dapaterson said:
I read the report and see the failures of LCMMs.
* Can't explain how (or if) they set stock levels.
* Critical items below minimums (which, per above, we don't know how they were set)
* 186K outstanding requests in the system
From my own experience, some LCMMs lack the knowledge of how to properly use their tools, and do not head off failures. For example, there were certain quite high level circles in denial about the critical CADPAT shortages because they looked at overall holdings, not by NSN - but having 6000 pairs of 6428 pants on hand is not particularly useful unless we're recruiting a lot of short, thin people.
Is there a need for increased holdings in some areas? Definitely. Is there a need for better decision-making information? Definitely.
However, we are not properly managing current inventories (see many OAG and internal reports over the years). Warehousing is costly. Storing spares for decades after a platform is retired is wasteful - that materiel should be disposed of along with the platform. Yet a few years ago, I was in the room while VAdm Normal (CRCN at the time) comments about the beautiful spare anchor of a St Laurent class he'd recently seen in a warehouse. (He was joking that he hoped it would go to PSPC surplus for sale and disposition, so he could buy it for his front lawn; the only potential snag in his plan, per his words, was his wife). That and other, similar issues are LCMM failings.
I tend to agree that before we go down the expensive PY and infra route we should ensure we fix the things we already control and LCMMs, user knowledge and system efficiencies is where I would start.
**Disclaimer - my observations are for the most part CA centric but based on discussion with peers and SMEs much of this is applicable to the RCN and RCAF although they both have their own nuances. My observations also come from a officer/non-technical perspective, however I have run the gambit in the system from dealing at the unit to DDRMIS level. No means am I an expert, just have a good understanding of how the system works.
Technical people from the tactical to the strat level often don't understand how the system works and tend to utilize work around that require manual intervention. Every time you have to manually intervene means that the automation of the system is defeated, we should be working towards empowering folks with knowledge of the system and making it as automated as possible.
Some examples are:
System Knowledge
Creation of MRPs/SLOC is a nightmare as people don't understand the difference between provisioning and stocking areas so they create structures that don't match reality. For those that don't know an _S MRP is a where a unit would hold its stuff it needs to do their job (Eg: A Coy 1 PPCLI would have a SLOC under the 1 PPCLI _S MRP that holds their LAVs). A _P or provisioning MRP is a searchable area that holds stock needed on a regular basis and is usually but not consists of more consumable natures (yes even parts are consumable to a degree). To continue the example 1 PPCLI should have a QM _P MRP and a spare parts _P MRP holding stock for the unit as a whole.
What we tend to do is create overly complex structures with too many MRP _P areas that makes it confusing for the tech on the ground to know which one to target. At the tactical level having two MRPs (Material Requirements Planning ) areas both containing spare parts is something many units do. The problem is the system only searches in a linear fashion automatically (Unit - 2nd Line spare parts - Depot) so if the part you need is held by you but not in the main MRP then the req goes to 2nd line or depot needlessly. Manual intervention in terms of redirecting the search to the right MRP in the unit slows down the process. Solution is to move all stock under the main MRP and add Storage Locations (SLOCs) as required to differentiate different holding areas.
The above is a simple example, I have seen structure designs for expeditionary missions domestic exercises that are overly complicated and add little to no value but people don't know what the system can and can't do so they assume the complication is required.
Depot to Depot
So above I mentioned the general search string for a part generally looks like Unit - 2nd Line spare parts - Depot. That last piece is the search string only set to 7 CFSD or 25 CFSD (often based on region) and it stops there. There is no crosstalk in the system between the two depots, so if your part isn't in that particular depot then it will just sit there in limbo until someone manually intervenes. People assume that someone is working on their order but generally depot staff don't intervene (unless HPR). The fix is to manually target the right depot when you place the order however that means you also have to do a search to see where the stock is first before placing the order again defeating the purpose of automation. Solution is make the depots cross talk
LCMMs
Too often LCMMs set release control on parts that don't need it because that is their method of managing the stock. Ordinally release authority should be quick and not really impede the end user as it should only be set on critical supplies but that is not been my experience. The worst part is when an LCMM isn't monitoring their requests and someone has to manually intervene by calling them or emailing to ensure that stock starts flowing.
Another issue is they have a part that is use until exhausted and then a newer part with a different NSN will takes its place. The system allows you to "merge" those two NSNs essentially so that as stock is exhausted in one NSN any future orders are automatically sent to the newer NSN but an LCMM doesn't know that functionality exists and again until someone manually intervenes orders sit in limbo.
A smaller observation is often for small ancillary nuts/bolts/gaskets etc, there is an ability to buy it on the economy if/when stocks levels nationally are low or it is time sensitive. The system again allows you to put that sort of information into the metadata for that NSN but it is a rare LCMM that will do so. Instead someone again has to manually intervene and call only to find out they can go downtown and solve their VOR problem quickly
Min/Max Levels
This is a great way to always ensure you have stock on hand in terms of setting levels that once breached automatically re-order stock to bring you up to a set level. Finding the right Min/Max levels is tricky as you want them to make sense. There is no point in holding lots of something you don't utilize all that often, nor is it useful to have a low level set for something that you do use on a regular basis.
To start not many people know how to pull parts usage numbers to be able to do a an analysis of where to set Min/Max levels, so you end up with some very weird numbers. Solution here is teach folks how to run the reports and extrapolate the data they need to set Min/Max.
The other problem is in setting Min/Max levels sections will input some great data but not turn on automatic replenishments so all that work is wasted. As a staff supply guy I would do a SIV/SAV into a unit and run a report of how many parts have a Min/Max set compared to the number that are actually turned on and often there is a huge disparity. The tech did a great deal of work (or they had DDRMIS do a batch setting) but failed to change the most crucial part that turns on the automation. Solution is getting actually teaching folks how the system works
