United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives November 1999 DEFENSE LOGISTICS Army Should Assess Cost and Benefits of the Workload Performance System Expansion GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Contents Letter 3 Appendixes Appendix I: Army Workload Performance System Application for Depot Maintenance 20 Appendix II: AWPS Application for Ammunition Logistics 21 Appendix III: AWPS Application for Ammunition Manufacturing 22 Appendix IV: AWPS Application for Base Operations 23 Appendix V: Future AWPS Applications 24 Appendix VI: Comments From the Department of Defense 26 Tables Table 1: Examples of Tasks Associated With AWPS Depot Maintenance Application as of August 1999 7 Table 2: AWPS Schedule 11 Table 3: AWPS Project Office Budget Summary for Fiscal Years 1996-2002 14 Abbreviations AWPS Army Workload Performance System DOD Department of Defense Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics United States General Accounting Office National Security and Washington, D.C. 20548 International Affairs Division B-283492 Leter November 12, 1999 The Honorable Floyd Spence Chairman The Honorable Ike Skelton Ranking Minority Member Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives Accurate and consistent estimates of future workloads are essential to determine personnel requirements. The Congress included a requirement in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (P.L. 105-85) that the Secretary of the Army certify that the Army’s new system for estimating personnel requirementsthe Army Workload Performance Systemwas fully operational before any reduction-in-force actions could be made at any of the Army’s five maintenance depots.1 To this end in 1998, the House Committee on National Security2 directed the Army to conduct a study and provide the Committee with its master plan for implementing the Army’s Workload Performance System, including future applications and total funding for implementation.3 The Committee also required that we provide it a report on the Army’s study. Specifically, as agreed with your offices, we assessed (1) the Army’s progress in developing and implementing the workload performance system and (2) the extent to which the Army’s April 1999 report addresses an overall master plan for implementing the system, including the system’s future applications and funding requirements. Results in Brief The Army has implemented and certified a basic automated workload and performance system to evaluate personnel requirements in its five maintenance depots. While the system appears to be adequate for this purpose, additional work is under way or planned to achieve improved 1 Previously approved reductions resulting from recommendations approved under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act were not affected by P.L. 105-85. 2 Now known as the House Committee on Armed Services. 3 Report 105-532 of the House Committee on National Security regarding the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics B-283492 performance. These additional improvements include applications to identify the number of personnel excesses or shortages by type of skill, the ability to assign personnel based on skill qualifications to the most appropriate jobs, and the impact of material shortages on planned work. Additionally, development work is under way or planned to apply the workload performance system to several other functional areas, even though some questions exist about how cost-effective the system may be in some instances. The Army’s report on its congressionally required master plan provided limited and incomplete information on future development plans and did not provide requested funding information. Thus far, the Army has used working capital funds4 for system development, even though the Committee’s report language directed that Army working capital funds not be used for this purpose. This report makes recommendations to develop a more comprehensive master plan and strengthen the management control and oversight of system development efforts. Background Several audit reports in recent years have highlighted the Army’s inability to support its personnel requirements using analytically based workload forecasts. In the Department of Defense’s (DOD) fiscal years 1997 and 1998 Annual Statements of Assurance, DOD noted difficulties in relating personnel requirements to workload and budget as a material weakness in the Army’s manpower requirements determination system. In 1998 we reported on the Army’s progress in taking corrective action.5 To resolve deficiencies in its civilian manpower requirements determination process, the Army initiated development of an automated system intended to capture workload data and link it to manpower requirements. In March 1996 the Army provided initial funding to its support contractor and the Navy to develop and implement a modified 4 Under this industrial funding arrangement, the Army sells goods and services to the military services based on predetermined rates designed to recoup operating costs. Working capital fund customers pay for the goods and services, primarily with operations and maintenance funds appropriated by the Congress. 5 Force Structure: Army’s Efforts to Improve Efficiency of Institutional Forces Have Produced Few Results (GAO/NSIAD-98-65, Feb. 26, 1998). Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics B-283492 version of a Navy-developed automated workload performance system for use at Army maintenance depots. In June 1996, a preliminary version of what is now part of the Army Workload and Performance System (AWPS) was implemented on a test basis at Corpus Christi Army Depot, one of the Army’s five maintenance depots. The AWPS depot maintenance application extracts data from several computerized Army support systems. The data are obtained electronically, and no new or unique data are collected specifically for the workload system. It provides project status and labor-hour information data collected from the depots, planned workload data from the Army Materiel Command, and workload data obtained from the Army’s major customers. A combination of Navy civilian and contractor employees is developing AWPS, with program oversight provided by Headquarters, Department of the Army, and day-to-day management oversight by the system project office under the Industrial Operations Command at Rock Island, Illinois.6 A working group, comprised of representatives from a variety of Army Materiel Command activities, provides input to the project office regarding system requirements and outputs. It develops system acceptance criteria, consulting as needed with the Army Audit Agency, which acts in an advisory capacity. Army Met Original The Army has completed initial implementation of AWPS for depot maintenance, and it recently certified the basic system as operational at Goals for AWPS, but five maintenance depot locations. At the same time, the magnitude of the Additional AWPS project has grown to a point where additional management oversight and coordination may be warranted. Numerous additional tasks have been Development identified and initiated to enhance the depot maintenance application, and Continues AWPS is being expanded to four other functional areas—ammunition logistics, ammunition manufacturing, base operations support, and arsenals. Further, headquarters Army officials have identified still more functional areas for potential long-term development. 6 The Industrial Operations Command reports to the Army Materiel Command. Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics B-283492 Basic AWPS Application for On June 28, 1999, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Depot Maintenance Reserve Affairs certified that work on the basic workload performance system had been completed and was operational at its five maintenance Implemented and Certified depots.7 The initial operating capability focused on a basic workload and planning system to facilitate management of depot workloads and the ability to identify workload/workforce imbalances at the five depots. Overall, the depot maintenance application of AWPS takes workload and workforce information and presents it in a manner that allows shop supervisors to better manage the work flowing through their shops and permits depot managers to better manage the size and composition of their workforce. Work in developing this application included (1) gathering project data, labor expenditures, performance data, and scheduling information to support workload forecasting and personnel staffing studies; (2) capturing various personnel data, such as leave and attrition, to support analysis of alternative employment strategies; and (3) providing daily production support by comparing actual resource expenditures against production plans. Further Enhancements of Although the basic depot maintenance application has been certified as Depot Maintenance operational, the Army continues to develop this application to enhance its capabilities. The AWPS application for depot maintenance is evolving from Application Under a basic system that captures workload data and links it to manpower Development requirements to a more robust system that is expected to provide more refined information about individual skill levels. The Army’s April 1999 report to the Committee identified four of these enhancements, but it excluded several tasks that were previously planned by the system project office. For example, the AWPS maintenance application is being enhanced to identify the number of needed employees by skill type and to facilitate the assignment of the most appropriate personnel to each job to maximize depot productivity over a 3-year period. Table 1 outlines the completed and certified tasks noted above as well as examples of additional tasks now under development or planned for the future to enhance the depot maintenance application. 7 Section 364 of the 1998 Defense Authorization Act prohibited the Army from initiating a reduction in force at the five Army maintenance depots until after the Secretary of the Army certified to the Committee that the workload and performance system is fully operational. Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics B-283492 Table 1: Examples of Tasks Associated With AWPS Depot Maintenance Application as of August 1999 Task Objectives Completed and certified Develop and implement basic Facilitate management of depot workload by identifying workload and personnel data and workload and planning system at five generating job planning information. depots Develop workload and resources Given workload and personnel resources in each depot work area, generate a report identifying reporting process at five depots net workforce imbalances. Completed Integrate system with depot budget Clarify the relationship between workload and workforce on the budget. preparation and train industrial activity personnel in its use Under development Support management of contractor Incorporate planning, scheduling, and performance of contractor personnel working in Army labor within the depots depots to provide visibility of contractor production within the depot system. Completion expected in November 1999. Implement programming language Accomplish conversion of system from FoxPro to the Oracle language. conversion Planned but work not begun Develop resource, scheduling, and Implement coding system to refine workforce analysis by focusing on specific employee skills control skill codes rather than aggregating personnel information by work area. Completion expected in March 2001. Design and implement resource, Size the workforce and assign the most appropriate personnel to maximize depot productivity and scheduling, and control system at size the workforce using previously developed coding system. Completion expected in January five depots 2003. Develop and implement material Support comparisons of material requirements and supply availability data to determine whether systema material will be available to perform planned maintenance and to facilitate make or buy decisions for parts and components. Completion expected in September 2002, but additional requirements being considered. Implement capability to compare Support analysis of impact of potential resource or workload changes on depot production and personnel and cost impact resulting costs. from unforeseen changes a Project office officials stated that the use of commercial off-the-shelf software might be a more cost- effective alternative for this and other similar material tasks. Source: Army Workload Performance System Project Office. The tasks under development were expected to be completed between now and 2000; others not yet started are expected to be completed by 2005. However, as discussed more fully in a later section, the program has encountered a variety of schedule slippages due to funding problems and programmatic changes. Appendix I provides additional summary information regarding the individual tasks for the depot maintenance application, including projected completion dates as of August 1999. Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics B-283492 Expansion of Workload While the Navy system from which AWPS evolved was used only for depot Performance System to maintenance, the Army’s system will include applications for other functional areas. System modifications are under way or planned to Other Applications support eventual system implementation in the areas of ammunition logistics,8 ammunition manufacturing, and base operations support. The basic system for the ammunition, base operations support, and other follow-on applications is expected to meet the same objectives as are currently met for the depot maintenance application: scheduling workloads and identifying workforce imbalances based on an analysis of planned workload and available personnel. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD officials stated that the Army is proceeding with limited prototype development and testing of these applications to determine the operational costs and benefits of each application and system enhancement. Officials further stated that the Army would not implement applications that do not adequately demonstrate cost-effectiveness. Project office officials are not aware of any plans for certifying the operational effectiveness of these other system applications for the Congress.9 Current plans provide that the operational effectiveness of each of the new applications and all major enhancements will be reviewed and validated by the Army Audit Agency using acceptance criteria developed by a configuration control board comprised of representatives from a variety of Army Materiel Command activities. The Industrial Operations Command will send written confirmation to the Army Materiel Command to report completion of this validation. Ammunition Logistics The basic system for implementing the AWPS ammunition logistics application has been installed and has undergone system testing at selected locations. The Army Audit Agency evaluated this work and found it acceptable. Subsequently, the Industrial Operations Command informed the Army Materiel Command that the basic ammunition system had been successfully installed. Development efforts are under way or planned to enhance this application. Appendix II identifies 10 tasks and other summary information associated with this application. The follow-on tasks have projected completion dates in 2005. 8 Ammunition logistics includes such functions as storage, issuance, demilitarization, maintenance, stock rotation, and minor modifications to previously manufactured items. 9 The 1998 Defense Authorization Act certification requirement applies only to AWPS implementation at the five Army maintenance depots. Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics B-283492 Differing opinions exist regarding the usefulness of AWPS in ammunition logistics facilities. On one hand, Army officials at using organizations questioned the usefulness of automated systems and procedures for identifying temporary staff shortages and excesses given the day-to-day fluctuations in workload forecasts and the relatively short production projects generally experienced. On the other hand, Army headquarters officials stated that while workload forecasts change frequently, implementation of the planned system would enable facility managers to more effectively utilize employees. While we did not examine the ammunition logistics module sufficiently to determine the cost- effectiveness of this application, it is clear that these disparate positions need to be resolved. As discussed later, greater involvement of organizations likely to be affected by AWPS implementation may be needed in designing future applications to better ensure continued program viability and evaluate cost-effectiveness. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD officials stated that the Army established a configuration control board comprised of system users and developers to identify and solve various technical and programmatic issues. Further, DOD officials stated that user acceptance of the system has improved and that users have already recognized and implemented improved business practices. Ammunition Manufacturing An AWPS ammunition manufacturing application is in a preliminary planning phase and the Army has not yet initiated development work. As currently planned, this application will identify workload and personnel requirements and provide plant managers with information on individual project status. Appendix III lists three tasks and summary information associated with the ammunition manufacturing application. Although work has not yet begun on these tasks, the Army currently projects completion between December 2001 and December 2005. According to Army officials at using organizations, questions exist about the cost-effectiveness of an AWPS ammunition manufacturing application given the availability of commercial off-the-shelf software and declining workload forecasts. However, Army headquarters officials stated that the use of AWPS will enable them to implement a rational personnel downsizing plan and to clearly articulate the impact of declining workloads. Base Operations Support AWPS development efforts for the base operations support application are under way and have progressed to the prototyping phase. A basic system prototype is being installed at the Anniston Army Depot to be used for relating projected workload for various support functions to the personnel Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics B-283492 required to support these functions. Project office plans call for installing the system at the other four maintenance depots by February 2001, using a system testing procedure similar to that used during the early development of the depot maintenance application. The completion date for this effort has slipped several times, and it is unclear when this system application will be evaluated and tested. It is also unclear how beneficial this application would be, given that the Army is considering the use of public and private competitions for many of its base operations support functions. Appendix IV summarizes some of the key tasks and other information associated with the base operations support application; individual tasks are currently projected to be completed between October 1999 and December 2005. Possible Expansion to Other The Army has identified several activities such as field-level maintenance, Functional Areas arsenals, research and development, testing and evaluation, and training as possible areas for long-term expansion of the workload performance system. Development work has not been initiated in any of these areas. Further, projected completion dates have been established only for tasks associated with the arsenal application. In general, these areas involve different Army organizations and chains of command, as well as a different mix of personnel skills than are supported by the applications currently under development. It is uncertain how project management would be handled for these applications. Although the Army’s recent mandated report on AWPS cited plans to develop these additional applications, AWPS project office officials told us that the project office was not consulted about inclusion of these applications in the Army’s report. From their perspective, these applications have not been planned, scheduled, budgeted, or funded. Further, they stated that it is unclear how beneficial the arsenal application would be, given that the Army is considering the use of public and private sector competition for operation of some arsenal activities. See appendix V for a summary of the individual applications and selected tasks. Although not a functional application, development is planned for a “Decision Support System,” which would be deployed to Headquarters, Department of the Army, to facilitate funding and resource allocations based on Army priorities. The Decision Support System would aggregate workload and performance data from a variety of Army installations to enable headquarters commands to identify areas where performance could be improved through reengineering or setting specific performance measures and goals. While the Committee directed the Army to move Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics B-283492 forward with development of this module as quickly as possible, development work has not yet begun in this area, and target dates for initiating and completing this action have not been established. 10 Program Expansion and As shown in table 2, completion dates for the remaining workload Slippage of Program performance system tasks have slipped several times in recent months and completion milestones have yet to be established for some long-term Milestones May Warrant system applications.11 Army officials stated that untimely and inadequate Improved Program funding are key contributing factors to these delays. Management and Oversight Table 2: AWPS Schedule Completion date as Completion date as Completion date as Modules reported Feb. 9, 1999 reported May 4, 1999 reported Aug. 18, 1999 Short term Depot maintenance a Jan. 3, 2000 Sept. 30, 2002 Dec. 26, 2005 Ammunition logistics Sept. 28, 2000 Dec. 31, 2004 Dec. 22, 2005 Ammunition manufacturing Nov. 30, 2000 Nov. 30, 2000 Dec. 12, 2005 Base operations June 29, 2001 June 29, 2001 Dec. 8, 2005 Long term Field-level maintenance Not shown Not shown Not shown Manufacturing arsenals June 11, 2004 Oct. 13, 2005 Dec. 29, 2005 Base operations Not shown Not shown Not shown Training, testing, and evaluation, and research and Not shown Not shown Not shown development activities Decision support systems Not shown Not shown Not shown Other tasks in project plan, but not explicitly Sept. 22, 2000 Dec. 1, 2000 Aug. 19, 2003 identified in Army report a Includes enhancements supporting resource scheduling and material support. Source: Army Workload Performance System Project Office. 10 Report 105-532 of the Committee on National Security. 11 The reference to applications as short- or long-term reflects the descriptions used in the Army’s report to the Committee. Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics B-283492 While the current management team has implemented the basic workload and performance system at Army maintenance depots, the potential scope of the AWPS system development has expanded to other functional areas, some of which are outside the command and control of the Army Materiel Command. Further, Army officials stated that current sources of funding may be inadequate for timely completion of these future applications. Therefore, an improved management oversight structure to include representatives from organizations responsible for each of the potential functional users would appear to be necessary. For example, input from these organizations would likely be important in assessing the cost- effectiveness of developing or enhancing system applications. Additionally, in our opinion, without the involvement of responsible organizations, it is unlikely that required funding will become available. Army’s Report on The Army’s report to the Committee on a long-range master plan for the workload performance system has some important limitations. While the AWPS Master Plan Did Committee directed the Army to report on its long-range master plan for Not Provide Complete implementing AWPS, including future applications and funding requirements, the Army’s report did not include some key information that Information About might normally be expected. For example, it provided no descriptive Programs, Costs, and information other than the task titles—no objectives, no expected costs or Schedules benefits, no system development and implementation schedules, and no list of priorities.12 While the Army’s report provided a partial list of tasks to be completed in developing AWPS applications for depot maintenance, ammunition logistics, ammunition manufacturing, and base operations support functions at Army industrial facilities, our work shows that the report omitted several tasks that were in a project plan prepared and maintained by the system project office. Further, we found that projected completion dates have been established for some but not all of the tasks associated with these applications. Appendix I highlights the tasks the Army report listed for the AWPS depot maintenance application. As previously noted, it also includes some depot maintenance tasks on which officials in the system project office have initiated work, but which were not listed in the Army report. According to Army officials, some of the tasks not listed in the Army’s report will likely require as many resources as some tasks that were listed. Appendixes II 12 While the Army’s report contained no discussion of objectives, we discussed applications and tasks with project officials to obtain some information on task objectives. Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics B-283492 through IV summarize various tasks associated with ammunition logistics, ammunition manufacturing, and base operations support, and they also include several planned developmental tasks that were omitted from the Army’s report to the Committee. The Army report provided limited information with regard to four potential long-term system applications—manufacturing arsenals; field-level maintenance organizations; training, research and development, test and evaluation activities; and base operations support for nondepot maintenance activities. Our work shows that the Army project has established expected completion dates for the arsenal application, but completion milestones for the other long-term applications have not yet been established. In discussing a draft of this report, Army officials explained they currently have no firm plans or schedules for implementing AWPS to applications they had described as long term. Further, while the Army’s report provided general descriptive information about the Decision Support System for use by Army headquarters, it did not identify associated tasks, cost estimates, development and testing schedules, or information about the relative importance or priority of the Decision Support System to the other planned system components. Appendix V provides a summary of available information for each of the potential long-term applications. Army Report Provided No The Army’s report to the Committee provided no funding information even System Cost Information though congressional committee direction required it. We identified estimated costs totaling $45 million for (1) the development and testing and (2) supporting studies of the following system applications: depot maintenance, ammunition logistics, ammunition manufacturing, base operations support at some Army industrial activities, and arsenals. This estimate does not include potential long-term costs for expanding the AWPS system to other functional areas and is based upon completion dates that are subject to continuing slippage. Table 3 provides the estimated AWPS system program office funding for fiscal years 1996 through 2002. Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics B-283492 Table 3: AWPS Project Office Budget Summary for Fiscal Years 1996-2002 Dollars in thousands 1999 2000 2001 2002 Estimated 1996 and 1998 budget budget budget budget total 1997 costs costs plan plan plan plan spending Short term Depot maintenance $2,746 $3,493 $612 $240 $675 $2,110 $9,876 Ammunition logistics 748 1,995 190 575 810 4,318 Ammunition manufacturing 200 759 700 810 2,469 Base operations for Army Materiel Command activities 230 1,599 1,161 750 1,145 4,885 Long term Field-level maintenance Manufacturing arsenals 1,610 700 750 3,060 Base operations for field-level maintenance activities Training, testing, research and development Decision Support System Configuration control and integrated logistics supporta 2,062 3,468 4,873 1,140 11,543 Total $2,746 $4,471 $6,467 $7,428 $8,273 $6,765 $36,149 a Funds shown in this line are mostly for system operation and maintenance costs after a module is implemented. Note: Some totals may appear not to add due to rounding. Source: Army Workload Performance System Project Office. In addition to the projected $36.1 million estimated by the Army Workload Performance System Project Office, Army headquarters spent an additional $3.6 million in fiscal years 1995 through 1998 for various contractor- provided studies. Additionally, costs for the system project office, which are estimated at over $5 million for fiscal years 1996 through 2002, are not included in these estimates. Moreover, the $36.1 million also does not include any costs for the planned Decision Support System or for potential system development and implementation for the other long-term workload performance system applications such as field-level maintenance, research and development, testing and evaluation, or training, which were listed as potential system applications in the Army report. Further, costs are expected to grow because system milestones have slipped, and they are likely to slip even further in the future. Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics B-283492 Working Capital Fund Is Despite committee direction that working capital funds not be used for the Primary Funding Source workload performance system, they have been used as the primary funding source. According to Army officials there is no approved budget for the system’s development and implementation, and as a result an irregular funding stream has evolved to include working capital funds as the primary source and, to a lesser extent, the reprogramming of other available end-of- year funding. These officials believe that this funding approach has hampered efficient management and operations. In addition, officials from the Army Materiel Command stated that reliance on working capital funding increases the hourly cost of various industrially funded operations, which some believe are already unaffordable. According to these officials, the reimbursement of working capital funds for the costs of AWPS system development and implementation is being spread over 10 or more years, adding an estimated 21 cents to each direct depot maintenance work hour and about 34 cents to each direct ordnance work hour. Conclusions The Army’s report to the Committee on a master plan for the workload performance system has some important limitations in providing complete information on the scope of work, completion milestones, and cost information. Our assessment of the Army’s report also indicates that improved program planning and management are essential if the Army is to cost-effectively complete the system implementation in a timely manner— including planned program expansion. Further, some questions exist concerning the cost benefit of developing and implementing additional applications outside the depot maintenance function. Adoption of an improved master plan and management structure could also be important to the Army’s ability to achieve the objectives of the Army Workload Performance System. Such steps could be important in validating system applications, documenting the cost and benefits of proposed new system applications and enhancements, establishing system priorities, improving system management, and obtaining required funding. Recommendations To improve program management and provide a baseline for future program evaluation, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense require the Secretary of the Army to assess the cost-effectiveness of using the Army Workload Performance System for nondepot maintenance applications before proceeding with development and implementation. Based on the completed assessment, we further recommend that the Secretary of the Army: Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics B-283492 • Develop a more substantive master plan that incorporates all applications for which the system is to be implemented. This master plan should include priorities, cost and benefits, and proposed schedules. • Assess the adequacy of existing program management and oversight structures in light of (1) additional functional applications and overall funding requirements and (2) the potential for extending the workload and performance system to users outside the Army Materiel Command. Agency Comments and DOD provided written comments that are included as appendix VI. DOD officials also provided a number of suggested technical changes that have Our Evaluation been incorporated into the report body as appropriate. DOD officials agreed that the cost and benefits of each expanded system application should be analyzed, but did not agree with our draft report’s recommendation to delay approval of additional funding for system development until after the cost benefits of each application are fully documented and analyzed. DOD concurred with our recommendations to develop a more substantive Army Workload Performance System master plan (including cost, benefits, and schedules for developing each application) and to assess the adequacy of program management and oversight in view of the expanded range of system applications and increased funding requirements. In commenting on our recommendation to postpone additional funding, DOD officials stated that the Army is currently developing prototype systems for several functional applications, including ammunition storage, ammunition manufacturing, and base operations. According to these officials, ongoing prototype development and tests are designed to demonstrate the usefulness of each application and provide a baseline for assessing costs and benefits. DOD officials stated that postponing additional funding for completing this work would unnecessarily hinder progress and delay efforts to correct previously reported weaknesses in the Army’s ability to link personnel requirements to workload estimates. We agree that DOD has made substantial progress in its efforts to correct material weaknesses in its ability to match personnel authorizations to forecasted workloads at its major maintenance depots. While the Army has already initiated efforts to achieve similar goals at other activities, we continue to believe that approval of funding for full-scale development and implementation of expanded applications should be postponed until costs and benefits are analyzed. However, we modified our draft report Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics B-283492 recommendation to enable completion of ongoing prototype testing in order to demonstrate and document the financial benefits of each expanded application before proceeding with system development and implementation of the applications. DOD officials stated that they concurred with our modified recommendation. With regard to our recommendation to develop a more substantive master plan for implementation of performance system applications at nondepot maintenance facilities, DOD stated that such a plan would be completed by July 2000. They stated that the plan would include information on priorities, cost and benefits, and milestones for all anticipated Army Workload Performance System applications, including maintenance, ammunition, and base operations. With regard to our recommendation to assess the adequacy of existing program management and oversight structures, DOD concurred, but gave no time frame for completing the assessment. We continue to believe that such an assessment should be done as soon as possible, in light of (1) the potential for expanding the workload and performance system to activities outside the Army Materiel Command and (2) system development costs, which exceed the criteria for managing the Army Workload Performance System program as a major automated information system acquisition. Scope and To assess the status of the Army Workload Performance System, we read the Army’s April 1999 report to the Committee and discussed its contents Methodology with senior officials in the offices of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) and Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Washington, D.C.; the Army Workload Performance System Project Office at Rock Island, Illinois; and the Naval Sea Logistics Center, Pacific, Concord, California. We also discussed supplemental project planning and budgeting information with these same officials. We compared those portions of the Army report dealing with system depot maintenance with comparable portions of Army budget and schedule documents. We also reviewed the major blocks of work to be done and discussed their cost and benefits. During our visit to the Navy facility, we attended a workload performance system training course with managers from depots and with a professional staff member from the organization that developed the system of evaluating depot overhead personnel requirements. We met with Army Audit Agency officials regarding their review of the workload performance system. Finally, we interviewed senior Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics B-283492 officials from some of the five maintenance depots that implemented the system. To assess the status of the other workload performance system applications, including their cost, we visited and interviewed a wide variety of personnel. We discussed task status, possible cost and benefits, and other relevant issues with the system program manager, the Navy program manager, support contractor personnel, and senior Army officials in Army Materiel Command and Headquarters, Department of the Army. We discussed the issues with senior managers of the two manufacturing arsenals. We also visited the senior manager of one of the ammunition depots and spoke with senior officials at five others, sending written questions to all six. We also talked with officials from the Army’s Industrial Operations Command’s Army Workload Performance System Project Office at Rock Island, Illinois; the Naval Sea Logistics Center, at Concord, California; and the Army’s support contractor at Washington, D.C. During our Rock Island visit and numerous follow-on conversations, we discussed the project plan, including program schedules and budgets. We also reviewed the major blocks of work to be done, discussed their cost and benefits and discussed our concerns and some of the organizations slated to receive parts of the system. We also talked at length with the Navy workload performance system program manager about plans to export the system, and its use for other applications. During our meetings with the support contractor, our primary focus was on tasks and modules other than depot maintenance. We conducted our review from February 1999 through September 1999 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We are sending copies of this report to Senator John W. Warner, Chairman, and Senator Carl Levin, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on Armed Services; the Honorable William S. Cohen, the Secretary of Defense; the Honorable Louis Caldera, Secretary of the Army; the Honorable William J. Lynn, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); and the Honorable Jacob Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will also be available to others upon request. Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics B-283492 If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please call me or Barry Holman at (202) 512-8412. Key contributors to this report were Julia Denman, David Epstein, and Glenn Knoepfle. David R. Warren, Director Defense Management Issues Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics Appendix I Army Workload Performance System Application for Depot Maintenance Appendx Ii Estimated Task name completion date Objectives and expected results Completed and certified Develop and implement basic workload March 1998 Facilitate management of depot workload by identifying workload and and planning system at five depots personnel data and generating job planning information Develop workload and resources March 1998 Given workload and personnel resources in each depot work area, reporting process at five depots generates a report identifying net workforce imbalances and displaying monthly depot workforce excesses or shortages over a 3-year horizon Completed Integrate workload performance system February 26, 1999 Link workload, workforce, and budget with depot budget preparation and train industrial activity personnel in its usea Under development Develop contractor labor application for November 30, 1999 Incorporate planning, scheduling, and performance of contractor depot maintenance personnel working in Army depots to provide visibility of contractor production within the depot system Completion of this task should improve 50-50 report preparation and provide a link between contractor labor capabilities, job scheduling, and capacity utilization Implement programming language July 31, 2000 Convert programs to state-of-the-art computer language; the Army conversiona plans to convert the programming language from FoxPro to Oracle Conversion of computer programs should simplify software maintenance, improve data distribution and processing time, and facilitate use of web pages Planned but work not begun Develop resource scheduling and March 30, 2001 Design coding system to refine workforce analysis by focusing on control skill codes methodology specific employee skills rather than aggregating personnel information by work area Completion of this and the next task should facilitate assigning appropriate personnel to each job to maximize depot productivity and identify skills that should be acquired, whether through retraining or hiring Implement resource, scheduling, and January 24, 2003 Implement system to assign the most appropriate personnel to control system at five depots maximize depot productivity and size the workforce through the use of previously developed coding system to support comparisons over a 3- year period Develop and implement material September 16, 2002 Determine whether material will be available to perform planned system maintenance Facilitate make or buy decisions by collecting labor and material costs Implement automated comparison of August 30, 1999 Provide support in analyzing the impact of headquarters-directed headquarters-directed changesa changes concerning personnel hiring practices, workload changes, and other unforeseen changes a Included in project office plan, but not in Army’s report to the Committee. Source: Army Workload Performance System (AWPS) Project Office. Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics Appendix II AWPS Application for Ammunition Logistics Appendx Ii Estimated Task name completion date Objectives and expected results Completed Prototype ammunition logistics May 31, 1999 Facilitate scheduling of ammunition logistics workload by identifying application at Letterkenny Army Depot monthly ammunition logistics facility workforce excesses or shortages over a 3-year period Install basic ammunition logistics June 29, 1999 Facilitate scheduling of ammunition logistics workload by displaying application at Anniston and Red River monthly ammunition logistics workforce excesses or shortages over a Army Depots (basic system develops 3-year period same information as generated in first two tasks of depot maintenance Organizational relocation of some ammunition facilities will likely lead application) to additional programming requirements and possible slippage of this and other tasks Under development Install basic ammunition logistics June 30, 2000 Facilitate scheduling of ammunition logistics workload by displaying application at Blue Grass Army Depot, monthly ammunition logistics workforce excesses or shortages over a Tooele Army Depot, Sierra Army 3-year period Depot, Crane Army Ammunition Activity, McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, and Pine Bluff Arsenal Provide training and technical supporta March 30, 2000 Train personnel in workload performance system use, particularly supervisors and managers and provide support to answer questions Implement programming language September 28, 2001 Convert programs to state-of-the-art computer language (the Army conversiona plans to convert the programming language from FoxPro to Oracle) Planned but work not begun Develop contractor labor application for June 30, 2000 Incorporate planning, scheduling, and performance of contractor ammunition personnel working in ammunition logistics facilities to provide visibility of contractor production within the ammunition logistics system Design and implement resource December 30, 2003 Implement system to assign the most appropriate personnel to scheduling and control system for maximize ammunition logistics facility productivity and size the ammunition logistics workforce through the use of previously developed coding system to support comparisons over a 3-year period Develop “What happens if . . . .” study May 31, 2000 Facilitate decision-making by management in addressing questions capabilitya such as “what if” Develop automated comparison of August 31, 2001 Assists analysis of impact of headquarters-directed changes headquarters directed changesa Develop ammunition logistics material March 29, 2002 Determine whether material will be available to perform planned systema maintenance Facilitate make or buy decisions by collecting labor and material costs a Included in project office plan, but not in Army’s report to the Committee. Source: Army Workload Performance System Project Office. Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics Appendix III AWPS Application for Ammunition Manufacturing AppendxIi Estimated Task name completion date Objectives and expected results Planned but work not begun Design and install workload December 31, 2001 Facilitate management of ammunition manufacturing plants by performance system for ammunition identifying workload and personnel data and generating job manufacturing planning information Implement resource scheduling and December 31, 2003 Implement system to assign the most appropriate personnel to control system design and maximize depot productivity and size the workforce through the implementation for ammunition use of a previously developed coding system to support manufacturing comparisons over a 3-year period Install enhancements for ammunition December 31, 2003 Provide “what if” study capability manufacturinga Provide automated comparison of headquarters directed changes Complete basic system with workload and resources reporting process a Included in project office plan, but not in Army’s report to the Committee. Source: Army Workload Performance System Project Office. Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics Appendix IV AWPS Application for Base Operations Appendx iIV Estimated Task name completion date Objectives and expected results Completed Complete preliminary planning and January 14, 1999 Facilitate management of base operations activities by identifying design of application a workload and personnel requirements data Under development Complete prototype testing at October 31, 1999 Test prototype system for base operation support at a selected Anniston Army Depot maintenance depot Provide training and technical December 4, 2002 Train personnel in workload performance system use, particularly supporta supervisors and managers, and provide support to answer questions Implement programming language June 29, 2001 Convert programs to state-of-the-art computer language (the Army plans conversiona to convert the programming language from FoxPro to Oracle) Planned but work not begun Install application at four other February 20, 2001 Expand testing of basic workload performance system base operations maintenance depots support system, similar to first task of depot maintenance application Install base operations support December 30, 2002 Expand use of basic workload performance system base operations application at remaining workload support system, similar to first task of depot maintenance application performance system installations Design and implement resource February 3, 2004 Implement system to assign the most appropriate personnel to maximize scheduling and control system design base operations support productivity and size the workforce through the for base operations support system use of previously developed coding system to support comparisons over a 3-year period Material application for base January 15, 2003 Determine whether material will be available to perform planned operations support system maintenance Facilitate make or buy decisions by collecting labor and material costs a Contractor labor in model May 21, 2001 Incorporate planning, scheduling, and performance of contractor personnel working in industrial facilities to provide visibility of contractor production within the base support function “What-if” study capabilitya September 2, 2002 Facilitate decision-making by management in addressing questions such as “what if” Implement workload and resources June 7, 2002 Implement system to assign the most appropriate personnel to maximize reporting process and resource productivity and size the workforce through the use of previously scheduling and control code systema developed coding system to support comparisons over a 3-year period Given workload and personnel resources in each base operations support work area, generate a report identifying net workforce imbalances and displaying monthly workforce excesses or shortages over a 3-year horizon Implement workload and resource scheduling reporting system Implement automated comparison of October 16, 2002 Provide support in analyzing the impact of headquarters-directed headquarters directed changesa changes concerning personnel hiring practices, workload changes, and other unforeseen changes a Included in project office plan, but not in Army’s report to the Committee. Source: Army Workload Performance System Project Office. Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics Appendix V Future AWPS Applications Appenx dV i Estimated Task name completion date Objectives and expected results Manufacturing arsenal application (planned but work not begun) Design and implement AWPS prototype June 6, 2002 Develop and test prototype of workload performance system for at one manufacturing arsenal arsenals Install workload performance system at June 13, 2003 Develop and test prototype at remaining arsenals two remaining arsenals Design and implement miscellaneous October 3, 2003 Implement “what if” capability, contractor labor, and snapshot enhancements to arsenal application to enhancements (all previously described) include “what if” capability, contractor labor, and automated comparison of headquarters-directed changesa Design and implement material system May 11, 2004 Determine whether material will be available to perform planned for arsenalsa maintenance Facilitate make or buy decisions by collecting labor and material costs Design and implement resource February 19, 2004 Implement system to assign the most appropriate personnel to scheduling and control systema maximize arsenal productivity and size the workforce through the use of previously developed coding system to support comparisons over a 3-year period Field-level maintenance organization application (not planned, no work done) Design and install AWPS at field-level Not planned or scheduled Not yet determined maintenance facilities performing depot- by system project office type maintenance workloads Design and install workload and Not planned or scheduled Not yet determined performance system at all general by system project office support maintenance facilities Other incomplete tasks not in Army Not planned or scheduled Not yet determined study, but in AWPS project plan by system project office Base operations applications for non depot maintenance facilities (not planned, no work done) Design and install AWPS to support Not planned or scheduled Not yet determined base operations at non depot by system project office maintenance facilities Design and install AWPS to support Not planned or scheduled Not yet determined base operations at all general support by system project office maintenance facilities (continued) Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics Appendix V Future AWPS Applications Estimated Task name completion date Objectives and expected results Training, testing and evaluation, and research and development activity applications (Not planned, no work done) Study prototype system demonstrations Not planned or scheduled Not yet determined for classroom training activities, testing, by system project office organizations, war reserve management and maintenance organizations, and research and development laboratories Other incomplete tasks not in Army Not planned or scheduled Not yet determined study, but in AWPS Project Plan by system project office a Included in project office plan, but not in Army’s report to the Committee. Source: Army Workload Performance System Project Office. Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics Appendix VI Comments From the Department of Defense Appendx iVI Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics Appendix VI Comments From the Department of Defense Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics Appendix VI Comments From the Department of Defense Now on p. 15. Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics Appendix VI Comments From the Department of Defense Now on p. 16. Now on p. 16. (709410) Leter Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary, VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders by mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 or visit: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to: email@example.com or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at: http://www.gao.gov United States Bulk Rate General Accounting Office Postage & Fees Paid Washington, D.C. 20548-0001 GAO Permit No. GI00 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Address Correction Requested
Defense Logistics: Army Should Assess Cost and Benefits of the Workload Performance System Expansion
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1999-11-12.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)