Printer Friendly

Potential interfaces: ECSS and flying-hour systems.

Introduction

Since 2006, the United States Air Force has operated an average of 2,032,948 flying hours per year to include both training missions and contingency operations. (1) According to Air Force Instruction (AFI) 11-102, Flying-Hour Program Management, the AirForce Flying-Hour Program (FHP) consists of the flying hours necessary to train aircrews to safely operate their aircraft and sustain them in numbers sufficient to execute their core tasked missions.2 In short, the FHP equates flying hours to combat capability. (3) The Air Force mandates that each major command (MAJCOM) manage its budgeted portion of the overall FHP. This mandate requires continuous coordination between the maintenance and operations communities at both the MAJCOM and unit levels. Although AFI 11-102, Flying-Hour Program Management outlines the general process for managing the FHP, it does not prescribe specific, low-level details. The result of this lack of detail is a lack of standardization in the MAJCOM execution of the FHP. For example, a number of different information technology (IT) systems ate used to manage the FHP depending upon MAJCOM and mission design series (MDS). However, in the coming years the Expeditionary Combat Support System (ECSS) is expected to manage logistics data for the FHP. ECSS is an enterprise resource planning system that will subsume or consolidate over 250 Air Force legacy IT systems. ECSS will plan and execute an extensive number of Air Force logistical processes to include supply, maintenance, and procurement. A driving factor for all aspects of Air Force logistics is the number of hours aircraft are flown. Flying hours not only determine immediate parts and maintenance demand levels but also affect longer term derived demands associated with maintenance activities and personnel support. Flying-hour demands are, in turn, driven by wartime and contingency needs as well as aircrew training and currency requirements. The FHP is designed to project flying hours associated solely with training and currency requirements, and represents a large proportion of total hours flown. Unlike flying hours associated with wartime and contingency operations, the FHP requirements are relatively predictable. For ECSS to be effective in planning logistics, it must have access to planned and executed flying-hour data. The capability to access FHP data is an ECSS requirement, but the specific processes and systems that must access the data have not yet been specified. Hence, the required capability does not exist in the current design of ECSS. Because the FHP represents a large, relatively predictable proportion of total flying hours, the effectiveness of ECSS would be considerably increased by attaining access to both planned and executed FHP data.

This article will identify the processes used to plan and execute FHP hours at both the Air Staff and MAJCOM level, to include IT systems used, in order to identify potential touchpoints for ECSS. Since a centralized effort to manage flying hours does not exist and there is limited capability to input and view FHP data, the potential touchpoints will be evaluated based on ease of access, integrity of underlying data, and degree of applicability across Air Force organizations. Identifying effective avenues for obtaining FHP data will increase the effectiveness with which ECSS can plan and execute logistical processes. Determining the processes and IT systems used in the FHP requires two primary sources of information--AFI and subject matter experts (SME). Although the AFIs give high-level overviews of the FHP at the Air Force and MAJCOM-specific levels, they are often outdated and omit detailed process flows that can only be captured by interviewing SMEs. In order to fully capture FHPs across the Air Force, SMEs were interviewed at the following MAJCOMs: Air Combat Command (ACC), Air Education and Training Command (AETC), Air Mobility Command (AMC), Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC), and Air National Guard (ANG). United States Air Forces Europe and Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) were omitted because FHPs for their respective lead commands--Combat Air Force (CAF) and Mobility Air Force (MAF) assets are managed by ACC and AMC, respectively. Additional SMEs were interviewed for systems and processes affecting the FHR As processes to manage the FHP across the Air Force were identified, potential touchpoints with ECSS were evaluated on the following three criteria:

* Accessibility. ECSS touchpoints should be readily accessible. The workload associated with repeated data transfers should be minimal. Furthermore, setting up the data transfer pathway between systems should not be prohibitively difficult or violate classification procedures.

* Data Integrity. Candidate systems should have high data integrity and their data should be primary, not derivative. Ideally, a system's data should be accurate and timely.

* Applicability. Touchpoints should be selected that are applicable to multiple organizations across the Air Force, thereby minimizing the required number of touchpoints.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The absence of specific, low-level detail in AFI 11-102 for managing the FHP results in the lack of process standardization across MAJCOM execution of the FHP. The lack of detail was confirmed in extensive interviews with SMEs. However, although the MAJCOM processes have low-level, mission-driven differences, they generally share many high-level similarities. In general, the MAJCOMs interact with Air Staff through three high-level processes to program and execute the FHP. The three processes can be categorized by their functions as follows: Programming, First Look, and Execution. (See Figure 1)

The Programming Process

The Programming process occurs at Air Staff and projects allocated flying hours at the Air Force level program element with a reconciliation of force structure data with flying-hour requirements for a time horizon of 2 to 10 years. This process determines FHP requirements based on aircrew currency and reconciles the requirements with force structure and sustainability constraints to determine a supportable FHP allocation. The office of primary responsibility for computing force structure is the Directorate of Programs, Program Integration Division (AF/A8PE), and it relies on two data sources as shown in Figure 1. The first is inputs from force programmers in each MAJCOM on near- and far-term events impacting their respective MAJCOM's force structures. The second source is the Manpower Programming and Execution System (MPES), a personnel system containing data on the number and types of aircrew requiring training. The computed force structure, to include primary aircraft inventory and crew ratios, is combined with aircrew training requirements from the Directorate of Air, Space, and Information Systems (AF/A3) to serve as inputs for the Air Force Single Flying-Hour Model (AFFHM). The AFFHM applies formulas specific to each requirement to determine the necessary flying hours. The outputs of the AFFHM ate then passed to each MAJCOM's units in late February. The units apply the ready aircrew program process to fine-tune the outputs of the Single Flying-Hour Model. The units send their projected flying hours to the MAJCOMS. After MAJCOM review, the projected allocations are pushed to the Program Data System (PDS), a classified system that serves as the final repository for programmed and executed flying hours and is matched with funding in the Automated Budget Interactive Data Environment System (ABIDES) in late September. In the past, this process was mostly driven by Air Staff, but it is now more collaborative with MAJCOM units validating their programmed hours. AFSOC uses a modified process as its flying hours are controlled and managed by United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). While the same models ate used to project force structure, personnel, and requirements, the programmed hours must be vetted through USSOCOM. (See Figure 2)

The First Look Process

The next high-level process to program and execute the FHP is First Look. First look is a process whereby MAJCOMs thoroughly vet the next fiscal year's programmed hours for sustainability. It is mandated by AFI 21-101, Aircraft and Equipment Maintenance Management, that all MAJCOMs conduct the First Look process, although waiver authority for this instruction is the Aircraft Maintenance and Munitions Division (AF/A4M). The critical step that characterizes First Look is the coordination between maintenance and operations at the unit level to ensure harmony between the need to fulfill requirements and the ability to sustain aircraft with manpower, equipment, and facilities. First Look begins when Air Staff disseminates projected hours from PDS to the MAJCOMs, typically in late February. MAJCOMs in turn, disseminate the FHP to the unit level. The operational and maintenance organizations at each unit must then negotiate a sustainable flying hour allocation. It should be noted that there is no standardized model for determining maintenance capacity across the Air Force. Ideally a standardized First Look model would exist that considers MAJCOM-specific mission requirements. The units then pass their agreed upon allocation for MAJCOM and Air Staff review. The allocations are validated and adjusted in the First Look process, stored in PDS, and matched with funding in ABIDES. First Look is typically done in March--six months prior to execution. There is limited ability to adjust execution as the President's budget is published in March, so First Look should perhaps more aptly be called Last Look. Altering the First Look process so the next two programmed years are considered could improve its effectiveness, as is currently done by AETC.

There are several differences in the ways each MAJCOM approaches the First Look process. For example, AMC does not conduct the First Look process. One year prior to execution, flying hours are projected at the MAJCOM level, but there is no iterative collaboration between operations and maintenance organizations at the unit level. AETC, which has a fairly reliable flying schedule, conducts a more extensive First Look process than the other MAJCOMs. Synchronization of base-level operations and maintenance occurs two weeks prior to AETC's MAJCOM Program Flying Training conference, which validates the next two years of FHP requirements. Additionally, AETC uses different requirements for its white tail (initial training) aircraft and grey tail (operational training) aircraft. White tail requirements are based on initial student pilot production given by Air Force Air Operations Training (AF/ A30-AT), whereas, grey tail requirements use the AFFHM. Lastly, ACC and AFSOC have well organized First Look processes. However, ACC holds an annual Flying-Hour Conference as part of its First Look, and AFSOC has a standardized process for obtaining training sustainable flying hours from its units.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

The last high-level MAJCOM similarity is the Execution process. The MAJCOMs use the Execution process to plan, execute, allocate, reconcile, and report their allocated flying hours as shown in Figure 3.

The Execution Process

The Execution process begins when units receive their allocated flying hours stored in PDS. A number of base-level systems are used by units to schedule and monitor their flying hours on a day-to-day basis to include the following:

* Patriot Excalibur (PEX)

* Global Decision Support System (GDSS)

* [Graduate] Training Integration Management System (TIMS/GTIMS)

* Theater Battle Management Core Systems (TMBCS)

* Spreadsheet products

Once a mission is executed, the pilot records post-sortie data to include flying hours on an Air Force Technical Order FM/IMT 781, which is the primary source of data on hours flown. The 781 data is input by maintenance into Integrated Maintenance Data System (IMDS) for CAF aircraft or G081 (Core Automated Maintenance System for Mobility) for MAF aircraft and automatically sent by both systems to the Reliability and Maintainability Information System (REMIS) at intervals based on the criticality of the data fields. REMIS automatically checks incoming data for a predefined set of syntax and logic errors. Data that fails the error checks are placed in an error suspense file for the base-level aerospace vehicle utilization monitor (AVUM) and aerospace vehicle distribution officer to correct. The AVUMs submit monthly execution reports to the MAJCOMs, which review them to monitor and adjust the execution process. The MAJCOMs also reconcile REMIS flying hours with those reported by operations at each base. MAJCOMs, in turn, forward monthly spreadsheet reports detailing their executed hours to Air Staff's flying-hour program manager (AF/A30-AT). The program manager sits at the interface between the unclassified REMIS system and the classified PDS system and compares the flying hours in REMIS with the MAJCOM- reported flying hours. Before the data is archived in PDS (the Air Force authoritative data source), it passes through K002, a system that aligns tables from REMIS into PDS format. Once finalized, executed flying hours are pushed to PDS for permanent storage and funded in ABIDES (and reflected in ABIDES in the actuals position of the next President's budget submission to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and to Congress). (4)

There are also a number of key differences in the Execution process across the MAJCOMs. First, AFSOC's flying hours are reported to Air Staff after being vetted by USSOCOM, which controls AFSOC's flying hours. Furthermore, AFSOC must get approval from USSOCOM to reallocate flying hours (and funding) between MDS during execution. Second, MAJCOMs use very disparate processes to reconcile flying-hour data in REMIS with operational systems. The low-level processes used and amounts of reconciliation required are very different. For example, the Air National Guard (ANG) does very little reconciliation at the MAJCOM level, whereas other MAJCOMs do extensive reconciliation at headquarters. Third, MAJCOMs exert different degrees of control over the execution process. The ANG monitors the process, but largely enables decentralized execution of its diverse units. AMC, on the other hand, regularly reallocates flying hours as its aircraft are impacted by contingencies. Fourth, the base-level IT systems used differ extensively not only between, but also within, MAJCOMs.

The differences within FHP IT systems can be broadly categorized into two categories: integrated and stovepiped. The integrated systems transfer flying-hour information between themselves, whereas the stovepiped systems do not. The following are integrated IT systems discussed in the order of data flow:

* G081 and IMDS. G081 and IMDS are base-level systems that are the entry point for maintenance data, including flying hours, and are used universally by maintenance units throughout the Air Force. Maintainers input data directly from the 781 into G081 and IMDS, which both transmit the data to REMIS. Because the data, once reconciled in REMIS, is not updated in G081 and IMDS, both systems incur significant discrepancies in flying-hour data. From a database design perspective G081 and IMDS ate very different. G081 provides a global view of MAF asset data, whereas IMDS is segregated into different groups of bases.

* REMIS. REMIS is a logistics database that receives data from multiple systems including G081 and IMDS at intervals based on the data's criticality. REMIS filters incoming data for logic and syntax errors, which the units must correct before the data is accepted. Furthermore, because it is directly correlated to dollars, flying hours are rigorously reconciled with AF/A3's reported hours at the MAJCOM level. REMIS is the central repository for aircraft maintenance and flying-hour data across the Air Force and is used for Air Force level reporting. It is considered the authoritative data source of the MAJCOMs. REMIS also feeds D200F (Requirements Management System), which in turn supports spare parts computations.

* K002 (Peacetime Programming Computational System). K002 is a classified temporary storage area where flying-hour data is summarized. REMIS data is input into K002 every month. The data may undergo changes due to reconciliation or late reporting. Once complete, the data stored in K002 is then archived in PDS. PDS is considered the Air Force authoritative data source for flying-hour data.

* PDS. Air Force flying-hour data, both programmed and executed, are archived in PDS. PDS is a classified system and is the authoritative source of post-execution, flying-hour data for the Air Force. Data is transmitted to PDS after the summarization process in K002; therefore, PDS is updated monthly.

* ABIDES. ABIDES is a classified system that matches funding and manpower data to the FHP. ABIDES receives programmed and executed flying hour, force structure, and inventory data from PDS and combines it with financial and manpower data received from the Resource Allocation Programming Information Decision System (RAPIDS) and MPES, respectively. The accuracy and timeliness of flying-hour data in ABIDES is equivalent to data in PDS. ABIDES, like PDS, is used by all MAJCOMs.

Conversely, the following five systems describe the most common stovepiped IT systems used to manage the FHP. They are presented in the order of decreasing pervasiveness throughout the Air Force.

* ARMS (Automated Records Management System). ARMS is the primary base-level system for tracking aircrew currency. Data is input from the 781 to include flying hours. Although ARMS is used by all MAJCOMs, it is a parallel system to REMIS, and its data is not formally checked as part of the REMIS reconciliation process.

* PEX. PEX is a base-level system used to manage and schedule day-to-day, monthly, quarterly, and annual flying operations. It has interfaces with both ARMS and IMDS, but data is only received, not transmitted. PEX is strictly a functional program for managing base-level flying operations with maintenance planning capability. In the future, it will be populated by the MAJCOMs and not strictly unit driven. PEX is used by ACC and ANG; however, its usefulness for scheduling and maintenance is such that it may be making inroads to other MAJCOMs.

* GDSS. GDSS is a command and control system used by AMC to plan and execute air mobility operations. Flying hours in GDSS are used for execution planning as well as deviation and delay reporting. GDSS is not stovepiped in the strictest sense. Data flows on a two-way feed between GDSS and G081; however, only G081 data is directly used in the REMIS reconciliation process.

* TIMS/GTIMS: TIMS and GTIMS ate training-specific systems used by AETC. Both systems track student training-sortie progress.

* Theater Battle Management Core Systems (TBMCS). TBMCS is a classified system used primarily in the area of responsibility to plan and execute air operations including publishing the air tasking order.

In addition to the previously discussed IT systems, there ate two IT systems currently in development that will also affect FHP data. (5)

* Force Structure Data Management (FSDM): FSDM will replace PDS, which has become outdated and unreliable. FSDM is scheduled to begin operation in December 2010.

* Financial Information Resource System (FIRST): FIRST is currently in design and is scheduled for operational testing in March or April of 2011. FIRST will replace ABIDES and subsume PDS/FSDM and RAPIDS.

To determine the suitability of the IT systems as touchpoints for ECSS, the characteristics of the systems have been integrated with the three high-level FHP processes shown in the following tables. The tables will summarize the degree of accessibility, data integrity, and applicability of each system. It should be stressed that no effort has been made to quantify these attributes in an objective, absolute sense. Instead qualitative words such as low, poor, good, and high were used. These descriptions only serve as a relative ranking of the systems within each table and were based on both the characteristics of the systems as well as their relationship to the FHP process.

The IT systems required for the Programming and First Look processes are identical, as the processes only differ in the fidelity with which operations requirements and maintenance sustainability are reconciled at the base level. The processes use PDS and ABIDES--both systems will be replaced with FIRST in the future.

All three systems ate classified, and since ECSS is intended to be an unclassified system, the systems ate not accessible. Additionally, the programmed flying-hour data is strictly a prediction. Whether this prediction is accurate or not is outside the scope of this article; however, the prediction is represented identically in all three systems. Thus, the data integrity of programmed flying hours is high. All three systems are used by the MAJCOMs for their FHPs.

The following table summarizes the suitability of the integrated IT systems used in the Execution process. The systems ate listed in order of data flow.

As described earlier, data enters this integrated set of systems through G081 or IMDS. As data flows to REMIS, K002, PDS, and then ABIDES, it undergoes several checks for data integrity; however, its timeliness decreases because K002, PDS, and ABIDES are only updated monthly. Monthly, quarterly, and annual FHP data can be manually input into G081 and IMDS from PDS; however, no validation actions are performed in the transfer. With the exception of G081 and IMDS, the systems are applicable to all MAJCOMs.

Summary of Stovepiped Systems

Table 3 presents a summary of the stovepiped systems.

ARMS and PEX ate both base-level systems, and it is unknown whether unit data is centrally accessible. PEX, however, allows FHP allocations to be pushed to units from the MAJCOM. GDSS allows complete visibility of AMC assets; however, it is unknown whether TIMS/GTIMS training data is centrally accessible for AETC's bases. Data in all systems is updated based on data criticality and is therefore timely. However, the flying-hour data in these systems is not updated to match changes that occur during the reconciliation process with REMIS. The data accuracy of these systems is unknown but almost certainly lower than that of REMIS--data from these systems not included in the formal REMIS data reconciliation process.

Conclusions and Summary

A number of conclusions were made throughout the duration of the study. First, the processes the MAJCOMs and Air Staff use to program and execute the FHP can be decomposed into three high-level processes, having commonality across the MAJCOMs. Second, ECSS's subsuming of REMIS should be the focal point for gaining access to near real-time flying-hour data. The integrity of this data can be improved by checking data at the point of entry. ECSS will also have access to validated data, currently in K002 and PDS. (REMIS gets both initial FHP plus monthly updates through K002 and D200F. G081 and IMDS have a manual process of loading FHPs with limited utilization.) Third, MAJCOMs are working toward commonality between base-level systems used by operations to manage the day-to-day aspects of the FHP. Some base-level systems, such as PEX, provide significant utility to the units.

A number of recommendations also resulted. First, flying-hour data should be validated at the point of entry and should be viewable through a business intelligence suite at the appropriate Air Force levels. Second, an opportunity exists to automate initial input--FHP execution and utilization reporting at the unit, MAJCOM, and Air Force levels and display data in a dashboard. Third, AF/A3 should develop a standardized First Look model for all MAJCOMs' unique mission requirements to ensure communication between operations and maintenance in determining requirements and their sustainability. Fourth, ECSS may consider expanding functionality in the future to subsume or integrate scheduling functions currently provided by one or more of the base-level systems. Additionally, a formal process may be developed to reconcile ARMS data with the FHP process at the unit level. Fifth, replacing paper 781 s with an automated data acquisition system should be considered as AF/A3 and AF/ A4 (Directorate of Logistics) communication is key to advancing transformation initiatives and avoiding stovepiping of IT system development in the future.

In summary, AF/A4 is transforming the way it executes logistics and ECSS is the cornerstone enabler. IT system touchpoints are necessary for ECSS to access critical logistics information on FHP programming and execution. Additionally, the changes affecting AF/A4 will also impact AF/A3 and the way information is collected and shared. For example, it will become essential that AF/A3 transition to ECSS and place less reliance on gathering FHP data from the current legacy systems. To facilitate this, AF/A3 IT requirements must be known and ECSS training must be provided to these new user communities. Another challenge facing ECSS and the FHP is the lack of accessibility to ECSS from classified systems such as PDS and ABIDES. According to the ECSS Logistics Transformation Office, the current policy states that if data is unclassified but the system is classified, then an interface between ECSS and the data may be designed. However, if the data is classified, the classified system will remain persistent and ECSS will not perform that functionality. Either way, the FHP is a major driver of Air Force logistics and obtaining FHP data within ECSS will require reconciliation between AF/A3 and AF/A4 to forge a successful way ahead.

Article Highlights

The Air Force Flying-Hour Program (FHP) consists of the flying hours necessary to train aircrews to safely operate their aircraft and sustain them in numbers sufficient to execute their core tasked missions. In short, the FHP equates flying hours to combat capability.

"Potential Interfaces: ECSS and Flying-Hour Programs" identifies the processes used to plan and execute FHP hours at both the Air Staff and major command (MAJCOM) level, to include information technology (IT) systems used, in order to identify potential touchpoints for the Expeditionary Combat Support System (ECSS).

A number of conclusions can be drawn from the analysis performed. First, the processes the MAJCOMs and Air Staff use to program and execute the FHP can be decomposed into three high-level processes, having commonality across the MAJCOMs. Second, ECSS's subsuming of the Reliability and Maintainability Information System (REMIS) should be the focal point for gaining access to near real-time flying-hour data. The integrity of this data can be improved by checking data at the point of entry. Third, MAJCOMs are working toward commonality between base-level systems used by operations to manage the day-to-day aspects of the FHP. Some base-level systems, such as Patriot Excalibur, provide significant utility to the units.

A number of recommendations also resulted. First, flying-hour data should be validated at the point of entry and should be viewable through a business intelligence suite at the appropriate Air Force level. Second, an opportunity exists to automate initial input FHP execution and utilization reporting at the unit. MAJCOM, and Air Force levels and display data in a dashboard. Third, AF/A3 should develop a standardized First Look model for all MAJCOMs' unique mission requirements to ensure communication between operations and maintenance in determining requirements and their sustainability. Fourth, ECSS may consider expanding functionality in the future to subsume or integrate scheduling functions currently provided by one or more of the base-level systems. Additionally, a formal process may be developed to reconcile Automated Records Management System data with the FHP process at the unit level. Fifth, replacing paper 78 l s with an automated data acquisition system should be considered as AF/A3 and AF/A4 (Directorate of Logistics) communication is key to advancing transformation initiatives and avoiding stovepiping of IT system development in the future.

Article Acronyms

ABIDES--Automated Budget Interactive Data Environment System

ACC--Air Combat Command

AETC--Air Education and Training Command

AF/A3--The Directorate of Air, Space, and Information Systems

AF/A30--AT--Air Force Air Operations Training

AF/A4M--The Aircraft Maintenance and Munitions Division

AF/A8PE--The Directorate of Programs, Program Integration Division

AFFHM--Air Force Single Flying-Hour Model

AFI--Air Force Instruction

AMC--Air Mobility Command

ANG--Air National Guard

AOR--Area of Responsibility

ARMS--Automated Records Management System

AVDO--Aerospace Vehicle Distribution Officer

AVUM--Aerospace Vehicle Utilization Monitor

CAF--Combat Air Forces

D200F-Applications, Programs and Indentures System

ECSS--Expeditionary Combat Support System

FHP--Flying-Hour Program

FIRST- Financial Information Resource System

FM/IMT 781--Form

FSDM--Force Structure Data Management

G081--Core Automated Maintenance System for Mobility

GDSS--Global Decision Support System

GTIMS--Graduate Training Integration Management System

IMDS--Integrated Maintenance Data System

IT--Information Technology

K002--Peacetime Programming Computational System

MAF--Mobility Air Forces

MAJCOM--Major Command

MDS--Mission Design Series

MPES--Manpower Programming and Execution System

MX--Maintenance

OPS--Operations

PACAF--Pacific Air Forces

PDS--Program Data System

PEX--Patriot Excalibur

RAP--Ready Aircrew Program

RAPIDS--Resource Allocation Programming Information Decision System

REMIS--Reliability and Maintainability Information System

SME--Subject Matter Expert

TIMS--Training Integration Management System

TBMCS--Theater Battle Management Core Systems

USSOCOM--United States Special Operations Command

Elise Strachan, Captain, USAF

John Flory, University of Pittsburgh

Edward Bennett, Jr, Senior Master Sergeant, USAF

Richard Harken, Morgan Borszcz Consulting

Anthony Antoline, Major, USAF

Notes

(1.) Author's communication with Mr Barry Reid, AF/A30-ATF.

(2.) Air Force Instruction 11-102, Flying-Hour Program Management, 29 March 2002, 3.

(3.) Air Force Policy Directive 11-1, Flying-Hour Program. 10 August 2004, 1.

(4.) Author's communication with Mr Barry Reid, AF/A30-ATF.

(5.) Author's communication with Mr Carl R. Simpson, SAF/FMP (AFFSO).

Captain Elise Strachan is a logistics readiness officer and the Chief, Expeditionary Combat Support System Research at the Air Force Logistics Management Agency (AFLMA), Maxwell Air Force Base, Gunter Annex, Alabama. Prior to her assignment to the AFLMA, Captain Strachan was a student at the Air Force Institute of Technology and graduated with a masters degree in logistics management.

John Flory is currently a PhD student in industrial engineering at the University of Pittsburgh. At the time of writing of this article he served as an Air Force officer at the Air Force Logistics Management Agency, Maxwell Air Force Base, Gunter Annex, Alabama.

Senior Master Sergeant Edward O. Bennett, Jr is currently the Weapon Systems Superintendent, Air Force Logistics Management Agency, Maxwell Air Force Base, Gunter Annex, Alabama. Additionally, he occupies a key position in support of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force Title 10 and Joint wargames. Sergeant Bennett is also one of the Air Force Logistics Management Agency's Expeditionary Combat Support System focal points.

Richard W. Harken is a consultant for Morgan Borszcz Consulting. His primary focus is Air Force repair data migration as it supports the Expeditionary Combat Support System release strategy. Mr Harken is a retired Air Force Chief Master Sergeant with a broad background in maintenance management and maintenance scheduling.

Major Anthony F. Antoline is the Logistics Enterprise Architecture Program Manager, Air Force Logistics Management Agency, Maxwell Air Force Base, Gunter Annex, Alabama.
Table 1. Evaluation of Programming and First

 IT Data
SYSTEM Accessibility Integrity Applicability

 Limited;
 PDS classified High All MAJCOMs
 system

ABIDES Limited;
 classified High All MAJCOMs
 system

FIRST * Limited;
 classified High All MAJCOMs
 system

* System Under Development

Look Process Systems

Table 2. Evaluation of Integrated Execution Systems

IT DATA
SYSTEM ACCESSIBILITY INTEGRITY APPLICABILITY

G081 Good High Timeliness/ MAF
 Low Accuracy Aircraft

IMDS Good High Timeliness/ All Other
 Low Accuracy Aircraft
 UAVs

 High Timeliness/ All
BEMIS Good Low to Moderate MAJCOMs
 Accuracy

D200 Unknown Low All
 Timeliness/Good MAJCOMs
 Accuracy

K002 Limited; Low All
 classified Timeliness/Good MAJCOMs
K002 system Accuracy
 (BEMIS
 feeds K002
 monthly)

PDS Unknown Low All
 Timeliness/Highest MAJCOMs
 Accuracy

ABIDES Unknown Low All
 Timeliness/Highest MAJCOMs
 Accuracy

FIRST * Unknown Low All
 Timeliness/Highest MAJCOMs
 Accuracy

* System Under Development

Table 3. Evaluation of Stovepiped Execution Systems

IT Accessibility Data Integrity Applicability
SYSTEM

ARMS Unknown High ALL
 Timeliness/Unknown MAJCOMs
 Accuracy

PEX Unknown High ACC, ANG,
 Timeliness/Unknown AFSOC
 Accuracy

GDSS * Good High
 Accuracy AMC
 Timeliness/Unknown

TIMS/ Unknown High
GTIMS Timeliness/Unknown AETC
 Accuracy

TBMCS (Unknown (Unknown IAOR
 Operations

* GDSS feeds data to G081
COPYRIGHT 2010 U.S. Air Force, Logistics Management Agency
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Special Feature
Author:Strachan, Elise; Flory, John; Bennett, Edward, Jr.; Harken, Richard; Antoline, Anthony
Publication:Air Force Journal of Logistics
Date:Mar 22, 2010
Words:5061
Previous Article:On the hilltop.
Next Article:What does logistics enterprise architecture got to do with it?
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters