Army Acquisition Planning for Depot Maintenance

Audit Objective. The audit objective was to determine the adequacy of the Services' acquisition planning for fielding of weapon systems. Specifically, the audit determined whether acquisition managers adequately developed and implemented plans to ensure the effective transition of weapon system...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Hauptverfasser: Brannin, Patricia A, Koloshey, James L, Ward, Eddie J, Nickens, Ronald L, Noordhuizen, Rudolf
Format: Report
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title
container_volume
creator Brannin, Patricia A
Koloshey, James L
Ward, Eddie J
Nickens, Ronald L
Noordhuizen, Rudolf
description Audit Objective. The audit objective was to determine the adequacy of the Services' acquisition planning for fielding of weapon systems. Specifically, the audit determined whether acquisition managers adequately developed and implemented plans to ensure the effective transition of weapon systems to the user. At the end of the audit survey phase, the audit scope was modified to include only Army major weapon systems that were in engineering, manufacturing, and development or production phases (Appendix A). We further modified the objective to evaluate planning for depot support. Audit Results. Army combat units receiving new or upgraded weapon systems were generally satisfied with the overall handoff of the systems. When deficiencies occurred, program managers had established plans to resolve the deficiencies (Appendix C). However, we reviewed 19 systems that required depot support. For 12 of the 19 systems, planning for depot maintenance assignment was generally inadequate. Program managers did not give the DoD Joint Depot Maintenance Analysis Group data needed to conduct source of repair analyses. As a result, the Army may be unnecessarily incurring costs in technical data, plant, and support equipment. Although DoD policy is to increase depot maintenance outsourcing in the future, a systematic process for choosing the best support option for each weapon system needs to be maintained.
format Report
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>dtic_1RU</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_dtic_stinet_ADA371030</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>ADA371030</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-dtic_stinet_ADA3710303</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNrjZNB3LMqtVHBMLizNLM4syczPUwjISczLy8xLV0jLL1JwSS3IL1HwTczMK0nNS8xLTuVhYE1LzClO5YXS3Awybq4hzh66KSWZyfHFJZl5qSXxji6OxuaGBsYGxgSkAW4hJ80</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>report</recordtype></control><display><type>report</type><title>Army Acquisition Planning for Depot Maintenance</title><source>DTIC Technical Reports</source><creator>Brannin, Patricia A ; Koloshey, James L ; Ward, Eddie J ; Nickens, Ronald L ; Noordhuizen, Rudolf</creator><creatorcontrib>Brannin, Patricia A ; Koloshey, James L ; Ward, Eddie J ; Nickens, Ronald L ; Noordhuizen, Rudolf ; INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPT OF DEFENSE ARLINGTON VA</creatorcontrib><description>Audit Objective. The audit objective was to determine the adequacy of the Services' acquisition planning for fielding of weapon systems. Specifically, the audit determined whether acquisition managers adequately developed and implemented plans to ensure the effective transition of weapon systems to the user. At the end of the audit survey phase, the audit scope was modified to include only Army major weapon systems that were in engineering, manufacturing, and development or production phases (Appendix A). We further modified the objective to evaluate planning for depot support. Audit Results. Army combat units receiving new or upgraded weapon systems were generally satisfied with the overall handoff of the systems. When deficiencies occurred, program managers had established plans to resolve the deficiencies (Appendix C). However, we reviewed 19 systems that required depot support. For 12 of the 19 systems, planning for depot maintenance assignment was generally inadequate. Program managers did not give the DoD Joint Depot Maintenance Analysis Group data needed to conduct source of repair analyses. As a result, the Army may be unnecessarily incurring costs in technical data, plant, and support equipment. Although DoD policy is to increase depot maintenance outsourcing in the future, a systematic process for choosing the best support option for each weapon system needs to be maintained.</description><language>eng</language><subject>ALLOCATIONS ; AQ I00-03-0636 ; ARMY OPERATIONS ; ARMY PLANNING ; ARMY PROCUREMENT ; AUDITING ; COSTS ; Economics and Cost Analysis ; MAINTENANCE ; MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL ; PRODUCTION ; REPAIR ; SOURCES ; SUPPLY DEPOTS ; SURVEYS ; WEAPON SYSTEMS</subject><creationdate>1996</creationdate><rights>APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,776,881,27546,27547</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA371030$$EView_record_in_DTIC$$FView_record_in_$$GDTIC$$Hfree_for_read</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Brannin, Patricia A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koloshey, James L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ward, Eddie J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nickens, Ronald L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Noordhuizen, Rudolf</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPT OF DEFENSE ARLINGTON VA</creatorcontrib><title>Army Acquisition Planning for Depot Maintenance</title><description>Audit Objective. The audit objective was to determine the adequacy of the Services' acquisition planning for fielding of weapon systems. Specifically, the audit determined whether acquisition managers adequately developed and implemented plans to ensure the effective transition of weapon systems to the user. At the end of the audit survey phase, the audit scope was modified to include only Army major weapon systems that were in engineering, manufacturing, and development or production phases (Appendix A). We further modified the objective to evaluate planning for depot support. Audit Results. Army combat units receiving new or upgraded weapon systems were generally satisfied with the overall handoff of the systems. When deficiencies occurred, program managers had established plans to resolve the deficiencies (Appendix C). However, we reviewed 19 systems that required depot support. For 12 of the 19 systems, planning for depot maintenance assignment was generally inadequate. Program managers did not give the DoD Joint Depot Maintenance Analysis Group data needed to conduct source of repair analyses. As a result, the Army may be unnecessarily incurring costs in technical data, plant, and support equipment. Although DoD policy is to increase depot maintenance outsourcing in the future, a systematic process for choosing the best support option for each weapon system needs to be maintained.</description><subject>ALLOCATIONS</subject><subject>AQ I00-03-0636</subject><subject>ARMY OPERATIONS</subject><subject>ARMY PLANNING</subject><subject>ARMY PROCUREMENT</subject><subject>AUDITING</subject><subject>COSTS</subject><subject>Economics and Cost Analysis</subject><subject>MAINTENANCE</subject><subject>MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL</subject><subject>PRODUCTION</subject><subject>REPAIR</subject><subject>SOURCES</subject><subject>SUPPLY DEPOTS</subject><subject>SURVEYS</subject><subject>WEAPON SYSTEMS</subject><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>report</rsrctype><creationdate>1996</creationdate><recordtype>report</recordtype><sourceid>1RU</sourceid><recordid>eNrjZNB3LMqtVHBMLizNLM4syczPUwjISczLy8xLV0jLL1JwSS3IL1HwTczMK0nNS8xLTuVhYE1LzClO5YXS3Awybq4hzh66KSWZyfHFJZl5qSXxji6OxuaGBsYGxgSkAW4hJ80</recordid><startdate>19960417</startdate><enddate>19960417</enddate><creator>Brannin, Patricia A</creator><creator>Koloshey, James L</creator><creator>Ward, Eddie J</creator><creator>Nickens, Ronald L</creator><creator>Noordhuizen, Rudolf</creator><scope>1RU</scope><scope>BHM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19960417</creationdate><title>Army Acquisition Planning for Depot Maintenance</title><author>Brannin, Patricia A ; Koloshey, James L ; Ward, Eddie J ; Nickens, Ronald L ; Noordhuizen, Rudolf</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-dtic_stinet_ADA3710303</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>reports</rsrctype><prefilter>reports</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1996</creationdate><topic>ALLOCATIONS</topic><topic>AQ I00-03-0636</topic><topic>ARMY OPERATIONS</topic><topic>ARMY PLANNING</topic><topic>ARMY PROCUREMENT</topic><topic>AUDITING</topic><topic>COSTS</topic><topic>Economics and Cost Analysis</topic><topic>MAINTENANCE</topic><topic>MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL</topic><topic>PRODUCTION</topic><topic>REPAIR</topic><topic>SOURCES</topic><topic>SUPPLY DEPOTS</topic><topic>SURVEYS</topic><topic>WEAPON SYSTEMS</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Brannin, Patricia A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koloshey, James L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ward, Eddie J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nickens, Ronald L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Noordhuizen, Rudolf</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPT OF DEFENSE ARLINGTON VA</creatorcontrib><collection>DTIC Technical Reports</collection><collection>DTIC STINET</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Brannin, Patricia A</au><au>Koloshey, James L</au><au>Ward, Eddie J</au><au>Nickens, Ronald L</au><au>Noordhuizen, Rudolf</au><aucorp>INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPT OF DEFENSE ARLINGTON VA</aucorp><format>book</format><genre>unknown</genre><ristype>RPRT</ristype><btitle>Army Acquisition Planning for Depot Maintenance</btitle><date>1996-04-17</date><risdate>1996</risdate><abstract>Audit Objective. The audit objective was to determine the adequacy of the Services' acquisition planning for fielding of weapon systems. Specifically, the audit determined whether acquisition managers adequately developed and implemented plans to ensure the effective transition of weapon systems to the user. At the end of the audit survey phase, the audit scope was modified to include only Army major weapon systems that were in engineering, manufacturing, and development or production phases (Appendix A). We further modified the objective to evaluate planning for depot support. Audit Results. Army combat units receiving new or upgraded weapon systems were generally satisfied with the overall handoff of the systems. When deficiencies occurred, program managers had established plans to resolve the deficiencies (Appendix C). However, we reviewed 19 systems that required depot support. For 12 of the 19 systems, planning for depot maintenance assignment was generally inadequate. Program managers did not give the DoD Joint Depot Maintenance Analysis Group data needed to conduct source of repair analyses. As a result, the Army may be unnecessarily incurring costs in technical data, plant, and support equipment. Although DoD policy is to increase depot maintenance outsourcing in the future, a systematic process for choosing the best support option for each weapon system needs to be maintained.</abstract><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier
ispartof
issn
language eng
recordid cdi_dtic_stinet_ADA371030
source DTIC Technical Reports
subjects ALLOCATIONS
AQ I00-03-0636
ARMY OPERATIONS
ARMY PLANNING
ARMY PROCUREMENT
AUDITING
COSTS
Economics and Cost Analysis
MAINTENANCE
MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL
PRODUCTION
REPAIR
SOURCES
SUPPLY DEPOTS
SURVEYS
WEAPON SYSTEMS
title Army Acquisition Planning for Depot Maintenance
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T14%3A40%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-dtic_1RU&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=unknown&rft.btitle=Army%20Acquisition%20Planning%20for%20Depot%20Maintenance&rft.au=Brannin,%20Patricia%20A&rft.aucorp=INSPECTOR%20GENERAL%20DEPT%20OF%20DEFENSE%20ARLINGTON%20VA&rft.date=1996-04-17&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cdtic_1RU%3EADA371030%3C/dtic_1RU%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true