The relationship between effective strategy and enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems business processes: A critical factor approach

7/27/2019 The relationship between effective strategy and enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems business processes: A

1/144

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EFFECTIVE STRATEGY AND ENTERPRISE

RESOURCE PLANNING (ERP) SYSTEMS BUSINESS PROCESSES: A CRITICAL

FACTORAPPROACH

by

W. Allen Huckabee Jr.

JUDITH L. FORBES, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair

CHARLOTTE NEUHAUSER, PhD, Committee Member

DANIEL C. PARKER, PhD, Committee Member

Barbara Butts Williams, PhD, Dean, School of Business

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

March 2013


2/144

W. Allen Huckabee Jr., 2013


3/144

Abstract

Current research on enterprise resource planning (ERP) system success in creating a

competitive advantage reveals a gap in linking ERP business processes to a competitive

advantage. Previous research on building capabilities suggested that combining routines

and practices, technology, and know-how allows a firm to create a capability of strategic

importance. This study seeks to investigate the link between the information effect of

business processes implemented in an ERP system and a component of total asset

visibility (TAV) to determine whether the information effect could contribute to a

strategic objective in maintaining a competitive advantage. Statistically significant

correlations exist between the information effect of maintenance management business

processes and the strategic capability of visibility of assets in maintenance at both the

tactical and operational level of strategy, specifically Army strategy. Correlation and

regression analysis were used to investigate a statistical dataset using purposive sampling

to examine the relationship between effective strategy and the information effects of

maintenance business processes. The statistically significant results of this study indicate

that the information effect of ERP business processes provides organizational leaders

with the information necessary to evaluate an organizations maintenance capabilities at

the operational level, while providing the information to redirect repair parts to

equipment that is more essential to the organizations mission than other equipment that

is non-essential. This study suggests that if a public sector organization identifies, maps,

and implements in an ERP the business processes that contribute to a strategic goal, the

organization will perform better than other organizations.


4/144

iii

Dedication

I dedicate this to my wife, Dianna, and children Billy, Zachary, and Samantha.

Without their support and understanding I could have not achieved what I have or

pursued my education goals and aspirations, which culminated with this document and a

PhD. Thank you all, and I love you all!


5/144

iv

Acknowledgments

I acknowledge the following people for supporting me throughout the PhD

learning process, as each of these individuals contributed assistance to my PhD journey.

Mr. Jeffrey Bales, Mr. Howard (Lee) Dixon, Dr. Venkat Bommineni, MAJ Marcus

Smoot, Dr. Randy Sherbs, and Ms. Robin Daniels all provided advice and support during

the brain storming sessions. Mr. Jeffrey Bales, Mr. Lee Dixon, and MAJ Marcus Smoot

were instrumental in providing motivation along this journey and helped to work out

issues when I was stuck. Ms. Robin Daniels was instrumental in guiding me through the

details of the statistics portion of Chapter 4. I also would like to acknowledge my Mentor,

Dr. Judith Forbes, for providing superior support and advice throughout the dissertation

process; thank you Dr. Forbes.


6/144

v

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments iv

List of Tables vii

List of Figures viii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction to the Problem 5

Background of the Study 9

Statement of the Problem 10

Purpose of the Study 12

Rationale 13

Research Questions 14

Significance of the Study 15

Definition of Terms 17

Assumptions and Limitations 20

Conceptual Framework 23

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 26

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 28

Total Asset Visibility (TAV) 29

Visibility of Operational Inventories 34

Visibility of Supplies in the Pipeline 35

Visibility of Assets in Maintenance 35

Army Maintenance and Logistics Processes 36

Supporting Logistics Business Processes 40


7/144

vi

Business Information 49

Enterprise Resource Planning Systems 52

Motivations for Using an ERP 53

ERP Success and Failure 56

Enterprise Success 58

The Benefits of Using an ERP 60

ERP Alignment and Fit 63

ERP Effectiveness 65

Integration 66

Process Management 68

Critical Success Factors 70

Resource Based View of the Firm 78

Resources 82

Capabilities 84

Core Capabilities 88

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 92

Research Design 92

Population and Sample 95

Instrumentation and Measures 100

Data Collection 101

Data Analysis 102

Validity and Reliability 103

Ethical Considerations 103


8/144

vii

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS 105

Database Demographics 105

Validity and Reliability 107

Normality of Data 108

Homogeneity of Variance 110

Post-hoc Test 111

Linear Regression 111

Research Questions 112

Summary of Results 115

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS 116

Summary of Research Findings 116

Conceptual Framework 118

Limitations 118

Future Research 120

REFERENCES 123

APPENDIX A. MISSION CRITICAL FUNCTION AND CRITICAL MISSION 133FUNCTION MATRIX


9/144

viii

List of Tables

Table 1. Logistics Information Systems with Strategic Orientation 3

Table 2. Variables Relevant to this Study 36

Table 3. Business Processes that Support the Four Core Maintenance Processes 41

Table 4. Target Audience by User Role/Participant group 98

Table 5. Study Demographics by User Role 99

Table 6. Research Question, Hypothesis, and Data Element Matrix 102

Table 7. Records Removed 106

Table 8. Sample Demographics 107

Table 9. Tests of Normality 109

Table 10. Test of Homogeneity of Variance 110

Table 11. Non-parametric Tests of Homogeneity of Variance 111

Table 12. Equality of Means Test 111

Table 13. Regression Model Summary 112

Table 14. Model Coefficients 112

Table 15. Correlations for Maintenance Non-supervisory Users 113

Table 16. Correlations for General Leadership and Maintenance Supervisory 115Users

Table A1. Mission Critical Function and Critical Mission Function Matrix 133


10/144

ix

List of Figures

Figure 1. Dataflow for Legacy Information Systems 4

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework 26

Figure 3. Literature Review Map 29

Figure 4. Demographics by Employee Type 96

Figure 5. Demographics by User Role 97

Figure 6. Database Demographics 105

Figure 7. Histogram and Q-Q Plot for the Dependent Variable 108

Figure 8. Histogram and Q-Q plot for the Independent Variable 108


11/144

1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

The Army is transforming its policies and methods of logistics sustainment on the

battlefield to take advantage of technological advancements of the 21st Century. The

primary reason for this change is the need to reduce costs, reduce the logistics footprint,

shorten the logistics pipeline, and lighten the logistics load (Piggee, 2002). The new

methods for improved battlefield logistics will need a just-in-time delivery system and

innovative methods to monitor the logistics pipeline. To ensure military leaders will have

the assets to win on the battlefield when and where needed, military leaders will need

visibility of organizational assets in the logistics supply chain. The U.S. Army must build

an improved capability to provide military leaders access to timelier and accurate

logistics information about the location, movement, status, and identity of personnel,

equipment, and supplies (Anderson, 2001, p. 2) in the logistics pipeline.

The U.S. Army will need to overcome many challenges in order to build an

effective TAV capability. For instance, the U.S. Army is employing over 16 logistics

information systems (LIS) used specifically to manage the Armys logistics business

processes. These LIS include a range of logistics business processes including, but not

limited to, contract management, maintenance management, bulk fuel management,

ammunition, repair parts, asset management, order fulfillment, inventory management,

and financial processes. Butler and Latsko (1999) identified many of these systems built

and implemented across the Army in the late 1980s. Over the years, many enhancements

have been made to these systems to improve the Armys logistics business processes.

However, one significant limitation remains; these systems are still not integrated. The


12/144

2

Government Accounting Office (2007) reiterated this point in an investigations findings

and suggested the issues that plague TAV programs are nonintegrated legacy information

systems, which contain redundant data (Government Accounting Office, 2007).

These legacy LIS are placed in combat, combat support, and combat service

support organizations to automate logistics processes, including supply, maintenance,

and logistics management business processes. For instance, the Standard Army

Maintenance Information System 1 (Enhanced) (SAMS-1E) automates portions of The

Army Maintenance Management Systems (TAMMS) business processes. The Standard

Army Retail Supply System (SARSS) automates the Armys supply processes below the

national level. These systems are employed at various levels of the Armys hierarchy and

send, receive, and store logistics and transactional data to aid decision makers in

measuring the logistics readiness of Army organizations. Table 1 lists the common LIS

found in tactical and operational Army organizations that conduct maintenance and

logistics operations with their strategic orientations. These LIS are included in the

systems the Army plans to replace with the implementation of GCSS-Army.

These legacy LIS are not integrated, as illustrated in Figure 1. Each system sends

and receives batch logistics and transaction data files for roll-up to different levels in the

hierarchy through manual processes (removable media) or through secure file transport

protocol (SFTP) communications. For example, SAMS-1E processes maintenance and

maintenance supply related data files and transactions. SARSS processes supply data and

transactions to national vendors when repair parts are needed and not stocked in

inventories in any tactical supply support activity (SSA). National vendors return supply


13/144

3

Table 1. Logistics Information Systems with Strategic Orientation

Logistics Information Systems Strategic Orientation

Standard Army Maintenance System Enhanced (SAMS-E) Tactical/Operational

Standard Army Maintenance System 1 Enhanced (SAMS-1E)a Tactical/Operational/Strategic

Standard Army Maintenance System 2 Enhanced (SAMS-2E)a Operational/Strategic

Standard Army Retail Supply Systems (SARSS) Tactical/Operational

Note. Tactical orientation means that the system is used in an organization to perform and managemaintenance operations that deploy with combat forces. Operational orientation means that the system isused by field operating units that deploy with combat forces that support tactical level organizations.Strategic orientation means that the system is used mostly at the strategic level of operations, which meansthat these systems are operated by organizations that provide support to operational forces in both peacetime and during times of war and can deploy. Additionally, operational and strategic oriented organizationsprovide back-up maintenance support to both tactical and operational organizations in peace time, and

rarely deploy. It is also possible to see a system used in a deploying organization that has a strategicorientation, such as at the theater sustainment command, brigade, or division headquarters; theseorganizations help to cross level maintenance activities to sustain combat power in a theater of combatoperations.a. In some organizations, SAMS-1 and SAMS-2 have been combined into a single system SAMS-1E andSAMS-2E, respectively. These systems will be found in organizations until they are completely subsumed.b. Denotes systems that are not part of the study because they were not part of the IOT&E event, but areprovided here for awareness.

status to SARSS in batch transactions, which are then sent to SAMS-1E in batch to

update these systems.

National vendors route these same data to the Army Material Commands

Logistics Support Activity (LOGSA). LOGSA then reconfigures the data and uploads

and stores the data in a series of databases for retrieval by military users (Butler &

Latsko, 1999), which connects the operational Army to the National logistics pipeline.

Military logisticians then retrieve visibility information from LOGSAs database to view

the logistics pipeline, but this information is often outdated and error laden. Also, because

these systems lack integration, no system exists on the battlefield that provides military

leaders with asset visibility information in near-real time that is accurate and reliable.


14/144

4

Figure 1. Dataflow for legacy information systems.

To overcome these challenges, the Army is collapsing over 16 legacy LIS into an

enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, the Global Combat Support System Army

(GCSS-Army). This ERP is perhaps the largest ERP implementation in a public

organization serving over 160,000 logistics personnel and military leaders on a global

footprint with a $3 billion budget. Implementing an ERP will be the first real attempt at

integrating the Armys tactical and operational logistics business processes into a single

system. Once completed, the ERP has the potential to create a promising TAV capability


15/144

5

and serving as a springboard for future improvements in its logistics capability (Al-

Mashari, Al-Mudimigh, & Zari, 2003).

Introduction to the Problem

For over 20 years the US Army, and its parent, the Department of Defense (DoD)

have been trying build an effective TAV Capability. For its part, the Army has developed

several information systems and databases to improve the TAV capability. So far, the

issues that plague TAV programs are the LIS used to manage the Armys logistics

business processes. Anderson (2001) described many of the information systems the

Army has developed, which must interface with, and provide asset data to, various

databases to provide this capability, among them is GCSS-Army (p. 9). Further,

Anderson suggested that this will be challenging because improving the TAV

capability will require the Army to make significant changes to its information

technology (IT) infrastructure to create an improved TAV capability. One significant

change currently underway is the implementation of an ERP to integrate its logistics

processes.

The Government Accounting Office (GAO) (2007) reported that even though the

Army is well on its way to implementing an ERP to integrate its disparate legacy LIS and

create a TAV capability, the Army still lacks an integrative method for performing TAV

of its assets, which exceed $140 billion. In fact, the GAO reported that by continuing the

use of ineffective automated logistics information systems with antiquated business

processes, the Army will fail to improve its TAV capability and gain control over its

assets. GAO also reported that if the Army continues to use ineffective information


16/144

6

systems and business processes, the agency is in danger of creating a system that (a) will

not provide the desired level of capability (b) does not interoperate with other agencies

efficiently (c) is stovepiped in its functionality and (d) will not contain efficient and

effective business processes. The GAO addressed many challenges in its 2007 Report,

such as those listed above. However, this study addresses two of the issues identified in

the Report, ineffective business processes and capabilities with regard to creating a TAV

capability.

The use of effective business processes in creating a sustained advantage has been

an ongoing discussion in academic literature for some time (Day 1994; Hammer and

Champy, 2001; Sullivan, Kelly, & Olson, 1999). Lockamy and Smith (1997) described

effective business process as those processes that are tied to an organizations strategy.

For example, Lockamy and Smith suggest that processes must support the achievement

of a competitive advantage (p. 149), increase value for the customer, and result in

superior business performance. Hammer (1996) suggested that for an organization to

improve its efficiency and quality, leaders must focus on customer needs and the

business processes that create value for them (p. 191). This is because the overall

performance of a firm in its environment depends on the net effect of the firms business

processes (Ray, Barney, & Muhanna, 2007, p. 24). Nah, Lau, and Kuang (2001)

stipulated that when implementing an ERP, molding legacy business process to fit the

system (p. 293) is critical to the success of an ERP, so that when implemented, the

organizations routines and practices are aligned with the systems functionality, thus

creating an advantage over competitors. This analysis suggests that business processes

may be one of the keys to developing a viable TAV strategy for the Army.


17/144

7

Capabilities have been a point of discussion among researchers since the early

1980s. Researchers such as Wernerfelt (1984) discussed using the firms resources in

creating capabilities that can establish enduring strategic advantages over competitors. A

firm must look internally to assess the strengths and weaknesses that the firm may have,

which forces the firm to look at resources as a way to compete and to build competitive

advantages. Nelson and Winter (1997) suggested that skills, organization, and

technology among other resources are often organized in a manner as to create a

capability that cannot be emulated, thereby creating a competitive advantage. They

suggested that using resources in a competitive environment creates a recipe of

productive capability (p. 89), because competitors cannot easily break down a capability

into its components and replicate them.

It is generally accepted that capabilities are built using tangible and intangible

resources and that resources in a firm can be defined as anything described as a firms

strength of weakness (Wernerfelt, 1984, p. 172) and can include both tangible and

intangible resources (p. 172). Further, he identified intangible resources as in-house

knowledge of technology and brand-names and tangible resources as human capital,

trade contracts, machinery, and capital (p. 172). Resources can also include the use of

technology (IT systems, communications networks, etc.), technical and functional

expertise, regulatory guidance, and other resources.

Day (1994) proposed a link between business processes and capabilities. For

example, to create an effective capability, Day advocated that an organization can

combine routines and practices, technology, and know-how, etc. in such a way as to

create a sustaining advantage. Day recommended that to determine the effectiveness of a


18/144

8

capability driven strategy, the firm must look at the output of a business process to judge

the success of a capability. Because of Days proposed link, this study recognizes that

organizational capabilities are dependent on effective business processes combined with

other organizational resources.

Total asset visibility is a capability that provides leaders with timely and accurate

information on the status, location, movement, identity of units, personnel, equipment,

and supplies and having the ability to act on that information (GAO, 2007, p. 2). The

DoD defines TAV differently. In defining TAV, the DoD excludes unit and personnel

identity because such information cannot be contained in an unclassified information

system. Therefore, the DoD (2003) defined TAV as a capability to provide visibility of

all assets in process, that is, assets being acquired, in maintenance, in storage, or in

transit (p. 18). This definition focuses on equipment (trucks, weapon systems, sets kits,

and outfits, etc.) assigned to an organization or is in use by the owning organization. This

definition also includes equipment in a maintenance status, or stored in inventory.

However, the Army includes force structure and authorizations in this definition, which

includes units and personnel (Department of the Army, 2007a). Finally, inventory

includes the stocks of equipment and repair parts stored in inventory by all three

components of the U.S. Army as well as those stocks the Army stores in prepositioned

stocks around the world.

The evidence above suggests several variations of the definition of TAV. This

study defines TAV as capability to provide visibility of all assets in process, that is,

assets being acquired, in maintenance, in storage, or in transit (Department of Defense,

2003, p. 18). A TAV capability is built using Army resources that are tangible and


19/144

9

intangible in nature, such as logistics and maintenance expertise, established logistics

policies and procedures, the use of technology, human capital, communications networks,

and refined business processes embedded in an enterprise resource planning system. This

study seeks to use the Army as an example of the same issues seen in other industries in

creating a strategic capability.

Background of the Study

To improve its logistics capabilities, the Army is implementing three enterprise

resource planning (ERP) systems; GCSS-Army, the Logistics Modernization Program

(LMP), and the General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS). These systems focus

on different parts of the Armys logistics pipeline, but together, they significantly

transform the way the Army conducts logistics sustainment operations, which the

Government Accounting Office (2007) called the factory to foxhole (p. 9) logistics

chain of the Army. For instance, the focus of LMP is on the wholesale portion of the

Armys logistics chain. It connects the Army to the National Economy and its

manufacturing capacity. GCSS-Army is the retail, or tactical portion, of the Armys

logistics system. The tactical system is much like a retail store, like Wal-Mart or Advance

Auto Parts, because logisticians can go direct to these organizations to receive equipment

and repair parts as a source of supply. Retail supply organizations are found around the

world in the many sustainment organizations that provide organic logistics capabilities to

the warfighter; the number of retail supply support activities (SSAs) approaches 300. The

services an SSA provide combat organizations are supply, resupply, and retrograde

logistics (the removal of unserviceable assets from the battlefield). The final component


20/144

10

is GFEBS, which provides the financial visibility (Government Accounting Office,

2007, p. 9) of the Armys $140 billion in assets.

After its one year investigation, the GAO (2007) suggested that even with

implementing these ERPs, the Army is only achieving incremental improvements (p.

21) in its TAV capabilities. According to the Agency, this is because the Army is not

taking full advantage of, and adopting, enterprise processes. Further, the Agency reported

the processes implemented in the ERPs are a copy of those found in many of the 16

stovepiped legacy systems (p. 11) and are cumbersome and ineffective (p. 6). Finally,

the Agency advocated the Army will diminish its ability to achieve TAV and improve

accountability over its assets (p. 22). The Program Manager (PM) implementing the

ERP disagrees. In the overview of the program, the PMs website stipulates that GCSS-

Army will provide the Army with improved visibility (PM GCSS-Army, 2013).

Statement of the Problem

Total Asset Visibility has received much attention in recent years by many

defense organizations. For example, the United States Armed Forces and Canadian

Armed Forces are researching TAV capabilities as a way to improve logistics

responsiveness and reduce logistics costs (Miksa & Carlson, 2007). The United States

Armed Forces are transforming their logistics capabilities because of fiscal constraints

and the need to rapidly deploy forces to hot spots around the world. To enable rapid

deployment, a Military organization must have the ability to sustain its forces with a

reduced logistics footprint. For rapid deployments to be successful, commanders must

have timely and accurate information of the supply chain so that timely and accurate


21/144

11

deployment decisions can be made. Accurate and timely logistics information increases

leaderships confidence that the logistics chain will provide the necessary assets to enable

victory on the battlefield when and where needed. The PM suggests the GCSS-Army

ERP will provide universal asset visibility, although the GAO report would suggest

otherwise.

Because of the multiple components associated with TAV, this study examined

the effectiveness of logistics and maintenance business processes in delivering a

component of TAV, that is, visibility over the organizations maintenance processes and

the assets affected by them. To examine this phenomenon, this study investigated the

relationship between the information effect of effective maintenance management

business processes and the capability of visibility of assets in maintenance. In this study,

business processes, defined in the view of the user population, are effective when a user

completes a logistics or maintenance management business process and the output is

correct allowing the user to perform his or her job, which in this study is considered to be

the information effect of the maintenance business processes.

To investigate this phenomenon, this study used a database generated from

computer-assisted self-reporting task performance and survey data taken by the U.S.

Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) to measure the suitability, effectiveness,

and sustainability of GCSS-Army in an operational environment. The data were captured

during an initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) event from September 1, 2011

to October 20, 2012. To assist ATEC in gathering data during the IOT&E, the Army

provided an independent third party data collection agency, the Operational Test

Command (OTC), which employed data collection observer/controllers to assist users in


22/144

12

completing task performance forms that recorded tasks performed during the IOT&E

event (Army Test and Evaluation Command, 2011).

Purpose of the Study

How does the resource based view of the firm explain the relationship between

visibility of assets in maintenance (dependent variable) and the information effective of

maintenance business processes (independent variables)? The statistical model used to

test the hypothesis is correlation and regression analysis using a purposefully selected

sample of ERP logistics users taken from a statistical database. Specifically, this

quantitative study analyzed the relationship of the information effect of specific mission

critical functions (MCFs), critical mission functions (CMFs), and the Armys strategic

objective of TAV to investigate the GAOs claim that the Armys TAV capabilities have

been diminished with the implementation of GCSS-Army. This study utilized a statistical

database of survey and task performance data taken from an operational test event

conducted by the United States Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) from one

of two GCSS-Army ERP implementations. The first implementation was completed in

September 2010 and the second implementation was completed in October 2011. The

goal of this study is to determine whether effective business processes developed within

the ERP have diminished the Armys visibility over its assets in the maintenance process

by using a critical factor matrix, Mission Critical Function (MCF)/Critical Mission

Function (CMF) Matrix, developed by the researcher and used by ATEC in the

evaluation of GCSS-Army during the operational test event.


23/144

13

In this study, a MCF is generally defined as a high-level logistics capability an

Army organization needs to be successful on the battlefield. The capability reflects a

process that is system agnostic, meaning the processes can be performed manually or by

information systems (IS) developed with no specific vendor in mind. A CMF is generally

defined as a high-level business process, such as work order management, configuration

management, issuing supplies, or conducting an inspection or inventory. Each CMF is

supported by one or many subprocesses, or more generally, the process steps required in

completing a business process. Information effect is generally defined as the information

produced by the subprocesses within each CMF, such as an output used as input to new

processes or the output used to produce maintenance reports.

Rationale

The rationale for selecting these concepts came from a literature search on ERP

success and critical success factors (CSF), which are used to determine the success of

ERP systems in meeting the goals and objectives of the implementing organization. This

researcher developed a critical factor MCF and CMF methodology to help ATEC

quantify the success of the enterprise logistics system in mission based test and

evaluation (MBT&E) activities. This methodology is significant because GCSS-Army is

the first ERP to undergo MBT&E using a critical factor approach and the first to receive

a positive review from the Secretary of Defenses Director, Operational Test &

Evaluation (DOT&E). The MCF and CMF methodology used for this study makes a

significant contribution to ERP literature because the IOT&E event was the first

successful operational evaluation of an ERP in the Army. Accordingly, it is postulated


24/144

14

the MCF and CMF methodology would provide a link between business processes and

strategic capabilities as defined by an organizations strategic objectives. Overall, the

model contains 5 MCFs with 20 CMFs (see Appendix A for the complete model) with

194 subprocesses identified to measure the systems success at meeting the operational

needs (capabilities) for logistics management in the Army. This research project used a

statistical database containing survey and task performance data collected by ATEC to

investigate whether a specific capability, such as TAV, has been diminished.

Research Questions

Focusing on the information effect of the maintenance management business

processes developed in the ERP at the tactical and operational level of strategy, this

research study seeks to determine whether GCSS-Army will diminish the Armys

capability to achieve TAV and improve accountability over its assets (GAO, 2007, p.

22). This leads to the following research questions:

Research question #1: Is there a correlation between the information effect of

maintenance management business processes and the visibility of assets in maintenance

at the tactical level?

Research question #2: Is there a correlation between the information effect of

maintenance management business processes and the visibility of assets in maintenance

at the operational level?

H1o: An increase in the effectiveness of a TAV capability (dependent variable) at

the tactical level is not related to the information effect (independent variable) of


25/144

15

correctly developed maintenance management critical mission functions (CMFs)

(independent variable) developed in the solution.

H1a: An increase in the effectiveness of a TAV capability (dependent variable) at

the tactical level is related to the information effect (independent variable) of correctly

developed maintenance management critical mission functions (CMFs) (independent

variable) developed in the solution.

H2o: An increase in the effectiveness of a TAV capability (dependent variable) at

the operational level is not related to the information effect (independent variable) of


developed in the solution.

H2a: an increase in the effectiveness of a TAV capability (dependent variable) at

the operational level is related to the information effect (independent variable) of


developed in the solution.

Significance of the Study

Finney and Corbett (2007) conducted a study on critical success factors (CSFs) of

ERPs and revealed 23 CSFs that could potentially increase the success of an ERP

implementation, however, the study focused on the stakeholders perspective. One

significant finding from this study was that most research on CSFs used secondary

sources (p. 340), such as literature reviews. Al-Mashari (2003) identified this as a

problem too when he suggested that more empirical studies are needed on ERP

implementations and that the gap in this area of research is huge (p. 22). Further, he


26/144

16

investigated the literature gap and developed a taxonomy identifying 24 areas where

research on ERP is lacking. He suggested that a critical factor approach to investigating

ERP implementation would be interesting (p. 22). This study closes this gap by using a

critical factor approach to investigate the strategic implications of using an ERP in a

public sector organization, which are three areas in Al-Masharis taxonomy.

Esteves (2007) reviewed over 600 ERP journal articles and conference

proceedings. Esteves developed an extensive bibliography of articles related to eight

categories of enterprise systems topic areas, such as general, ERP adoption, ERP

acquisition, ERP implementation (p. 390). Further, Finney and Corbett (2007) suggested

critical success factor research has concentrated on a specific aspect of an ERP

implementation or a particular critical success factor. The researchers also suggest that

this research in this area has failed to encompass all significant critical success factor

considerations. One finding is that none of the articles took the approach of measuring

ERP success from a critical mission function perspective or using the resource based

view (RBV) using a capabilities perspective. Johansson and Helstrom (2007) also add

that academic research on asset visibility is scarce (p 801). This research study adds to

this academic knowledge base by using a statistical database containing primary data

taken from an ERP implementation to study the relationship between the effectiveness of

the Armys strategic capability of asset visibility and business processes using a critical

factor approach.


27/144

17

Definition of Terms

SAP security audit log is a log that lists the transactions that a user completed in

the ERP. Each transaction completed in the system is identified by a unique user

identification code, the SAP transaction code, time and date the transaction was

completed, and whether the transaction was successful.

Business process is a mixture of resources that a firm combines in an efforts to

accomplish its business objectives (Ray, Barney, & Muhanna, 2004).

Capability is the capacity of an organization to execute its activities in a

predictive, efficient, and a repetitive manner (Smith, 2008).

Critical Mission Function (CMF) is a high-level business process that must be

completed successfully for an organization to create an effective business capability.

Dependent (outcome) variable is a variable that depends on the independent

variables manipulation to provide the outcome or results of the study (Creswell, 2009).

Doctrine defines how the Army operates; it facilitates communication among all

personnel by providing a common language and understanding of how the Army

conducts operations.

Enterprise resource planning (ERP) is a system that is multi-dimensional in

nature and is based on predefined business models as designed by the manufacturer.

These systems assist firms in planning, control, and resource optimization (Jarrar, Al-

Mudimigh, & Zairi, 2002).

Field Manuals are manuals that instruct Soldiers on all aspects of Army life

(Whitehouse.gov, n.d, para. 1).


28/144

18

GCSS-Army is an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) built on a SAP platform

to automate logistics business processes to enable an organization to perform logistics.

Implementation is defined as a mixture of project management, business process

reengineering, organizational change management, information systems (IS)

development, and user training tasks that enable an ERP to be used within an

organization (Esteves, Pastor, & Casanovas, 2002).

Independent (predictor) variable is a variable that could cause, influence, or

affect (Creswell, 2009, p. 50) the outcome of a study.

Information effectis the ability of an enterprise resource planning system to store

and process data from the output of one or more business processes and organize and

disseminate information from a business process to organizational users for decision

making (Karim, Somers, & Bhattacherjee, 2007).

Information systems (IS) are business and IT systems that encapsulate the

existing business processes, organizational structures, culture, and information

technology (Allen, Kern, & Havenhand, 2002, p. 3065).

Initial operational test & evaluation (IOT&E) is a test Department of Defense

organizations conduct to measure the effectiveness of weapon systems in an operational

environment using scenarios that are as realistic as possible. The goal of the operational

test is to identify operational deficiencies and operations and support costs related to the

lifecycle of the system being tested. This activity also helps the Army to refine the

systems logistics support requirements and training, tactics, techniques, and doctrinal

needs for increasing a systems effectiveness on the battlefield (Claxton, Cavoli, &

Johnson, 2005).


29/144

19

Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) is the specialty that a member of the

military holds. This translates to a specific combat or business function, such as a supply

clerk or warehouse clerk. For example, a 92A is an Automated Logistical Specialist, who

operates a maintenance information system. This MOS performs maintenance

management related tasks in a maintenance activity or maintenance section within an

organization. The civilian counterpart would be a parts or service representative in an

auto dealership.

Mission based test and evaluation (MBT&E) is a test method that focuses test and

evaluation (T&E) activities on the capabilities developed and provided to the warfighter.

It provides a framework and procedures to link the materiel system attributes to the

operational capabilities of the system implemented to mission based scenarios and

requirements (Department of the Army, 2010).

Mission Critical Function is a business capability that an organization must

accomplish successfully to perform its business strategy. A combination of mission

critical functions can be used to create a specific capability.

Operational strategy is a level of strategy designed and employed at the brigade

and below. Operational strategy provides brigade sized elements and below with

direction, and the command and control necessary to conduct combat operations and win

on the battlefield in a regional area.

Reliability is the degree to which a measure is consistent with what it is supposed

to measure (Swanson & Holton, 2005).


30/144

20

SAPis an enterprise resource planning solution that provides a means to

automate and improve existing business processes such as logistics execution and finance

and accounting, among others. SAP is the ERP solution the Army chose as a tool to

transform its logistics and financial business processes (SAP, n.d.).

Support Level Maintenance (sustainment maintenance) is a level of maintenance

in which an organization conducts maintenance on a customers equipment. The

equipment being maintained by this organization is not maintained in the SAMS-1E

equipment table (PM LIS, 2005).

Systems Integratoris the contractor developing the ERP solution for the customer,

the U.S. Army.

Unit Level Maintenance (field maintenance) is a level of maintenance in which a

unit owns organic equipment. This equipment is maintained in the SAMS-1E equipment

table in the owning organization (PM LIS, 2005).

Visibility of Assets in Maintenance is the use of information generated from the

enterprise resource planning systems, which increases the effectiveness of decision

making with regard to resource utilization, waste reduction and responsiveness to

customer demands, and improved quality.

Assumptions and Limitations

Assumptions

The Army selected SAP R/3 as the enterprise resource planning (ERP) platform

as its baseline for reengineering its logistics capabilities. The ERP platform represents an

effective fit between the Armys organizational structure, culture, and business processes.


31/144

21

Seddon, Calvert, and Yang (2010) defined fit as the match between the organizations

needs and the internal configuration of the enterprise system. They suggested the greater

the fit the more effective and efficient the organizations processes will be (p. 312).

Morton and Hu (2008) suggested in order to implement an ERP, a firm will have to

reengineer its business processes to fit the internal processes of the enterprise system,

which required requires the organization to move from a functional based organization

structure to a process-oriented structure (p. 391). According to these researchers, the

fit between the organization and the design of the system is critical to the success of an

information system. This fit is important because commercial off the shelf software

products are not typically aligned to the firms structures or processes, which will require

significant organizational changes to adapt to an ERP. Also, since ERPs have different

configurations and are known by different names, such as MRP, and supply chain

management (SCM) (Tsai, Chen, Hwang, & Hsu, 2010, p. 26) this study focuses on the

configuration and implementation rather than the name of the ERP solution.

The business processes developed in the ERP are effective. The Army conducted

a test to measure the effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the ERP in an

operational (tactical) environment. Twenty critical mission functions (business processes)

were evaluated during this event with approximately 300 participants, who completed

task performance forms containing quantitative and qualitative data to measure the

effectiveness of each business process. The outcome of the test event suggested that all

20 business processes were effective.

Since this study used a database containing statistical data taken from a unique

operational test event, the assumption is that this database is valid and accurate. This


32/144

22

assumption is supported by the fact that a Data Authentication Group (DAG) employed

by ATEC authenticated each data element as valid before the data elements were entered

into the database. Further, it was assumed that the database had not been sufficiently

analyzed to answer the research questions proposed in this study, because the database

was used in the IOT&E to access the systems effectiveness, survivability, and

sustainability in performing logistics on the battlefield. A secondary analysis of the

dataset is necessary, performed at the level of the business process, to determine if

business processes can contribute to a firms strategic capabilities, such as TAV. Finally,

Hakim (1983) suggested that this methodology would be a good fit for the analysis of

administrative data by applying a somewhat different perspective (p. 503) to the topic

at hand, which is to achieve a different outcome.

Limitations

This study was designed to use a database of existing primary observational data

taken from an operational test event. Using this database may impose a limitation due to

the age of the database. However, since the business processes under investigation are

sufficiently complex and no changes or enhancements have been introduced to the

business processes since the test event, it is assumed that the age of the database would

not affect the findings or the studys outcome. Also, system logs could be used to

evaluate inflated process counts identified in the database, which could be considered by

some to be subjective and introduce bias, and this fact is identified as a limitation in this

study. However, Hakim (1983) recognized this possibility and suggests that having

knowledge of this bias does not invalidate the data (p. 509). Having this knowledge

provides justification for a somewhat different interpretation of the findings (p. 509).


33/144

23

This study also used the original instruments used in the operational test event to

serve as a point of departure to identify the data elements contained in the database to be

included in the study. The original instruments contained in the database includes a Task

Performance Form used to record MCF and CMF transactions completed by the users

and verified by data collection/observers from the Operational Test Command (OTC).

This documentation also includes an End of Record Test Survey instrument that was

developed by ATEC with some participation from this researcher and a committee of

logistics management specialists. These instruments were administered to the participants

by OTC and ATEC without participation from this researcher. The validity and reliability

of the instruments used by ATEC and OTC to collect data during the IOT&E event

cannot be determined, and therefore constitute a limitation of this study.

A final limitation is whether the data recorded in the database were designed by

ATEC to fit some research methodology. It could be assumed that since the data

collection was based on the mission critical function and critical mission function

methodology, some form of methodology was associated with the data collection, and

recording activities and would not impose any limitations to this studys outcome. Hakim

(1983) suggested that the connection of a post hoc (p. 505) methodology still allows

the researcher to draw conclusions from the dataset under analysis.

Conceptual Framework

This study employed an extract of a conceptual framework designed by the

researcher to guide ATEC in quantifying the operational effectiveness, operational

suitability, and operational survivability of the ERP during the operational event (see


34/144

24

Appendix A for the complete framework). The conceptual framework developed for the

test event links business processes within an information system (IS) being developed to

specific capabilities within an organizations enterprise architecture (EA) that defines a

high-level strategic objective. In this case, the Army is trying to improve a high-level

strategic capability to provide operational level commanders and decision makers with

visibility of assets owned by an organization in the logistics pipeline.

To achieve this capability, the ERP being developed must include business

processes that contribute successfully to a business capability. The conceptual framework

presented in this study identifies the business process areas as critical mission functions

(CMFs). These are the business processes that must be successfully executed for the

Army to achieve minimum effectiveness in five specific business areas, which are

maintenance, retail supply, finance, logistics management, and property book and unit

supply. Each business capability must be executed successfully for the Army to achieve

its strategy of logistics management. These five business capabilities are identified in the

complete conceptual framework (see Appendix A for the complete framework) as

mission critical functions (MCF).

In this study, TAV is concerned with the visibility of assets in maintenance,

which is in line with the DoDs definition of TAV. One mission critical function

(capability) that contributes to the effectiveness of visibility of assets in maintenance is

maintenance management. The mission critical function of maintenance management

contains six critical mission functions (business processes), which are (a) update

equipment record (b) manage platform configuration (c) manage work orders (d) manage


35/144

25

scheduled maintenance (e) manage configuration and maintenance and (f) manage

maintenance supply transactions.

For visibility of assets in maintenance to be effective and contribute to the Armys

strategic objective of TAV, each critical mission function must work as designed and

provide the information required for organizational users to make informed decisions

about maintenance capacity and equipment readiness. This is the information effect of the

business processes, which means that each of the process steps in a critical mission

function must provide the ERP user with the accurate, timely, and usable output desired.

If each process step in a critical mission function is working as designed, the critical

mission function would add to a capability. For example, if the critical mission function

of work order management is working as designed, the informational output from the

process can be used in accomplishing specific strategic goals.

In this study, visibility of assets in maintenance is a strategic capability that

allows management to support combat operations by assessing and predicting equipment

readiness based on current equipment configuration and maintenance status (equipment

in maintenance) and future maintenance needs (scheduled maintenance). For example, if

all process steps within the critical mission functions of work order management and

manage scheduled maintenance are working as designed, management at higher levels of

the Army hierarchy can use the information produced by these business processes to

determine current maintenance requirements across the organizations maintenance

facilities, current maintenance status, and plan for future preventative maintenance such

as when an equipment item is due for a service. This visibility facilitates maintenance

capacity and load planning to ensure equipment readiness rates meet mission


36/144

26

requirements. Figure 2 provides a partial mapping of the mission critical function (MCF)

and critical mission function (CMF) matrix, which serves as the conceptual framework

for this study.

Figure 2. Conceptual framework describing an ERP with several business modules

with a proposed relationship between information effect of CMFs and visibility of

maintenance.

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

Chapter 2 provides a review of the scholarly knowledge base on total asset

visibility, Army maintenance and logistics processes, enterprise resource planning

systems, process management, critical success factors, and the resource based view of the

firm.

Chapter 3 discusses the quantitative methodology chosen for this study. This

chapter also presents statistical analysis procedures that were used to investigate the


37/144

27

relationship between the effectiveness of total asset visibility and the processes the ERP

uses to contribute to the capability.

Chapter 4 provides a detailed discussion of the analysis procedures, significant

including statistical results with all necessary charts and graphs.

Chapter 5 discusses the results, implications, and areas for future research.


38/144

28

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Government agencies are implementing enterprise resource planning (ERP)

platforms as a way to improve cost effectiveness and develop improved capabilities. The

Army is just one example of a Government agency that is transforming its logistics

business processes using an ERP to reduce costs to build improved warfighting support

capabilities, such as total asset visibility. To investigate this phenomenon, this study

presents an exhaustive literature review that crosses many bodies of knowledge. Figure 3

presents a graphical representation of the topics found in this literature review. Four main

knowledge areas were investigated. These topics include total asset visibility, enterprise

resource planning systems, critical success factors, and the resource based view of the

firm. Figure 3 also provides an indication of the supporting topic areas that are discussed

in this literature review, which includes topics such as ERP integration and process

management.


39/144

29

Figure 3. Literature Review Map

Total Asset Visibility (TAV)

Total asset visibility (TAV) is an important concept for an agile and mobile

military force. This is especially true in the post-cold war era where conflict is

characterized by small hot spots scattered around the world requiring swift military

action. Swift action requires military logisticians to develop innovative methods to move

personnel and equipment rapidly to these hot spots. Simon (2001) suggested that moving

an agile force requires a military to develop and implement just-in-time supply chain

processes, which is postulated to generate a significant advantage over adversaries. Such

a system will require a military force to develop and implement a capability that provides


40/144

30

an organization a common view of its assets in the logistics pipeline. Such a capability is

not limited to military organizations; corporate organizations have a need for TAV as

well.

Corporate organizations also find TAV to be an important capability. For

instance, Johansson and Helstrom (2007) suggested that in corporate organizations, TAV

can be more important than having visibility over its products (p. 801). Currie, Heminger,

Pohlen, and Vaughan (1996) defined the commercial version of TAV as total supply

chain visibility (p. 23), which provides organizations visibility of assets in the logistics

pipeline from the distribution center to the point of sale.

Simon (2001) defined TAV as a capability allowing military leaders to assess

operational and logistics situations on the battlefield. This includes (a) the operational

readiness of material and equipment (b) the ability to rapidly acquire, pack, and ship

supplies and equipment to maintain supply levels (c) the ability to predict equipment

failures using forecasting and simulation (p. 64) and (d) the ability to monitor and

enhance the movement of unserviceable material and equipment from the battlefield to

repair facilities. Such a capability is critical to ensure that combat forces have the

equipment and material necessary to conduct combat operations decisively. Not knowing

where material and equipment are in the logistics pipeline could lead to poor decisions

that could alter the outcome of a campaign.

Joint Warfare Center (2000) suggested that visibility systems are capability

enablers. These enablers increase combat effectiveness by providing leaders accurate and

timely information to increase battlefield effectiveness. For example, TAV is an

important component of distribution operations because it provides a means to increase


41/144

31

the responsiveness of the Army logistics systems to meet the customers needs through

the use of timely and accurate supply chain information. This component increases

combat effectiveness by providing leaders a common view of the overall distribution

enterprise from source of supply to the user on the battlefield. However, the lens through

which the Joint Warfare Center defined TAV is the transportation communitys view of

visibility. This view considers assets that are in the transportation pipeline. This includes

port to port visibility, where a units assets and cargo conveyed from one point on the

globe to another.

In principle, the differing definitions above align to the same goal, which is to

provide the information necessary to provide logistics support to the combat commander.

This support enables logistics organizations to help sustain combat power through

increased control and reliability of the logistics pipeline. It is postulated that a TAV

capability will increase Army leaderships confidence in the logistics system. Confidence

can be increased by providing near-real time information about the material and

equipment in the logistics pipeline that is usable and accurate (Currie, Heminger, Pohlen,

& Vaughan, 1996; Simon, 2001).

Significant limitations in the past have limited the Armys ability to create a TAV

capability. One of the limitations is the LIS currently used to automate the Armys

logistics processes. Simon (2001) provided a detailed discussion of high-level limitations

at the DoD level. However, Simon suggested the Army has found it difficult to develop a

TAV capability in part because of the use of outdated information systems that are

incompatible with internal and external agencies, and contain redundant data and

antiquated logistics processes. The use of stovepiped systems significantly limits


42/144

32

Armys visibility of the logistics pipeline; this limits the Armys ability to conduct rapid

replanning and redirection (p. 64) of material and equipment required to support the

responsiveness needed by combat forces. Simons view of the limitations in developing a

TAV capability aligns with the GAOs (2007) findings.

Also, antiquated logistics processes that have not maintained pace with current

technology advances is another limitation, which prevents the creation of a TAV

capability. For instance, the Armys concept for TAV is stated inArmy Regulation (AR)

710-2 (2008). This regulation defines the Armys supply policy at the operational level.

According to the Regulation, the capability for visibility of assets resides in the

Logistics Integrated Database (p. 98) (LIDB) maintained by the Army Material

Commands (AMC) Logistics Support Agency (LOGSA). However, it can be postulated

that the capability provided by the LIDB is limited because it does not provide real time

logistics data. This is because LIS systems send daily, weekly, and monthly data to

LOGSA, who then uploads and stores the data in the LIDB. This sporadic uploading of

data cannot provide a real-time view of logistics data; it is accurate only as to the last

update received from LIS.

Rhodes (2004) suggested that systems such as the LIDB provide a limited TAV

capability because of the lack of integration among the legacy systems. This issue is

compounded by the many organizations that have developed homegrown information

systems that retrieve, upload, and manipulate logistics and financial data from databases

such as the LIDB to create a TAV capability with logistics and finance data that are often

outdated. He provided an example of the Financial and Logistical Interface Program

(FINLOG) (p. 7) that Forces Command built to compensate for the Armys inability to


43/144

33

furnish the data necessary to supply up-to-date logistics and financial data. Additionally,

this tool combines logistics data with financial data from financial systems of record with

supply data from LIS and LOGSA. It is important to note that current Army legacy LIS

contain no financial data. They contain only logistics transactional data that have to be

reconciled with standalone financial systems such as the Standard Army Financial

Information System (STANFINS), which is being replaced by GFEBS. Even with the

replacement of STANFINS, LIS transactional data will still require reconciliation with

GFEBS, which is time consuming and often creates data errors. When fully implemented,

GCSS-Army will provide journal-level financial data to GFEBS on a daily basis through

interfaces, which eliminates the need to reconcile transactional level data with financial

systems of record.

Also, AR 710-2(2008) suggested the use of TAV and automatic identification

technology will increase the effectiveness of the Armys redistribution processes.

Redistribution processes facilitate the redistribution of assets in inventory during an

emergency situation (p. 98) to units in critical need of material and equipment. For

example, if an organization is taking on considerable battle losses, the Army can redirect

material and equipment that is due in to other organizations to the organization taking

losses to maintain the organizations combat effectiveness.

The TAV capability as described above includes several components. These

components include (a) visibility of material and equipment maintained in operational

inventories (b) visibility of material and equipment in the logistics pipeline, and (c)

visibility of assets (material and equipment) in repair. Investigating supplies in

operational inventory and in the logistics pipeline is outside the scope of this study.


44/144

34

However, because the TAV capability is composed of several parts, a basic discussion of

visibility of supplies in operational inventories and in the logistics pipeline appears here

to facilitate a basic understanding of the complete capability.

Visibility of Operational Inventories

The Army suggests the visibility of assets in operational inventories includes

material and equipment in inventory, moving in a warehouse, and moving throughout an

organization. Included are the quantities of material on-hand, due-in, and due-out to

customers. This also includes visibility of when a material condition code or ownership

or purpose code for a material has changed or when the stockage code or requesting

objective is changed. When movement of property assets (tools, trucks, tent, diagnostic

equipment, etc.) are involved, visibility over these assets provide leaders with

notifications when equipment arrives at the retail supply activity and when an issue or

receipt transaction occurs. Otherwise, Property Accountable Officers prepare and submit

a manual report to the LOGSA for input into the LIDB to update asset records

(Department of the Army, 2008).

The Armys TAV capability as currently designed provides logistics managers

with visibility of excess material, which affords Item Managers nationally a capability to

redistribute the excess material according to operational needs. Finally, it is suggested

that this capability is still in development. For example, it is envisioned that as the

TAV/LIDB is fully developed and implemented that it would create the data required to

fulfill this objective (Department of the Army, 2008, p. 102).


45/144

35

Visibility of Supplies in the Pipeline

Visibility of supplies in the pipeline is provided by what Estevez (2005) described

as radio frequency identification (RFID) (p. 24). The use of RFID promises to increase

the visibility of the material stored in warehouses, and of its movements internal to the

warehouse, and increase the accuracy of inventories. It also promises to provide areas for

increased productivity as well as methods of integrating information into end-to-end

processes. As hinted to in this study, the information provided by the RFID capability is

integrated into an enterprise system, which complements the TAV capability and

facilitates further enhancements to the transformation of the Armys logistics processes.

Finally, RFID is not contained within current LIS, third party servers gather and store

RFID data, which is fed to the LIDB and other LIS, providing a limited, albeit functional,

in-transit visibility (ITV) to support decision making.

Visibility of Assets in Maintenance

The last component of TAV, and the focus of this study, is the visibility of assets

in the maintenance process. The LIDB contains a maintenance module (Department of

the Army, 2010-2011, p. 94), which provides maintenance managers historical equipment

maintenance data generated by maintenance organizations. The historical data contained

in the module are generated from equipment maintenance work orders sent to LOGSA by

the Armys standard Army management information systems (STAMIS) from different

levels of the organizational hierarchy. These LIS provide maintenance managers with

data to measure performance at different levels of the maintenance hierarchy. This

includes mean-time-to-repair, repair parts consumption, and reasons for maintenance


46/144

36

action (p. 94), etc. However, this data does not provide visibility of equipment status in

repair. Much like the other visibility components discussed so far, these LIS provide

maintenance data to the LIDB for historical research and other purposes required by

higher level Department of the Army organizational needs. Finally, to establish a

foundation for the research on the capability of TAV and using this capability to establish

a competitive advantage, Table 2 provides a list of variables that are relevant to this

study.

Table 2. Variables Relevant to This Study

Variable Description Variable Type Prior Research

Visibility of assets inmaintenance (VISMNT)

Dependent Department of the Army, 2007b, 2008, 2010-2011;Estevez, 2005; Johansson & Helstrom, 2007;Rhodes, 2004; Simon, 2001

Information Effect(INFEFF)

Independent Crow, 2002; Department of the Army, 2005, 2008;Gattiker & Goodhue, 2000; Karim, Somers, &Bhattacherjee, 2007; Ng, Ip, & Lee, 1999; PM LIS,2005; Pettit & Beresford, 2009; Trkman, 2010;Uemura, Oiki, Oka, & Nishioka, 2006

Army Maintenance and Logistics Processes

The Army has four core maintenance processes, which are (a) performance

observation (b) equipment services (c) fault repair and (d) a single-standard repair

(Department of the Army, 2011, p. 1-2). Every organization in the Army that owns and

operates equipment follows these four maintenance processes. All maintenance

information generated by these maintenance processes is recorded and stored in LIS in

each organization (see Figure 1). The first three processes are of particular interest to this

study, because it is postulated that efficiencies created in these processes through process

improvements can increase the effectiveness of visibility of assets in maintenance. These


47/144

37

processes allow management at all levels to manage the Army Maintenance Management

System (TAMMS) to ensure equipment readiness is maintained to meet Army standards.

In general, these core processes allow maintenance managers and logisticians to plan,

prioritize, conduct, and record maintenance transactions.

Performance Observation Process

The purpose of the performance observation process is the foundation

(Department of the Army, 2011, p. 1-2) of the Armys maintenance program. This

process is mostly a manual process, but is supported by information systems, diagnostic

equipment, and in the future, on-board sensors to record equipment faults and

deficiencies. For example, every equipment item must be inspected by the operator

before, during, and after the equipment is operated. This is known as the preventive

maintenance checks and services (PMCS) (p. 1-2). All PMCS operations are recorded

on the maintenance and inspection worksheet or Department of the Army (DA) Form

5988-E. When no fault exists, the operator annotates the date the inspection was

completed on the form, where it is maintained in the equipment file with the vehicle

while in operation. When the vehicle is returned, the operator annotates the equipment

record with usage information, fuel and oil added, and the form is returned to the LIS

operator, who enters the data into the SAMS-1E system. Finally, when a fault is noted

during operation, the operator annotates the fault on the equipments maintenance

inspection worksheet. Upon returning to the organization, the worksheet is returned to the

LIS operator, who records the fault on the equipment record in the LIS (Department of

the Army, 2006).


48/144

38

Fault Repair Process

The fault repair process is used to restore equipment to original specifications,

including any deficiency that would prevent equipment from performing as designed, and

includes any attached components, radio and communications equipment, and weapons.

Fault repair can be performed by the equipment operator or crew, the organizations

maintenance personnel, or support maintenance personnel. For example, if an operator

found a broken light bulb during a preoperative inspection, the operator would request a

light bulb from the organizations SAMS-1E operator, and then install the light bulb. If

the light bulb did not correct the fault, the operator notes the fault on the equipments DA

Form 5988-E. The operator then presents the form to the SAMS-1E operator, who

presents the form to the maintenance supervisor for assessment. The maintenance

supervisor presents the form to a maintenance technician to verify the fault. Once

verified, the maintenance form is returned to the maintenance supervisor, who directs the

SAMS-1E operator to record a fault on the equipments equipment record in the LIS,

which then generates a work order to correct the fault (Department of the Army, 2006).

Equipment Service Process

The purpose of the equipment service process is to maintain and extend the

operational life of material and equipment and to increase equipment readiness

(Department of the Army, 2007, p. 14). Services are maintenance actions performed on

equipment at some predetermined interval. Intervals range from operation time in miles

and hours to specific intervals such as daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or other

predetermined intervals as defined by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). The

LIS captures and stores all service related data for future analysis until purged. Based on


49/144

39

the service requirements, services are conducted locally. For example, most equipment

services are conducted in the maintenance facility of the owning organization. Once a

service is completed, the LIS operator annotates the completed service on the equipment

record in the SAMS-1E. Next, the LIS operator updates the equipment record in SAMS-

1E with the next service due. Also, the DA Form 5988-E contains a list of all service

related information, which is updated regularly following regulatory guidance

(Department of the Army, 2006).

Single-Standard Repair

The single-standard repair is not a process but the policies and procedures

followed by all maintenance personnel. Every equipment item has a technical manual

(TM) developed by the OEM and adapted to fit the single-standard repair process for the

Army. For example, each TM lists the before, during, and after inspection items that all

operators must visually inspect while utilizing equipment. The TM also lists the

maintenance allocation chart (MAC) that describes the levels of maintenance required to

correct a fault. The TM also provides a list of procedures and tools needed to correct a

fault at the different levels of maintenance. For example, if an alternator was found to be

broken, the TM would describe the procedures to remove and replace the defective

alternator, and the level of repair. To support the single-standard repair process, the Army

established four different levels of technical manuals. For example, equipment operators

use the -10, or operators manual to perform operator level maintenance. Organizational

level maintenance activities use the -20 manual for component replacement (on-platform

repair). Support and depot level organizations follow the -30 and -40 level manuals for

component repair (off-platform repair) (Department of the Army, 2006).


50/144

40

Finally, the four core maintenance processes assist maintenance personnel in

managing the Armys maintenance program. These processes, initially manual, were

automated over the past 20 years in the LIS to streamline maintenance processes to create

efficiencies in managing maintenance. However, these processes do not provide visibility

of asset in maintenance to support decision making. To enable visibility of assets in

maintenance activities, seven supporting processes performed in an ERP are postulated to

increase the visibility over these core maintenance processes.

Supporting Logistics Business Processes

To support decision making and provide visibility over the core maintenance

processes, legacy LIS allowed users to record daily logistics transactions in individual

disconnected information systems through automated business processes. At

predetermined time intervals, these transactions are rolled up and sent to the next

organizational maintenance echelon, where an LIS compiles and sends the data to the

LIDB at LOGSA for retrieval, analysis, and decision making.

GCSS-Army dramatically improves legacy LIS supporting business processes

through business process reengineering (BPR). In GCSS-Army, the logistics and

maintenance management module provides six supporting maintenance business

processes, which enhance the Armys maintenance and logistics business capabilities.

These business capabilities are identified in this study as being a mission critical function

(MCF). A combination of mission critical functions can be used to create a specific

capability. For example, by combining MCFs of retail supply, property book/unit supply,

maintenance, and logistics management, the Army has created a logistics capability


51/144

41

within an ERP that enables its combat service support function on the battlefield. Table 3

lists the business processes implemented in GCSS-Army that support the four core

maintenance processes.

Update Equipment Record Process

Legacy LIS contains an equipment record for every equipment item owned by a

unit. LOGSAs material master data file (MMDF) provides the equipment record to LIS.

Once data is input into the LIS, the LIS operator builds an equipment record on each

equipment item authorized for and maintained by an organization. The equipment record

contains the details on the equipment such as any warranty, the equipment registration

number, serial number, current usage reading, equipment category code, and equipment

readiness code. The equipment record also identifies the equipments assigned operator

and his or her supervisor, and facilitates readiness reporting. For example, if an

equipment item or component on an equipment item is not available for administrative

Table 3. Business Processes that Support the Four Core Maintenance Processes

Maintenance MCF Process Description

Update equipment record process Allows a user to update equipment records.

Manage platform configuration process Allows a user to update equipment configuration.

Work order management process Allows a user to create, update, and closemaintenance work orders.

Manage scheduled maintenance process Allows a user to manage equipment scheduledmaintenance activities.

Configuration & maintenance management process Allows a user to maintain the equipments masterdata.

Maintenance supply process Allows a user to order repair parts to correct faults.

Note: MCF = mission critical function


52/144

42

purposes or is inoperative, SAMS-1E assigns the equipment a status. Equipment status

ratings include fully mission capable, partially mission capable, or non-mission capable.

This process allows a user to update the status of equipment when its status changes.

Creating an equipment record manually in each LIS for each equipment item introduces

data inconsistencies propagated in each LIS as data files are transferred (Department of

the Army, 2005).

GCSS-Army is subsuming the MMDF and will become the authoritative data

source (ADS) for all equipment records. Additionally, since the ERP is integrated, data

conversion activities will ensure equipment record master data, such as serial number,

model number, and other master data inconsistencies are investigated and resolved, and

an enterprise equipment record is created in GCSS-Army, which is aligned to an asset

number obtained from GFEBS. This provides an initialized data set for the equipment

record. Since GCSS-Army will become the ADS for equipment master data, this process

is expected to provide the user with more reliable data and timelier status updates. In fact,

Uemura, Oiki, Oka, and Nishioka (2006) provided evidence that standardized equipment

records contained in an ERP contribute to standardization, improved efficiencies, and

timelier equipment status updates. According to the researchers, standardized equipment

records provide an organization with improved visibility of equipment status throughout

an organization in near real-time. It is proposed that the enhancements made to this

process increase the effectiveness of visibility of assets in maintenance.

7/27/2019 The relationship between effective strategy and enterprise resource planning (ERP) syst

Documents

The relationship between effective strategy and enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems business processes: A critical factor approach