During our executive equipment repair/upgrade site visit, DoD administrators were talking about the money a technician had saved purchasing a particularly expensive piece of equipment:
“I wonder if anyone else knows about this?”
Chances were slim that anyone else at repair/upgrade site knew about that particular deal. At that time, technicians were each responsible for sourcing their own parts & there was no formal or centralised system in place at DoD for sharing information.
We recommended DoD undertake a comprehensive reorganisation of the sites processes & work needed to commence immediately to meet mission requirements. As part of that effort, the entire parts ordering process was revamped & centralised, resulting in huge benefits to the entire repair/upgrade operation.
With technicians spread across multiple installations w/ no centralised parts procurement system at DoD, there was no easy way for technicians to share information about good deals on parts or problems with suppliers.
“One technician may have found a good source in terms of pricing or quality, but that information was rarely shared beyond that one Site.'
“Across our system, we had lots of technicians doing the same type of work, but weren’t getting the same information.
It was clear DoD had deficits in their repair/upgrade operations & were missing an opportunity to share information.
Beyond that, each technician was doing it all—sourcing & buying parts, plus expediting, tracking, & invoicing-- spending lots of time on the procurement process every day.”
Another problem was overstocking of parts.
“Technicians who want to provide as much uptime as possible tend to over-order parts.”
“That leads to a huge cache of excess parts at each repair/upgrade site."
We recommended DoD reorganise its entire upgrade/replace site processes & parts procurement process was a key target for improvement. We undertook a study of the process, which revealed that “big chunks” of technician time per day was being spent on parts procurement.
We found consistent overstocking of parts & fragmented communication among technicians regarding the best sources for parts on both cost & quality.
It was clear that a new process was needed.
“We were mandated to take advantage of those opportunities to cut costs, free up wrench time for our technicians & have specialists focusing on parts procurement.”
Here is the solution: Centralise the parts procurement function.
“Step one in the centralisation process was to recruit & hire a quality executive who knew DoD sourcing business as a direct result of extensive reviews of the organisation.”
“Step two was to collect, catalogue, and centralise our spare parts”
Initially, front-line technicians resisted this centralisation, particularly those in long-standing upgrade/repair regimes.
“We had to go back multiple times to get the stuff that techs did not have tracking processes in place.”
DoD must identify the work space and set up information systems with high fidelity, creating a central cache of parts that is now accessible across the system.
DoD had to look at the equipment parts system as a whole to determine what was still useful, what to throw out & what to move to other installations.
“Much was obsolete or at the end of its useful life. There was a lot of waste in the old system.”
We recommended setting up centralised systems where techs would no longer allowed to order on their own. Most requests go directly to purchasing & are immediately approved; only questionable items are flagged for administrative review.
“We didn’t want to create a bottleneck. It’s critical to get parts ordered & turned around, so we’ve made the process as streamlined as possible.”
Parts modules were created to provide an interface between disparate information systems.
The new process has the technicians enter the required part directly on their work order, ensuring that all parts & associated costs are captured.
The parts request, identifying the urgency, then goes directly to the parts team who communicates back to the technician with notification at several steps of the purchasing process.
This flow of information cuts technician follow-up time and keeps everyone in the loop on parts status. At any point in the process, parts details are available on the central work order screen to anyone needing an update on equipment status.
The new information systems allows the technicians to plan their time more efficiently, resulting in huge productivity gains.
Automated systems let the team track & trend details on equipment parts, which can then be applied to making better decisions.
“We’re able to monitor costs & identify which technicians are ordering parts & not installing them right away. These lead to opportunities for retraining our technicians.”
Entry into new information systems allows for identification of problems with suppliers in terms of speed, specialisation & quality of parts. For example, suppliers whose parts are routinely not in good order are removed from the supplier list.
“Our preferred supplier lists are very fluid. We may have particular supplier at the top of a list, but if we encounter problems, they may not stay there."
The parts procurement specialists monitor the work order screen for new part requests, process a part to be moved from the working cache, or create a purchase report.
For specialists, level of parts sourcing expertise has grown with experience. They are able to predict the need for parts in high demand based on upcoming periodic repair/upgrade checks & service history, keep stocks of key items for immediate use.
Specialists are also learning to consolidate purchases & reduce the total number of purchase orders processed, leading to even greater mission success..
“We have proven that a centralised system works."
Since implementing the programme, DoD has seen consistent advances in parts operations & significantly increased technician satisfaction & productivity. Plus, results show better parts tracking contributes directly to increasing equipment uptime.
Much of the wrench time saved is due to the more efficient parts ordering process. While technicians initially had a hard time letting go of their procurement tracking responsibilities, they now trust the system.
“I need a part, I find it the next day. I just request a part, and it shows up. We have seen equipment downtime greatly reduced due to centralised sourcing policy.”
Increased collection of key supplier information made possible by the centralisation was of clear benefit.
We recommended DoD address the need to share information among the technicians, including information on lowest cost suppliers, best quality & best delivery time.
“By collecting and evaluating supplier information, we can make better decisions & that effort will help us continue to get better.”
In all, our revamp of the parts ordering process is part of the overall aim to allow technicians to focus on their core competency.
“Is their core competency fixing equipment, ordering parts, generating reports, or answering phones? We want to optimise our investment in the technicians. By centralising the parts function, we’ve been able to do exactly that.”
We describe all possible limiting behaviour principles for contract group “Bucket Brigades” support supply line schedule series by multiple teams of dispatchers routing defined levels of work orders.
The results of this report suggest caution should be taken in interpretation of equipment repair/upgrade simulations at installations under review by dispatch teams.
Results also indicate sourcing ticket strategies should be established for partitioning dispatcher tasks into effective teams to establish new supply line connections.
In “Bucket Brigade” contract grouping for every supply line connection team, dispatchers move between schedule series stations in defined sequences where each dispatch team follows simple rules about what sourcing ticket to write next.
Results confirm that dispatcher sequence organisation independent from schedule series station of origin establish stable work order routes automatically.
Supply line connection rates converge to maximum possible value over all techniques of organising dispatch teams & schedule series stations utilised in equipment repair/upgrade simulations.
How exciting, you have just completed your first repair job and Navy bosses want to know about it. All you have to do now is produce your first work order review. But what do you need to include in your statement? It depends!
Are you Ready? Let’s start at the minimum.
All work order reviews must report:
Title that highlights it is a valid work order
Unique spare part numbers
Your unit ID code
Clear description of what was provided
Date of the repair job
Total spare parts amount
[you don’t have to specify technique but always include your mission details]
Price per item
Quantity of each type of item
Rate of any discount per item
Rate of expenditure per item
And don’t forget your work order terms & conditions!
Also make sure you keep copies of all work orders issued even if you cancel them or produce one in error & don’t forget this includes the details from your suppliers.
The good news is that work orders can be kept electronically.
Here are the Top 10 Tips for creating that first perfect work order:
Tip #1: You can build your own work orders but programmes or apps make it much easier by having simple templates that cover all the mission requirements.
Tip #2: And to make sure you are noticed you can personalise them by uploading your unit name & description of qualifications.
Tip #3: You can also add personalised terms & conditions which clearly sets out when you expect to be promoted.
Tip #4: If you are sending it over normal communication channels make sure you create a personalised message to help your work order stand out from the crowd so promotion comes more quickly. If possible try to get the attention of your Bosses because it will help with getting repeat Tasks.
Tip #5: By using templates it ensures that all the details are set out in an easy to read format. It also shows your work in a good light since it covers all the information that your bosses would expect.
Tip #6: Make sure your bosses don’t have to search around to see what was supplied or whether any discount has been applied. All of which help towards actually getting promoted.
Tip #7: Check how your bosses want to receive work orders – if they want it over special communication channels be flexible since it means you will get promoted more quickly.
Tip #8: If you are dealing with bigger mission-critical jobs, make sure you are sending your work order to the best person for getting it taken care of – call them to check.
Tip #9: Always make sure the details are completely correct so your bosses can’t use the excuse of inaccuracies to delay promotion. To minimise any excuses make sure that you have contact information so it’s easy for them to query anything on the work order.
Tip #10: Get your work order to your bosses as soon as possible from their point of view so the clock starts right when you did the job.
Excellent! Your work order has been sent but what next?
Hopefully you have been busy and you have sent out lots of work orders so the challenge now is actually keeping an eye on who evaluates them.
If you have produced them accurately, the work order details will automatically trigger an alert if critical supplier issues present themselves.
By combining your work orders with your supplier information you can see the up-to-date position so there are no wasted calls to your bosses & your work order goes straight into your review report, is checked off & automatically sent.
These details keep you on the right side of operations.
Finally, it’s never one of the most fun jobs chasing work order reviews but…
- You have done the work
- Your work order is clearly set out.
- It highlights when you expect promotion & details terms.
- It complies with unit guidelines
- And your contact information make it easy to query any details
… so it’s time you stopped giving suppliers a free ride & time to get on the phone & get the work order sent in!
We demonstrate test/build, deploy application to account for equipment upgrade/replace quote scheduling and the routing of repair work orders through the deployment of spare part-specific equipment type components. The application automatic generates lists & fields containing multiple unique equipment sourcing field reports for review each time a new work order is added to the table in an active state. When spare parts-specific information is displayed in other field, the entered code is immediately visible.
Assembly codes are used in routing equipment repair work orders to identify what spare part-specific components of equipment are subject to upgrade/replace operations. Operational expenses resulting from sourcing decisions can be reported by equipment assembly codes. The expense code table contains the work order routing identifications of expense codes used for equipment upgrade/replace provided for condition repair action work orders.
Locations codes have also identified installations where the equipment type is repaired by the provision of detailed work orders. Installations have reported equipment upgrade/replace work order quote expenses by location code & spare parts transaction/value present in the sourcing decision by location.
The model code table contains the supplier identities of spare parts-specific components & installation vectors have been entered & deployed per unit time. Sourcing parameters have been used to validate the information entered on equipment upgrade/replace work order tickets. The general/other code field contains the identities of codes used in the unit tracker application, which tracks the location of spare parts-specific components over time to identify installation sites where equipment upgrade/replace work orders are routed.
Spare parts-specific components have been assigned to different installations for routing condition repair/upgrade quotes by work order identity or other code. The part code table contains the identities of spare part-specific components required to route the work orders detailing repair conditions. The component codes have been used in the upgrade/replace work orders to identify the replaced component required in the spare parts mission cache.
A description of spare parts-specific components is used to identify alternate codes for a component and enter the temporal variable covered by an expiration factor for providing equipment upgrade/replace quotes. The repair work orders serve as notifications detailed when a spare parts-specific component has been issued during the expiration time frame. Equipment upgrade/replace codes are contained in a field and have been used to create a work order schedule, a list of items scheduled for a given temporal variable entered into the application.
The group code table contains a list used to create equipment upgrade/replace schedules for routing work order quotes. The temporal variable may differ depending on how many work orders are routed. Quote codes have also used in the unit master table to identify the group routing schedule that a spare parts-specific component belongs to. When a new unit in the application is recorded, the application automatic quote schedule reports are automatically created.
The cost/expense codes for the equipment upgrade/replace work order quote tables contain the names of cost/expense codes used to identify the costs of scheduling quotes at different installations, and the application generates a rate & mark-up percentage for spare parts-specific components used on work orders. Work order routing codes have allowed for the standardisation of quotes by each equipment upgrade/replace procedure.
The terms code contains the list of terms codes and the dates used in spare parts-specific component mission equip receipts to create an invoice, and the unit status code table contains the names of unit status codes used in the unit master field to identify the equipment upgrade/replace status and has allows the application to indicate if the routing of quote schedule for the unit is active. Units remain in the unit master field after they have been deployed, allowing the operational work order history and costs to remain available for reports.
Sourcing Ticket entry is used to input temporal variables routing and is used to update the quote schedules & display cost/expenses per temporal variable reporting. The quote information is displayed from the unit master and calculated as entry parameters are set in the system control field, making ticket generation a quick and easy process.
The recurring cost/expenses table contains information about costs/expenses that are incurred during equipment upgrade/replace jobs. A tickler system contains routing quotes derived from inspection of work order parameters designed to turn up equipment condition instances that do not need to be corrected immediately but action is required the next quotes are issued. When a work order is opened for the unit, the application automatically displays a reminder that ticklers are open for the job.
The equipment upgrade/replace service action code describes the routing quotes to be performed, creating a schedule of quotes to be assessed. The first item in the quote schedule is generated before the addition of a second quote schedule through the selection of the same unit identification code but a different work order action code for the route.
Spare parts-specific component deployment has at times been reported at one installation rather than at another. When a work order code is selected, the assembly code, cost/expense code & default notes are displayed. Codes are created in the spare parts-specific component code master field & work order cost/expense considerations can be added when the deployment code is selected.
Spare parts-specific components can be selected based on use & quantity. If the components have been removed from the equipment type cache, the costs/expenses of the work order are displayed automatically. If the component is replaced again with in the time frame of expiration, a notification message is displayed which addresses the current information from the work order. This status defaults to closed, the date & time to the current date & time. The temporal meter information can be changed and used to update the quote schedule if the identification codes are included on the work order.
Quick receipts are generated with the date & time of the receipt entered along with any routing information on the spare parts-specific component receipt. The cost/expense rate is entered in the code table & is used to calculate the required cost/expenses incurred by provision of the work order services. When the quantity deployed is determined, along with the component cost/expenses, the cost/expense is automatically subject to a weighted average with existing spare parts/specific components in the mission fields to assign the updated cost/expenses.
The spare parts-specific component equipment type transfer process provides for issuing the components to another installation and the transfer transaction is posted to update the equipment type system fields. In summary, the routing application allows an unlimited number of spare parts-specific components to be tracked in mission component at multiple installations.
YOUR WORK ORDER ID HERE DATE: TIME: PAGE #: PM GROUP SCHEDULE LIST FROM: ACTIVE ONLY: YES REPAIR CODE ACTIVE PREVENT REPAIR GROUP CODE: FREQUENCY/TYPE SCHEDULE/LEVEL DAYS SERVICE DURATION RESOURCE EXPEND OTHER -SERVICE INTERVAL COUNT:
YOUR WORK ORDER ID HERE DATE: TIME: PAGE #: EQUIPMENT TYPE MASTER LIST BY PART CODE FROM: SHOP - UNKNOWN FROM: UNKNOWN - UNKNOWN TOTAL COST PART COST QTY. PART CODE LOCATION CODE: HAND COUNT:
YOUR WORK ORDER ID HERE DATE: TIME: PAGE #: FROM: -DATE RANGE: SOURCE: TRANSACTION QTY. COST TRAN. # PART CODE TOTAL COST LOCATION CODE: TRAN. DATE TRAN. MARKUP TRAN. TOTALS TOTALS
YOUR WORK ORDER ID HERE DATE: TIME: PAGE #: EQUIPMENT TYPE VALUATION REPORT BY PART CODE FROM: SHOP - UNKNOWN FROM: UNKNOWN - UNKNOWN AS OF DATE: LOCATION CODE: TOTAL COST AVG. COST QTY. ON HAND PART CODE PERCENT COUNT: 100.00% COUNT:
YOUR WORK ORDER ID HERE DATE: TIME: PAGE #: LOW STOCK REPORT FROM: SHOP - UNKNOWN ACTIVE ONLY: YES LOCATION CODE: PART CODE QTY. ON HAND QTY. ON ORDER QTY. TO ORDER PART COST ESTIMATED COST VENDOR CODE: TOTALS
YOUR WORK ORDER ID HERE DATE: TIME: PAGE #: REPAIR CODE LIST FROM: - ACTIVE ONLY: YES REPAIR CODE ACTIVE ASSEMBLY CODE REPAIR PROCEDURE TIME STANDARD SHOP Yes UNKNOWN COUNT: REPAIRCODE
YOUR WORK ORDER ID HERE DATE: TIME: PAGE #: REPAIR CODE QUOTE RANGE REPORT FROM: SHOP - UNKNOWN DATE RANGE: REPAIR CODE: % OF STANDARD TIME VARIANCE # of REPAIRS REPAIR TECH AGENT REPORT COUNT
YOUR WORK ORDER ID HERE DATE: TIME: PAGE #: SUMMARY OPEN RO LISTS BY RO NUMBER FROM: FILTER: NO FILTER RO NUMBER SCHEDULED UNIT ID REPAIR LOCATION REPAIR CODE INSIDE REPAIR DOWN COUNT:
YOUR WORK ORDER ID HERE DATE: TIME: PAGE #: UNIT RO COST REPORT FROM: SHOP - UNKNOWN DATE RANGE: FILTER: ALL STATUS CODES UNIT ID NUMBER YEAR TOTAL LABOUR TOTAL PARTS TOTAL OTHER TOTAL COST TOTALS
YOUR WORK ORDER ID HERE STANDARD QUOTE DURATION EXPIRATION BY UNIT ID FROM: SHOP PAGE #: TIME: UNIT ID ACTIVE MODEL CODE YEAR END DATE END FLIGHT HOURS END HOUR SERVICE DURATION RESOURCE EXPEND METER COUNT:
YOUR WORK ORDER ID HERE DATE: TIME: PAGE #: ADJUSTMENT LIST FROM: DATE RANGE: ADJ. NUMBER: ADJUSTMENT. DATE: LOCATION: STATUS: REPAIR TECH AGENT ID: COMMENT: COST QTY. COST QTY. COST QTY. ADJ. PART CODE: CHANGE HISTORY NEW QTY. COUNT: COUNT:
YOUR WORK ORDER ID HERE DATE: TIME: PAGE #: ASSEMBLY CODE CHART FROM: SHOP - UNKNOWN DATE RANGE: PERCENTAGE: 100% ASSEMBLY CODE LABOUR PARTS OTHER TOTAL COST CLASS CODE: TOTALS CHART DATE: TIME: PAGE #: ASSEMBLY CODE CHART FROM: SHOP - DATE RANGE: PERCENTAGE: 100% TOTALS CHART
YOUR WORK ORDER ID HERE DATE: TIME: PAGE #: COST CODE COST REPORT FROM: UNKNOWN - UNKNOWN DATE RANGE: LABOUR PARTS OTHER TOTAL COUNT COST CODE COUNT:
YOUR WORK ORDER ID HERE DATE: TIME: PAGE #: INSIDE REPAIR REPORT BY CLASS CODE FROM: SHOP - UNKNOWN DATE RANGE: CLASS CODE: PARTS OTHER LABOUR TOTAL COST RO NUMBER UNIT ID COMPLETED TOTALS TOTALS
YOUR WORK ORDER ID HERE DATE: TIME: PAGE #: INSIDE REPAIR REPORT BY FLIGHT DIVISION CODE FROM: SHOP - UNKNOWN DATE RANGE: FLIGHT DIVISION: PARTS OTHER LABOUR TOTAL COST RO NUMBER UNIT ID COMPLETED TOTALS TOTALS
YOUR WORK ORDER ID HERE DATE: TIME: PAGE #: INSIDE REPAIR REPORT BY LOCATION CODE FROM: SHOP - UNKNOWN DATE RANGE: LOCATION CODE: PARTS OTHER LABOUR TOTAL COST RO NUMBER UNIT ID COMPLETED TOTALS TOTALS
YOUR WORK ORDER ID HERE OUTSIDE REPAIR REPORT BY FLIGHT DIVISION CODE FROM: SHOP - UNKNOWN DATE RANGE: DATE: TIME: PAGE #: FLIGHT DIVISION CODE: VENDOR CODE: LABOUR PARTS OTHER TOTAL COMPLETED RO NUMBER UNIT ID TOTALS OUTSIDE
YOUR WORK ORDER ID HERE OUTSIDE REPAIR REPORT BY LOCATION CODE FROM: SHOP- UNKNOWN DATE RANGE: DATE: TIME: PAGE #: LOCATION CODE: VENDOR CODE: LABOUR PARTS OTHER TOTAL COMPLETED RO NUMBER UNIT ID TOTALS OUTSIDE
YOUR WORK ORDER ID HERE DATE: TIME: PAGE #: RECURRING CHARGE LIST BY UNIT ID FROM: -ACTIVE ONLY: YES UNIT ID ACTIVE COST CODE START DATE STOP DATE AMOUNT COUNT:
YOUR WORK ORDER ID HERE DATE: TIME: PAGE #: REPAIR TECH AGENT PRODUCTIVITY REPORT FROM: SHOP - UNKNOWN DATE RANGE: REPAIR CODE: TOTAL AVERAGE TOTAL AVERAGE REPAIR TIME REPAIR COST COUNT: COUNT:
DoD equipment repair/upgrade contract agents did not identify & track correct spare parts unit prices, used inaccurate supplier authorisation procedures, did not utilise quote specialists for making cost-effective purchases b/c did not obtain best prices in sole-source contract scenarios, making assumption in contract terms that spare parts costs were trending up when calculating negotiation baselines for successful missions.
DoD equipment repair/upgrade contract agents did not comply with rules for undefinitised contract actions, did not utilise quote specialists to assess availability of spare parts, identify unallocable costs or justify escalation rates for multi-year contracts, were not concerned with competition or substitute spare part suppliers in sole-source contracting scenarios where contract terms require more attention to realise mission success.
DoD equipment repair/upgrade contract agents did not negotiate accurate spare part deals for successful missions, had problems with different units of issue while contractor switches items from buy to make at higher prices w/o justification for follow-on contracts with suppliers & also did not utilise quote specialists to evaluate or implement procedures assessing contract terms to effectively use sole-source contractor evaluation to break out & compete spare parts buys.
DoD equipment repair/upgrade contract agents did not employ appropriate buy techniques & ended up agreeing to purchase excess levels of spare parts at higher prices from suppliers at the expense of mission success, incorrectly applying commercial item definitions & higher price offsets to fit sourcing contract scenario b/c did not document contract terms & did not utilise quote specialists to escalate negotiations with under-performing sole-source contractors or obtain best available spare part prices & procure economic order quantities.
DoD equipment repair/upgrade contract agents did not utilise quote specialists to identify scenarios where contractor inappropriately charged unpriced spare parts to contract at increased unit price resulting from inadequate supplier oversight of sole-source billings, used invalid exceptions & incomplete contract terms assessments as basis for not obtaining certified cost/pricing information for spare parts critical to successful missions.
“It’s amazing how uncommon today’s systems are, to the point where if you open the maintenance manuals on two Army helicopters made by different manufacturers in different programs, they use different words to describe the same systems, so the maintainers have to learn a different vocabulary to move from Aircraft A to Aircraft B.”
We envision a common cockpit, and potentially a common engine, that would be provided as DoD-furnished equipment to whoever builds the family of helicopters. Such commonality would make it much easier for maintainers to work on multiple type/model/series.
“We think that commonality goes all the way back to the point where the maintainers have the same basic trouble-shooting charts, the same basic trouble-shooting procedures, and it is not a strange thing to open up a page in the electronic maintenance manual and read the maintenance manual for Aircraft A as opposed to Aircraft B and find that they are roughly the same, and that it didn’t take a total retrain to use that system" Today, the Army’s helicopters are so different that a mechanic on one platform might not even be able to diagnose a problem in another, let alone fix it. The basic system design, the tools, and even the language to talk about the hardware differ between platforms today.
What we would like to see is commonality – not necessarily identicality, a family of helicopters that are enough alike that personnel can move seamlessly from one to the next. Like components may have different part numbers, but they would perform the same function, and therefore a mechanic would understand how the system behaves even if his background is in another platform within the family.
Marine Corps’ H-1 attack and utility helicopters are a small-scale example of what we hope to see. Even though the frames are different to support different missions, they still have about 80-percent commonality in spare parts, which is a great benefit to shipboard parts storage.
“That might serve as a small model of what we’re describing to a much larger degree.”
DODIG-2015-050, “Improvement Needed for Inventory Management Practices on the T700 Technical, Engineering, and Logistical Services and Supplies Contract,” December 10, 2014
DODIG-2014-119, “Excess Inventory Acquired on Performance-Based Logistics Contracts to Sustain the Air Force’s C-130J Aircraft,” September 22, 2014
DODIG-2014-106, “Military Sealift Command Oversight of Excess Spare-Parts Inventory and Purchases for Sealift Program Roll-On/Roll-Off Ships Needs Improvement,” September 9, 2014
DODIG-2014-064, “Improved Management Needed for the F/A-18 Engine Performance-Based Logistics Contracts,” April 25, 2014
DODIG-2013-103, “Boeing Overstated Contract Requirements for the CH‑47F Helicopter,” July 16, 2013
DODIG-2013-073, “Use of Defense Logistics Agency Excess Parts for High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle Depot Repairs will Reduce Costs,” April 25, 2013
DODIG-2013-025, “Accountability Was Missing for Government Property Procured on the Army’s Services Contract for Logistics Support of Stryker Vehicles,” November 30, 2012
DODIG-2012-004, “Changes Are Needed to the Army Contract With Sikorsky to Use Existing DoD Inventory and Control at the Corpus Christi Army Depot,” November 3, 2011
D-2011-061, “Excess Inventory, and Contract Pricing Problems Jeopardize the Army Contract with Boeing to Support the Corpus Christi Army Depot,” May 3, 2011
D-2010-063, “Analysis of Air Force Secondary Power Logistics Solution Contract,” May 21, 2010
DODIG-2015-137, “Improvements Needed on DoD Procurements from Robertson Fuel Systems,” June 25, 2015
DODIG-2015-120, “Defense Logistics Agency Did Not Obtain Fair and Reasonable Prices From Meggitt Aircraft Braking Systems for Sole-Source Commercial Spare Parts,” May 8, 2015
DODIG-2015-103, “Summary of DoD Office of Inspector General Spare Parts Pricing Audits: Additional Guidance is Needed,” March 31, 2015
DODIG-2015-058, “U.S. Air Force May Be Paying Too Much for F117 Engine Sustainment,” December 22, 2014
DODIG-2015-053, “Naval Supply Systems Command Needs to Improve Cost Effectiveness of Purchases for the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System,” December 19, 2014
DODIG-2014-110, “Ontic Engineering and Manufacturing Overcharged the Defense Logistics Agency for Sole-Source Spare Parts,” September 15, 2014
DODIG-2014-088, “Defense Logistics Agency Aviation Potentially Overpaid Bell Helicopter for Sole-Source Commercial Spare Parts,” July 7, 2014
DODIG-2014-054, “Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime Paid Too Much for High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle Repair Parts,” April 4, 2014
DODIG-2014-038, “Air Force Life Cycle Management Center Could Not Identify Actual Cost of F119 Engine Spare Parts Purchased from Pratt and Whitney,” February 10, 2014
DODIG-2014-020, “U.S. Army Contracting Command Did Not Obtain Fair and Reasonable Prices for Communications Equipment,” December 5, 2013
DODIG-2013-090, “Improved Guidance Needed to Obtain Fair and Reasonable Prices for Sole-Source Spare Parts Procured By the Defense Logistics Agency From the Boeing Company,” June 7, 2013
D-2011-104, “Pricing and Escalation Issues Weaken the Effectiveness of the Army Contract with Sikorsky to Support the Corpus Christi Army Depot,” September 8, 2011
D-2011-042, “Defense Logistics Agency/Honeywell Long‑Term Contract Model Using One-Pass Pricing for Sole-Source Spare Parts,” February 18, 2011
DODIG-2015-050, “Improvement Needed for Inventory Management Practices on the T700 Technical, Engineering, and Logistical Services and Supplies Contract,” December 10, 2014
DODIG-2013-104, “DOD Oversight Improvements Are Needed on the Contractor Accounting System for the Army’s Cost-Reimbursable Stryker Logistics Support Contract,” July 16, 2013
DODIG-2013-040, “Critical Information Needed to Determine the Cost and Availability of G222 Spare Parts,” January 31, 2013
DODIG-2012-102, “Better Cost-Control Measures Needed on the Army’s Cost- Reimbursable Services Contract for Logistics Support of Stryker Vehicles,” June 18, 2012
DODIG-2013-073, “Use of Defense Logistics Agency Excess Parts for High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle Depot Repairs Will Reduce Cost,” April 25, 2013
This report presents a Ten Stage assessment method for fleet repair/upgrade job sites based on a single tour with some Q&A utilising simple, rapid assessment forms. Since its inception, it has been applied to a number of cases, successfully identifying major strength points of the operations.
Scoring high marks on efficiency & effectiveness of repair/upgrade services is a great challenge for staff responsible for bringing equipment up to levels required for successful missions. As a result, we need to clearly benchmark the quality of operations. However, assessing performance of repair/upgrade job sites can be a tricky business.
Even after we visited a large number of repair/upgrade job sites, it is still difficult to tell after a visit if the job site was a best-in class operation, just above-average, or even relatively substandard in key performance areas. Nevertheless, even short tour visits can reveal a lot of information to the trained eye.
This report proposes a Ten Step Stage to help executives get more information from tour visits, through a simple and rapid assessment form. The form should be filled out immediately after the visit. The System has been successfully applied in several visits.
Major functions of repair/upgrade job sites include lining up equipment in order to make assortments for subsequent deployment in critical missions, to assemble orders & add value to orders by customisation activities, organising transport of orders in a timely manner.
Repair/Upgrade job site performance consists of multiple dimensions. Often, performance is
measured in terms of ratios of output/ input factors.
Output factors include 1) deployed equipment orders, lines and units, 2) quality measures such as order completeness, error-free and on-time deployment, 3) flexibility to cope with changes in demand, 4) agility to meet/adapt to changing requirements & 5) innovation-- use of new supply line concepts to yield components required for successful missions.
Inputs are the resources used to achieve the outputs. These include: 1) number of full-time work hour equivalents, 2) investment in modern information systems, 3) creation of top-notch physical work sites 4) process organisation & 5) assortment of equipment items carried.
We have tried to create benchmark tools for repair/upgrade job sites like expressing operational efficiency as a ratio of weighted output & weighted input factors, normalised on a 0 to 1 scale. While powerful, application of this type of tool is usually difficult to obtain required accuracy levels.
Also, for every factor that is included in the efficiency mark-up, more cases are needed in order to produce quality results. Finally, it is difficult to include factors not measured on interval scales, or more subjective assessments like teamwork & motivation.
This tool is based on a single repair/upgrade Job site tour and can be carried out in a few hours, including some Q&A. It is not necessary to have deep insight in the operations as visiting executive.
The main objectives of the tool are to discern strengths of repair/upgrade job sites after some basic training on how to use the tool. The tool can also be used to evaluate operations of logistics service providers.
This is not to say that the tool can be a substitute for due diligence when assessing fiscal performance, which is not part of the tool. However, all too often, executives ignore vital visual signals that can be easily acquired in favor of what would seem to be objective requirements, like equipment quantities processed, item turns or subsequent mission success.
We will present written 10 Stage Reports utilising this Tool Box in subsequent memos. We first discuss the areas in more detail & then present results as well as further validation of the technique:
- Satisfaction of Equipment Mission Agents
- Use of Work Order Job Space
- Condition of Technical Installations
- State of Materiel Contact
- Teamwork & Motivation
- Storage & Order Picking Tech
- Equipment Inventory Strategies
- Supply Line Coordination
- Level & Use of Information Systems
- Commitment to Quality Services
In this report, force structure event-centered risk equipment repair platform for modifications powered by an automated framework is presented. The purpose of this platform is to properly train dispatchers. This simulation will progress as repair events impacting supplier capacity warrant.
Upon receiving notice of equipment repair events reported at multiple installations, dispatchers integrate assessments of supplier capacity predictions, adjust their views on installation requirements & act according to new quote schedules.
Equipment repair action at installations taken by dispatchers have been found to collectively shape force structure adjustment dynamics. We will present the underlying components that are employed for this exercise & discuss the practical significance of such a platform.
Supplier capacity risk assessment has changed from direct exchange services without quote consideration to advanced contracting arrangements according to schedule with dispatchers guaranteeing quotes.
Since the scope of equipment deployment is so wide & future platforms so intricate in design, dispatcher behaviour design has become much more important but also extremely challenging. What makes equipment repair so critical is real-world operations are behind all the quotes in any form.
Even though the volume in incoming quotes has overtaken capacity of supplier services, real-world quotes are still critical since the supply & demand balance of equipment & subsequent quotes are still the primary determinants behind force structure adjustment cases.
Key to understanding equipment infrastructure relation to force structure adjustments is the fact that, no matter how complex quotes are, they all need to closely reference services provided by suppliers. Quotes are influenced significantly by all the elements that link together supplier capacity for each side of installation demand signals.
For example, some of the many factors present in function of repair site disruption or schedule delay of equipment deployment will impact quotes dispatched to repair simulations. Other factors, like work order routing patterns, exert significant impacts force structure adjustment cases.
Therefore, to ensure successful dispatcher assessments of supplier risk in a particular force structure adjustment case, dispatchers need to be very familiar with real-world supplier capacity for different types of equipment. These requirements are the primary considerations in deciding what dispatcher training platforms will be subject to automation.
On the other hand, complex requirements probably also explain why fully automated quote scheduling not taken over dispatcher platforms yet. On some level, this is what motivates our design of equipment repair simulations.
We want to create work order space realistic enough so dispatchers can be effectively trained & document dispatcher behaviours in the face of complex supplier risk factors, with the ultimate goal of making automated platforms for equipment repair function just as dispatchers would in designing force structure adjustment cases.
Despite the fact that there is an incredible amount of literature in defence sectors that could, in principle, be applied to quote modeling for force structure adjustment cases, in the final analysis, we find them unsuitable for our purposes, since there is a fundamental lack of links between real-world equipment repair events & quote schedule dynamics.
To address this need, we have designed force structure event-centered risk assessment platforms for repair simulations at multiple installation in which events related to quote automation are detailed according to a series of user-defined events. By allowing events to be defined by dispatcher behaviour, we also grant ourselves the ability of creating force structure adjustment case details that are often overlooked but extremely important to mission success.
Stated conceptually, our principle goal is create platforms with constructive quote schedules to recruit, train & introduce dispatchers into equipment repair systems. When Installation events are announced for repair simulations, dispatchers will assess risk supplier capacity relations to force structure adjustment cases according to assigned team function. Subsequently, repair events & information will result in equipment deployment according to defined quote schedules.
Force structure dynamics at installations will be shaped by joint dispatcher actions for simulating equipment repair. As demonstrated in initial simulations we have designed, we have shown accurate quote schedules can be generated with fairly simple dispatcher training strategies.