A Look Back at FSMP: What Can Be Learned

October 28, 2011 Comments Off

Note: It was 10 years ago this month that brought an end to the Full Service Moving Project, commonly known as FSMP. In a series of guest posts by Daycos founder John Day, we take a look back at the FSMP program. On Monday, we examined the start of the program, Wednesday we explored the problems that developed, and today we review what can be learned from the FSMP program.

By October, 2001, the FSMP program had ceased. So much effort had been put into making the program work as intended, but obviously those efforts failed. What did we learn from the experience?

Personal Property is Unique

FSMP was yet another example of outside entities viewing our industry as “just another commodity.” They probably heard the claims that there is something unique about moving military household goods, and assumed it was just another industry that was resistant to change. At least they thought that until they started working in the industry.

Then it became apparent that personal property is a whole different animal, and experience matters. Move managers from a division of military household goods carrier performed far better than those whom had no background in the industry. Additionally, transitioning from experienced professional staff at Personal Property offices to new hires for the move managers demonstrated the importance of experience, especially during the busy peak season. The collective experience that PPSOs bring to the office solves problems before they happen.

Finally, personal property is unique because it is personal. As is often stated, no piece of freight ever called its Congressman to complain about poor service. Not true for personal property. After combat and separation, moving impacts the Service Member and his family the most.

You Get What You Pay For

The Military Services stated they wanted premium service for their members, but when they got the bill, they decided they could not afford to pay for it. It is a basic tenet of business that is as true in this industry as any other: the more services you want, the more you need to be willing to pay.

It is easy to say you want better quality and premium service, but unless you are prepared to fund those requests, they are just talk. As the commanding general of MTMC said in an interview shortly after the end of FSMP, “I think Services really need to come to grips with what they want, whether the future program should be public or private in nature, and how much they are willing to pay for various improvements.”

Those same comments could be said about all of our re-engineering efforts in the past 10 years. DP3 was promoted as a quality driven program, but because of provisions such as rate reasonableness and the distribution method, it still has had the net result of driving rates down significantly, which has led to some of the capacity problems we have seen.

Programs Take Time to Develop

For all the build-up and preparation,the plug was pulled very quickly on the FSMP program. It was not given much time to work out the problems that had developed.

Years after the end of FSMP, a military officer who was instrumental in the development of the program, was still upset that the program was shut down so soon. He believed that given more time, they could have worked through the issues and been a successful program.

Because the military household goods industry is unique and complex, it does take years to work through issue to continually refine and improve a program. TOPS is viewed as a legacy system that worked well, but that was in large part because it had been around for years and years and had been improved continually. The DP3 program has improved significantly since its inception, and while it still has a lot of kinks to work out, will continue to improve if the plug is not pulled on it too soon for the next big “improvement”.

Conclusion

In the end, FSMP is viewed by history as a failed program. Even though it ended ten years ago this month, it is interesting how many of these lessons learned could apply to current discussions about possible changes in the military household goods program.

Hopefully, those making these decisions will take a look back at the FSMP program, and seek to learn lessons that will be useful. As they old saying goes “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

Are there other lessons that should be learned from FSMP? How do you think these lessons should be applied to the current discussion about changes in the program? Use the comments below to share your opinion.