Key Insights & Decisions

 

Over the course of the first three weeks, we have documented a host of different issues experienced by personnel in a variety of functional areas. We have also identified a handful of frequently repeating themes as we delved into each.

 

• Many functions have only a bare minimum of standard procedures or methodologies.  This can have advantages. It certainly has drawbacks. We have encountered multiple instances of reported “issues” where the desired feature/fix already exists.  The person reporting the issue was simply unaware of the feature. Lack of training on the tools, knowledge of best practices, and standardization across units is commonplace.
• Functional activities – dispatching a truck, ordering a part, compiling readiness, etc. – frequently involve multiple different applications.  In almost every case, the applications do not communicate with one another. An initial lack of out-of-the-box interaction is somewhat understandable given these systems are frequently from different vendors. However, these gaps have existed for years, a state that would not be tolerated in private industry.  The fact that it is tolerated in the military branches – we have seen this in other branches as well – is likely symptomatic of our next item.
• There are no socialized metrics quantifying the cost of most of the reported issues in terms of time lost, opportunities missed, readiness impact, or basic dollars and cents.
• Many fundamental issues have a reported fix in the works.  However, this is strictly in the form of rumor. While we have heard of numerous issues with solutions “coming”, no one has yet to pull out a document or presentation outlining the solution and implementation plan for any of them. That is not to say the word on the street is incorrect.  Simply, that it is unverified.

 

In response, we decided to make one narrow issue – lack of communication between TCPT and other systems for key personnel and equipment information – into a case study.  We will quantify the impact, define the solution, determine the timeline for any change already in the works, and assess resultant outcome. Our intention is to not only affect a specific change but also prove a framework for taking a second look at issues that most personnel have simply come to accept as the natural order of the universe.

 

Beneficiaries Interviews —

Stephan Heal:

• TFSMS – Maintenance system, readiness reporting
• GCSS has the capability to report readiness in detail
• TCPT capability is in GCSS
• AnglicoTech teaches Marines how to properly use GCSS
• Now the company who does Marine logistics is on board with GCSS
• Responded well to Front End readiness system
• Member of the FAS Team (Functional Area Sustainment)
  • The FAS Team is actually outside contractor AnglicoTech.com
  • The FAS Team for Maintenance & Logistics does teach best practices.  However, that does not translate to standardization across shops.

 

Adam Beauregard

• Former Naval Aviator
• Now at National Defense University
• Navy is driven by deployment schedule
  • Deploy:  6-9 mos
  • Ready Alert Stage: 3-6 mos
  • Lower readiness: 6 mos
  • Build-up: 12-18 most
  • Repeat Cycle
• Sierra Hotel Aviation Readiness Program – software used to upfront flight scheduling and track training events toward readiness
  • Each hour of flight time is applied to a specific training objective required for readiness.
  • When it comes to planning the daily flight schedule, the system does recommend training activities, however, there is no real intelligence to it.  E.g. It might suggest a submarine tracking exercise but is not checking that there is a training area actually available to support that activity.
• Available aircraft and status tracked via whiteboard (exactly like Marine Motor T units are using whiteboards to track trucks)
• Adam provided a fantastic paper on Managing Military Readiness.

 

SSgt Brandon Moreland

• Currently Motor Maintenance Chief of a platoon
• Direct reports:  QC Chief, Shop Chief, Parts, Tool Room
• Shop Chief’s mission is to validate equipment is repaired in a timely manner while the QC Chief validates they are repaired correctly.
• The big pain point for his role is lack of people who know how to use GCSS to assess readiness.  Consequently, he has to go to 2-3 meetings per week to convey readiness information that is available in GCSS.
• GCSS does not talk to TCPT which means dispatchers are having to hand jam maintenance/truck status from GCSS into TCPT just like they have to hand jam personnel status from MOL to TCPT.  (Need to get this corroborated by dispatch staff.)
• In his opinion, GCSS does everything they need to get to the point where the technician can have a Toughbook at their station next to a vehicle, order parts like Amazon, enter status updates, etc.  With regard to Motor Maintenance Operations, the gap is that they do not have adequate wireless coverage and Toughbooks w/ wireless capability. Once those are implemented, the necessary training classes are available that lack of GCSS knowledge will not be a hindrance to a fully electronic workflow.  

General Martin Dempsey

• Need to narrow our report
• Find an area of readiness that isn’t being analyzed yet.
• Equipment and Personnel readiness are heavily examined

Sgt Christopher List

• QR Codes
  • Every piece of equipment has we code embedded with a bunch of info
  • There are two main inventories CLM (Major Machinery) and TS3 (smaller components associated with major machinery). Both happen every quarter, every RO change, every Battalion command change, other random times.
  • It is currently done on paper, serial number and TAM written down for everything. Kept in books
  • He is working on making it upload to a spreadsheet via QR scanner
• TCPT
  • People spend “a lot” of time updating information manually
  • Confirmed ideas regarding how the systems are connected (MCTMS has certifications needed in TCPT, MOL has personal info needed in both TCPT and MCTMS, GCSS deadline info needed in TCPT)
  • Spend 15-20 minutes per new member of the motor pool. Current status not usually updated in TCPT leads to issue with miss assignments.
  • Some motor pools only have 15 guys so it’s not a big deal but some have a lot more
  • The combined effort for updating all these things is time-consuming
• TCLM
  • Readiness dashboard for drilling into equipment could be useful for a foundation for the next project
  • Input from DRRS
  • No personal info
• Future Readiness
  • Thought idea of “recipe” app would be great

Capt. Connor Bender

• Verification of List’s count on TCPT
• Having accurate information regarding information on personnel would be valuable in terms
• Structure
  • Truck Master (MSgt) – Care of vehicles
  • Ops Cheif (MSgt) – Oversee all operational requirements for the company, supervises the Truck Master, OVE and QC.
  • QC (SSgt) – Determines what is and isn’t road worthy
  • Platoon Commander (2nd Lt, Lt) – Answer to exec officer. Oversee troops. Work with Ops Chief and Truck Master. Communicating with Company Commander.
  • Dispatch (Sgt) – Report to Truck Master and Ops Chief.
  • Platoon Sergeant (MGySgt) – Commanding Marines. Inward Facing
• TCPT –
  • Dispatch doesn’t assign people.
  • Dispatch says run needs to go out. Goes to MSgt and Exec to figure out how to make it happens
• Cost Analysis
  • Will set us up with Finance Chief
• TCPT sending report based on current info to Platoon Commanders
• Master Log, hand jam everything down, type everything in

 

Sgt Cody

• In QC role on the maintenance side
• The issue involving an inaccurate transfer of information from maintenance to GCSS
• Paper gets smudged, parts order in wrong quantities or variety, hand jamming issues
• Would love a way to be able to order from GCSS on the spot

SSgt Amirado

• QC on the operations side
• Pain Points
  • Not using all possible opportunities for training exercises
  • TCPT not being updated properly/in time
• Determines whether trucks are roadworthy or not.
  • Information from GCSS may not be in TCPT so when he’s looking at trucks that are fine in TCPT but are deadlined in GCSS