Changes are under review: an interview with MTMC's Commanding General.

Q. More changes seem to be looming for us--organizational changes for MTMC Headquarters, the Deployment Support Command, and Information Management. What is the focus of current initiatives?

A. We have come a long way over the past year and a half. Let me review changes to date so everyone understands the progress and direction.

First, as you know, we adjusted portions of the MTMC Headquarters staff and shifted some planning and operational responsibilities to Transportation Engineering Agency and Deployment Support Command. We centralized Passenger & Personal Property functions at the Headquarters in order to keep field elements focused on projection and sustainment support. We are proceeding now to centralize support functions for personnel, logistics, administration and resource management for the same reasons. We had more than 15 percent of our work force performing those functions with no standardization anywhere around the globe.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we decided to make our battalions and groups more standard, and to enable each to project Deployment Support Teams worldwide, thereby making MTMC more flexible and responsive. As part of those unit reorganizations, we will convert our battalion at Fort Monmouth to a company, and our group at Beaumont to a battalion.

Those are actions everyone knows about, I think, and we will complete most of them this year. There have been other reorganization actions under way that are more theater specific. For example, our 598th Transportation Group in Europe has downsized its operations in the Azores to just a handful of people. We have no more military there. The 598th is also in the process of reducing its Rhine River Detachment as well.

The 598th is taking these actions to align work force to work load. We are examining some installation functions within MTMC to see if we should be considering alternatives. We are also assessing some of our management functions to see if we should be leveraging industry capabilities more. Examples include container and rail management.

You may recall that when we started our strategic planning process, we purposely put off some of the tougher areas that required more thought. We have been looking at them for some time. For instance, we are looking at options for better integrating operational functions both vertically and horizontally. We still have too much overlap between the Headquarters and Deployment Support Command--that is the vertical piece. When you look at us horizontally, you discover that our shippers and customers have no single belly button to push for operational issues. They talk to various folks for various things, and operational support comes from various places. It would make a lot of sense to integrate operations worldwide more than they are now. Accordingly, we are looking at that.

We are also taking a hard look at Information Management. We have lots of MTMC employees and contractors working our automation needs. Many of our systems still are not Web-based. I am particularly concerned about this piece of our business. We are investing lots of money. We have world-class folks helping--but our systems are not world-class. Nor is our responsiveness to customers.

The focus of current initiatives is to improve support to our customers. Where we can consolidate or centralize support functions, we should do so. Not doing that leads to unnecessary overhead and costs, which keeps rates high. Where we can improve processes supporting customers, we should do so as well. Better processes make us better service providers--and as you know, we are in the service business.

Q. Could I ask you to elaborate on your Information Management concerns? What is wrong with the way we are doing business?

A. Yes. I am very concerned about our systems. First of all, too many of them simply do not talk to each other. They are stand-alone systems. We have to go through great pain just crosswalking data from one program to another. We enter data over and over again. For example, the key data element for one program might be "surcharges." For another, it might be "automatic fuel surcharges." For still another, it might be "fuel surcharges, automatic." And as a result, we input data multiple times. We should only input data once. Once we have it, we should take in that form and distribute it to wherever it needs to go. Secondly, we have a mixture of developers that you just don't find in many places, and there is no good reason for it. Half our systems are built in house by MTMC employees, and half are built by contractors. That just exacerbates the previous problem and creates additional challenges.

No one I've talked to thinks we should perpetuate this 50/50 mix. Remember what I said in response to your previous question. Much of what we have is not Web-based. Much of what we have is not even Windows-based. Think about that! How well do you think that squares with the rest of the world? We are going to deal with this. It will not be easy. It may affect some people. But we are going to deal with it and chart a path for the future. Our future needs to be on the Web, using products that are commercial-off-the-shelf wherever possible. That will enable us to stay in step with and to leverage industry.

Q. Do you have concerns that we are reducing MTMC too much?

A. No. I am not exactly sure if we have the right numbers in all areas, but I do know that many in our ranks are not busy from day to day. I've had people tell "me that personally. The key metric is not size but effectiveness. Operational support in MTMC has been as good or better than it has ever been. If you talk to the field or industry, they will tell you that. I am aware that some think we are pruning too much. They do not have the same vantage point.

I think we have to look at the world anew. When was the last time you saw all of MTMC engaged at once, active and reserve--at Headquarters and all the subcommands? We have postured ourselves in the past to meet some big bang theory that everything will happen simultaneously. You can examine deployment and sustainment timeliness supporting any contingency we have participated in or for which we are planning. You will not see everything happening everywhere all at once. We need to concern ourselves more with being multi-skilled and flexible. Then we will be capable of running to the sound of the guns, wherever they may be.

Q. What is Activity-Based Costing all about?

A. That is a complex subject. In simple terms, it is the delineation of costs by process. If I asked you today, for example, how much TRANSLOG costs, you might think you could answer that. You would probably cite the cost to publish it. You might consider the editor's salary as well, since she is responsible for it. You may not consider the amount of time others take to write articles. The time I give you answering questions like this. The amount of time you spend doing other interviews. Mailing expenses back and forth and around the world. Time on the phone answering questions, etc. The total cost of TRANSLOG is much more than you see. Now, consider something more complex, perhaps the per-measurement ton cost of moving cargo through a particular port or the cost of generating, disseminating and managing budgets. Activity-based costing is a means of getting at the total cost of things, so you can then manage better and make wise decisions.

By itself, it has little value. When you couple it with management, the term becomes Activity-Based Cost Management, or ABCM. That's what we're after. It will enable smart decision-making. We are in the process now of mapping processes to apply ABCM within MTMC. We took on this issue over a year ago. After we had started, Department of Army made it mandatory for Major Army Commands. We are ahead of the game. Much remains to be done.