Defense Logistics: Army Should Assess Cost and Benefits of the Workload
Performance System Expansion (Letter Report, 11/12/1999,
GAO/NSIAD-00-16).

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the Army's study of
its master plan for implementing its Workload Performance System,
focusing on the: (1) Army's progress in developing and implementing the
workload performance system; and (2) extent to which the Army's April
1999 report to the House Committee on National Security addresses an
overall master plan for implementing the system, including the system's
future applications and funding requirements.

GAO noted that: (1) the Army has implemented and certified a basic
automated workload and performance system to evaluate personnel
requirements in its five maintenance depots; (2) while the system
appears to be adequate for this purpose, additional work is under way or
planned to achieve improved performance; (3) these additional
improvements include applications to identify the number of personnel
excesses or shortages by type of skill, the ability to assign personnel
based on skill qualifications to the most appropriate jobs, and the
impact of material shortages on planned work; (4) additionally,
development work is under way or planned to apply the workload
performance system to several other functional areas, even though some
questions exist about how cost-effective the system may be in some
instances; (5) the Army's report on its congressionally required master
plan provided limited and incomplete information on future development
plans and did not provide requested funding information; and (6) thus
far, the Army has used working capital funds for system development,
even though the Committee's report language directed that Army working
capital funds not be used for this purpose.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-00-16
     TITLE:  Defense Logistics: Army Should Assess Cost and Benefits of
	     the Workload Performance System Expansion
      DATE:  11/12/1999
   SUBJECT:  Reporting requirements
	     Military personnel
	     Strategic information systems planning
	     Human resources utilization
	     Reductions in force
	     Military downsizing
	     Personnel management
	     Management information systems
	     Systems design
IDENTIFIER:  Army Workload Performance System
	     Army Decision Support System

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **

** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************

Report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Armed
Services, House of Representatives

November 1999

DEFENSE LOGISTICS

Army Should Assess Cost and Benefits of the Workload Performance System
Expansion
*****************

*****************

GAO/NSIAD-00-16

Letter                                                                     3

Appendixes

Appendix I:Army Workload Performance System Application for Depot
Maintenance

                                                                         20

Appendix II:AWPS Application for Ammunition Logistics

                                                                         21

Appendix III:AWPS Application for Ammunition Manufacturing

                                                                         22

Appendix IV:AWPS Application for Base Operations

                                                                         23

Appendix V:Future AWPS Applications

                                                                         24

Appendix VI:Comments From the Department of Defense

                                                                         26

Table 1:  Examples of Tasks Associated With AWPS Depot
Maintenance Application as of August 1999        7

Table 2:  AWPS Schedule                         11

Table 3:  AWPS Project Office Budget Summary for Fiscal
Years 1996-2002                                 14

AWPS    Army Workload Performance System

DOD     Department of Defense

                                                     National Security and 
                                             International Affairs Division

B-283492

November 12, 1999

The Honorable Floyd Spence
Chairman
The Honorable Ike Skelton
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives

Accurate and consistent estimates of future workloads are essential to
determine personnel requirements. The Congress included a requirement in
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (P.L. 105-85)
that the Secretary of the Army certify that the Army's new system for
estimating personnel requirements****Symbol:xbe****the Army Workload
Performance System****Symbol:xbe****was fully operational before any
reduction-in-force actions could be made at any of the Army's five
maintenance depots./Footnote1/ To this end in 1998, the House Committee on
National Security/Footnote2/ directed the Army to conduct a study and
provide the Committee with its master plan for implementing the Army's
Workload Performance System, including future applications and total
funding for implementation./Footnote3/ The Committee also required that we
provide it a report on the Army's study. Specifically, as agreed with your
offices, we assessed (1) the Army's progress in developing and
implementing the workload performance system and (2) the extent to which
the Army's April 1999 report addresses an overall master plan for
implementing the system, including the system's future applications and
funding requirements.

Results in Brief

The Army has implemented and certified a basic automated workload and
performance system to evaluate personnel requirements in its five
maintenance depots. While the system appears to be adequate for this
purpose, additional work is under way or planned to achieve improved
performance. These additional improvements include applications to
identify the number of personnel excesses or shortages by type of skill,
the ability to assign personnel based on skill qualifications to the most
appropriate jobs, and the impact of material shortages on planned work.
Additionally, development work is under way or planned to apply the
workload performance system to several other functional areas, even though
some questions exist about how cost-effective the system may be in some
instances.

The Army's report on its congressionally required master plan provided
limited and incomplete information on future development plans and did not
provide requested funding information. Thus far, the Army has used working
capital funds/Footnote4/ for system development, even though the
Committee's report language directed that Army working capital funds not
be used for this purpose.

This report makes recommendations to develop a more comprehensive master
plan and strengthen the management control and oversight of system
development efforts.

Background

Several audit reports in recent years have highlighted the Army's
inability to support its personnel requirements using analytically based
workload forecasts. In the Department of Defense's (DOD) fiscal years 1997
and 1998 Annual Statements of Assurance, DOD noted difficulties in
relating personnel requirements to workload and budget as a material
weakness in the Army's manpower requirements determination system. In 1998
we reported on the Army's progress in taking corrective action./Footnote5/

To resolve deficiencies in its civilian manpower requirements
determination process, the Army initiated development of an automated
system intended to capture workload data and link it to manpower
requirements. In March 1996 the Army provided initial funding to its
support contractor and the Navy to develop and implement a modified
version of a Navy-developed automated workload performance system for use
at Army maintenance depots. In June 1996, a preliminary version of what is
now part of the Army Workload and Performance System (AWPS) was
implemented on a test basis at Corpus Christi Army Depot, one of the
Army's five maintenance depots.

The AWPS depot maintenance application extracts data from several
computerized Army support systems. The data are obtained electronically,
and no new or unique data are collected specifically for the workload
system. It provides project status and labor-hour information data
collected from the depots, planned workload data from the Army Materiel
Command, and workload data obtained from the Army's major customers.

A combination of Navy civilian and contractor employees is developing
AWPS, with program oversight provided by Headquarters, Department of the
Army, and day-to-day management oversight by the system project office
under the Industrial Operations Command at Rock Island,
Illinois./Footnote6/ A working group, comprised of representatives from a
variety of Army Materiel Command activities, provides input to the project
office regarding system requirements and outputs. It develops system
acceptance criteria, consulting as needed with the Army Audit Agency,
which acts in an advisory capacity.

Army Met Original Goals for AWPS, but Additional Development Continues

The Army has completed initial implementation of AWPS for depot
maintenance, and it recently certified the basic system as operational at
five maintenance depot locations. At the same time, the magnitude of the
AWPS project has grown to a point where additional management oversight
and coordination may be warranted. Numerous additional tasks have been
identified and initiated to enhance the depot maintenance application, and
AWPS is being expanded to four other functional areas--ammunition
logistics, ammunition manufacturing, base operations support, and
arsenals. Further, headquarters Army officials have identified still more
functional areas for potential long-term development.

Basic AWPS Application for Depot Maintenance Implemented and Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------------

On June 28, 1999, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and
Reserve Affairs certified that work on the basic workload performance
system had been completed and was operational at its five maintenance
depots./Footnote7/ The initial operating capability focused on a basic
workload and planning system to facilitate management of depot workloads
and the ability to identify workload/workforce imbalances at the five
depots.

Overall, the depot maintenance application of AWPS takes workload and
workforce information and presents it in a manner that allows shop
supervisors to better manage the work flowing through their shops and
permits depot managers to better manage the size and composition of their
workforce. Work in developing this application included (1) gathering
project data, labor expenditures, performance data, and scheduling
information to support workload forecasting and personnel staffing
studies; (2) capturing various personnel data, such as leave and
attrition, to support analysis of alternative employment strategies; and
(3) providing daily production support by comparing actual resource
expenditures against production plans.

Further Enhancements of Depot Maintenance Application Under Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Although the basic depot maintenance application has been certified as
operational, the Army continues to develop this application to enhance its
capabilities. The AWPS application for depot maintenance is evolving from
a basic system that captures workload data and links it to manpower
requirements to a more robust system that is expected to provide more
refined information about individual skill levels. The Army's April 1999
report to the Committee identified four of these enhancements, but it
excluded several tasks that were previously planned by the system project
office. For example, the AWPS maintenance application is being enhanced to
identify the number of needed employees by skill type and to facilitate
the assignment of the most appropriate personnel to each job to maximize
depot productivity over a 3-year period. Table 1 outlines the completed
and certified tasks noted above as well as examples of additional tasks
now under development or planned for the future to enhance the depot
maintenance application.

Table****Helvetica:x11****1:    Examples of Tasks Associated With AWPS
                                Depot Maintenance Application as of August
                                1999

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Task              : Objectives                                      |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Completed and     :                                                 |
| certified         :                                                 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Develop and       : Facilitate management of depot workload by      |
| implement basic   : identifying workload and personnel data and     |
| workload and      : generating job planning information.            |
| planning system   :                                                 |
| at five depots    :                                                 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Develop workload  : Given workload and personnel resources in       |
| and resources     : each depot work area, generate a report         |
| reporting         : identifying net workforce imbalances.           |
| process at five   :                                                 |
| depots            :                                                 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Completed         :                                                 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Integrate system  : Clarify the relationship between workload and   |
| with depot        : workforce on the budget.                        |
| budget            :                                                 |
| preparation and   :                                                 |
| train industrial  :                                                 |
| activity          :                                                 |
| personnel in its  :                                                 |
| use               :                                                 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Under development :                                                 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Support           : Incorporate planning, scheduling, and           |
| management of     : performance of contractor personnel working     |
| contractor labor  : in Army depots to provide visibility of         |
| within the depots : contractor production within the depot          |
|                   : system. Completion expected in November 1999.   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Implement         : Accomplish conversion of system from FoxPro     |
| programming       : to the Oracle language.                         |
| language          :                                                 |
| conversion        :                                                 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Planned but work  :                                                 |
| not begun         :                                                 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Develop           : Implement coding system to refine workforce     |
| resource,         : analysis by focusing on specific employee       |
| scheduling, and   : skills rather than aggregating personnel        |
| control skill     : information by work area. Completion expected   |
| codes             : in March 2001.                                  |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Design and        : Size the workforce and assign the most          |
| implement         : appropriate personnel to maximize depot         |
| resource,         : productivity and size the workforce using       |
| scheduling, and   : previously developed coding system.             |
| control system    : Completion expected in January 2003.            |
| at five depots    :                                                 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Develop and       : Support comparisons of material requirements    |
| implement         : and supply availability data to determine       |
| material system^a : whether material will be available to perform   |
|                   : planned maintenance and to facilitate make or   |
|                   : buy decisions for parts and components.         |
|                   : Completion expected in September 2002, but      |
|                   : additional requirements being considered.       |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Implement         : Support analysis of impact of potential         |
| capability to     : resource or workload changes on depot           |
| compare           : production and costs.                           |
| personnel and     :                                                 |
| cost impact       :                                                 |
| resulting from    :                                                 |
| unforeseen        :                                                 |
| changes           :                                                 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

^aProject office officials stated that the use of commercial off-the-shelf
software might be a more cost-effective alternative for this and other
similar material tasks.

Source: Army Workload Performance System Project Office.

The tasks under development were expected to be completed between now and
2000; others not yet started are expected to be completed by 2005.
However, as discussed more fully in a later section, the program has
encountered a variety of schedule slippages due to funding problems and
programmatic changes. Appendix I provides additional summary information
regarding the individual tasks for the depot maintenance application,
including projected completion dates as of August 1999.

Expansion of Workload Performance System to Other Applications
--------------------------------------------------------------

While the Navy system from which AWPS evolved was used only for depot
maintenance, the Army's system will include applications for other
functional areas. System modifications are under way or planned to support
eventual system implementation in the areas of ammunition
logistics,/Footnote8/ ammunition manufacturing, and base operations
support. The basic system for the ammunition, base operations support, and
other follow-on applications is expected to meet the same objectives as
are currently met for the depot maintenance application: scheduling
workloads and identifying workforce imbalances based on an analysis of
planned workload and available personnel. In commenting on a draft of this
report, DOD officials stated that the Army is proceeding with limited
prototype development and testing of these applications to determine the
operational costs and benefits of each application and system enhancement.
Officials further stated that the Army would not implement applications
that do not adequately demonstrate cost-effectiveness.

Project office officials are not aware of any plans for certifying the
operational effectiveness of these other system applications for the
Congress./Footnote9/ Current plans provide that the operational
effectiveness of each of the new applications and all major enhancements
will be reviewed and validated by the Army Audit Agency using acceptance
criteria developed by a configuration control board comprised of
representatives from a variety of Army Materiel Command activities. The
Industrial Operations Command will send written confirmation to the Army
Materiel Command to report completion of this validation.

Ammunition Logistics

The basic system for implementing the AWPS ammunition logistics
application has been installed and has undergone system testing at
selected locations. The Army Audit Agency evaluated this work and found it
acceptable. Subsequently, the Industrial Operations Command informed the
Army Materiel Command that the basic ammunition system had been
successfully installed. Development efforts are under way or planned to
enhance this application. Appendix II identifies 10 tasks and other
summary information associated with this application. The follow-on tasks
have projected completion dates in 2005.

Differing opinions exist regarding the usefulness of AWPS in ammunition
logistics facilities. On one hand, Army officials at using organizations
questioned the usefulness of automated systems and procedures for
identifying temporary staff shortages and excesses given the day-to-day
fluctuations in workload forecasts and the relatively short production
projects generally experienced. On the other hand, Army headquarters
officials stated that while workload forecasts change frequently,
implementation of the planned system would enable facility managers to
more effectively utilize employees. While we did not examine the
ammunition logistics module sufficiently to determine the cost-
effectiveness of this application, it is clear that these disparate
positions need to be resolved. As discussed later, greater involvement of
organizations likely to be affected by AWPS implementation may be needed
in designing future applications to better ensure continued program
viability and evaluate cost-effectiveness.

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD officials stated that the
Army established a configuration control board comprised of system users
and developers to identify and solve various technical and programmatic
issues. Further, DOD officials stated that user acceptance of the system
has improved and that users have already recognized and implemented
improved business practices.

Ammunition Manufacturing

An AWPS ammunition manufacturing application is in a preliminary planning
phase and the Army has not yet initiated development work. As currently
planned, this application will identify workload and personnel
requirements and provide plant managers with information on individual
project status. Appendix III lists three tasks and summary information
associated with the ammunition manufacturing application. Although work
has not yet begun on these tasks, the Army currently projects completion
between December 2001 and December 2005. According to Army officials at
using organizations, questions exist about the cost-effectiveness of an
AWPS ammunition manufacturing application given the availability of
commercial off-the-shelf software and declining workload forecasts.
However, Army headquarters officials stated that the use of AWPS will
enable them to implement a rational personnel downsizing plan and to
clearly articulate the impact of declining workloads.

Base Operations Support

AWPS development efforts for the base operations support application are
under way and have progressed to the prototyping phase. A basic system
prototype is being installed at the Anniston Army Depot to be used for
relating projected workload for various support functions to the personnel
required to support these functions. Project office plans call for
installing the system at the other four maintenance depots by February
2001, using a system testing procedure similar to that used during the
early development of the depot maintenance application. The completion
date for this effort has slipped several times, and it is unclear when
this system application will be evaluated and tested. It is also unclear
how beneficial this application would be, given that the Army is
considering the use of public and private competitions for many of its
base operations support functions. Appendix IV summarizes some of the key
tasks and other information associated with the base operations support
application; individual tasks are currently projected to be completed
between October 1999 and December 2005.

Possible Expansion to Other Functional Areas
--------------------------------------------

The Army has identified several activities such as field-level
maintenance, arsenals, research and development, testing and evaluation,
and training as possible areas for long-term expansion of the workload
performance system. Development work has not been initiated in any of
these areas. Further, projected completion dates have been established
only for tasks associated with the arsenal application. In general, these
areas involve different Army organizations and chains of command, as well
as a different mix of personnel skills than are supported by the
applications currently under development. It is uncertain how project
management would be handled for these applications. Although the Army's
recent mandated report on AWPS cited plans to develop these additional
applications, AWPS project office officials told us that the project
office was not consulted about inclusion of these applications in the
Army's report. From their perspective, these applications have not been
planned, scheduled, budgeted, or funded. Further, they stated that it is
unclear how beneficial the arsenal application would be, given that the
Army is considering the use of public and private sector competition for
operation of some arsenal activities. See appendix V for a summary of the
individual applications and selected tasks.

Although not a functional application, development is planned for a
"Decision Support System," which would be deployed to Headquarters,
Department of the Army, to facilitate funding and resource allocations
based on Army priorities. The Decision Support System would aggregate
workload and performance data from a variety of Army installations to
enable headquarters commands to identify areas where performance could be
improved through reengineering or setting specific performance measures
and goals. While the Committee directed the Army to move forward with
development of this module as quickly as possible, development work has
not yet begun in this area, and target dates for initiating and completing
this action have not been established./Footnote10/

Program Expansion and Slippage of Program Milestones May Warrant Improved
Program Management and Oversight
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As shown in table 2, completion dates for the remaining workload
performance system tasks have slipped several times in recent months and
completion milestones have yet to be established for some long-term system
applications./Footnote11/ Army officials stated that untimely and
inadequate funding are key contributing factors to these delays.

Table****Helvetica:x11****2:    AWPS Schedule 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Modules                : Completion   : Completion   : Completion    |
|                        : date as      : date as      : date as       |
|                        : reported     : reported     : reported      |
|                        : Feb. 9, 1999 : May 4, 1999  : Aug. 18, 1999 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Short term             :              :              :               |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Depot maintenancea     : Jan. 3, 2000 : Sept. 30,    : Dec. 26, 2005 |
|                        :              : 2002         :               |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Ammunition logistics   : Sept. 28,    : Dec. 31, 2004: Dec. 22, 2005 |
|                        : 2000         :              :               |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Ammunition             : Nov. 30, 2000: Nov. 30, 2000: Dec. 12, 2005 |
| manufacturing          :              :              :               |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Base operations        : June 29, 2001: June 29, 2001: Dec. 8, 2005  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Long term              :              :              :               |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Field-level            : Not shown    : Not shown    : Not shown     |
| maintenance            :              :              :               |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Manufacturing arsenals : June 11, 2004: Oct. 13, 2005: Dec. 29, 2005 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Base operations        : Not shown    : Not shown    : Not shown     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Training, testing,     : Not shown    : Not shown    : Not shown     |
| and evaluation, and    :              :              :               |
| research and           :              :              :               |
| development activities :              :              :               |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Decision support       : Not shown    : Not shown    : Not shown     |
| systems                :              :              :               |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Other tasks in         : Sept. 22,    : Dec. 1, 2000 : Aug. 19, 2003 |
| project plan, but not  : 2000         :              :               |
| explicitly identified  :              :              :               |
| in Army report         :              :              :               |
------------------------------------------------------------------------

a Includes enhancements supporting resource scheduling and material
support. 

Source: Army Workload Performance System Project Office. 

While the current management team has implemented the basic workload and
performance system at Army maintenance depots, the potential scope of the
AWPS system development has expanded to other functional areas, some of
which are outside the command and control of the Army Materiel Command.
Further, Army officials stated that current sources of funding may be
inadequate for timely completion of these future applications. Therefore,
an improved management oversight structure to include representatives from
organizations responsible for each of the potential functional users would
appear to be necessary. For example, input from these organizations would
likely be important in assessing the cost-effectiveness of developing or
enhancing system applications. Additionally, in our opinion, without the
involvement of responsible organizations, it is unlikely that required
funding will become available.

Army's Report on AWPS Master Plan Did Not Provide Complete Information
About Programs, Costs, and Schedules

The Army's report to the Committee on a long-range master plan for the
workload performance system has some important limitations. While the
Committee directed the Army to report on its long-range master plan for
implementing AWPS, including future applications and funding requirements,
the Army's report did not include some key information that might normally
be expected. For example, it provided no descriptive information other
than the task titles--no objectives, no expected costs or benefits, no
system development and implementation schedules, and no list of
priorities./Footnote12/ While the Army's report provided a partial list of
tasks to be completed in developing AWPS applications for depot
maintenance, ammunition logistics, ammunition manufacturing, and base
operations support functions at Army industrial facilities, our work shows
that the report omitted several tasks that were in a project plan prepared
and maintained by the system project office. Further, we found that
projected completion dates have been established for some but not all of
the tasks associated with these applications.

Appendix I highlights the tasks the Army report listed for the AWPS depot
maintenance application. As previously noted, it also includes some depot
maintenance tasks on which officials in the system project office have
initiated work, but which were not listed in the Army report. According to
Army officials, some of the tasks not listed in the Army's report will
likely require as many resources as some tasks that were listed.
Appendixes II through IV summarize various tasks associated with
ammunition logistics, ammunition manufacturing, and base operations
support, and they also include several planned developmental tasks that
were omitted from the Army's report to the Committee.

The Army report provided limited information with regard to four potential
long-term system applications--manufacturing arsenals; field-level
maintenance organizations; training, research and development, test and
evaluation activities; and base operations support for nondepot
maintenance activities. Our work shows that the Army project has
established expected completion dates for the arsenal application, but
completion milestones for the other long-term applications have not yet
been established. In discussing a draft of this report, Army officials
explained they currently have no firm plans or schedules for implementing
AWPS to applications they had described as long term. Further, while the
Army's report provided general descriptive information about the Decision
Support System for use by Army headquarters, it did not identify
associated tasks, cost estimates, development and testing schedules, or
information about the relative importance or priority of the Decision
Support System to the other planned system components. Appendix V provides
a summary of available information for each of the potential long-term
applications.

Army Report Provided No System Cost Information
-----------------------------------------------

The Army's report to the Committee provided no funding information even
though congressional committee direction required it. We identified
estimated costs totaling $45 million for (1) the development and testing
and (2) supporting studies of the following system applications: depot
maintenance, ammunition logistics, ammunition manufacturing, base
operations support at some Army industrial activities, and arsenals. This
estimate does not include potential long-term costs for expanding the AWPS
system to other functional areas and is based upon completion dates that
are subject to continuing slippage.

Table 3 provides the estimated AWPS system program office funding for
fiscal years 1996 through 2002.

Table****Helvetica:x11****3:    AWPS Project Office Budget Summary for
                                Fiscal Years 1996-2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dollars in        :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
| thousands         :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   :  1996 : 1998 : 1999 : 2000 : 2001 : 2002 : Estima  |
|                   :   and :      :      :      :      :      :    ted  |
|                   :  1997 : cost : budg : budg : budg : budg :  total  |
|                   : costs :    s :   et :   et :   et :   et : spendi  |
|                   :       :      : plan : plan : plan : plan :     ng  |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Short term        :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Depot maintenance : $2,746: $3,4 : $612 : $240 : $675 : $2,1 : $9,876  |
|                   :       :   93 :      :      :      :   10 :         |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Ammunition        :       :  748 : 1,995:  190 :  575 :  810 :  4,318  |
| logistics         :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Ammunition        :       :      :  200 :  759 :  700 :  810 :  2,469  |
| manufacturing     :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Base operations   :       :  230 : 1,599: 1,161:  750 : 1,145:  4,885  |
| for Army          :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
| Materiel Command  :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
| activities        :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Long term         :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Field-level       :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
| maintenance       :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Manufacturing     :       :      :      : 1,610:  700 :  750 :  3,060  |
| arsenals          :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Base operations   :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
| for field-level   :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
| maintenance       :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
| activities        :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Training,         :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
| testing,          :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
| research and      :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
| development       :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Decision Support  :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
| System            :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Configuration     :       :      : 2,062: 3,468: 4,873: 1,140: 11,543  |
| control and       :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
| integrated        :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
| logistics         :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
| support^a         :       :      :      :      :      :      :         |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Total             : $2,746: $4,4 : $6,4 : $7,4 : $8,2 : $6,7 : $36,149 |
|                   :       :   71 :   67 :   28 :   73 :   65 :         |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

aFunds shown in this line are mostly for system operation and maintenance
costs after a module is implemented.

Note: Some totals may appear not to add due to rounding.

Source: Army Workload Performance System Project Office.

In addition to the projected $36.1 million estimated by the Army Workload
Performance System Project Office, Army headquarters spent an additional
$3.6 million in fiscal years 1995 through 1998 for various contractor-
provided studies. Additionally, costs for the system project office, which
are estimated at over $5 million for fiscal years 1996 through 2002, are
not included in these estimates. Moreover, the $36.1 million also does not
include any costs for the planned Decision Support System or for potential
system development and implementation for the other long-term workload
performance system applications such as field-level maintenance, research
and development, testing and evaluation, or training, which were listed as
potential system applications in the Army report. Further, costs are
expected to grow because system milestones have slipped, and they are
likely to slip even further in the future.

Working Capital Fund Is Primary Funding Source
----------------------------------------------

Despite committee direction that working capital funds not be used for the
workload performance system, they have been used as the primary funding
source. According to Army officials there is no approved budget for the
system's development and implementation, and as a result an irregular
funding stream has evolved to include working capital funds as the primary
source and, to a lesser extent, the reprogramming of other available end-
of- year funding. These officials believe that this funding approach has
hampered efficient management and operations. In addition, officials from
the Army Materiel Command stated that reliance on working capital funding
increases the hourly cost of various industrially funded operations, which
some believe are already unaffordable. According to these officials, the
reimbursement of working capital funds for the costs of AWPS system
development and implementation is being spread over 10 or more years,
adding an estimated 21 cents to each direct depot maintenance work hour
and about 34 cents to each direct ordnance work hour.

Conclusions

The Army's report to the Committee on a master plan for the workload
performance system has some important limitations in providing complete
information on the scope of work, completion milestones, and cost
information. Our assessment of the Army's report also indicates that
improved program planning and management are essential if the Army is to
cost-effectively complete the system implementation in a timely manner--
including planned program expansion. Further, some questions exist
concerning the cost benefit of developing and implementing additional
applications outside the depot maintenance function. Adoption of an
improved master plan and management structure could also be important to
the Army's ability to achieve the objectives of the Army Workload
Performance System. Such steps could be important in validating system
applications, documenting the cost and benefits of proposed new system
applications and enhancements, establishing system priorities, improving
system management, and obtaining required funding.

Recommendations

To improve program management and provide a baseline for future program
evaluation, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense require the
Secretary of the Army to assess the cost-effectiveness of using the Army
Workload Performance System for nondepot maintenance applications before
proceeding with development and implementation. Based on the completed
assessment, we further recommend that the Secretary of the Army:

o   Develop a more substantive master plan that incorporates all
  applications for which the system is to be implemented. This master
  plan should include priorities, cost and benefits, and proposed
  schedules.

o   Assess the adequacy of existing program management and oversight
  structures in light of (1) additional functional applications and
  overall funding requirements and (2) the potential for extending the
  workload and performance system to users outside the Army Materiel
  Command.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

DOD provided written comments that are included as appendix VI. DOD
officials also provided a number of suggested technical changes that have
been incorporated into the report body as appropriate. DOD officials
agreed that the cost and benefits of each expanded system application
should be analyzed, but did not agree with our draft report's
recommendation to delay approval of additional funding for system
development until after the cost benefits of each application are fully
documented and analyzed. DOD concurred with our recommendations to develop
a more substantive Army Workload Performance System master plan (including
cost, benefits, and schedules for developing each application) and to
assess the adequacy of program management and oversight in view of the
expanded range of system applications and increased funding requirements.

In commenting on our recommendation to postpone additional funding, DOD
officials stated that the Army is currently developing prototype systems
for several functional applications, including ammunition storage,
ammunition manufacturing, and base operations. According to these
officials, ongoing prototype development and tests are designed to
demonstrate the usefulness of each application and provide a baseline for
assessing costs and benefits. DOD officials stated that postponing
additional funding for completing this work would unnecessarily hinder
progress and delay efforts to correct previously reported weaknesses in
the Army's ability to link personnel requirements to workload estimates.

We agree that DOD has made substantial progress in its efforts to correct
material weaknesses in its ability to match personnel authorizations to
forecasted workloads at its major maintenance depots. While the Army has
already initiated efforts to achieve similar goals at other activities, we
continue to believe that approval of funding for full-scale development
and implementation of expanded applications should be postponed until
costs and benefits are analyzed. However, we modified our draft report
recommendation to enable completion of ongoing prototype testing in order
to demonstrate and document the financial benefits of each expanded
application before proceeding with system development and implementation
of the applications. DOD officials stated that they concurred with our
modified recommendation.

With regard to our recommendation to develop a more substantive master
plan for implementation of performance system applications at nondepot
maintenance facilities, DOD stated that such a plan would be completed by
July 2000. They stated that the plan would include information on
priorities, cost and benefits, and milestones for all anticipated Army
Workload Performance System applications, including maintenance,
ammunition, and base operations.

With regard to our recommendation to assess the adequacy of existing
program management and oversight structures, DOD concurred, but gave no
time frame for completing the assessment. We continue to believe that such
an assessment should be done as soon as possible, in light of (1) the
potential for expanding the workload and performance system to activities
outside the Army Materiel Command and (2) system development costs, which
exceed the criteria for managing the Army Workload Performance System
program as a major automated information system acquisition.

Scope and Methodology

To assess the status of the Army Workload Performance System, we read the
Army's April 1999 report to the Committee and discussed its contents with
senior officials in the offices of the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs) and Army Deputy Chief of Staff for
Logistics, Washington, D.C.; the Army Workload Performance System Project
Office at Rock Island, Illinois; and the Naval Sea Logistics Center,
Pacific, Concord, California. We also discussed supplemental project
planning and budgeting information with these same officials. We compared
those portions of the Army report dealing with system depot maintenance
with comparable portions of Army budget and schedule documents. We also
reviewed the major blocks of work to be done and discussed their cost and
benefits. During our visit to the Navy facility, we attended a workload
performance system training course with managers from depots and with a
professional staff member from the organization that developed the system
of evaluating depot overhead personnel requirements. We met with Army
Audit Agency officials regarding their review of the workload performance
system. Finally, we interviewed senior officials from some of the five
maintenance depots that implemented the system.

To assess the status of the other workload performance system
applications, including their cost, we visited and interviewed a wide
variety of personnel. We discussed task status, possible cost and
benefits, and other relevant issues with the system program manager, the
Navy program manager, support contractor personnel, and senior Army
officials in Army Materiel Command and Headquarters, Department of the
Army. We discussed the issues with senior managers of the two
manufacturing arsenals. We also visited the senior manager of one of the
ammunition depots and spoke with senior officials at five others, sending
written questions to all six. We also talked with officials from the
Army's Industrial Operations Command's Army Workload Performance System
Project Office at Rock Island, Illinois; the Naval Sea Logistics Center,
at Concord, California; and the Army's support contractor at Washington,
D.C. During our Rock Island visit and numerous follow-on conversations, we
discussed the project plan, including program schedules and budgets. We
also reviewed the major blocks of work to be done, discussed their cost
and benefits and discussed our concerns and some of the organizations
slated to receive parts of the system. We also talked at length with the
Navy workload performance system program manager about plans to export the
system, and its use for other applications. During our meetings with the
support contractor, our primary focus was on tasks and modules other than
depot maintenance.

We conducted our review from February 1999 through September 1999 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to Senator John W. Warner, Chairman,
and Senator Carl Levin, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on Armed
Services; the Honorable William S. Cohen, the Secretary of Defense; the
Honorable Louis Caldera, Secretary of the Army; the Honorable William J.
Lynn, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); and the Honorable Jacob
Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will also be
available to others upon request.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
call me or Barry Holman at (202) 512-8412. Key contributors to this report
were Julia Denman, David Epstein, and Glenn Knoepfle.

*****************

*****************

David R. Warren, Director
Defense Management Issues

--------------------------------------
/Footnote1/-^ Previously approved reductions resulting from
  recommendations approved under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
  Act were not affected by P.L. 105-85.
/Footnote2/-^ Now known as the House Committee on Armed Services.
/Footnote3/-^ Report 105-532 of the House Committee on National Security
  regarding the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.
/Footnote4/-^ Under this industrial funding arrangement, the Army sells
  goods and services to the military services based on predetermined rates
  designed to recoup operating costs. Working capital fund customers pay
  for the goods and services, primarily with operations and maintenance
  funds appropriated by the Congress. 
/Footnote5/-^ Force Structure: Army's Efforts to Improve Efficiency of
  Institutional Forces Have Produced Few Results (GAO/NSIAD-98-65, Feb.
  26, 1998).
/Footnote6/-^ The Industrial Operations Command reports to the Army
  Materiel Command.
/Footnote7/-^ Section 364 of the 1998 Defense Authorization Act prohibited
  the Army from initiating a reduction in force at the five Army
  maintenance depots until after the Secretary of the Army certified to
  the Committee that the workload and performance system is fully
  operational.
/Footnote8/-^ Ammunition logistics includes such functions as storage,
  issuance, demilitarization, maintenance, stock rotation, and minor
  modifications to previously manufactured items.
/Footnote9/-^ The 1998 Defense Authorization Act certification requirement
  applies only to AWPS implementation at the five Army maintenance depots.
/Footnote10/-^ Report 105-532 of the Committee on National Security.
/Footnote11/-^ The reference to applications as short- or long-term
  reflects the descriptions used in the Army's report to the Committee.
/Footnote12/-^ While the Army's report contained no discussion of
  objectives, we discussed applications and tasks with project officials
  to obtain some information on task objectives.

ARMY WORKLOAD PERFORMANCE SYSTEM APPLICATION FOR DEPOT MAINTENANCE
==================================================================

                                                                  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    : Estimated  : Objectives and expected results   |
|                    : completion :                                   |
| Task name          :  date      :                                   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Completed and      :            :                                   |
| certified          :            :                                   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Develop and        : March 1998 : Facilitate management of depot    |
| implement basic    :            : workload by identifying           |
| workload and       :            : workload and personnel data and   |
| planning system    :            : generating job planning           |
| at five depots     :            : information                       |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Develop workload   : March 1998 : Given workload and personnel      |
| and resources      :            : resources in each depot work      |
| reporting process  :            : area, generates a report          |
| at five depots     :            : identifying net workforce         |
|                    :            : imbalances and displaying         |
|                    :            : monthly depot workforce           |
|                    :            : excesses or shortages over a 3-   |
|                    :            : year horizon                      |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Completed          :            :                                   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Integrate          : February   : Link workload, workforce, and     |
| workload           : 26, 1999   : budget                            |
| performance        :            :                                   |
| system with depot  :            :                                   |
| budget             :            :                                   |
| preparation and    :            :                                   |
| train industrial   :            :                                   |
| activity           :            :                                   |
| personnel in its   :            :                                   |
| usea               :            :                                   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Under development  :            :                                   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Develop            : November   : Incorporate planning,             |
| contractor labor   : 30, 1999   : scheduling, and performance of    |
| application for    :            : contractor personnel working in   |
| depot maintenance  :            : Army depots to provide            |
|                    :            : visibility of contractor          |
|                    :            : production within the depot       |
|                    :            : system                            |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    :            : Completion of this task should    |
|                    :            : improve 50-50 report              |
|                    :            : preparation and provide a link    |
|                    :            : between contractor labor          |
|                    :            : capabilities, job scheduling,     |
|                    :            : and capacity utilization          |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Implement          : July 31,   : Convert programs to state-of-     |
| programming        : 2000       : the-art computer language; the    |
| language           :            : Army plans to convert the         |
| conversion^a       :            : programming language from         |
|                    :            : FoxPro to Oracle                  |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    :            : Conversion of computer programs   |
|                    :            : should simplify software          |
|                    :            : maintenance, improve data         |
|                    :            : distribution and processing       |
|                    :            : time, and facilitate use of web   |
|                    :            : pages                             |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Planned but work   :            :                                   |
| not begun          :            :                                   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Develop resource   : March 30,  : Design coding system to refine    |
| scheduling and     : 2001       : workforce analysis by focusing    |
| control skill      :            : on specific employee skills       |
| codes methodology  :            : rather than aggregating           |
|                    :            : personnel information by work     |
|                    :            : area                              |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    :            : Completion of this and the next   |
|                    :            : task should facilitate            |
|                    :            : assigning appropriate personnel   |
|                    :            : to each job to maximize depot     |
|                    :            : productivity and identify         |
|                    :            : skills that should be acquired,   |
|                    :            : whether through retraining or     |
|                    :            : hiring                            |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Implement          : January    : Implement system to assign the    |
| resource,          : 24, 2003   : most appropriate personnel to     |
| scheduling, and    :            : maximize depot productivity and   |
| control system at  :            : size the workforce through the    |
| five depots        :            : use of previously developed       |
|                    :            : coding system to support          |
|                    :            : comparisons over a 3-year period  |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Develop and        : September  : Determine whether material will   |
| implement          : 16, 2002   : be available to perform planned   |
| material system    :            : maintenance                       |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    :            : Facilitate make or buy            |
|                    :            : decisions by collecting labor     |
|                    :            : and material costs                |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Implement          : August     : Provide support in analyzing      |
| automated          : 30, 1999   : the impact of headquarters-       |
| comparison of      :            : directed changes concerning       |
| headquarters-      :            : personnel hiring practices,       |
| directed changesa  :            : workload changes, and other       |
|                    :            : unforeseen changes                |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

aIncluded in project office plan, but not in Army's report to the Committee.

Source: Army Workload Performance System (AWPS) Project Office.

AWPS APPLICATION FOR AMMUNITION LOGISTICS
=========================================

------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    : Estimated   : Objectives and expected results   |
|                    : completion  :                                   |
| Task name          : date        :                                   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Completed          :             :                                   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Prototype          : May 31, 1999: Facilitate scheduling of          |
| ammunition         :             : ammunition logistics workload     |
| logistics          :             : by identifying monthly            |
| application at     :             : ammunition logistics facility     |
| Letterkenny Army   :             : workforce excesses or shortages   |
| Depot              :             : over a 3-year period              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Install basic      : June 29,    : Facilitate scheduling of          |
| ammunition         : 1999        : ammunition logistics workload     |
| logistics          :             : by displaying monthly             |
| application at     :             : ammunition logistics workforce    |
| Anniston and Red   :             : excesses or shortages over a 3-   |
| River Army Depots  :             : year period                       |
| (basic system      :             :                                   |
| develops same      :             : Organizational relocation of      |
| information as     :             : some ammunition facilities will   |
| generated in       :             : likely lead to additional         |
| first two tasks    :             : programming requirements and      |
| of depot           :             : possible slippage of this and     |
| maintenance        :             : other tasks                       |
| application)       :             :                                   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Under development  :             :                                   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Install basic      : June 30,    : Facilitate scheduling of          |
| ammunition         : 2000        : ammunition logistics workload     |
| logistics          :             : by displaying monthly             |
| application at     :             : ammunition logistics workforce    |
| Blue Grass Army    :             : excesses or shortages over a 3-   |
| Depot, Tooele      :             : year period                       |
| Army Depot,        :             :                                   |
| Sierra Army        :             :                                   |
| Depot, Crane Army  :             :                                   |
| Ammunition         :             :                                   |
| Activity,          :             :                                   |
| McAlester Army     :             :                                   |
| Ammunition Plant,  :             :                                   |
| and Pine Bluff     :             :                                   |
| Arsenal            :             :                                   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Provide training   : March 30,   : Train personnel in workload       |
| and technical      : 2000        : performance system use,           |
| support^a          :             : particularly supervisors and      |
|                    :             : managers and provide support to   |
|                    :             : answer questions                  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Implement          : September   : Convert programs to state-of-     |
| programming        : 28, 2001    : the-art computer language (the    |
| language           :             : Army plans to convert the         |
| conversion^a       :             : programming language from         |
|                    :             : FoxPro to Oracle)                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Planned but work   :             :                                   |
| not begun          :             :                                   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Develop            : June 30,    : Incorporate planning,             |
| contractor labor   : 2000        : scheduling, and performance of    |
| application for    :             : contractor personnel working in   |
| ammunition         :             : ammunition logistics facilities   |
|                    :             : to provide visibility of          |
|                    :             : contractor production within      |
|                    :             : the ammunition logistics system   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Design and         : December    : Implement system to assign the    |
| implement          : 30, 2003    : most appropriate personnel to     |
| resource           :             : maximize ammunition logistics     |
| scheduling and     :             : facility productivity and size    |
| control system     :             : the workforce through the use     |
| for ammunition     :             : of previously developed coding    |
| logistics          :             : system to support comparisons     |
|                    :             : over a 3-year period              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Develop "What      : May 31, 2000: Facilitate decision-making by     |
| happens if . . .   :             : management in addressing          |
| ." study           :             : questions such as "what if"       |
| capabilitya        :             :                                   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Develop automated  : August 31,  : Assists analysis of impact of     |
| comparison of      : 2001        : headquarters-directed changes     |
| headquarters       :             :                                   |
| directed changes^a :             :                                   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Develop            : March 29,   : Determine whether material will   |
| ammunition         : 2002        : be available to perform planned   |
| logistics          :             : maintenance                       |
| material system^a  :             :                                   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    :             : Facilitate make or buy            |
|                    :             : decisions by collecting labor     |
|                    :             : and material costs                |
------------------------------------------------------------------------

aIncluded in project office plan, but not in Army's report to the Committee.

Source: Army Workload Performance System Project Office.

AWPS APPLICATION FOR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURING
=============================================

------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    : Estimated     : Objectives and expected results |
|                    : completion    :                                 |
| Task name          : date          :                                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Planned but work   :               :                                 |
| not begun          :               :                                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Design and         : December 31,  : Facilitate management of        |
| install workload   : 2001          : ammunition manufacturing        |
| performance        :               : plants by identifying           |
| system for         :               : workload and personnel data     |
| ammunition         :               : and generating job planning     |
| manufacturing      :               : information                     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Implement          : December 31,  : Implement system to assign      |
| resource           : 2003          : the most appropriate            |
| scheduling and     :               : personnel to maximize depot     |
| control system     :               : productivity and size the       |
| design and         :               : workforce through the use of    |
| implementation     :               : a previously developed coding   |
| for ammunition     :               : system to support comparisons   |
| manufacturing      :               : over a 3-year period            |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Install            : December 31,  : Provide "what if" study         |
| enhancements for   : 2003          : capability                      |
| ammunition         :               :                                 |
| manufacturinga     :               : Provide automated comparison    |
|                    :               : of headquarters directed        |
|                    :               : changes                         |
|                    :               :                                 |
|                    :               : Complete basic system with      |
|                    :               : workload and resources          |
|                    :               : reporting process               |
------------------------------------------------------------------------

aIncluded in project office plan, but not in Army's report to the Committee.

Source: Army Workload Performance System Project Office.

AWPS APPLICATION FOR BASE OPERATIONS
====================================

------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    : Estimated  : Objectives and expected results    |
|                    : completion :                                    |
| Task name          :  date      :                                    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Completed          :            :                                    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Complete           : January    : Facilitate management of base      |
| preliminary        : 14, 1999   : operations activities by           |
| planning and       :            : identifying workload and           |
| design of          :            : personnel requirements data        |
| applicationa       :            :                                    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Under development  :            :                                    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Complete           : October    : Test prototype system for base     |
| prototype testing  : 31, 1999   : operation support at a selected    |
| at Anniston Army   :            : maintenance depot                  |
| Depot              :            :                                    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Provide training   : December   : Train personnel in workload        |
| and technical      : 4, 2002    : performance system use,            |
| supporta           :            : particularly supervisors and       |
|                    :            : managers, and provide support to   |
|                    :            : answer questions                   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Implement          : June 29,   : Convert programs to state-of-the-  |
| programming        : 2001       : art computer language (the Army    |
| language           :            : plans to convert the programming   |
| conversiona        :            : language from FoxPro to Oracle)    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Planned but work   :            :                                    |
| not begun          :            :                                    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Install            : February   : Expand testing of basic workload   |
| application at     : 20, 2001   : performance system base            |
| four other         :            : operations support system,         |
| maintenance depots :            : similar to first task of depot     |
|                    :            : maintenance application            |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Install base       : December   : Expand use of basic workload       |
| operations         : 30, 2002   : performance system base            |
| support            :            : operations support system,         |
| application at     :            : similar to first task of depot     |
| remaining          :            : maintenance application            |
| workload           :            :                                    |
| performance        :            :                                    |
| system             :            :                                    |
| installations      :            :                                    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Design and         : February   : Implement system to assign the     |
| implement          : 3, 2004    : most appropriate personnel to      |
| resource           :            : maximize base operations support   |
| scheduling and     :            : productivity and size the          |
| control system     :            : workforce through the use of       |
| design for base    :            : previously developed coding        |
| operations         :            : system to support comparisons      |
| support system     :            : over a 3-year period               |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Material           : January    : Determine whether material will    |
| application for    : 15, 2003   : be available to perform planned    |
| base operations    :            : maintenance                        |
| support system     :            :                                    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    :            : Facilitate make or buy decisions   |
|                    :            : by collecting labor and material   |
|                    :            : costs                              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Contractor labor   : May 21,    : Incorporate planning,              |
| in modela          : 2001       : scheduling, and performance of     |
|                    :            : contractor personnel working in    |
|                    :            : industrial facilities to provide   |
|                    :            : visibility of contractor           |
|                    :            : production within the base         |
|                    :            : support function                   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| "What-if" study    : September  : Facilitate decision-making by      |
| capabilitya        : 2, 2002    : management in addressing           |
|                    :            : questions such as "what if"        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Implement          : June 7,    : Implement system to assign the     |
| workload and       : 2002       : most appropriate personnel to      |
| resources          :            : maximize productivity and size     |
| reporting process  :            : the workforce through the use of   |
| and resource       :            : previously developed coding        |
| scheduling and     :            : system to support comparisons      |
| control code       :            : over a 3-year period               |
| systema            :            :                                    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    :            : Given workload and personnel       |
|                    :            : resources in each base             |
|                    :            : operations support work area,      |
|                    :            : generate a report identifying      |
|                    :            : net workforce imbalances and       |
|                    :            : displaying monthly workforce       |
|                    :            : excesses or shortages over a 3-    |
|                    :            : year horizon                       |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    :            : Implement workload and resource    |
|                    :            : scheduling reporting system        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Implement          : October    : Provide support in analyzing the   |
| automated          : 16, 2002   : impact of headquarters-directed    |
| comparison of      :            : changes concerning personnel       |
| headquarters       :            : hiring practices, workload         |
| directed changesa  :            : changes, and other unforeseen      |
|                    :            : changes                            |
------------------------------------------------------------------------

aIncluded in project office plan, but not in Army's report to the Committee.

Source: Army Workload Performance System Project Office.

FUTURE AWPS APPLICATIONS
========================

                                                                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     : Estimated    : Objectives and expected results |
|                     : completion   :                                 |
| Task name           : date         :                                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Manufacturing arsenal application (planned but work not begun)       |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Design and          : June 6, 2002 : Develop and test prototype of   |
| implement AWPS      :              : workload performance system     |
| prototype at one    :              : for arsenals                    |
| manufacturing       :              :                                 |
| arsenal             :              :                                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Install workload    : June 13, 2003: Develop and test prototype at   |
| performance system  :              : remaining arsenals              |
| at two remaining    :              :                                 |
| arsenals            :              :                                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Design and          : October 3,   : Implement "what if"             |
| implement           : 2003         : capability, contractor labor,   |
| miscellaneous       :              : and snapshot enhancements       |
| enhancements to     :              : (all previously described)      |
| arsenal             :              :                                 |
| application to      :              :                                 |
| include "what if"   :              :                                 |
| capability,         :              :                                 |
| contractor labor,   :              :                                 |
| and automated       :              :                                 |
| comparison of       :              :                                 |
| headquarters-       :              :                                 |
| directed changes^a  :              :                                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Design and          : May 11, 2004 : Determine whether material      |
| implement material  :              : will be available to perform    |
| system for          :              : planned maintenance             |
| arsenals^a          :              :                                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     :              : Facilitate make or buy          |
|                     :              : decisions by collecting labor   |
|                     :              : and material costs              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Design and          : February     : Implement system to assign      |
| implement resource  : 19, 2004     : the most appropriate            |
| scheduling and      :              : personnel to maximize arsenal   |
| control system^a    :              : productivity and size the       |
|                     :              : workforce through the use of    |
|                     :              : previously developed coding     |
|                     :              : system to support comparisons   |
|                     :              : over a 3-year period            |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Field-level maintenance organization application (not planned, no    |
| work done)                                                           |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Design and install  : Not planned  : Not yet determined              |
| AWPS at field-      : or           :                                 |
| level maintenance   : scheduled    :                                 |
| facilities          : by system    :                                 |
| performing depot-   : project      :                                 |
| type maintenance    : office       :                                 |
| workloads           :              :                                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Design and install  : Not planned  : Not yet determined              |
| workload and        : or           :                                 |
| performance system  : scheduled    :                                 |
| at all general      : by system    :                                 |
| support             : project      :                                 |
| maintenance         : office       :                                 |
| facilities          :              :                                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Other incomplete    : Not planned  : Not yet determined              |
| tasks not in Army   : or           :                                 |
| study, but in AWPS  : scheduled    :                                 |
| project plan        : by system    :                                 |
|                     : project      :                                 |
|                     : office       :                                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Base operations applications for non depot maintenance facilities    |
| (not planned, no work done)                                          |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Design and install  : Not planned  : Not yet determined              |
| AWPS to support     : or           :                                 |
| base operations at  : scheduled    :                                 |
| non depot           : by system    :                                 |
| maintenance         : project      :                                 |
| facilities          : office       :                                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Design and install  : Not planned  : Not yet determined              |
| AWPS to support     : or           :                                 |
| base operations at  : scheduled    :                                 |
| all general         : by system    :                                 |
| support             : project      :                                 |
| maintenance         : office       :                                 |
| facilities          :              :                                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     :              :                                 |
|                     :              :                                 |
|                     :              :                                 |
|                     :              :                                 |
|                     :              :                                 |
|                     :              :                                 |
|                     :              :                                 |
|                     :              :                                 |
|                     :              :                                 |
|                     :              :                                 |
|                     :              :                                 |
|                     :              :                                 |
|                     :              :                                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     : Estimated    : Objectives and expected results |
|                     : completion   :                                 |
| Task name           : date         :                                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Training, testing and evaluation, and research and development       |
| activity applications (Not planned, no work done)                    |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Study prototype     : Not planned  : Not yet determined              |
| system              : or           :                                 |
| demonstrations for  : scheduled    :                                 |
| classroom training  : by system    :                                 |
| activities,         : project      :                                 |
| testing,            : office       :                                 |
| organizations, war  :              :                                 |
| reserve management  :              :                                 |
| and maintenance     :              :                                 |
| organizations, and  :              :                                 |
| research and        :              :                                 |
| development         :              :                                 |
| laboratories        :              :                                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Other incomplete    : Not planned  : Not yet determined              |
| tasks not in Army   : or           :                                 |
| study, but in AWPS  : scheduled    :                                 |
| Project Plan        : by system    :                                 |
|                     : project      :                                 |
|                     : office       :                                 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------

^aIncluded in project office plan, but not in Army's report to the
Committee.

Source: Army Workload Performance System Project Office.

COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
=======================================

*****************

*****************

*****************

*****************

*****************

*****************

*****************

*****************

(709410)

*** End of document. ***