GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Chairman and Ranking 

Minority Member, Committee on Armed 

Services, House of Representatives

November 1999 DEFENSE LOGISTICS

Army Should Assess 

Cost and Benefits of 

the Workload 

Performance System 

Expansion

GAO/NSIAD-00-16

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

Contents

Letter 3

Appendixes Appendix I: Army Workload Performance System Application 

for Depot Maintenance 20

Appendix II: AWPS Application for Ammunition Logistics 21

Appendix III: AWPS Application for Ammunition Manufacturing 22

Appendix IV: AWPS Application for Base Operations 23

Appendix V: Future AWPS Applications 24

Appendix VI: Comments From the Department of Defense 26

Tables Table 1: Examples of Tasks Associated With AWPS Depot

Maintenance Application as of August 1999 7

Table 2: AWPS Schedule 11

Table 3: AWPS Project Office Budget Summary for Fiscal

Years 1996-2002 14

Abbreviations

AWPS Army Workload Performance System

DOD Department of Defense
Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics
Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-283492 Leter

November 12, 1999

The Honorable Floyd Spence

Chairman

The Honorable Ike Skelton

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

Accurate and consistent estimates of future workloads are essential to 

determine personnel requirements. The Congress included a requirement 

in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (P.L. 105-85) 

that the Secretary of the Army certify that the Army’s new system for 

estimating personnel requirementsthe Army Workload Performance 

Systemwas fully operational before any reduction-in-force actions could 

be made at any of the Army’s five maintenance depots.1

 To this end in 1998, 

the House Committee on National Security2 directed the Army to conduct a 

study and provide the Committee with its master plan for implementing the 

Army’s Workload Performance System, including future applications and 

total funding for implementation.3

 The Committee also required that we 

provide it a report on the Army’s study. Specifically, as agreed with your 

offices, we assessed (1) the Army’s progress in developing and 

implementing the workload performance system and (2) the extent to 

which the Army’s April 1999 report addresses an overall master plan for 

implementing the system, including the system’s future applications and 

funding requirements.

Results in Brief The Army has implemented and certified a basic automated workload and 

performance system to evaluate personnel requirements in its five 

maintenance depots. While the system appears to be adequate for this 

purpose, additional work is under way or planned to achieve improved 

1

 Previously approved reductions resulting from recommendations approved under the 

Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act were not affected by P.L. 105-85.

2

 Now known as the House Committee on Armed Services.

3

 Report 105-532 of the House Committee on National Security regarding the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.
B-283492

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

performance. These additional improvements include applications to 

identify the number of personnel excesses or shortages by type of skill, the 

ability to assign personnel based on skill qualifications to the most 

appropriate jobs, and the impact of material shortages on planned work. 

Additionally, development work is under way or planned to apply the 

workload performance system to several other functional areas, even 

though some questions exist about how cost-effective the system may be in 

some instances.

The Army’s report on its congressionally required master plan provided 

limited and incomplete information on future development plans and did 

not provide requested funding information. Thus far, the Army has used 

working capital funds4

 for system development, even though the 

Committee’s report language directed that Army working capital funds not 

be used for this purpose.

This report makes recommendations to develop a more comprehensive 

master plan and strengthen the management control and oversight of 

system development efforts.

Background Several audit reports in recent years have highlighted the Army’s inability 

to support its personnel requirements using analytically based workload 

forecasts. In the Department of Defense’s (DOD) fiscal years 1997 and 1998 

Annual Statements of Assurance, DOD noted difficulties in relating 

personnel requirements to workload and budget as a material weakness in 

the Army’s manpower requirements determination system. In 1998 we 

reported on the Army’s progress in taking corrective action.5

To resolve deficiencies in its civilian manpower requirements 

determination process, the Army initiated development of an automated 

system intended to capture workload data and link it to manpower 

requirements. In March 1996 the Army provided initial funding to its 

support contractor and the Navy to develop and implement a modified 

4

 Under this industrial funding arrangement, the Army sells goods and services to the 

military services based on predetermined rates designed to recoup operating costs. Working 

capital fund customers pay for the goods and services, primarily with operations and 

maintenance funds appropriated by the Congress. 

5 Force Structure: Army’s Efforts to Improve Efficiency of Institutional Forces Have 

Produced Few Results (GAO/NSIAD-98-65, Feb. 26, 1998).
B-283492

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

version of a Navy-developed automated workload performance system for 

use at Army maintenance depots. In June 1996, a preliminary version of 

what is now part of the Army Workload and Performance System (AWPS) 

was implemented on a test basis at Corpus Christi Army Depot, one of the 

Army’s five maintenance depots.

The AWPS depot maintenance application extracts data from several 

computerized Army support systems. The data are obtained electronically, 

and no new or unique data are collected specifically for the workload 

system. It provides project status and labor-hour information data collected 

from the depots, planned workload data from the Army Materiel Command, 

and workload data obtained from the Army’s major customers.

A combination of Navy civilian and contractor employees is developing 

AWPS, with program oversight provided by Headquarters, Department of 

the Army, and day-to-day management oversight by the system project 

office under the Industrial Operations Command at Rock Island, Illinois.6

 A 

working group, comprised of representatives from a variety of Army 

Materiel Command activities, provides input to the project office regarding 

system requirements and outputs. It develops system acceptance criteria, 

consulting as needed with the Army Audit Agency, which acts in an 

advisory capacity.

Army Met Original 

Goals for AWPS, but 

Additional 

Development 

Continues

The Army has completed initial implementation of AWPS for depot 

maintenance, and it recently certified the basic system as operational at 

five maintenance depot locations. At the same time, the magnitude of the 

AWPS project has grown to a point where additional management oversight 

and coordination may be warranted. Numerous additional tasks have been 

identified and initiated to enhance the depot maintenance application, and 

AWPS is being expanded to four other functional areas—ammunition 

logistics, ammunition manufacturing, base operations support, and 

arsenals. Further, headquarters Army officials have identified still more 

functional areas for potential long-term development.

6

 The Industrial Operations Command reports to the Army Materiel Command.
B-283492

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

Basic AWPS Application for 

Depot Maintenance 

Implemented and Certified

On June 28, 1999, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and 

Reserve Affairs certified that work on the basic workload performance 

system had been completed and was operational at its five maintenance 

depots.7 The initial operating capability focused on a basic workload and 

planning system to facilitate management of depot workloads and the 

ability to identify workload/workforce imbalances at the five depots.

Overall, the depot maintenance application of AWPS takes workload and 

workforce information and presents it in a manner that allows shop 

supervisors to better manage the work flowing through their shops and 

permits depot managers to better manage the size and composition of their 

workforce. Work in developing this application included (1) gathering 

project data, labor expenditures, performance data, and scheduling 

information to support workload forecasting and personnel staffing 

studies; (2) capturing various personnel data, such as leave and attrition, to 

support analysis of alternative employment strategies; and (3) providing 

daily production support by comparing actual resource expenditures 

against production plans.

Further Enhancements of 

Depot Maintenance 

Application Under 

Development

Although the basic depot maintenance application has been certified as 

operational, the Army continues to develop this application to enhance its 

capabilities. The AWPS application for depot maintenance is evolving from 

a basic system that captures workload data and links it to manpower 

requirements to a more robust system that is expected to provide more 

refined information about individual skill levels. The Army’s April 1999 

report to the Committee identified four of these enhancements, but it 

excluded several tasks that were previously planned by the system project 

office. For example, the AWPS maintenance application is being enhanced 

to identify the number of needed employees by skill type and to facilitate 

the assignment of the most appropriate personnel to each job to maximize 

depot productivity over a 3-year period. Table 1 outlines the completed and 

certified tasks noted above as well as examples of additional tasks now 

under development or planned for the future to enhance the depot 

maintenance application.

7

 Section 364 of the 1998 Defense Authorization Act prohibited the Army from initiating a 

reduction in force at the five Army maintenance depots until after the Secretary of the Army 

certified to the Committee that the workload and performance system is fully operational.
B-283492

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

Table 1: Examples of Tasks Associated With AWPS Depot Maintenance Application as of August 1999

a

Project office officials stated that the use of commercial off-the-shelf software might be a more costeffective alternative for this and other similar material tasks.

Source: Army Workload Performance System Project Office.

The tasks under development were expected to be completed between now 

and 2000; others not yet started are expected to be completed by 2005. 

However, as discussed more fully in a later section, the program has 

encountered a variety of schedule slippages due to funding problems and 

programmatic changes. Appendix I provides additional summary 

information regarding the individual tasks for the depot maintenance 

application, including projected completion dates as of August 1999.

Task Objectives 

Completed and certified

Develop and implement basic 

workload and planning system at five 

depots

Facilitate management of depot workload by identifying workload and personnel data and 

generating job planning information. 

Develop workload and resources 

reporting process at five depots

Given workload and personnel resources in each depot work area, generate a report identifying 

net workforce imbalances.

Completed

Integrate system with depot budget 

preparation and train industrial 

activity personnel in its use 

Clarify the relationship between workload and workforce on the budget.

Under development

Support management of contractor 

labor within the depots 

Incorporate planning, scheduling, and performance of contractor personnel working in Army 

depots to provide visibility of contractor production within the depot system. Completion expected 

in November 1999.

Implement programming language 

conversion 

Accomplish conversion of system from FoxPro to the Oracle language. 

Planned but work not begun

Develop resource, scheduling, and 

control skill codes

Implement coding system to refine workforce analysis by focusing on specific employee skills 

rather than aggregating personnel information by work area. Completion expected in March 2001.

Design and implement resource, 

scheduling, and control system at 

five depots

Size the workforce and assign the most appropriate personnel to maximize depot productivity and 

size the workforce using previously developed coding system. Completion expected in January 

2003.

Develop and implement material 

systema

Support comparisons of material requirements and supply availability data to determine whether 

material will be available to perform planned maintenance and to facilitate make or buy decisions 

for parts and components. Completion expected in September 2002, but additional requirements 

being considered.

Implement capability to compare 

personnel and cost impact resulting 

from unforeseen changes 

Support analysis of impact of potential resource or workload changes on depot production and 

costs.
B-283492

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

Expansion of Workload 

Performance System to 

Other Applications

While the Navy system from which AWPS evolved was used only for depot 

maintenance, the Army’s system will include applications for other 

functional areas. System modifications are under way or planned to 

support eventual system implementation in the areas of ammunition 

logistics,8 ammunition manufacturing, and base operations support. The 

basic system for the ammunition, base operations support, and other 

follow-on applications is expected to meet the same objectives as are 

currently met for the depot maintenance application: scheduling workloads 

and identifying workforce imbalances based on an analysis of planned 

workload and available personnel. In commenting on a draft of this report, 

DOD officials stated that the Army is proceeding with limited prototype 

development and testing of these applications to determine the operational 

costs and benefits of each application and system enhancement. Officials 

further stated that the Army would not implement applications that do not 

adequately demonstrate cost-effectiveness.

Project office officials are not aware of any plans for certifying the 

operational effectiveness of these other system applications for the 

Congress.9

 Current plans provide that the operational effectiveness of each 

of the new applications and all major enhancements will be reviewed and 

validated by the Army Audit Agency using acceptance criteria developed by 

a configuration control board comprised of representatives from a variety 

of Army Materiel Command activities. The Industrial Operations Command 

will send written confirmation to the Army Materiel Command to report 

completion of this validation.

Ammunition Logistics The basic system for implementing the AWPS ammunition logistics 

application has been installed and has undergone system testing at selected 

locations. The Army Audit Agency evaluated this work and found it 

acceptable. Subsequently, the Industrial Operations Command informed 

the Army Materiel Command that the basic ammunition system had been 

successfully installed. Development efforts are under way or planned to 

enhance this application. Appendix II identifies 10 tasks and other 

summary information associated with this application. The follow-on tasks 

have projected completion dates in 2005.

8

 Ammunition logistics includes such functions as storage, issuance, demilitarization, 

maintenance, stock rotation, and minor modifications to previously manufactured items.

9

 The 1998 Defense Authorization Act certification requirement applies only to AWPS 

implementation at the five Army maintenance depots.
B-283492

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

Differing opinions exist regarding the usefulness of AWPS in ammunition 

logistics facilities. On one hand, Army officials at using organizations 

questioned the usefulness of automated systems and procedures for 

identifying temporary staff shortages and excesses given the day-to-day 

fluctuations in workload forecasts and the relatively short production 

projects generally experienced. On the other hand, Army headquarters 

officials stated that while workload forecasts change frequently, 

implementation of the planned system would enable facility managers to 

more effectively utilize employees. While we did not examine the 

ammunition logistics module sufficiently to determine the costeffectiveness of this application, it is clear that these disparate positions 

need to be resolved. As discussed later, greater involvement of 

organizations likely to be affected by AWPS implementation may be needed 

in designing future applications to better ensure continued program 

viability and evaluate cost-effectiveness.

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD officials stated that the Army 

established a configuration control board comprised of system users and 

developers to identify and solve various technical and programmatic 

issues. Further, DOD officials stated that user acceptance of the system has 

improved and that users have already recognized and implemented 

improved business practices.

Ammunition Manufacturing An AWPS ammunition manufacturing application is in a preliminary 

planning phase and the Army has not yet initiated development work. As 

currently planned, this application will identify workload and personnel 

requirements and provide plant managers with information on individual 

project status. Appendix III lists three tasks and summary information 

associated with the ammunition manufacturing application. Although work 

has not yet begun on these tasks, the Army currently projects completion 

between December 2001 and December 2005. According to Army officials 

at using organizations, questions exist about the cost-effectiveness of an 

AWPS ammunition manufacturing application given the availability of 

commercial off-the-shelf software and declining workload forecasts. 

However, Army headquarters officials stated that the use of AWPS will 

enable them to implement a rational personnel downsizing plan and to 

clearly articulate the impact of declining workloads.

Base Operations Support AWPS development efforts for the base operations support application are 

under way and have progressed to the prototyping phase. A basic system 

prototype is being installed at the Anniston Army Depot to be used for 

relating projected workload for various support functions to the personnel 
B-283492

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

required to support these functions. Project office plans call for installing 

the system at the other four maintenance depots by February 2001, using a 

system testing procedure similar to that used during the early development 

of the depot maintenance application. The completion date for this effort 

has slipped several times, and it is unclear when this system application 

will be evaluated and tested. It is also unclear how beneficial this 

application would be, given that the Army is considering the use of public 

and private competitions for many of its base operations support functions. 

Appendix IV summarizes some of the key tasks and other information 

associated with the base operations support application; individual tasks 

are currently projected to be completed between October 1999 and 

December 2005.

Possible Expansion to Other 

Functional Areas

The Army has identified several activities such as field-level maintenance, 

arsenals, research and development, testing and evaluation, and training as 

possible areas for long-term expansion of the workload performance 

system. Development work has not been initiated in any of these areas. 

Further, projected completion dates have been established only for tasks 

associated with the arsenal application. In general, these areas involve 

different Army organizations and chains of command, as well as a different 

mix of personnel skills than are supported by the applications currently 

under development. It is uncertain how project management would be 

handled for these applications. Although the Army’s recent mandated 

report on AWPS cited plans to develop these additional applications, AWPS 

project office officials told us that the project office was not consulted 

about inclusion of these applications in the Army’s report. From their 

perspective, these applications have not been planned, scheduled, 

budgeted, or funded. Further, they stated that it is unclear how beneficial 

the arsenal application would be, given that the Army is considering the use 

of public and private sector competition for operation of some arsenal 

activities. See appendix V for a summary of the individual applications and 

selected tasks.

Although not a functional application, development is planned for a 

“Decision Support System,” which would be deployed to Headquarters, 

Department of the Army, to facilitate funding and resource allocations 

based on Army priorities. The Decision Support System would aggregate 

workload and performance data from a variety of Army installations to 

enable headquarters commands to identify areas where performance could 

be improved through reengineering or setting specific performance 

measures and goals. While the Committee directed the Army to move 
B-283492

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

forward with development of this module as quickly as possible, 

development work has not yet begun in this area, and target dates for 

initiating and completing this action have not been established. 10

Program Expansion and 

Slippage of Program 

Milestones May Warrant 

Improved Program 

Management and Oversight

As shown in table 2, completion dates for the remaining workload 

performance system tasks have slipped several times in recent months and 

completion milestones have yet to be established for some long-term 

system applications.11 Army officials stated that untimely and inadequate 

funding are key contributing factors to these delays.

Table 2: AWPS Schedule 

a

 Includes enhancements supporting resource scheduling and material support. 

Source: Army Workload Performance System Project Office. 

10 Report 105-532 of the Committee on National Security.

11 The reference to applications as short- or long-term reflects the descriptions used in the 

Army’s report to the Committee.

Modules

Completion date as 

reported Feb. 9, 1999

Completion date as 

reported May 4, 1999

Completion date as 

reported Aug. 18, 1999

Short term

Depot maintenancea Jan. 3, 2000 Sept. 30, 2002 Dec. 26, 2005

Ammunition logistics Sept. 28, 2000 Dec. 31, 2004 Dec. 22, 2005

Ammunition manufacturing Nov. 30, 2000 Nov. 30, 2000 Dec. 12, 2005

Base operations June 29, 2001 June 29, 2001 Dec. 8, 2005

Long term

Field-level maintenance Not shown Not shown Not shown

Manufacturing arsenals June 11, 2004 Oct. 13, 2005 Dec. 29, 2005

Base operations Not shown Not shown Not shown

Training, testing, and evaluation, and research and 

development activities

Not shown Not shown Not shown

Decision support systems Not shown Not shown Not shown

Other tasks in project plan, but not explicitly 

identified in Army report

Sept. 22, 2000 Dec. 1, 2000 Aug. 19, 2003
B-283492

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

While the current management team has implemented the basic workload 

and performance system at Army maintenance depots, the potential scope 

of the AWPS system development has expanded to other functional areas, 

some of which are outside the command and control of the Army Materiel 

Command. Further, Army officials stated that current sources of funding 

may be inadequate for timely completion of these future applications. 

Therefore, an improved management oversight structure to include 

representatives from organizations responsible for each of the potential 

functional users would appear to be necessary. For example, input from 

these organizations would likely be important in assessing the costeffectiveness of developing or enhancing system applications. Additionally, 

in our opinion, without the involvement of responsible organizations, it is 

unlikely that required funding will become available.

Army’s Report on 

AWPS Master Plan Did 

Not Provide Complete 

Information About 

Programs, Costs, and 

Schedules

The Army’s report to the Committee on a long-range master plan for the 

workload performance system has some important limitations. While the 

Committee directed the Army to report on its long-range master plan for 

implementing AWPS, including future applications and funding 

requirements, the Army’s report did not include some key information that 

might normally be expected. For example, it provided no descriptive 

information other than the task titles—no objectives, no expected costs or 

benefits, no system development and implementation schedules, and no list 

of priorities.12 While the Army’s report provided a partial list of tasks to be 

completed in developing AWPS applications for depot maintenance, 

ammunition logistics, ammunition manufacturing, and base operations 

support functions at Army industrial facilities, our work shows that the 

report omitted several tasks that were in a project plan prepared and 

maintained by the system project office. Further, we found that projected 

completion dates have been established for some but not all of the tasks 

associated with these applications.

Appendix I highlights the tasks the Army report listed for the AWPS depot 

maintenance application. As previously noted, it also includes some depot 

maintenance tasks on which officials in the system project office have 

initiated work, but which were not listed in the Army report. According to 

Army officials, some of the tasks not listed in the Army’s report will likely 

require as many resources as some tasks that were listed. Appendixes II 

12 While the Army’s report contained no discussion of objectives, we discussed applications 

and tasks with project officials to obtain some information on task objectives.
B-283492

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

through IV summarize various tasks associated with ammunition logistics, 

ammunition manufacturing, and base operations support, and they also 

include several planned developmental tasks that were omitted from the 

Army’s report to the Committee.

The Army report provided limited information with regard to four potential 

long-term system applications—manufacturing arsenals; field-level 

maintenance organizations; training, research and development, test and 

evaluation activities; and base operations support for nondepot 

maintenance activities. Our work shows that the Army project has 

established expected completion dates for the arsenal application, but 

completion milestones for the other long-term applications have not yet 

been established. In discussing a draft of this report, Army officials 

explained they currently have no firm plans or schedules for implementing 

AWPS to applications they had described as long term. Further, while the 

Army’s report provided general descriptive information about the Decision 

Support System for use by Army headquarters, it did not identify associated 

tasks, cost estimates, development and testing schedules, or information 

about the relative importance or priority of the Decision Support System to 

the other planned system components. Appendix V provides a summary of 

available information for each of the potential long-term applications.

Army Report Provided No 

System Cost Information

The Army’s report to the Committee provided no funding information even 

though congressional committee direction required it. We identified 

estimated costs totaling $45 million for (1) the development and testing and 

(2) supporting studies of the following system applications: depot 

maintenance, ammunition logistics, ammunition manufacturing, base 

operations support at some Army industrial activities, and arsenals. This 

estimate does not include potential long-term costs for expanding the 

AWPS system to other functional areas and is based upon completion dates 

that are subject to continuing slippage.

Table 3 provides the estimated AWPS system program office funding for 

fiscal years 1996 through 2002.
B-283492

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

Table 3: AWPS Project Office Budget Summary for Fiscal Years 1996-2002

a

Funds shown in this line are mostly for system operation and maintenance costs after a module is 

implemented.

Note: Some totals may appear not to add due to rounding.

Source: Army Workload Performance System Project Office.

In addition to the projected $36.1 million estimated by the Army Workload 

Performance System Project Office, Army headquarters spent an additional 

$3.6 million in fiscal years 1995 through 1998 for various contractorprovided studies. Additionally, costs for the system project office, which 

are estimated at over $5 million for fiscal years 1996 through 2002, are not 

included in these estimates. Moreover, the $36.1 million also does not 

include any costs for the planned Decision Support System or for potential 

system development and implementation for the other long-term workload 

performance system applications such as field-level maintenance, research 

and development, testing and evaluation, or training, which were listed as 

potential system applications in the Army report. Further, costs are 

expected to grow because system milestones have slipped, and they are 

likely to slip even further in the future.

Dollars in thousands

1996 and

1997 costs

1998

costs

1999

budget

plan

2000

budget

plan

2001

budget

plan

2002

budget

plan

Estimated

total

spending

Short term

Depot maintenance $2,746 $3,493 $612 $240 $675 $2,110 $9,876

Ammunition logistics 748 1,995 190 575 810 4,318

Ammunition manufacturing 200 759 700 810 2,469

Base operations for Army Materiel 

Command activities 230 1,599 1,161 750 1,145 4,885

Long term

Field-level maintenance

Manufacturing arsenals 1,610 700 750 3,060

Base operations for field-level maintenance 

activities

Training, testing, research and development

Decision Support System

Configuration control and integrated logistics 

supporta 2,062 3,468 4,873 1,140 11,543

Total $2,746 $4,471 $6,467 $7,428 $8,273 $6,765 $36,149
B-283492

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

Working Capital Fund Is 

Primary Funding Source

Despite committee direction that working capital funds not be used for the 

workload performance system, they have been used as the primary funding 

source. According to Army officials there is no approved budget for the 

system’s development and implementation, and as a result an irregular 

funding stream has evolved to include working capital funds as the primary 

source and, to a lesser extent, the reprogramming of other available end-ofyear funding. These officials believe that this funding approach has 

hampered efficient management and operations. In addition, officials from 

the Army Materiel Command stated that reliance on working capital 

funding increases the hourly cost of various industrially funded operations, 

which some believe are already unaffordable. According to these officials, 

the reimbursement of working capital funds for the costs of AWPS system 

development and implementation is being spread over 10 or more years, 

adding an estimated 21 cents to each direct depot maintenance work hour 

and about 34 cents to each direct ordnance work hour.

Conclusions The Army’s report to the Committee on a master plan for the workload 

performance system has some important limitations in providing complete 

information on the scope of work, completion milestones, and cost 

information. Our assessment of the Army’s report also indicates that 

improved program planning and management are essential if the Army is to 

cost-effectively complete the system implementation in a timely manner—

including planned program expansion. Further, some questions exist 

concerning the cost benefit of developing and implementing additional 

applications outside the depot maintenance function. Adoption of an 

improved master plan and management structure could also be important 

to the Army’s ability to achieve the objectives of the Army Workload 

Performance System. Such steps could be important in validating system 

applications, documenting the cost and benefits of proposed new system 

applications and enhancements, establishing system priorities, improving 

system management, and obtaining required funding.

Recommendations To improve program management and provide a baseline for future 

program evaluation, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense require 

the Secretary of the Army to assess the cost-effectiveness of using the 

Army Workload Performance System for nondepot maintenance 

applications before proceeding with development and implementation. 

Based on the completed assessment, we further recommend that the 

Secretary of the Army:
B-283492

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

• Develop a more substantive master plan that incorporates all 

applications for which the system is to be implemented. This master 

plan should include priorities, cost and benefits, and proposed 

schedules.

• Assess the adequacy of existing program management and oversight 

structures in light of (1) additional functional applications and overall 

funding requirements and (2) the potential for extending the workload 

and performance system to users outside the Army Materiel Command.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

DOD provided written comments that are included as appendix VI. DOD 

officials also provided a number of suggested technical changes that have 

been incorporated into the report body as appropriate. DOD officials 

agreed that the cost and benefits of each expanded system application 

should be analyzed, but did not agree with our draft report’s 

recommendation to delay approval of additional funding for system 

development until after the cost benefits of each application are fully 

documented and analyzed. DOD concurred with our recommendations to 

develop a more substantive Army Workload Performance System master 

plan (including cost, benefits, and schedules for developing each 

application) and to assess the adequacy of program management and 

oversight in view of the expanded range of system applications and 

increased funding requirements.

In commenting on our recommendation to postpone additional funding, 

DOD officials stated that the Army is currently developing prototype 

systems for several functional applications, including ammunition storage, 

ammunition manufacturing, and base operations. According to these 

officials, ongoing prototype development and tests are designed to 

demonstrate the usefulness of each application and provide a baseline for 

assessing costs and benefits. DOD officials stated that postponing 

additional funding for completing this work would unnecessarily hinder 

progress and delay efforts to correct previously reported weaknesses in the 

Army’s ability to link personnel requirements to workload estimates.

We agree that DOD has made substantial progress in its efforts to correct 

material weaknesses in its ability to match personnel authorizations to 

forecasted workloads at its major maintenance depots. While the Army has 

already initiated efforts to achieve similar goals at other activities, we 

continue to believe that approval of funding for full-scale development and 

implementation of expanded applications should be postponed until costs 

and benefits are analyzed. However, we modified our draft report 
B-283492

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

recommendation to enable completion of ongoing prototype testing in 

order to demonstrate and document the financial benefits of each 

expanded application before proceeding with system development and 

implementation of the applications. DOD officials stated that they 

concurred with our modified recommendation.

With regard to our recommendation to develop a more substantive master 

plan for implementation of performance system applications at nondepot 

maintenance facilities, DOD stated that such a plan would be completed by 

July 2000. They stated that the plan would include information on 

priorities, cost and benefits, and milestones for all anticipated Army 

Workload Performance System applications, including maintenance, 

ammunition, and base operations.

With regard to our recommendation to assess the adequacy of existing 

program management and oversight structures, DOD concurred, but gave 

no time frame for completing the assessment. We continue to believe that 

such an assessment should be done as soon as possible, in light of (1) the 

potential for expanding the workload and performance system to activities 

outside the Army Materiel Command and (2) system development costs, 

which exceed the criteria for managing the Army Workload Performance 

System program as a major automated information system acquisition.

Scope and 

Methodology

To assess the status of the Army Workload Performance System, we read 

the Army’s April 1999 report to the Committee and discussed its contents 

with senior officials in the offices of the Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Manpower and Reserve Affairs) and Army Deputy Chief of Staff for 

Logistics, Washington, D.C.; the Army Workload Performance System 

Project Office at Rock Island, Illinois; and the Naval Sea Logistics Center, 

Pacific, Concord, California. We also discussed supplemental project 

planning and budgeting information with these same officials. We 

compared those portions of the Army report dealing with system depot 

maintenance with comparable portions of Army budget and schedule 

documents. We also reviewed the major blocks of work to be done and 

discussed their cost and benefits. During our visit to the Navy facility, we 

attended a workload performance system training course with managers 

from depots and with a professional staff member from the organization 

that developed the system of evaluating depot overhead personnel 

requirements. We met with Army Audit Agency officials regarding their 

review of the workload performance system. Finally, we interviewed senior 
B-283492

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

officials from some of the five maintenance depots that implemented the 

system.

To assess the status of the other workload performance system 

applications, including their cost, we visited and interviewed a wide variety 

of personnel. We discussed task status, possible cost and benefits, and 

other relevant issues with the system program manager, the Navy program 

manager, support contractor personnel, and senior Army officials in Army 

Materiel Command and Headquarters, Department of the Army. We 

discussed the issues with senior managers of the two manufacturing 

arsenals. We also visited the senior manager of one of the ammunition 

depots and spoke with senior officials at five others, sending written 

questions to all six. We also talked with officials from the Army’s Industrial 

Operations Command’s Army Workload Performance System Project 

Office at Rock Island, Illinois; the Naval Sea Logistics Center, at Concord, 

California; and the Army’s support contractor at Washington, D.C. During 

our Rock Island visit and numerous follow-on conversations, we discussed 

the project plan, including program schedules and budgets. We also 

reviewed the major blocks of work to be done, discussed their cost and 

benefits and discussed our concerns and some of the organizations slated 

to receive parts of the system. We also talked at length with the Navy 

workload performance system program manager about plans to export the 

system, and its use for other applications. During our meetings with the 

support contractor, our primary focus was on tasks and modules other than 

depot maintenance.

We conducted our review from February 1999 through September 1999 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to Senator John W. Warner, Chairman, 

and Senator Carl Levin, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on 

Armed Services; the Honorable William S. Cohen, the Secretary of Defense; 

the Honorable Louis Caldera, Secretary of the Army; the Honorable William 

J. Lynn, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); and the Honorable 

Jacob Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will also be 

available to others upon request.
B-283492

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please call 

me or Barry Holman at (202) 512-8412. Key contributors to this report were 

Julia Denman, David Epstein, and Glenn Knoepfle.

David R. Warren, Director

Defense Management Issues
Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

Appendix I

Army Workload Performance System 

Application for Depot Maintenance ApendxIi

a

Included in project office plan, but not in Army’s report to the Committee.

Source: Army Workload Performance System (AWPS) Project Office.

Task name

Estimated

completion date Objectives and expected results

Completed and certified

Develop and implement basic workload 

and planning system at five depots 

March 1998 Facilitate management of depot workload by identifying workload and 

personnel data and generating job planning information

Develop workload and resources 

reporting process at five depots 

March 1998 Given workload and personnel resources in each depot work area, 

generates a report identifying net workforce imbalances and displaying 

monthly depot workforce excesses or shortages over a 3-year horizon

Completed

Integrate workload performance system 

with depot budget preparation and train 

industrial activity personnel in its usea

February 26, 1999 Link workload, workforce, and budget

Under development

Develop contractor labor application for 

depot maintenance

November 30, 1999 Incorporate planning, scheduling, and performance of contractor 

personnel working in Army depots to provide visibility of contractor 

production within the depot system

Completion of this task should improve 50-50 report preparation and 

provide a link between contractor labor capabilities, job scheduling, and 

capacity utilization

Implement programming language 

conversiona

July 31, 2000 Convert programs to state-of-the-art computer language; the Army 

plans to convert the programming language from FoxPro to Oracle

Conversion of computer programs should simplify software 

maintenance, improve data distribution and processing time, and 

facilitate use of web pages

Planned but work not begun

Develop resource scheduling and 

control skill codes methodology

March 30, 2001 Design coding system to refine workforce analysis by focusing on 

specific employee skills rather than aggregating personnel information 

by work area

Completion of this and the next task should facilitate assigning 

appropriate personnel to each job to maximize depot productivity and 

identify skills that should be acquired, whether through retraining or 

hiring

Implement resource, scheduling, and 

control system at five depots

January 24, 2003 Implement system to assign the most appropriate personnel to 

maximize depot productivity and size the workforce through the use of 

previously developed coding system to support comparisons over a 3-

year period

Develop and implement material 

system

September 16, 2002 Determine whether material will be available to perform planned 

maintenance

Facilitate make or buy decisions by collecting labor and material costs

Implement automated comparison of 

headquarters-directed changesa

August 30, 1999 Provide support in analyzing the impact of headquarters-directed 

changes concerning personnel hiring practices, workload changes, and 

other unforeseen changes
Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

Appendix II

AWPS Application for Ammunition Logistics ApendxIi

a

Included in project office plan, but not in Army’s report to the Committee.

Source: Army Workload Performance System Project Office.

Task name

Estimated

completion date Objectives and expected results

Completed

Prototype ammunition logistics 

application at Letterkenny Army Depot

May 31, 1999 Facilitate scheduling of ammunition logistics workload by identifying 

monthly ammunition logistics facility workforce excesses or shortages 

over a 3-year period 

Install basic ammunition logistics 

application at Anniston and Red River 

Army Depots (basic system develops 

same information as generated in first 

two tasks of depot maintenance 

application)

June 29, 1999 Facilitate scheduling of ammunition logistics workload by displaying 

monthly ammunition logistics workforce excesses or shortages over a 

3-year period

Organizational relocation of some ammunition facilities will likely lead 

to additional programming requirements and possible slippage of this 

and other tasks

Under development

Install basic ammunition logistics 

application at Blue Grass Army Depot, 

Tooele Army Depot, Sierra Army 

Depot, Crane Army Ammunition 

Activity, McAlester Army Ammunition 

Plant, and Pine Bluff Arsenal 

June 30, 2000 Facilitate scheduling of ammunition logistics workload by displaying 

monthly ammunition logistics workforce excesses or shortages over a 

3-year period

Provide training and technical supporta March 30, 2000 Train personnel in workload performance system use, particularly 

supervisors and managers and provide support to answer questions

Implement programming language 

conversiona

September 28, 2001 Convert programs to state-of-the-art computer language (the Army 

plans to convert the programming language from FoxPro to Oracle)

Planned but work not begun

Develop contractor labor application for 

ammunition

June 30, 2000 Incorporate planning, scheduling, and performance of contractor 

personnel working in ammunition logistics facilities to provide visibility 

of contractor production within the ammunition logistics system 

Design and implement resource 

scheduling and control system for 

ammunition logistics

December 30, 2003 Implement system to assign the most appropriate personnel to 

maximize ammunition logistics facility productivity and size the 

workforce through the use of previously developed coding system to 

support comparisons over a 3-year period

Develop “What happens if . . . .” study 

capabilitya

May 31, 2000 Facilitate decision-making by management in addressing questions 

such as “what if”

Develop automated comparison of 

headquarters directed changesa

August 31, 2001 Assists analysis of impact of headquarters-directed changes

Develop ammunition logistics material 

systema

March 29, 2002 Determine whether material will be available to perform planned 

maintenance

Facilitate make or buy decisions by collecting labor and material costs
Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

Appendix III

AWPS Application for Ammunition 

Manufacturing ApendxIi

a

Included in project office plan, but not in Army’s report to the Committee.

Source: Army Workload Performance System Project Office.

Task name

Estimated

completion date Objectives and expected results

Planned but work not begun

Design and install workload 

performance system for ammunition 

manufacturing

December 31, 2001 Facilitate management of ammunition manufacturing plants by 

identifying workload and personnel data and generating job 

planning information

Implement resource scheduling and 

control system design and 

implementation for ammunition 

manufacturing

December 31, 2003 Implement system to assign the most appropriate personnel to 

maximize depot productivity and size the workforce through the 

use of a previously developed coding system to support 

comparisons over a 3-year period

Install enhancements for ammunition 

manufacturinga

December 31, 2003 Provide “what if” study capability

Provide automated comparison of headquarters directed changes

Complete basic system with workload and resources reporting 

process
Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

Appendix IV

AWPS Application for Base Operations ApendxiIV

a

Included in project office plan, but not in Army’s report to the Committee.

Source: Army Workload Performance System Project Office.

Task name

Estimated 

completion date Objectives and expected results

Completed

Complete preliminary planning and 

design of applicationa

January 14, 1999 Facilitate management of base operations activities by identifying 

workload and personnel requirements data

Under development

Complete prototype testing at 

Anniston Army Depot

October 31, 1999 Test prototype system for base operation support at a selected 

maintenance depot

Provide training and technical 

supporta

December 4, 2002 Train personnel in workload performance system use, particularly 

supervisors and managers, and provide support to answer questions

Implement programming language 

conversiona

June 29, 2001 Convert programs to state-of-the-art computer language (the Army plans 

to convert the programming language from FoxPro to Oracle)

Planned but work not begun

Install application at four other 

maintenance depots

February 20, 2001 Expand testing of basic workload performance system base operations 

support system, similar to first task of depot maintenance application

Install base operations support 

application at remaining workload 

performance system installations

December 30, 2002 Expand use of basic workload performance system base operations 

support system, similar to first task of depot maintenance application

Design and implement resource 

scheduling and control system design 

for base operations support system

February 3, 2004 Implement system to assign the most appropriate personnel to maximize 

base operations support productivity and size the workforce through the 

use of previously developed coding system to support comparisons over 

a 3-year period

Material application for base 

operations support system

January 15, 2003 Determine whether material will be available to perform planned 

maintenance 

Facilitate make or buy decisions by collecting labor and material costs

Contractor labor in modela May 21, 2001 Incorporate planning, scheduling, and performance of contractor 

personnel working in industrial facilities to provide visibility of contractor 

production within the base support function

“What-if” study capabilitya September 2, 2002 Facilitate decision-making by management in addressing questions such 

as “what if”

Implement workload and resources 

reporting process and resource 

scheduling and control code systema

June 7, 2002 Implement system to assign the most appropriate personnel to maximize 

productivity and size the workforce through the use of previously 

developed coding system to support comparisons over a 3-year period

Given workload and personnel resources in each base operations 

support work area, generate a report identifying net workforce 

imbalances and displaying monthly workforce excesses or shortages 

over a 3-year horizon

Implement workload and resource scheduling reporting system

Implement automated comparison of 

headquarters directed changesa

October 16, 2002 Provide support in analyzing the impact of headquarters-directed 

changes concerning personnel hiring practices, workload changes, and 

other unforeseen changes 
Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

Appendix V

Future AWPS Applications ApenxdVi

Task name

Estimated

completion date Objectives and expected results

Manufacturing arsenal application (planned but work not begun)

Design and implement AWPS prototype 

at one manufacturing arsenal

June 6, 2002 Develop and test prototype of workload performance system for 

arsenals

Install workload performance system at 

two remaining arsenals

June 13, 2003 Develop and test prototype at remaining arsenals

Design and implement miscellaneous 

enhancements to arsenal application to 

include “what if” capability, contractor 

labor, and automated comparison of 

headquarters-directed changesa

October 3, 2003 Implement “what if” capability, contractor labor, and snapshot 

enhancements (all previously described)

Design and implement material system 

for arsenalsa

May 11, 2004 Determine whether material will be available to perform planned 

maintenance

Facilitate make or buy decisions by collecting labor and material 

costs

Design and implement resource 

scheduling and control systema

February 19, 2004 Implement system to assign the most appropriate personnel to 

maximize arsenal productivity and size the workforce through the 

use of previously developed coding system to support 

comparisons over a 3-year period

Field-level maintenance organization application (not planned, no work done)

Design and install AWPS at field-level 

maintenance facilities performing depottype maintenance workloads

Not planned or scheduled 

by system project office

Not yet determined

Design and install workload and 

performance system at all general 

support maintenance facilities

Not planned or scheduled 

by system project office

Not yet determined

Other incomplete tasks not in Army 

study, but in AWPS project plan

Not planned or scheduled 

by system project office

Not yet determined

Base operations applications for non depot maintenance facilities (not planned, no work done)

Design and install AWPS to support 

base operations at non depot 

maintenance facilities 

Not planned or scheduled 

by system project office

Not yet determined

Design and install AWPS to support 

base operations at all general support 

maintenance facilities

Not planned or scheduled 

by system project office

Not yet determined

(continued)
Appendix V

Future AWPS Applications

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

a

Included in project office plan, but not in Army’s report to the Committee.

Source: Army Workload Performance System Project Office.

Task name

Estimated

completion date Objectives and expected results

Training, testing and evaluation, and research and development activity applications (Not planned, no work done)

Study prototype system demonstrations 

for classroom training activities, testing, 

organizations, war reserve management 

and maintenance organizations, and 

research and development laboratories

Not planned or scheduled 

by system project office

Not yet determined

Other incomplete tasks not in Army 

study, but in AWPS Project Plan

Not planned or scheduled 

by system project office

Not yet determined
Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

Appendix VI

Comments From the Department of Defense ApendxiVI
Appendix VI

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics
Appendix VI

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

Now on p. 15.
Appendix VI

Comments From the Department of Defense

(709410) Letr Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-00-16 Defense Logistics

Now on p. 16.

Now on p. 16.
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the 

following address, accompanied by a check or money order made 

out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary, VISA and 

MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are 

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and 

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list 

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone 

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain 

these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, 

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at: 

http://www.gao.gov

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00