requisitioning under pbl/cataloging nsns

Click here to load reader

Post on 18-Feb-2017

938 views

Category:

Documents

2 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • Integrating PBL into DoD Supply Chain Management

    After several years of studying how best to support the new PBL acquisition environment, the one thing I believe everyone would agree upon is there is no perfect solution. Many smart people, many participating in this VTC have spent time analyzing alternatives and still there is no agreement on the best way to proceed.

    Weve spent no small amount of time here at DLIS looking at options to determine what we consider to be the necessary changes to not only systems, but also policies, processes and procedures.

    One of the most difficult things about conceptualizing a model to handle the new PBL acquisition environment is that each PBL will be defined independently by each program office with their acquisition officials and the contractor. Thus, PBL can be any thing, and so our analysis has tried to look at the worst case scenarios during the analysis of each alternative.

    From our review of possible alternatives, we want to present two options for discussion that seem to have the most support.

  • PBL ChallengesChanging Acquisition Environment

    Existing DoD Supply Chain Management Systems and eventual implementation of ERP solutions

    Joint-service PBL programs

    Multi-national involvement in purchase and production

    Ensure interoperability, integration and integrity of data

    NOTE: Common items are any item which will be managed by both DoD and a PBL contractor

    PBL has changed the acquisition environment.in PBL DoD is not buy parts but rather performance

    the existing MM processes are supported by an infrastructure consisting of interconnected systems, processes, and practices. Interfaces between systems which allow automated processing are well established and based upon in-place lines of communications. FLIS data alone is made available to nearly 200 military services and international supply , transportation, and materiel mgmt systems through DLIS systems direct interfaces. Accordingly, new logistics systems interfaces and data sharing arrangements must be developed and defined to ensure Total Life Cycle System Management for the DoD and/or the PBL contractors.

    Another challenge is illustrated by the JSF program. Three services are involved but there is no assigned lead for supply support. The services have been able to operate within the PBL environment, and so far they have been able operate with a minimal amount of tailoring or in the case of the AF, they retain single material management authority

    Also, in the JSF program, there are international partners with their own systems, processes and procedures to be included in the mix.

    Ultimately, the challenge is how do we ensure interoperability, integration, and integrity of data, and thus spares support, which impacts the most efficient and effective support of all weapon systems?

  • Alternative ApproachesMultiple Source of Supply (SOS)- Services order through existing systems and processes and information is in place to allow DAAS to automatically route requisitions to appropriate SOS

    Multiple NSN- Assign NSNs to PBL managed Items of Supply separately from existing DOD managed items NOTE: Common items are any item which will be managed by both DoD and a PBL contractor

    Its funny because we have supported, at different times, both of these options,......but thats because it is such a complex, complicated process

    Although we have an opinion on what we believe is the better way to proceed, ultimately the military services are our customers and any changes we decide upon must consider the affect upon the wide variety of the many interconnected systems. As much as we tried to consider the impacts to the services and downstream systems and processes, we obviously cant know everything or understand all the ramifications.and we do want to ensure were not missing something. Therefore, Id like to walk through these two options and see if we can come to some common ground on the impacts, level of effort, and/or viability of these options in order to move ahead on a decision on the cataloging process

    The first, in general terms, is to develop a the ability to route a requisition for any NSN to either a DoD or PBL SOS depending on who is supporting the particular weapon system or item. The second alternative is to treat PBL controlled items as unique and assign them their own NSNs.

    Given there is no perfect solution within the system as it now stands, we can also look at this as a cost benefit trade-off. Which method represents the best benefit for the expected expenditure of scarce resources?

  • Routing requisitionsIssues / Impacts M-SOS M-NSN1 finite # of MOE Codes; recurring need to program each new MOE/act code2 recurring need to identify/define new SOS codes

    Routing decode table; FLIS, DAAS, or legacyNew MOE Rule, MOE Code, activity code, SOS codes1,22Alter or create new Level of Authority; FLIS, legacyWeapon System (or PBL) indicator codeN/A

    The following charts were built to highlight significant issues that impact the current systems, policies and procedures.

    To the right of each issuethe boxes were left open to identify the options impacted and what I want is to get a feel for the magnitude of effort or difficulty that these issues create.

    For example, for the first one, both options will require either an expansion of the existing routing tables in DAAS and FLIS in order to establish and maintain the correct source for the flow of information from and to the requestor of items and the provider of the items.

    NOTE: this specifically applies to common PBL Items of Supply. By common, I mean that both DoD and a PBL contractor or PSI both control the item. If every item were unique, our task would be much easier.

  • NSN Maintenance over Life CycleIssues / Impacts M-SOS M-NSN

    Data incompatibilities: - Reference data control / changes- Other: reparability, characteristics, CSI, source control,...N/ASegregation of management data by platform/service (multi-CMD)N/AControl/tracking of Items of SupplyN/APolicy change (Multiple NSNs)N/A

  • Other Issues?Issues / Impacts M-SOS M-NSN

    Receipt/storage/disposal of property (inadvertent mixing stock, Due Out Release, FOB, DEMIL )

    A single, common NSN could easily allow co-mingling stock or use in a non-approved system

    Misidentified property receivedFound on base with no paperworkLost property within transportation channels

  • Possible Solution in FLISMultiple SOSDevelop decode SOS tableNew coding i.e., MOE code, LOA, SOS, etc.Design new Total Item Record segment(s) to hold data for each PBL on the single NSN

    DLIS assessment of impactMajor effort: time, money, expertise

    Military Service / downstream system impacts???

  • Possible Solution in FLISMultiple NSNDevelop decode SOS tableNew coding i.e., MOE code, LOA, SOS, etc.Develop cross-reference table to link / track NSNsDevelop business rules to control proceduresObtain OSD approval for multiple NSNs

    DLIS assessment of impactLow to Medium level of effort

    Military Service / downstream system impactsCustomize FLIS output to applicable agency only???

    Develop system changes to allow for and control PBL NSNsNew MOE rules identifying contractor as leadNew Level of Authorities for PBL NSNsBuild DB2 tables to cross reference PBL Part/CAGE match conditions with standard DoD NSNsNew Reference Number Justification Coding (RNJC) give additional visibility to Part/CAGE match conditions

    DoD activity (Service / PMO) must request and DLIS must approveDLIS will screen / review PBL contractor info Government entities will not use the PBL model

    New acquisition environment requires adapting cataloging to allow for multiple Material Management authorities (Designed for all PBL, encompasses JSF)

    Unique NSNs for PBL entitiesNarrowly defined business rules to control use by PBL entitiesA cross reference of DoD and PBL NSNs if a matching CAGE / Part number condition exists Resolves Part / CAGE and other data conflicts

    Adaptive to meet unknown, future needs

    FLIS already allows separate NSNs with matching conditions of CAGE / PART numbers Items are source controlled for specific applicationsNon-agreement on suitability among collaboratorsLack of adequate technical data to differentiate items

    Currently, cataloging policy, procedures, etc. do not address potential differences for NSNs shared among multiple Material ManagersEngineering / technical issues: no collaboration process among DoD and Industry engineering authorities to agree on form, fit, and functionAcquisition / procurement: Each PBL may have different business rules / sources for common NSN items

  • Charting the Way AheadComments From Services:Multiple Source of SupplyAF?Navy?MC?Army?Multiple NSNAF?Navy?MC?Army?Other Options

    Multi SOSMulti NSNOther OptionsYOU ARE HERE

    After several years of studying how best to support the new PBL acquisition environment, the one thing I believe everyone would agree upon is there is no perfect solution. Many smart people, many participating in this VTC have spent time analyzing alternatives and still there is no agreement on the best way to proceed.

    Weve spent no small amount of time here at DLIS looking at options to determine what we consider to be the necessary changes to not only systems, but also policies, processes and procedures.

    One of the most difficult things about conceptualizing a model to handle the new PBL acquisition environment is that each PBL will be defined independently by each program office with their acquisition officials and the contractor. Thus, PBL can be any thing, and so our analysis has tried to look at the worst case scenarios during the analysis of each alternative.

    From our review of possible alternatives, we want to present two options for discussion that seem to have the most support.

    PBL has changed the acquisition environment.in PBL DoD is not buy parts but rather performance

    the existing MM processes are supported by an infrastructure consisting of interconnected systems, processes, and practices. Interfaces between systems which allow automated processing are well established and based upon in-place lines of communications. FLIS data alone is made available to nearly 200 military services and international supply , transportation, and materiel mgmt systems through DLIS systems direct interfaces. Accordingly, new logistics systems interfaces and data sharing arrangements must be developed and defined to ensure Total Life Cycle System Management for the DoD and/or the PBL contractors.

    Another challenge is illustrated by the JSF program. Three services are involved but there is no assigned lead for supply support. The services have been able to operate within the PBL environment, and so far they have been able operate with a minimal amount of tailoring or in the case of the AF, they retain single material management authority

    Also, in the JSF program, there are international partners with their own systems, processes and procedures to be included in the mix.

    Ultimately, the challenge is how do we ensure interoperability, integration, and integrity of data, and thus spares support, which impacts the most efficient and effective support of all weapon systems? Its funny because we have supported, at different times, both of these options,......but thats because it is such a complex, complicated process

    Although we have an opinion on what we believe is the better way to proceed, ultimately the military services are our customers and any changes we decide upon must consider the affect upon the wide variety of the many interconnected systems. As much as we tried to consider the impacts to the services and downstream systems and processes, we obviously cant know everything or understand all the ramifications.and we do want to ensure were not missing something. Therefore, Id like to walk through these two options and see if we can come to some common ground on the impacts, level of effort, and/or viability of these options in order to move ahead on a decision on the cataloging process

    The first, in general terms, is to develop a the ability to route a requisition for any NSN to either a DoD or PBL SOS depending on who is supporting the particular weapon system or item. The second alternative is to treat PBL controlled items as unique and assign them their own NSNs.

    Given there is no perfect solution within the system as it now stands, we can also look at this as a cost benefit trade-off. Which method represents the best benefit for the expected expenditure of scarce resources? The following charts were built to highlight significant issues that impact the current systems, policies and procedures.

    To the right of each issuethe boxes were left open to identify the options impacted and what I want is to get a feel for the magnitude of effort or difficulty that these issues create.

    For example, for the first one, both options will require either an expansion of the existing routing tables in DAAS and FLIS in order to establish and maintain the correct source for the flow of information from and to the requestor of items and the provider of the items.

    NOTE: this specifically applies to common PBL Items of Supply. By common, I mean that both DoD and a PBL contractor or PSI both control the item. If every item were unique, our task would be much easier.

    A single, common NSN could easily allow co-mingling stock or use in a non-approved system

    Misidentified property receivedFound on base with no paperworkLost property within transportation channels

    Develop system changes to allow for and control PBL NSNsNew MOE rules identifying contractor as leadNew Level of Authorities for PBL NSNsBuild DB2 tables to cross reference PBL Part/CAGE match conditions with standard DoD NSNsNew Reference Number Justification Coding (RNJC) give additional visibility to Part/CAGE match conditions

    DoD activity (Service / PMO) must request and DLIS must approveDLIS will screen / review PBL contractor info Government entities will not use the PBL model

    New acquisition environment requires adapting cataloging to allow for multiple Material Management authorities (Designed for all PBL, encompasses JSF)

    Unique NSNs for PBL entitiesNarrowly defined business rules to control use by PBL entitiesA cross reference of DoD and PBL NSNs if a matching CAGE / Part number condition exists Resolves Part / CAGE and other data conflicts

    Adaptive to meet unknown, future needs

    FLIS already allows separate NSNs with matching conditions of CAGE / PART numbers Items are source controlled for specific applicationsNon-agreement on suitability among collaboratorsLack of adequate technical data to differentiate items

    Currently, cataloging policy, procedures, etc. do not address potential differences for NSNs shared among multiple Material ManagersEngineering / technical issues: no collaboration process among DoD and Industry engineering authorities to agree on form, fit, and functionAcquisition / procurement: Each PBL may have different business rules / sources for common NSN items