INTRODUCTION

Background

The Defense Security Service (DSS), formerly the Defense Investigative Service (DIS), handles many of its overseas industrial security issues through its Offices of Industrial Security International (OISIs). There are OISIs to cover three geographical areas: Europe, the Far East, and Central America/South America. OISI-Europe has offices in Brussels and Mannheim. The OISI office covering the Far East is located in San Diego, California. Finally, the OISI office covering Central and South America is located in Melbourne, Florida.

OISI customers include contractors, and government and military user agencies. Products and services provided to contractors include: (1) conducting security reviews, and advice and assistance visits; (2) conducting overseas security refresher briefings and security seminars; (3) providing threat-specific security support; (4) assisting with personnel security clearance issues overseas; and (5) providing an Outside of the Continental United States (OCONUS) point of contact for CONUS Facility Security Officers.

OISI products and services provided to the government and military included the following: (1) providing command briefings covering OISI responsibilities and National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) requirements; (2) identifying contractor duty locations and personnel located within their Area of Responsibility (AOR); (3) identifying counterintelligence and counter-terrorism threats within their AOR; and, (4) acting as a liaison to the contractors.

The Director, DSS, tasked the Security Research Center (SRC) to conduct a study on whether or not DSS should continue to operate the OISIs. Chesapeake Research Applications assisted SRC in completing this tasking. His concern was whether or not the OISIs provided a value-added service given the new strategic goals of DSS.

Purpose

The study was designed to provide information that would assist top-level DSS management in making decisions about the OISIs. Limited personnel and financial resources prompted a more focused examination of two broad issues. First, should the OISIs continue to exist? If so, what should be the structure and operating procedures for the OISIs?

APPROACH

Interviews were the primary means of obtaining information bearing on the study issues. These interviews were conducted with OISI personnel (both current and former OISI representatives), DSS Headquarters personnel, and personnel from the DSS Operating Center in Baltimore, Maryland. Selected customers were contacted by telephone and/or the Internet and sent a questionnaire. This questionnaire was designed to obtain information on satisfaction with OISI products and services, to elicit comments on alternative concepts of operation for the OISIs and to obtain suggestions concerning what products and services should be provided.

The regulations pertaining to the OISI mission and existing agreements between DSS and specific customers for products/services were reviewed. These agreements would need to be taken into account in selecting a concept of operations for the OISIs.

FINDINGS

Customer feedback was almost entirely positive. The customers obviously valued the products and services provided by the OISIs. The professionalism and dedication of the OISI representatives were frequently cited. Some customers expressed a need for more frequent visits by the OISI representative for their area.

The question of whether or not DSS is required to perform the OISI functions had been raised. A review of the regulations and existing agreements indicated that there was no clear regulatory requirement for DSS to continue the existence of the OISIs. On the other hand, eliminating the OISIs would clearly entail an opportunity cost for DSS in its transfer to a "fee for service" funding basis. In addition, the OISIs support the DSS strategic goals for industrial security.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The first global conclusion reached was that the OISIs should continue to exist. There were many reasons for this conclusion. The OISIs address national security needs, provide consistency with the DSS industrial security role in CONUS, support the partnership with industry, support a customer orientation to user agencies, and fulfill commitments to customer agencies. In addition, the OISIs generate counterintelligence leads and information, project a global DSS presence, and create "fee for service" opportunities.

The second global conclusion was that the OISI functions could be performed better. It was recommended that the OISI mission be clarified. This clarification should include a delineation of the OISI organizational objectives, constraints, and priorities. The current OISIs are not part of an integrated system. There is no central, full-time leader. There is little uniformity across the three OISIs. The backup for primary personnel is inadequate. There is little resource-sharing between OISIs in terms of personnel or other resources.

A number of improvement strategies were recommended for the OISIs. Overall recommendations included organizing the individual OISIs into an integrated system. A new position of OISI Operating Location (OPLOC) Chief should be created in the DSS organization. The selection strategy for the person to fill the new position should emphasize previous OISI experience and should require submission of a business plan. The person selected for the new position should work with DSS senior management to decide the DSS organizational location for the OISI OPLOC Chief. It was suggested that the new person report to the DSS Chief Operating Officer, like the other existing OPLOCs. Coordination with the DSS International Programs group was considered essential. The new OPLOC Chief position should be geographically located in CONUS. Finally, the person selected should determine the OISI OPLOC internal and external responsibilities, and recommend these responsibilities to DSS senior management for approval.

Early tasks for the new OPLOC Chief should include creating a new OISI mission statement, clarifying both objectives and constraints. The priorities for contractor coverage should be reviewed, taking into account the work content and known threats (both counterintelligence and counter-terrorism). The tradeoffs between coverage and frequency should be examined. More detailed analyses, based upon these priorities should be used to determine OISI office locations and personnel workloads. A periodic customer feedback survey should be instituted. A OISI World Wide Web site should be created to quickly disseminate information. Finally, the DSS cost accounting procedures should be modified to facilitate tracking costs for the new OISI system.

SUMMARY

In summary, the OISIs are a valuable DSS asset with important strengths. The shortcomings identified can be corrected. The future OISI system can accomplish the following: (1) enhance products and services, (2) increase customer coverage and support, (3) maximize effectiveness for resources invested, (4) improve national security, (5) enhance DSS’s role in the security community, and (6) help make DSS the "security service of choice." The Director, DSS, supported many of the study recommendations and has decided to continue operating the OISIs. An OPLOC Chief for the OISIs is currently being selected.