Marine Corps Logistics Integration

1
Marine Corps Logistics Integration

27 September 2006

• A SCOR-Enabled Assessment

Captain Liz Perez, USMC Mr. Ned Glattly, PRTM
Where Innovation Operates
2
Agenda

1. Marine Corps Integration Challenge
2. High-Level Project Objectives
3. Approach and Methodology
4. Key Insights and Learnings

3
Marine Corps Integration Challenges
4
The Marine Corps has two disparate supply chains

• Ground and Aviation Supply Chains are unique
• Key Reason for disparate supply chains is source
  of funding (Navy funds aviation, Marine Corps
  funds ground)
• In addition, weapon systems and mission profiles
  are unique
• Marine Corps Aviation is tied strongly to Navy
  processes and systems

5
The Seabasing Burning Platform

• Marine forces, as an integral component of a
  larger naval force, must be prepared to influence
  events within the world's littorals using the sea
  as maneuver space and as a secure "base" from
  which Joint Force Commanders can project power to
  impact the early stages of a potential crisis

A fundamental objective for integration is to
support the USMC vision for Seabasing

• Sense and Respond focused Logistics
• Joint aviation and ground operations and support
• Shared resources and facilities
• Shared information requirements

6
High Level Project Objectives
7
Overview of MAGTF Logistics Integration Study

• Purpose of the study
• Given the Marine Corps future logistics vision,
  including Seapower-21 and PEO-IS, the Marine
  Corps decided to accelerate exploration of the
  potential to integrate Aviation and Ground
  logistics
• Integration has long been a challenge due to
  budgets / funding, cultural differences within
  the MC, unique mission needs, and the large
  number of disparate IT systems
• Background
• PRTM was contracted to assist Aviation-Ground
  Joint MLI initiative in exploring the issues,
  challenges, and benefits
• We are using the Supply Chain Operations
  Reference (SCOR) model to conduct an assessment
  answering the Can, Should, and How of
  logistics integration

8
Criticality of Expeditionary Integration

• Appropriately Integrate
• Expeditionary Integration is not a one size fits
  all approach
• Eliminate redundancy while not sacrificing or
  compromising performance
• Integrate where there is a feasible performance
  advantage
• Expeditionary Collocation
• ACE / GCE tactically work together in theater
• Transportation system in theater is strained when
  resources are not shared
• Last tactical mile requires optimal supply and
  maintenance support
• Deployed Expeditionary versus Garrison
• USMC must begin practicing as they play i.e.-
  training operations in garrison mirror in theater
  operations (processes, IT, etc.)
• Work towards eliminating East Coast / West Coast
  differentiation in Garrison
• Coherency and consistency maximize performance in
  theater

9
Basic conceptual construct

• Need to be able to share common information
  across Navy and Marine Corps
• Need to be able to provide thin data pipes to
  support expeditionary requirements
• Need to preserve unique application / process
  requirements (e.g. MC Aviation reliance on Navy
  Maintenance / Supply System)
• Integrating processes and systems must follow a
  practical path, recognizing reality of fiscal
  constraints

Common Data / Interoperable
10
Approach and Methodology
11
PRTM Global Experience

• 30 years of operational strategy and innovation
• More than 500 consultants worldwide
• 16 Offices worldwide
• Over 1,200 Clients and 6,000 Projects
• 90 level of repeat business

• Deep Industry Knowledge in Major Commercial and
  Government Sectors
• Aerospace and Defense
• Automotive
• Chemicals and Process Industries
• Communications and Media
• Consumer Goods
• Electronics and Computing
• Energy
• Financial Services
• Government
• Life Sciences and Healthcare
• Industrial Products
• Software

12
Our Credentials

• Established the Supply-Chain Council
• Developed the Supply-Chain Operations
  Reference-model (SCOR)
• Maintain a database of supply chain performance
  metrics

• Contribute regularly to industry publications and
  events

Supply-Chain Operations Reference-model (SCOR)
is a registered trademark of the Supply-Chain
Council
13
We structured the assessment around SCOR
Level

Schematic
Description
Comments
1
Level 1 defines the scope and content for the
Supply Chain Operations Reference-model Here
basis of competition performance targets are set
Top Level (Process Types)
Plan
Deliver
Make
Source
2
A supply chain can be configured-to-order at
Level 2 from approximately 17 core process
categories. Organizations implement their
operations strategy through the configuration
they choose for their supply chain
Configuration Level (Process Categories)
Supply Chain Operations Reference-model

• Organizations fine tune their Operations
  Strategy at Level 3
• Level 3 defines an organizations ability to
  compete successfully against mission objectives,
  and consists of
• Process element definitions
• Process element information inputs and outputs
• Process performance metrics
• Best practices, where applicable
• System capabilities required to support best
  practices
• Systems/tools by vendor

3
Process Element Level (Decompose Processes)
P3.1
Identify, Prioritize, and Aggregate Production
Requirements
P3.3
P3.4
Balance Production Resources with Production
Requirements
Establish Detailed Production Plans
P3.2
Identify, Assess, and Aggregate Production
Resources
Organizations implement specific supply chain
management practices at this level Level 4
defines practices to achieve competitive
advantage and to adapt to changing operational
environment
Implementation Level (Decompose Process Elements)
4
Not in Scope
14
and executed the assessment in two phases
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
15
Phase 1 - Evaluating can and should of MLI
Can?
Limited Ability
High Ability

• Unique documented business processes
• Weapon complexity drives unique requirements
• Incompatible IT System Architectures
• Unique processes drive unique IT capability
• Process owners have different responsibilities
• Cultural differences are imbedded in similar
  roles in Ground and Air

• Aligned current and future process architecture
• Similar systems or limited need to interface data
• Ground and Aviation are physically co-located
• Process owners have similar accountability and
  responsibility
• Robust data collection for performance monitoring
  and visibility

Should?
Low Opportunity
High Opportunity

• Unique warfighter requirements drive unique
  process requirements
• System complexity and costs outweigh benefits
• External integration presents significant
  challenges (e.g Navy ERP)
• Process performance metrics are unique
• Conflicting timelines with external BSM
  initiatives

• Process performance goals (metrics) are aligned
  or overlapping
• Clear integration cost savings and efficiency
  improvements
• Integration will enable required Speed and
  Reliability improvements
• Opportunity to leverage skills across Ground and
  Air
• Opportunity to be flexible in light of BRAC

16
We compared processes, organization, IT and
Metrics
EXAMPLE Deliver (Inventory MGT) Process Description Process Description IT System IT System Organization Organization Performance Objective Performance Objective
EXAMPLE Deliver (Inventory MGT) Air Ground Air Ground Air Ground Air Ground
O-Level (Deployed) Pre-expended bins TO / TE What you can carry NALCOMIS Spreadsheets SASSY MALs / S4 handles green equipment Battalion Officer, Accountable Supply Officer Responsible Inventory Accuracy Inventory Accuracy
O-Level (Garrison) Pre-expended bins TO / TE What you can carry NALCOMIS Spreadsheets SASSY MALs / S4 handles green equipment Battalion Officer, Accountable Supply Officer Responsible Inventory Accuracy Inventory Accuracy
Retail (Deployed) Authorized Allowance Lists Authorized Allowance Lists R-Supply SASSY plus ATLAS S6 SMU / Class 2 contracted out Inventory Accuracy Inventory Accuracy
Retail (Garrison) Authorized Allowance Lists Authorized Allowance Lists R-Supply SASSY S4 / ASD SMU / Class 2 contracted out Inventory Accuracy Inventory Accuracy
Wholesale Joint Venture between USMC, NAVAIR, NAVICP Inventory managed by SCMC Navy ERP MRP2 DLA for consumable, NAVICP for repairable DLA for consumable, LOGCOM for repairable Inventory Accuracy Inventory Accuracy
Example comparison of inventory management
processes, organization, it and systems, and
performance metrics
17
Compelling targets for integration were identified
Should High Opportunity
Should Low Opportunity
Limited Ability High Ability
Can Can
Trans. Sustain in Theater
Trans. Deploy to Theater
Source to Retail
Damaged Returns
Wholesale/ Garrison OM
Plan I Level
Plan O Level
Retail Inv. Mgmt
I Level Maint.
Source to Wholesale
O-Level Afloat Maint.
Retail OM
O-Level Garrison Inv. Mgmt
I to D Returns
18
Organizational integration addressed
The Phase 1, SCOR Level 2 Map capture
organizational integration
Navy
MC-G
MC-A
Ind.
Other
ARMY
PBL
MAGTF
DLA / Transcom
19
Level 2 Process Architecture
20
High-Level insights from Phase 1
Phase 1 Effort

• Retail expeditionary supply system is primary
  integration opportunity
• Data and IT Systems should not prevent
  integration / Disparate systems will either need
  to be replaced or connected
• Integration will require alignment and management
  of common metrics
• CAN Aviation and Ground Integrate YES.
• SHOULD They Integrate YES, in the Retail Supply
  System

21
Phase 2 Focus was on the how of MLI
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
22
We mapped process and IT gaps at Level 3
Deliver Process Process Description Process Description IT System IT System
Deliver Process Afloat Ashore Afloat Ashore
Route Shipments N/A Once ground hits the water, shipments not routed Set number of routes running every day Addresses must be loaded N/A Manual truck schedules (drawn on white boards TCPT (Prototype)
Select Carriers Rate Shipments Contracts set this up Mostly internal Environment dictates choices Work with traffic management office N/A N/A
Receive Verify Product at Inventory Site Manual process to verify Review documents and inspection Manual process to verify Review documents and inspection ATLAS MIMMS ATLAS MIMMS
Test Install Product Echelon dictates Eventually tested before use Capability tested Echelon dictates Eventually tested before use Capability tested Tech manuals Tech manuals
Invoice Everything already bought and paid for Expensed when received Everything already bought and paid for Expensed when received SABRS SABRS (DLA) (triggered by ATLAS)
Example comparison of SCOR Level 3 processes and
IT enablers for Deliver processes
23
SCOR Level 3 Organizational Overview
Deliver Process Accountable Accountable Responsible Responsible
Afloat Ashore Afloat Ashore
Process Inquiry Maintenance Chief Maintenance Chief Mechanic Mechanic
Enter / Validate Order SUPPO / Maintenance officer SUPPO / Maintenance officer Data Entry Clerk Data Entry Clerk
Reserve Inventory Determine Delivery Date SUPPO / Maintenance officer SUPPO / Maintenance officer Data Entry Clerk Data Entry Clerk
Consolidate Orders
Plan Build Loads MAGTF Distribution coordinator (MDC) MAGTF Distribution coordinator (MDC) Traffic management clerk Traffic management clerk
To rationalize integrated roles and
responsibilities, we mapped accountable and
responsible stakeholders at SCOR Level 3
24
Phase 2 - Identified Performance Objectives
DRAFT Top-Level Scorecard
Class of Supply Repairables for aviation and
wheeled and tracked vehicles
Maximize Mission Effectiveness Minimize Mission
Risk
Operational Availability
Targets based on median and best-in-class
(BIC) performance requirements as demonstrated in
PRTMs supply chain benchmarking database (Air /
Ground Specific). These are notional targets,
NOT MC commitments
Speed Speed Reliability Reliability Efficiency Efficiency Visibility Visibility

Metric Target Metric Target Metric Target Metric Target
Planning NA NA Forecast Accuracy (units) 80 MED 95 BIC Overall SC Mgmt Cost ( of sales) 12 (overall) Firm Forecast Prior to Ship Date 2.5 days
Source to LCE Afloat Logistics Response Time (LRT) 25.6 days On-time Delivery to TDD 85 MED 97 BIC LCE Inventory DOS 75 days 25 BIC Visibility of in-transit Assets ( visible) 95
Source to LCE Ashore Logistics Response Time (LRT) 17.5 days On-time Delivery to TDD 87 MED 98 BIC LCE Inventory DOS 95 days 42 BIC Visibility of in-transit Assets ( visible) 95
Source to ACE Customer Wait Time (CWT) 19 days 4.7 BIC On-time Delivery to RDD 68 MED 96 BIC ACE Inventory DOS 37 days Visibility of in-transit Assets ( visible) 95
Source to GCE Customer Wait Time (CWT) 10 days 1.6 BIC On-time Delivery to RDD 81 MED 97 BIC ACE Inventory DOS 31 days Visibility of in-transit Assets ( visible) 95
Deliver to ACE Time to Reliably Replenish (TRR) TBD Perfect Order Fulfillment (POF) 95 Order Management Costs ( of sales) 5.0 Visibility of in-storage Assets ( visible) 100
Deliver to GCE Time to Reliably Replenish (TRR) TBD Perfect Order Fulfillment (POF) 95 Order Management Costs ( of sales) 5.0 Visibility of in-storage Assets ( visible) 100
Return to LCE Returns Cycle Time NA NA Warranty / Returns Cost ( of sales) 0.8 Visibility of in-transit Assets ( visible) 95
I Level Maintenance Repair Turnaround Time (RTAT) TBD Not Mission Capable (NMC-M) TBD NA NA Visibility of in-process Assets ( visible) 95
O Level Maintenance Repair Turnaround Time (RTAT) TBD Not Mission Capable (NMC-M) TBD NA NA Visibility of in-process Assets ( visible) 95
25
Phase 2 focused on specific Level 3 processes
Phase 2 scope based upon recommendations from
Phase 1
26
Key Insights and Learnings
27
High-Level insights from Phase 2
Phase 1 Effort
Phase 2 Effort
Can and Should Integration Analysis
How and Where to Integrate Analysis

• Retail expeditionary supply system is primary
  integration opportunity
• Data and IT Systems should not prevent
  integration / Disparate systems will either need
  to be replaced or connected
• Integration will require alignment and management
  of common metrics
• CAN Aviation and Ground Integrate YES. SHOULD
  They Integrate YES, in the Retail Supply System

• Retail expeditionary supply process and systems
  should be integrated over time
• IT systems must become cross-functional and
  interoperable and reduce redundancy where
  appropriate
• Unity of performance measurement will naturally
  align aviation and ground integration
• Planning policy, process, and systems are
  completely discrepant, yet absolutely require
  integration

28
Tactical recommendations have been developed
Return
Recommendations have been developed and
prioritized, and structured by SCOR Process
Categories, enabling the cross reference with
best practices, world class benchmarks, and IT
enablement
29
Lessons Learned Application of SCOR

• Key elements of SCOR critical to the Marine Corps
  MLI project
• Tool for mapping the extended and integrated
  nature of the Marine Corps Supply Chain, from
  wholesale supply through to retail distribution
• Reference model to compare aviation and ground
  processes - a basis for comparison and common
  language
• Standard process definitions and flows for a
  typical supply chain used to accelerate
  discussion and quickly map unique differences
• A model of what could be - best practices for
  each Level 2 and Level 3 process
• Metrics used to measure performance at all levels
  of the supply chain Many metrics are notionally
  described, but lack precise definitions
• Common reference model to evaluate maturity of
  information systems

30
Additional frameworks used to enhance SCOR

• RACI
• Organizational process ownership and alignment
  we applied a basic RACI framework to make roles
  and evaluate skill-set and responsibility gaps
• Tool was used to quickly assess potential gaps
  and overlaps for a future state integrated
  process

• Benchmarking
• We looked to average and best in class
  performance benchmarks to establish preliminary
  targets for MLI
• We used benchmarks of the maturity of business
  processes to evaluate potential gaps relative to
  future requirements

31
Next Steps
Future Direction - Rationalize against broader
initiatives What is the best strategy given
current situation
IT Interface Architecture
Phase 2 Effort

• IT integration approach that rationalizes current
  systems and planned BSM efforts
• Targets both low-hanging fruit and longer term
  approach for IT systems

Navy Process Integration Approach

• Identify actionable Navy integration
  opportunities
• Bolster future integration relationship between
  Navy and Marine efforts
• Rationalize integration with Navy logistics
  systems

32
Questions?