$
at LEAD was not accustomed to char- ging hours to the sub-assembly level, thus skewing cost reports. Since the quality of cost reporting is almost as important as the quality of the work, structuring labor charges and accounting systems is par- ticularly important.
Te second challenge the team faced was structuring the depot’s workload plan- ning software (Logistics Management Program or LMP) properly, including the associated vocabulary. Initially, the Sentinel team did not set up the work breakdown structures (WBS) in the LMP, so that purchase orders would directly correlate to system production. Ultimately, the Sentinel PO set up seven different WBSs in the LMP for the 50 systems that needed modification. As a result of the LMP funding structure, the LEAD team had to do a lot of manual work to generate a cost report by system. Further complicating this work is that depots and program offices use the same terms with different meanings; so when the product office asked about the WBS, the LEAD team was thinking LMP funding structure.
Te third significant challenge for the product office was the depot staff’s unfa- miliarity with Microsoft Project. Since earned-value reporting must be tied to a schedule, and LMP does not produce a detailed work schedule that would suffice for earned value reporting, the LEAD team had to learn how to input a sche- dule into Project and then load the value into that program at the appropriate level. Project has a steep learning curve and is
labor intensive. Unfortunately,
the LEAD production controller for the Sentinel project also had to build the integrated master schedule (IMS) in Proj- ect as a result of manpower constraints. Because the production controller was stretched too thin to effectively build the
KITTED OUT Partnering with PEO MS in the modification work on the Sentinel FMTV, shown here with radar detached during production qualification testing in early 2014, allowed LEAD to offset some of the pending reduction in reset work and keep its workforce robust. (Photo by Pete Baldwin, CMDS, PEO MS)
IMS and control the build-to-print work, the Sentinel PO scheduler built the majority of the IMS. Because of conflict- ing priorities, the production controller had a difficult time finalizing the IMS, leading to a significant delay in setting up earned-value reporting.
LESSONS LEARNED Despite
the challenges laid out above,
this effort is on a path to success. With the following lessons learned, many of these challenges could have been avoided.
Te Sentinel team travelled to LEAD to help the team with earned-value man- agement and reporting requirements. During that trip, both teams realized that most of the earned-value data was already collected, just not in a central- ized way. Te teams realized that the LMP funding process would hinder per-system cost reporting for the remain- der of the effort. Te team took this as a lesson learned about the importance
of establishing the WBS in LMP to facilitate cost reporting. Tis approach reduces the manual effort of adding hun- dreds of individual purchase orders into reportable levels in the IMS.
Te last point is that while depots are not familiar with earned value, the product office is very familiar with earned value. Te Sentinel PO realized early on that the product office would need to assist the depot team in producing an IMS and earned value reports.
Te approach outlined above supports several of the Better Buying Power (BBP) initiatives and sets
the foundation for
future support of those tenets. Since a government facility developed the TDP, the government retains ownership, which helps create an enduring competitive environment. As the organic industrial base is involved in development from the beginning, this modification prepares the depot for this type of work and allows it
ASC.ARMY.MIL 101
BBP 3.0
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156
