircraft, and emerging expertise such as surveillance technologies aimed at improving their expertise during combat operations (McKinsey&Company, 2008).
The Royal Navy has also formulated a defense policy that is to counter global threats. To achieve this goal, the Royal Navy has adopted an adaptable security posture that focuses on intelligence, diplomatic, and military capabilities that can prevent international crises while retaining the ability to respond appropriately, should the prevention measures fail (Royal Navy, 2010).
The Royal Navy has also combined its amphibious operations to incorporate military, naval, and air forces that cooperate in defeating a common strategic enemy, despite their independent command systems. Unlike the US where amphibious operations are a stipulated domain of the US Marine Corps and the US Navy, the British Royal Navy has a larger scale of operations encompassing the military, naval, and air forces, all of which are regarded as equal partners (Harding, 2005).
The Australian navy has incorporated a strategy of a higher-command arrangement that allows a commander to formulate arrangements that facilitate the achievement of the set mission. Moreover, the Australian navy has combined its amphibious operations with other countries in the southwest Pacific Areas to strengthen and improve success in their missions.
SWOT Analysis of the Organization
Strengths
The organization has strong leadership guided by its leadership principles. One of the principles is the evaluation and improvement plan aimed at enhancing the leaders in managing tough situations that they may come across. This strategy has earned the organization a reputation for efficiency and reliability in service delivery. Another principle that the organization emphasizes is ensuring that its entire staff members are competent in terms of both technical and tactical knowledge to discharge quality services to the customers. According to Kumar (2009), the organization has a policy of intense training of its recruits before deployment after which the potential recruits undergo evaluation and certification for employment. This strategy ensures the standardization of its operations for better success.
Weaknesses
The main weaknesses of the organization exist like the job that the marines are exposed to and their financial issues. Research by Varcoe, Lee, Wright, and Emper (2003) on these issues illustrated concerns in the quality of life, retention, re-enlistment, and job performance by the marines because of personal dissatisfaction. Other social and financial issues that the marines face during their military service amplify the dissatisfaction. As a result, there is a need for intervention measures such as education in financial management and investment of the enlisted USMC members.
Opportunities
The company has technical opportunities such as the improvement of port productivity after the occurrence of natural disasters, implementation of security of containers, and the development of partnerships with other shipping organizations across the world. Other opportunities exist in technology such as breakthroughs in clean energy, desalinization, and carbon sequestration. Claims have been raised that the utilization of such technological innovations may increase the efficiency of the industry and hence a great opportunity that the company should pursue.
Threats
The main threat of amphibious operations are recurrent natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, and a rise in ocean levels also pose a huge risk to the organization’s success during combat missions. Also, the development of area-denial weapon systems and anti-access systems has raised concerns over the increased loss of lives, equipment, and ships because of the employment of amphibious operations (Turner, 2011).
Key Success Factors
The aspect of organizational learning allows the organization to adapt to different situations through change. To achieve this goal, the organization uses a three-dimensional strategic approach that encompasses clearing, holding, and building the impediments to change. Moreover, the organization has managed to learn from the immense knowledge and experience that it has passed on from one administration to the next since its inception. Besides, attention to detail is one of the most crucial factors that have spearheaded the success of the UMSC in amphibious operations. The organization has ensured that it integrates this element into its recruits at an early stage of their training.
The goal is to provide a baseline for better handling of real mission situations (Evans, 2012).The organization provides its leaders with a list of leadership principles and values that they are expected to execute during their period in service. The principles include being tactful and technical, self-evaluation and improvement, keeping its staff informed at all times, employment of one’s command based on the capabilities, and taking responsibility for one’s actions. This strategy has provided a platform for successful strategic implementation within the organization’s management.
Points that Merit Rethinking
Based on what I learned in week 5 about the organization’s internal environment, I can confirm that a direct correlation exists between success in amphibious operations and technological advancement. The increased demand for peaceful missions and the development of threats to amphibious operations substantiate the above correlation. Turner (2011) demonstrates that the development of anti-amphibious operations such as anti-missiles requires technological advancement in amphibious operational activities. Moreover, there is a need for intense funding and investment by the Marine Corps due to the heavy costs associated with the conducting of amphibious operations.
Strategy Evaluation
The organization is committed to providing swift services through military forces, both at sea and at the shore. The organization aims at becoming a global leader in developing doctrines and innovation. It has set an example to other organizations in the US and around the globe. The organization has ensured flexibility, speed, and scalability in its operations to provide a wide array of options for responding to any emerging crises (Gause, Lea, Whiteneck, & Thompson, 2000).
The organization has included a cooperative strategy in other instruments of national power, as well as international partners, to build trust and confidence among the stakeholders that it serves. One of the key strategies to achieving this objective is ensuring that the marine forces obtain sufficient expertise in the historical, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds of USMC’s international partners to guarantee effective interaction and reinforcement of the partnerships (Daton, Ross, & Tunsjo, 2013).
The corporation is committed to maintaining security in the sea by mitigating threats to war, drug trafficking, piracy, terrorism, and other illicit marine activities. To achieve this goal, it exercises its constitutional mandate of enforcing domestic and international law in the sea through well-defined protocols such as the Maritime Operational Threat Response Plan (Daton et al., 2013). The organization recognizes that technology is a potential source of the threat, as well as an opportunity. In this respect, it has incorporated technological advancements such as the application of expeditionary energy. Expeditionary energy includes alternative energy systems such as solar energy, ground renewable energy, and LED lights that allow the deployment of deep-sea expeditions over a long period (Roughead, Carl, & Hernández, 2012).
Conclusion and Recommendations
The United States Marine Corps has an internal shipping department that is mainly contracted by the Defense Department to offer amphibious services. Amphibious operations or services refer to a set of military procedures that are aimed at providing ground support to military forces that operate on hostile enemy shores. The amphibious operations can be divided into four main classes, which include assault operations, raid operations, withdrawal operations, and amphibious demonstrations.
State corporations such as the United States Marine Corps, the Royal Navy, and the Australian Navy run the industry of amphibious operations due to the strict restriction of entry. As a result, the United States Marine Corps does not face any form of competition. Nevertheless, due to the increased need for peaceful missions, there is an increased demand for amphibious support operations by defense bodies. However, the supply of amphibious ship operators remains on the low end.
The increased demand for amphibious operations has necessitated the formulation and implementation of a strategic plan by the United States Marine Corps and other similar organizations aimed at increasing the efficiency of the operations. In this regard, the USMC has come up with strategies such as technological innovation of expeditionary energy, incorporation of a collaborative alliance strategy, and maintenance of security at sea waters through exercising its mandate via local and international law. However, there is a need to address the poor quality of life of the organization’s members by improving their working conditions and providing a platform for financial education.
The employment of this strategy will motivate the marine officers and hence improve its service delivery. Additionally, technological improvements that keep up with the increase in anti-amphibious services such as anti-missiles require more focus to guarantee the success of the USMC’s missions while at the same time reducing the number of lives lost because of the risky amphibious operations.
Reference List
Barney, J., & Hesterly, W. (2006). Strategic Management and Competitive Advantage. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Web.
Borgu, A. (2004). Capability of first resort? Australia’s future amphibious requirement. Web.
CBO. (2011). An analysis of the navy’s amphibious warfare ships for deploying marines overseas. Web.
Dutton, P., Ross, R., & Tunsjo, O. (2013). Twenty-first century seapower: Cooperation and conflict at sea. London: Routledge. Web.
Evans, T. (2012). Three keys for success in the Marine Corps. Web.
Gause, K., Lea, C., Whiteneck, D., & Thompson, E. (2000). US Navy interoperability with its high-end allies. Alexandria, MN: Center for Naval Analyses Alexandria. Web.
Harding, R. (2005). The royal navy, 1930-2000. London: Frank Cass. Web.
Jacob, W. (2003). Amphibious operations in the 21st century. London: USAWC. Web.
Kumar, A. (2009). Shipping industry: An overview, current situation and future outlook. Web.
McKinsey&Company. (2008). Enduring ideas: The SCP framework. Web.
Roughead, G., Carl, J., & Hernández, M. (2012). Powering the armed forces. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press. Web.
Rourke, R. (2016). Navy LX(R) Amphibious ship program. Web.
Royal Navy. (2010). The future royal navy vision. Web.
Smalley, D. (2015). News: Focus area forum discusses amphibious operations – office of naval research. Web.
Turner, A. (2011). Amphibious assault in the 21st century: Are the costs and risks too high? Web.
Varcoe, K., Lees, N., Wright, J., & Emper, N. (2003). Financial issues faced by Marine Corps families. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 14(1), 43-43. Web.