Evaluation of the inventory and accountability practices of common support equipment throughout Pacific and Atlantic Fleets
By: Frank F. McCallister, Joyce L. McCallister, Robert D. Pridgen
Publisher: Naval Postgraduate School; Available from National Technical Information Service
Published: 1997
Place of publication: Monterey, Calif; Springfield, Va
Language: eng
Number of pages: 122
Subjects: INVENTORY ANALYSIS; GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT; AIR LOGISTICS SUPPORT
Description: Within Naval Aviation, Common Support Equipment (CSE) plays a critical yet unglamorous role in maintaining aircraft material readiness. Defense of CSE dollars is difficult because the Output of Aviation Support Equipment is not measurable. The ability to quantity and defend that role has been the nemesis of the Aviation Support Equipment Integrated Program Team members over the past two budget cycles. This study's intent is to provide an argument in defense of adequate program funding. The premise of this argument is: Inventory validity is a major consideration in making sound investment decisions. If the Fleet SE inventory validity is within acceptable limits, then the Fleet's input into the re-capitalization decision support system is valid. If the Fleet's SE inventory validity is poor, then the Fleet's buyout input is suspect. The foundation of this research is to determine how accurately the Fleet's on-hand assets reflect in the automated inventory database used to manage those assets. This research concludes that the mean SE validity for a reporting custodian's Intermediate Maintenance Activity (IMA) or 0rganizational Maintenance Activity (OMA) account is 72.4%. Fleet Individual Material Readiness List (IMRL) inventory control processes are hampered by a lack of quantifiable metrics, duplicative and conflicting inventory control methods, and lack of a single source directive detailing inventory procedures. Failure to control these processes degrades the IMRL decision support system, hampers re-capitalization decisions, and inhibits the ability to determine how SE, or the lack thereof, impacts aircraft material readiness.
Notes: Thesis advisors, Donald R. Eaton, James G. Taylor, Gordon R. Nakagawa.

Thesis (M.S. in Systems Management) Naval Postgraduate School, March 1997.

Includes bibliographical references (p. 81-82).

Also available online.

System requirements: Adobe Acrobat reader.