7AD-A176 766 S ICI, DV VMEI(U)R, ~ ~ K

UNCLASSIFIED F/C I"/ ML

HILLS _L12.0

1.~I25 jIB A 1.

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART

UNCLASSIFIED

CENTRAL STUDIES '- J CSE REPORT 27

ESTABLISHMENT L - TO,&,4.&--

Canberra A.C.T. AR-004-807

0cc

(0D

THE RAAF

LOGISTICS STUDY

(VOLUME 4)

BY

R. WATSON

R. SMITH

SQNLDR G. VOUMARD

M. JARVIS

P. CLARK

Department

of

Defence

COPY NO.30 OF 111UNCLASSIFIED

Sr %,

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE

DEFENCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION

CENTRAL STUDIES ESTABLISHMENT

CSE REPORT 27

October 1986

THE RAAF LOGISTICS STUDY

(VOLUME 4)

R. WatsonR. SmithSQNLDR G. VoumardM. JarvisP. Clark

SUMMARY

This Volume is one of a companion set of four comprising

CSE Report 27 which records the work carried out by CentralStudies Establishment for the Chief of Supply and Support andendorsed by the Chief of the Air Staff. This particular volumeprovides an overview of the study, and discusses possible directionsfor future work. - -

POSTAL ADDRESS: Superintendent Analytical StudiesDepartment of Defence, Canberra, ACT 2600

PREFACE

The RAAF Logistics System is a very complex humanactivity system which has been analysed by the CentralStudies Establishment on behalf of the Defence LogisticsOrganisation. This work, now reported on, stems from aconviction that improved decision making can flow from anenhanced and integrated understanding of the activitiesnecessary to fulfil the objectives of the system, by thoseinvolved in it or affected by it.I

This Report, in four volumes, has been preparedin fulfilment of the requirements for Phase 1 of the CS&SR.AAF Logistics Study and provides within the framework of theSoft Systems Methodology, a highly structured and conceptualdescription of the RAAF Logistics System.

Its purpose is not merely to review the RAAFLogistics System and to generate recommendations forimprovement. In so doing it would simply be repeating thework of others. Rather, it is to provide a framework f orRAAP managers and others, for comparison between theconceptual models of the RAAF Logistics System and the realworld so that desirable and feasible changes in the systemmay be identified and implemented.

The Report is unlike any previous publication on theRAAF Logistics System, and will demand a great deal of dedicatedeffort on the part of RAAF officers and managers for its reading,study and appreciation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR VOLUME 4

Page No.

Section 6

THE RAAF LOGISTICS SYSTEM STUDYOVERVIEW, OBSERVATIONS AND OUTLOOK

Introduction 1

The Nature and Use of Soft Systems Models 2Development of Conceptual Models 2Use of Conceptual Models 4

Systemic Attributes of Models of the RAAF Supply and 5Technical SystemsHierarchical Structure 5Functions and Processes 8Information Transfers 9Resource Types and Flows 9Decision Mechanisms 9Trade-off Relationships 9Environmental Interfaces 10Control Mechanisms 11Control Variables - Types 12Control Variables - Relationships 13Control Variables - Time Response 13

The Logistics System as a Whole 13A Generalised Logistics System Model 13Mapping of Supply and Technical System Models onto 17the Generalised Logistics System Model

Problem Areas - Discussion in the Context of the 20Present ModelPresentation of Operational Goals in a Format 20amenabl, to translation into Maintenance/SupplySupport CriteriaFeedforward Control - Comparison of Supply and 21Technical Control MechanismsDetermination of Maintenance Facility Capability 22and CapacityValidation of Repairable Item Assessment Methods 22Specification of Assessment Determination Method 23

Problem Areas - General Observations 24Trade-off between Stock Holding and Manpower 24Comparison of Depot/Intermediate/Operating Level 24Maintenance Management Procedures

Possible Directions for Phase 2 of the RIAF 24Logistics Systems StudyIdentification of Feasible and Desirable Changes 27to the System - Use of Issue-Based Root DefinitionsApplication of Soft Systems Methodology to 27Information Systems Analysis

Conclusion 30

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 58

k .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .

LIST OF TABLES

6.1 ATTRIBUTES OF SUPPLY SYSTEM MODEL 31

6.2 ATTRIBUTES OF TECHNICAL SYSTEM MODEL 39

LIST OF FIGURES

6.1 HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF SUPPLY (S) SYSTEM 6MODEL DESCRIBED IN SECTION 4

6.2 HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF TECHNICAL (T) SYSTEM 7MODEL DESCRIBED IN SECTION 5

6.3 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN OPERATIONAL GOALS, 14LOGISTICS GOALS, MAIN CONTROL VARIABLES/TOOLSAND SUB-SYSTEMS IN THE MODEL WHICH ASSIGNVALUES/USE

6.4 CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF IN-SERVICE TECHNICAL 16LOGISTICS (L) SYSTEM

6.5 MAPPING OF SUPPLY SYSTEM ONTO CONCEPTUAL MODEL 18OF 'LOGISTICS' SYSTEM

6.6 MAPPING OF TECHNICAL SYSTEM ONTO CONCEPTUAL 19MODEL OF 'LOGISTICS' SYSTEM

6.7 METHODOLOGY FOR INFORMIATION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 29

uvmzinoowsnCTIOM am 6EO

1 CSE Report 27

INTRODUCTION

1. The model of RAAF logistics activities described in thepreceding five sections of this report is presented in fulfillmentof Phase one of the RAAF Logistics System study, for which Terms ofReference were approved in March 1983.

2. As stated in the Terms of Reference (see Annex A,Paragraph 6), Phase One was to provide:

a. a description of the logistics environment; and

b. a description of the logistics system at allorganisational levels.

The logistics environment as a whole has been reviewed atSection 2, Chapter I of the report, whilst the two majorsub-systems of the RAAF logistics environment (i.e. the KAAFOperational system and the RAAF Financial system) have been modelledand described at Section 2, Chapter 2 and Section 3, respectively.For the purposes of the study, the RAAF Logistics system itself hasbeen studied at the level of two component systems, termed Supplyand Technical. Models of these systems have been presented atSections 4 and 5 respectively. As required by the Terms cfReference, the models of the Supply and Technical systems develcpedare concerned with the in-service phase of equipment life, althcuqhsome aspects of the Major Equipment Acquisition (MEA) process arealso discussed, inasmuch as such activities influence the in-servicephase.

3. The objectives set for this, the concluding section of thereport, are as follows:

a. to provide the reader with general guidance as to themeans of approaching the present report, and inparticular guidance as to the use of the model as acomponent in the development subsequently of feasibleand desirable changes to the system (Paragraphs 4 to13 below);

b. to provide the reader with some specific guidance asto the structure of the Supply and Technical systemmodels, highlighting particular systemic attributesidentified (Paragraphs 14 to 38);

c. to describe how the separate Supply and Technicalsystem models reported might be viewed as componentsof a higher level RAAF Logistics system model(Paragraphs 39 to 45);

d. to discuss a number of problem areas identified in thecourse of the study, casting thiese problems in theframework of the system model developed (Paragraphs 46to 59);

CSE Report 27 2

e. to mention also, several problem areas which, althoughbeyond the study terms of reference, and consequentlynot able to be cast directly in the framework of thesystem model developed, are deemed worthy of comment(Paragraphs 60 to 62); and

f. to canvass two possible directions for future study(Paragraphs 63 to 76).

THE NATURE AND USE OF~ SOFT SYSTEMS MODELS

Development of Conceptual Models

4. The methodology underlying the development of the modelsreported in the present study is that referred to in systemsanalysis literature as 'soft' systems. In its general form it isdescribed in 'Systems Thinking - Systems Practice' by P.B. Checkland(Wiley, Chichester, 1981), although the variant of the soft systemsapproach found to be most useful in the description of RAAFlogistics activities is more closely aligned to that described byB. Wilson in 'The Design and Improvement of Management ControlSystems', Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, Volume 6, 1979, pages51 to 67.

5. The soft systems methodology was developed to tackleproblems in organisations which cannot be formulated as a search foran efficient means of achieving a defined end, or in which ends,goals and purposes are in themselves problematical. The methodclogyentails the formulation of a 'root definition' of the systemn (i.e. ashort statement expressing the basic purpose of the system from aparticular point of view). Ccnceptual models of the organisationare then developed, where these models express the sequence ofactivities required for the purpose expressed in the root definitionto be achieved. These conceptual models are built by structuringthe various operations of the organisation into a collection of'human activity systems' (where by this is meant a notional systemwhich expresses purposeful human activity). Each of these humanactivity systems can then be regarded as a system in its own right,and through the mechanism of a root definition can be furtherdeveloped to ccnceptual models at a higher level of detail orresolution. The result of this approach is a model of the system asa hierarchy of systems derived from the first root definition. Thecomplete model will be expressed as a set of activities, togetherwith the information and resource flows needed if those activitiesare to be carried out effectively.

6. In the present work a variant of the a~pproach, due toWilson (see Paragraph 4 above), has been used. The reason this hasbeen done is that the Terms of Reference made it clear that a modelwhich described the existing system was required. Further, it wasthe perception of the authors, that for any models of the existingsystem to be of value to the RAAF, they should not become soabstract that it would be unreasonably difficult to map existingRAAF activity onto the human activity systems which occur in themodel. The approach taken, therefore, has been one of iterative

3 CSE Report 27

comparison of models with the 'real world' RAAF activitivs an(Imodification of models to reflect more closely activities cbserved.The result of this is that the Supply and Technical system modelscan be seen as models of the real world; however They emphasisewhat is done (i.e. the purposes underlying certain functions) whilsttEie real world is one particular example of how it is done (thisdistinction is described further at Section 1, Paragraph 18, of thisreport). In this sense then, the models produced provide a deeperview of RAAF logistics activity than might first seem the case.

7. It should be understood that the methodology describedabove represents a fundamental paradigm shift. Traditional systemsengineering methodologies are based upon the paradigm of'optimisation' whereas the soft systems methodology takes theparadigm to be one of 'learning'. It is argued that in thedevelopment of conceptual models of the system, as described above,and in particular in the analysis which should ensue as managersworking within the system debate the models which emerge, a'learning' process takes place which will lead to the proposal offeasible and desirable changes to the system under study, or justbetter decision taking resulting from a better understanding of thewhole system rather than just particular parts of it.

8. Some techniques which might be adopted by RAAF managerswishing to use the models of RAAF logistics activity developed byCSE, as a means of orchestrating a debate along the lines discussedabove, will be presented shortly (Paragraphs 10 to 13 below).Firstly, however, a note of caution. As pointed out by Wilson inhis book 'Systems: Concepts, Methodologies and Applications'(Wiley, Chichester, 1984, page 255), this process of 'learning' canbe one of the most rewarding, and yet most difficult, of allintellectual processes. To quote:

'One component of this difficulty is related to time. Timeis needed for the necessary reflection on experience. Onecannot know, at the time that learning is occurring, what it isthat is being learnt.

A second component is related to the language ofdescription. If such learning is to be made explicit so thatit can be communicated (even to oneself), then a language mustbe available in order to describe what !,s been learnt. Thismay turn out to be a major hurdle, since the appropriatelanguage is dependent on what is to be described and 'what isto be described' is not known because the appropriate languageis not available or understood. Some people may havedifficulty in emerging from this closed system and hence maynever know what they know (or don't know).

The third component is related to the opportunity forcritical debate. Assuming that tinie is available forreflection upon the experience that is accumulating, andassuming that a language is available for describing what hasbeen learnt, without the opportunity for debating the outcomewith a critical audience (i.e. seeking refutation) suchlearning may be superficial.'

CSE Report 27 4

9. What has been offered as a result of the present study byCSE is a detailed, well-structured model of RAAF in-servicetechnical logistics activities, as required by the Terms ofReference, which satisfies the second of the three components listedby Wilson above (i.e. a language of description). This modelprovides a language for critical debate directed towards thedevelopment of feasible and desirable changes to the systemi or justthe taking of better decisions.

Use of Conceptual Models

10. It would be useful to provide guidance as to the means bywhich the conceptual models developed by CSE might be approached ifthe critical debate advocated by the soft systems approach is to beundertaken. Wilson, in 'Systems: Concepts, Methodologies andApplications' pages 75 to 85, recommends four methods of comparisonof the conceptual models developed with the real world:

a. general discussion;

b. question generation;

C. (historical) reconstruction; and

d. model overlay.

Whilst all four methods might have something to offer in the presentcontext, it is argued that the first two are the most appropriate.

11. The first method of comparison is concerned with a generaldiscussion about the nature of the models, and any organisationimplied by them, which is to he compared with the nature of what isbelieved to exist. This approach, which Wilson illustrates hy meansof case studies, will tend to highlight strategic issues in relationto role and to the existence of certain activities, rather thanissues at a detailed procedural level.

12. The second method of comparison, question generation, hasboen formalised by Wilson in terms of a systematic questioning ofthe existence, mechanism and pertormance of activities in the realworld which might be identified with activities specified in theconceptual model. In principle, the first part of this procedurehas been completed by CSE. The text describing each activity withinthe conceptual model of the RAAF Logistics system has identified anddescribed mechanisms within the present kAAF organisation which canbe mapped onto the purposes expressed by the elements of the model.The procedure described by Wilson which should then follow requiresthat measures or criteria be proposed for the evaluation of theeffectiveness and etficiency of the real world activities underconsideration in fulfilling that purpose. Frcm this can emergeincremental changes to improve the situation.

13. It is emphasised in all writings on the ise of the softsystems approach, that for the types of methods suggested above toyield feasible and desirable directions for change it is e-sentialthat relevant management have substantial involvement in theinterpretation of, and debate about, the proposed models. Withoutsuch involvement, the learning which emerges from the modelling maywell be superficial.

5 CSE Pepert 27

SYSTEMIC ATTRIBUTES OF' MODELS OF THERAAF SUPPLY AND TECHNICAL SYSTEMS

14. It is appreciated that the length and complexity cf themodel description might make it difficult for the manager cLncernedwith a particular aspect of Logistics system operation tc locatethose parts of the model particularly relevant to his concern. Inview of this, the intent of the following is to provide an cverviewof the model, highlighting particular systemic attributes, byreference to relevant sections of the report. However, as will beobvious, such a brief overview cannot in any sense encompass thewide diversity of activity covered in the full model description.

Hierarchical Structure

15. The hierarchical structure of the Supply (S) and lechnical(T) system models developed is displayed in Figures 6.1 and 6.2respectively. In each case it has been deemed useful tc introduce,at the first level of resolution, the 'formal system' model _concept(see Section 1, Paragraph 21) that a system can be viewed as anoperations system (SI/TI) concerned with the transformation ctresources into products, and a planning and control system (S2[2'1,concerned with the definiticn of overall cterobjectives/plans/performance measures, the monitoring .f , vralsystem performance and the taking cf corrective acti n. 'ih. troduction of such a formal system concept, places t he r , ( 1naturally into a framework in which the conversion cf relquir'r( tcinto programmes and the analysis of programme effectiveness a i: c tresides within the Planning and Control systems, whilst ru-,'t,_-eacquisition, the execution of programmes and expenditur tresources reside within the Operations systems. As sh -wn illFigures 6.1 and 6.2, it has been found useful to further resciL t ,1planning and control functions in terms of Operational Plannin and(Control ($2.l/T2.l) systems, which (e finobjectives/plans/performance measures governing the Supply and4Technical Operations (S1/Ti) systems, and Financial Planning aniControl (52.2/T2.2) systems, which are concerned with the planningand control of financial dealings within the Supply and lechnicalsystems.

16. As also displayed in Figures 6.1 and 6.2, the SupplyOperations (Sl) and Technical Operations (TI) systems have ,.nmodelled at the second level of resolution tr include f: ursub-systems each (i.e. S1.1, S1.2, S1.3, S1.4 and 1l.l, 11.2, 11.3,TI.4). In turn, these systems have been developed tc highel 1.-'(VIIof resolution as shown.

17. It should be noted that the Supply and Technici t' mmodels have actually been developed tc one further lev(-l , fresolution beyond that shown in Pigures 6.1 and 6.2. 1he tunct n nalelements identified in this last level of development are li~tei atTables 6.1 (pages 31 to 38) and 6.2 (pages 39 to 57), and will ') wbe described.

[A

CSE Report 27 6

LEVEL OFRESOLUTION

i.a '0 SUPPLY SYSTEM

I S NH

OF SUPPLY TTN11LNIN I1 TONPLAXN

-, OEAIN a' I A\ OTO

S t I S

N /

N /

II 1 u

Il I

DETAIILSAEGVNI ETO .ADI AL .I

3FSPLYI] iE NOEI ECIEDX ETO

7 ' PESLT-ON

LEVEL OFRESOLUTION

0

OPRTIN / PLANN.ING. AN. CONTROL

Q-TECHNICAL SYSTE N.L

T. - I.

BTEHIAITCHNIL R NOBE TECIED1 ECINICA

7 Ti / T2

N.

SI ISI I

~ I

I 1 1

I I1 *T THIS SYSTEM HAS BEEN CEVELOPED TO ONE FURTHER

LEVEL OF RESOLUTION BEYOND THAT DEPICTEO HERE~

I DETAILS ARE GIVEN IN SECTION 5. AND IN TABLE 6.2

I -

I aa Iu~

FIIURE 1.2 HIERARCHJCAL UTRUCTURE

OF TECHNICAL [T) lISTEN fOOEL DEICRIBED IN SECTION 5

CSE Report 27 8

Functions and Processes

18. The notions of functions and processes have been taken inthe present model to have the following meanings. Function has beenused in the context of 'functional systems' and 'finctionalelements'. A functional 5stem (which, for the purposes of thisstudy, is identifliwith the noti on of a 'human activity system' asdescribed at Paragraph 5 above), is a set of interconnectedactivities with the property that those activities taken togethereither transform some defined input(s) into some defined output(s),or they carry out the planning or control actions required for theeffective and efficient completion of that transformation, in a formconsistent with environmental influences and constraints. In thepresent model, the hierarchy of systems shown in Figures 6.1 and 6.2represents a structuring of the functions carried out within theRAAF in-service technical logistics organisation. At the mostdetailed level of this hierarchy (i.e. the highest level ofresolution), entities have been found which, from the analyst'spoint of view, are not systems at all but only system components.These entities are termed functional elements. Each of the highestresolution level systems identified in Figures 6.1 and 6.2, has beenexamined in further detail at Tables 6.1 and 6.2, respectively.Specifically, reference has been given, for each system, to theportion of the report at which detailed description is given.Furthermore, in the second column of the Tables are listed thefunctional elements distinguished within each of those systems.

19. The term process in this report has been used to mean asequence of real world activities, within a conceptually definedfunction, which represents a particular way in which the function iscarried out. The notion of process can be illustrated by the use ofthe following examples. In the model developed for the Supplysystem it has been necessary, in the case of the Development ofSupply Management Data (S1.1.2), Spares Requirements Extension(S1.2.2), Stock Procurement (Sl.2.3) and Stock Distribution (SI.2.4)functional systems, to distinguish a number of different ways inwhich the function has been carried out. For example, in the caseof the Stock Procurement system, the various ways identified as mostrelevant to technical equipment are the Direct Local Procurement,Indirect Local Procurement, Overseas Commercial Procurement, andForeign Miliary Sales Procurement Processes. One might also furtherdistinguish on the basis of whether the process is conducted atCentral, Stores Depot or Unit level. To make the model developedmore explicit, it has been decided in such cases to select une ofthese processes, and to develop the model of the finctional systemto represent that process. This has then been fo~llowed by commentin text on the modifications necessary to that basic model if it isto be applied to the other processes identified. In Table 6.1, forexample, it will be seen that for the S1.1.2 system the MaterialDemand/Issue Controls Data Development Process has been studied indetail; for S1.2.2, the Central Provisioning Process; for S1.2.3,the Central Direct Local Procurement Process; and for S1.2.4, theWholesale-Retail Resupply Process.

9 CSE Report 27

20. A similar approach has been taken in the Technical syster.model as shown at Table 6.2. In this case, the primarydiscriminating factor has been the Maintenance Facility Levelinvolved (i.e. Operating, Intermediate or Depot).

Information Transfers

21. The notion of information transfer is well understood.Information includes that data, in whatever format, either requiredby a functional system to achieve its purpose or produced by thatfunctional system. In Tables 6.1 and 6.2, the major types ofinformation input to, or output from, each of the systems have beenlisted. It should be noted that the information types listed areintended only to give the general nature of the inputs and outputsinvolved. Reference to the detailed descriptions of systems withinthe report will provide a breakdown of each information type and ofthe formats used for the information transfer. Also listed in theTables are the sources/destinations of the information input/outputtypes listed.

Resource Types and Flows

22. It has been found convenient to distinguish two rescurcetypes in the present study, i.e.:

a. materials or resources excluding money (e.g. sparenarts, aircraft, transport services, flying hrurs,contractor maintenance services); and

b. money, or more correctly the responsibility for itsexpenditure.

Resource flows identified in the model are recorded in Tables 6.1and 6.2 under the input and output headings, by appending the wordresource' after the description of type.

23. Tables 6.1 and 6.2 include only inputs to, and outputsfrom, the systems as a whole. The detailed models available at thereferences given in the Tables include also the information andresource types and flows between the functional elements which makeup each system.

Decision Mechanisms

24. The major decisions identified irn the course of thepresent study are listed at column 7 of Tables 6.1 and 6.2.Decision mechanisms are described in detail at the references given,in terms of the information requirements tc support the decisions,the criteria applied to take decisions and the administrativeprocedures used.

Trade-off Relationships

25. Trade-offs are defined as those different mixes of inputs(resources or policies) within or between the different logisticssub-systems, which may achieve the same total system output or levelof effectiveness.

CSE Report 27 10

26. Major trade-offs identified in the present study arelisted at column 8 of Tables 6.1 and 6.2. The majority of theidentified trade-offs might be grouped according to theirassociation with:

a. Engineering Activity (i.e. trade-offs associated withactivities described in the Configuration Management(Tl.I) system). These involve a trade-off of the

benefits of improvement in component performance,including consequent reduction in spare partconsumption/repair activity, against the costassociated with the engineering improvements;

b. Maintenance Activity (i.e. trade-offs associated withactivities described in the Maintenance andMaintenance Support Management (TI.2) system). Theseinvolve a trade-off between the benefits of variousmaintenance tasks, intervals, facilities and supportequipment, in accord with specified budgetallocations; and

c. InventorZ Activity (i.e. trade-offs associated withactivities in the Maintenance Material SupportRequirements Determination (T1.2.6), OperationalPlanning and Control ($2.1/T2.1) and SparesRequirements Extension (Sl.2.2) systems). Theseinvolve a trade-off between the investment ininventory and the equipment availability levelrequired.

More detailed descriptions of these are given at the referenceslisted in the Tables, including discussion of the means employed forthe taking of trade-off decisions and, where possible, reference totexts or other sources which discuss relevant techniques for takingresource allocation or policy decisions.

Environmental Interfaces

27. The logistics environment as a whole has been reviewed atSection 2, Chapter 1 of the report, whilst the two major sub-systemsof the RAAF logistics environment (i.e. the RAAF Operational systemand the RAAF Financial system) have been modelled and described atSection 2, Chapter 2 and Section 3 respectively.

28. Specifically, the kAAF Operational (OP) system model hasdescribed the characteristics and requirements of air operations atthe model of the RAAF Operations (OPI) systemr (Section 2,Paragraphs 41 to 52), and the means by which an operational conceptand activity levels are determined at the models of the ResourcePlanning (OP2), Operational Rate Planning (OP3) and OperationalProfile Development (OP7) systems (Section 2, Paragraphs 53 to 64,65 to 74 and 107 to 114). Major equipment acquisition activities,which have an influence upon subsequent activity within theIn-Service Technical Logistics system described in this report, arediscussed at the Capability Requirements Determination (OP5) andEquipment Requirement Identification (OP6) systems (Section 2,Paragraphs 85 to 93 and 94 to 106). The operational requirement

11 CSE Report 27

evolves and is recorded as a functional baseline by the OP5 syster,whilst the OP6 system is concerned with the hardening .-fspecifications to form a production baseline. Specific points ofinterface between the RAAF Operational system and "he Supply andTechnical components of the in-service technical logistics model,can be identified from Tables 6.1 and 6.2 by examination ofinput/output types which have sources or destinations at the OPsystem.

29. The Supply and Technical Financial Planning and Control($2.2/T2.2) systems referred to at Paragraph 15 above, have beenseen as interface systems between the environmental RAAF Financialsystem described at Section 3, and the Supply and Technical systemmodels described at Sections 4 and 5. Tables 6.1 and 6.2 may beconsulted to determine points at which the Financial systeminterfaces with the Logistics system via the S2.2 and 12.2 systems.

30. Interfaces with other enviromental influences (e.g.external suppliers of equipment; external suppliers of transportservices; external suppliers of technical data, technical servicesand maintenance manhours; Defence Central; NATO nations, other DCSusers and other government departments; other users of equipment;and disposal authorities) identified within the study are also notedin Tables 6.1 and 6.2.

31. Finally, although it was suggested in the Terms ofReference that the maintenance and supply support concepts should beconsidered environmental to the Logistics system (see Annex A,Paragraph 9d and e), it has been deemed that the concepts involvedare so important t, an understanding of the logistics planning andcontrol function that their description has been placed with theSupply and Technical operational Planning and Control (S2.1/T2.1)system descriptions.

Control Mechanisms

32. Two broad levels of control have been identified in thepresent model. Control concerned with overall Supply/Technicalsystem Werformance has been described at the S2 and T2 systems,respectively. References to the sections of the report describingthese systems are given in Tables 6.1 and 6.2. Also described arecontrol activities localised to particular sub-systems. These areconcerned with the monitoring and control of activities inparticular sub-systems of the Supply Operations (SI) and TechnicalOperations (TI) models. These more restricted levels of control canbe recognised in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 by examination of the functionalelements column (column 2), to locate elements which include wordssuch as 'monitor', 'control' or 'refine' in their titles. For theremainder of the present discussion, the firF;t of these two areas(i.e. control concerned with overall Supply/Technical systemperformance) will be discussed.

33. Detailed models of the Supply Operational Planning andControl (S2.1) and Technical Operational Planning and Control (T2.1)systems are given at Section 4, Paragraphs 30 to 69 and Section 5,Paragraphs 41 to 110, respectively. Each has been modelled in termsof a conceptual model with functional elements which are concerned

CSE Report 27 12

in turn with the definition of plans/performancemeasures/goals/objectives, with the definition ofpolicies/parameters, with the i"-asurement of performance datarelevant to those objectives, with the evaluation of performanceand, finally, with the taking of corrective action.

34. It has been found useful in developing these Planning andControl models to introduce the notions of programmed andunprogrammed activity (see R.N. Anthony, 'Planning and ControlSystems - A Framework for Analysis' (Harvard University, Boston,1965) pp. 70 to 76). Programmed activities are stable, repetitiveactivities in which the optimum input-output relationship is, inprinciple, capable of description and reduction to rules. Most ofthe activities of the Supply Operations system discussed inSection 4, have been classified as programmed. These are to becontrasted with unprogrammed activities, which are unique,judgemental activities in which the input-output relationship cannotbe determined. Unprogrammed activities include research anddevelopment, engineering design, the work of staff units of allkinds, and the activities of top management. In describing the waythe Technical system is planned and controlled, it has been foundimportant to recognise the unprogrammed nature of many of theTechnical activities. This does not imply, however, that the Supplyand Technical System models are characterised by uniquely programmedand unprogrammed control respectively. Clearly, most real worldactivities have some programmed and some unprrgrammed activities,with the programmed/unprogrammed classifications really being justthe extremes of a continuum of task classifications.

Control Variables - Types

35. The notion of control variables used in the present reporthas been generalised as follows.

36. The type of formal planning and control model introducedat Paragraph 33 above is really most appropriate to programmedactivity, in which all choice criteria are predetermined, and inwhich there are well-established performance criteria and measuresof efficiency and effectiveness. In such cases the manager willhave available control variables to which he can assign values inaccord with the established input-output relationships, to achieve alevel of system performance which meets predetermined criteria.This might suggest that the means by which, for example, theTechnical system achieves a goal such as configuration integrity,which is not readily specified by a quantitative measure ofperformance, is not amenable to description within such a systemmodel. This, however, is not the case. Although configurationintegrity is not controlled by a set of mathematical controlvariables, there are a number of informal or qualitative measures ofperformance and associated controls. For example, in the case ofconfiguration integrity, documents such as the configurationmanagement plan and technical maintenance plan are used by theTechnical system to ensure that this goal is achieved. Hyconsidering such documents as a generalised form of controlvariable, termed a control tool in the following discussions,planning and control aspects of both the Supply and Technicalsystems can be described using models of the type introduced atParagraph 33.

13 CSE Report 27

Control Variables - Relationships

37. Reproduced at Figure 6.3 is the figure previously ;hAwr,Figure 5.10 and discussed in the main body of the rejoit atSection 5, Paragraphs 41 to 110. This diagram represents therelationship of control variables/tools identified in the presentmodel to operational goals, via a hierarchy of logistics coals.This hierarchical structure is developed in detail at Section 5,Paragraphs 55 to 99, and therefore is not discussed further here.The systems within the present model which assign values/use thesecontrol variables/tools, are listed at the base of Fiqure 6.3.Reference to the description of each of these systems in the !ody ofthe report gives details of these assignment/usage activities.

Control Variables - Time Response

38. The time response of various contrcl variables (i.e. theelapsed time between application of various control variables/trlsand a perceived response detected in a related performance measuro),although referred to in the Terms r-f Reference, han no t heenaddressed by the present study report. bhilst it is believed thatthe soft systems methodology has many advantages whi-h recmmenrl itto this type of study area, it does not mcklel the timo ev, lut i, n :-fa system. Alternative modellinq methcd logies, which c'lut thesystem description in a form amenable to computer fimula:i o, " uldirectly address this aspect. Develo'pments in this diret i havebeen undertaken for sore aspects -t logistics activlty in th., 'as'of the DSPOL-AF developed SIOCKAID (S'()CK naly-i;s an Inv, :t-ntDecision) model. It is emphasised, howevr, that such , h 5 n, tattempt to describe the whole RAAF Logistics system.

THE LOGIS'IICS SYSI M AS A WhoLh

39. Up until now, consideration has been given tr" so it,models of the Supply and Technical systems. In what tolirws, theLogistics system as a whole will he ccnsidered.

40. It has been stressed within the present repu rt that th'.human activity systems identified within the mode '1, notnecessarily correspond to formal groupings within the rrganisati-nunder study. Nevertheless, as a result ef the approach descr ibeo atParagraph 6, the component Supply and Technical system m(dels ,align loosely with the formal division of manpower within the kAAi(i.e. Supply and Technical systems staffed respectively by mciTersof the Supply and Engineer Branches, together with members -tassociated airmen musteri gs). In view of this, it miqht belegitimately asked how the component Supplv and Technical systemmodels fit together to form a 'Logistics' system. A mcdel is n,-wdeveloped to provide a framework within which this might lheexamined.

A Generalised Logistics System Model

41. The following root definition of an In-Service leohnicalLogistics system is proposed:

kpuort 27 14

. R.

" .. 2'ini

I R--,+/ .. ..., .

m = m

-------- --

4m

-I ++"7,"- '" S"' =

)1kuu M I

m

... .. . .U_. SM.i i -

II.

SM ttill,

' -U65 ca

15 CSE Rejort 27

a human activity system, manned by Service and civil i,personnel, which undertakes, on behalf of the kAAF, thooactivities required to produce serviceable equipment t: roperational use through engineering and maintenance ann 'j thesupply of materiel required for engineering and maintenanceactivities, including essential transport links, subject tothose environmental influences and activities describec atSections 2 and 3 of this report.

This root definition incorporates the definition of 'echnicalLogistics given by the Study ontrol Group as a starting pcint forthis study (see Section 1, Paragraph 7b).

42. A conceptual model consistent with this root definition isdisplayed at Figure 6.4, in terms of fourteen functional elements:

a. L1 - Understand Operational Requirement t(,rServiceable Equipment;

h. L2 - Understand Financial and Other EnvironmentalInfluences;

c. L3 - Develop Enqineering Specification of ServiceableEquiprment required for Operational Use, subject t(Financial and (ther Environmental Influences;

d. L4 - Define! Maintenance Activities reqcui re forProduct ion cf Serviceable Equipment;

e. L5 - Implement Maintenance Activities;

f. L6 - Determine Materiel Requirements to suppcrtMaintenance Activities consistent with EngineeringSpecification;

g. L7 - Determine Means of Satisfaction of MaterielRequi rements;

h. L8 - Determine Essential Transport Links for Supply of

Materiel;

i. L9 - Acquire Materiel and Transport Resources;

j. LIO - Supply Materiel to Maintenance Activities asrequired;

k. LIi - Conduct Maintenance Activities;

1. L12 - Monitor Activities Li tc Li;

m. L13 - Define Measures of Perf)rmance for Efficiencyand Effectiveness of Supply of Serviceable Equipmentfor Operational Use; and

n. Li4 - Take Control Action.

po! " 27

UNDERSTAND

ATIONAL REGUIREMENT

FOR SERVICEABLE

EQUIPMENTLlUNDERSTAND

FINANCIAL AND OTHER

ENVIRONMENTAL

INFLUENCESL2

DEVELOP ENGINEERING

SPECIFICATION OF SERVICEABLE

EQUIPMENT REQUIRED FOR OPERATIONAL

USE.SUBJECT TO FINANCIAL AND

OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL

INFLUENCES

L3 DETER INEMATERIEL REOU EMENTS TO

SUPPORT MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES

CONSISTENT WITH ENGINEERING

SPECIFICATIONL6

DEFINE MAINTENANCE

ACTIVITIES REQUIRED FO

PRODUCTION OF SERVICEAB E

EQUIPMENT

L4

DETERMINEMEANS OF SATISFACTION

OF MATERIEL

REGUIREMENTS

IMPLEMENT L7

MAINTENANCE

ACTIVITIES

L5

DETERMINE

ESSENTIAL TRANSPORT

LINKS FOR SUPPLY

OF MATERIEL

ACQUIRE LB

CONDUCT MATERIEL AND TRANSPORT

MAINTENANCE RESOURCES

ACTI V I TIES L9

SUPPLY MATERIEL MONITOR

0 MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIE

AS REQUIRED L.1 TO Lil

0 Ll 2

DEFINE

TAKE MEASURES OF

CONTROL PE4= 4ACNT(FlLVF-OR EFFICIENCY

ACTION AND E I _ NESS OF SUPPLY

Lt4 _ < Ol SERVICEABLE EQUIPMENT

FOR OPERATIONAL USE

L13

FIGURE 1.4 CINCEPTUIL NOBEL IF

IN-SERVICE TECNNICIL LOOIRTICS ILI SISTER

17 CSL ke 1 r 27

43. It should be appreciated that this model represe-Ttof logistics activity which has not been constrained by dr:y 'tto model present RAAF activities, in contrast with thu .uplTechnical system models discussed to date.

Mappin of Supply and Technical System Models ontc the ,en,',alioedLogistics System Model

44. In Figures 6.5 and 6.6, a mapping of the Supply al(Technical sub-systems shown in Figures 6.1 and 6.2 rt rrtconceptual model of Figure 6.4 is shown. Functional sib- y tmrcthe Supply and Technical system models which satisty, i , i t l.least, the purpose expressed in each r f the [I<gist n ,functional elements Ll to L14 are indicated.

45. It is stressed that the mapping given in Fiun s. 6. ,u6.6 involves an element of subjective judgement in its c list r-(t ir q.It is presented as a framework against which the reader miqht bettorappreciate the roles played by the detailed Supply and lecricalsystem models which have been developed. It is not intende, aF ananalytic tool. Nevertheless, some simple observations can ,2 rado:

a. All sub-systems of the Supply and Technicr;l systemmodels can be identified as satistyin Z J i'rp seexpressed in the wider Logistics system r( !(,I , annmanifestations of all Logistics system elerents can befound in the Supply and Technical system m(d ,1!. .the extent that the Supply and Technical systen modelsreflect the real world, this implies that, within trioRAAF, activities can be found which purport to fultillall the purposes expected by the Generalised Logisticssystem model. This mapping, however, says nothingabout the effectiveness or efficiency with which theseRAAF activities fulfill the wider logistics purposes;

b. The mapping of Supply and Technical systems ontoLogistics model elements is not one-to-one. Thisreflects both the tendency for some broad logisticspurposes to be carried out in the real world by aseries of smaller functional systems, ana theevolution of systems in the real world which, fr~roften very justifiable reasons, carry out functionswhich satisfy simultaneously elements of the purposesexpressed by more than one Logistics system function;

c. The identification of Supply and Technical systemfunctions within the Generalised Logistics systemmodel displays three broad groupings of activities.Logistics system functions L3 to L5, and L I , arelocated uniquely within the Technical system model.Functions L8 to LI0 are located uniquely within theSupply system model. Functions L6 and L7, hnwev.r,involve elements of both the Supply and Technicalsystems, and as such constitute the primary interfacebetween the two systems. This interface, inv lyingthe determination of materiel requirements and th(emeans of satisfaction of those requirements, involves

7i

SUPPLYSUB-SYSTEM

O LSt.i. S .1. .2.1 St.2.2 St.2.3 S 24St.2.5 S1.3.I S1.3 2 S1 4 S2 1

MODEL OF"I OGISTICS"

SYSTEM

L2 LII

L3

L4

HI

L5

L 8 _7

L9O

Lii

Li3

I I

FIIIIE 1.5 HIPPII IF IOPPLI OTITEI IlT

CONCEPTIAL NIDEL OF "LOIIITICI" IYITEN

TECHNICAL i ,S 'B-SYSTEM

IT1.1. TI 1 T. 1

CONCEPTUAL :1.1.1 TI .I 3 1T 2 TI 2 2 '

j T , IT-. 7 1 -

MODEL OF

*LOGISTICS'

SYSTEM II.: I - -

L 2

p~ L3

L4

LH

+ - 1- - v---- - - - •

L8 [ I

-4-

S,-+-- ----- , -.. .. .

FIGURE 1.8 NAPPING OF TECHNICAL STITEN ONTO

CONCEPTUAL NOBEL OF "LOGISTICS" SYSTEN

CSE Report 27 20

the Maintenance Material Support RequirementsDetermination (Tl.2.6), Codification and Cataloguing(Sl.1.l) and Spares Requirements Extension (S1.2.2)systems, and might be viewed as a prime candidate forintegration of Supply and Engineer Branch personnel.Indeed, this view of logistics activities wouldendorse moves in recent years to re-organiseactivities in these areas at HQSC in a way whichintegrates personnel into a corporate Logisticsorganisation based on role, rather than Branchaffiliation;

d. Functions L12 to L14, which might he viewed as a modelof a higher level planning and control function whichlooks at overall Logistics system performance, hasbeen identified in Figures 6.5 and 6.6 with theamalgamation of activities described in the S2 and T2sub-systems. A representation of the controlvariables/tools used by the Supply and Technicalsystems at present, in a form which relates these toLogistics system goals rather than uniquely supply orte-hnical goals, has already been presented at Figure6.3 and discussed at Paragraphs 32 to 38 above.

PROBLEM AREAS - DISCUSSION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PRESENT MODEL,

46. In the preceding, an overview of the models developed inthe present study has been provided. These models provide alanguage for a structured debate on areas of concern. As a pointerto possible study topics, a number of perceived problem areas arenow discussed briefly, in the context of the present model. Theareas suggested span a range of activities from the translation ofgoals into requirements, to the specification of formats formanagement codes. It is emphasised that the identification ofproblem areas and recommendations for changes to the system was notthe primary purpose of this study. The recognition of the followingproblem areas is essentially a by-product of the analysis andrepresents but a small sample of the problem areas which could havebeen chosen. These, and other problem areas, have been identifiedpreviously by a number of RAAF working parties.

Presentation o f Operational Goals in a Format amenable totransl'ation into Maintenance/Supply Support Criteria

47. It has been apparent to CSE that there is currentlypressure being exerted by managers in both the Supply and Technicalsystems for the Operational system to restate goals in a morerigorous and quantitative way. It is argued that operational goalsshould be presented in such a way that they naturally framemaintenance goals, and allow maintenance planning, which will inturn define supply requirements. Currently, operational goals arequantified in terms of annual flying hours and one measure of dailyon-line availability for each aircraft type. These highlyaggregated pa rame ter s do not make explicit important factors inmaintenance planning, such as deployment patterns, variability in

21 CSE Rep( It 27

flying load and daily variations in sortie profiles. This m,,t Lhas been previously raised, in various contexts, by a number t I<AAiworking parties (e.g. 'Investigation of Availability of Aircraft t,meet Planned Rates of Effort and Tasks' (Coy Report) OLtober ]971).There are associated problems in the specification of supplysupport. As has been pointed out ('Report by a DGSUP-AF Spo)nsoredStudy Group Formed to Examine Stockholding Policies and ResupplyProcedures' (Collins Report) December 1979), there is a lack ofsuitable support criteria in the RAAF. For example, a unit may beachieving an off-the-shelf fill rate of 60 per cent, but theru i noagreement by higher management as to whether this measure cfperformance is the right one, or even whether 60 per cent is anacceptable goal.

48. On the other hand, managers in the Operational systemcurrently perceive operational goals as not being amenable toquantitative expression in any more than gross flying hour terms(see Section 2, Paragraphs 67 to 69), and supply and technical goalsas being best expressed only in qualitative terms, e.g. mostdemands met in a reasonable time'

49. Although the present study does not offer a quick fix trthe problems outlined above, time has been spent attempting tcstructure the problem of relating operational goals to a hierarchyof logistics goals, and eventually to control variables/tccls withinthe Logistics system. This structuring of the problem is presentedat Section 5, Paragraphs 55 to 110.

Feedforward Control - Comparison of Supply and Technical ControlMechanisms

50. The concepts of feedback and feedforward contr(;l arewell established (e.g. see J. Dermer 'Management Planning andControl Systems - Advanced Concepts and Cases' (Richard D. IrwinInc., Homewood Illinois, 1977) page 211). Feedback control attemptsto ensure conformance to expectations by comparing actualperformance against original expectations and then adjusting eitherperformance or plans to diminish any deviation that exists.Feedforward control, on the other hand, monitors variables etherthan output or performance. Instead, it monitors variables which'drive' pe-formance, and which therefore may change beforeperformance itself changes. Such monitorinq of variables thatchange ahead of performance allows anticipative control, as opposedto after-the-fact, or reactive, control.

51. Control mechanisms applied to the RAAF Logistics systemhave been reviewed in the present model at the Technical OperationalPlanning and Control (T2) system, and that subset of the controlmechanisms particularly applied to the control of Supply systemactivities, has been reviewed at the Supply Operational Planning andControl (S2) system. Some of the identified control mechanisms, inparticular those which are applied to maintenance forecasting,programming, tasking and production control, have aspects whichwould qualify, according to the above definitions, as feedtorwardcontrol. Others, however, in particular that subset of controilsdescribed at the Supply Operational Planning and Contrrl (S2)system, would be categorised as essentially feedback. New policy at

CSE Report 27 22

HQSC is to monitor production lead times in the aerospace industry,by equipment category, a mechanism which is essentially'feedforward' control. It is recommended that studies be undertakento investigate the potential for the further introduction offeedforward control mechanisms to the regulation of Supply systemfunctions.

Determination of Maintenance Facility Capability and Capacity

52. The assessment of capability and capacity of maintenancefacilities has been described at the Maintenance Level and FacilityAnalysis (Tl.2.3) system. The term capability has been used todenote the possession of fixed resources for a particular set oftasks on a particular end item or repairable item. Several kinds ofcapacity have been defined, all being quantitative measures of thethroughput of work of either a particular or general kind.

53. On the basis of the present study, it appears to CSE thatthe way in which these quantities are assessed by the RAAF isunnecessarily qualitative/judgemental. This is particularly thecase with the assessment of facility capacity.

54. The capability of RAAF maintenance facilities is recordedin Technical Facilities Registers prepared in accordance with DI(AF)TECH 4-7. Comparable, detailed records of contractor facilities arenormally held by contractors, and GSE listings for contractors aremaintained by the Office of Defence Production and the RAAF (RO5,HQSC). Various directories listing the capabilities of Australianand overseas contractors are also available (e.g. 'Directory ofAustralian Defence and Offsets Oriented Industry'; and 'WorldAviation Directory'). The capacities of RAAF and contractor depotlevel maintenance facilities, however, are currently only assessedin very gross terms, and the assessments consider only themaintenance manpower resource under normal peacetime conditions.Capacities of 012. and ILM facilities are assessed in even grosserterms. For example:

a. gross manhours available per annum, by trade, usingestablishment figures; and

b. the manhours allotted, by trade, in the AnnualMaintenance Programme (AMP).

55. It is suggested that better estimates of throughputcapacity than previous years' AMPs should be available, and it isrecommended that RAAF maintenance facility analysis requirements bestudied in detail with a view to the provision of more appropriateestimates of facility capability and capacity.

Validation of Repairable Item Assessment Methods

56. Techniques for the assessment of repairable item stockagelevels using the PATTRIC model have been dtscribed at theMaintenance Material Support Requirements Determination (TI.2.6)system. In view of the established reliance now placed upon theresults of the PATTRIC model assessment technique, and of thepotential for further development of such models to assist in the

23 CSE Reprrt 27

evaluation, in operational terms, of the effects of spares fur ii;shortfalls or basic changes in maintenance concepts, the presecttstudy would strongly support research commitment to the ;esiflq anadevelopment of appropriate data collection directed towards physicalvalidation/further development of the relationships used in thePATTRIC model.

Specification of Assessment Determination Method

57. The assessment of long term (i.e. year to year) averageusage rates/stockage levels/numbers of items required by maintenanceprogrammes which support the RAAF flying effort has been describedin the context of the Maintenance Material Support RequirementsDetermination (Tl.2.6) system. As recognised in that model,essential to such activity is the specification of the assessmentdetermination method and the agency responsible for procurement.The RAAF management code used to promulgate decisions in both thesecategories has been taken to be the Provisioning Category (PROCAT).Three groupings of assessment determination methods have beenidentified, i.e.

a. items subject to automated reprovisicning tro whichusage rates must be determined;

b. items subject to special assessment deterriiitientechniques, for which stockage levels must bedetermined; and

c. items subject to particular issue control techniques,for which numbers must be determined.

58. As commented on in the text, attempts to associate curtainPROCATs uniquely with calculation techniques within these groupings,highlighted a number of ambiguities, many of which have been notedby other writers (e.g. 'Definitions and Management Concepts forRecoverable Items', GPCAPT E.B. Watson, 2501/ll/17Tech(32), 16 Nov.1984). For example, the classification of an item as repairabledoes not mean that there will not be some degree of wastage, andhence supply can be based upon either new procurement or repair.The available PROCAT categories, however, do not convey informationas to which is predominant.

59. Proposals for the restructuring of management codes ofseveral types have been put forward by GPCAPT Watson in the abovereference. Whila3t the present study does not wish to be seen asendorsing any of the proposals therein, it is recommended thatstudies be instituted with a view to the establishment cE a codewhich conveys unambiguously management decisions on the two majorfactors to be defined in the assessing/procurement cycle, i.e.

a. the method by which the item is to be assessed; and

b. the agency responsible for p-ocurement.

CSE Report 27 24

PROBLEM AREAS - GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

60. Although the Terms of Reference precluded investigation ofmatters related to manpower, one observation in this area isbelieved worthy of mention. One other observation about a matternot cast directly in terms of the models developed is also made.

Trade-off between Stock Holding and Manpower

61. It was observed by CSE, in interviews with a number ofHQSC staff, that a significant fraction of available staff time wasapparently spent on matters associated with the expediting ofresupply of items assigned an Urgency of Need (UND) designation ofA, with a consequent reduction in time available to complete otherduties (see Section 4, Paragraph 273, for description of UND).There is obviously a trade-off in this area, which has not beenquantified in any form, which could be discerned in the presentstudy, between stock holding and manpower. Studies directed towardsthe development of a qualitative and, if possible, quantitativeunderstanding of this trade-off are recommended.

Comparison of Depot/Intermediate/Operating Level MaintenanceManagement Procedures

62. It became obvious when studying areas described in theMaintenance Forecasting and Programming (Tl.2.4) and MaintenanceTasking and Production Control (Tl.2.5) models, that Depot levelrepair is intensively managed by SORO (including particularly, thecareful costing of contractor maintenance manhours), whilstintermediate and operating level maintenance performed by the RAAFis not. Indeed, the documentation of intermediate and operatinglevel management procedures is so sparse that the major parts of theTi.2.4/Tl.2.5 system descriptions were concerned with the DLMprocess. Whilst it cannot be argued on the basis of the presentstudy that there is any established requirement for a tightening ofoperating or intermediate level management procedures, it isrecommended that a review of these procedures be undertaken toestablish whether benefits would accrue from a tightening ofapproaches, in line with current practice for DLM management.

POSSIBLE DIRECTIONS FOR PHASE 2 OF THE RAAF LOGISTICS SYSTEM STUDY

63. To conclude the report, possible directions for Phase 2 ofthe RAAF Logistics System study are examined.

64. The second phase of the present study was projected as aquantitative examination of the effects of variations to the inputsto logistics sub-systems on appropriate systemic measures ofperformance and possible trade-offs between these inputs (seeAnnex A, Paragraphs 12 to 14). It was envisaged that this workmight provide RAAF logistics managers with a model which would allowthe quantitative assessment of the effects of resource modification

on In-Service Technical Logistics system performance.

25 CSE Report 27

65. Such a proposal should be viewed against a backgr,,urj :USAF work in recent years, directed towards the develcrpment ,iLogistics Capability Assessment techniques (i.e. models t .-vIS:ISthe ability to perform missions, expressed in operatirnal tertns,based upon logistics resources considerations). Models cievelrqpedhave been described by R.B. Watson in 'Air Force LogisticsCapability Assessment - A Management Overview', CSE Working PaperAFLOGI, 1982, and are broadly categorised as follows:

a. Systems Dynamics Models - the computer implementatirn,by means of continuous simulation languages, cf riodelsexpressed as a set of coupled differential equationsgoverning the behaviour of a set of system variables;

b. Data Analysis Models - the relating of resources toaircraft flying hours by analysis of historical data,using multiple regression techniques;

c. Base Level Models - Monte Carlo simulations ofaircraft operations, which attempt to evaluate theimpact on aircraft operational availability oflogistics support policies; and

d. .Reairable Spares Models - analytic models which aimtn assess the impact of a given repairable spares

posture on aircraft availability.

Some progress has been made towards the development 4,f a dataanalysis type model (Paragraph 65b above) for the RAAF Logisticssystem (see 'An Approach to Gross Statistical Modelling o f RAAFLogistics', CSE Working Paper AFLOG3, 1985, B.K. McMillan). Aspointed out in that paper, however, there are a number of practical,as well as conceptual, limitations to such input-output modelling.With regard to the other model types above, it should be noted thatwhilst all are valid approaches to the modelling of parts of theLogistics system, they fall short of the comprehensive modelsuggested at Paragraph 64 above. Such approaches are, nevertheless,analytic tools which could conceivably provide assistance to thema nage r.

66. It is the conclusion of CSE that a mathematical model ofthe RAAF Logistics system as a whole is infeasible, and that a PhaseTwo Study committed to development of such a model should not beundertaken. This conclusion has been reached based upon a fullerappreciation of the complexity of the RAAF In-Service TechnicalLogistics system, and in particular a recognition of the importantrole played by unprogrammed activities, as a result of the modeldevelopment described in the main body of the report. Such aconclusion, however, echoes views expressed in the relevantliterature. R.N. Anthony in 'Planning and Control Systems - AFramework for Analysis' page 84, for example, states thatmathematical models of management control systems are unrealisticbecause:

CSE Report 27 26

a. models assume that a certain combination of inputswill result in a specified output, whereas themianagement control process applies to activities wherethe relationship between inputs and outputs is notknown; and

b. models do not incorporate the effects of the influenceof the system on human beings, whereas this influenceis an essential characteristic of the managementcontrol process.

67. Professor P.B. Checkland, Department of Systems, School ofManagement and Organisational Sciences, University of Lancaster,U.K., who was employed as a consultant by OSTO in August 1985, wassimiliarly sceptical of the feasibility of a mathematical model tooptimally relate overall inputs to overall outputs in a largeorganisation, such as the RAAF Logistics system. His reasonsinclude the following:

a. In a large organisation such as the RAAF Logisticssystem, there are many decision takers whose decisionsimpact on the input-output relationship, and theirattitudes, abilities and personalities would have tcbe included in the model.

b. Specification of the optimal input-output relationshipfor the total system would require the measurement ofquantitative measures of performance for everysub-system. While for some sub-systems this may befeasible, at the higher levels of an organisationmeasures of performance are invariably fuzzy andunquantifiable (see also Wilson, 'Systems: Concepts,Methodologies and Applications' page 230, on thispoint).

c. The measures of performance for different sub-systemsare often incommensurable, i.e. cannot be combinedinto one overall measure to allow system-widetrade-offs to be made. Measures of performance cannotall be expressed in financial terms, and should bedefined on the basis of the set of activities that arebeing controlled.

68. This is not to suggest, however, that quantitativemodelling of smaller parts of the system may not be valuable. Forexample, further development of the PATTRIC model for repairableitem assessment, and development of models to assist in groundsupport/test equipment assessment, might be suggested. Suchquantitative modelling, however, should only be taken up bymanagement if there is clear, prior understanding of the way inwhich the results of such models woT17_The interfaced with the otherinformation used by managers in their decision taking. Systemicmethodologies, such as the soft systems methodologi applied here,can provide a framework for developing such an understanding.

69. Having argued against the development of mathematicalmodels to relate overall inputs to overall outputs, this studysuggests instead, two directions for future work which are believedto be both feasible and potentially valuable.

27 CSE Report 27

Identification of Feasible and Desirable Changes to the 'yst .of Issue-Based Root Definitions

70. Possible methods of comparison of the conceptual rrodelsdeveloped with the real world, in a form designed to yield feasibleand desirable changes to the system, have been describht- itParagraphs 10 to 13 above. Some problem areas which might heinvestigated further using such methods have been suggested atParagraphs 46 to 59 above.

71. Tho comparison methods described at Paragraphs 10 tr I I,however, if applied to the models reported in the present stujy,would probably yield only incremental changes to improve perceivedproblem situations. It is unlikely that solutions would he ,ropcs-(4which would reejire major re-organisation or re-structurinq ,tpresent practi-es. This is a consequence of the decisi-n taken inthe present study to adopt root definitions which, according to theclassification of P.B. Checkland ('Systems Thinking -' 'SterPractice' page 317), would be termed 'primary task' . The , Itdefinitions which are neutral accounts of public 'r 'f ici )'explicit tasks which are embodied in an organisatien.

72. It is suggested that there would be significart i ' f

further investigation of those matters perceived as pri 1 ,.''-.used approaches based upon what Checkland terms issue' tdefinitions. An issue-based root definition is a defirini rt anotional system chosen for its relevance to what the ine-,at,and/or the people in the prnblem situation perceive as mattrc Icontention. Investigations of this type would invC '. theredevelopment of conceptual models for the specific d1-vo finterest based not upon the primary task root definitions (ioo d inlthe present work, but based upon one or more issue-based r-o-tdefinitions. The approaches advocated by Checkland ('SystemsThinking - Systems Practice' pages 221 to 223) would suggest thatthe subsequent debate and comparison of the conceptual modelsreported in this study, with those built using the issue-based rootdefinitions, would provide a framework for the development ofinnovative, yet feasible, proposals for change.

Application of Soft Systems Methodology to Information SystemsAnalysis

73. An alternative direction for further study, using theconceptual models in the present work, is in the application )f softsystems methodology to the analysis of information systems.Information systems analysis is a precursor to informaticrn systemdesign. Information systems analysis is concerned with thedevelopment of a concept for the organisation on which inforrationneeds can be based, followed by specification of what inforimatirnsystems need to be designed or developed %o support nrganisatirnalneeds. The information system design process then defines hrwsupport information is to be provided, and actions theimplementation. CSE would not anticipate any involvement ininformation system design activities.

CSE Report 27 28

74. In the following, an approach described in detail byWilson (see 'Systems: Concepts, Methodologies and Applications'Chapter 5), is outlined. This involves the u e of primary taskconceptual models of the type already developed by CSE, ir a widerprocess of information systems analysis.

75. A schematic representation of the methodology forinformation systems analysis is given at Figure 6.7. It involves,in broad terms, five stages:

a. Develop an activity description of the organisation(or part of the organisation) under review, i.e. aprimary task model. This stage defines whatactivities must be on-going for the system tofunction.Ib. Derive the categories of information required tosupport the activities in the models and theparticular models from which this information can beobtained. This will result in a set ofactivity-to-activity information flows being defined.This stage defines the minimum information needed tosupport the activities.

c. For a particular organisation structure, definemanagement roles in terms of the activities for whicheach existing manager has the decision-takingresponsibility. This stage defines who (in terms ofrole) is responsible for what set of activities.

d. Use these role definitions to associate theactivity-to-activity information flows derived atStage b. with particular managers within theorganisation. This stage defines the minimuminformation flow pattern, i.e. who is responsible forsupplying what information to whom.

e. Finally, define the information systems needed tomatch the performance needs of the activities eachsystem is supporting so that one can make efficientuse of both computing and manpower resources. This isa major stage, which merges into the system designprocess.

Further explanation of this methodology, including details o~f the'Maltese Cross' technique recommended for use at Stages b. to d.above, is available at Chapter 5 of Wilson's book.

*76. The iterative process leading to a primary task model of'what is', displayed at the left hand side c.f Figure 6.7, anddescribed above as Stage a. of the information systems analysismethodology, has been completed by CSE for the RAAF In-ServiceTechnical Logistics system in the present study. 7t is suggested,in view of this, that information systems analysis of selected areasof the RAAF Logistics system, based upon that work and using themethodology outlined above, would provide a natural direction forfuture beneficial study.

zZ

4) U)

w -uw

Z~~- W

z~ ~ - o4 - w_ =S

3- Go

44-D4Z- -&4Waa

z U:Ab-

z S

aw--4-0

UI -

P- -m o P S4

LU=-~ ME

4, 0(nW~0 -z. S

5 -0

0-- =W E

-54-4

'I-sc -

z-

z-

CSE Report 27 30

CONCLUSION

77. This then brings to a close a very long report, on whathas been a complex first phase of study of the RAAF Logisticssystem. What has been provided is a detailed, well-structured modelof logistics activities. Possible directions foi future work havebeen canvassed above. Such long-term considerations, however,should not blind one to the value of the Phase One study in its ownright. If the present study succeeds only in providing a basis fora structured debate on problems such as those raised in this finalsection of the report, it will have made a worthwhile contributionto the conduct of logistics activities within the RAAF. Suchdebate, however, can only yield feasible and desirable directionsfor change if relevant RAAF management is willing to investsubstantial time and effort in the understanding and interpretationof the models developee.

31

~1

.4 6 0o 0 50.

0~ .40 000 .0-. 0..0 *0

0 OCr. 0.00 0 ~ 0~

-~0.0000 I0.0.40000

C 00.4.. 0.-'

00. .400 -, 0C*40~ ~40Ci4... 00

U 004.4 4.00 CO0.400 4.4 - ZUS .40 5.4- 0

'-4 0 0.0 0007000 .4040 0.0 .0>0.- 44 (00 SO .400 - -

000 404.4~I-.C4 00 00 4000 00~ 04001-. 4.4

C 00 .4000,4.4 0.4.400 3.40CC C C .4.4 000 CU 0 C

O OUO.4.....4 04.-. 0.4 4J4 40 4014) 400 400 0.4 Q.4.-4 SO C, 0 CU

.000 .440 .40. S.. 540 0.400 040 0.04.C. 0 005 005000.400 00.0 0.'.0 SC SOS

D 4-. 0. .404.4 .44 .40. .44 -. 0.0 dOS 00 0.4-'

0 1. 010 40 44.4 '~.404.' 00~4 0.~4U -~ 0~-0

~. o ~ 00

On 404-. 00550. .4.4 "0 40

.4441. 3 .4 CI-. C.4C4.040C.4544- 0.4 .45 - -o C.

00) .4 ~-4000~ -~00S0.S.-4. 0 .4 0.5 -. -44- 0 000. 0000.0. 4.400 0.0 . .

0 000- 00 05 .000 05 - -o U' 0.0~0. 0.0~00Zi-'1.. 001 .4400 4-. 4.4-. 1.- 4-0

F' 0.-.F' -

0.4 0 00 0

0 -~ o.0.? C U C 00 00410

00 50 0.4.4 C 0-....'0) 05 0.4 00.4 .4.4 00 .4 005.4 04.014

4.4 "4-' 500 0.40 S.-4.4.-'40.4..4.40 ~ 000 000, 5000.400.

0,4 4 5.4 00.4 55 0 CUU4JOO.'S.00 04' aSS 0.4400015.4.4.400050050

0 00.0 .40. 44.4 .40.040 00 CCO .450 .4000 0 ~00C0S 040.4

'C i'-. 00 050 .000.0 CC 500000.4000.400 .44 .40-0 04000 (0000 .4.40.4 000...

4-'" 0010 .0500 .44.4000 4.40 0.40 .50-40

04 C 0

~ 0.5

0 5 I 5 0 000- UC 0 C 00 4. 0040

0 0 000 000 U0200 UC 0 0 00 400

0 40 50 C 0 0.400 00O 0-.4 U 0 0000000 0 .4 0 .44 403..40.4 .404 00.040 MU 04 040

P.4 .4.400 ~U 00 - 00 C.44 0.4 0.4 .C..4 401..0 00 0.UUS - 4 00 -. 40

U0 BCU 0<00 05 0 OU UO.40 ~0...40 0'0 00 0 ~ 0.4 4. 050400 00 0.1.4 0. r.0 C~0~ 005

* 0 0.04..* 5 5~-. 0.40

0 000' 04. I. i~-.0. 0fl.~4 .4400 .- 400 C C

.444 >0.0 COUCCS.' 0,000 r.4S.4

0 0- 50.40 0 00.

CSE Report 27 32

r m

.200. .

;A - .-. 7.

.22

t _1 i I

jji -- - +:.- :

I "a-11 '4 a "

z .4.

'" ! +"' A+ "-O *U4 04 .= ,: 0+. U Jo0 .. : . ~ U a . " I,

0 0 4 0 . 0 40 .0 y l

33 ncr;..-..

P.O -~-. 4440 04 .0-. 44* U 0.

o ~ ** 444 44

4.44U 64

*.4 14 g4 ~4 g~t~

04 /4.0040440.-.. oo~o 0*

440.0.4 44440. 00.O.4.40o~ 0444.0 0*4o ooo. ~44*

.404-0. .4440.*0*44.4 60444 00.4

U U0444

.jaoo 04444* 0000 00-40. 000.o Ofl-o 0.044'..- (4.04.4

0

* 0 00 444 40 4 00 *0

44 444 4.4 444 444 444 0. 0. S 0.444 - 4 a a 0.0.0 - - - - 4-4 /4 0 - =000 40 40 4.4 44 4/4 04 40 4-4 40

- 0 S00~ 444 4g

4.40. 04444

444 4444 440 0 0444 400 04- 4044 04404.444.000 0 4-4444 0440 440 0

044 40000.044 00

44.00444444-4 '.40~4~00 04404(44.4(4.444.4-00040 04044U440.44 4444044 4404 0. 044 0.04044444>44

.40444444.000440440.444400 0440 00400000444 44440000-44000440.444000 -40 4.0 00.4044 040044 /40

0 444 0.4 40040.44444044 flaa44-.4 (4.400 00 0.00.40049044.4

0 0 40 - 0. 4-4 -44

44444 444 'o a -/4 a0 - - - 0. - 444 0 - /4

-4 40 40 40 40 0 40 40 441 444 (4

'444 3 44 -4 44

44 44 44* ,4~ /4

'440 * .44.0 '.44.40 U .4 40 -. 4440.4 440 - 04404 0. 0 0 0 0.40444-404400 4440 4444444 U 0,4 00 04.4 /4)00444 0.444 044 44

44 44 40.444 440 44044400.4- 44. 0 444440 .444 0.4 404 44 0/49/444.4 4 0 440 -

4.4444444.000 40 -. 405004 34.44 0 -. 44440 04-~ 0 .00 -. 4~ 4400 440 /444000.44444444 -- a /400. 0. 40. 04 000 044 004444,440.0-40 0 40a 00= 444 00 400 0.440 0.4 4400/400 0044 0 00/4 04444 H .444 <0 400.44 044 0.44440.aO 4440-44 0 040 0.0

440 0 - 44 0 10 00 4 0 0

* a /4 ~ 4~0 444 /4 /40444 44 044 0 0~ 0. 44 0440 -.4 00 44 6 0 /4 0 -40

0 -44444 a 44 0(4 0. -4 44 (4 44 44444 44 a 44 0 44 0. 044 4.4 40. 440.0 0044.44 4 00 440 -40 00 oa 4. 44

&004 4400 044 0004~0.4 4/4 440 444 440000

.. ,444/4 0.~4 /40. 044 440.

4- 0.4 /4. 44 44 440 0 00.44044 .00 4444* 044 00. 00. 04.40444400 000 440 00. 00 04.00400 00 0000 4044 4.0 .440 0444 0044 440. 4400 0440

44 00-440. 044 o 4.. 0044 440 00 004U 044.0.44 044 00 440 00. 044 0. .4044 0/400 444040 400 440 00 440. 44440 044 000 0000 4044 0 4.44 04 05 0/4 000-00 0444444444440 00..) Z 00 00. to /4 040 0.4(4404 r 0.0.0. 0. 0.

*040 0 044 40444* 40<0 0 400 - *40.00 0.444 5.... 44- 0.44444 00 0444 40.0 040 0440 44~ 44 0 0440a .440.44 404-4 44400 440.4440 440 4444' 0444 444

04440 00-4 0440 44444040 444440 t.4044 044-4

400,0 40a... - -. Ja 400.4]

CSE Report 27 34

0 1 00

o .90 I Z.,.*

5 0.- . v >*I 00 I ~ 494 44

S 00. 04 44 0 9 0

00 .4.4

Z40 4 4 4 4 4 4 H4

o4 904. v04 a0 44 9 4

04444944 09. 90 94 444

7L A

40~ ~~ A M"9 In, 4. ..4 04

9.9 4440 0 4 4

35 CSE Repc~rt 27

1 "

a 0 05000 0

01~5

0 0..50'

o~~t 004 1 .5

.0 5. 0

O I5k

CSE Report 27 36

A

4J 0J S..

a~ 0j 4k i

00

a- -- -- -- -- - - - - - - - .- - .- : - -

a ,, -..: . . . .34 _'

05u

0: 4-. OS 44 OSOS 14 44 O in OSl

a 0 I

.44. o 0 .+ a .. . .... e

* -, - * - Z a

... . ... .. .. - -

O 4m S 0.05 0 0.4 3!4 o oU 4 .0- 4

" 00 . , , 0

a: + "".

C + -. 0a++ 0 5+ t24,,4404 °,5 3+. ,.

04J0 0..

37 CSE RepOrt 27

0 0000

0 a 04. .4.40 0 0444 1 t

10 0..40-A 40 4f 00n 00n

04 .4

1 1 4 .4 .

o o0 4 44. ~ 4~

00. v 10 0.

04- 0.o ~~~ 0 44 0 0 . 0 0 0 .4. .4 o .0

o O 0 01. 0 .400-4c 0 -m4u . . 0 1 44 444-M00.O 0044...40 .4..4 0 . 00

0 04 4oo 0~ W0100 .4

"a * 0 OW 0 w4

CSE Report 27 38

Aa u fl A 4o iA u . a

,44

- 4 -.i deO00 0(.l t

.4U

* 4t

39 CSE Report 27

-mo-

I z CI C uC~

.1 CCC o SC-a)C~

0

H a.

CCCC~ CC g

Z~ ~~~~ I IC.. C CC- CCiC. C-CC.. C C C C

10

H' 1

a .1 15~ 0C C a

CO it CC1 C

.. CC fCC C 3 i

1"C

CSE Report 27 40

Z

oo

-.

CI -0--

4

- I 4. .4--

II A

C. : -- .- t1 . _A24

4 1 CSE Report

2 11

1. .... Z

o . 1 --- - -

;I=- o.4CCC - - C. C ' .

o Io

-. ~ A _

I 00 5C a 0 50 C I IIICCIII

N .

O ~~~ CSS 0

*CO CCS C%

.::Reprt 27 42

-S a

~2 .

j..... . .

C-9 C -

43 CSE Rpport 27

21

I

,. . ."- 44

..

. 4 .. 4

.44 - - 4 4

- 4 .. 4.i44l.4i.

.4 a 4*44 . 434. 4 C 4.4 *44 4

45 ~ RepC~ 3

I-. = - .- = I-I-.

4~, 40y0*44 000-0

4, .0 4,~4,

Z'0 0 .4,04,000004,4400044, 048.000000000 .0000~4,.0..4, 004,40.400,00.4 04.0400.0004,0 0.

0 4,00400-0.Z00.04, 00.00 CO C0.COI-..a400.04(JX.0 0.00.00. U

- 4,0404,4, 0 0..- 004, 4, 4,000.0 04 .00 0 00 0 4 0 0 0. 0 4, 0 ~ 0 0 0 04,. 4,0.01 0 4,04,4 .0*0

00 00~00*.0~4. 000.0 0 - 4,4000 44,44, -0 0 044

0 ~00' 4.44, - 0....4, 44004, 0. 4,04,4.-4 *=4, 4, *04,0fl .00...0 44,4, 004,000 4,04 000 0. 004,0. oo.0 .'4o005 .. A 0.0 4,0.4-... 4,0-0- 4,0 - 0*o4,4.~ 40 044.04 ~0404 000 04,..

S 4,n0~44 0.40 0.0'

B 2

.. . A ~..- . - -.

2S7 Repor 27 46

CU CC

ou C -- - C

- 1~C -,-

C-C CC C

o C

A C

47 2- 7

A t-

?~ t5

.AL

I , aa " . .C a -U .. a) a, a -b~~a.. ..... a a .. a b aa C -.ba a. .

.- a C a CaIaalaaak~ 'b

.'SF Report 27 48

k?

- -F ~

F . .it I. -

C

49 CSE Re.

CC

O C CC0 C CC

.ICC)CO

0- C~ 0- 0.

414 00CC C IC 0CC CICCC~CCC CCCCCCC0)41CCCCO CCC

~Co ~

* C *C Cr1). CCCC00CC 0.0CC CjCj

~C C 00CC C 0)0-CC,. C

t COO C CCCCC-C.CCCC I~CCC C~C~ CC00

1020 4000)000 C Li C CC.

C~00CC ~CC

CC ~C CC

00)00 C C- 0CCCCCI 40 CC C CCC0)4

C CCMC C-. C CCCCCCC 4.0 CCC 0CC 00.0).~CC CC CC 00CC CCC 0CC40CC) C.C Co OCCO CCC SOC 00.0

CC.-..0 CC

0.0CC . aC~~..Oo. .0 C

CSE Report 27 50

U P .CC .~ .. .0 SC .

,Z lu 1.

.... .. 4 *.- , 0 .- C-

C

C 0 0Z

oC - --

N I- .

- C 05 C

51 CSE Report 27

I x

0.-U-U

0004z

v o WC-

0- "w0

0 0 4.0

*4- Ho H -.222.1 A.0 a0 1 4a

C0 A a

A0 1:

CSE Report 27 52

?

I

9 V

I11CU - HF F - F4 F i

C CZ.

- ~CI . ~ .41

Ad55 C..4

ALC. 044. . CC U 4 U

53 CSI. p t 27

2 a.

I0 u

A~ A1 DOE. -

AO.

O O 4 0010 -

A 1 0 0- U4 4 0 S '.

A .a U.O

440 ~ 0C00U J 0 0 0 2

MEC~ 5

CSE Report 27 54

O 0

00 -

00 0 -i!0" '-... . -0i 0

* 0

40

55 CSE Report 27

f00 !7 S000~~ 130 040 20*..

*1~ *~ .- ~ -

(00.44'. .034

CSE Repur 27 56

Alillltn a3

OO ww at

I o.0

all.. aa

v~~a.u C 4s 0 . 00

2L0 03 tt ~ v~.c

57 CSE Report 27

A

.41

- S a

CSE Report 27 58

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AAFMAINT Administrative Assistant, Finance-MaintenanceACA Account Correction AdviceACD Australian Confidential DocumentACDFS Assistant Chief of the Defence Force StaffACLOGP Aircraft Log PermanentACMAL Aircraft Maintenance ReportACOP Aircraft OperationsACPRI Aircraft PriorityACRE Aircraft ReceptionACSC Aircraft Status ChangeACT ActiveACTC Aircraft Target ChangeAD Aircraft DepotADCS-LS Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff of Logistic

SupportADF Australian Defence ForceAEMF Aircraft Equipment Maintenance FlightAER Additional Estimates ReviewAFHR Airframe Flying HoursAFLOG Air Force LogisticsAFOR Air Force Operational RequirementAFP-DIS Air Force Plans - DispositionAFPEAG Air Force Programmes and Estimates Analysis GroupAFPEC Air Force Programmes and Estimates CommitteeAFRC Air Force Requirements CommitteeAFSO (1) Air Force Staff Objective

(2) Air Force Supply OfficerAFSR Air Force Staff RequirementAFSREP Air Force Supply RepresentativeAFST Air Force Staff TargetAFTD Air Force Technical DirectiveAFTI Air Force Temporary InstructionsAI Application IdentifierAIN Approved Item NameAIU Articles-in-useALCS Army Load Coordination StaffAMF Aircraft Maintenance FlightAMP Annual Maintenance ProgrammeAMPQ Annual Maintenance Programme QuantityAMPQ Annual Maintenance Programme QuantityAMS Air Movements SectionAMTDU Air Movements and Trials Development UnitAN Non-preferred AlternativeANI Add New ItemAOC Air Officer CommandingAOCSC Air Officer Commanding Support CommandAOG Aircraft Operationally GroundedAP Preferred AlternativeAPU Auxiliary Power UnitsAQ Assessed QuantityAQ/PQ Assessed Quantity/Provisioning QuantityARDU Air Force Research and Development UnitARL Aeronautical Research LaboratoriesASC Administrative Support Cell

59 CSE Report 27

ASCC Air Standardisation Co-ordinating CommitteeASD Australian Secret DocumentASDBC AS, Development and Budget ControlASQAERP AS, Quality Assurance and Engineering Resources

Policy

ASQATSS AS Quality Assurance Technical Services and StandardsASRP-AF AS, Resources Planning - Air ForceASSA Priority Inability Asset ReportASSI Inability Asset ReportASUG Air Support User GroupATE Automatic Test EquipmentAUSDIP Australian Services Standards Demand and Issue

ProcedureAUSMIMPS Australian Standard Materiel Issue and Movement

Priority SystemsAUST IIG Australian Item Identification GuideAUTOCOP Automated Co-operative LogisticsAUTODIN Automatic Digital NetworkAUTOLOG Automated Logistics SystemAUTOPROC Automated Procurement SZystemAet Item Set Availability TargetAit Item Availability TargetBCC Base Calibration CentreBEQ Base Entitlement QuantityBSDAR Base Squadron DarwinCAC Commonwealth Aircraft CorporationCAFM Chief of Air Force MaterielCAFOP Chief of Air Force Operations and PlansCAFP Chief of Air Force PersonnelCAFTS Chief of Air Force Technical ServicesCAMM Computer Aided Maintenance ManagementCAPO Contract Acceptance and Purchase OrderCAPPROJD Capital Projects DivisionCAS Chief of the Air StaffCASAC Chief of the Air Staff Advisory CommitteeCC Control PeriodCCR Catalogue Change ReportCDF Chief of the Defence ForceCENCAT3 Defence Cataloguing SystemCEO(BE) Chief Executive Officer (Budget and Estimates)CEORPA-AF CEO, Resources Planning Activities - Air ForceCEOSUPP CEO, SupplyCERPAS Controller, External Relations, Projects

& Analytical StudiesCFU Carried Forward UnserviceabilitiesCHRS Component History Recording SystemCL Accounting ClassificationCLI Critical Logistic ItemCLIC Critical Logistic Item CommitteeCLKEA Clerk Equipment AdministrationCLKSPLY Clerk SupplyCLOG Chief of LogisticsCLSSA Co-operative Logistics Supply Support ArrangementCMO Critical Maintenance OperationsCMP Configuration Management PlanCMPC Configuration Management Policy Co-ordinatorCMR Calculated Minimum Requirement

CSE Report 27 60

CMWG Configuration Management Working GroupCO Commanding OfficerCOORDAIR Coordinator AirCOORDSUR Coordinator SurfaceCP Consumption PeriodCPAS Controller, Projects & Analytical Studies (now CERPAS)CPI Consumer Price IndexCPU Central Processing UnitCS&S Chief of Supply and SupportCSD Computer Services DivisionCSE Central Studies EstablishmentCSER Consolidated Scales of Equipment RequirementCSUP Chief of SupplyDA Deployment AllowanceDAASO US Defense Automatic Addressing SystemDAEENG-AF Director of Aeronautical Equipment Engineering -

Air ForceDAFP Director of Air Force PlansDAFS Director of Air Force SafetyDAIRENG-AF Director of Aircraft Engineering - Air ForceDAP-AF Director of Aircrew Publications - Air ForceDBM Data Base MaintenanceDBMS Data Base Management SystemDCA Defence Cataloguing AuthorityDCAS Deputy Chief of the Air StaffDCATSERV-AF Directorate of Catering and Services - Air ForceDCCS Defence Code for Contractors or SuppliersDCMRSI-AF Design and Configuration Management Review Staff IDCO Duty Carried OutDCS Defence Cataloguing SystemDCSSM Directorate of Computerised Supply Systems ManagementDD Desired DistributionDDCA Director, Defence Cataloguing AuthorityDDGSUP-AF Deputy Director General, Supply - Air ForceDDS Department of Defence SupportDDrS-AF Director, Defence Technical Staff - Air ForceDECOR Depot and Intermediate Level Control and ReportingDEFAIR Department of Defence Air Force OfficeDEFCOMNET Defence Communications NetworkDELPD Report of Progress against PDDEPSECB Deputy Secretary BDESDIST Desired DistributionDEVMS Development of Management SystemsDF (1) Distribution Factor

(2) Deration FactorDFAC Delayed FacilitiesDFDC Defence Force Development CommitteeDGAIRENG-AF Director General, Aircraft Engineering - Air ForceDGMATD-AF Director General, Materiel Definition - Air ForceDGMATP-AF Director General, Materiel Projects - Air ForceDGMOVT Director General, Movements and TransportDGOR-AF Director General, Operational Requirements - Air ForceDGQA-AF Director General Quality Assurance - Air ForceDGSUP-AF Director General Supply - Air ForceDGTP-AF Director General Technical Plans - Air ForceDH&C Department of Housing and ConstructionDIC (1) Defence Industry Committee

CSE Report 27

(2) Document Identifier Code

OIL Defence Identification List

DINV Delayed InvestigationDIR Defect Investigation Report

DIRM-AF Director Inventory Resource Management - Air Force

DIVR Delayed Issue Voucher Report

DJOPS-AF Director of Joint Operations, Plans - Air Force

DL Depot Level Maintenance

DLM Depot Level Maintenance

DMAN Delayed ManpowerDMAPO Director of Maritime Aircraft Projects

DMO Draft Modification Orders

[DMOP Director of Maintenance Operations Policy

DMOVT-AF Directorate of Movements and Transport - Air Force

DMP-AF Director of Maintenance Policy - Air Force

DNCO Duty Not Carried Out

DOD Department of Defense (US)

DOLGAS Department of Local Government and Administrative

ServicesDOPS-AF Director of Operations - Air Force

DORC Defence Operational Requirements Committee

DPCO Duty Partially Carried Out

DPMA-AF Director of Project Management and Acquisition -

Air ForceDPO Defence Purchasing Organisation

DPPAC-AF Director of Project Programming Analysis and

Coordination - Air Force

DPPROV-AF Directorate of Project Provisioning - Air Force

DPPUR-AF Directorate of Project Purchasing - Air Force

DPTS Delayed PartsDQA Directorate of Quality Assurance

DQAS Directorate of Quality Assurance Support

DRB6 Defence Functional Directory

DRMP-AF Director of Resources Monitoring and Planning -

Air ForceDRQF Daily Items in Quarantine Account F

DRS Data Recording SectionDRSSC Deputy Regional Secretary Support Command

DSC-AF Directorate of Supply Computing - Air Force

DSED Director of Supply EDP Development

DSFP-AF Director of Supply Financial Programming - Air Force

DSMR-AF Director of Supply Management Research - Air Force

DSPOL-AF Directorate of Supply Policy and Systems Development -

Air ForceDSRMS Defence Supply Retail Mini-Computer System

DSS Decision Support SystemDSSG Defence Standardisation Studies Group

DSTO Defence Science and Technology Organisation

DTDA Delayed Technical Data

DTELENG-AF Director, Telecommunications Engineering - Air Force

DTFPO Director Tactical Fighter Project Office

DTP-AF Director of Technical Plans - Air Force

DWEAPENG-AF Director, Weapons Engineering - Air Force

ECP Engineering Change Proposals

EDD Expected Date of DeliveryEDP Electronic Data Processing

EF Effort

CSE Repo, 27 62

EI Effort IndicatorELO Equipment Liaison OfficerEOQ Economic Order QuantityERA Estimated Repair ArisingsERG Engineering Requirements GroundESA Equipment Survey AccountESI Equipment Staff InstructionESOLOG Executive Staff Officer, Logistics Planning

Performance MonitoringESOSPT Executive Support Officer, Administrative and

Support ServicesFAD Force Activity DesignationFASDF First Assistant Secretary, Defence FacilitiesFASFDA First Assistant Secretary, Force Development and

AnalysisFASFIN First Assistant Secretary, Financial Services and

Internal AuditFASPB First Assistant Secretary, Programs and BudgetsFASTSLD First Assistant Secretary, Technical Services and

Logistic DevelopmentFCAS Financial Control and Analysis SectionFDA Force Development and AnalysisFDC Financial Delegates CertificateFE Force ElementsFEG Force Element GroupsFHC Flying Hour ConferenceFIIG Federal Item Identification GuideFINEST Financial EstimationFINSERVMAN Financial Services ManualFLT Forklift TrucksFMAJR Major CircuitFMINR Minor CircuitFMS Foreign Military SalesFORP Forward Ordering Review PeriodFRA Forecast Repair ArisingsFRS Failure Reporting SystemFTR Forecast Total RemovalsFY Fiscal Year or Financial YearFYDP Five Year Defence ProgrammeFYRP Five Year Rolling ProgrammeGAF Government Aircraft FactoryGEN GeneralGSE Ground Support EquipmentGTC Gas Turbine CompressorsGTE Ground Telecommunications EquipmentHAMP Hastening Action Minimum PeriodHMMRS(RAAF) Head Defence Technical Staff - Air ForceHQOC Headquarters Operational CommandHQSC Headquarters Support CommandIAR Inability Asset ReportICL Inventory Control LevelsIEEE Institute of Electronic and Electrical EngineersIIN Item Identification NumberILM Intermediate Level MaintenanceIML Identification and Management ListINS InstalledIPB Illustrated Parts Breakdown

63 CSE Report 27

IPR Interim Provisioning ReviewIPRP Interim Provisioning Review Progression ReportISAC Information Systems Work and Analysis of ChangeITR Invitation to Register InterestJEPS Joint Exercise Planning StaffJI Job InventoryJIC Job Inventory CJO Job OrderJOBC Job ChangeJOBT Job TerminationJORMS Job Order Recording and Management SystemLBRI Logistics Branch Routine InstructionLCC Life Cycle CostLEN LOAS Entry NumberLMC Local Modification CommitteeLMI Logistics Management InstituteLMIS Logistics Management Information SystemLOA Letter of Offer and AcceptanceLOAS List of Assessed SparesLORAM Level of Repair for Aeronautical MaterialLOT Life of TypeLPR Limited Procurement RequirementLPSD Local Purchase Stores DepotLPUN Local Purchase UnitLR Local ReceiptLRU Line Replaceable UnitsLSCG-RAAF RAAF Logistics Study Control GroupLT Lead TimeMA Maintenance AllowanceMAARS Maintenance Analysis and Reporting SystemMAC Military Airlift CommandMAJMF Major Circuit Maintenance FactorMAN ManualMASB Management Advisory Services BranchMATU Mobile Air Terminal UnitMAXFIT Maximum FitMAXSP Maximum Supply PeriodMC Manufacturer's CodeMCO Movement Control OfficesMCRL Master Cross Reference ListMCS Maintenance Control SectionMD Management DecisionMDT Mean Maintenance Down TimeME Measuring EquipmentMEA Major Equipment AcquisitionMEP Major Equipment ProposalMHE Materials Handling EquipmentMI MMI ReplacementMIC Management Information CentreMIHR Monthly Inability Hastener ReportMILC MMI Location ChangeMILOGP MMI Log PermanentMILSTRIP Military Standard Requisition and Issue ProceduresMIMI MMI Maintenance InputMIMS Movement Information Management SystemMINSP Minimum Supply PeriodMIOP MMI Operations

CSE Repoit 27 64

MIPACS Movements Information Passenger and Cargo SystemMIRE MMI ReceptionMMC Maintenance Management CommitteeMMI Maintenance Managed ItemsMMR Monthly Maintenance ReportMMRS Maintenance Management Review StaffMNTAL Maintenance AlertMNTFOR Maintenance ForecastMNTWS Maintenance WorksheetMOD Modification OrdersMODA Modification Status Change - AircraftMODM Modification Status Change - MMIMODORD Modification Order ReportMODPROG Modification Progress ReportMODSTAT Modification Status ReportMODSUM Modification Status Summary ReportMONSUM Monthly SummaryMOVCORDC Movement Coordination CentreMOVDEC Movement DecisionMOVDIV Movement DiversionMOVREQ Movement RequestMP Maintenance PolicyMPAC Maintenance Policy AircraftMPMI Maintenance Policy MMIMPQ Maximum Provisioning QuantityMR (1) Master Record

(2) Major RectificationMRCC Melbourne Regional Computer CentreMRI Master Record IndexMRN Manufacturer's Reference NumberMRRS Modification Recording and Reporting SystemMS Measurement StandardsMSDM Maintenance Managed Items Due-In from MaintenanceMSI Maintenance Supply ItemMSSR Maintenance Supply Status ReportMT Motor TransportMTBF Mean Time Between FailuresMTBM Mean Time Between MaintenanceMTBR Mean Time Between RepairMTS Motor Transport SectionMTTR Mean Time To RepairMUE MSI Unit EntitlementNA New AuthorisationNABU Not Assessed Buy on UsageNAS Not Assessed as a SpareNATO North Atlantic Treaty OrganisationNC Nation CodeNCB National Codification BureauNCO (1) Non-Commissioned Officer

(2) Navy Coordination OfficerNCS NATO Codification SystemNDI Non-Destructive InspectionsNDISL NDI Standards LaboratoryNIIN NATO Item Identification NumberNOPER Number of Items Fitted Per AircraftNOST No StatusNSC NATO Supply Class

CSE Report 27

NSG NATO Supply GroupNSN NATO Stock NumberOARSM Organisation Analysis and Requirements Specification

MethodologyOC Officer CommandingOCS Outward Consignment SheetODC Overdue Deliveries from ContractorsODOR Outstanding Draft Overseas Receipt Voucher ReportODP Office of Defence ProductionOI Overseas IndentOLAE On-Line Aircraft Establishment0124 Operating Level MaintenanceOLN Outward Loan AccountsOMD Outstanding Management Decision00 Overseas OrderOPNAVINST Operational Naval InstructionsOR Overseas ReceiptOSD Outstanding DeliveriesOSO Outstanding ObligationsOSS Organisational Support SystemPAQ Provisioning Action QuantityPATTRIC Poisson Availability Target Technique for

Repairable Item ComputationPC Provisioning CategoryPCM Production Control MeetingPCO Planned Carry OverPCSP Production Control/Status ProformaPCSR Production Control Status RequirementPD (I) Procurement Demand

(2) Priority DesignatorPE Parent EquipmentPERCAPREP Performance and Capability ReportPG Priority GroupPI Priority IndexPIAR Priority Inability Asset ReportPLR Print Local ReceiptPLT Provisioning Lead TimePMC Principal Modification CoordinatorPO Purchase OrderPOF Power on FactorPOL Priority Output ListPOM Maintenance OrderPOR Print Overseas ReceiptPP Proposed PurchasePPOLOGSUP Programming and Provisioning OfficerPRF Percentage Replacement FactorPRI Potentially Repairable ItemPROCAT Provisioning CategoryPROVMON Provisioning Review Monitoring SystemPRS Performance Reporting SystemQAA Quality Assurance AuthorityQAOLOG DQA-AF Technical OfficerQASC Quality Assurance Sub-CommitteeQAV Question Answer ValidationQIFC Quarterly Issue Frequency CurrentQMAJP Major Circuit Pipeline QuantitiesQMINP Minor Circuit Pipeline Quantities

CSE Report 27 66

QNUC Quarterly Normal Usage CurrentQOR Quarterly Output RequirementQPL Total Circuit Pipeline QuantitiesQSD Quantity Stores DepotQTNF Quarantine Account FRAAF Royal Australian Air ForceRAAFSUP RAAF Supply CentralRAC Requirements Amplification CodeRAF Royal Air ForceRAMP RAAF Analytical Maintenance ProgrammeRAN Royal Australian NavyRCA Record Change AdviceREP RepairableREPSTK Repairable StockRESENG Resident EngineerREVR Provisioning Review RequestRFOC Request For Order ChangeRFQ Request for QuotationRFT Request for TenderRGP Report Generating PackageRI Repairable ItemsRIM Repairable Item ManagementRLA Repair Level AnalysisRLS Repair Loan StoresRNCC Reference Number Category CodeRNVC Reference Number Variation CodeRNZAF Royal New Zealand Air ForceRO Repair and OverhaulROADMOV Road MovementROE Rate of EffortROTR Receipt Out of Target ReportRPB RAAF Planning BaseRPO Regional Purchasing OfficerRRS RAAF Reference StandardsRS Special ServiceRSDS RAAF Supply Depot SystemRUE Rounded Unit EntitlementRn Routine ServiceSA (1) Stores Adjustment Voucher

(2) Serviceable - Absent on TaskSADT Structured Analysis and Design TechniqueSAS Superintendent Analytical StudiesSAU Self Accounting UnitSB Statistical BulletinSCN Scale Change NotificationSD SupersededSDD Standard Delivery DateSDTS Scheduled DowntimeSEOLOGEM Senior Executive Officer, Engineering and MaintenanceSEOLOGSUP Senior Executive Officer, SupplySERLEV Servicing LevelSESO Senior Equipment Staff OfficerSF Fully ServiceableSG Support GroupSHCR Scaled Holdings Comparison PeportSHR Scaled Holdings ReportSI Scaled Items

67 CSE Report 27

SIGLOG Significant Logistics ProblemSIGMA Services Inventory Gamma-based Management

SIP Strategic and International Policy

SL Storage LifeSLENGO Senior Logistics Engineering Officer

SLOC Stock LocationSLSPTO Senior Logistics Support Officer

SLV Stock Location VerificationSM Supply MarginSN (1) Serial Number

(2) Serviceable Not Requiredso Supply OrderSOA Statement of Objectives and Activities

SOAEENG Staff Officer, Aeronautical Equipment EngineeringDivision

SOAIRENG Staff Officer, Aeronautical Engineering Division

SOAMS Staff Officer, Aircraft Maintenance Supply

SOAP Spectrometric Oil Analysis Procedures

SOCM Staff Officer, Command MaintenanceSODEVMS Staff Officer, Management Systems Development

SOE Staff Officer, EquipmentSOENGS Staff Officer, Engineering Services Section

SOEXPLENG Staff Officer, Explosives Engineering Division

SOo Special Order OnlySOOPS Staff Officer OperationsSOP Standing Operating ProceduresSOPROJ Staff Officer, ProjectsSORO Staff Officer, Repair and OverhaulSOS Short of StockSOSPTA,B,C&D Staff Officers Support A, B, C and D

SOSPTSERV Staff Officer Support ServicesSOSo Short of Stock QuantitySOSR Short of Stock ReportSOTELENG Staff Officer, Telecommunications Engineering

Division

SOWEAPENG Staff Officer, Weapons Engineering Division

SPEC SpecialSPOL2-AF Supply Policy 2 - Air Force

SPTO Support OfficerSR Serviceable RestrictedSRPO Senior Reorganisation Project OfficerSSL Spares Shortages ListSSMAN Servicing Supply ManualSSR System Support RecordSSRP Supply Systems Redevelopment ProjectST Serviceable for Test FlightSTI Special Technical InstructionSTOCKAID Stock Analysis and Investment Decision

SUE Scaled Unit EntitlementSUPCOORD Supply Co-ordinationSV Servicing LevelSVC ServiceableSVI Single Vendor IntegritySVR Scaling Variation RequestSYSENG Systems EngineersTA Technical Assessment

TALU Aircraft Loading and Unloading Trucks

CSE Report 27 68

TAT Turn-Around TimeTB Test Bench AllowanceTBD Time Between DLM Servicings and OverhaulsTEFFTABAF Total Effort Table Air ForceTID Time In DelayTIR Total Item RecordTLQ Total Liability QuantitiesTMC Technical Management CodeTMCSUP Technical Management Code Supply Item Data Record

Cross ReferenceTMP Technical Maintenance PlanTMS Time to Make ServiceableTOR Terms of ReferenceTOS Order and Ship TimeTSA Technical Spares AssessorTSD Technical Services DivisionTSH Total Spares HoldingTSUB Technical SusbtitutionTTCP The Technical Co-operation ProgrammeTV Transfer VoucherUK United KingdomULM Unit Level MaintenanceUMO Unit Maintenance OrderOND Urgency of NeedUNS UnserviceableUPD Unsatisfied Procurement DemandsUS United StatesUSAF United States Air ForceUSAFLC United States Air Force Logistics CommandUSN United States NavyVA Valuable and AttractiveVDU Visual Display UnitWIP Work in Progress

DISTRI BUT IONCopy No

Defence Central Staff

Chief of Supply and Support 1Chief of Supply 2Assistant Secretary, Quality Assurance 3

Technical Services and StandardsDirector of Maintenance Operations Policy 4Supply Joint Policy 5First Assistant Secretary, Technical Services 6

and Logistic DevelopmentDirector, Joint Supply Studies Sections 7Director of Standardization 8Chief Executive Officer, Supply 9Director Logistics Resources Projects 10Chief Executive Officer Logistic Policy 11Director General, Movements and Transport 12Assistant Secretary, Logistic Resources 13

and DevelopmentDirector, Logistics Resources Programs 14Chief Executive Officer, Logistic Review is

and StudiesGeneral Manager, Supply Systems Redevelopment 16Document Exchange Centre, Defence Information 17-33

Services Branch (17)Technical Reports Centre, Defence Central Library 34

Headquarters, Australian Defence Force

Vice Chief of Defence Force 35Assistant Chief of the Defence Force (Operations) 36

Air Force office

Chief of the Air Staff 37Deputy Chief of the Air Staff 38Director of the Office of the Chief of the 39

Air StaffDirector of Resources Monitoring and Planning (2) 40-41Director Automated Management Information Systems 42Assistant Secretary, Resources Planning - Air Force 43Chief of Air Force Development 44Director General, Policy and Plans - Air Force 45Director of Air Force Plans (2) 46-47Chief of Air Force Technical Services (2) 48-49Director General, Quality Assurance - Air Force 50Director General Technical Plans - Air Force 51Director of Maintenance Policy - Air Force (3) 52-54Director General, Supply - Air Force 55Director Supply Financial Programming 56Director of Supply Policy and Administration (2) 57-58Director of Aircraft Engineering - Air Force 59Chief of Air Force Materiel 60Air Force Scientific Adviser 61lDirector of Operational Analysis - Air Force 62

DISTRIBUTION (Cont'd)Copy No

RAAF Support Command

Chief of Logistics (2) 63-64Senior Executive Officer Engineering and 65

MaintenanceSenior Executive Officer Supply 66Staff Officer, Development Management Systems 67Staff Officer, Projects 68Senior Logistics Engineer Officer 69Senior Logistics Support Officer 70

RAAF Operational Command

Air Officer Commanding Operational Command 71

Navy Office

Navy Scientific Adviser 72

Army Office

Scientific Adviser - Army 73

Defence Science and Technology Organisation

Chief Defence Scientist 74Controller, External Relations, Projects and 75

Analytical StudiesSuperintendent Analytical Studies 76Principal Research Scientists, CSE (3) 77-79Air Force Senior Service Representative, CSE 80Authors (5) 81-85Information Centre, CSE (26) 86-111

ofpartmenf of Osfen.c

DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA

1 a AR No b Establshment No 2. Documet Date 3 Task No

AR-004-807 CSE REPORT 27 OCTOBER 1986

4, Title 5. Seiurity 6. No Pages8. document

THE RAAF LOGISTICS STUDY, VOLUME 4 U/Cb. title c. bstract 7 No Refs

U/C u/C8. Author(s) R. WATSON 9. Oowngrading Instructions

R. SMITHSQNLDR G. VOUMARDM. JARVISP. CLARK

10. Corporate Author and Address 11. Authority (as epprop-r.ael

a.SP -t b.Sao ity c.Dorgsrad, in .i t/:--CENTRAL STUDIES ESTABLISHMENT

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE a. CS&SCANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 b.-d. CS&S, CSE

12 Serondary Distribution (of this o cuuoi it)

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

Overseas enquirers outside stated limitatons should be referred through ASOIS. Defence Information Services Branch.Department of Defence. Campbell Park. CANBERRA ACT 2601

13. . This document may be ANNOUNCED in catalogues and awareness services available to

NO LIMITATIONS

13 I. Citation for otther purposes (,e casca) dtrnionce n t) may be (select) nrestricted(or) as for 13 0

14 Descriptors Logistics t5 COSATI Group

Logistics Management 15050Logistics OperationsLogistics PlanningLogistics SupportSupply Management

Systems Analysis

16. Abstract

This Volume is one of a companion set of four comprisingCSE Report 27 which records the work carried out by CentralStudies Establishment for the Chief of Supply and Supportand endorsed by the Chief of the Air Staff. This particular

Volume provides an overview of the study, and discussespossible directions for future work.

PF 65

PPCi

Dh

AT