Top 10 Site Visit Executive recommendations for Updated Dispatch of Equipment Supply Systems

1. Clearly define roles and responsibilities of Site Visit Executive to include oversight, enforcement & accountability of equipment supply programme

2. Design equipment track status update authority measures for each dispatch unit

3. Provide training to equipment supply dispatchers to reflect updated logistics systems operating procedures and business rules

4. Perform reconciliation of logistics systems, identify errors and inconsistencies

5. Establish plan of action and milestones for supply line corrections at specified dispatch intervals

6. Require Site Visit Executive to provide refresher training about update supply functions for dispatcher assignments

7. Determine effectiveness and feasibility of establishing dispatcher billet to provide stability and assist Logistics System performance

8. Assign Site Visit Executive oversight authority to ensure updated supply actions become established directives/instructions

9. Establish plan of action and milestones for accomplishing Supply Logistics actions recommended by Site Visit Executive

10. Make sure Logistics Systems provide for dispatch unit equipment asset visibility in supply lines


Top 10 Survey Questions Provide Evidence of Procurement Application Utilised for DoD Interactions with Contractors

We based our structured interviews with DoD and contractors demonstrate working experience with procurement applications for weapons system programmes on an extensive questionnaire. The overarching themes investigated by the questionnaire are summarised here:

1. Is there evidence using application has shortened procurement process and produced efficiencies in DoD interactions with contractors?

2. Is there evidence cost of major DoD weapon systems or items have been reduced through advances in procurement applications?

3. Is there evidence DoD use of application increased contractor incentives to focus on cost reduction during design phase?

4. Is there evidence DoD procurement workload has been reduced through the use of application?

5. Is there evidence that additional competitors at prime, subcontractor, or supplier levels interacted with DoD as direct result of application?

6. Can contractor participation in DoD contests facilitated by application be linked to lower prices paid and/or better products acquired?

7. Are there specific examples of innovative tech incorporation to improve product capabilities for DoD because of application?

8. How are cost/benefits to DoD operations estimated and application processes evaluated?

9. Is there evidence procurement application has reduced contractor overhead rates or charges to DoD?

10. What are lessons learned by DoD for future applications driving advances in procurement process for weapons systems?


Top 10 Instructions for Equipment Repair Work Order Utilise Modern Application for Job Site Execution

We assign your scheduled maintenance requests to a single equipment, or add multiple equipment if needed. Your scheduled maintenance work requests are automatically generated in advance of their due date and are made available for assignment and review. You can even add reminders to main menu for important scheduled maintenance activities.

Either your organisation prefers highly automated rules-based system to get work order request into hands of a technician virtually automatically, or a more manual system where Help Desk Dispatchers make decisions about when and who handles a particular work order.

1. Create, receive and route application-based work requests: Work request is basic communication tool for reporting Job Site problem so action can be initiated to get it fixed.

2. Obtain approvals as part of workflow if necessary:  Generate workflows to mirror organisation processes for getting work done.

3. Receive alerts on critical issues in workflow: Allow for prioritising work must to be done and ability to work orders.

4. View comprehensive list of work orders in process: Provide activity feeds, grids and reporting capability to see what work has yet to be completed and how long work in backlog.

5. Highlight overdue work, or sort work orders on place, space, asset or technician basis: Offers Job Site tools and reports so available information to keep the operations running smoothly.

6. Link related work orders: Being able to group work orders allows for more efficient assignment of work to be done.

7. Attach drawings and specs, etc.: See drawings, pages of repair manuals and other documents to speed up asset repair and maintenance process.

8. Define work order schedule: Schedule work to be done so field-levels can submit work requests or query requests to see when it will be done.

9. Create and update Task Schedule of pending work orders: Use task schedules to keep track of what work is being done and when.

10. Schedule proactive Jobs: Any work request can be made repetitive by filling out additional checks defining dates, times and frequency; add reminders.


Top 10 Spare Parts Tracking Policy Levers Driving Organisation Execute Systems Change

Execution of spare parts tracking still spans multiple DoD participants responsible for action such as supply, transportation, or maintenance are all separate and distinct. Supply personnel determine which parts to stock and in what quantities while transportation personnel are responsible for the movement of these parts between the various components of the logistics system. When a part is broken, another part of the organisation with its own personnel determines how and when to repair items. Adding to the complexity of this structure is the fact that other support areas such as contracting,and engineering have their own functional structures and guidelines for operation. This structure, while useful for the control and assignment of personnel, is not aligned to the process of buying and sustaining parts needed to support a weapon system.

1. Contract Type, Length, Cost

2 Administration Lead Time

3. Production Lead Time

4. Part Support Services

5. Part Substitute Transfer

6. Responsive to Demand

7. Engineer Quality Control

8. Adaptive Supply Guidelines

9. Stock Levels Optimise

10. Performance Improvements


Top 10 Repair Job Release/Complete Time Interval Event Sequence

Here, we model time between release of a repair job and job completion by a defining repair lead time. In contrast to many other models, we allow both the return lead time and the repair lead time to be large, say several months. The objective of our model is to optimise cost/benefit of breaks in parts supply over remaining service period. We describe time dependent service levels corresponding to probability of no stock-out & fraction of demand served from stock on hand at end of each time interval. In this way, we facilitate a trade-off between risks & service levels in case effects of shortages are hard to quantify.

The sequence of the events in each time interval is as follows:

1. Arrival of ready-to-use parts

2. Return of ready-to-repair parts from field

3. Registration of Part Stock positions

4. Decision on quantity of parts to repair

5. Mid-interval realisation of parts demand

6. End-of interval record of on hand stock

7. End-of interval record of back order stock

8. Determine service level probability of no stock out

9. Determine service level probability of fill rate

10. Assess operational cost/benefit of repair, holding, shortage


Top 10 Repair Job Work Order Verify Input Processing

Work Order system accommodates variety of Maintenance Authorisation, Approval & Scheduling of Jobs.. It is critical each Job site determines how to implement product to fit mission requirements. Specifically, users must determine what approval stages are necessary, where the input will be done and who will be responsible for input/verification processes:

1. Initial input of Request for Work to be done

2. Provide Estimates for incoming requests

3. Approve Estimates

4. Append Work Order Parts

5. Attach Labour Requirements

6. Schedule Work Order Approval Start Date

7. Initiate Work, distribute for Task

8. Verify Work, operational cost

9. Update status information

10. Complete/close Work Order


Top 10 Helicopter Upgrade/Repair Simulation Targets

Several upgrades to many helicopters operations have been made throughout the years. As these airframes reach the end of their service life, they become increased logistic & maintenance burdens to the fleet.

Specific problems include multiple modifications that negatively affect payload & power capabilities—problems that are magnified by expeditionary missions. Modifications have also caused increased aircrew & maintainer workload.

The following enhancements have been identified as part of upgrade initiatives:

1. Improved mission capability

2. Increased performance & manoeuvre

3. Additional survivability features

4. Reduced pilot workload

5. Potential for growth

6. Operations at greater ranges w/ larger payloads

7. Command, control & communications interoperable

8. Expanded night & reduced visibility operations

9. Improved targeting sensors & weapons

10. Survivability enhancements


Top 10 Questions to ask about Administrative Equipment Programme Structure

So how does one determine how to best structure for aircraft programmes? Whether you are Site Visit Executive, chief engineer, contracting officer, or in product support, you have to start in the same place. You begin with Deep Dives into requirements and operational solutions for the product you intend to acquire. Key to your Job is determining optimal programme structure/function so high performance is realised in acquiring specific product. The nature of product administrative process requirements must be most significant determinant of programme structure.

1. What advances in maturity state of product technology are possible and how much risk is involved?

2. In addition to the technology that is included, how complicated/similar is design to other products you have experience with?

3. How difficult are the integration aspects of building the product?

4. How urgently is the product needed for field-level operations?

5. How prepared are suppliers to design and build the product?

6. How much uncertainty is there about the proper balance of cost and capability?

7. What are field-level unit priorities for performance?

8. What resource constraints i.e., fiscal, supplier competition/expertise, time, will affect programme risk?

9. Is cost or schedule most important and what are the best ways to control them on this programme?

10. What is the right balance of risk and incentives to provide suppliers with so results field-level units requirements are met?


Top 10 Initial Questions for Performance Based Logistics Cost, Readiness and other Factors

1. How many systems, subsystems, or components under consideration are in system e.g., engines inducted per year?

2. What will it cost to field new infrastructure or modify current infrastructure? How much does the system cost specifically the replacement cost of the system or subsystem?

3. Is number of potential product support providers sufficient to serve as a competitive market, can you internal competitive pressure in a limited or sole-source situation?

4. Have part demand and/or labour hour requirements achieved level of predictability post-fielding that support consistency in market of potential product support providers?

5. Are there common subsystems or components among platforms so negotiate leverage to offer suppliers opportunity to benefit from scale economies?

6. Are there opportunities to lower sustainment cost to achieve required operational performance?

7. Is system availability or derivative requirement for subsystem/component consistently below or projected to be below required threshold?

8. How are systems, subsystems, or components in question being supported today?

9. Is there sufficient operational life remaining in product to warrant changes to support solution and be attractive to supplier bottom line?

10. Are there any planned upgrades, service life extension programmes, or overhauls in the works?


Top 10 Excluded Work Order Breakdown Structure Elements to Avoid Construction Pitfalls

Sound Work Order Breakdown Structures clearly describes what Site Visit Executive wants to acquire. It has logical structure tailored to specific materiel items. Work Orders can tie the statement of work & system description application entries together. Remember, work order breakdown structure is product oriented. It addresses products required, not functions or costs associated with those products. Here, we expand explanation of what elements are to be excluded from Work Order elements:

1. Do not include elements which are not products. For example, elements like design engineering, requirements assessments, test engineering & direct costs, are not products.

2. Programme phases e. g., design, production, types of funds, or R&D, Test/Evaluation are inappropriate as elements in a work breakdown structure.

3. Rework, retesting & recondition are not separate elements in a work breakdown structure. They should be treated as part of the appropriate work breakdown structure element affected.

4. Non-recurring and recurring classifications are not work breakdown structure elements. Reporting requirements will segregate each element into its recurring and non-recurring parts.

5. Cost saving efforts such as total quality initiatives & potential costs are not part of work breakdown structure. These efforts should be included in the cost of the item they affect, not captured separately.

6. Do not use the structure of the programme office or contractor job site organisation as basis of work breakdown structure.

7. Do not treat costs for Job Site Assessments as separate work breakdown structure elements. They are to be included with associated work breakdown structure elements.

8. Use actual system names and nomenclature. Generic terms are inappropriate in a work breakdown structure. The work breakdown structure elements should clearly indicate the character of the product to avoid confusion.

9. Treat tooling such as test/support equipment as functional costs, not a work breakdown structure element. If tooling cannot be assigned to an identified subsystem or component, it should be included in the cost of integration, assembly, test, and checkout.

10. Include application costs in the cost of the equipment. Application designated to reside on specific equipment must be identified as a subset of that equipment.


Top 10 Work Order Breakdown Assists in Structure Determination During Life of Programme

Work Order Breakdown Structure provides basis for communication in all phases of acquisition process. Serves as common link unifies planning, scheduling, cost estimating, budgeting, contracting, configuration control & performance reporting disciplines. Consistent communications permits DoD to evaluate progress in terms of contract performance.

1. Separates materiel item into its component parts

2. Makes connections between parts clear

3. Coordinates tasks to be completed, both to each other and to end product

4. Impacts planning and assignment of technical responsibilities

5. Ensures contractors are not constrained in meeting item requirements

6. Assists in establishing success of engineering efforts

7. Provides for estimates of resource allocations

8. Serves to assess accuracy of cost estimate functions

9. Establishes accounting process for expenditures

10. Creates mechanisms for tracking status of technical performance


Top 10 Item Track Work Order Transaction Registers

Use Work Order Transaction Manual to print Registers, followed by series of Closed Completion Reports.Registers itemise all Work entry transactions and provide track of transactions recorded before updating to permanent files.

1. Release Register: Lists Work Orders released for production

2. Material Issues Register: Lists material issue transaction

3. Labour Register: Lists Labour Transactions to include team information

4. Labour Summary Report: Provides summary by Team of recap hours worked and quantity completed

5. Miscellaneous Labour Register: Lists Miscellaneous Labour transactions

6. Miscellaneous Material Register: Lists miiscellaneous Material Register transactions

7. Outside processing Register: Lists entered outside processing transaction entries

8. Completion Register: Lists Work Order completion transactions sorted by Total Cost

9. Completion summary report: provides summary by work order of all completed transactions

10. Closed Register: Lists Work Orders Designated as Closed


Top 10 Work Order Reports Menu Options Provide Information During Repair Process

1. Open Work Order Report

2. Work Order Memo Dispatch

3. Material Shortage Report

4. Scheduled Capacity Report

5. Tooling Requirements Report

6. Work In Process Recap Report

7. On Demand Missing Update Report

8. On Demand Standards Track Report

9. Work Order History Report

10. General List Posting Recap


Top 10 Definitions Implement Updated for Application to Materiel Only

1. New, Repaired or Reconditioned Materiel serviceable issuable to all field-level units without limitation or restriction

2. Serviceable and issuable for intended purpose but restricted to issue for training use only

3. Serviceable materiel requires or designated for test, alteration, modification, conversion or disassembly not to include items require inspection or testing prior to use

4. Materiel involves only limited expense or effort to restore to serviceable condition accomplished at its location

5. Economically reparable materiel requires rework, repair, overhaul or reconditioning

6. Materiel requires additional parts or components to complete end item prior to issue

7. Materiel determined to be unserviceable and uneconomical to repair

8. Materiel in stock suspended from issue pending condition classification where true condition is notknown

9. Materiel returned from field-level use and awaiting condition classification

10. Materiel identified on inventory control record but turned over to repair job site or contractor for procurement
Here we describe simulation models for repair processes of field-level aircraft, suggesting ways to reduce work order schedule time and improve mission readiness. Effects of materiel availability and process redesign on repair schedule time and work-in-process supply line levels for critical parts are briefly outlined.

Simulation models have been created to address field-level challenges in many respects. In this report, we describe potential for work order sampling to be used as training tool to show each unit the effects of its behaviour on the other. Quality Assurance Metrics could be very useful.

Top level quality assurance metrics must have specific targets established so sustainment provider behaviour will be sampled based on if targets are met or instead fall short of expectations. Other metrics established to assist in dispatcher reviews aimed at understanding causative factors. Metrics for product support must be identified early in strategy establishment and made more effective as dispatchers progress into implementation of work order activity phases.

Running results from our simulation models indicate field-level units could significantly reduce work order schedule times for repair activities by increasing supply levels of available parts and establishing quality assurance sampling of current repair process behaviour by dispatchers.

Sustainment subject matter expertise is leveraged by dispatchers responsible for dealing with parts supply lines and other outside organisations. Dispatcher action forms collaborative working body comprising application of quality assurance skills to realise product support solutions. Directive control of dispatchers in all phases of Job Site behaviour evaluations is essential, so collective dispatch teams input and expertise are well suited for quality assurance sampling of product support work order tasks.

Chief objective of product support team establishment is to deliver on field-level requirement requests also to incentivise suppliers to innovate. Attributes of effective product support programmes arrangements include objective work order sample description to acquire successful product support outcome and establishing limited set of metrics linked to desired field-level mission outcomes.

Once the component to require repair is tagged at field-level unit, it is sent to the responsible work Job sites where repair teams conduct tests, fault isolation, and repair. After repair, dispatchers write about progress of repair actions in work order samples and perform testing before quality assurance inspection.

Well-defined dispatch team skill set structures drive success of pre-execution efforts to include product support Quality Assurance function. When work orders are sampled, the component is processed for routing to another shop for any other required repairs. This process is repeated until all the required repair processes are completed. Then the component is routed by dispatch center for return to field-level units.

Field-level aviation readiness is directly linked to the availability of materiel for timely repair of aircraft. Dispatchers provide quality assurance for field-level primary functions to overhaul and repair aircraft and their components to include restoration of the designed levels of performance, reliability, and material condition. Work order sample Activities span complete rebuild through design upgrade, replacement, adjustment & servicing of system items.

Quality assurance work orders sampling are conducted randomly during the repair process. The randomness associated with the disaptch schedule and the completion times for repairs causes items to wait in a queue for the dispatch attention. Getting the attention of dispatch center and conducting all Quality Assurance assessments could reduce the randomness of work order sampling, allowing items to be quickly routed straight from repair shop without the queue time.

Are you experiencing problems and getting many complaints about job site & equipment maintenance? Are work orders taking too much time to complete? If this sounds familiar here are three quick maintenance metrics to help dispatchers identify causes/solutions. Quality Assurance Dispatchers can use these metrics to pinpoint the real issues and how to fix them. These metrics are not too difficult to collect. Use them even when everything seems fine to get a quick work order sample measure of your maintenance performance.

1. Work order schedule backlog:

This is usually measured in hours or days. It represents upgrade/repair work orders due but not yet been completed. Over time you want to see a backlog that remains about the same or is falling. Quality Assurance Dispatchers must have a good idea of your work order backlog and the trend over time.

Big jumps in your backlog need to be investigated. It can be due to planned maintenance work-- for example during gaps in mission directives where you have much equipment to maintain. Or planned maintenance keeps getting delayed due to schedule conflicts or other reasons. If this maintenance is not critical you may want to close such work orders and reschedule the maintenance to a later date.

Waiting for critical spare parts or supplies can also delay work order completion. This results in an increased maintenance backlog. Dispatchers must talk with suppliers to get parts delivered when field-level demand signals are relayed. demanded by missions. Consider other suppliers if existing product support base cannot meet your needs.

2. Work order completion percent:

This represents what percentage of work orders scheduled in a period have been completed or closed. Again, you should not see major changes in this percentage over time. It should track work order backlog in its trend. If there is a difference, for example work order backlog is steady but completion percent is falling – you may have a problem.

It means that smaller jobs ie, most probably preventive maintenance checks, are not being done. So there is less impact on the backlog but a big impact on the completion percent. Dropped preventive maintenance checks will most probably come back to bite you in the future when equipment breaks down.

3. Average time to complete work orders:

This tells you how many days on average it takes to complete a work order. You should not see large swings in this value over time. A large increase in this value is a signal that there may be problems completing work orders. You may have parts shortages or scheduling conflicts with maintenance technicians. To help fix this, it is better to break up large maintenance jobs into smaller tasks..

Each task will have its own work order. You could link these task work orders to each other by using something like the relative task quality assurance assessments. When one work order is marked as completed, the next work order on the line is scheduled.

Having big maintenance jobs broken up into smaller tasks ones makes it easier to track progress on the job as well as quickly identify where work is stuck. On the other hand, say you do not see much change in work order backlog or completion percent but average days to complete work orders jumps. This can mean you may start having satisfaction issues with field-level units. Work is getting done but is taking much longer to complete. This means field teams are waiting longer for fixes.

In the Next Section of our Report we define “Wrench time” as the amount of productive time in a day. It is the time spent actually fixing breakdowns. It does not include supply line parts orders, status update, transit of broken down aircraft, changing Job Site team composition, etc. Traditionally, wrench time was defined as time spent by the worker with tools working on physical application of labour. It includes direct troubleshooting.

How much time does it take to repair a gearbox or replace a pump seal? If you were thinking of the pure work time and assumed everything needed was right there in front of you, then you would be thinking of wrench time. But if you were thinking of the time from when the job is handed out to when the worker is available for the next job, then you are thinking of work order time.

There is the misconception that wrench time can be gotten from the work order system. Actually, there is no way to derive wrench time from work orders. The reason is that the work order is at best an approximate document. Both Minor and some major non-work activities are just not usually subject to quality assurance efforts.

Why is this important? Because all your productive maintenance and repair activity come from your wrench time. Obviously, if you have enough people for all your workload and projects then wrench time is of lesser importance. But if you struggle to meet all field-level demand signals, then the wrench time becomes urgently important.

Another way of thinking of the non-wrench time is to think of friction. A certain amount of friction is needed to make things work. A certain amount of set-up time dependent on factors such as supply line capacity is necessary to do maintenance. But an excessive amount of friction soaks up the energy until eventually no useful work is done.

There are two ways to obtain accurate wrench time. The hard way is to position yourself so you can see most of the workers and assign quality assurance dispatcher and have them determine in detail how much time is spent doing what. The easy way is to use work sampling.

A simple way to understand work sampling is to imagine taking randomly timed snapshots of the whole Job Site wherever anyone would be working, then building your work order samples with sets of random snapshots into a table of checkmarks per activity. Once you have enough observations, you can determine the number of observations needed to determine wrench time.

If you remove encountered barriers then wrench time will improve. The barriers to improved wrench time include everything from inefficient platform systems to delayed status updates & use of too many metrics. Use work sampling to discover where lost time is hiding.

One of the main contributions of dispatch activities is to take your lost time and see if an quality assurance intervention would reduce adverse consequences. This information can be used to brainstorm ways of reducing the lost time, potentially without unintended consequences. Identification of lost time uncovered by work order sampling provides opportunities to improve wrench time.

Quality Assurance assessments provide sufficient decision-making information utilised for determining extent to which dispatcher review of work order samples is required. Confidence in assessment is limited by dispatcher ability to allocate performance metrics lower than major subsystems e.g., structure, propulsion, mission equipment etc.

In final section of report, we describe Status Update Assignment categories important for defining Repair Site Simulations. Unique quality of dispatcher capabilities in recognising importance of status updates has been well-demonstrated-- no other source is capable of providing work order samples of new components or new users. Dispatch competence in resolving Status Update challenges is made evident by finding most useful combination of additional spares, training, redesign, support infrastrucure, upgrade/repair tasks, etc.

Status Update Impacts must be sampled using primary quality assurance metrics to include Operational availability, materiel readiness, advantages of in-house supply line provisions & work order downtime. Identify & define any potential status update decision processes, planned integration & Job Site expectations in key Simulation assumptions.

Job Site Status Update Simulation standards can be used to collect work order samples based on parts supply issues with multiple execution steps. Being aware of quality assurance transitions occurring on job site and writing dispatch team behaviour summaries accurately on status update application, such as “Dispatch part supply requirements impacting work order sample quality quickly and moves on to next task.”

Awaiting Parts Status exists when materiel is required to complete repair action are not available at field-level so no work orders can be completed due to a lack of ordered parts on supply line. Parts are not considered to be ordered until the field-level demand signals have been forwarded to the Supply Response dispatch Sections.

The point in time when Awaiting Parts status occurred because of supply line disruption and the length of time it lasted is recorded by dispatchers in work orders. Items which cause Awaiting Parts status during on-equipment work are identified in original Materiel Item Section. Items which cause Awaiting Parts status during off-equipment work are often times identified in another Materiel Item Section.

Individual Materiel Readiness Status shows items and supply levels of parts required so aircraft field-level activity is ready for the mission to which status update applies. Work Order Samples are used to establish formal, continuous work order sampling chain of dispatcher Quality Assurance actions for specific equipment and installed materiel designated for use on any target field-level aircraft Squadron.

Dispatcher Repair Expediting Operations entails processing for repair of components accomplished by the immediate removal of the component from the aircraft, expedited delivery and induction for repair, and the earliest return to request for status updates on supply line issue under standard material issue priority system.

Beyond Capability status is used by target field level when repair is not authorised at that level or when an activity is not capable of completing work order because factors include lack of equipment, job site infrastructure, technical skills, useful metrics or parts supply. Beyond Capability status is also used when Job Site work order backlog precludes repair within time limits specified by existing directives.

Consolidated Allowance Status is comprised of items and quantities of authorised parts supply line according to aircraft Type to support field-level missions. Status updates are tailored for each Type and the items listed are selected from Allowance Requirement Registers applicable to embarked aircraft.

Allowance status updates are based on field-level demand signals and dispatch support doctrine. Consolidated Allowance determinations allow for Product Support Package concepts to be included in applicable equipment Type work orders. Status updates are derived from pertinent dispatch Availability Readiness Reviews will have been included in work order samples.

Material Dispatch Control Quality Assurance Work Order Samples provide product support to field-level units and translate materiel requirements into accurate supply requests to be dispatched to Job Sites. Materiel Control centers are contact points within aircraft repair organisations where Direct materiel requirements are expedited by dispatchers to ensure:

1. Repair requirements for parts and materiel are forwarded to the dispatchers in a timely and continuous manner

2. Parts and materiel received are expeditiously routed to applicable work centers and not allowed to accumulate

3. Available Supply Rates for trackable components are current in status updates

4. Establish work order sample transit pickup points for materiel ordered

5. Maintain dispatch with supporting repair materiel activity to satisfy field-level demand signals

6. Prepare status updates for parts required by operational support & materiel carried in supply outlets

7. Furnish status updates to the Supply activity on identity & quantity of materiel

8. Establish procedures to ensure proper Job Site Disposition and work order performance

9. Ensure timely prep of status updates in the event of materiel availability deficits

10. Maintain adequate quality assurance sampling standards for materiel and equipment on job site work orders.