DOCUMENT ESUME 04539 - B35748e8 *fsiett .?L-- /7 ? The Defense Integrated Data System: Is It fficient and Effective? LCD-77-117; B-163074. December 20, 1977. 47 pp. + 3 appendices (13pp.). Report to Rep. George . ahon, Chairsan, House Committee on Appropriations: Defense Subcommittee; Sen. John C, Stennis, Acting Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations: Defense Subcommittee; by Elmer B. Staats, Comptroller General. Issue Area: Automatic Data Processing (100); Facilities and Material Management: Supply and Maintenance Operations Resortiag Systems (703). Contact: Logistics and Cossunications Div. Budget Function: National Defense: Department of Defense - Procurement Contracts (058); iscellaneous: Automatic Data Processing (1001). Organization Concerned: Department o Defense; Defense Logistics Agency. Congressional Relevance: House Committee on Appropriations: Defense Subcommittee; Senate Commssittee on AFpropriations; Defense Subcosaittee. Authority: Defense Cataloging and Standardization Act of 1952. H. ept. 94-1475. In ay 1965, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) began developing the Defense Integrated Data System which was expected to provide for future workload growth by consolidating various logistics subsystems into one integrated data bank. DLA has consolidated the various subsystems into one integrated data bank, centralized the processing and storage of catalog management data to provide uniform control ver its accuracy, provided a limited capability for immediate and remote access, and generally improved the quality and quantity of information vailable to customers and eliminated soae duplicative files and publications. Findings/Conclusions: Since the system was declared operational in March 1975, the agency has had problems achieving all its processing goals. Particular problems affected the item identification function, ability to process current workload, elimination of local duplicative files, centralization of publications, and exchange of some data with ther logistics systems. Stringent managesent control sight have headed off the agency's problems, Shortcomings in project anagement permitted development of n inadequately sized system based on understated workload projections and permitted preparation of an overoptimistic economic analysis justifying development of the system and premature operation before all ajor unctions were completely implemented and tested and errors were corrected. To cope with these probleas, new hardware was added and software was refined to augment the original system. This augmentation did not provide the processing capability required to eet denaLds. There is valid need for this system, but the processing problems have resulted from inadequate system sizing andprenature operations. Recosmendations: The Secretary of Defense should require the Assistant Secretary (anpower, Reserve Affairs and Logistics) to: establish project accountability for the operation and continued development of the Defense Integrated Data System; have a steering ccmmittee study the current and projected user requirements for the system; have the steering committee reevaluate the systsems major alternatives anddeteruine what odifications are necessary; require the steering coamittee to use an updated economic analysis is the basis for cost control purposes; require formal sanagesent agreements between DLA and the services and agencies to provide iproved anagement control over operations, data base integrity, and the exchange of data between systems; and have te steering committee take firs measures to eliminate all unnecessary duplicate data bases and operations regardless of which service or agency developed, maintains, or uses then. (Author/S) RESTRICIO - ot to be nrohl VB ue r Accountng Office exept orn the bsl/of spetif approval by the Oftlfce o CongrsAienal Re <"" ·rr+ REPORT OF THE / COMPTROLLER GENERAL Js',~... OF THE UNITED STATES LCI The Defense Integrated Data System-- Is It Efficient And Effective? This study concerns the Defense Logistics Agency's attempt to consolidate various logis- tics data systems into a single logistics man- agement information system through the use of a large-scale computer system. The system was declared operational in March 1975, but because of design and development problems, it has not achieved performance objectives. LCD-77-117 DECEMBER 20, 1977 COMPTROLLER G[NLtRAL OF THE UNITED STATl WAIIHINITON. D.C. U B-163 ) 74 The Honorable George H. Mahon Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives The Honorable Johln C. Stennis Acting Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations United States Senate This is our report on the problems affecting the operat- ing efficiency and effectiveness of the Defense Integrated Data System. We made our review in response to your request (H. Rept. 94-1475, dated Sept. 3, 1976) to study the operating costs and requirements of and changes made to this system. As requested by your offices, we have not obtained comments from the Secretary of Defense. However, the results of our review were discussed with various Defense Department per- sonnel, including representatives of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Logistics), and their comments were considered in preparing this report. As arranged with your offices, we are sending a copy to the Secretary of Defense, but unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we will not distribute this report further until 30 days from the date of the report. At that time we will send it to interested parties and make copies avail- able to others upon request. Comptroller General of the United States REPORT OF THE THE DEFENSE COMPTROLLER GENERAL INTEGRATED DATA SYSTEM-- OF THE UNITED STATES IS IT EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE? DIGEST In May 1965 the Defense Logistics Agency started a program for developing the De- fense Integrated Data System. This program was expected to provide for future workload growth by consolidating various logistics subsystems into one integrated data bank capable of accommodating at least 13.5 billion characters of data and capable of expanding tc 20 billion characters by the mid-1970s. In addition, the system was supposed to handle at least 60 million transactions yearly, possess immediate and remote access capability, and interface througi he Automatic Digital Network with other automatic data processing systems throtgh- out the United States. (See pp. 4 and 5.) The Defense Logistics Agency has -- consolidated the various subsystems into one integrated data bank, -- centralized the processing and storage of catalog management data to provide uniform control over its accuracy, -- provided a limited capability for immediate and remote access, and -- generally improved the quality and quantity of information available to customers and eliminated some duplica- tive files and publications. However, since the system was declared operational in March 1975, the Agency has had problems achieving all its processing goals. Particular problems affected the item identification function, ability to process current workload, elimination of local duplicative files, centralization of Tear et. Upon removal, the report covr ate should be noted hereon. i LCD-77-117 publications and echange of ome data with other l,gistics systems. (See p. 6.) Stringent management control might have heeded off the Agency's problems. Short- coming£ in project management permitted development o an inadequately sized sys- tem Vbsed on understated workload pojec- tions.' It also permitted preparation of an overoptimistic economic analysis justify- ing development of the system and premature operation before all major functions were completely implemented and tested and errors were corrected. (See p. 40.) To cope with these problems, the Defense Logistics Services Center, before Jan- uary 1976, augmented the original Defense Integrated Data System by adding a third processor to the original system, install- ing a second Burroughs 6700 ysem estimated to be one-tenth the size of tle original system, and upgrading and retaining one IBM 360/65 system, originally scheduled to be released. (ee p. 18.) This augumentation did not provide the processing capability required to meet current demands, and there is no reason- able assurance that additional augmenta- tions being considered by the Center will provide a long-term solution to existing processing problems. On the contrary, GAO's audit experience suggests that several additional augmentations may not result in a long-term solution. Other alternatives should also be considered, such as reevaluating user needs and system requirements with a view toward reducing the scope of the Defense Integrated Data System. In this regard, GAO suggests that the Agency concentrate on developing ef- ficient and effective operation of those functions most critical to satisfying cus- tomer needs and defer new or unimplemented features until their operability could be assured. ii Another alternative would be t reevaluate the system in light of the mission budget- ing concept. This conceot is fully described in GAO's report to t Congress, "Mission Budgeting: Disuussion nd Illustration of the Concept in Research and Development Programs" (PSAD-77-124, July 27, 1977). Applying this concept to the program would enable the Defense Logistics Agency to identify mission-essential applications more clearly and to focus allocation of its re- sources on development, implementation, and use of those applications. When reliability of and user confidence in the Defense nte- grated Data System are firmly established, an environment should exist in which the System's objectives--such as elimination of duplicative files and publications-- could be more readily achieved. (See pp. 41 and 42.) There is a need for a central Federal repository for item identification and related cataloging data to complement the Federal Supply System. The Defense Integrated Data System fulfills this need. In its letter report to the Subcommittee on Defense, House and Senate Committees on Ap- propriations, dated May 5, 1977, GAO recom- mended that the Subcommittees discuss with concerned officials the existing management plan for the Defense Integrated Data System and the associated cost implications. GAO also recommended that the Subcommittees review any proposed costs tn rsolve system performance problems. Finally, GAO recommended that the scope of the system be limited to item identifica- tion and catalog publications. GAO believes that by so limiting the system, only those parts of the following data base segments or functions necessary to support mission objectives would be rouired at the npfpnse Logistics Services Center. iii -- Supply management. -- Utilization and marketing. -- Statistical reports. -- System support record maintenance. -- Special operations. Agency reaction to our interim report indi- cated that clarification was necessary for the above recommendation concerning the limitation of system scope. In this regard, we have defined reduction of system scope under development alternatives on page 41 of this report. In line with the above, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense require the Assist- ant Secretary (Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Logistics) to: -- Establish project accountability for the operation and continued development of the system. A steering committee of key De- fense Logistics Agency and service and agency personnel should be responsible for future system development, implementa- tion, and review and should report directly to the Assistant Secretary. -- Have the steering committee study the cur- rent and projected user requirements for the system t determine what mission- essential functions other than item identification and cataloging are feasible and necessary. -- Have the steering committee reevaluate the system's major alternatives and determine what modifications are necessary. -- Require the steering committee to use an updated economic analysis as the basis for cost control purposes which include, but are not limited to, implementation of any program change, equipment augmenta- tions, or new design configurations. iv -- Require formal management agreements between the Defense Logistics Agency and the services and agencies to improved management control over provide operations, data base integrity, system exchange of data between systems. and the steering committee should have The responsi- bility for seeing that these agreements are complied with and updated as necessary. -- As the above actions are completed, the steering committee take firm have measures to eliminate all unnecessary duplicate data bases and operations rardless which service or agency deveiopeJ, of main- tains, or uses them. (See pp. 44 and 45.) At the request of the Subcommittees, were not solicited from the Secretary comments fense. However, the matters in of De- this report have been discussed with various Defense De- partment personnel, including representatives cf the Assistant Secretary power, Reserve Affairs and of Defense (Man- Logistics), their comments have been considered and in the report. Iear Sheet V Contents Page DIGEST i CHAPTER 1 'NTRODUCTION 1 DLA organization 1 Need for DIDS 2 Original DDS objectives 4 2 PROBLEMS IN ACHIEVING DIDS OBJECTIVES 6 Current operating environment 6 Item identification has been generally improved, but pro' ems remain 13 Expec d processing performance not achieved 17 Reduction of local duplicative files not fully realized 21 Centralization of catalog publica- tions has not eliminated duplica- ticn 24 Difficulties with information ex, change 27 3 DIDS ECONOMIC ANALYSIS IS OF QUESTIONABLE VALUE 34 Analysis completed after contract award 34 System cost-benefit estimates 36 4 IS A LARGE, COMPLEX, INTEGRATED SYSTEM SUCH AS DIDS FEASIBLE? 40 Successful system integration 40 Development alternatives 41 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 43 Conclusions 43 Recommendations 44 6 SCOPE OF REVIEW 46 APPENDIX I Defense Integrated Data System overview 48 Page APPENDIX II Addendum to GAO overview--Defense In'eqrated Data System 49 III Principal oficials responsible for administering activities discussed in this report 60 ABBREVIATIONS ADP automatic data processing AUTODIN Automatic Digital Network DAAS Defense Automatic Addressing System DIDS Defense Integrated Data System DLA Defense Logistics Agency DLSC Defense Logistics Services Center DOD Department of Defense FIIG Federal Item Identification Guide GAO General Accounting Office NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NSN National Stock Number TIR Total Item Record CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Federal Catalog System, 1/ containing about 6 million items of supply, i under Department of Defense (DOD) control. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Logistics) 2/ is responsible for the direction of this system, and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), which reports to the Assistant Secretary, is responsi- ble for the administrative control. The Defense Logistics Services Center (DLSC), under DLA, is responsible for main- taining the Federal Catalog System records, which includes implementing and operating the Defense Integrated Data System (DIDS). DLA ORGANIZATION The Defense Logistics Agency, (formerly the Defense Supply Agency) 3/ was organized in 1962 to provide effective and economical logistical support, primarily for common use items, to DOD components, Federal civil agencies, and others as authorized. DLA administers its mission requirements through the following 24 primary field activities. Suppl centers--There are six supply centers responsible for material management of assigned commodities and items of supply relating to food, clothing, textiles, medical, chemical, petroleum, industrial, construction, electronics, and general items of supply. Three of the supply centers also perform depot operation functions for assigned commodities. 1/The Federal Cataloging System was established as a result of the Defense Cataloging and Standardization Act of 1952. It converted many cataloging systems into a single system and, since its completion in 1958, has provided one common supply language for supply systems throughout the Govern- ment. 2/This office represents the consolidation of the Assistant Secretary (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) and the Assistant Secretary (Installations and Logistics) after April 20, 1977. Before this date, the Assistant Secretary (Installations and Logistics) was responsible for the Defense Integrated Data System. 3/Name changed effective January 1, 1977. Service centers--The following five service centers furnish varied support services. -- The Defense Lo istics Services Center is reponsible for maintaining the Federal CatalogSystem records, including developing and disseminating cataloging item intelligence data to the military services and other authorized customers. and -- The Defense Industrial Plant Equipment Center is responsible for the DOD General Industrial Equipment Reserve, the Defense Logistics Agency Industrial Equip- ment Reserve, and the National Industrial Equipment Reserve under the custody of the General Services Administration. -- The Defense Documentation Center is responsible development, maintenance, and operation of the for the manage- ment information system in the field of scientific technical reports and primary distribution of and foreign technical reports. -- The Defense Logistics Agency Administrative Support Center provides administrative support and common ice functions to DLA activities in the Washington, serv- D.C., metropolitan area. -- The Defense Property Disposal Service is responsible or the integrated management of the worldwide property disposal operations, including reuse personal of serv- iceable assets, in support of the military services and other authorized customers. Contract administrative services regions--Nine regional offices engage in contract administration, production, assurance, and financial management activities. quality They adminis- ter industrial security, contract compliance, iness/labor programs within the United States and small bus- areas as specifically authorized. and such external Depots--There are four depots responsible for storage, and issuance of DLA-managed items. receipt, NEED FOR DIDS Since 1962, DLA mission responsibilities and demands on automatic data processing (ADP) capabilities have continually increased. The volume of logistical data transactions creased from 10 million in 1963 to 33 million in- by 1967. 2 Consequently, ADP files grew from 1.3 billion to 3.9 billion characters of data during that period. Additionally, DLA was confronted with other issues also affecting the efficient and effective processing of logistics information. Among the more significant problems were: -- The number of duplicate items entering the supply sys- tem needed to be reduced. Under then-current proce- dures, about 250,000 items were screened each year to determine if they matched items already in the supply system. This screening disclosed about 10,000 dupli- cate items; however, improved screening was desired. -- The amount of time required to assign National Stock Numbers (NSNs) needed to be shortened. This procedure, which was taking 4 to 14 days, was supposed to be re- duced to 4 to 72 hours. -- Unnecessary duplicate files and records maintained by customers needed to be eliminated. An estimated 30 million manual and 30 million mechanized records were maintained by services and agencies that could be eliminated. -- Centralization of catalog publication data was con- sidered necessary. DLA wanted to reduce the cost of supply publications by centralizing distribution and converting hard copy material to microfiche. Beginning in 1964 DLA tried to resolve these problems by installing a third-generation computer. However, this equip- ment provided only temporary relief and did not permit DLSC to effectively meet agency mission responsibilities. At this time, the logistics information processing sys- tem included the following eight separate, nonintegrated sub- systems: -- The Federal Catalog System, providing a single, unique stock number for each different item of supply. -- The DOD Materiel Utilization Program, designed to achieve maximum use of DOD assets. -- Supply management data, providing ir:ormation as to how, why, where, when, and by whom items of supply are managed. 3 -- Federal Supply atalog publications, publications pertaining to the Federalproviding various (compiled by DLSC and the services and Catalog System agencies). -- Provisioning screening, designed to determine whether items of supply are in the supply system. -- Item entry control, a system designed to prevent the entry of duplicate items into the Federal' ventory. supply in- -- Utilization and marketing, a system designed to max- imize use of assets declared excess to DOD and to dispose of assets excess to Federal needs. -- The Management Data System, providing stati stics con- cerning the management of items in the supply system. ORIGINAL DIDS OBJECTIVES To further resolve DLA's information-processing DLSC began developing the DIDS concept problems, ir pose was to achieve a long-term processing May 1965. Its pur- veloping a sy:.tem that could handle expectedcapability by de- workload expan- sion and not require major system redesigns of totally new ADP equipment. or acquisition On March 31, 1972, DOD formalized the its Directive 4100.39, entitled "The concept and issued Defense Integrated Data System," which established the policy guidelines design, development, operation, and maintenance. for system tive provided for a central repository The direc- of logistics data that was to be maintained as a single integrated tem was to be structured to fully use record. The sys- advanced ADP and com- munications technology. In this regard, DLA established the following for DIDS: objectives --To consolidate the eight subsystems identified above into a single integrated data bank of billion c racters capable of expandingat least 13.5 characters by the mid-1970s. to 20 billion -- To provide a capability of processing 60 million transactions yearly. -- To provide immediate and remote access capability. 4 -- To provide a means of communicating systems through the Automatic Digitalwith other ADP Network (AUTODIN). --To reduce or eliminate existing logistics files main- tained by DLSC customers. -- To develop and use standard and uniform data elements. -- To maintain data integrity at all times. -- To provide a means to quickly and effectively process changes to the data bank. -- To provide rapid response to customer requirements. -- To centralize publication preparation and distribution. Although DLSC declared DIDS to 1975, it has not fully achieved its be operational in March design changes are necessary to enable objectives Substantial realize the benefits expected from the sys m to fully its continued operation. As explained in the following chapters, operating deficiencies resulted from many of the system's estimates upon which the original inaccurate workload (that is, the total amount of work system design was based to be accomplished by DIDS was vastly underestimated, resulting Also, the absence of strong centralized in too small a system). control over system development and implementation resulted of application programs that did not in the continued use take vailable computer-processing capabilities full advantage of 5 CHAPTER 2 PROBLEMS IN ACHIEVING DIDS OBJECTIVES Although the Defense Irtegrated Data System has made some significant achievements in logistics data management, it has not completely fulfilled the Department of Defense. The the objectives set forth by been able to consolidate various Defense Logistics Agency has separate subsystems into one integrated dat- bank; centralize age of catalog management data the processing and of issue, etc.), providing uniform(source of supply, price, stor- unic control over the accuracy of this information; provide limited and remote access to the data capability for immediate bank; generally improve the quality and quantity of information and eliminate some duplicative available to customers; files and publications. DIDS is an overall improvement System; however, the system is to the Federal Supply having problems achieving all processing goals. Particular item identification function, problems affected the (1) (2) workload, (3) elimination of local ability to process current centralization of catalog publications,duplicative files and some data with other logistics and (4) exchange of systems. An assessment of the impact of these problems within tne logistics community requires complexities of the operating an understanding of the environment and data flows associated with DIDS. For this the DIDS operating environment reason, a description of is included. CURRENT OPERATING ENVIRONMENT DIDS is the focal point ing process. As such, it is of the entire Federal catalog- plex information network with the heart of an extremely com-- including DOD components, abouta multitude of participants, 72 civil agency activities, and 25 foreign governments. DIDS maintained with information providedhas been built and is by these participants. Therefore, DDS is activated by its participants and exists primarily to satisfy their needs. The foldout chart 6 on page 9 is a general overview 1/ of how information flows into and out of DIDS. Simply stated, the information flow consists of participant-generated data, data bank manipula- tion, and products that flow back to the participants in various forms. Although data may be submitted to DLSC in a variety of forms (card, tape, etc.) and through various media (mail, telephone, etc.), the primary source of commu- nications used to transmit data into and out of the system is AUTODIN. The various components of this network can be generally described as follows. Participant-generated inputs DIDS participants are identified by authorized activity codes (see chart on p. 9 and app. II) and interact with the DIDS data bank through a series of authorized transaction codes. These codes indicate the type of transactions au- thorized for a particular user. For example, one code may permit a customer to interrogate or search the DIDS inven- tory for informaticn, while another code permits the custo- mer to add, delete, or change data in the data bank. In addition, certain participants are designated as item mana- gers and submit transactions that alter catalog management data. This information, which is critical to the supply management function, includes such data as source of supply, unit of issue, and dollar value. In the case of the military services and DLA, a hier- archy exists in which various activities interface directly with the data bank through one or more activity input codes. and subordinate units or activities obtain access to the data bank only through those activities authorized to directly submit data. About 72 civil agency activities interface data bank for file data requests only; that is, with the they can interrogate the DIDS data bank, but cannot add, delete, or change data in it. The General Services Administration, designated as an item manager for items concerned with 1/The chart contains some slight variations from actual data flow due to a printing error. These variations involve only four individual activity codes and do not materially affect the validity of the chart. See appendix II for cor- rections. 7 civil agencies, is authorized to submit transactions that could alter data in the DIDS data bank, In addition to the military services and civil and de- fense agencies, about 25 foreign governments are permitted to exchange information with DIDS. They communicate with the system through DLSC's International Codification Divi- sion for new item identification, but may go directly to the data bank for file maintenance transactions. The Army's Military Traffic Management Command is shown separately on the chart because it is the single manager in the Federal Catalog System for confirmed freight classifica- tion data and provides this information to DIDS for dissemi- nation to other system participants. Data bank organization The DIDS data bank is organized into two basic parts-- item-oriented data and system-oriented data. Item-oriented data includes National Item Identification Numbers, item characteristics and reference numbers, and Catalog Manage- ment Data. System-oriented data encompasses such informa- ticn as item names, Federal supply classification codes, and activity addresses. Through indexing techniques, the various kinds of item-oriented data are stored, updated, and retrieved. The first part of the data bank is known as the Total Item Record (TIR), and the second part is called tne System Support Record. The TIR is oriented to National Item Identification Numbers and contains item identification and logistics management information. The System Support Record contains all information, such as edit and validation tables, format guides, controls, statistics, codes, and terms, that are required to support or specify the content and use of data in the TIR. The TIR is established through a file buildup of current system data and is maintained by input transactions that have been processed by various functional segments. The Sys- tem Support Record is also established through continuous updating and serves as a tool to maintain the TIR. DIDS has eight interrelated functional segments, which are broken down into several operations that either contribute to tne content of the data bank or pull and use that content for such purposes as interrogation and publications production. (See graphic representation of the data bank in app. I.) The functional segments in- clude: ARMY NAVY OVERVIEW - DEFENSE ITEGRATED i DATA SYSTEM ARMY MAVY AIR FORCE MARINE CORPS Activity Office Code Name Symbol CJ LOGISTICS SYSTEM DRXLS-LF -_ _ SUPPORT __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SA LOGIS-iCS C M N -j ... rCODE SA LSaCm .Am _I _ I' D3 ELECTRONICS COMMANDAMSEL-PP-ED - _ I GP AVIATION SUPPLY OFFICE DAIrGP S LOGISTICS COMMAND MMOA D4 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT AMME-RZK-KX _E Ali! ENGIE2N CENTER .UD- : TR PSUPPORTN . CENTER LOGTICS C MMLISC I :'__ _____a-I CMADiiQ _ - AZ TANK AUTOMOTIVE DRSTA-FC A _D ,ISS LE CMAND DRS.RC ' i CO-- . .__ a-- F RMAMENT COMMAND DIIAR-MlMC i 0 ALMA RIELy&TOP-T I CL ELECTRONICSCOMMAND SEL-MM-CNA _ CmLOGISTICS C INN. SENURITY AY SR DRS i I.., pC .T CND CT ASIATION SYSTEMS DRSAV-OC ACTiVCTIR I AAIIE SUBRIDINATEO COMMAND ARSFNAL SARFAI _ CU ARMY ECURITY AENCY IMICIC KARVIATIO' SUPPLY OFF:SICE ACTIVITIES 5r.fu I C .... __ =_ApA-un j, oNorth Carolina AC EDGEW..._...,....~.OOD ARSEN ,~ I L ARE-DE i. ---- i= tCODE:A--MUNITIONDmPO G$ VAL MmPMND T E | CATILOG DTA AGENCY DRXCA.C . Tu 0*HGN oG ... sANDARDIZATION .. .. A... I ....C PM N _ CODE-LMO-1 ON PICTINNY ARSENAL ARPA.ND.M.P.C M CA ARMYSUPPORT ACTIVITY STSAP-ACV & TF 2 NATICK LABOR*ATORIES AMXNM-EPS -- 2 N T. D6 FRANKFORD ARSENAL SARFA-MDMi CTORAT iSCENTERNE EN INTERATIONAL LSTCS a.--......... ...- . aa- .............--..... -- -.- --...- -. AND7AN- CIVIL DEFENSES USERS O48 GENERACLA l- ......... _ . . .-I. . ..... , ::- OF ...... ...... ..... ' .. ... .. ...X.....II...h I ....... .. .......a .... . ............. ...--.. .... ........ ...r... . ....... .... .. ...... . NOWTr | SERVICES ILE DATA REQUESTS .... ...... N VEDORS I USER INVENTORY CNTROL FRIEIGNDL FOREIGN FIES COMATIBLITY -a N. N I NA.YOI. .,DTIONa A "D.NTRALL~ ~~"C . T t' :: FREIGHT : w....... ...... |ATA ;a-aa CCONFIRMED MI1 - . I ~ELLI O E - - C;~.iUN. FREIGT LASS DATA E - · i FEI RAL - V S BS~~UREAU OF " ' Noncom~uep mua'"'* _T ~D...,..... , ~~~~~INVES ~ ~ ~ ~I TI~~~GATION a 0A~ -RP m CCATI LALTY- DATAU cAGE * . a FEDERAL OUMA ~ a ca AVIATION a R *ORGAATIONAL ENTi Y DATA %sD ADMINEDESATIONA NOT (72 AENCIE) ........ AMN . ~ -11..11111 B.poa ,D D I .8 D A.l ......... INE6...LoaW"MoryIRuV03WM n-ium-E B BUREAU OF COLU0401A E AGENCY L7C. ~AECUAIY NATUCLE~,miONALmm,,i . . aOOAW1 IIiemmTAi .. LINKc(MUATATINR aeaaaa·aaaa·a..aaanr. (ATO. a.....aaaaa...a....······.··... ... ....A CAT~jdktkll FILE UP-DATE (SOURCE OF IPP'.Y) AUTOMATIC NOTiE ,i / ~~~~~~~~~~ADIRss.40 '1 NOTE OVERVIEW - DEFENSE INTEGRATED DATA SYSTEM AIR FORCE MARINE CORPS DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY AX ki SIT UCTION DCSC4C _________________________________ SA LOGISTICS COMMAND ACM ~CX X DonC-SC VC 5-L-J SC LANIOVIiTTNTR S l.. nWiI I, CY E - 9 SD LOGISTICS COMMAND MMOA *POC4sTC O a SE S1'INN NMSC KXgDmO~4I PSC-ATCC 1a SU OGDEN LOGISTICS CENTER MMSC KIY DFSCTS MMISEENA EMS - T . as ATERIEL AFIMWO MINNSE Ae cORMAm a SU3ORDINATl LOOIA~V1NTE SFRL,ull-1ATVTE ATVTE STAIR FOR~C~CE155NV1SES DK \I camp Lalsuns, Caroline DfrOt~tite aSI'en, ~i T PiOGG IAUNL STNARIAIO VITIPC________ Sij HeDI AR O0E-Lw)-1 SJ4OA - 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Um cwrw--Y · · LOTW 8 ALOOINOS STANDRDIZATION I IC b nc us ,, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IFItt *I Ii III rr IW11t~g hIroY RE FA.II.TI~r I . II~~~~~~~~~~g I ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -IF ~ ~ ~ ~ Sr - -- --- -- a- -- - - - - --- a - - - --- a a o at a a a a a ba - a- a - -a a a aa a a a a a a. a a a a a a a a- a-boss Was a a aa a a a a a a a a 1~~~~~~~bboo - --- --- ------- …… -- - - - -bs --- … -- t~~~~~~~~~~~~~Nt4 Ror~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ionfng ScroonlnO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S ..... VENDORES USER ENDLY (25) MILFTAW a.:· INVENTORY CONROL INVENTORYONT ROL FOREIN OVERNMENTS TRAFC Microfiche MANA MENT rtlo Dat POINTS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~COMMAND EICE ..... : FCAON ST TISTI A .TIR : nR ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ OF soo·se..... pp. .. n... El.S DEPOT ~ ·O······ ~ ~ ~ ~ AT SOURCE SA~~IA DATA .nptc b m BANK FOOTNOTES: 1. Input codee C-Is-F--H N T onl timo Inarogate (CodeA) ths DleS data1 * RR -a~ 3. 2 .~...,~ ~~~heSeitht -DATE 1..1ctity Coo. 34, under the hlry is the OrgnzatIw is heading tis organization. o tie. Jont Chieft A( OTEI C·AjTPOJN F FILE UP-DATE (SOURCE OF SUPPLY) ah . Th De1en1e aPot, MeHanicbtgiv vuppoo to Irieda.. t 010£ lo DE T MA Data ""*lowsn not hve a unctionng Interait wit Dh'I0 AUOSMo o IC.. EUISTIONI Friendly oreig gwrtmsn 4ee... Ifoc through he Detes. Loqisos Sev- SYSTEM ic. Cneta k~~~~~~~~r (ft.C) Cml~~~~~~r in (O~~~~~gf), rat9eei Codi~~~~~~~~~c·Ho, odltati tDiisi Inhrt~~~~~~~~~t~~~on·1 is nw linjsiliiiiiie SYST 6 but hove a ditftt 0106 Interftce fto nnrfi ne Inmitsnlhane tril'isoobeno S S.Rd ti dntl p orgnzelote thai eu'fHt cetlog ansgWltt dais to 0501. Thi thn dpiol dalowtsr, of 3i 3177 Item identification. This segment collects, maintains, and disseminates stock-number-related item character- istics, part numbers, and other identifying data neces- sary to establish the unique character of an item of supply and differentiate it from all other items in the Federal stock inventory. Utilization and marketing. 1/ This segment contains the necessary information to permit optimum use of an item in the Federal stock inventory during its life cycle to: (1) preclude concurrent procurement and disposal of assets for which a valid requirement exists, (2) preclude the repair or overhaul of unserviceable assets when identical serviceable excess assets are available for redistribution, and (3) obtain the best rate of re- turn when the property is sold as surplus. Interchangeability and substitutability. This segment records military service and civil agency decisions re- garding the relationships of items of supply and dis- seminates this information to users. It also provides information for use of engineering standardization decisions. Publications. This segment contains operations that mechanically compile and compose various publications, such as books, listings, or manuals. Supply management. This segment deals with operations to record and use data applicable to logistics manage- ment. It provides data on how, why, where, when, and by whom items in the Federal inventory were managed or used during their life cycles. Statistical reports. This segment provides for the collection, storage, retrieval, and dissemination of statistical information for quality control, as well as management information for determining the effi- ciency and effectiveness of user programs. l/These subsystems were administratively segregated from the DIDS requirements for the Burroughs computer con- figuration and are currently run on the IBM 360/65 re- tained to support the Defense Property Disposal Service. (See p. 18.) 11 System support record item maintenance. This segment contains operations and processes required to maintain the system support record, which is all information (guides, tables, statistics, controls, etc.) needed to support and specify the content of the TIR. Special operations. This segment contains several opera- tions that did not fall logically into one of the other segments. This enables file interrogations tailored to customers' specific needs and provides a capability to make mass changes to the data bank. In addition, it is supposed to include processes to make an automated followup on delinquent transactions and a report genera- tor for extracting data or reports to satisfy customers' needs without delay. DIDS products and services DIDS products and services can be generally categorized as (1) those that are disseminated to data submitters and authorized data receivers and (2) file updates of source-of- supply information for the Defense Automatic Addressing Sys- tem. Included in the first category are publications, sta- tistical reports, and file update notices. Publications--DIDS is supposed to provide for the produc- tion of all Federal Catalog System publications for dis- tribution to both Government and industry users, as ap- propriate. These include the Management Lists, Item Identification Lists, and various handbooks as well as lists or catalogs of excess personal property and mate- rial declared surplus. The output products are issued in microfiche. Statistical reports--The system is supposed to provide for the generation and dissemination of statistical documents to support logistics program managers. File update notices--For purposes of our description of the DIDS data flow, we have defined these notifica- tions as any notice to a system participant of an action taken on data submitted; that is, acceptance or rejection and, in the case of acceptance, notifi- cation of all authorized data receivers to update their files. The other category, file update of the Defense Auto- matic Addressing System, is supposed to provide a capability 12 for updating source-of-supply information for supply manage- ment purposes. These updates are made from catalog manage- ment data received and manipulated in the DIDS data bank. ITEM IDENTIFICATION HAS BEEN GENERALLY IMPROVED, BUT PROBLEMS REMAIN An important par'. of the catalog system is positive and unique identification of items-of-supply. Under the Federal Catalog System, the concept of an item-of-supply is expressed in a National Item Identification and fixed by a National Stock Number. A National Item Identification consists of the minimum data necessary to establish the essential charac- teristics of the item that give it its unique character and differentiate it from every other item-of-supply used in the Federal Government. Each National Item Identification is applicable to one item-of-supply and, conversely, each item- of-supply has only one National Item Identification. Characteristics are basically physical or functional (performance) and are defined by technical research, the foundation for the process of item identification or catalog- ing. This process incorporates Item Name, Item Identification (descriptive and/or reference data), Item Classification (Federal Supply Classification), Stock Number (National/North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Stock Number), and Pub- lication (Federal Supply Catalogs). DIDS was intended to enhance this process by (1) fully automating it, (2) extending the capability of screening item characteristics for assigning NSNs, (3) introducing characteristics search capabilities (exact and parametric), and (4) introducing a prototype item description technique, making it easier to enter items into the supply system. Generally, automation of the item identification func- tion has resulted in less duplication of items entering the supply system--more than doubling pre-DIDS performance. However, DLSC has had problems in fully implementing all the above aspects of this function. Although the system has enhanced the new item screening capability, problems exist with implementing the characteristic search capa- bility and updating Federal Item Identification Guides (FIIGs). In addition, an original DIDS requirement-- prototype item description--has not yet been incorporated into the system. 13 New item screening Before DIDS, new item entry screening was essentially a manual operation. Limited computer screening was done to identify two or three characteristics. Then, hard copy cards (Form DD146) containing complete item characteristic data for any matches obtained from the limited computer screening were reviewed manually to further determine similarities. DIDS has eliminated hard copy cards, and automated character- istics screening is now accomplished on an exact or possible match basis for all characteristics. Screening for NSN assignment is being done faster and more effectively. According to the June 1972 DLA economic analysis, DLSC had been taking from 4 to 14 days to process NSN assignments. The goal was to reduce this time to 72 hours or less. We reviewed agency statistics for July 1976 through February 1977 and found that 86 percent of the NSN assignment transactions received by DLSC have been processed within 72 hours. Screening effectiveness is measured by the number of NSN requests for which like items or potentially like items were identified as being already in the system. Screening effectiveness has improved greatly under DIDS. During 1976, of 221,260 NSN assignments or requests, 20,016 were identi- fied as actual duplicates and 5,495 as possible duplicates. This represents 11.5 percent of the NSN requests submitted. Pre-DIDS statistics cited in the June 1972 economic analysis show that only 4 percent of the new items proposed annually matched an item already in the system. Characteristic search This application provides services and agencies and other logistic customers with the ability to search charac- teristic data in the DIDS data bank for a single item or a group of similar items. The application is used for various purposes, such as preprovisioning screening, parts control, standardization, item reduction studies, item entry con- trol, and special projects. A characteristic search is dif- ferent from a characteristic screening because it does not result in an NSN assignment. There are two types of characteristic searches--non- parametric and parametric. A nonparametric search attempts to obtain exact matches between the characteristics of the 14 item being compared and characteristics of items already in the supply system. Eventually, 433 FIIGs involving 2,542,730 items are scheduled for nonparametric search. As of March 1977, 117 FIIGs--863,119 items--have been implemented. Another 62 FIIGs are from 1 to 10 months behind their implementation schedule. The entire schedule is supposed to be implemented by February 1980. A parametric search does not attempt to make an exact match. Item matches within predetermined tolerances or para- meters are sought (for example, all 3- to 5-foot desks, metal and wooden). Parametric search requests are coded based on predetermined key characteristics (for example, height, length, and number of drawers). Later cycles are made through the "matched" items for each additional characteristic desired by the requester. This process continues until all the pos- sible key matches have been eliminated or a match is made on an item or group of items that fully satisfies the re- quester's requirements. Parametric search transactions require considerable proc- essing time. DLSC statistics for the 12-month period ended February 1977 show that the average computer processing time for a single transaction is about 6 minutes 1/ with a range of 3 to 16 minutes. In addition, there are Tndications that this application has not been extensively used. For the same 12-month period, transactions averaged about 34 a month on implemented FIIGS. DLSC plans to implement 42 FIIGs--1,692,592 items--for parametric searches. Only two FIIGs had been implemented as of March 1977. The others are scheduled for implementa- tion by November 1979. Because of the long processing time involved in the parametric search application, some restrictions on this application may be necessary. DLSC is considering reducing the use of this application by the 2,500 activities now permitted to make searches. This restriction would involve either (1) restricting the number of Government users or (2) precluding contractors from searching competitors' 1/The DLSC statistics, from which these times were calcu- lated, were based on wall clock time. 15 files. In addition, reducing the maximum number of possible substitute items from 1,000 to 100 per search transaction has been considered. Considerable effort has already been expended on de- veloping the parametric screening and search application. Since May 1973 an estimated 22,726 staff-hours have been spent developing this application. The amount of computer time used is not known. Agency officials have estimated future development through 1979 to require at least --3,660 elapsed machine processing hours and -- nine programmers on a 5- to 50-percent basis. Becart- t' the possible restrictions on its use and the exten fort required to implement all FIIGs, we believe cc ed development of this application should be reevaluated to determine whether it is necessary whether it should proceed in competition with other, and critical functions. more FIIG updating Characteristic data for a significant number of in the DIDS data bank, an estimated 40 percent, does items not accurately express the descriptions called for by appli- cable FIIGs. Some characteristic data formats are inaccu- rate because hanges to FIIG requirements are not reflected for all applicable items. New items entering the system conform to current FIiG requirements, but characteristic data was not updated to the new formats for all items al- ready in the system when the FIIG requirements were changed. Updating item characteristics data to conform to the latest FIIGs is being done on a revised schedule as time becomes available. computer In 1975 DLSC officials tried to schedule FIIG revisions for a 5-year period. However, the schedule was later found to be unrealistic because transaction backlogs and the general unavailability of of computer time for processing FIIG revisions. As a result, a FIIG steering committee met in September 1976 to schedule FIIG revisions through 1977. As of revisions had been implemented, and September 1976, 28 FIIG the committee has sche- duled an additional 53 revisions through 1977. As of March 1977, DLSC had implemented 15 of the scheduled revisions; 8 revisions had been made on scledule, but the other 7 16 missed the implementation date by a few days to 3 months. The other 38 FIIGs ae still scheduled for revision by the end of 1977. According to DLSC officials contacted, unrevised FIIGs should not hamper parametric screening for NSN assignments. Although a request for an NSN may not get an exact match with an item in the TIR, it will probably get a possible "ballpark" match, permitting the requester to consider the item. Prototype item description Currently, a proposed new item must be completely de- scribed for NSN assignment purposes, even though many of its characteristics are the same as an item already having an NSN (for example, a proposed new brown shoe, identical to an existing black shoe except for color). One unimple- mented feature of DIDS--prototype item description--would require the submission of only those characteristics of a new item that are different from an existing item. The June 1972 economic analysis specified that an estimated per- sonnel savings of about $800,000 a year would be realized by implementing prototype processing. DLA has initially reviewed the plan showing how the prototype processing will be implemented and has forwarded it to the services and agencies for comment. As of Feb- rurary 1977, four of them have had difficulties with the plan. Although DLSC officials are working to resolve these differences, they have not scheduled a completion date for this application. EXPECTED PROCESSING PERFORMANCE NOT ACHIEVED DID. has had continued processing difficulty since it was declared operational in March 1975. These problems can be largely attributed to an underestimation of the total workload, resulting in inadequate system sizing, and the use of computer programs that do not take advantage of the computer's total processing capabilities. DLA attempted to solve these problems by augmenting hardware and refining software, but this was not sufficient to overcome current workload processing demands. 17 Attempts to improve rocessing performance by augmentation On March 13, 1972, the Burroughs Corporation was awarded tht .tract for implementing the DIDS computer configuration. This cojnfiguration was composed of a Burroughs 6700 computer system with two central processing units, related operating software, and peripheral equipment. The system, upon becoming operational, could not ade- quately process DLSC's workload. According to OLA documen- tation, this was because of an underestimation of workload requirements made in the early stages of DIDS development. To compensate for the underestimate and improve process- ing capability, DLSC augmented the original DIDS configura- tion by: -- Adding a third processor to the original system. -- Installing a second Burroughs 6700 system consisting of dual processors and peripheral equipment (esti- mated to be one-tenth the size of the original sys- tem). -- Upgrading and retaining one IBM 360/65 system, ori- ginally scheduled to be released as a result of DIDS implementation. According to DLSC, this system had to be retained to support the Defense Property Serv- ice's I'm- -ated Disposal Management System. A seco- '0/65 was released. Although the aoove-mentioned hardware helped the situa- tion, it was still not enough to meet current workload demands. The following schedule, showing average daily back- logs for July 1976 through March 1977, is typical of trans- actions backlogs encountered since operations began with the augmented system. 18 Actual transaction Transactions awaiting 1976 backlogs computer availability July 187,440 August 736,704 137,640 3,305,619 September 106,847 October 2,521,334 41,664 1,302,535 November 26,112 December 657,720 52,850 580,05.3 1977 January 8,759 February 366,532 27,012 999,648 March 55,745 876,813 Another part of the DIDS processing objective, lined in the June 1972 economic analysis, as out- was to respond to all customer inquiries on a priority basis from 4 to 72 hours. Priorities would be rated 1 through 4 and assigned y the transaction originator. The system has had problems achiev- iing performance rates on priority processing, as indicated below. The table shows monthly performance rates transaction processing for July 1976 through on priority March 1977. 1 2 3 1976 1-4 hours 4 1-12 hours 1-48 hours 1-72 hours -percent)-- July 50 46 47 63 August 55 24 60 58 September 48 55 45 61 October 91 59 56 70 November 58 67 70 67 December 79 44 40 62 1977 January 71 84 88 85 February 80 77 89 84 March 90 41 37 38 The impact of these processing problems in a DLA order issued on August 4, 1976, is demonstrated which requested de- fense supply centers to temporarily rely until DIDS could effectively handle its on their own files workload. Our review 19 has shown, however, that the supply centers still do some limited interrogation processing through DIDS. DOD consultants recommend additional hardware and software improvements to overcome processing inefficiencies To gain insight into the underlying causes of processing problems encountered in DIDS, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Logistics) contracted with the Logistics Management Institute, a consult- ing organization, to assess the computer system's performance. The study was to determine whether additional hardware would solve the efficiency and capability problems and whether the present hardware could be ued more effectively. The Institute, 1/ in a report issued in February 1977, described DIDS as a arge-scale, centralized, multiprocessor system that uses a functionally integrated data base of some 8 billion characters and processes 2.5 million transactions monthly. (The size of the data bank and amount of trans- actions processed are substantially less than was originally envisioned. See p. 4.) In their report, the consultants determined that the cur- rent DIDS system configurations are virtually workload satu- rated and that there are problems with workload scheduling and application program processing. Refering to the latter, the consultants pointed out that considerable processing is required for the application programs to access the TIR because of interface inefficiencies, limited asynchronous processing, and ineffective handling of variable length fields and records by the Burroughs computer software. Fur- ther, the manual workload scheduling method limits through- put on the primary Burroughs computer configuration. Also, the preemptive introduction of high-priority (levels 1 and 2) transactions, in inefficient queue lengths, into the load stream disrupts the work flow and limits throughput work- volume. l/According to the consultants, the brevity of their study precluded the computation of DIDS workload and ADF capa- city estimates in terms of central processor unit hours. Consequently, they used DLSC estimates based on wall clock hours, which are not as appropriate as processor hours. 20 The consultants concluded that effectiveness increased through system optimization and could be additional ware implementation. They recommended specific hard- ments for operating software, application improve- bank changes, workload scheduling, and job programs, data scheduling. In addition, they recommended that a to-phase ware augumentation be implemented. hard- First, for the short term, to correct immediate processing bottlenecks, recommended adding additional hardware to they Burroughs computer configurations involving the existing penditures of $350,000 to $400,000. 1/ They estimated ex- that, if expected workload trends materialize,recommended augmentation be made, combining existing a second puter equipment with a larger Burroughs Burroughs com- single computer system This augmentation was expected $1,104,000 to $1,768,000. 1/ According to cost between t this augmentation must be preceded by the the consultants, mentation or its cost-effective equivalent short-term aug- sive 5-year projection of DIDS workload mustand a comprehen- be prepared. REDUCTION OF LOCAL DUPLICATIVE The DOD policy directive requires DOD components employ procedures in mechanized logistics to insure maximum use of the DIDS data bank functions that taining duplicative files. Based on thi3 in lieu of main- DLA established as a DIDS objective that policy guidance, the system eli- m..nate these duplicative files and provide ot the most current logistics data, thereby a single source improving the quality of material in the supply system. Many files and records have been eliminated. example, the following files were eliminated For fense supply centers: at the de-- File Quantity at each -enter Identification List--Descriptive (mechsnized) Identification List--NSN Index I ( 1 Reference Number Master ( ) 1 Identification List--Reference NR Master 1 Catalog Management Data Characteristic Data File a/1 (manual ) 2 a/Portions of this file were reinstated to the local TIR. 1/Figures are in 1977 dollars. 21 In additon, some files at the services .eliminated. Among these were and agencies were the Master (DD 635) maintained on tapes, portions Army Catalog File of the Army Master Data File, and the Navy DD 635 files. Although progress has been made files still exist and DIDS customers in this area, duplicate cated that some files that could contacted have indi- be won't be unless poblems in obtaining eliminated probably from DIDS are alleviated. timely information In other instances, according to customers, local file duplication is necessary to carry on their day-to-day operations. The problems experienced by the services and agencies contacted primarily deal with processing transaction backlogs at DLSC, and turnaround time, local users. Examples of these the data format needed by problems are more fully de- scribed below. Defense supply centers In November 1974 DLA tried to reduce issuing an order to supply local files by centers to eliminate all computer catalog files duplicating DIDS data and to rely completely cn the system's ability to furnish files were to be eliminated when data. These duplicate (1) DIDS met reauired re- sponse time and data quantity and quality, (2) the supply centers were no longer responsible Identification List, and (3) DLSC for publication of the quiries for deciding which items could support mass in- gard, DLA expected the supply are standard. In this centers to eliminate dupli-re- cat, local files by April 1, 1977, operations, 2 years after DIDS began However, on September 30, 1976, because of "interminable difficulties DLA canceled the order sponses." in getting DIDS re- We contacted officials at the Defense Personnel Sup- port Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; tronics Supply Center, Dayton, the Defense Elec- struction Supply Center, Ohio; and the Defense Con- generally do not believe Columbus, Ohio. These officials that eliminating local files is viable objective for DIDS.all For duplicate in May 1976, the Defense Electronics example, letter to DLA, said that, because Supply Cnter, in a backlog, i had to postpone of the DIDS processing $10 million worth of recommended buys and was experiencing delays in processing requisitions 22 and a complete slowdown in other logistics processes. In discussing the system, the Electronics Supply Center said: "The DIDS concept of the central file at this point is not credible. To overcome the shortcomings, increased depen- dence must be placed on the local TIR." Another problem that the Center pointed out involves a manufacturer discontinuing production of a Center-managed item. To identity all the items for which it needs to find an alternate source, the Center has to interrogate the data bank. Using DIDS, it took up to 5 ornths to get a mass da.a retrieval. Using the Center's local file, it takes 1 week. DIDS has improved the response time for mass data re- trieval since the May 1976 letter, but Supply Center offi- cials still feel that DIDS is not flexible enough to meet specific user requirements. In addition, the system does not furnish some data in the format requized by the centers and does not tailor responses to users' specific wants. For example, if the Center needs to know all the items mtanu- factured by a company for one specific Federal stock class, DIDS will furnish a list of items manufactured by the com- pany for all Federal stock cla.ises; the local file, on the other hand, is prcgrammed to meet this specific need. Although the DIDS programs couild be redesigned to make them more responsive to users, both the Electronics ard Construction Supply Centers believe the local files ate needed since they offer reliable data, faster turnaround time for interrogations, ard low--cost emergen:y backup. Military users The military services generally maintain local fi'es that duplicate data contained in the DIPS data bank. We visfted various Army, Navy, and A Force ctivities and found that these activities continue to mr.aincain duplica- tive local files. Officials contacted believed that com- plete local files will continue to be needed tc provide quick response to local usezs. Officials at the Air Force Lugistics Command, Wi:ight- Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio, said thet t Air Force does not plan to eliminate its local catalog les. The Air Force maintains automated systems thaL duplicate DIDS data at three levels. These are at the Air Force Logistics Command, each of the five air logistics centers, 23 and each air force base functioning on the Standard Base Supply System. Officials maintain that local files must be retained since the Air Force s Stock Number User Directory depends on data from the Logistics Command files. They said air logistics center and base level files will always be needed siice they furnish information to local users. The U.S. Am% Tank Automotive Materiel Readiness Com- mand, Warren, Michigan, maintains two files that duplicate DIDS data. Tney are: NSN master data record. This is the Command's primary computer file. It providss supply managers with a full range of supply information on an immediate in- quiry basis. Some of this information--NSN, unit of issue, price, shelf-life, etc.--is included in the DIDS data bank. According to Command supply officials, this information is used daily by item managers. They told us they need fast response time for this informa- tion and could not wait for responses from DLSC. DIDS master data record. The Command maintains this F. -wich dupl cates- DIDS data for such information as Major Organizational Entity rules, standardization dar, interchangeability and substitutability, and catalog management data. According to Command catalog- ing officials, the DIDS master data record is main- tained at the Command to provide immediate access to the above data. CENTRALIZATION OF CATALOG PUBLICATIONS HAS NOT ELIMINATED DUPLICATION Before DIDS, responsibility for completing and produc- ing various publications supporting logistics-oriented functions was vested in DLSC, the DLA supply centers, and the military services. Based on recommendations contained in a 1965 study 1/ and initial DIDS requirements established in early 1966, DLSC assumed responsibility for publishing Identification Lists, Management Lists, and Master Cross Rference Lists formerly produced by the centers and serv- ices. Later decisions expanded DIDS requirements to include l/"Progressive Refinement of Integrated Supply Management (PRISM)," Department of Defense, March 1965. 24 additional publications and the use of microfiche primary publication medium. The various DC as the publications available provide the descriptive and management sary for requisitioning, procurement, shipping, data neces- warehousing, and technical research. Catalogs receiving, are supposed to be compiled in tailored form listing only items of in- terest to a particular service and/or in consolidated listing all items in the DOD supply system form rgardless of service interest. In reviewing publications used by various inventory control points, posts, camps, and stations, that the DIDS data bank does not contain we foLnd ll of the data elements peculiar to the various users. Therefore, local publications are produced that not only many provide data not normally provided by DIDS but also duplicate is provided. Also, some users contacted said dal that customized data formatting that is not provided they quire by DIDS. We examined Army and Navy publications in detail to develop some concept of the extent of information tion, cost, and need for specific publications. duplica- contacts with other users have provided specific Also, our of only secondary reliance upon DIDS-produced examples to satisfy user needs. information Army-Navy catalog publications We compared eight Army publications 1/ with DIDS publications and found that 16 of 17-data comparable contained in a DIDS-produced Army Management elements List are dup- licated in the Army Master Data File. In Army publication contains an additional 13 addition, the data elements, 12 of which are classified as Army unique and 1 which is published in another DIDS file. Army and DIDS freight classification file publications contain comparable data except for contained in the Army's publication.one The additional element six other Army publications have both DIDS common and Army unique data elements in varying degrees. l/Army publications selected: (1) Army Master Data File, (2) Interchangeable and Substitute File, (3) Master Data File, (4) Master Data Record, SAILS- (5) Publication, (6) Automatic Return Item List, Packaging Publication, and (8) Reference and History (7) Freight File. 25 Five Navy publications 1/ were selected for comparison and a similar situation was ound to exist. For example, the Navy's Clothing Price List is duplicated by DIDS pub- lications known as Catalog Management Data and the Manage- ment List. In addition, more than 75 percent of three other Navy publications are duplicated in DIDS publications. Some examples of local duplicate publications In addition to the detailed analysis made of Army and Navy materials previously discussed, our review disclosed the following specific examples of catalog information dup- lication. The Defense Electronics Supply Center produces a micro- fiche of their local TIR file, which is updated quarterly and distributed in 46 copies to six offices within the Supply Center and to four external activities. Supply Center officials said they need this local publication because all the needed data is not included in the DIDS publications. Also, it is easier, quicker, and cheaper to use the locally produced microfiche than to interrogate the local TIR file. Producing this publication costs about $8,000 annually. The Air Force produces a microfiche of the Air Force interchangeability and substitutability system. The system contains family groups of items that can be interchanged and describes the conditions for interchangeability. Ac- cording to Air Force officials contacted, the DIDS publi- cations contain only item-to-item information with no family groups and conditions. The Air Force produces and distri- butes 4,200 copies of this catalog every 2 months at an estimated cost of $18,000 per year. The Army supply activity in Hawaii does not use the DIDS consolidated publications, such as the Master Cross Reference List and the Catalog Management Data, which con- tain all stock items in the Federal Supply System. In- stead, they use the Army Catalog Data Agency's versions of these publications, which contain only Army items. The i/Navy Publications selected: (1) List of Items Requiring Special Handling, (2) Master Repairable Item List, (3) Consolidated Hazardous tem List, (4) Afloat Shopping Guide, and (5) Clothing Price List. 26 Army supply personnel saw little need to have the Government- wide data since they seldom use non-Army items. The military services contacted in tion of DIDS and service publications; Europe use a combina- however, they also rely primarily on catalog dta furnished ices. by their own serv- DOD is studying the need for and adequacy of ublications In June 1976, the Office of tne Assistant Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs Secretary of that a study group be established and Logistics) requested of Federal catalog publications. to determine the adequacy On August 10, 1976, the study group, made up of representatives ices and DLSC, met to start the study. from the armed serv- was directed at an evaluation Initially, the study of DIDS publications; however, in March 1977 it was changed to include catalogs still being produced by the military services. The group has identified some catalogs that could be eliminated, ited use or duplication of DIDS catalogs.due either to lim- An example of DIDS duplication is demonstrated in the publication of Catalog Management List. These publications contain Data and the Management almost identical data, and DLSC has recommended that the publication be eliminated and that Catalog Management Data expanded by three data elements the Management List be Management Data. DLA distributedthat were unique to Catalog the proposal to services and agencies in May 1976. As of from users had been received. April 1977, no responses DIFFICULTIES WITH INFORMATION EXCHANGE DIDS has had some difficulties with its ability to exchange data with other agency systems. being experienced in the method Problems are devised flow of source-of-supply and freight to control the classification data. Inaccurate source-of-supply data The Defense Automatic Addressing matically routes supply documents System (DAAS) auto- the source of supply (the activity from the originator to ing and issuing items). responsible for manag- 27 DAAS receives, addresses, and retransmits an average 30 million supply documents monthly, many of which of uisitions. The DAAS file contains source-of-supply are req- informa- tion for the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, DLA, and the General Services Administration. Before DIDS, DAAS developed and maintainer its own source-of-supply address file directly from service agency input. DAAS averaged 4,000 to 6,000 cases and which the source of supply shown for the user of monthly in an item did not agree with source of supply shown for the manager of that item. Now that DAAS relies on DIDS for updates, averages about 15,000 cases in which the source it reportedly of supply does not agree. These exceptions cause requisitions misrouted, and when that happens, the supplies to be are not re- ceived by the customers, some of whom support combat forces. Users elieve that the method used to update source supply when items are transferred from one of manager to another is a major cause of file discrepancies. Item management transfers When supply activitiec transfer they must update segments B and H of management of items, the DIDS Total Item Record. Segment B lists the manager and all users item, while segment H lists catalog management of an as source of supply, price, unit of issue, and data, such by item manager and user. Before transfers occur,shelf-life, manager losing responsibility for the item sends the a action to DIDS changing segment B to show the new trans- manager. Seventy-five days before the agreed transfer item date, the new item manager sends a transaction to DIDS changing segment H to show the new source of supply. All users are also responsible for updating their of the segment H record. own sections (See chart on the following page.) We reviewed item management transfers at the Defense Electronics Supply Center and the Air Force Logistics Command. The Supply Center had 1,670 management trans- fers from January 1, 1976, through December 31, statistically sampled these transfers and found 1976. We either the gaining manager or the user of the that sometimes both, failed to update their sources item, and of supply 52 percent of the time. 28 FLOW CHART OF LOGISTICAL TRANSFER LOSING ITEM MGR EFFECTIVE TRANSFER DATE SUBMITS TRANSACTIONS TO CHANGE ITEM MGR IN SEGMENT B AND THE FEDERAL STOCK CLASS DIDS CHANGES IF NECESSARY LIM THE SOURCE OF SUPPLY IN - LOSIG A) SEGMENT H. SENDS LOSING ITEM MANAGER (LIM) GIM NOTICE TO LIM, GIM, I________________________ l _ lAND USERS USERS DIDS PROCESSES CHANGE AND SENDS NOTICE OF CHANGE DAAS UPDATES TO NEW TO HE GAINING ITEM B) SOURCE OF SUPPLY FROM MANAGER AND TO ALL ITS SUSPENSE FILE. USERS DIDS USER GAINING ITEM MGR (GIM) GAINING ITEM DIDS SENDS MANAGER SENDS 75 DAYS PRIOR TO THE LIM'STRANSACTIONS THE EFFECTIVE SEGMENT H TO TRANSFER DATE TO DIDS TO THE GAINING CHANGE SOURCE _ ITEM MGR. OF SUPPLY IN SEGMENT . EACH USER UPDATES HIS SOURCE OF SUPPLY IN DIDS PRCESSES SEGMENT H OF DIDS. CHANGE AND SENDSUDTT SENDS UPDATE TO DAAS TAKES CHANGE AND PUTS IT IN SUSPENSE FILE 29 From January 1976 to March 1977, the Air Force gained item management responsibility for 430 items. Of these, '383 belonged to the Air Force Cryptologic Depot, a tenant organization of the San Antonio Air Logistics Center, and 47 were managed by other centers. We reviewed 10 percent (38) of the 383 item management transfers for the Air Force Cryptologic Depot and found that the source-of-supply information was properly pdated and compatible with information in the DIDS system. We also reviewed the 47 item management transfers for the other centers and found only one such transfer for which the source-of-supply information was properly updated and com- patible with the information in DIDS. According to Air Force officials contacted, the Crypto- logic Depot does not process its transactions through the in- ternal Air Force logistics system, known as the D036 system, but is tied directly to DIDS and there is no problem with the interface. However, problems concerning automatic update exist between the D036 system, which normally processes transactions for the air logistics centers, and DIDS. problems arise because the DIDS output is not entirely These com- patible with that of the D036 system and source-of-supply information cannot be automatically updated between these two systems. Defense Electronics Supply Center officials said they have had similar problems in updating source of supply. When items are transferred from one supply center to another, the Standard Automated Material Management System should automatically change the source of supply. This automatic updating has not worked, however, and the supply centers have had to manually update their records. An official at the Data Systems Automation Office, which is responsible for programming the Standard Automated Material Management System, said that a misunderstanding between DLSC and DLA caused this problem. The misunderstand- ing involved the type of TIR data that DLSC was to send to the supply centers. According to the official, the problem has been resolved and automatic updating of source of supply data will now work, except that the gaining item manager must request information from DIDS. 30 Attempts to correct source-of-supply errors DIDS includes a segment J of the TIR, which is generated as an output only and should be identical to the DAAS source- of-supply file. In January 1976, DLSC compared the DIDS segment J record with the DAAS file and found that more than 2 million of the almost 6 million items were different. These differences were never resolved. (DOD officials told us, during our informal discussions regarding their comments, that this large difference was due to a logic error, which has been corrected.) Six months later, DLSC compared item manager data in kigment B and the source of supply in segment H of the DIDS f.les. Differences were sent to the services, the supply centers, and the General Services Administration to correct. The following table summarizes the number of differences found for each user. Number of User differences Army 101,293 Air Force 154,196 Navy 163,999 Marine Corps 80,104 DLA 34,917 General Services Administration 2,563 Total 537,072 The three most prevalent conditions were: --The service was listed in segment B as a manager or user of an item, but there was no service segment H record on file. -- The agency or service was listed as an active manager or user in segment B, but the applicable segment H data was inactive. --The service or agency was not listed as a manager or user in segment B, but it had an active segment H record on file. 31 DLSC is planning further reconciliations differences between segment B and segment H andto resolve within seg- ment H. These reconciliations will cover all DIDS and are planned to be finished before DLSC records in major system programming change in April 1978. makes a will require segment H data to be submitted alongThis change ment B data for new items entering with seg- the system as well as for changes in item management. DIDS users that hope that the new procedures will we contacted correct many source-of- supply errors, but they are concerned that such might create problems and result in more a major change processing backlogs. Lack of adequate interface impairs efficient use of freight classification information DOD Directive 5160.53, dated March 24, 1967, a single manager service assignment within DOD established to eliminate duplication and overlapping of effort, with respect military freight traffic, between and among military to DOD ments, defense agencies, and other DOD components. depart- The Military Traffic Management Command, under was designated single manager with the responsibilitythe Army, velop and maintain a Freight Classification Guide to de- System. This system provides freight classification data covered by National Stock Numbers. The proper to all items freight clas- sification or tariff description is essential for determining applicable freight rates, obtaining proper handling and processing freight claims for loss or damage. in transit, seminates this information into the military DLSC dis- supply systems through DIDS. Items are segregated into two freight classification categories--confirmed and nonconfirmed. When an item re- ceives a freight classification code from the agement Command, it is categorized as confirmed.Traffic Man- classification codes assigned by services and Freight fore Command confirmation are categorized as agencies be- nonconfirmed. When items have to be shipped, the service or agency interrogates the DIDS data bank to determine whether a con- firmed freight classification code has been assigned to the item. If no confirmed freight classification has been as- signed, the service or agency is supposed to confirmed freight classification code and shipassign a non- The nonconfirmed code is entered into the servicethe item. and agency logistic system, such as the Mechanization of Warehousing 32 and Storage Procedures System, and it is supposed to be si- multaneously submitted to DIDS. DIDS automatically forwards the nonconfirmed freight classification information to the Traffic Management Command for confirmation. Since the implementation of DIDS, not all items have r. ceived confirmed freight classification that logistical systems such codes. We found ing and Storage Procedures as the Mechanization of Wareh'us- System do not all communicate rectly with DIDS (see p. 9, di- submit nonconfirmed freight note 3), the Air Force does not data bank, and services and classification codes to the DIDS agencies are not complying established directives regarding with cedures. freight classification pro- Therefore, many items in the managed by DLA, the Air Force, DIDS data bank that are firmed freight classifications and others contain noncon- not forwarded to the Taffic simply because the items were Management Command for confirma- tion. As of December 1976, the DIDS data bank contained 5,971,266 NSN items. Only 3,071,131 classification codes. The other had confirmed freight freight classification codes items had either nonconfirmed or no codes at all. 33 CHAPTER 3 DIDS ECONOMIC ANALYSIS IS OF QUESTIONABLE VALUE In June 1972, the Defense Logistics Agency issued a formal economic analysis to justify development and implemen- tation of the Defense Integrated Data System at the Defense Logistics Services Center, at military services, and at defense and other Federal agencies. There were significant shortcomings involved with the development and use of this document. ANALYSIS COMPLETED AFTER CONTRACT AWARD DLA made various studies concerning the economic jus- tification of DIDS. Initial efforts began in July 1966, and updates were made in 1967 and 1968. However, until 1968 these studies did not include data from the participating services and agencies. Additional cost and benefit esti- mates were made from December 1969 through November 1970, but not until June 1972, 3 months after the Burroughs con- tract was awarded, were the last efforts to finalize savings and benefits made and the formal document issued. Policy and procedural guidance for reparing and using an economic analysis supporting DOD investments are contained in DOD Instruction 7041.3, entitled "Economic Analysis of Proposed Department of Defense Investment." At the time of the DIDS investment, the instruction, dated February 26, 1969, 1/ was in effect and stipulated that: 1. Economic analysis will be used in planning studies involving relative comparisons and tradeoffs among investment alternatives to achieve stated objectives; effect cost reductions; or add to, delete, or adjust the scope of approved programs. 2. An analysis of benefits and costs or cost effective- ness will normally provide the primary basis for recommending and selecting among investment options. Decisions should be made considering the cost-benefit I/This instruction has been superseded by DOD Instruc- tion 7041.3, dated October 18, 1972. The content of this instruction is generally the same as the earlier one. 34 implications of investment options. The procedures described herein will be used to provide information for recommending and making investment decisions. 3. Proposed DOD investments will be evaluated and the relative merits of alternative proposals compared in order to recommend investments likely to be the most productive and beneficial. It appears that DLA did not fully comply with the intent of this instruction, since major system acquisition commit- ments were made before the formal analysis was completed (that is, the Burroughs contract was awarded March 13, 1972). In addition, there was no compariscn of alternatives, other than the then-current system and DIDS, or any indication that other alternatives were explored. rhe analysis states that DIDS is the only alternative to the present system for achieving the objectives and concepts directed by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Logistics). In our opinion, if the analysis were to be fully effec- tive as a management tool to achieve the above-mentioned policy objectives, a more adequate discussion of system alternatives was necessary. For example, design alterna- tives that could be examined include the existing system, various modifications to the existing system, augmentations to the existing system, and new system configurations. Without the cost and benefit relationship of available alter- natives, top managiment does not have enough information to select the most cost-effective and beneficial system con- figuration and justify funding for the proposed system. In addition, we believe that DLA should have completed the analysis early in the system design stage, before re- leasing the request for proposals. Had this been done, a more thorough assessment of alternatives, costs, and ex- pected benefits might have evolved, providing a sounder basis for determining the original configuration. 35 SYSTEM COST-BENEFIT ESTIMATES In its economic analysis DLA estimated that DIDS would have a present value 1/ development and implementation cost of $39.19 million 2/ and net benefits of $43.70 million over an 8-year economic life. Also, annual operating costs were estimated to be about $14 million. We have calculated that DOD actual costs for development and implementation of DIDS amounted to $74.3 million and that annual operating costs would be about $14 million to $19 million. l/Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94 defines present value costs and benefits as each year's expected cost or benefit multiplied by its discount factor and then summed over all years of the planning period. The dis- count factor is the factor for any specific discount rate which translates expected cost or benefit into its present value. It is equal to l/(l+r)t, where (r) is the discount rate and (t) is the number of years s ce the date of ini- tiation, renewal, or expansion of a pugram or project. 2/Does not include sunk cost of $14.9 million incurred before January 1, 1972. 36 Development and Implementation Costs (thousands) Capital cost: Site eparation a/$ 2,683.1 ADP equipment purchase b/1,849.2 Other capital c/3,923.6 8,.J5.9 Conversion costs: ADP salaries 22,406.5 Other salaries 23,314.1 Administrative overhead and supplies d/8,570.7 ADP equipment rental e/8,886.7 Contractual I/ 454.5 AUTODIN upgrade 2244.5 65,877.0 Total DOD cost %/$ 74 , 3 2 2 . 9 a/l. Uninterruptable power supply building modification, $283.1. 2. New building modifications at DLSC, $2,400. b/l. Purchase of uninterruptable power supply equipment, $31.2. 2. Purchase of telecommunications equipment, $18. 3. Purchase of B6700-109 (second system), $1,800. c/Purchase of microfiche equipment. d/Includes administrative overhead at 15 percent, supplies (personnel', supplies (ADP equipment), and temporary duty costs. e/l. DLA centers, $190.7. 2. DLSC, $8,275.5. This is the implementation portion of the con%:ract with Burroughs. 3. Military services, $420.5. f/ADP support provided by Burroughs and printing costs for DIDS procedures manual. ,/Includes sunk costs of $14,904.5. These costs were in- curred before Jan. 1, 1972. 37 When DDS was declared operational in March 1975, the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower. Reserve Affairs and Logistics) requested DLA to review the system and re- validate the economic analysis. In Octcber 1976 DLA for- warded its findings to the Assistant Secretary. The report said that the total amount of work to be processed by the system was grossly underestimated even though externally generated transactions were less than anticipated. Estimates were especially low in the area of characteristic data proc- essing (that is, the maintenance f characteristic data through the Federal Item Identification Guide Program and the publication and distribution of characteristic data Identification Lists and Federal Item Logistics Data Records). The report said that, as a result of the low estimates, equip- ment eventually selected on the basis of the request for pro- posals (a dual processor Burroughs 6700 system) was in- adequate. Because of this, the modifications and augmenta- tions described on page 18 were made to the initial equipment configuration before January 1976. Annual operating costs DLA provided cost information for DSC for the 24-month peziod April 1975 to March 1977. These were actual costs except for the quarter ended Marck 1977. The data was arranged according to its relationship to DIDS as follows: Total Nonlabor cost Personnel (note a) Reimbursed - - (mi llions) Direct DIPS $27.2 $19.0 $11.8 $-3.6 Indirect DIDS 1.5 1.5 0 0 Administrative 5.3 5.0 1.0 -0.7 Pure cataloging 1.7 1.6 0.1 0 Miscellaneous 2.5 2.6 0.3 -0.4 Total $38.2 $29.7 $13.2 $-4.7 a/Composed primarily of equipment rental and maintenance purchased services and supplies. We have averaged the above costs to arrive at an approximate annual operating cost of $19 million for the system. DLA of- ficials expressed the view that administrative support, pure cataloging, and miscellaneous are not actually attributable to DIDS, since these activities would be carried on whether or not DIDS existed. However, we believe that, since DIDS is the heart of DLSC operations, all costs discussed above shoul be considered DIDS operating costs. 38 Benefits The above-mentioned DLA report to the Assistant of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Secretary out that actual personnel resource savings Logistics) pointed through fiscal year 1976 and revised estimates through dicate a 66-percent decrease. This meansfiscal year 1982 in- estimated staff-year savings of about 2,212that the originally by 1,458 staff-years. Also, the report would decrease about $14 million attributed to recovery said that savings of were virtually nonexistent. Cost avoidanceof cost avoidance tential savings expected to accrue to the savings are po- system through the avoidance of future DOD logistics costs, In conclusion, the report tated "Based on this reevaluation of previous expected savings resulting from DIDS, it can be stated that there are no quantifiable dollar savings resulting from IDS. Intangible savings will result in an overall improvement of * * * total logistics services provided by DLSC the will provide a modernized ADP base for and further enhancements." We agree that an overall improvement of total logistics services can be epected, and although DLA operational review indicates that nothe above-mentioned quantifiable savings are resulting from DIDS, we believe that future quantifiable benefits can and should be expected. However, DLA used to develop the une 1972 economic the method include the flexibility to track changes analysis did not ment and, subsequently, could not functionin system develop- tool to predict future adjusted benefits. a a management page 38, the DLA economic analysis As mentioned on was developed from faulty estimates of the total workload. Later milestone reports prepared to update the analysis concentrated staff-years and costs to be incurred but on additional adjust anticipated benefits. did not attempt to We believe that the economic analysis a tool to continually monitor a system's should be used as development plementation. Therefore, the entire document should and im- dated regarding all elements of costs be up- and benefits. Had DLA done this, the June 1972 economic analysis have been adjusted to permit management could probably to make reasonable predictions of adjusted costs and benefits. 39 CHAPTER 4 IS A LARGECOMPLEX RATED SYSTEM SUCH AS DIDS FEASIBLE? The data flow model discussed in chapter 2 demonstrates the complex interrelationships involved in developing a large, integrated data system. Our review of the Defense Integrated Data System indicates that implementing concept is feasible and that large portions of each the total of the functional segments are operational. However, development of this system has not provided the efficient, effective operation expected by the Defense Logistics Agency in the areas discussed in previous chapters. SUCCESSFUL SYSTEM INTEGRATION The design and development efforts required for com- plex, integrated systems are costly, constrained by time, and affected by changing technology and management. More- over, they greatly affect functional users and the efficiency and effectiveness of their operations. Each effort requires (1) numerous systems analysts, (2) programmers, who are gen- erally in short supply, and (3) financial and managerial resources, which are also limited. The success of such effccts depends greatly on a dis- ciplined approach and the proper assessment and management of needed data processing resources. These resources should be used to facilitate the furnishing of logistical support to military units regardless of whether those units are operating under peacetime or emergency conditions. Our experience in auditing large system developments, such as DIDS, indicates that development efforts lacking strong and authoritative management control usually result in prolonged system development cycles, sizeable cost over- runs, and user dissatisfaction with the system products be- cause they are not timely or reliable. DIDS is experiencing all three of these problems. In our opinion, the stringent management control required for this complicated system integration was not provided. believe this is the cause of the problems DLA is having We in achieving operational goals. This lack of strong project management control permitted an inadequately sized system to be developed predicated on understated workload projections. It also permitted the system to become operational before all 40 major functions were completely implemented and tested and errors were corrected. Consequently, the modification augmentations made so far to compensate for sizing and mature operation have not provided the processing and pre- capability originally thought to be required. We think, logically, that these conditions strongly reinforce system participant motivations to maintain cate files and issue duplicative supply publications. dupli- In our discussions with DOD officials about the content of this report, they maintained that past and ment control for DIDS have been adequate. They present manage- cited such practices as management reviewL, joint service/agency con- ferences, and designation of focal points for cataloging functions as indications of a competent management However, although the organizational structure structure. for manage- ment control exists, the controls were not functioning effectively. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES The augmentations to DIDS (see p. 18) have not the processing capacity required by the system provided to rent demands, and there is no reasonable assurance meet cur- another augmentation will provide a long-term that solution to existing processing problems. On the contrary, experience suggests that even several additional our audit augmenta- tions may not result in a long-term solution. Further augmentation is an alternative, but it is not the only one. Another approach might be to reevaluate needs and system requirements rather than to user continue assuming the validity of the perceived role for DIDS--initially con- ceived more than 10 years ago. In this regard, a reduced system scope could prove more beneficial, particularly view of the concerns expressed by many of the in users and set forth elsewhere in this report. By reduction of DIDS of scope, we mean developing efficient and effective of functions most critical to satisfying customer operation For example, new features, such as parametric needs. type item descriptions, and other features not search, proto- yet imple- mented, could be phased in later, after their could be assured. operability Moreover, resources should be applied on a priority basis to correcting the processing deficiencies by the consultant. identified (See p. 20.) This approach would reduce the risk of uncertainties and possible system failure in the 41 more critical DIDS operations. Reducing the scope of DIDS can be helpful, but this in itself is not sufficient to as- sure success without providing long-term project management. Another alternative would be to reevaluate DIDS in light of the mission budgeting concept. This concept is fully described in our report to the Congress, "Mission Budgeting: Discussion and Illustration of the Concept in Research and Development Programs (PSAD-77-124, July 27, 1977). Although this report used research and development programs to illustrate the concept, it is equally applicable to system development activities, such as DIDS. Applying this concept to DIDS would enable DLA to more clearly identify mission-essential applications and to focus its allocation of resources on development, implementation, and use of those applications. It would seem to follow that, when system reliability and user confidence in DIDS are firmly established, an en- vironment would exist in which the system's objectives--such as the elimination of duplicative files and publications-- could be more readily achieved. 42 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSIONS The Defense Integrated Data System demonstrates the need for strong central management control over the development of large integrated data systems. Management must recognize that the various phases of system development (that is, de- termination of need, development of requirements, economic justification, planning of system specifications, detailed system design, programming, and testing of equipment and soft- ware) are interrelated and that each phase depends on the successful completion of preceding phases. In addition, management must be deliberate in identifying mission- essential applications and allocating resources to develop these applications before beginning to develop others that are feasible but less essential. We believe that the stringent management control nec- essary for the prc)er development of this system was not exercised. Consequently, the system was not properly imple- mented and tested and errors were not corrected before it was declared operational in March 1975. As a result, a lot of time and money is being spent for system modifications and augmentations to make the system perform as it was in- tended to. Our experience with this management approach has been that it usually involves prolonged system develop- ment cycles and sizeable cost overruns. We believe that there is a valid need for a central Fed- eral repository for item identification and related catalog- ing data to complement the Federal Supply System and that DIDS fulfills this need. In this regard, the system h"s already made some significant achievements in the area of logistics data management. It has provided for the consolida- tion of separate subsystems into one integrated data base; it has centralized catalog management data to provide uni- form control over data accuracy; it has provided limited capability for immediate and remote access to the data bank; it has enhanced the quality and quantity of information available to customers; and it has eliminated some duplica- tive files and publications. However, system development has been accompanied by processing problems resulting from inadequate system sizing and premature operations. The Defense Logistics Services Center, which is responsi- ble for the system's operation, has attempted to improve DIDS processing capabilities by augmenting hardware and refining software but, although some progress has been made, serious problems still exist. 43 In our opinion, there is no assurance that the completed or planned modifications and upgrades will eliminate process- ing difficulties for any sustained period, without a reevalua- tion of customer needs and system requirements. This reevalua- tion should be made with a view toward reduced scope of oper- ations for DIDS, if necessary. By reduced scope, we mean that development of new functions, not previously provided to cus- tomers by DLSC, could be deferred until adequate processing capacity is available and their reliable operation can be assured. The Defense Logistics Agency did not prepare an adequate economic analysis in the initial planning stages of DIDS. We believe that, in developing systems such as DIDS, special attention should be given to preparing this document early in the concept planning stage, that is, before the release of a request for proposals. Such a document should clearly show the difference between several alternatives, not just the existing system and the chosen alternative. For example, it might include the costs, benefits, and differences among the existing system, various modifications to the existing system, augmentations to the existing system, and new system configurations. In this way, top management could select and justify the most cost effective and beneficial system configuration and use the economic analysis as a management tool to monitor costs and benefits of system implementation. RECOMMENDATIONS In our letter report to the Subcommittees on Defense, House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, dated May 5, 1977, we recommended that the Subcommittees discuss with con- cerned officials the existing management plan for the Defense Integrated Data System and the associated cost implications. We also recommended that the Subcommittees review any proposed costs to resolve DIDS performance problems. Finally, we recommended that the scope of DIDS be limited to item identification and catalog publications. We believe that by so limiting the system, only those parts of the follow- ing data base segments or functions necessary to support mission objectives would be required at the Defense Logistics Services Center. -- Supply management. -- Utilization and marketing. -- Statistical reports. 44 -- System support record maintenance. -- Special operations. Agency reaction to our interim report indicated that clarification was necessary for the above recommendation concerning the limitation of system scope. In we have defined reduction of system scope under this regard, development alternatives on page 41 of this report. In line with the above, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense require the Assistant Secretary (Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Logistics) to: -- Establish project accountability for the operation and continued development of DIDS. A steering committee of key DLA and service and agency personnel should be responsible for future system development, implementa- tion, and review and should report directly to the Assistant Secretary. -- Have the steering committee study the current and pro- jected user requirements for DIDS to determine what mission-essential functions other than item identifica- tion and cataloging are feasible and necessary. -- Have the steering committee reevaluate DIDS' major alternatives and determine what modifications are necessary. -- Require the steering committee to use an updated eco- nomic analysis as the basis for cost control purposes which include, but are not limited to, implementation of any program change, equipment augmentations, or new design configurations. -- Require formal management agreements between DLA and the services and agencies to provide improved manage- ment control over DIDS operations, data base integrity, and the exchange of data between systems. The steering committee should have responsibility for seeing that these agreements are complied with and updated as necessary. --As the above actions are completed, have the steering committee take firm measures to eliminate all unnec- essary duplicate data bases and operations regardless of which service or agency developed, maintains, or uses them. 45 CHAPTER 6 SCOPE OF REVIEW Management responsibility for the Defense integrated Data System is vested in the Defense Logistics Agency, with opera- tional control located at the Defense Logistics Services Cen- ter, Battle Creek, Michigan. Our review was primarily con- cerned with Department of Defense components--DLA, defense supply centers, defense service centers, and military departments--that manage, direct, coordinate, and use DIDS. Also, NATO was included in this review to determine (1) the compatibility of its cataloging systems with the Federal Catalog System and (2) how this organization interfaces with DIDS. We evaluated the DIDS program's policies, objectives, plans, principles, and procedures. We also interviewed responsible DOD officials and reviewed planning documents, memorandums, internal reports, and cost data. Our work was done at the following locations. Department of Defense Department of Defense, Pentagon, Washington, D.C. Defense Logistics Agency, Alexandria, Va. Defense Logistics Services Center, Battle Creek, Mich. Defense Electronics Supply Center, Dayton, Ohio Defense Construction Supply Center, Columbus, Ohio Defense Personnel Support Center, Philadelphia, Pa. Defense Automatic Addressing Systems Office, Dayton, Ohio Air orce Air Force Logistics Command, Dayton, Ohio Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio Rickenbacker Air Force Base, Columbus, Ohio Headquarters, U.S. Air Force in Europe, Ramstein, West Germany 86th Tactical Fighter Wing, Ramstein Air Base, West Germany 50th Tactical Fighter Wing, Hahn Air Base, West Germany Headquarters, Pacific Air Force, Hawaii 18th Tactical Fighter Wing, Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, Japan 46 Ar my Catalog Data Agency, New Cumberland, Pa. Tank Automotive Materiel Readiness Command, Warren, Mich. Military Traffic Management Command, Washington, Army Material Management Center, Zweibruecken, D.C. West Germany Army Support Command and Army Supply Activity, Hawaii Navy Naval Supply Systems Command, Washington, D.C. Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C. Fleet Material Support Office, Mechanicsburg, Pa. Ships Parts Control Center, Mechanicsburg, Pa. Aviation Supply Office, Philadelphia, Pa. Naval Air Facility, Sigonella, Sicily, Italy Pacific Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Hawaii Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Hawaii Naval Supply Center, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii Marine Corps Marine Corps, Headquarters, Washington, D.C. lSt Marine Brigade, Marine Corps Base, Kaneohe Hawaii Bay, Marine Corps Base, Camp Butler, Okinawa, Japan 3d Force Service Support Group, Camp Foster, Okinawa, Japan 1st Marine Air Wing, Futenma, Okinawa, Japan Marine Corps Air Station, Futenma, Okinawa, Japan NATO NATO Supply Center, Capellon, Luxembourg 47 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I DEFENSE INTEGRATED DATA SYSTEM OVERVIEW ITEM IDENTIFICATION (I.1.) % ..D I 1D =-' DATA .... I " " " BAINKE\ a" ~ ~"II SIV/ 'O I SUPPLY MANAGEMENT INFORAION NOTE: 111OW POINTING TO DATA ANK INDICATE DATA IS AFFECTED. AROWS POINTING AWAY FlOI DATA ANK INDICATE DAT IS BEING PUSHED On PULLED WITH NO AFFECTON DATA SANK CONTENT. 48 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II ADDENDUM TO GAO OVERVIEW-- DEFENSE INTEGRATED DATA SYSTEM This addendum corrects the printing on page 9 and shows the complete addresseserror in the chart codes listed on the chart. The following for activity printing varia- tions were noted: Marine Corps: -- Activity code PA includes a solid blue line ing Lin input code for standardization data indicat- (H); how- ever, it should be a solid black line for files patability input (Q). com- Defense Logistics Agency: -- Activity -ode TX should include a dashed orange ine for Organizational Entity Data (R). --Activity code UX should not include a dotted for (T) Defense Logistics Services Center-T. red line -- Activity code UP reads Defense Supply DSAH-DLAO. Agency, However, it should read Defens- Logis- tics Agency, DLAH-DLAO. USER ACTIVITY CODE ADDRESSES Army AC Edgewood Arsenal SAREA-DE-EC Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. 21010 AJ U.S. Army Troop Support Command DRSTS-STX St. Louis. Mo. 63120 AM U.S. Army Medical Materiel Agency SGMMA-LDC Frederick, Md. 21701 Ar U.S. Army Catalog Data Agency DRXCA-C New Cumberland Army Depot New Cumberland, Pa. 17070 49 APPENDIX II APPENDIX I Armv AZ U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command DRSTA-FC Warren, Mich. 48090 BD U.S. Army Missile Command Directorate of Material Management Cataloging Division DRSMI-SC Redstone Arsenal, Ala. 35809 BF U.S. Army Armament Command DRSAR-MMC Rock Island, Ill. 61201 BL Picatinny Arsenal SARPA-AD-M-F Dover, N.J. 07801 BN Picatinny Arsenal SARPA-ND-M-P-C, Building 3002 Dover, N.J. 07801 CA U.S. Army Support Activity, Philadelphia STSAP-AC Philadelphia, Pa. 19101 CD U.S. Army General, Material and Petroleum Activity STSGP-T New Cumberland Army Depot New Cumberland, Pa. 17070 CJ Director U.S. Army Logistics Systems Support Agency ATTN: DRXLS-LF Chambersburg, Pa. 17201 CL U.S. Army Electronics Command DRSEL-MM-C Fort onmouth, N.J. 07703 CM U.S. Army Communications Security Logis- tics Agency DRSEL-CCM-NICP-LS Fort Huachuca, Ariz. 85613 50 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II say CT U.S. Army Aviation Systems Command DRSAV-QC St. Louis, Mo. 63166 CU U.S. Army Security Agency Materiel Support Command IAMIC/C Vint Hill Farms Station Warrenton, Va. 22186 D2 U.S. Army Natick Laboratories AMXNM-EPS Natick, Mass. 01760 D3 U.S. Army Electronics Command AMSEL-PP-ED Ft. Monmouth, N.J. 07703 D4 U.S. Army Mobility Equipment Research and Development Center AMSME-RZK-KX Ft. Belvoir, Va. 22060 D6 Commander Frankford Arsenal Attn: SARFA-MDM Philadelphia, Pa. 19137 EN Department of the Army U.S. Army International Logistics Center New Cumberland Army Depot New Cumberland, Pa. 17070 XZ Military Traffic Management Command MTMC-INNC Department of the Army Washington, D.C. 20315 Nay GH Navy Fleet Material Support Office Code 91123 Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055 51 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II Navy GM Navy Fleet Material Support Office Code 91123 Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055 GP Commanding Officer Navy Aviation Supply Office Attn: DAI-GP 700 Robbins Avenue Philadelphia, Pa. 19111 G5 Naval Ammunition Depot Code 03 Crane, Ind. 47522 HC Naval Electronics Systems Command Code ELEX 50423 Washington, D.C. 20360 HD Navy Ships Parts Control Center (Ships and Base Materiel) Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055 HE Naval Air Engineering Center ESS), Code X-32 Ph ladelphia, Pa. 19112 HH Navy Ships Parts Control Center Code 815 Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055 HP Naval Supply Systems Command Code SUP10 Department of the Navy Washington, D.C. 20360 HW Military Sealift Command M4SC Washington, D.C. 20390 HX Navy Ships Parts Control Center Special Propulsion Plant Material Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055 JB Navy Ships Parts Control Center Attn: Code 880 (TRIDENT) Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055 52 APPENDIX I APPENDZ I! Navy JF Nevy Ships Parts Control Center Nuclear Equipment Support Branch Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055 JG Navy Ships Parts Control Center (Ammunition Division) Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055 JS Naval Construction Battalion Center Seabee Systems Eng.neering Office Code 15432 Port Hueneme, Calif. 93043 JV Strategic Systems Project Office Vitro Laboratories (Code MSC) Silver Spring, Md. 20910 J4 Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Logistics Directorate (J-4) Mobility Operation Division Logistics Coordination Center Room 2C836, Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20301 KE Navy Aviation Supply Office Code DAP-A Philadelphia, Pa. 19111 Air Force SA Air Force Logistics Command ACAI gright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433 SC San Antonio Air Logistics Center SWRC (Atomic Ordnance) Kelly AFB, Tex. 78241 SD Air Force Logistics Command MMOA Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433 53 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II Air Force SE San Antonio Air Logistics Center MMSC Kelly AFB, Tex. 78241 SJ AFCD/LGGLSC San Antonio, Tex. 78243 SP San Antonio Air Logistics Center SFRL Kelly AFB, Tex. 78241 ST Air Force Services Office (AFLC) DPK Philadelphia, Pa. 19101 SU Ogden Air Logistics Center MMSC Hill AFS, Utah 84406 SX Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center MMSC Tinker AFB, Okla. 73145 TA Sacramento Air Logistics Center MMSC McClellan AFB, Calif. 95652 TG Warner-Robins Air Logistics Center MMSC Robins AFB, Ga. 31098 TT Air Force Medical Materiel Field Office AF/MMFO Frederick, Md. 21701 TU AFLC Cataloging and Standardization Office Battle Creek, Mich. 49016 TW AFLC Cataloging and Standardization Office Battle Creek, Mich. 49016 54 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II Marine Corps PA Marine Corps Supply Activity Code 840 Philadelphia, Pa. 9146 PB Commanding General Marine Corps Supply Center Albany, Ga. 31704 PC Comnmanding General Marine Corps Supply Center Barstow, Calif. 92311 PD Commanding General Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Calif. 92055 PE Commanding General Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, N.C. 28542 PM Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps Code LMO-1 Washington, D.C. 20380 Defense Logistics AX Defense Construction Supply Center DCSC-SC Columbus, Ohio 43215 CX Defense General Supply Center DGSC-SC Richmond, Va. 23297 CY Defense Personnel Support Center DPSC-TTF Philadelphia, Pa. 19101 CZ Defense Personnel Support Center DPSC-STC Philadelphia, Pa. 19101 KX Defense Personnel Support Center DPSC-ATCC Philadelphia, Pa. 19101 55 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II Defense Logistics Agenc KY Defense Fuel Supply Center DFSC-TB Cameron Station Alexandria, Va. 22314 KZ Defense Industrial Supply Center DISC-SE Philadelphia, Pa. 19111 PX Defense Industrial Plant Equipment DIPEC-TE Center Memphis, Tenn. 38114 TX Defense Electronics Supply Center DESC-SMS Dayton, Ohio 45444 UP Defense Logistics Agency ATTN: DLAH-DLAO Cameron Station Alexandria, Va. 22314 UU Defense Depot Ogden DDOU-OM Ogden, Utah 84401 UX Defense Depot Mechanicsburg DDMP-EC, Building 09 Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055 Ue PURA Project Office Defense Automatic Addressing System Gentile Air Force Station Dayton, Ohio 45444 U3 Defense Automatic Addressing System Gentile Air Force Station Office Dayton, Ohio 45444 U5 Defense Industrial Supply Center DISC-SEA Philadelphia, Pa. 19111 56 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II Defense Logistics Agency U6 DOD Automatic Addressing Facility Western Division c/o Defense Depot Tracy Tracy, Calif. 95376 U7 Defense Property Disposal Service Federal Center Battle Creek, Mich. 49016 XC Defense General Supply Center DGSC-SEA (Civil Defense) Richmond, Va. 23219 XR Defense Logistics Services Center DLSC-M-MRCP Design Sup-Group Battle Creek, Mich. 49016 XY Defense Logistics Services Center Directorate of Item Identification Attn: DLSC-C/Special Projects Battle Creek, Mich. 49016 96 Defense Logistics Services Center Directorate of Item Identification Battle Creek, Mich. 49016 97 Defense Logistics Services Center Office of Systems Battle Creek, Mich. 49016 98 Defense Logistics Services Center Directorate of Item Identification Battle Creek, Mich. 49016 99 Defense Logistics Services Center Directorate of Item Identification Battle Creek, Mich. 49016 9A Defense Logistics Services Cnter CN Battle Creek, Mich. 4016 9B Defense Logistics Services Cnter DDDR Battle Creek, Mich. 49016 9C Defense Logistics Services Center CM Battle Creek, Mich. 49016 57 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II Defense Logistics 9E Defense Logistics Services Center CGE Battle Creek, Mich. 49016 9F Defense Logistics Services Center CGC Battle Creek, Mich. 49016 9G Defense Logistics Services Center CPP Battle Creek, Mich. 49016 9K Defense Logistics Services Center CM Battle Creek, Mich. 49016 9L Defense Logistics Services Center CM Battle Creek, Mich. 49016 9M Defense Logistics Services Center Directorate of Logistics Data Management DLSC-T Battle Creek, Mich. 49016 9N Defense Logistics Services Center CM Battle Creek, Mich. 49016 90 Defense Logistics Services Center CPQ Battle Creek, Mich. 49016 9S Defense Logistics Services Center CM Battle Creek, Mich. 49016 9T Defense Logistics Services Center Directorate of Logistics Data Management Battle Creek, Mich. 49016 )w Defense Logistics Services Center CM Battle Creek, Mich. 49016 58 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II Defen;A- Logistics A enc 9X Defense Logistics Srices Center CM Battle Creek, Mich. 49016 9Y Defense Logistics Services Center DD Battle Creek, Mich. 49016 92 Defense Logistics Services Center International Codification Division Battle Creek, Mich. 49016 59 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTERING ACTIVITIES DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT Tenure of office From To DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Harold Brown Jan. Donald h. Rumsfeld 1977 Present Nov. 1975 Jan. 1977 James R. Schlesinger July William P. Clements, Jr. 1973 Nov. 1975 (acting) May 1973 Eliot L. Richardson July 1973 Jan. 1973 May 1973 Melvin R. Laird Jan. Clark M. Clifford 1969 Jan. 1973 Mar. 1968 Jan. 1969 Robert S. McNamara Jan. 1961 Feb. 1968 ASSISTANT SECREPARy OF DEFENSE (MANPOWER, RESERVE AFFAIRS AND LOGISTICS) (note a): John P. White May Dale R. Babione (acting) 1977 Present Jan. Jan. 1977 1977 May 1977 May .977 Frank A. Shrontz Feb. Dr. John J. Bennett (acting) 1976 Jan. 1977 Apr. 1975 Jan. 1976 Arthur I. Mendolias June Hugh McCullough (acting) 1973 Mar. 1975 Feb. 1973 June 1973 Barry J. Shillito Feb. 1969 Thomas D. Morris Feb. 1973 Sept. 1967 Feb. 1969 Paul R. Ignatius Dec. 1964 Aug. 1967 DIRECTOR, DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (note b): Lt. Gen. W. W. Vaughan Dec. 1975 Present Lt. Gen. Wallace H. Robinson, Jr. Aug. 1971 Lt. Gen. Earl C. Hedlund Dec. 1975 July 1967 July 1971 Adm. oseph M. Lyle July 1964 June 1967 a/This office represents the consolidation Secretary (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) of and the Assistant Secretary (Installations and Logistics) the Assistant after April 20, 1977. b/Before January 1, 1977, the title was Defense Supply Agency. (941114-II) 60
The Defense Integrated Data System: Is It Efficient and Effective?
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1977-12-20.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)