Detailed Information on the
International Trade Administration: Manufacturing and Services Assessment

Undertake a rigorous assessment of MAS's current structure to make sure that it matches today's economy and will yield the best results for U.S. industry's competitiveness.

Develop and implement an activity-based cost accounting system to better link budget requests to accomplishments.

Implementing an independent review board that will review and evaluate the work produced by MAS.

Measure: Annual Cost Savings Resulting from the Adoption of MAS Recommendations Contained in MAS Studies and Analysis.

Explanation:This measure will capture the impact on U.S. industry of MAS's recommendations that have been adopted by rule-making organizations.

Measure: Percent of Agreement Milestones Completed.

Explanation:This measure captures the work of MAS industry analysts and trade negotiators who work on multi-year free trade agreements that benefit U.S. exporters.

Measure: Percent of Industry-Specific Trade Barrier Milestones Completed.

Explanation:This measure quantifies progress towards the removal of foreign trade barriers that disadvantage U.S. companies trying to enter foreign markets. Examples include spurious standards requirements, restrictions on U.S. investments, labeling requirements, etc.

Measure: Percent of Industry-Specific Trade Barriers that Were Removed or Prevented

Explanation:

Measure: Percent Reduction in Per Unit Costs of Data Distribution.

Explanation:Reduction in cost per download of MAS data from TradeStats Express.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The mission of MAS is to strengthen the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing and services by addressing commercial and economic impediments that disadvantage US companies overseas.

Evidence: 1. President's Budget, Department of Commerce Budget Appendix, http://whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/appendix/com.pdf, page 215-218.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: U.S. industry, both manufacturing and services, faces increasing competition across a broad range of sectors.

Evidence: Many studies may be cited that attempt to assess the competitiveness of U.S. industry. One measure of U.S. industry competiveness is cost competitiveness, and the study by Leonard (2003) indicates that structural costs add an estimated 22.4% to the price of production for U.S. firms relative to major foreign competitors. Another measure is multifactor productivity growth, and Shreyer (2004) shows that in the decade since 1995, the U.S. has been losing ground to several countries with respect to competitiveness. The business climate is also an important indicator of competitiveness, and the World Bank (2006) indicates that the U.S. is at a disadvantage with respect to countries such as Singapore and New Zealand in ease of doing business.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: MAS does not unnecessarily duplicate other programs, though its regulatory analysis activity supplements that of other agencies, the private sector, and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. MAS major program activities include but are not limited to: collection and dissemination of data on U.S. industry and trade, production of analyses on domestic and international trade and investment policies that can impact competitiveness, identification and resolution of overseas market and trade barriers, and analysis of domestic regulations and other proposed policies to determine their impact on overseas competitiveness of U.S. firms. MAS's domestic regulatory review work is a new function, and MAS is still addressing how to prioritize and plan its workload to avoid unnecessarily duplicative work with other Federal agencies that review regulations. Collection and dissemination of trade and industry data: MAS provides data and statistics on exporters, trade and industry. MAS provides some data collection and dissemination activities that are unique within the Federal government. Production of analyses on domestic and international trade and investment policies that can impact competitiveness: The International Trade Commission also produces reports on the competitive impact of imported products on domestic U.S. markets. The USITC also studies the competitiveness of U.S. industries abroad and the probable effects of proposed changes in U.S. trade legislation. However, as a quasi-judicial organization, the USITC does not provide recommendations on trade negotiations or other policy work such as MAS. Identification and resolution of overseas market and trade barriers: ITA's Market Access and Compliance program unit (MAC) also identifies and resolves market access and compliance issues that may impact industry. However, MAS's work supports rather than duplicates MAC's work, as MAC does not work on industry-specific trade policy barriers. Analysis of regulations and other proposed policies: The Office of Information and Regulatory Analysis (OIRA) reviews agency draft regulations to include consideration of alternatives to the rulemaking and analysis of the rule's effects on society, including a cost-benefit analysis. MAS should continue to be cognizant of regulatory impact analysis work taking place at other agencies and in the private sector, to ensure that its work in this area supplements, rather that duplicates, this work. The Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy also reviews regulations to minimize their impact upon small business, and its review could duplicate the work of MAS.

Evidence: 1. For example, MAS's Office of Travel and Tourism Industries runs the Survey of International Air Travelers, which is used by Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis to estimate the significance of travel and tourism to the U.S. economy. Production of analyses on domestic and international trade and investment policies that can impact competitiveness: 2. www.usitc.gov 3. MAS has recently requested the Inter-Agency Working Group on Manufacturing to Review Its Proposed Workload to ensure consistency rather than duplication with other regulatory review offices.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The mission of MAS is to strengthen the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing and services. Given the variety of factors that can impact competitiveness, such as the ability to employ a qualified workforce, costs of production, and innovation to name a few, there are several mechanisms by which to improve competitiveness. MAS's efforts to address commercial and economic impediments domestically and overseas is one such mechanism. No comparison has ever been undertaken that would indicate that another approach or mechanism would be more efficient or effective to achieve this purpose. However, although there is no strong evidence of design flaws, MAS does face certain challenges in its ability to accomplish its mission. One such challenge is implementing the organizational shift in perspective that is necessitated from its transition from the Trade Development program unit, which focused mainly on benefits to industry from trade promotion and negotiations, to a unit that is concerned more broadly with US competitiveness overall.

Evidence: Brookings Institution Forum on U.S. Competitiveness in the 21st Century http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20060428.htm

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: MAS's resources should be targeted to activities intended to strengthen the global competitiveness of U.S. industry. The program is structured so that resources and outcomes are targeted towards activities intended to benefit US industry. However, the right beneficiaries are not always targeted and some activities that would have occurred without the program may be unnecessarily subsidized by MAS. MAS operates several offices which each focus on a specific manufacturing or services industry (for example, automotive, travel and tourism, etc.). Each office produces Industry and Programmatic Assessments on an annual basis. Each Assessment provides an analysis of the competitive strengths of the industry, an assessment of its needs, and the strategic direction MAS proposes for the industry in expanding and/or maintaining its competitiveness. MAS undertook a reorganization in 2004, aimed at helping its organization remain reflective of the US economy. Given the dynamic nature of the economy, MAS should continue to assess its organizational structure to ensure that it remains effective. Additionally, MAS is often required to respond to Congressional requests to work with specific industries on projects that have are a lower priority for MAS, taking valuable resources away from MAS priorities that have a bigger impact on its program outcome. MAS's data collection, analysis and dissemination are primarily intended to support U.S. government efforts to promote business competitiveness, though MAS has made data available to the private sector through TradeStats Express and the MAS tourism website. However, MAS also does not have a standardized pricing system for all reports and other data that it provides for a fee to industry. Without this standardized pricing system, MAS is unable to determine the full cost of some of its products, including overhead costs. Without knowing the full cost of its products, it isn't possible to determine whether MAS is providing a service that is truly warranted by the demands of the market.

Evidence: 1. Summary of ITA's Core Business Processes, August 2004. 2. Accenture Reorganization Documents.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The long-term goal for the MAS program is enhancing U.S. competitiveness overseas by addressing commercial and economic impediments that disadvantage U.S. companies, primarily via analysis used to inform the regulatory review process and trade policy. MAS's first proposed measure, "Cost Savings to Industry Resulting from the Adoption by Federal Regulatory Agencies of MAS Recommendations on Draft Regulations", would quantify the outcome of MAS's review work on increasing the cost competitiveness of U.S. industry by reducing the financial burden of domestic regulations. MAS's second proposed measure is "Percent of Industry-Specific Trade Barriers Addressed that Were Removed or Prevented." This captures the outcome of MAS's efforts to address barriers to industry in foreign markets such as labeling requirements, foreign restrictions on U.S. investment, and spurious foreign standards.

Evidence: 1. Listing of long-term targets and measures.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: MAS has ambitious targets and timeframes for both of its long-term measures. It's first long-term outcome measure, "Cost Savings to Industry Resulting from the Adoption of MAS Recommendations Contained in MAS Studies and Analysis on Draft Regulations" is new. By 2010, MAS plans to achieve an annual savings to industry of $1.934 billion in cost savings cumulatively between 2006 and 2010. For its second measure, "Percent of Industry-Specific Trade Barriers Addressed That Were Either Removed or Prevented", MAS's target of 30% by 2010 is ambitious because MAS's success in this area is partially dependent upon the actions of foreign governments.

Evidence: 1. Listing of long-term targets and measures. 2. A target of 30% for removal of trade barriers may seem low compared to ITA's 50% goal for resolution of trade compliance cases for its Market Access and Compliance (MAC) program. However, MAS is measuring its progress in achieving market openings through the removal or prevention of trade barriers, whereas MAC is measuring its resolution of distinct trade complaints - most of which are reported by individual companies. Additionally, some of the compliance cases are based on laws that countries must legally comply with, which may not take as much time to resolve once those countries are aware of non-compliance. Many trade policy cases are political rather than legal in nature, and may take longer for countries to agree with the U.S. position. An example of MAS trade policy work include MAS's efforts to prevent the adoption of wireless encryption standards in China that would adversely affect U.S. manufacturers of wireless devices.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: MAS has annual performance measures that tie to both of its long-term measures. MAS also has an additional annual measure "Percent of Agreement Milestones Completed," which captures the work of MAS industry analysts and trade negotiators who work on multi-year free trade agreements intended to enhance U.S. competitiveness.

Evidence: 1. Listing of long-term targets and measures. 2. ITA 2007-2012 Strategic Plan Overview and 2006 Priorities.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Because this is a new function for the program, MAS has recently developed baselines and targets for its measure "Annual Cost Savings to Industry Resulting from the Adoption by Federal Regulatory Agencies of MAS Recommendations on Draft Regulations." MAS has targets and baselines for its other annual measures. MAS has set a target of 70% for Percent of Agreement Milestones Completed, which is ambitious because progress towards the completion of major bilateral and multilateral trade agreements is dependent on complex economic and international political factors that are largely external. For Percent of Industry-Specific Trade Barrier Milestones Completed, MAS has set a target of 85%. Again, because performance in this area is greatly impacted by international politics, this target is ambitious.

Evidence: 1. Listing of long-term targets and measures. 2. Baseline data for various annual targets.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: MAS's partners are primarily composed of intra- and inter-governmental organizations that through various functions work to improve U.S. business competitiveness overseas. Two of MAS's intra-agency partners, MAC, and the US Foreign and Commercial Service (USFCS) commit to and work towards ITA's strategic goals, to which MAS contributes and which are informed in large part by the President's trade policy agenda. USTR is MAS's primary inter-agency partner focused on trade policy. MAS works closely with USTR towards the common goal of advancing the President's Trade Policy Agenda by providing industry expertise and economic evaluation of various stages of bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations.

Evidence: 1. An overview of how ITA's four program units work together is available at http://www.ita.doc.gov/ita_2006.pdf. 2. USTR's Mission Statement can be found at http://www.ustr.gov/Who_We_Are/Section_Index.html.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: While certain elements of MAS's program have been evaluated by the Government Accountability Office and by the Department of Commerce Office of the Inspector General, no program evaluations have been conducted on MAS that meet the criteria of independence and focus on whether the program is accomplishing its mission and meeting its long-term goals. MAS did not exist prior to 2004, when ITA's former Trade Development unit was renamed to reflect a new mission to reflect its work on competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing and services, including the addition of a new program function, regulatory review and analysis. During 2007, MAS plans to initiate an independent peer review panel of its work and hopes to leverage its current Memorandum of Understanding with George Mason University to develop these panels. MAS has already been in discussions with the Economic Research Service, part of the Department of Agriculture, to discuss its methodology for conducting peer reviews.

Evidence: MAS did not exist prior to 2004, when ITA's former Trade Development unit was renamed to reflect a new focus on competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing and services, including the addition of a new program function, regulatory review and analysis. Prior analyses of Trade Development looked at only certain activities within the program unit, rather than whether TD was accomplishing its overall mission. These evaluations include the following: 1. International Trade Advisory Committee System Should be Updated to Better Serve U.S. Policy Needs, General Accounting Office, September 2004, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02876.pdf. 2. International Trade Administration, Market Development Cooperator Program Award Process Promotes Merit-Based Decisions, But Practices Need More Discipline, Department of Commerce Inspector General, December 1999,http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/1999/ITA-ATL-10999-09-1999.pdf.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: ITA does not yet have activity-based cost accounting. Its current financial system does not allow individual MAS staff or offices to adequately allocate their time and operational costs to different projects, activities, or cost centers. As a result, it is difficult for MAS managers to readily identify how resources, particularly overhead, are applied to key activities and goals. ITA acknowledges this deficiency, and has requested and received funding to implement an activity-based cost- accounting system.

Evidence: 1. President's Budget 2005 and 2006 2. ITA Congressional Justification 2007

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: MAS has a well-developed annual strategic planning process that closely integrates its budget process with performance goals, objectives, and results. The next steps for MAS will be to integrate its relevant performance measures more directly into this process and to link new 5-level performance plans that are designed to communicate organizational goals and objectives, reinforce individual accountability for meeting those goals, and track and evaluate individual and organizational performance results. MAS is continually reviewing and improving its annual and long-term performance measures to more accurately reflect the impact of its programs. In addition to the annual MAS Strategic Plan (comprised of office-level Industry Assessments and Business Plans), MAS has representatives on ITA's Strategic Planning Leadership Team (SPLT), a group of senior managers who advise the Under Secretary for International Trade on overall policy and operational issues. The SPLT meets monthly to discuss key performance issues and to evaluate performance targets and results.

Evidence: 1. Sample Industry Assessment. 2. Sample business plan. 3. SPLT info and MAS members.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: MAS uses a two-level system to ensure that high-quality and credible performance information is used to inform management decisions and budget allocations: 1) a performance tracking system and 2) annual office-level business plans. Office-level business plans comprise the core of MAS's strategic planning process. MAS's business plans link specific, line-item activities and budget information to ITA performance goals. Although ITA goals are set at the beginning of a fiscal year and resources allocated accordingly, MAS's planning system is flexible and allows managers to adjust program priorities throughout the year. At a glance, MAS managers can identify and evaluate office activities against the program's strategic goals. MAS's performance measures are reported in the performance tracking system, PBViews. PBViews allows managers to review past and future performance targets, to generate performance reports, and to view data by program unit, which enables managers to make informed decisions based on performance results. PBViews also contains performance information for MAS's ITA partners (MAC, USFCS, and IA). By using a common performance tracking system across ITA, MAS can ensure that its efforts coordinate with the performance of ITA partners towards common goals. This system allows MAS to reallocate resources as required. MAS uses performance data to improve the organization's performance. One example is the targeting of additional cost reductions for Trade Stats Express. In 2004, MAS tracked the cost savings resulting from the distribution of economic data from a web-based platform rather than hand processing each request. The data demonstrated an increased efficiency in the per unit costs of distributing economic data. Consequently, in 2005, MAS invested in several additional technological improvements that have enabled U.S. citizens to gain direct access to economic and trade data at increasingly lower costs. Between 2005 and 2006, MAS targeted a 10% reduction in per unit cost of data distribution and was able to surpass its goal and achieve a savings of 13%. Due to diminishing marginal returns, future cost savings for 2007 have been targeted for 5%.

Evidence: 1. MAS performance information is collected in the performance tracking system, PBViews. PBViews allows managers to review past performance and future performance targets, to generate performance reports, and to view data by program unit, which enables managers to make informed decisions based on performance results. 2. When working on joint teams with other ITA partners such as MAC and USFCS, MAS analysts contribute to partner measures such as Number of Trade Compliance Cases Resolved by serving as the industry expert on all compliance teams and serving as the team lead on cases that require extensive, in-depth industry knowledge. MAS reports the status of all cases through the Trade Compliance Center. PBViews allow analysts across ITA to contribute to performance measures that support common goals. 3. Sample MAS Business Plans.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Federal managers and program partners are held accountable for cost, schedule, and performance results through annual office-level business plans and staff-level performance plans that are linked to ITA goals and objectives. Both types of plans are specific and performance-based and follow standard templates to ensure consistency and mission-focus. MAS Office Directors, Deputy Assistant Secretaries, and the Assistant Secretary are held accountable for the financial management and program performance of their offices. A 5-level performance evaluation system was re-introduced in 2006 that makes numerous fine distinctions between various levels of performance and recognizes strong and weak performers. MAS's performance management process is used to communicate organizational goals and objectives, reinforce individual accountability for meeting those goals, and track and evaluate individual and organizational performance results. This process is used not only to hold managers accountable for performance, but also the entire MAS staff.

Evidence: 1. Sample Performance Plan - Annual Performance Plans for all MAS managers includes a critical element dedicated to management and performance measures. Performance appraisals for MAS trade and industry specialists are linked to outcomes and results. 2. Senior Executive Service (SES) performance plans have mandatory critical elements regarding financial performance.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: Appropriated funding for MAS is obligated in a timely manner based on annual fiscal plans detailing expected expenditures for all accounts. MAS has established procedures for reporting and tracking expenditures to allow management to verify that funds are spent appropriately and that obligations are consistent with the overall program plan. MAS reviews planned spending against actual spending on a quarterly basis. MAS's Office of Planning, Coordination and Management is responsible for reviewing actual expenditures across each MAS unit, comparing them against the planned use, and taking timely and appropriate action if expenditures deviate from planned expenditures. Independent auditors have verified that MAS follows generally accepted accounting practices and that plans are in place for all available funds. MAS follows ITA guidance for the administrative control of funds outlined in ITA's Fund Control Policy. MAS tracks its expenditures at the Office level through both official, Department of the Interior (DOI) Document Direct records (ITA's financial service provider), as well as detailed internal expenditure recording systems. Data contained in these two systems is reconciled on a monthly basis and all discrepancies are evaluated and resolved. Further information regarding these systems can be found in the evidence section below.

Evidence: 1. Sample credit card log. 2. Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Memo, Guidance for Administrative Control of Funds. 3. Sample printout and reconciliation between DOI runs and OPCM Quicken records. 4. In 2005, MAS obligated 99.5% of its available operations and administration funds. 5. Information regarding MAS's clean audit can be found in: 2004 Performance and Accountability Report (IG letter), http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/Budget/04APPR/KKPAR04.pdf , page 269 and 2005 Performance and Accountability Report (IG letter) http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/Budget/05APPR/PAR05.pdf, page 247.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: MAS seeks to demonstrate improved efficiency in achieving program goals each year. In an effort to reduce per unit costs while enhancing access to economic data for public and private sector clients, MAS shifted the distribution of economic information away from labor-intensive processing to online downloads. Since 2004, MAS's customers have been able to access national and state trade data through MAS's website, TradeStats Express (http://tse.export.gov). MAS has tracked the dollars saved as a result of transferring data requests from hand processing to an online, self-serve system. The organization continues to track additional cost savings that result from reduced per unit costs by tracking the number of downloads against the full costs of the system. This unit cost decreased from $1.13 in 2005 to $0.98 in 2006.

Evidence: 1. TradeStats Express, http://tse.export.gov.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: MAS collaborates effectively with many intra- and inter-agency programs. MAS works closely with USTR and other U.S. Government agencies in crafting bilateral and multilateral trade agreements and on market access and trade compliance problems. MAS provides analytical support to USTR with industry expertise and economic analysis of trade agreement offers and counter-offers, and has served as lead negotiator in sector-specific negotiations. MAS formally collaborates in many inter-agency fora including the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) and the Trade Policy Review Committee (TPRC). These two groups are administered and chaired by USTR and composed of 19 Federal agencies and offices. MAS also chairs the Interagency Working Group on Manufacturing Competitiveness (IWG-MC), a group composed of representatives of 17 Federal agencies that work cooperatively to develop new initiatives to increase the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers and service providers. In light of its new function of reviewing domestic regulations to determine impediments and other unnecessary costs to US industry that can harm US competitiveness overseas, MAS has also started working with OIRA and other agencies involved in regulatory review and analysis.

Evidence: 1. List of Agencies on the Trade Policy Review Group at www.ustr.gov/Who_We_Are/Executive_Branch_Agencies_on_the_Trade_Policy_Staff_Committee_the_Trade_Policy_Review_Group.html. 2. MAS collaboration addendum. 3. MAS program partners have indicated the efficacy of MAS activities through letters of support.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: MAS has received clean audits since 2000 and no material internal control weaknesses or other deficiencies have been found by auditors. MAS certifies annually that it has an effective management control process in place, and any deficiencies would be addressed at this time.

Evidence: 1. Compliance with the Prompt Payment Act. 2. Audit findings report that ITA has no reportable conditions. 3. MAS Letter of Assurance. 4. 2005 Performance and Accountability Report, pages 247-248 http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/Budget/05APPR/PAR05.pdf.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: MAS operates an annual strategic planning process that includes comprehensive program reviews and enables the program to systematically identify management challenges before they become deficiencies. Accountability systems, such as performance plans and MAS's training program (including its E-learning program), ensure that MAS staff have the opportunity to develop and maintain mission critical skills. MAS has recently identified organizational communication as a challenge and has taken steps to address this issue. Specifically, MAS has taken steps to ensure that management priorities are better communicated to staff. In 2005, MAS instituted quarterly "All-Hands" meetings, bi-monthly Office Director meetings, and weekly Senior Staff meetings. In addition, to enhance internal communication and downward feedback, MAS has created internal newsletters to keep staff up to date on the results of their work and important trade policy development. Examples such as "OTPA at a Glance," "FTA Panorama," and "Manufacturing Biweekly." MAS has also undertaken a systematic review of its strategic human capital-a challenge articulated in the President's Management Agenda. In 2002, MAS created the HR Taskforce-a partnership between MAS management and staff to identify and resolve obstacles to developing a results-oriented workforce. In 2006, MAS launched its Human Capital Development Plan (HCDP), which outlines key areas of improvement in the recruitment, training, retention, and management of a 21st century workforce. Currently in implementation, the HCDP has already resulted in improved information for management and staff and an employee exchange program that extends organizational expertise by breaking down "stovepipes" and enabling staff to learn from their colleagues while saving on the cost of outside training. MAS also leads ITA on replacing traditional classroom based training with E-learning modules. The computer-based system is tailored to the specific needs of MAS employees and allows managers to design programs that target specific deficiencies identified in performance reviews. Additionally, the E-learning module is a renewable resource-enabling employees to repeat courses as needed at no additional cost to the organization. MAS built this system on a platform that is scalable and that can have uses for other ITA partners and government agencies. Key structural deficiencies were resolved in the 2004 restructuring of ITA, whereby MAS focused its efforts on competitiveness and jettisoned its export promotion role. These export promotion functions were transferred to USFCS. The reorganization also led to personnel changes as MAS industry experts focused on trade promotion were also reassigned to USFCS.

Evidence: 1. SES Performance Plans. 2. Notes from Most Recent MAS "All Hands" meeting. 3. Reorganization Memo.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: Although MAS's long-term measures are new, results from its first year of data collection indicate that MAS is making progress in achieving its long-term performance goals. For "Annual Cost Savings to Industry Resulting from the adoption of MAS Recommendations," 2006 results indicate that MAS achieved $354 million in cost savings to industry, which puts MAS on track to meet its target of $1.934 billion in cumulative cost savings by 2010. For "Percent of Industry-Specific Trade Barriers Addressed that were Prevented or Removed," during the 2006- 2010 period, MAS has a target of 30%. Data for 2006 indicate that MAS has removed three of its targeted 19 trade barriers (a 16% success rate) and has made substantial progress towards the removal of several others.

Evidence: 1. Listing of MAS measures.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Data for 2005 demonstrate that MAS has made some progress towards achieving three of its annual performance goals for which data is available. As mentioned in Question 2.3, MAS has established a new performance measure, Total Annual Cost Savings Resulting from the Adoption of MAS Recommendations Contained in MAS Studies and Analysis. MAS anticipates a reporting time lag between adoption of its recommendations and the impact on various U.S. industries. For this reason, MAS will begin collecting data now but will not yet set a 2008 target. MAS exceeded its targets for Percent of Agreement Milestones Completed during 2004. During 2005, MAS did not meet its 70% target because MAS was unable to complete both the UAE and Thailand Free Trade Agreements due to differences in negotiating positions. However, during the first half of 2006, MAS achieved 40% of its targeted milestones and anticipates meeting its goal of 70% by the end of the fiscal year. In terms of the MAS measure, Percent of Industry-Specific Trade Barriers Addressed that Were Removed or Prevented, MAS met its annual targets of 80% in both 2004 and 2005 and is on track to meet its target of 85% by the end of 2006.

Evidence: 1. Listing of IAN Work Plan. 2. Trade Agreement Milestones and data for 2004, 2005, and 2006. 3. Trade Barrier Milestones and data for 2004, 2005, and 2006.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: MAS seeks to demonstrate improved efficiency in achieving program goals each year. In an effort to reduce per unit costs while enhancing access to economic data for public and private sector clients, MAS shifted the distribution of economic information away from labor-intensive processing to online downloads. Since 2004, MAS's customers have been able to access national and state trade data through MAS's website, TradeStats Express (http://tse.export.gov). MAS has tracked the dollars saved as a result of transferring data requests from hand processing to an online, self-serve system. The organization continues to track additional cost savings that result from reduced per unit costs by tracking the number of downloads against the full costs of the system. This unit cost decreased from $1.13 in 2005 to $0.98 in 2006. MAS has also produced cost savings by deploying E-learning modules that have provided savings in training costs. Since 2004, MAS has developed four training programs covering a range of mission-critical topics including: Foundations of Analysis, Industry Outreach, Identifying Best Prospects for Exporting, and Trade Policy. Since the implementation of E-learning tools, MAS estimates it has saved over $100,000 in training costs.

Evidence: 1. TradeStats Express savings estimation spreadsheet. 2. E-learning cost savings estimation worksheet.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: There is limited information to assess MAS's performance compared to other programs in both the government and private sector with similar purpose and goals, because MAS is a new program as of 2004 and thus its own performance results are limited. One example is in customer service, in which MAS in on par with other program units within ITA that interact with industry and other private sector clients.

Evidence: 1. ITA Customer Satisfaction Survey, April 2006. Specifically, MAS posted a customer satisfaction score of 68% (with a margin of error plus or minus 4%) which is on par with other ITA units and the Federal Government average of 71. 2. Listing of ACSI Federal Government Scores.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: MAS receives a "small extent" for this question, as evaluations to date for the most part have focused primarily upon small components within MAS (formerly the Trade Development program unit) and not on the impact MAS is making to improve US competitiveness. For example, the GAO study on the Trade Advisory Committee System, jointly administered by MAS and USTR, found that many negotiators, agency officials, and committee members viewed the committee system as playing an important role in U.S. trade policy and that it has made valuable contributions to U.S. trade agreements. Results from the 2006 ITA Customer Satisfaction Survey also found that MAS posted a customer satisfaction score of 68% (with a margin of error plus or minus 4%) which is on par with other ITA units and the Federal Government average of 71.

Evidence: 1. GAO Study, Advisory Committee System Should be Updated to Better Serve U.S. Policy Needs, may be found at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02876.pdf. 2. ITA Customer Satisfaction Survey