chris ballard, wyly gilfoil, kathy lau, jay miseli, scott ostrowski, sebastien prangere, sug je...
TRANSCRIPT
Chris Ballard, Wyly Gilfoil, Kathy Lau, Jay Miseli, Scott Ostrowski, Sebastien Prangere, Sug Je Sohn,
Heather Stevenson, Jaroslav Tyman
Military Logistics Cargo Distribution Management for the Next Conflict
Agenda
• Mission Statement• Logistics Problem (Externally Affirmed)• Team Organization• Demand Analysis Update• Feasibility Update• Applicability Update• Timeline
Mission Statement
• By April 19, 2004, determine the feasibility of, and demand for, tactical cargo delivery optimizers(software or hardware) to support Army logistics operations at multiple echelons for future conflicts.
Logistics Problem Statement
• “Four major improvements must be made to our logistics systems. We must connect our logisticians; modernize theater distribution; improve force reception; integrate the supply chain. [The] force was set [to support Iraq] in half the time of Operation Desert Storm/Shield, but the distribution system collapsed as soon as hostilities began.”– Lieutenant General Claude V. Christianson, Army G-4
Team Organization
• Based on compressed timeline, these teams are working in parallel.• Demand - Jay, Wyly
• Feasibility - Scott, Heather, Kat, Jaroslav
• Applicability - Chris, Sebastien, Sug Je
Role and Plan - Demand
• Demand Team assesses the scope of this capability and the levels of usefulness.
• Step 1 – Read relevant articles and After-Action Reviews detailing performance of logistics agencies during Operation Iraqi Freedom for the 3rd Infantry Division
• Step 2 – Conduct online survey to determine actual demand from units executing logistics and scope of this capability
• Relevant Articles:•Army Logistics: Our Reality, Our Future•Logistics White Paper•Moving Those Beans and Bullets•Sustainment of the Army Depends on Continuing Logistics Transformation•DLA: Logistics Backbone of Iraqi Freedom•Delivering Logistics Readiness to the Warfighter
• After-Action Reviews Utilized:•3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized)•HHC, Task Force 2-69 Armor•C/1-3 ADA•HHC/1-24 Infantry
• Survey (being conducted)
Current State - Demand
•Continue survey via WWW and e-mail; collect results• After-action reviews and articles
summarized for use•Capabilities/requirements determined by
survey feedback (and compared with AARs and articles)
Future Tasks - Demand
Role and Plan - Feasibility
• Feasibility team determines the platform, echelon, and technical aspects of the system through• Capabilities Analysis• Cost-Benefit Analysis
• Software/Hardware• Personnel/Training• Per Unit Cost and Army Budgeting• Existing Decision Support Tools
Current State - Feasibility
• Analyze demand results• Adjust direction to meet survey results•Continue feasibility analysis and
research
Future Tasks - Feasibility
Role and Plan - Applicability
Applicability team analyzes and assesses the proposed application from managerial perspectives to include the strategy of technology integration.
Plan
Research current and pending technologies
Research technology integration
Coordinate with demand and feasibility study
Provide estimate of the anticipated integration
Current State - Applicability
• Competitive Priorities• Measures of Performance• Data Transfer and Interoperability
• Network architecture
• Composability, compatibility
Future Tasks - Applicability
• Additional research on integration of new technology
• Refinement of scope, dependent on preliminary findings by Demand and Feasibility teams
• Additional research on planned technology integration in Army
Timeline Feb 4 - Initial Coordination meeting Feb 9 - Subgroup synchronization Feb 18 - Coordination meeting 1 March 3 - Coordination meeting 2
- March 15 - Project Program Report
- March 22 - Coordination meeting 3
- April 5 - Coordination meeting 4
- April 7 - Internal Deadline
- April 14 - Written product complete
- April 19 - Turn in final report
Questions?