The U.S. Coast Guard Engineering,

Electronics and Logistics Quarterly

is published quarterly by the

Assistant Commandant for

Engineering and Logistics. This

publication is unofficial and not

authority for action. Views and opinions expressed are not 

necessarily those of the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security

or the U.S. Coast Guard. We

encourage readers to submit articles and letters to the editor.

Authors are encouraged to submit

articles through the Program

Representative. The U.S. Coast

Guard Engineering, Electronics and

Logistics Quarterly Editor and the

Engineering and Logistics

Directorate Management Board

retain final approval authority for the

publication or non-publication of all

article submissions. We will make

every effort to publish all submissions. We also reserve the right to

edit submissions for length, accuracy and grammar. All letters to the

editor must be signed along with

current address and telephone

number.

Vol. 13, No. 49

ISSN: 1931-4051

Final Issue

U. S. Coast Guard

Engineering,

Electronics and

Logistics Quarterly

COMDTPUB P5700.2

RDML Thomas P. Ostebo

Assistant Commandant for

Engineering and Logistics

Mr. Kerry L. Freese

Managing Editor and

Publication Staff

You can visit us on the web at www.uscg.mil/hq/cg4/eelquarterly

On the Cover: Modernization and the Mission Support Organization, a look back and forward.

This is the final issue of the Engineering, Electronics and Logistics Quarterly. As editor, I want to

thank you for your support throughout the years of this and past engineering publications -- both

in readership and article submissions. Look for the new Missions Support magazine to be out in

the near future.

Check out CG-4’s blog at 

https://cgportal.uscg.mil/lotus/myquickr/cg-4-blog/team-blog
2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 1

2 From the Assistant Commandant

4 Building the New Mission Support Organization

28 Mission Support 1.0 in Depth

32 Mission Support 2.0 Leaning Forward

36 Business Model as an Asset: A Concept

40 Logistics Transformation: “Checks and Balances”

42 Logistics Transformation of the Patrol Boat Product Line

44 Coast Guard Small Boat Product Line - Executing

Logistics Modernization

48 View From the Deckplate

50 Mission Support Log

52 U.S. Coast Guard Modernization: “Mission Support

Handbook”

Special Edition

Mission Support

Editor’s Note:

The Building the New Mission Support

Organization article presents a comprehensive overview of Coast Guard

Modernization with attention given

specifically to the future Deputy

Commandant for Mission Support

(DCMS) organization. Focusing on the

EE&LQ’s mission to serve the Coast

Guard engineering and logistics community, the first five-sections outlines

the Coast Guard’s proposed new organizational structure with a focus on the

future DCMS organization and its new

Logistics and Service Centers in the

field. The final, and sixth, section of

this article looks at the potential benefits of Modernization on the Coast

Guard engineering and logistics community.

This article was written in the summer

of 2009 by a civilian summer hire

majoring in journalism and mass communications. The transfer of additional

responsibilities to the planned DCMS,

FORCECOM and OPCOM pends

Congressional authorization and all

bargaining obligations with civilian

unions are met. More up-to-date information on modernization can be found

at www.uscg.mil/modernization and the

Mission Support Organization at the

Mission Support Log

http:\\DCMSLog.blogspot.com.

The views or opinions of personnel in

this article are not those of the

Department of Homeland Security or

U.S. Coast Guard.
2 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition

Assistant Commandant

What do electron microscopes and drive in movie theatershave in common with the EELQ? They all first

appeared in 1933. While significant for their time, the tools and

technology of 1933 have advanced significantly since then.

Similarly, the EELQ itself has evolved considerably over its 77 year

history.

Initially released as a newsletter, entitled the Engineering Digest,

this publication was conceived as a tool to share “the latest engineering developments for the better performance of the service as a

whole.” At that time, it was customary for an engineering officer to

report faulty design, tests conducted and designs for improvement

by letter to what was then the U.S. Coast Guard Engineering

Department. A sign of the times was an article examining, “The

Future of Steam Propulsion.” It was not until after World War II that

the publication transitioned to a magazine format, while continuing

to cover significant technological topics of the day such as, “The

Helicopter’s Limited Future.”

As the field of engineering became increasingly specialized, the

magazine reflected these emerging specialties in engineering and in

1933

Magazine Timeline

First issue of

the Engineer’s

Digest

1943

World War II

1951 1962 1975

1930

Engineer-in-Chief (1891-1961) Chief, Office of Engineering

(1961-1987)

From the
2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 3

Thomas Ostebo RDML, USCG

Assistant Commandant for

Engineering and Logistics

the Coast Guard by creating dedicated sections for aeronautical, civil, electronics, and naval engineering and test and

development. In the 1970s, line drawings were replaced by photographs followed by the merger of the then Office of

Engineering, Logistics and Development with the then Office of Command, Control and Communications to form the

System Directorate. Similarly, both former Offices’ magazines were combined to become the Systems Times, later

becoming today’s EELQ as the Engineering and Logistics Directorate (CG-4) and the Command, Control,

Communications, Computers & IT Directorate (CG-6) emerged.

This issue of the EELQ is special for several reasons. As the cover highlights, this issue is dedicated to Coast Guard

Modernization. It provides a thorough update on the initiative, since the Summer 2006 Logistics Transformation issue,

which you can read online. The 2006 issue introduced a new, standardized way in which our work would be done in the

future through what is now called the Mission Support Business Model. To do that most effectively, Coast Guard

Modernization built out five Logistics and Service Centers to relentlessly bring to life the four cornerstones of Logistics

Transformation: configuration management, bi-level maintenance, total asset visibility and product line management.

These advancements, collectively called Mission Support 1.0, align all Coast Guard mission support elements under the

Chief of Staff for a single point of accountability for support for the first time in the history of our service.

But this issue of EELQ is also special in that it’s time once again for the EELQ to adapt with the Coast Guard. As we

look ahead towards Mission Support 2.0, the EELQ’s mission will evolve to become one information source for the

whole Coast Guard Mission Support Organization. It will reflect the variety of professions across the support organization, including human resources, engineering and logistics, information technology and acquisitions, with specialized

content for individual communities. To reflect its broadening focus, the EELQ will be published under a new Mission

Support magazine . What won’t change is its founding mission of sharing the latest developments in mission support to

improve the Coast Guard as a whole. The success of the new print magazine will rest with the quality of submitted articles as it has since 1933, so sharpen your pencils and keep the information flowing.

1982

NOTE: A complete set of Engineer’s Digest, Systems Times and Engineering,

Electronics and Logistics Quarterly issues are available to everyone to

peruse and review in the U.S. Coast Guard Historian’s Office at Coast Guard

Headquarters. These publications are a great source of Coast Guard engineering history and always an interesting read. Have some free time ... go

and check an issue out and take a look at the past.

Final issue of

the Engineer’s

Digest

1996

First issue of

the Systems

Times

1997 2005

Systems Times

changes name

to Engineering,

Electronics and

Logistics

Quarterly

2010

Final

issue of

Chief, Office of Engineering & EE&LQ

Development (1987-1988)

Chief, Office of Engineering, Logistics

& Development (1988-1996)

Assistant Commandant

for Systems (1996-2005)

CG-4 (2005-2010)

Mission

Support

Magazine

New

Mission

Support

Magazine

Mission Support Org.

(2010 and beyond)
4 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition - Final Edition

Special Edition

Building the

New Mission

Support

Organization

by Patrick Boquard

Tom Chaleki, Contributor
Before the summer of 2005, most Americans did not know what

the United States Coast Guard accomplished on a daily basis.

On Aug. 29, 2005, a catastrophic natural disaster effectively catapulted the Coast Guard into the living rooms of every American

through the front pages of newspapers or televised newscasts.

Hurricane Katrina made landfall on the Louisiana and Mississippi

coasts at 6:10 a.m. and moved 18 mph northward.

Twelve hours after the Category 4 hurricane lumbered ashore, the Coast Guard

deployed 21 helicopters, seven fixed-wing aircraft and 24 cutters in response. The

number of Coast Guard assets and personnel grew as the world watched the recovery

and rescue efforts persevere for weeks in the storm ravaged area. By Sept. 6, the

second week of post-Katrina operations, 14 auxiliary aircraft, 28 cutters, 62 aircraft and

111 boats from the Coast Guard were operating in and around the disaster area.

The aviation response during this disaster demonstrated to Coast Guard leadership

the effectiveness of standardization. With 40 percent of the Coast Guard’s helicopter

fleet deployed in Katrina operations, it was evident that the configuration management

of assets and training of personnel expedited the airborne response to the historic

1

“The World Witnesses the Shield of Freedom”

2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition• 5

Hurricane

Katrina, U.S.

Coast Guard photograph by Petty

Officer 2nd Class

Kyle Niemi.
6 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition

Special Edition

search and rescue efforts. Four thousand Guardians rescued and evacuated nearly

34 thousand survivors.

In the Coast Guard Modernization Overview Video, VADM Jody A. Breckenridge said

the aviation engineers, pilots and rescue swimmers were able to seamlessly work

together. Aviation’s uniformity identified a best practice that other aspects of Coast

Guard mission support could emulate.

“The big lessons learned (from Katrina) is that although we are very good at what we

do when we respond. We had units across the Coast Guard that brought different

capabilities, and we couldn’t fuse their capabilities in an effective way to get the outcome we were looking for,” Breckenridge explained.

Observing the aviation community’s

response in the wake of Hurricane

Katrina led to a second insight by

Coast Guard leaders as to how the

organization as a whole, can achieve

increased effectiveness accomplishing

its 11 Mission Programs.

Cadet Intern, 1/c Ryan Cassidy recently described the Coast Guard’s current

geographically-based organization on

ADM Allen’s blog iCommandant,

“Previously under PACAREA and

LANTAREA commands, we almost had

two separate Coast Guards protecting

the country; one on the West Coast

and one on the East Coast. Each had its own way of conducting training, managing

its work forces and providing supplies and maintenance for units. Because of this, a

Guardian going from small boat station LA/LB in California to station Boston might

have to re-learn the systems on a new 25, because it is configured differently from the

same vessel in California. Likewise, an XPO would have to understand a different set

of support commands and compliance requirements.”

Beyond Hurricane Katrina, the Coast Guard faces new challenges in the 21st century

such as illegal immigrants, narcotics smuggling and terrorism. All of which the Coast

Guard must adapt to better safeguard the nation’s interests now and far into the future.

By restructuring how units interact with the mission support structure and force readiness requirements of the Coast Guard, Coast Guard Modernization seeks to standardize all of our operations and business practices, positioning the Coast Guard to

respond to the growing demands of our increasingly dynamic and complex operating

environment.

Modernization is not new to the Coast Guard. Before ADM Allen laid out his vision for

the Coast Guard, much historical progress was made to modernize the organization’s

mission support prior to Hurricane Katrina. These efforts laid the groundwork for what

would become Coast Guard Modernization.
2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 7

In 2003, the United States Coast Guard was transferred from the

Department of Transportation to the newly formed Department of

Homeland Security (DHS). This shift made the Coast Guard the

only military institution and largest entity in the DHS. The following year, the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) released the

report, “Review of the Status of DHS Efforts to Address its Major

Management Challenges” calling on the Coast Guard to improve

accounting control of its mission support logistics.

Then Chief of Staff, and later Commandant, ADM Thad Allen created the Logistics

Management Transformation Office (LMTO) in 2004 to resolve redundant processes

within the Coast Guard logistics communities. It began by identifying 20 studies dating

back to 1988 on improving the organization’s logistics. It then set the goal of finding or

formulating a logistics business model (see related article on page 36) as a long-term

solution to costly and duplicative processes.

The LMTO report, “Logistics Transformation at

the United States Coast Guard,” released in

2005, characterized the Coast Guard’s logistics

communities as “extremely stove piped.” Legacy

Vessels, Legacy Aircraft, Shore Facilities and

Deepwater Assets used different information systems and business processes to perform the

same functions of acquisition logistics, maintenance and supply management, with little interoperability in managing what was estimated at

the time to be approximately 46 percent of the

Coast Guard’s annual budget. The office formed

the Integrated Process Team (IPT) with Coast

Guard representatives from all logistics communities in March 2005.

On June 23, 2005, the LMTO and the IPT presented their findings to the former Chief of Staff

and now Commandant Allen. Their solution to

the Coast Guard’s multiple and independent

asset-based logistics communities with their own

respective IT systems was to formulate a common, centrally managed logistics business model

with built-in accountability. The key to this common business model would be acquiring or engi2

“Charting a Course for One Solid Foundation”
8 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition

Special Edition

neering a single IT system for the entire organization to use. ADM Allen and former

Commandant ADM Thomas H. Collins supported the team’s findings to utilize the centrally managed aviation business model as a blueprint for logistics transformation

across the Coast Guard’s mission support community, adopting its structure to facilitate control and effective planning over its inventory and parts support.

This business model eventually became what is known today as the Coast Guard

Mission Support Business Model. In September 2008, Commandant Allen defined the

keys to success of this business mode as “strict adherence to a centrally managed, bilevel support system, which places sole accountability for asset support on the product

line manager.” These are known as the Four Cornerstones of the Coast Guard

Mission Support Business Model because they form the foundation for standardized

business processes across all Coast Guard mission support activities, allowing all logistics communities to focus on its principal customer -- operators. VADM Clifford Pearson detailed these in an

article in EELQ’s Winter 2009 issue. In summary

they are:

1. Configuration Management - Process for

establishing and maintaining consistency of a

product’s performance, functional and physical

attributes with its requirements, design and operation information throughout its life.

2. Total Asset Visibility - The ability to provide timely and accurate information on the location, movement, status and identity of units, personnel, equipment and supplies, and have the

ability to act on that information (enabled by an

enterprise IT System).

3. Bi-Level Maintenance - Only unit and

depot maintenance, rather than 3 levels with blurry

lines of distinction.

4. Product Line Manager - A single point of accountability, each product line has

one product line manager. A means of providing superior support to end users while

internally capitalizing on the economies that come from grouping like products together.

The Four Cornerstones are critical components of the Mission Support Business

Model, but they do not exist in isolation. They are interdependent, as each relies on

the other for the Mission Support Business Model to perform properly.

Addressing the desire for accountability within a centrally managed logistics system,

the product line establishes a manager who is the single point of accountability for the

budgeting, supply and execution of support systems for the asset for which he or she

is responsible.
2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 9

Product Line Managers are responsible for maintaining contact with the original manufacturers or vendors of an asset to acquire equipment, technical documents and other

aspects of support. Commonly called the “one stop shop” for all service needs, this

concept of the Product Line will provide field units 24 hour support for all platform

types. For instance, field engineers needing technical advice on supply chain issues,

equipment and structural failures can rely on their Product Line Managers. Rather

than frequenting the local marina or machine shops for parts and tools needed for

minor repairs and scheduled maintenance, field units will be able to depend on the

Product Line for all areas of support.

Mr. Tom Chaleki, former Lead Planner of the Mission Support Planning and Integration

Team and now DCMS-5D, explained the Product Line concept.

“If you have a problem with your F-150 pickup truck,

you’d take it to the dealer, because they’d know

everything about it. They are the experts on everything from the tires to the radio to the transmission.

That will be the role of the Product Line Manager,”

Chaleki said.

Standardized Maintenance Procedure Cards (MPCs)

will accompany all new assets delivered to the field

with specific instructions that the engineers will need

to complete for preventive maintenance. Personnel

will be trained on the information featured on MPCs,

including warnings to prevent injuries, list of tools

needed, instructions in chronological order with

detailed diagrams, how much time the maintenance

will take, and what training is necessary to complete

repairs. The Product Line will automatically ship a

maintenance kit with needed parts listed on the MPC,

freeing up time for field engineers to perform the

maintenance, increasing overall asset availability for

field operators.

“In counting how many CASREPS our organization had, it was essentially management by failure rather than management through preventive measures under the business model,” Chaleki said.

“Take the F-150 example in bi-level maintenance,” Chaleki said. “Depot maintenance

would be like changing your transmission. If you don’t know how to do it, don’t have

the equipment to do it, than you’d better not try to fix it at all. That’s when you go to

someone who has the experience and equipment to fix it. Unit maintenance is like an

oil change for your F-150. It’s not too technical, and you have a diagram with instructions to follow. You don’t need to take it to your Ford dealer for something that routine.”

The prototype for the Coast Guard Mission Support Business Model was the

Response Boat Small (RB-S) Product Line. Since the first pilots at Sectors Baltimore

and San Francisco in the summer of 2006, Districts 1, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 13 have transi-
10 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition

Special Edition

tioned to the new Coast Guard Mission Support Business Model. Eighty-one percent of

the Coast Guard small boats are being supported by the Coast Guard Mission Support

Business Model providing real time readiness status and total asset visibility. Completion

of all small boats is anticipated in CY 2010.

This is the first step in implementing the Coast Guard Mission Support Business Model,

which is based on the centralized and accountable practices of the aviation community’s

business model. The new Coast Guard Mission Support Business Model will provide field

units and engineers a more disciplined approach to completing maintenance throughout an

asset’s lifespan by having assets operating in the field with uniform abilities, layouts, repair

procedures and other standardized aspects. In turn, this Mission Support Business Model

aims to relieve the burden of maintaining and repairing assets by engineering officers and

units and allowing them to focus on executing and accomplishing the mission at hand.

In order to better prepare the Coast Guard to implement the Coast Guard Mission Support

Business Model, Modernization is moving away from the current geographically-based

support to a single command, the future Deputy Commandant for Mission Support

(DCMS), that will be responsible for support of all Coast Guard assets, including people,

boats, planes, facilities and C4IT.

Some Coast Guard naval engineering veterans could give a personal account of

wits and resourcefulness paralleling

the drop of the hat

ingenuity by the

television hero

Angus MacGyver.

These creative

workarounds were

characterized by

then LT Jeff Clark

from the Logistics

Transformation

Program Integration

Office (LTPIO) as

using “little more

than bailing wire,

“Supporting the Shield”

3
2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 11

duct tape and bubble gum,” in an Engineering, Electronics and

Logistics Quarterly (EE&LQ) 2006 winter issue. Worse, some

aviation engineers overstocked spare parts with no structure in

place to share available supplies with other units where they may

be needed sooner. Planners involved in designing the future

Deputy Commandant for Mission Support (DCMS) hope these

tactics will become part of the Coast Guard’s history as the

Coast Guard Mission Support Business Model is rolled out

across all asset types.

To prepare the Coast Guard to provide mission support under the business model,

Modernization plans to realign the current geographically-based mission support services by asset types into product/service lines managed by the newly formed logistics

and service centers. These new

centers in the field form the backbone of our “Version 1.0 mission

support organization” with responsibility for carrying out the Coast

Guard Mission Support Business

Model. These new entities combined with the Assistant

Commandant for Human

Resources (CG-1), Assistant

Commandant for Engineering and

Logistics (CG-4), Assistant

Commandant for C4-IT (CG-6)

and the Assistant Commandant for

Acquisition (CG-9) unify all Coast

Guard Mission Support into a single command, the future

DCMS/Mission Support Organization. Its vision is “All people, All platforms, All systems, and All missions, Always Supported.”

Established in June 2009, the Asset Project Office (APO) is the Coast Guard’s first

command responsible for delivering capability, including ships, aircraft, facilities, C4IT

and people, aligned to the Coast Guard Mission Support Business Model.

The APO will establish future product lines for newly acquired asset types, ensuring

they are properly equipped, trained and provisioned with an established infrastructure

prepared to provide mission support prior to delivering them to the designated

Logistics Center or Service Center for sustainment throughout the asset’s life cycle.

The APO also will have an important responsibility to assist our Logistics Centers and

Service Centers in forming product lines for our legacy assets in an effort to align support in compliance with those same standardized business processes.

The stand-up ceremony for the APO was held on 26 January 2009 at Coast Guard
12 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition

Special Edition

Yard in Baltimore, MD. At that time, however, only the APO’s command cadre was

in place. After completion of discussions with the civilian employee union, which

provided input and advice concerning their represented employees in June 2009,

the APO got the green light to complete its initial phase of staffing. 

Initially operating within the APO, the logistics or service centers’ product line will

help the APO compile the platform’s maintenance specifications and technical information, provided by the manufacturer for the development of MPCs for use in depot

level or unit level maintenance. Supplying spare parts from the original equipment

manufacturer, consumables and special tools for maintenance will be the responsibility of the Product Line Logistics Branch or Supply Cell. This branch will manage

and budget the platform’s supply needs. The Programmed Depot Maintenance

Branch will be tasked with scheduling and completing all depot level maintenance

activities for every specific Product Line will originate from this branch.

Through these branches and offices organizing under the Mission Support

Organization, field units will theoretically have a clear understanding of their maintenance responsibilities within the Product Line guidelines and materials developed

and provided by the APO.

After delivering the Product Line to the field of operations the APO branches and

offices assisting in the development of a specific product lines’ asset will be

absorbed into a product line at one of the five logistics centers of the Mission

Support Organization. The APO will formally release the small boat product line

(SBPL) to the

Surface Forces

Logistics Center

(SFLC) before the

end of FY09. A

patrol boat product

line will soon be

established to bring

patrol boats into the

bi-level business

model as well.

The five new logistics centers in the

future DCMS are the

Surface Forces

Logistics Center

(SFLC), Aviation Logistics Center (ALC), Shore Infrastructure Logistic Center

(SILC), Personnel Service Center (PSC) and the Command, Control,

Communications, Computers and Information Technology Service Center (C4IT

SC).

Three of the five logistics centers in the mission support organization report to the

Assistant Commandant for Engineering and Logistics (CG-4). The Surface Forces

Logistics Center (SFLC), Aviation Logistics Center (ALC) and the Shore
2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 13

Infrastructure Logistics

Center (SILC) are responsible for implementing the

Coast Guard Mission

Support Business Model.

On Feb. 17, 2009, the

SILC was stood up in

Hampton Roads, Va. The

SILC incorporates the

Maintenance and Logistic

Commands’ (MLCs) Civil

Engineering Divisions,

Civil Engineering Units

(CEU), Facilities Design

and Construction Centers

(FDCCs) and the

Industrial Support Command. This logistics center manages the lifecycle of all 23,000

Coast Guard owned or leased buildings and structures in almost 3,000 locations, a

majority of them approaching an average age of 40 years old.

Implementing the Four Cornerstones of the Mission Support Business Model, the

SILC designs, plans, builds, maintains and supports aviation, waterfront, cutter, C4ISR

and Aids to Navigation (ATON) facilities. This logistics center also includes Military

Police, contract base security, environmental compliance and marine environmental

response as well as HAZMAT and HAZWaste groups.

Over 1,500 employees form the SILC, where they are responsible for the hundreds of

millions of dollars invested in contracts for disaster recovery, facility repairs, leases and

other forms of support to Coast Guard stations and structures.

On September 27, 2009, the SILC’s Base Support Units (BSUs) and their detachments stood up in the locations of the former Integrated Support Commands (ISCs).

BSUs are responsible for operating and maintaining the local base in their service

area. BSU Facilities Engineering Divisions are responsible for building and grounds

maintenance, waterfront services, and environmental and safety management. BSU

Comptroller Divisions provide regional procurement and general logistics services,

including the warehouse, mailroom, security and galley services.

Nearly 200 aircraft and 26 aviation units are supported by the second logistics center

under CG-4. On Oct. 30, 2008, the Aviation Logistics Center (ALC), formerly the

Aviation Repair & Supply Center (AR&SC), was established at Elizabeth City, N.C.

Due to the aviation community’s logistics transformation efforts in the early to late 90s,

the future ALC retains its current functions, serving as the basis for the Coast Guard

Mission Support Business Model.

The Coast Guard’s FY2010 Posture Statement presented to Congress reported that

the Coast Guard cutter fleet has an average age of 40 years, making it the oldest in

the world’s navies. Approximately 250 of these cutters and patrol boats combined with
14 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition

Special Edition

1,800 small boats will be supported by the third logistics center under CG-4. The

Surface Forces Logistics Center (SFLC) was established on Jan. 26, 2009 at the

Coast Guard Yard at Curtis Bay in Baltimore, MD. The SFLC, with approximately two

thousand employees, is tasked with providing 24/7 information support, supply and

depot level maintenance to any hard asset not falling under the ALC’s responsibility.

The Engineering Logistic Center (ELC); Maintenance and Logistics Commands’

(MLCs’) Naval Engineering Support Units (NESUs); both Atlantic and Pacific Naval

Engineering Divisions; Industrial Support Detachments (ISDs); and Industrial Support

Activities (ISAs) and the Coast Guard Yard at Curtis Bay became a part of the SFLC.

The SFLC’s Divisions include the Engineering Services Division, Asset Logistics

Division, Industrial Operations Division, the Business Operations Division, and

Contracting and Procurement. The SFLC’s five product lines are the Long Range

Enforcer (LRE) Product Line; the Medium Endurance Cutter (MRE) Product Line; the

Patrol Boat (PBPL) Product Line; Icebreaker, Buoy and Construction Tender (IBCT)

Product Line; and the Small Boat (SBPL) Product Line.

On Feb. 9, 2009, the C4IT Service Center was established in Alexandria, VA at TISCOM with a mission to provide electronics and Information Technology (IT) support to

all field units as well as manage C4IT Product Lines and core technologies. These

cover three primary areas. First, human resources, logistics, intelligence and operations are handled by Enterprise

Applications. Second, Command,

Control, Communications

Intelligence, Sensors and

Reconnaissance (C3ISR) and decision support Command and Control

(C2) systems will both cater to the

Coast Guard communications systems and navigations systems. The

final area is the common information technology infrastructure for

sharing and providing access to IT

services for personnel. Electronics

Support Units (ESUs) and

Electronics Support Detachments

(ESDs) fall under the Field Services

Division (FSD). The C4IT Service

Center also includes the Business

Operations Division (BOD), the Asset Logistics Division (ALD), and the Workforce and

Facilities Management Division (WFD).

The C4IT SC is a part of the Assistant Commandant for Command, Control,

Communications, Computer and Information Technology (C4IT) (CG-6), which oversees support for all Coast Guard Information Technology (IT) systems. The

Telecommunications and Information Systems Command (TISCOM); Command and

Control Engineering Center (C2CEN); Operations System Center (OSC); Electronics

Support Units and Detachments (ESUs/ESDs); and the Electronic Systems Lab (ESL)

are all a part of this new service center. ESUs and ESDs will continue to provide sup-
2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 15

port for standard workstations even when they are aboard SFLC-supported assets

such as cutters.

A unified support system has been laid out for surface forces, aviation assets, IT systems and facilities. This approach will also be taken in regards to the Coast Guard’s

personnel. From recruitment to retirement, the final logistics center under the proposed DCMS will be under the Assistant Commandant for Human Resources (CG-1).

Established on March 16, 2009 in Arlington, VA, the Personnel Service Center (PSC)

will implement the Coast Guard Personnel Mission Support Business Model for Coast

Guard Members. The PSC supports mission execution by integrating all aspects of

military personnel support, including, but not limited to, recruiting and accessing new

members; assigning and developing members’ careers; maintaining

health, safety, wellness and wellbeing for personnel; managing military compensation, and separating

and retiring all Coast Guard military personnel.

Compensation benefits, Health

Safety and Work-Life Services,

housing, Regional Educational

Services Officer (ESO) support and

Morale, Well-being and

Recreational (MWR) will be provided under the PSC. The PSC will

deliver regional-level support

through its Personnel Service and

Support Units (PSSUs) and its Health, Safety and work-Life Field Offices (HSWL

FOs), which were established on September 27, 2009 in the locations of the former

ISCs. PSSUs are responsible for housing, compensation, developing careers, maintaining well-being and providing other military personnel services within its designated

area of responsibility. HSWL FOs coordinate access and delivery of health, safety and

work-life services to Coast Guard members, employees, retirees and dependents within their designated area of responsibility and oversees 19 Coast Guard clinics.

Each of the four new logistics and service centers conducted transformation training in

2009. The SFLC began their transformation training in March 2009. Additional product line efforts for C4IT, Facilities and personnel assets are presently in the early planning stages, and reflect the shared commitment to manage all assets in a common

business model providing the same level of support to our operational units as that

which is being demonstrated for boats today. The APO is working closely with the

logistics and service centers to develop an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) to coordinate the stand-up of several dozen new product lines supporting legacy assets in the

Business Model over the coming months and years.

In 2006, Commandant ADM Thad Allen issued 10 Commandant’s Intent Action Orders

(CIAOs), which outlined his vision for what would become Coast Guard Modernization.

One of these 10 CIAOs expressed ADM Allen’s desire for a centralized mission sup-
16 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition

Special Edition

port command, now known as the future

Mission Support Organization/DCMS and led

by CG Chief of Staff CG-01, with a standardized and consolidated acquisition directorate.

On July 16, 2007, the Assistant Commandant

for Acquisition (CG-9) was established at

Coast Guard Headquarters to managing an

investment portfolio of $27 billion. Six former

acquisition offices were transitioned into CG-9

to form the Head of Contract Activity (CG-91),

Director of Acquisition Services (CG-92) and

the Program Director (CG-93).

The main role of CG-9 is to provide operational units with the platforms and assets to

safely and efficiently execute the Coast

Guard’s day to day missions. CG-9 estimates

costs to acquire new assets based on

requirements set by CG-7; manages contracts and the resources allocated to purchase new assets; and schedules their delivery and development. It is from this role the

acquisition directorate has crafted its motto,

“Mission execution begins here.”

All aspects of mission support from housing

and providing care to personnel; ship supplies

and equipment; scheduling depot maintenance; IT services and systems; and acquiring new products for the Coast Guard will

be unified under the future DCMS as a single point of accountability for all Coast

Guard mission support. The future DCMS’ goal is to unify, standardize and streamline

all aspects of support for all assets and personnel in order to effectively respond to

any mission regardless of its nature. Centralizing mission support under the common

Coast Guard Mission Support Business Model with sound business management and

accountability for mission support under the future DCMS will improve effectiveness,

flexibility and safety of all Coast Guard Guardians operating on the front line.

More information on the Mission Support Organization is available at

http://tinyurl.com/missionsupporthandbook. See page 53 for a more detailed description.

Works cited

ALCOAST Message 416/09. “SUBJ: MISSION SUPPORT BUSINESS DURING 

HURRICANE SEASON.” 2009.

Clark, Jeff. “Logistics Transformation Program Integration Office: Why Bother to

Transform Logistics?” Engineering, Electronics & Logistics Quarterly winter 2006:

38-41.
2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 17

Pearson, Clifford I. "The Deputy Commandant for Mission Support (CG-DCMS): A

Look Ahead." U.S. Coast Guard Reservist 2008: 32-33.

Peterson, Gordon I. “Admiral Allen: ‘Cut Steel, Float Boats’ Commandant Calls

Deepwater Program the ‘Centerpiece’ of Coast Guard’s Future Capability.”

Engineering, Electronics & Logistics Quarterly fall 2006, winter 2007: 11-17.

"USCG: Acquisition Directorate Overview." United States Coast Guard - Home Page.

June 2009 <http://www.uscg.mil/acquisition/aboutus/overview.asp>.

United States Coast Guard. Office of Public Affairs. "Coast Guard Establishes New

Acquisition Directorate." Press release.

Http://www.piersystem.com/go/doc/786/164778/&printerfriendly=1. 13 July 2007.

June 2009.

“A Twenty-First Century Approach to Semper Paratus”

4

From container ships to crude tankers, commercial vessels and

their crews can experience two different sets of procedures, policies and sometimes assets carrying the Coast Guard emblem

depending if they enter a port on the Atlantic or Pacific coasts.

The Coast Guard’s current Atlantic and Pacific Area Commands

in essence divide the United States Coast Guard into two separate operating entities.

The Coast Guard has

proven itself to be a

world-class responder

and consistently demonstrates the highest levels

of service to the

American public. Our

response to Hurricane

Katrina was noteworthy,

but as the scope of our

11 missions expands, the

Coast Guard must adapt

to meet the growing,

unknown challenges -- both man made and natural -- presented

by an All Threats and All Hazards operating environment.
18 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition

Special Edition

Improving interoperability, standardizing operational practices,

increasing readiness and eliminating redundancies will better

position the Coast Guard to safeguard the nation’s interests now

and far into the future.

Coast Guard Modernization realigns our command and control and mission support

functions into four specific commands -- called Modernization Efforts -- with standardized business practices. Training, operations, support and policy will each be under a

single command for the first time in Coast

Guard history.

The future Deputy Commandant for Mission

Support (DCMS) is one of the four

Modernization Efforts. While the future DCMS

seeks to streamline and take away redundant

supply and IT processes, the same is being

done in Coast Guard Command. The Deputy

Commandant for Operations (CG-DCO) is

intended to consolidate overlapping areas of

responsibility inadvertently created in the

Atlantic and Pacific Area commands. These

areas have independent operational planning,

policies and capabilities due to a separate chain

of command under the Assistant Commandants

for Operations (G-O) and Marine Safety,

Security and Environmental Protection (G-M).

On Oct. 3, 2007, the DCO was stood up in order

to create a single Coast Guard Command with

the ability to standardize regulations, operational

plans and policies across all geographic locations. Under DCO are three organizations.

Effectively coordinating operational policy for the

Coast Guard’s international missions and

engagements is now handled by the Director for

International Affairs (CG-DCO-I). Elimination of

overlapping or redundant areas of responsibility,

while providing standardized guidance to all field units is now under the direction of

the Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship (CG-5).

Policy development of the Coast Guard’s 11 Mission Programs is the responsibility of

this office. The Assistant Commandant for Capability (CG-7) works with budgetary and

resource management. As the policies, budgeting and regulations for the organization

are formulated underneath DCO, another organization will be formed through

Modernization to unify Coast Guard operations.

When all Coast Guard sectors, districts and major assets are deployed they will be

overseen by the future Operations Command (CG-OPCOM). While the future DCO is
2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 19

responsible for the development of policy in respect to the Coast Guard’s 11 Mission

Programs, the envisioned OPCOM will execute those missions. All nine Coast Guard

District Commanders will be unified in a single chain of command under OPCOM, providing a common operating picture across all global Coast Guard operations. Day to

day missions conducted by aircraft, boats, cutters, sectors and districts will continue

unchanged.

This proposed organization will address the vision of a more effective engagement in

21st century challenges, including drug trafficking, illegal migrants and severe weather,

which are undeterred by geographic or regional boundaries. Coast Guard leadership

believes OPCOM will improve the Service’s coordination and ability to operate in cooperation with other DoD and DHS entities with increased efficiency in worldwide maritime

operations. Ensuring Coast Guard personnel and reservists are Semper Peratus in

response to these 21st century challenges will fall on the next organization proposed

under Modernization.

Similar to the Coast Guard Logistics’ Business Model’s Configuration Management

Cornerstone, Coast Guard Force Readiness Command (CG-FORCECOM) became the

Coast Guard’s first command solely responsible for preparing forces to perform missions and execute them properly. Earlier this year, FORCECOM beta tested

Consolidated Assessment Visits (CAV) to increase unit readiness. The CAV reduces the

burden of visits on units by standardizing the time of the visit as much as possible by

coordinating many teams' participation in the CAV. Assessment teams participating in

the CAV program for Sectors and Air Stations includes: the Mission Support Logistics

Compliance Inspections

(LCI/Aviation LCI), the FC-75

Finance & Admin

Assessment, FC-7 Security

Inspection, Shore

Infrastructure Logistics

Center (SILC) Energy Audit;

and many others.

FORCECOM developed a

Readiness Dashboard which

presents facets of readiness

in: personnel, equipment,

supply and training for the

High Endurance Cutter Fleet,

Homeland Security Cutters

and Patrol Boats. Measures

are being finalized for our

Deployable Operations

Group. The dashboard presents information to senior leadership for decision making.

FORCECOM is also responsible for the CG's enterprise-wide training system and the

development of doctrine and TTP for the Coast Guard's complex eleven missions.

“In Modernization’s Configuration Management, OPCOM, FORCECOM, DCO and

DCMS are all integrated together,” explained DCMS-5 Deputy Mr. Tom Chaleki.
20 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition

Special Edition

“Configuration Management is really a Coast Guard-wide effort. Crews in OPCOM

can’t just put whatever they want on the side of a cutter when they’re underway in

operations. It may seem like Configuration Management is something just mission

support is responsible for doing, but it’s really up to all units.”

In July 2009, two independent, third party organizations endorsed Coast

Guard Modernization. The

National Academy of Public

Administration (NAPA), a

non-profit, independent

coalition of top public management and organizational leaders, evaluated

Modernization’s planning

approach, alignment with

the Coast Guard’s stated

goals, and potential risks

and weaknesses, as well

as key recommendations to

help improve

Modernization. In a separate assessment, the GAO

also validated our Modernization Efforts by referencing the NAPA report and concurring with their conclusions.

Senior Leadership has already begun work to incorporate their conclusions. First the

Coast Guard Strategic Transformation Team’s (STT) change management capability

was embedded in the organization’s new Enterprise Strategy, Management and

Doctrine Oversight Directorate (CG-095), which was established in May 2009 as a

direct report to the Vice Commandant. CG-095 is responsible for synchronizing the

various Modernization integration efforts as we move forward with Modernization.

The tenets of the business case for Modernization have been widely reflected in various official documents, including the FORCECOM and DCMS Business Plans, the

Modernization Congressional Report, and past GAO and OIG reports on readiness

and mishaps. Following one of NAPA’s recommendations, ADM Allen directed the

development of a clear and quantifiable business case to include the metrics necessary to track Coast Guard Modernization’s progress and its effects on mission execution. The Vice Commandant serves as the single point of accountability to ensure our

Modernization objectives are achieved.

Modernization is not a route that can be charted or traveled with a definitive end destination. Rather, the standardization under the leadership of the four new Commands

based on responsibilities -- not location -- will allow the Coast Guard to evolve its policies, practices, support and mission execution, adapting and responding much faster

when unforeseen challenges present themselves in the future.
2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 21

Modernization’s goal is to create a change-centric culture that is highly adaptive to

changing requirements, new opportunities, and demand signals from the public we

serve. Coast Guard Leadership’s objective evaluation and course correction are the

keys to successfully accomplishing that goal.

Works cited:

Breckinridge, Jody A, VADM. "Coast Guard Strategic Transformation Team: A Look

Ahead." U.S. Coast Guard Reservist 2008, Vol. 55: 24-25.

Brice-O'Hara, Sally, VADM - Select. "The Deputy Commandant for Operations (CGDCO): A Look Ahead." U.S. Coast Guard Reservist 2008, Vol. 55: 28-29.

“DCMS All Hand Brief, Modernization PowerPoint.” March 2009.

Logistics Transformation Program Integration Office, CG-4. “Logistics Before and After

PowerPoint.” February 2009.

Papp, Robert J, ADM - Select. "Coast Guard Operations Command (CG-OPCOM): A

Look Ahead." U.S. Coast Guard Reservist 2008, Vol. 55: 36-37.

Pekoske, David, VADM. "Coast Guard Force Readiness Command(CG-FORCECOM):

A Look Ahead." U.S. Coast Guard Reservist 2008, Vol. 55: 40-41.

5

Flying Cutters and Anchored Aircraft

A common question received about Logistics Transformation is

why should naval engineers follow the same logistics business

practices as the aviation community?

After all, “Ships don’t

fall out of the sky.”

This question may

ring truer for IT systems, which vary

among asset types

and even in different

places.

Chief of Naval Engineering,

CAPT Paul Roden,

explained the strengths of
22 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition

Special Edition

the planned Deputy Commandant for Mission Support (DCMS) organization and

addressed the cultural change required under the new Coast Guard Mission Support

Business Model.

“The issues resolved

with Modernization

are that decisions

will be based on better data to make better long-term solutions to problems

and greatly assist in

justifying our budget,” Roden said.

“The cultural change

will be significant.

Naval Engineering

generally had the

mindset to do whatever it takes to get

the job done, which

often resulted in less

than best business practices. There is a focus on the short term problems and a reaction to get the job done, which is less proactive than fixing the root cause of the problems. We’ve done well with the short term solutions, but within our new budget constraints this method is now inadequate.”

Roden explained he didn’t want to reprimand the efforts of the Naval Engineering community. He said the current Naval Engineering community doesn’t have the organizational alignment associated with the accountable and centrally managed Product Line

concept. Roden said this caused the community to work as best as it could with the

organization it had in place. A second benefit of Modernization, Roden explained, was

that Engineering Officers (EOs) and operators will become more like customers under

the proposed DCMS.

“EOs and operators will see this importance over time,” he said. “In the future there

will be better support systems. The Product Line Manager has control of their own

budget to say whether or not they want to spend it on repairing equipment, buying

parts or recapitalizing sub-systems. The new model will result in expanding the trade

space to make better decisions for each asset.”

“This culture change will require discipline from all of us,” Roden said. “With

Configuration Management, you can’t make changes to assets on your own, because

it creates problems in the long-run. If people start working around the new system it

will also hurt us, because accurate data collection will be critical to our support system.”

The concept Roden was referring to, making decisions based on real data, will use IT

systems. A centralized IT system providing Total Asset Visibility is one of the key ele-
2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 23

ments of support to the Coast Guard Mission Support Business Model and Modernization.

Much like we hear about the next version of Microsoft Windows before we can buy it in the

store, we have to use the version we have now, while the next version is being developed. In

the near term, the logistics and service centers will use legacy systems such as ALMIS and

MAXIMO to provide Total Asset Visibility when standing up product lines for legacy assets.

Eventually, one new system, the Coast Guard Logistics Information Management System

(CG-LIMS) will be gradually introduced to all logistics communities, replacing or integrating

today’s variety of systems. Not only will DCMS and the Coast Guard Mission Support

Business Model cause cultural changes, but this IT system will also have a positive impact

across the organization.

“It has to do with evolving our culture so that it’s OK to say, ‘This asset isn’t safe to use right

now,’” CG-LIMS Project Manager CDR Dan Taylor said. “CG-LIMS will allow Product Line

Managers to see what’s wrong and what’s being ordered to solve it.”

Consolidating the Coast Guard’s IT systems began as a part of the Deepwater contract with

Integrated Coast Guard Systems (ICGS). ICGS would have supported the Deepwater

Program’s newly acquired assets for the surface and aircraft fleets. After Logistics

Transformation reported all legacy IT systems within the Coast Guard were redundant and

analyzed the maintenance and operating cost, it was realized ICGS was yet another

stovepipe. Before 2003, there were several studies that called for the consolidation of the

Coast Guard’s IT systems. At the initiation of Logistics Transformation, the

team concluded that in order to have

a common logistics IT system there

must be a common business practice

for it to support and follow. This

altered the focus of the former ICGS

project from focusing on Deepwater

assets to supporting a Mission

Support Business Model founded in

the aviation community’s practices.

The application strategy for this organization-wide IT system is to incrementally replace legacy IT systems,

some of them at least 20 years old,

from their respective stovepiped logistics communities with Commercial off

the Shelf (COTS) tools. The CGLIMS project speculates this IT system will gradually adapt from aviation assets and small boat product lines to deepwater

assets, C4IT acquisitions, cutters and finally facilities. This strategy theorized by the CGLIMS project may phase out aspects of legacy IT systems in the long run.

The 2005 analysis of the Coast Guard logistics communities stated the Aviation Logistics

Management Information System (ALMIS) and its combined IT subsystems had the ability to
24 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition

Special Edition

support the aviation community’s business practice of Total Asset Visibility. ALMIS

combines training, operations, both unscheduled and scheduled maintenance and

resource management into one system. Another strong point to the ALMIS program is

its ability to offer data from the system to analyze in predicting inventory demand.

Therefore, ALMIS has been used in the interim to ensure that communities transforming to the new Mission Support Business Model have the necessary capabilities for

Total Asset Visibility.

With these strengths in mind, CG-LIMS will offer improvements in reducing the burden

to all units in the field providing maintenance, controlling supply costs and improving

the system of accountability in all logistics communities. The CG-LIMS project plans

to release and deploy increments of the IT system over the next several years.

According to Taylor, the first increment of CG-LIMS will be released in 2014. This first

of five segments will deliver Configuration Management and Maintenance

Management tools.

The next segment of CG-LIMS will address the multiple systems for tracking parts and

the incomplete visibility for resources used during maintenance. The project aims to

give Product Line Managers and Coast Guard officers the visibility of assets’ operational capacity through Product Line support, Bi-Level Maintenance in managing technology information and Maintenance Management used to drive supply chain management.

“In the aviation product lines, the management of parts is centralized,” Taylor

explained. “It is relatively simple for a unit to follow scheduled maintenance procedures, send back broken parts to supply centers and using the tool (ALMIS) instead of

working around it. With CG-LIMS we want it to be easy to use and carry out a procedure that is supported by an IT process.”

After the first increment of CGLIMS is released into the field

the Aviation Computer

Maintenance System (ACMS) IT

system will be retired from use.

One of the foreseeable strengths

under development for CG-LIMS

is the capability to trigger inventory restocking through direct

shipments to units based on the

location of a completed maintenance procedure. Taylor has

written in the CG-LIMS project

blog that this developing IT system’s greatest strength is its ability to support the new Mission

Support Business Model rather

than a process field units and

engineers are forced to work

around.
2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 25

A common business model for all asset support improves effectiveness, flexibility and

safety of all Coast Guard Guardians operating on the front line. It only makes sense

then that a common business model would be supported by a single IT system that

ensures complete asset visibility for improved decision making. “Ships don’t fall out of

the sky,” but we’ve learned a lot from a community where things do.

6

“Changing Winds For the Coast Guard’s Course”

Around 600 BCE, Chinese Taoist philosopher and legendary

general Sun Tzu wrote an influential work now known as The Art

of War. Though some historians dispute whether Sun Tzu actually existed, the work itself survives with a lasting impact on

Eastern and Western culture as a masterful collection of strategy

for conflict resolution. Sun Tzu writes, “What the ancients called

a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning

with ease.”

Clever in this context is not to be understood as witty, wily or devious. Rather, Sun

Tzu concisely points out the intelligent fighter with the ability to achieve victory with

the greatest proficiency, and with less effort than its opponent, will encounter the most

success. Coast Guard Modernization aims to make the Coast Guard an even more

effective victor as it tackles 21st century challenges.

In 2005, the Coast Guard confiscated nearly 340 thousand pounds of

cocaine off the U.S. coasts -- a

maritime record -- and intercepted

over nine thousand illegal immigrants. Coast Guard leaders predict that these threats are on the

rise along with a forecast of

increasingly devastating tropical

storms, climate change and a dramatic rise in commerce entering

America’s ports. Modernization is

attempting to make the Coast

Guard a more proficient victor by

using resources more efficiently

and effectively in mission execution

and support.

If there’s an overwhelming theme in Modernization and the Four Cornerstones of the

Coast Guard Mission Support Business Model, it is the desire to give the support per-
26 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition

Special Edition

M

i

s

s

i

o

n S

u

p

p

o

r

t
2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 27

sonnel and engineers in the field more of the tools they need to keep assets executing the

mission. According to CDR Dan Taylor, CG-LIMS Project Manager, there is a desire “To

make it easy to do the right thing.” In a post by Taylor on the CG-LIMS blog,

www.intelink.gov/blogs/cg-lims, he recognizes the sense of urgency to deliver a logistics IT

system to field units so there can be a more fluid transition into the new organizations

under Modernization.

In an interview with CDR John Newby about the aviation community’s transformation in the

90s, he said there was a gradual cultural shift by the community as it came to recognize a

change in business practices was needed because of the high costs required to keep aircraft off the ground.

“It took strong leadership,” Newby said. “We had to realize we were becoming an endangered species, and it was an ongoing process to really push Total Asset Visibility and

Configuration Management. Aviation gradually became a very good self-policing community by seeing how some actions created long-term hurt for a short-term gain.”

It has been reiterated by

Coast Guard leaders that

the strongest asset ever

used in the field of operations is the organization’s

dedicated and resourceful

personnel. As such, they

have used the

uscg.mil/modernization webpage as an avenue of communication for any Coast

Guard personnel wanting to

express concerns, questions

or suggestions about

Modernization. The Coast

Guard also is using blogs

and Twitter to engage the

workforce in a discussion

about Modernization.

More Modernization information is available at www.uscg.mil/modernization; on the Deputy

Commandant for Mission Support at http://dcmslog.blogspot.com; envisioned future

Operations Command at http://cgweb.lant.uscg.mil/lantarea/OPCOM/OPCOM_HOME.html;

and Force Readiness Command at http://iforcecom.blogspot.com.

Whether you support the mission or execute it, we are all Guardians. We are the true

fighters who excel at being Semper Paratus with ease. Since the organization’s inception

as the Revenue Cutter Service in 1790, the men and women serving the shield of freedom

have been, and continue to be, always ready using the tools at their disposal. The Coast

Guard is seizing an opportunity to keep the organization a 21st-century fighter so that it

will, in time, excel with greater ease achieving its victories thanks to a more accountable

support system.
28 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition

Special Edition

Coast Guard Modernization of our mission support organization attained a significant milestone last fall

when mission support was evolved into the new modernized organizational structure -- a move that

over time will bring historic new capacity for mission execution. On 27 September 2009 the Coast

Guard’s field level mission support units were realigned from the Maintenance and Logistics Commands

(MLCs) Atlantic and Pacific and from the Integrated Support Commands (ISCs) to four logistics and service

centers and their detachments nationwide.

These organizational changes created an infrastructure that realigned our ISCs, Naval Engineering Support

Units (NESUs), Electronic Support Units (ESUs), Industrial Support Activities (ISAs) and other field units by

logistics community into the new Surface Forces Logistics Center (SFLC), the Shore Infrastructure Logistics

Center (SILC), the C4IT Service Center (C4IT SC) and the Personnel Service Center (PSC) established in

spring 2009.

The processes and locations for mission support delivery didn’t change immediately, but the names of the

field units that deliver it may have changed to align mission support by asset community. For example, all

MLC naval engineering staff and ISC industrial activities now report to the Surface Forces Logistics Center

(SFLC). These changes represent a change in reporting chain from the MLCs and ISCs to the Logistics and

Service Centers. These units did not physically move.

The processes to obtain support have not changed, nor have the contacts. Operators have three ways to

get support:

• Call existing POCs (the same person you always call)

• Call the Product Line Manager (PLM) for the asset

• Call the local Primary Support Officer (PSO) (the old ISC CO)

In other words, if you used to call the ISC, now you call the logistics and service center field unit. If you

used to call the MLC, now you call the Product Line at the logistics and service center command. Your old

Mission Support 1.0 in Depth
contact at the MLC probably now works

for them. If they’re not the right person

to handle your support needs, they will

put you in touch with the correct person.

To ensure uninterrupted support and

minimize confusion about who to call, a

Primary Support Officer – called a PSO

– has been designated as a liaison to

our operational partners. Generally the

senior most Commanders of co-located

local mission support units, the PSO

is responsible for coordinating

mission support services in the

area. They will manage your

support needs, including

NESUs and ESUs, during the

transition if you are unsure

about how to get support.

2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 29
You can always go to your Command

Master Chief with questions as well.

PSOs are selecting collaborative

Command Master Chiefs for all of the

mission support units in the PSOs support region, including NESUs and ESUs.

Coast Guard Modernization set a course

to deliver a premier mission support service that evolves over time, and is poised

to anticipate and adapt to all threats and

all hazards. Leadership mapped the

strategy of one mission support organization to integrate our acquisition logistics

and maintenance functions, and to introduce a uniform, bi-level logistics system

of maintenance for the

service. We have

mapped the responsibilities and jobs from the old

organization to the new

one.

30 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition

Special Edition
2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 31

This infrastructure will eventually deliver a single

point of contact for mission support services, consistent and standardized service offerings Coast

Guard-wide and clear lines of accountability.

This will ultimately enable our operational partners to focus more directly on mission execution

and offer them historic new capacity when fully

implemented.

There will be changes to the support processes in the future as the logistics and service

centers enroll assets into product lines under

the new Coast Guard Mission Support

Business Model. Our approach for implementing future changes will be similar to

how we stood-up the small boat product

line pilot. No changes will occur without

training our people and the District, Sector

and Cutter support personnel.

Change is hard. The course we’re on will

improve effectiveness, availability and

safety for all Coast Guard members.

Note: A complete list of support services and points of contacts are in the

Mission Support Handbook, see page

52.
32 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition

Special Edition

Coast Guard Modernization is a holistic review of our

Service, focused on ensuring mission execution and

positioning the Coast Guard to meet the challenges of

today while preparing for the challenges of tomorrow. As

we confront significant growth in commercial shipping, an

expansion in coastal development, new energy exploration, and increasing activity in the Arctic, we must continue to adapt to ensure we are employing best practices

to meet the needs of our Nation. We must build a command and control structure and a Mission Support

Organization that promote mission execution.

“Moving Modernization forward to completion is one of

my highest priorities and central to my principle of

steadying the service,” said ADM Bob Papp,

Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard. “My desired end-state

is to put in place an organization that everyone understands. Our people need to know who they work for,

what their authorities are, and who to call to get the tools

they need to get their job done. These are the basic

tenets of a military organization that relate to responsibility, authority, accountability, and unity of command.”

In the Mission Support world, we’ve learned a lot since

the Maintenance and Logistics Commands (MLCs) and

Integrated Support Commands (ISCs) stood down in

October 2009 and evolved into the current Logistics and

Service Centers (LC/SCs). The resulting organization

was designed to deliver the four cornerstones of the

Mission Support Business Model: Configuration

Management, Bi-Level Maintenance, Total Asset Visibility,

and Product Line Management.

Since then, the LC/SCs have been tested in real world

contingencies, and they work well. Our support community leaned aggressively forward during the Haitian

earthquake response, and now we’re faced with the

Deepwater Horizon response in the Gulf, a true challenge to our support capabilities. Based on successes

and incorporating lessons learned from events such as

these as well as internal feedback, we are now focusing

our efforts on mission support at the point of service

delivery in the field. Clearly, the Mission Support

Organization has done an excellent job in leaning forward as evidenced by the high level of operational readiness, but contingency response support is only part of

our world of work. Every day, our operational partners

depend on logistics and service support in the field.

“I’m not convinced that we optimally structured field support in the first go around, or what we call Version 1.0 of

Modernization,” said VADM John Currier, Coast Guard

Chief of Staff. “The work of the subordinate elements to

the LC/SCs -- Base Support Units (BSUs), Electronics

Support Units (ESUs), Health Safety Work-Life Field

Offices (HSWL FOs), Naval Engineering Support Units

(NESUs), and Personnel Services and Support Units

(PSSUs) -- is exceptional and getting better all the time.

However, a more effective support structure would mirror

the command and control structure on the operations

side.”

Designing Mission Support 2.0

To build the most effective support delivery organization,

VADM Currier constituted the Field Mission Support

Delivery Integration Team (FMSD iTeam) last fall to

examine and, if appropriate, propose the most effective

field mission support delivery structure we could achieve.

He set several precepts for the Mission Support

Organization to better align with our operational partners.

FMSD Precepts:

• Ensure optimal support of operations.

• Identify efficiency opportunities for reinvestment in

field support (Sectors).

• Align structure with operations.

by CAPT Richard Gromlich, Mission Support Integration Office (DCMS-5)
2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 33

• Accommodate contingency and

normal operations.

• Map resource flows and match to

function.

• Establish career development

pathways for military and civilian

employees.

• Establish organizational constructs and business rules aligned

with the mission support model.

• Retain DCMS Logistics/Service

Centers (SFLC, SILC, ALC,

C4ITSC, PSC) product line management (bi-level).

• Push operational logistics out of

HQ.

The end state will provide operational

commanders with appropriate logistics command and control (C2) support in both steady state and contingency situations. We will be structured to provide a single point of

accountability for support delivery

coordination to areas and districts.

While the C2 structure parallels that

of operations, it will also preserve the

principle of bi-level maintenance and

service delivery in the Mission

Support Business Model. Under the

plan Logistics and Service Centers

would retain technical authority for

mission support activities and control

of resources.

Mission Support 2.0

The envisioned Mission Support

Version 2.0, which is outlined in

ALCOAST 291/2010, shifts the focus

of mission support from Headquarters

to the field both day to day and during

contingencies.

“A desired effect is to push operational

logistics service/support leadership

and management from the

Headquarters staff out to the field for

improved alignment with operational

commanders,” ADM Papp said. “This

new organization will fit seamlessly in

the Coast Guard’s fully-modernized

construct, providing operational commanders with appropriate logistics

command and control in both steady

state and contingency situations.”

A Director of Operational Logistics

(DOL) position at the Flag level will be

created in the field from an existing

flag position to direct field support in

both steady state and contingency

scenarios. The DOL will supervise

bases and be the focal point for standardization and doctrinal compliance

of support delivery. While the DOL

staff will be located in Norfolk, it will

maintain close liaison with operational

commanders through a small, colocated logistics cell embedded in

each Area staff (AREA-4) and a centralized 24/7 DCMS watch in the

LANTAREA Command Center. A

direct report to the future DCMS, the

DOL will serve as chairperson for the

Logistics and Service Centers’

Directors Council and will be a peer of

the numbered Headquarters

Directorates. In a national-level contingency operation, the DOL will

become the area commander’s

DCMS staff element.

“The DOL will provide integration of

support components through Base

Commands, conduct operational and

strategic planning in support of operations, and ensure compliance with

established doctrine throughout the

support enterprise. All of this will be

done without engaging in the bi-level

nature of support provided through

the LC/SC structure,” stated VADM

Currier.

Base Commands will be established

in certain geographic areas that currently host a significant support presence. Initially, Base Commands will

be formed in 13 locations with at least

one base per District. The Base

Commander will coordinate DCMS

activities; present a common point of

interaction with the District

Commander; and serve as the District

Commander’s DCMS staff element

during a contingency. The Base

Command will be the touch point for

the Mission Support Organization in

their respective Districts through a

small district DCMS staff element

(DIST-4.) This staff will be a Base

Command component physically

located in the District office providing

logistics awareness for the District

Commander. Under the plan, BSUs,

ESUs, HSWL FOs, NESUs and

PSSUs and their subordinate eleThe modernized support

model works by providing

efficient bi-level support to

our operational partners. The

business model’s “Four

Cornerstones” are critical

components that although

interdependent, combine into

a powerful tool that will make

optimal support into a reality.

The Four Cornerstones are:

• Configuration

Management - Process

for establishing and

maintaining consistency

of an asset’s performance, functional and

physical characteristics,

and design throughout its

service life.

• Total Asset Visibility -

The ability to provide

timely and accurate information on the location,

movement, status and

identity of units, personnel, equipment components and supplies, and

have the ability to act on

that information (enabled

by an enterprise IT

System.)

• Bi-Level Maintenance –

Services performed /provided either by a centralized service or logistics

center (D-level) or the

operational unit (O-level.)

• Product Line Manager

– Single point of

accountability; each

product line has one

product line manager

(PLM.) A means of providing focused support to

end users, while internally capitalizing on the

economies that result

from grouping like services together.

Four Cornerstones

of Mission Support
34 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition

Special Edition

ments would move to the Personnel Allowance List (PAL)

of the base.

“I want to be clear. This does not represent a return to

logistics systems of the past, where ISC commanders

provided logistics support in widely divergent ways,”

VADM Currier said. “The role of the Base Commander

differs in that we now have Logistics and Service Centers

that will maintain control of the flow of service and logistics resources and technical authority. Their product and

service lines will continue to define standardized support

processes. The DOL will ensure compliance with established doctrine.”

Under this construct there are two classes of Sector

Logistics Departments: those that are co-located with a

base command and those that are stand alone.

1. Co-located Sectors will receive a portion of mission

support shared services from the Base Command.

2. Stand alone Sectors will continue to receive support

from their organic Logistics Departments supported

by Product Lines.

Adequate resourcing of Sector Logistics Departments is

a DCMS priority, and will be addressed as a follow-on

effort under modernization 2.0.

Delivering Mission Support 2.0

The current field structure under the LC/SCs represents a

bridging strategy that permits the Coast Guard to standardize processes and identify future improvements.

From my perspective, these changes represent the

steady progression of increasing authority incrementally

granted to today’s Primary Support Officers (PSOs).

Currently, PSOs are responsible for coordination of

shared services between geographically co-located mission support field units and serve as the local mission

support representative to the operational community.

Under the current lay-down, the PSO is charged with

responsibility without authority, creating a void in the

standardizing function necessary to the current field support construct.
With the envisioned Base Command construct on the horizon, we will lean forward this hurricane season with codified

roles and responsibilities of the PSO designed to ensure greater support standardization across the Coast Guard.

Effective immediately, the new PSO roles and responsibilities will reduce duplication of effort and improve lines of communication for our operational partners. With the PSO serving as the primary point of coordination among the co-located DCMS field elements, organizational confusion will be minimized.

Upon full stand-up of Base Commands, the PSO roles and responsibilities

will transition to Base Commanders. These authorities will enable more

effective and efficient support delivery during normal and contingency

operations.

For the first time we are considering the command and control organizational structure (boxology), business rules (how we function and interrelate), and human capital strategy (military and civilian career management)

as equal components. There are strong interdependencies amongst the

three elements, and all will be addressed simultaneously to achieve success.

The DOL and 13 Phase 1 base locations (listed to the right/left) will be

established in FY11. The transition process will be completed in FY12 as

additional base locations are studied. Prior to full establishment of the

Base Command construct, authorities, rules for interaction and mission

support career paths will be well defined. The plan to adequately resource

Sector Logistics Departments also will be developed.

This transition will mature field level support delivery and best serves efficient and effective mission execution. Achieving the required effects will

require our collective dedication and hard work. There are many details to

be addressed and every effort will be made to minimize personnel impact.

We will continue to work with our union partners throughout this implementation and seek to keep you informed through regular SITREPS, blog posts

on the Mission Support Blog, and information posted on the CG Portal

DCMS page. In June 2010, VADM Currier rolled out the Mission Support

Organization 2.0 (MS 2.0) Cornerstone Document containing more

detail regarding our way forward for the next 24-36 months. The MS 2.0

Cornerstone Document and frequently asked questions (FAQs) are available on the CG Portal intranet at

https://cgportal.uscg.mil/lotus/myquickr/dcms-mission-support-organization/welcome. Questions are always welcome at AskDCMS@uscg.mil.

DCMS-5 also plans to be a regular contributor to the new mission support

magazine to provide frequent updates as the future of mission support

unfolds.

About the Author:

Captain Rick Gromlich is Director of the Mission Support Integration Office

(DCMS-5) tasked with designing and delivering the future of mission support. DCMS-5 is responsible for driving change through learning, innovation, metrics, standardization, and accountability, and provides contingency

logistics support in an all threats, all hazards environment. Prior to that, he

was Chief of the Office of Logistics (CG-44) and Director of the Logistics

Transformation Program Integration Office (LTPIO) where he played a critical role in the preliminary design and integration plans associated with the

establishment of five new Logistics and Service Centers and led the Coast

Guard’s enterprise-wide logistics transformation effort. Captain Gromlich

was recently selected for nomination to Rear Admiral Lower Half.

Base commands are

planned at:

• Phase 1 Bases:

Alameda, Boston,

Cleveland, Elizabeth

City, Headquarters,

Honolulu, Ketchikan,

Kodiak, LA/Long

Beach, Miami, New

Orleans, Portsmouth,

and Seattle.

• Phase 2/3: Planning

information for the

next Phases is being

developed and will be

posted in the future.

Future Base

Locations

2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 35
36 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition

Special Edition

Business Model as an Asset:

A Concept

Background

The Coast Guard is transforming business processes and modernizing its organization. Successful transformation

depends on understanding the target business well enough to know what needs to change in the existing business.

Having a model of the business is a huge benefit. 

Business Model

A business model, just like any model, is a representation of

a process or capability that is used for reference and hopefully simulation. Think of a boat model than can be used in a

tow tank to calculate speed capability of a full-size version.

It’s a lot less costly to work with models, especially when

analyzing the impact of change to the real thing. A business

model is exactly the same. In fact, a documented business model may be the most valuable outcome of the

Modernization and Logistics Transformation efforts.

So, why not just change and be done with it? Well, as with any asset, undocumented changes can be costly and dangerous. A business model represents the real life capability the produces the output of the enterprise. The business

enterprise might be manufacturing or service. A change to the processes or organization that delivers a product or service will likely change the quality or throughput of the product or service. Good business practice is to model and simulate the change first, to assure there is not an adverse impact on productivity or quality, before inadvertently losing a valued customer. We are still realizing the impact of streamlining on our ability to perform USCG operations.

Well, how did we know how to modernize, or even if it would

improve our service quality? It is a fair question. We actually didn’t have a documented business model as a baseline

for the entire Coast Guard. The mission support community

did have a best practice which we have established as our

first baseline of documentation for the Mission Support

Business Model. It is just a start. But, Logistics

Transformation has documented it. Other lines of business

have begun to do the same thing. We work closely with the folks in the financial line of business and the folks in operations. Each of our respective lines of business represents a segment of the entire Coast Guard Mission Support

Business Model. The CIO likes to refer to those segments of business, when they are documented properly, as segment architectures. So, “segment architecture” is just another way of describing a portion of a larger business model.

You may hear those words more frequently in the near future.

Why Care About A Business Model?

That is another fair question. To achieve the status of a “continuous improvement organization”, a documented business

model is required. To improve measurably, you have to have a baseline. A documented business model “is” the

by Jim Sylvester

Definition of a Business Model:

A representation of a process or capability that is

used for reference and simulation.

Definition of a Baseline:

A work product, or set of work products that can

be used as a logical basis for comparison.
2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 37

1 DoDAF v.1.5 is the current standard. Version 2.0 is in draft. For more information on the current DoDAF product definitions, go to: http://www.defenselink.mil/cio-nii/docs/DoDAF_Volume_II.pdf.

2 Only a selection of DoDAF views are illustrated here. See footnote #1 for a link to more information on the rest

of the DoDAF views.

baseline. “Documented” is the key word here; documentation is required for expected, consistent performance. Only

known performance can be improved. You can calculate the cost of doing business in the baseline. This is critical to

assessing the need for change, and more importantly, measuring the improvement which an implemented change ultimately delivers.

A business model can and should prevent traumatic change to the business capability over short periods of time. It

should provide a systematic means to assess and control proposed improvements to the business in a routine way.

How is a Business Model an Asset?

The business model represents the capability of a business, just like a hard asset might. A ship, plane or facility has a

finite amount of operational capability which we hope to sustain for the life of the asset, so that we can predict the availability of that operational capability. We need the capability of the business model to be sustained the same way. The

model must be brought under configuration control using industry standard configuration management processes. It

has maintenance requirements. It even has supply (resource) requirements. And, the documentation of the model is

inherently technical data. The model can and should be treated as any other asset. Now the crazy part! The very

activities and processes documented in the DCMS model are the same process we need to use to sustain the model.

Wrap your head around that one!

What is Configuration Management (CM) for a Business Model?

The MIL-HDBK-61A standard for configuration management is actually written to include soft assets. Based upon the

national consensus standard EIA-649 (EIA is the Electronic Industries Alliance), the standard is well prepared to manage product components largely represented by technical data.

So, what is a configuration item (CI) for a business model? On an aircraft, a CI might be an engine, a critical component of capability which due to its potential modes of failure is justifiably under configuration control. What is the analogy in a business model? What “are” the parts of a business model which might represent a CI? Well, thanks to some

really smart folks in the Department of Defense (DoD), we don’t have to invent that. They developed something called

the DoD Architectural Framework, or, DoDAF1

. It is both a framework and a methodology by which to document a capability; any capability, including a business model. I won’t make this article a 101 course on DoDAF, but the framework

defines very specific products (known as “views”) in very specific formats, which lend themselves quite well to the definition of a CI.

Operational views describe “what”, “how” and “where” the capability is expected to function including descriptions of interactions with other capabilities which may already be in operation. System views describe the systems which support

the operation. A deployable operational group (DOG) is a capability whose systems might include boats, communications, weapons and logistics support systems. Technical views describe the technology standards which the systems

will employ, and normally support compatibility, standardization, and security requirements.

The views2

, as the name implies, provide different perspectives on a capability within an organization. One of the views

is in fact, is the organizational diagram known as operational view four (OV-4). Modernization just finished an OV-4.

Other views include activity diagrams and low level process diagrams. The process diagrams can and should be linked

to requirements in a repository. Properly done, the completed model can be viewed from several angles, to determine

what operational activities and processes are occurring at a given location or in a given sub-organization, and which

systems are supporting those activities, with which technologies. The “really” amazing part is that the model can actually be put into simulation if the processes are defined with input, output and frequency parameters.

The views allow an enterprise to analyze where the effects of a proposed change would have an impact, while being

able to quantify that impact through simulation. This enables the application of standard systems engineering processes

(also in the model) as well as the implementation of standard engineering change proposal processes (also in the

model). 

The CI’s in the model may even be allocated to a variety of product types (which would represent the product baseline)

in the physical world. These components may be policy documents, process guides, IT systems, electronics and more.
38 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition

Special Edition

Maintenance?

Yes, a completed model requires maintenance in

the form of system architects and requirements

managers who assure that the technical data representing the model are as accurate as possible,

and that the tools to manage the model are updated

per the CIO’s standards. Tools? Who said anything

about tools? Yes, like any asset, the model requires

tools to perform maintenance on it. The Coast Guard has

chosen two primary tools to that end. They are System

Architect (SA), for developing and maintaining DoDAF views

and process diagrams, and DOORS, for recording and managing requirements, which are linked to the process diagrams

in SA. Together the data in both tools represent the documented model. These tools are provided by CG-6 as enterprise tools

via the CG Enterprise Architecture website on the TEAMS tab.

And yes, the notion of Bi-Level maintenance is easily applied to a

business model if we consider that the owner of a particular segment has organizational maintenance responsibility for that segment, but changes which involve other segments or the

model as a whole, may require “depot” level maintenance (perhaps from the C4IT Service Center).

Supply – Total Asset Visibility?

Maintenance of a business model consumes resources in the form of time, money and computer resources. They are

predictable, just as any supply chain is, based on the maintenance requirements and engineering change proposals
2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 39

which sustain the capability of the model. The very existence and visibility of the models which

constitute our Coast Guard business (enterprise architecture) will provide total visibility across

lines of business for that asset known as the business model.

Is There a Product Line for this Asset?

Quite likely this asset falls under the support purview (not ownership) of the C4IT Service

Center due to the nature of the components the asset is comprised of. The line of business

(DCMS in our case) still “owns” the capability, just as the operational community “owns” the

requirements behind the capability of a ship, aircraft or facility, even though those assets have

product lines in respective logistics centers.

Conclusion

It should be clear that a business model absolutely can be managed as any other asset using

the same industry standard processes for configuration, maintenance, supply chain and technical data management. Moreover, the same Four Cornerstones (configuration management, bilevel maintenance, total asset visibility and product line management) which the Commandant

has emphasized as the foundation of mission support, apply perfectly. Not only can a documented business model be managed that way, it should be managed that way to deliver

expected capabilities at an expected cost.

DCMS has already begun the effort of developing a configuration management plan for our

segment of the architecture. We are in the early stages of development but, we expect that the

plan will assign configuration authority for high, middle and lower level configuration items.

Configuration Control Boards will be chartered and clear authority over specific CI’s will be

defined in the respective lower level configuration management plans. At a high level, a CI

might be represented by an entire set of DoDAF views and linked requirements. One obvious

level of control authority may derive from the official Technical Authorities which exist, and

which may align well with segment architectures. At the lowest level, a single process or a single skill set and its linked requirements may represent a CI.

It should be made clear that the CIO’s staff at headquarters and at OSC has provided outstanding support in the provision of standard tools, training and methodologies to accomplish this

work. Likewise the folks working for the CFO have allowed us to review their modeling work,

and vice versa. Amazingly, segment business models are now residing in the same enterprise

tools where segment interfaces can be documented and/or analyzed.

Once base-lined, the fully documented business model will allow us to: (1) define expected performance; (2) estimate performance cost; (3) identify gaps; (4) eliminate redundancy; (5) validate proposed improvement; and (6) support continuous learning. From the CIO’s perspective,

documenting and maintaining a business model this way, fully supports the requirements of an

Enterprise Architecture, while providing inherent governance processes and predictable business outcomes through simulation.

And, we didn’t have to invent anything. Woohoo!

Now, that wasn’t “too” abstract, was it?

About the Author:

Jim Sylvester is the Chief of the Logistics Systems Division, CG-442, and part of the mission support organization. In addition, he worked in the Logistics Management Transportation Office (LMTO) which built the

business case for logistics transformation. This led to the formation of the Logistics Transformation Program

Integration Office (LTPIO) of which he is a member, and the Mission Support Planning and Integration Team

(MSPAIT) of which he was a member. Finally, he also serves as the sponsor’s representative for the Coast

Guard Logistics Information Management System (CG-LIMS) acquisition. 
40 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition

Special Edition

TheLogistics Transformation Division (CG-445) has teamed up with the Office of AeronauticalEngineering (CG-41), subject matter experts from CG Headquarters, the newly formed

Asset Project Office (APO), the Surface Forces Logistics Center’s (SFLC) Small Boat Product Line

(SBPL), and the Aviation Logistics Center (ALC) to develop a Logistics Compliance Inspection (LCI)

program for use at transformed Sectors. The Logistics Transformation process fundamentally

changes the way units operate and support their fleet of assigned boats. The LCI ensures Sectors

are in compliance with these new methods which have been established within the Mission Support

Business Model. Logistics Compliance Inspections, while new to the shore and surface communiLogistics Transformation 

“Checks and Balances”:

John Carignan, from the Aviation Logistics Center, performs an inventory compliance check as part of a recent LCI for Logistics Transformation.

The Logistics Compliance Inspection

(LCI) by Rodney L. Gipe*, CG-445

LCI Program Lead

*Editor’s note: Mr Gipe retired from the Coast Guard in June 2010.
2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 41

ties, are not new to the Coast Guard. CG-41 has managed a LCI program for Coast Guard Air Stations and it is

this “best practice” that’s being used as a model to

ensure logistics compliance at units which have undergone Logistics Transformation.

Logistics Compliance Inspections are performed approximately 6-12 months after the initial deployment at the

Sectors/Groups (and their subunits), by a LCI Team consisting

of a team leader (usually a CAPT or CDR) who is assisted by various subject matter experts. Thirty days prior to the scheduled onsite

inspection, a memorandum is sent to the Sector Commander setting the

dates of the inspection, identifying the LCI Team Leader, and providing the

current LCI checklist. Utilizing these checklists, the inspections are conducted to

assess a unit’s adherence to the various aspects of the Mission Support Business

Model, including maintenance procedures, quality assurance program, supply operations and support equipment management (all included in the comprehensive Logistics

Transformation training received 6-12 months prior). While the process may identify

gaps in unit performance, it may also identify gaps in program policy and process guidance, as well as deficiencies in the training provided to unit personnel. In all cases the

findings are used to improve unit capability and compliance, and to strengthen the

Logistics Transformation deployment process as depicted below. Additionally, the team

of subject matter experts is available to answer specific questions that the unit might

have since they underwent transformation training.

In 2009, Sector Baltimore, Sector San Francisco and Group Humboldt Bay successfully

completed an initial Logistics Compliance Inspection (LCI) during the final phase of the

Logistics Transformation process. These were the first of the Sector Rollout LCIs and

they provided validation to the LCI process. Some gaps and deficiencies were found

and either immediately corrected or guidance was given for correction. The LCI for the

supply section actually revealed that both the dollar value accuracy rating and the line

item accuracy were found to be well above CFO standards, which demonstrates that

the Mission Support Business Model is moving the Coast Guard towards CFO

Compliance.

LCIs have been conducted at all Sectors and Groups in District 11 and Group Port

Angeles in District 13 and additional LCI inspections are forthcoming. In the near term,

LCIs will be expanded to include cutters once they are transformed into the Mission

Support Business Model. In support of a future LCI program under the envisioned

Deputy Commandant for Mission Support (DCMS), new policy will be developed to

standardize current LCIs and introduce LCIs to the Logistics and Service Centers.

That’s right; the LCI program will not just inspect field units for compliance, but also the

units that exist to support them. Finally, the MIssion Support Organization will coordinate inspection schedules and LCI data with FORCECOM (FC-7) in the near future in

support of changes in responsibility under Coast Guard Modernization.

For more information on the LCI schedule and completed inspection reports, please

visit the DCMS electronic Program Management Office (ePMO) database. 

The LCI helps to satisfy the critical

CHECK component

of the Logistics

Transformation continuous improvement cycle. Output

of the LCI is ACT-ed

upon to improve

program guidance,

transformation training, or unit compliance, and to incorporate into deployment planning for

future implementations. 
42 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition

Special Edition

Coast Guard Mission

Support has undergone

substantial change in

the past year, but the

work is not yet complete. The recent

change in the mission

support structure,

implemented in the field

on 27 September 2009,

focused primarily on

establishing five

Logistics/Service

Centers (LC/SC) and the

Asset Project Office

(APO) to support the

Coast Guard Mission

Support Business

Model. These changes

were a realignment of

the support organization

intended to prepare the

field to receive support

through product lines.

Logistics

Transformation of

the Patrol Boat

Product Line
2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 43

Now fully established, the five LC/SCs are squarely focused on establishing product line support under a

standardized business model with assistance of the APO. This is an update of the progress being made in

one of those product lines -- the Patrol Boat Product Line.

On 01 October 2009, the Surface Forces Logistics Center (SFLC) stood up the Patrol Boat Product Line

(PBPL), which supports the 87’ Coastal Patrol Boat (CPB), the 110’ Island Patrol Boat (WPB), and will include

the SENTINEL Class Patrol Boat. The SENTINEL class, one of the first new acquisitions expected to be

delivered since modernizing, will be provided in accordance with the new Coast Guard Mission Support

Business Model. The PBPL is one of five product lines operating under the Surface Forces Logistics Center

(SFLC). The PBPL and the other four product lines: the Ice Breaker, Buoy, and Construction Tender Product

Line; the Long Range Enforcer Product Line; the Medium Endurance Cutter Product Line; and the Small Boat

Product Line provides a full spectrum of logistics and maintenance support to the Coast Guard's fleet of surface assets thru implementation of bi-level maintenance, product line support, total asset visibility, and configuration management.

On 26 October 2009, the PBPL initiated a pilot program on CGC OSPREY and SWORDFISH, two 87’ Patrol

Boats in Group Port Angeles, to test the maintenance tracking and asset visibility processes used in both the

aviation community and the Small Boat Product Line. The pilot program introduced the cutter community to

the Electronic Asset Logbook (EAL) and the Asset Configuration and Maintenance System (ACMS) which are

two of the tools contained in the Asset Logistics Management Information System (ALMIS) IT suite. The

goals of the program were to test business processes for reporting and updating cutter status to provide the

operational commander full visibility of operational resources as well as validating new maintenance procedure cards developed to support the 87’ Patrol Boat fleet.

The pilot program was a culmination of months of planning, establishing the baseline configuration of the 87’

Patrol Boat, including detailed analysis of all cutter systems to identify maintenance requirements in the bilevel support model, as well as the parts necessary to support maintenance. The pilot began with two weeks

of instruction providing cutter crews training on the IT tools as well as new business processes. The cutter

crews exercised the new tools and processes and helped the implementation team refine procedures to support the cutter community. The pilot successfully demonstrated that ALMIS can be used to support cutter

maintenance and provide total asset visibility. Furthermore, it demonstrated that one IT tool can be used to

support all Aircraft, Small Boats and Cutters and eliminated the need for 87’ Patrol Boats, once modernized,

to submit CASREP’s to request logistics support. Following the success of the pilot, the transformation was

expanded to include the five remaining 87’ Patrol Boats assigned to the 13th District, the five 87’ Patrol Boats

assigned to Sector Hampton Roads in the 5th District, and the fifteen 87’ Patrol Boats in the 7th District.

The PBPL has identified more than 255 organizational level (O-level) scheduled maintenance tasks and 191

maintenance procedures to do those tasks. The PBPL has developed 165 maintenance procedures that provide detailed guidance to field units in the execution of maintenance procedures. Over the next several

months, the PBPL will develop maintenance procedures for the remaining O-level tasks. The maintenance

deck for the 87’ Patrol Boats comprises a combination of maintenance tasks previously promulgated in the

87’ Patrol Boat preventative maintenance manual and newly identified maintenance tasks; all of which are

intended to increase asset reliability. Additionally, more than 340 corrective maintenance tasks have been

identified and procedures for these tasks are being developed.

To complete the modernization initiative for the 87’ Patrol Boats, the PBPL is currently developing the supply

chain inventories, processes, and units allowances to support both scheduled and corrective maintenance.

In the near future, the supply module will be deployed to all previously transformed 87’ Patrol Boats. Once

implemented, all modernized 87’ Patrol Boats will be in a pushed logistics system, meaning that most parts

required for scheduled and corrective maintenance will be provided. The lessons learned from this pilot will

be incorporated into the transition plan for the rest of the 87’ Patrol Boat fleet as well as the Integrated

Logistics Support Plan for the SENTINEL class. Currently, DCMS-5, CG-4445, and PBPL are working with

CG-751, CG-45, and the District Cutter Managers to schedule future Patrol Boat rollouts.

Modernization is moving forward and will take many small steps such as this in the relentless pursuit of a

more efficient and effective Coast Guard. In the long run, this will make our Service better stewards of the

taxpayer’s money and will provide our Operators with predictable availability so that we can remain Semper

Paratus.
44 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition

Special Edition

As should be readily apparent to all Coast

Guard personnel (unless you’ve been on

leave for the past two years), the Coast

Guard established a new Mission Support

organization under the command of the

Deputy Commandant for Mission Support.

The intent of this new organization is to

achieve a consistent Mission Support

Business Model for asset management, foster sustainability through standard, repeatable and scalable processes, as well as disciplined configuration management, enterprise-wide decision-making, and predictable

logistics support. In plain English – this

means the Coast Guard desires to forecast

(with certainty) how much it will cost to operate an asset, and to be able to tie that cost to

operational capabilities, so that Operational

Commanders can operate assets to the level

to which they are funded, and select those

assets that may most efficiently execute the

missions they need accomplished.

by LCDR Matt Lake, 

CAPT John Bragaw and 

Mr. Debu Ghosh

Small Boat Product Line

Coast Guard Small Boat Product Line –

Executing

Logistics

Modernization
2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 45

Part of this transformation is to shift from fragmented

support from multiple entities to a unified logistics system

based on a bi-level maintenance model, consisting of

depot and organizational (unit) level maintenance. The

intent is to streamline service to the field, giving operators

more efficient access to the tools they need to execute

the day-to-day missions, to fully capture all operating and

maintenance costs, and to achieve the Commandant’s

goal of “affordable readiness.” A fundamental part of this

new construct is the Product Line, the single point of

accountability and responsiveness for all support of an

asset type.

In 2007, a pilot Small Boat Product Line (SBPL), comprised of a small contingent of personnel from the legacy

Engineering Logistics Center (ELC) was formed within

the Asset Project Office (APO) and tasked by Logistics

Transformation with implementing and maintaining the

new Coast Guard Mission Support Business Model for

Sector Baltimore’s small boats. After this initial pilot, and

further testing at Sector San Francisco, enough data was

compiled to expand the effort. On October 1, 2008, the

SBPL was broadened significantly, and charged with

aligning and merging all boat support resources, personnel, and processes from NESUs, MLCs and the ELC

under one single organization, to support all 1,850 Coast

Guard boats. Currently, the SBPL supports all shore and

cutter-based boats located at both modernized and nonmodernized units throughout the entire Coast Guard, with

a staff of 117 military, civilians, and contractors assigned

to 13 support units. As of July 2010, all Sectors in

Districts One, Five, Seven, Eight, Eleven and Thirteen

have undergone this new transformation. By the end of

calendar year 2010, the remaining Sectors are expected

to be incorporated into the Mission Support Business

Model. In 2011 and beyond, DOG Units and Cutter

boats will be included in this transformation. 

The Coast Guard has stood up four other Surface Forces

Product Lines since October 2009. These Product Lines

are modeled in a similar fashion as SBPL, and will incorporate many of the lessons learned thus far as they

begin to transform to the new CG Logistics model.

Organization:

As shown in Figure (1), SBPL is comprised of four

branches: Engineering, Supply, Programmed Depot

Maintenance (PDM) and Procurement. The primary interface between field units and the Product Line is through

the Engineering and PDM branches. The Engineering

branch provides maintenance management, emergency

repairs, and technical oversight for all boats. This

includes responsibility for casualty response, Time

Compliance Technical Orders (TCTO) (which supersedes

the Alteration/Engineering Change process),

Maintenance Procedure Cards (MPCs), Depot

Maintenance Specification approval, Engineering

Waivers, spare parts allowance requirements, and “safe

for sea” determinations. The PDM branch is responsible

for management and execution of all programmed

(planned) depot maintenance activities, most notably 4-

year dry dock availabilities for non-outboard powered

boats. The Supply branch ensures items are stocked on

the shelves (both at field units and at the depot warehouses at SFLC and ALC), and that parts, tools, and

equipment are delivered on-time in support of organizational and depot maintenance activities. The

Procurement branch is responsible for supporting all procurement activities associated with

the Product Line. 

As of July 2010, SBPL supports

approximately 699 boats in the

new Mission Support Business

Model. This support includes provision of casualty repairs and

maintenance support over $50,

enrollment in the Asset Logistics

Management Information System

(ALMIS), and adherence to new

business practices, aligned with the

new CG Logistics Model. The

remaining boats in the Coast

Guard are managed under a unified set of traditional business

practices outlined in the Small Boat

Product Line Process Guide. The

boats assigned to non-modernized

units receive all casualty repairs

and maintenance support over

$500 from the SBPL. In the case

of both modernized and non-modernized asset support, funding

Figure (1). Small Boat Product Line

Organization
46 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition

Special Edition

resources are pooled, and managed centrally. This

enables SBPL to more efficiently manage funding, and

ensure a more uniform level of readiness is maintained

throughout the fleet.

Prior to consolidating boat maintenance funding (when

NESUs managed boat maintenance funding by District),

as a NESU ran out of money for their respective area of

responsibility, there was little recourse but to defer maintenance until additional funding was received (and often

this did not occur for some time). This typically yielded

deferred maintenance to the long-term detriment of readiness and life-cycle cost. For example, in District Eight,

maintenance costs are consistently higher than the rest

of the Coast Guard (due to lack of Coast Guard industrial

facilities and the high cost of commercial work in the gulf

region following several major hurricanes), and thus

material condition of the entire District Eight boat fleet

suffered. Upon standing up SBPL, there were certain

District Eight boats that had gone six years without a formal drydock availability, and several that required more

than $100,000 of hull plating renewal and other significant work. By centrally managing the funding and maintenance activity, this issue is now gradually being

addressed, and has better visibility among those making

resource decisions. Central management of funding has

also enabled SBPL to inform CG-731 when a particular

boat is consuming far in excess of the funding provided,

and thus allowing them to replace these assets with others that are capable of meeting assigned missions more

cost efficiently.

New Business Processes:

Both modernized and non-modernized units are subject

to new business processes under the new construct,

which may seem foreign to those that have served a

career working in or with Boat or Cutter Forces. A summary of a few of these changes are:

• Asset Lines: Each major boat class is managed by

an Asset Line Manager (ALM). The ALM has a team of

personnel (contractors and military members) that provide all engineering support for a respective boat class.

The ALM is the “touch point” for all issues relating to

the particular boat class. There is also a Tier 2/3 Asset

Line that handles the multitude of non-standard boats,

and those boat classes that do not yet have sufficient

configuration data to be fully supported in the Mission

Support Business Model. A recently formed Cutter

Boat Asset Line manages all boats assigned to cutters.

• Deferred Maintenance: Under the new business

rules, the SBPL generally cannot defer planned depot

maintenance. Deferral of planned depot maintenance

results in un-intended long-term damage to both reliability and cost that are not easily predicted or mitigated.

An example is the current state of our 378’ WHEC fleet,

in which depot maintenance (both corrective and

planned) was deferred continuously for years. It is the

responsibility of the Coast Guard (as part of the new

business model) to operate boats at the level to which

they are funded. It is the responsibility of the Product

Line to publish maintenance requirements, associated

lifecycle costs, and endeavor to minimize costs at a

proscribed level of readiness. This “cost per operating

hour” is something that SBPL recently defined for all

major boat classes, leveraging data from ALMIS and

traditional logistics IT systems. This key deliverable

provides CG-DCO critical information they need to optimize employment of their fleet.

• Time Compliance Technical Orders (TCTOs): The

TCTO replaces the Engineering Change as the configuration change implementation tool in the Mission

Support Business Model. The TCTO process generally

provides increased focus on business case analyses for

executing a change; changes that address top operational degraders and cost drivers (those issues that

have greatest impact on the “bottom line”) float to the

top of the “to do” list. Those that do not yield life-cycle

savings, address safety issues, compliance with

law/regulation, or do not improve operational readiness

are not approved. Changes that yield increases in

operational capability (that impact total ownership cost)

are funded with money allocated by CG-7 or CG-9 (during sustainment and acquisition respectively). Fortyfour legacy Engineering Changes (many of which had

not been touched for 5-6 years) were disapproved by

the FY2009 headquarters Configuration Control Board

(CCB) because they did not contribute significant lifecycle savings or operational value. The forty-four

Engineering Changes were worth $11M, or the equivalent of 5 years of boat recapitalization funding, which

now can be spent on changes that impact readiness

and efficiency.

• Maintenance Procedure Cards (MPCs): Modernized

units have access to new MPC “decks” modeled after

aviation MPCs. These MPCs provide much greater

detail than legacy PMS cards, and specify exact tools,

provide schematics, photos, and other useful information. Organizational-level MPCs are written to be

accomplished at the E-4 level. Furthermore, depot

maintenance (which includes depot specifications,

MPCs, and other activities not considered “organizational” maintenance) are managed by SBPL. This does

not mean that field units cannot (or are unable to) perform depot maintenance; rather SBPL verifies that the

entity performing the maintenance has the proper tools,

qualifications, certifications, and skills to accomplish the

work effectively.

• Engineering Waivers: The Engineering Waiver

process is an important tool for the SBPL. The

process, as it applies to the SBPL, allows the SBPL to
2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 47

re-classify a disabling discrepancy as a restrictive discrepancy, and to allow for deviation from published

procedures or requirements. The authority to issue an

Engineering Waiver resides with (1) Sector EO for

restrictive discrepancies and (2) the governing product line, (i.e., the SBPL has the authority to issue

engineering waivers for all small boats).

The Operational Commander has the sole authority to

issue an Operational Waiver, and to determine whether

the asset is capable of performing its assigned missions, or whether some operating limitations should be

placed on the asset after the Engineering Waiver is

issued.

Challenges:

The following are some of the challenges currently

faced by SBPL:

• During transformation, boat maintenance procurement activity is centralized and absorbed into the

Product Line, however, not all personnel resources,

specifically supply and procurement support folks,

have been reassigned to address this shift in workload. 

• SBPL does not have centralized large scale contracts in place yet to procure and stock mass quantities of parts on the shelf. Thus, parts are procured

“piecemeal” which has a tremendous administrative

burden and costs more money. Within the next 12

months, SBPL will have approximately 60-70% of all

major boat class’ parts on a large-scale contract. 

• There are challenges with configuration management at the “piece-part” level on boats. Thanks to

STAN and other Boat Forces standardization programs, configuration management for boats is very

good compared to other Surface assets; however,

given the decentralized manner in which boats have

been maintained for the past 50 years, standardization

at the component level must be improved. SBPL is

developing documentation (in the form of Illustrated

Parts Breakdowns) that will help the CG establish this

improved configuration management. This component-level configuration control is critical for a centralized supply system to function correctly.

• There is a significant surge workload to overcome

in establishing centralized depot maintenance and

service contracts, critical to obtaining cost efficiencies

and reducing demand for additional personnel.

• There are more than 26 known boat systems that

were repaired and supported at the intermediate level

by various entities around the Coast Guard. There

were many more intermediate level repair activities

that had minimal visibility. All of this work must be

captured and analyzed, to determine if it is appropriate to manage and execute at the depot or organizational level.

• Geographic distribution is a challenge for SBPL;

this distribution demands creative use of technology,

and relentlessly ensuring the channels of communication stay open.

Successes:

The following are some key successes of the new business model, as applied in the SBPL:

• Daily interaction between SBPL and CG-731 (who

represents Boat Forces units) enable SBPL to have

much greater insight into operational need, prioritization of work, and future state of Boat Forces.

• Achieved $2 Million in Coast Guard labor and unitlevel cost avoidance (while increasing reliability)

through modification of MPCs and maintenance frequency.

• Leveraged Original Equipment Manufacturers to

develop and identify technical solutions to a multitude

of engineer problems, enabling SBPL to promulgate

27 TCTOs between November 2008 and October

2009. Previously, ELC averaged 10 Engineering

Changes per year.

• Leveraged ALMIS, Fleet Logistics System, and

other IT data to identify “Top 5 Operational Degraders

and Cost Drivers” for the major boat classes, enabling

SBPL to focus efforts on those changes that have the

greatest impact to the “bottom line” (operational readiness and life cycle cost).

• Aligned a very diverse set of policy and procedures

between Sectors, Districts, NESUs, MLC and SFLC

into a single SOP for maintenance management for

all small boats.

Additional information regarding SBPL, Mission Support

Business Model, and boat specific information may be

found at the SBPL website:

http://cgweb.sflc.uscg.mil/SFLCWeb/SBPL/SBPL.aspx.
From the Deckplate

48 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition

Special Edition

View

Modernization Series: Field Impacts 

This is a lengthy post but I highly recommend you read it so you can understand how modernization is impacting

our field units.

by BMCS Jeremy McConnell and

MKC John Christie:

As Officers in Charge (OIC) and

Engineer Petty Officers (EPOs) in the

Coast Guard we have been taught

over and again that pride in ownership

and craftsmanship is one of the most

endearing qualities that we can bring

to a unit. We know that many in the

current Coast Guard are having some

strong feelings about the modernization effort taking place in the small

boat world. As an OIC and EPO of a

station that went through modernization, we were skeptical and uneasy

with such a bold step. Numerous

thoughts ran through our head, such

as: What do you mean it is not my

boat!; You are taking HOW MUCH of

my budget!; I do not want anybody

micro-managing me on how I run my

department. After going through the

process, all we can say is that the

transformation should have happened

a long time ago.

We both transferred this year leaving

the modernized world and talked on

numerous occasions about how we

stepped back two years in time. While

we still remembered how to do the job

the old way, we knew that it can be

done a much easier way that can benefit all involved. We decided to provide

some positives and negatives to both

at the OIC and EPO levels that we discovered during the entire modernization transformation. We do not have

enough time and bandwidth to talk

about all the issues and topics, but we

will hit the big topics.

From an EPO perspective:

Inventory: As you all know, each unit

inventory was pretty much stripped

from them during the Field Unit

Inventory Removal Project (FUIRP)

and the Inventory Control and

Compliance Program (ICCP). Out of

approximately 320 line items, we had

around 150 items taken from us and

relocated to Elizabeth City. From a

positive stand point, that was 150 less

items that I was accountable for.

Inventories became a lot easier, but I

did not have the parts that I needed at

times and sometimes condition F parts

would show up leaving you 2 more

days behind the repair of the asset.

Where as after the modernization, I

could order parts and have them in 1

to 2 days.

Preventative Maintenance System

(PMS): In my opinion, this was one of

the most needed transformations.

While each unit had the resources to

complete the task, not every unit was

completing the task properly or on

time. Many feel that they were or are

going to be micromanaged or that they

have big brother watching them. While

it may be unsettling for some to be

watched, if you do your job like normal

you will not have a problem. In the old

school of doing PMS, we all know how

it happened, one section would complete all the PMS while their currency

hours or training would lag behind.

Vice versa for the other section. With

modernization it could not be simpler.

PMS is prescheduled for you and

divided up so you don’t have 15 tasks

come due on one day. Monday you

may have 1 or 2 items, Tuesday you

may have none. Wednesday you may

have one and Thursday you may have

2 or 3. The tasks were tracked and

parts would show up ahead of time for

PMS that was due 1 to 2 weeks down

the road. Yes the Sector could keep

track of where you were on maintenance and your OIC was privy to this

information but as I said earlier, if you

are doing your job as you should, you

will have nothing to worry about.

The one unfortunate item is that there

will no longer be a unit asset per say.

While CG 41485 is attached to

Hobucken, a need may arise in the

sector, district or Coast Guard to move

41485 to another station and give

Hobucken some other UTB. In the

pre-modernization Coast Guard this

was unheard of and frowned upon by

many. Units take pride in their boats. It

is a symbol of who they are and how

hard they work. No unit ever wants to

give away their boat. That boat is

theirs and they want nothing more than

to show it off and compare it to other

units.

From an OIC perspective:

As an OIC, we are graded on our personnel, our operations, proper training,

and the ability to properly maintain our

assets and facilities. We are looked at

from multiple angles and dissected to

the tenth degree, often spending

numerous hours trying to cover our

stern in every way. We wear many

hats and try to instill the very traditions

that were upheld by so many before

us. We live to help those in peril and

protect those who could not protect

themselves. The way we do things in

many ways had not changed for years,

Editor’s Note: The EE&LQ, with permission of BMCS Jeremy McConnell and MKC John Christie, is reprinting their

post found on the iCommandant blog site on December 22, 2009. This is a field perspective of modernization and

their experience with the Modernization Effort.
2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 49

just tweaked in order to accommodate

new platforms or environmental

changes. We are protective and proud

of our abilities and the empowerment

the Coast Guard Regulations Manual

affords us. With that said, let us be

realistic and truthful to the big picture.

We live in a different world now. Our

world is now understanding Force

Optimization, management of resource

and employment hour goals, currency

data for boat crews, and ensuring

every data goal is met all the while still

doing the very things we were expected to do before. I have talked to some

fellow OICs and they feel micro-managed and like someone is looking over

their shoulder. I understand that and

can identify with that way of thinking.

But we need to realize that this change

is beneficial and creates new tools to

benefit our units and our Coast Guard.

Assets: We all have lived by the philosophy of: Do whatever you have to do

to get the boat operational. We all

spent late nights working on boats, driving long distances to pick up parts,

and countless man hours and stress

worry about making sure no one had to

cover our AOR. We did what we had

to do to make it happen. In the modernization, when a boat is put into

Charlie and the unit is not capable of

meeting its required SAR or LE coverage, Sectors and units must look to

each other for help. This is where we

must change our thinking but still keep

the status quo of unit pride in an asset.

We did not want our boat in Charlie,

and we did not want to send our boat

somewhere else. It was ours and only

ours. Each of us knows that judgment

is often passed by others by just looking at boats from another unit. Let us

be honest, some time in our careers

we have all said: wow, look at that

boat, they don’t take care of their

boats, that unit must stink. As OICs,

we all know this and often strive to create a positive reputation in the eyes of

others, especially fellow OICs. It is one

thing to have a BM3 say that, but when

a fellow OIC says that, that is a peer

talking.

OICs are a prideful group, a group that

often looks to each other for advice

and ideas, but when you are not

viewed in a positive light, your phone

might not ring as much. So yes this

might sound petty, but it is true. Often

we do not want to send one of our

boats to another unit because they

might not take the time and effort to

properly care for your boat like your

unit does. You can still take the time

and effort to show your unit pride. Set

your standards high and expect nothing less than before. Belief in the

cause is paramount and think about

the impression and influence you will

send to other fellow OICs, not to mention their crew.

Money: Yes, they take 69 percent of

your Standard Support Levels (SSL)

budget for the platforms. Yes, that

hurts but let us put it in perspective. At

least 60 percent of your annual budget

for each boat type goes to engineering.

Once your unit is modernized, every

item needed to be purchased for your

platforms over fifty dollars is paid for by

the modernization project. Any item

needed for the boat over fifty dollars.

That covers the Deck side too and really is not as big a hit as you think. As

the system is up and running for

awhile, just think about when Rescue

and Survival (RS) items are added to

the mix. The RS system ordered

through this system would benefit the

unit because we all know; each unit

spends more on RS than what they are

budgeted for. I will be excited to see it.

They are already receiving feedback on

the data they have collected from modernized units on where funding is

needed and not. When I sat down with

the Commandant a couple of weeks

ago he put the finance side of my

issues to rest when he said: Last year

we had over 13 million dollars in purchases for over 10 million dollars in

items we already had in excess parts

in the Coast Guard. We already had

the parts!! We need this change in

order to get more funding.

If that does not help, look at it the way

the Logistics Transformation Program

Integration Office (LTPIO) team put it to

me. When you go to change a spark

plug how long does it take? The common response was ten minutes. If you

add it up, after you order the part, get

your tools, start, stop, finish putting

everything back, it is an hour later. The

problem with the boat world is we have

been getting paid and funded for ten

minutes instead of one hour.

PMS: This is one of the most helpful

items in the entire modernization project. As an OIC you go to the EPO

and check the PMS logs and hope that

everything is done well and the boats

are ready to go. This cuts out the

worry if the PMS is being done properly. Through the Aviation Computerized

Maintenance System (ACMS), which

has been tailored to the small boat

community, you can track the PMS

schedule and progress for each asset.

The system also provides you with a

compounded list of overdue PMS that

is pending on your boats. This system

justifies the OICs decision to take a

boat down for PMS. Once there is

PMS overdue on an asset, the boat is

to be in a Charlie status until the PMS

is done.

Each of us know when a MISHAP arises, they pull all records and review

each item to ensure we were doing our

job properly. This system covers our

stern by making sure each PMS items

is done and done correctly. Having the

Engineer Officer capable of seeing the

PMS lists also helps plan accordingly

for trends and possible catastrophic

events that can occur. Yes, it seems

like someone is looking over your

shoulder but look at it like another set

of eyes helping you be at the top of

your game.

As we stated earlier, these are just

some of our observations and how we

felt about the process. We did not

agree on everything but if you cannot

tell, we drank the Kool Aid and like it.

We feel it is exactly where the Coast

Guard needs to go and we are glad it

is happening. We are a society that

doesn’t change well. We take our work

personally and feel when change happens it is because we did something

wrong. We did not do something

wrong, we did the very best work with

what we had. The best work in the

world. This change is to help better the

system to make it better for us. That is

our view anyway. This is one of those

things where we must give a little to

gain a lot. Be open to it, the Kool Aid

does not taste that bad.
50 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition

Special Edition
2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 51

On June 5, 2009, the Mission Support

Log (http://dcmslog.blogspot.com) was

launched with a post from Mr. Tom

Chaleki, entitled “Git R Done.” The blog

is intended to give a straight-forward,

clear language approach to sharing

updates and having open discussion as

the Coast Guard transitions to the future

Deputy Commandant for Mission

Support (DCMS) organization. Since

the launch, over 11,000 people -- nearly

all of the 12,000 people strong future

DCMS organization, have visited the site

with more than 22,000 total hits and several postings on DCMS, Logistics

Transformation, the C4IT Service Center,

the Surface Forces Logistics Center, the

Shore Infrastructure Logistics Center,

Personnel Service Center, Aviation

Logistics Center and Asset Project Office.

Already, many readers are adding their

comments to blog postings allowing feedback to and dialogue with leaders of the

future organization.

The future DCMS organization is part of

the Coast Guard Modernization effort to

realign the current geographically-based

mission support organization around personnel service and asset product lines.

The five DCMS logistics and service

centers’ future product lines will manage

readiness of the Coast Guard’s personnel, ships, planes, buildings, and information technology based on the new

Coast Guard Mission Support Business

Model.

Guest blog posts are welcome as are

suggestions for future topics by email to

askmissionsupport@uscg.mil.

Mission Support Log
52 • 2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition

Special Edition
2010 - EE&L Quarterly - Final Edition • 53

U.S. Coast Guard Modernization:

“Mission Support Handbook”

The first edition of the Mission Support

Handbook is now available on CG Portal. The

Handbook is an essential tool to help all Coast

Guard members access mission support services in the new organizational structure. It

includes a topical index of services and descriptions of services with their corresponding points

of contacts, organizational charts and frequently

asked questions.

A hard copy of the first version of the Mission

Support Handbook was distributed to all units

listed in Sections A through H of the Standard

Distribution List and as a downloadable pdf document on CG Portal. The PDF document was

updated to reflect the summer 2010 rotations and

will be updated on a regular basis to capture

changes in points of contact and incorporate

feedback as it is received. We welcome any

contacts or suggestions for future editions that

you may have. Please send an email to

AskMissionSupport@uscg.mil. 

Download the Mission Support Handbook at

https://cgportal.uscg.mil/lotus/myquickr/dcmsmission-support-organization/handbook.
Commandant (CG-4)

ATTN (Editor EE&LQ / JR9-1130)

US Coast Guard

2100 2ND ST SW STOP 7901

Washington, DC 20593-7901