DOD’s supply chain is a global network that provides materiel, services, and equipment to the joint force. In February 2015, we reported that DOD had been experiencing weaknesses in the management of its supply chain, particularly in the following areas: inventory management, materiel distribution, and asset visibility. Regarding asset visibility, DOD has had weaknesses in maintaining visibility of supplies, such as problems with inadequate radio-frequency identification information to track all cargo movements. Additionally, in February 2015, we reported on progress DOD had made in addressing weaknesses in its asset visibility, including developing its 2014 Strategy. DOD has focused on improving asset visibility since the 1990s, and its efforts have evolved over time, as shown in figure 1. The 2015 Strategy states that the department introduced automatic identification technology capabilities to improve its ability to track assets. Since we added asset visibility to the high risk list in 2005, we have reported that DOD has made a great deal of progress in improving asset visibility. The 2014 Strategy notes that for more than 25 years, the department has been using technologies, starting with linear bar codes and progressing to a variety of more advanced technologies, with the goal of improving asset visibility. Specifically, the Strategies state that, based on lessons learned from years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the department introduced technology capabilities to improve its ability to track assets as they progress from posts, camps, and stations. Additionally, the 2015 Strategy states that DOD has made significant progress toward improving asset visibility, but opportunities for greater DOD-wide integration still exist. DOD has issued two strategies to guide its efforts in improving asset visibility: 2014 Strategy: In January 2014, the department issued its Strategy for Improving DOD Asset Visibility. The 2014 Strategy creates a framework whereby the components work collaboratively to identify improvement opportunities and capability gaps and to leverage technology capabilities, such as radio frequency identification. These capabilities aid in providing timely, accurate, and actionable information about the location, quantity, and status of assets. The 2014 Strategy identified 22 initiatives developed by the components that were intended to improve asset visibility. OSD officials stated that an initiative is conducted in accordance with component-level policy and procedures and can either be for a single component or for potential improvement throughout DOD. According to OSD officials, DOD components develop asset visibility initiatives, and these initiatives may be identified by the Asset Visibility Working Group or by components for inclusion in the Strategies. 2015 Strategy: In October 2015, DOD issued its update to the 2014 Strategy. The 2015 Strategy outlined an additional 8 initiatives developed by the components to improve asset visibility. According to OSD officials, they plan to issue an update to the 2015 Strategy, but the release date for this update has not been determined. These officials stated that the update to the 2015 Strategy will outline about 10 new initiatives. As we reported in January 2015, DOD has taken steps to monitor the asset visibility initiatives. Specifically, DOD has established a structure for overseeing and coordinating efforts to improve asset visibility. This structure includes the Asset Visibility Working Group, which according to the Strategies is responsible for monitoring the execution of the initiatives. Additionally, the components are designated as the offices of primary responsibility to ensure the successful execution of their initiatives, including developing cost estimates and collecting performance data. Working Group members include representatives from OSD and the components—Joint Staff, the Defense Logistics Agency, U.S. Transportation Command, and each of the military services. The components submit quarterly status reports to the Working Group about their initiatives—including progress made on implementation milestones, return on investment, and resources and funding. Additionally, as documented in the minutes from its May 2016 Asset Visibility Working Group meeting, DOD uses an electronic repository that includes information about the initiatives. The 2015 Strategy describes a process in which the Asset Visibility Working Group, among other things, reviews and concurs that an initiative has met its performance objectives. The Asset Visibility Working Group files an after-action report, which is added to the status report, for completed initiatives; this after-action report is to include performance measures used to assess the success of the initiative, challenges associated with implementing the initiative, and any lessons learned from the initiative. For example, an after-action report for the U.S. Transportation Command (U.S. TRANSCOM) active radio frequency identification (RFID) migration initiative stated that U.S. TRANSCOM had successfully tracked the use of old and new active RFID tags on military assets and updated an active RFID infrastructure to accommodate the new tags. DOD components have identified performance measures for the 8 initiatives we reviewed, but the measures do not generally include the key attributes of successful performance measures (i.e., the measures were not generally clear, quantifiable, objective, and reliable). We also found that after-action reports for some initiatives did not always include information on the performance measures and therefore prevent DOD from effectively evaluating the success of the initiatives in achieving the goals and objectives described in the Strategies. DOD components have identified at least one performance measure for each of the 8 initiatives we examined. These initiatives are described in table 1. (For more details on each of the 8 initiatives, see appendix II.) DOD’s Strategies direct that expected outcomes or key performance indicators (which we refer to as performance measures) be identified for assessing the implementation of each initiative. The 2015 Strategy notes that these performance measures enable groups, such as the Asset Visibility Working Group and the Supply Chain Executive Steering Committee—senior-level officials responsible for overseeing asset visibility improvement efforts—to monitor progress toward the implementation of an initiative and to monitor the extent to which the initiative has improved asset visibility in support of the Strategy’s goals and objectives. For example, one of the performance measures for a U.S. TRANSCOM initiative on the migration to a new active radio frequency identification (RFID) tag is to track the use of old and new active RFID tags on military assets. Additionally, one of the performance measures for the Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) initiative on passive RFID technology for clothing and textiles is to track the time it takes to issue new uniforms to military personnel. The 2015 Strategy also notes that the performance measures are reviewed before an initiative is closed by the Asset Visibility Working Group. Our prior work on performance measurement has identified several important attributes that performance measures should include if they are to be effective in monitoring progress and determining how well programs are achieving their goals. (See table 2 for a list of selected key attributes.) Additionally, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government emphasizes using performance measures to assess performance over time. We have previously reported that by tracking and developing a performance baseline for all performance measures, agencies can better evaluate whether they are making progress and their goals are being achieved. Based on an analysis of the 8 initiatives we reviewed, we found that these performance measures did not generally include the key attributes of successful performance measures. Moreover, DOD’s Strategies lack sufficient direction on how components are to develop measures for these initiatives that would ensure that the performance measures developed include the key attributes for successful measures. This hinders DOD’s ability to ensure that effective measures are developed which will allow it to monitor the performance of the individual initiatives and whether the initiatives are likely to achieve the goals and objectives of the Strategies. We found that some of the performance measures for the 8 initiatives we reviewed included the key attributes of successful performance measures, such as linkage to goals and objectives in the Strategies. However, the measures for most of the initiatives did not have many of the key attributes of successful performance measures. As shown in table 3, for three initiatives there were no clearly identified performance measures; for five there were no measurable targets to allow for easier comparison with the initiatives’ actual performance; for five the measures were not objective; for five the measures were not reliable; for six there were no baseline and trend data associated with the measures; and for three the performance measures were not linked to the goals and objectives of the Strategies. A detailed discussion of our assessment of the performance measures for each key attribute follows: Measures for 5 of the 8 initiatives partially included the key attribute of “clarity.” For example, a performance measure for a Defense Logistics Agency initiative was to reduce the time required to issue uniforms by improving cycle times and reducing customer wait time. We identified “to reduce the time required to issue uniforms” as the name of the measure. However, the definition we identified for this measure, which is to improve cycle times and reduce customer wait time, did not include the methodology for computing the measure. Therefore, for the clarity attribute, we could not determine if the definition of this measure was consistent with the methodology used to calculate it. We reported in September 2015 that if the name and definition of the performance measure are not consistent with the methodology used to calculate it, data may be confusing and misleading to the component. For 3 of the 8 initiatives the performance measures were not clearly stated. For example, a performance measure for an Army initiative was to expand current capabilities by accessing data through a defense casualty system and integrate reporting and tracking into one application. We found that there was an overall description of the initiative, but it did not include a name or definition for the measure or a methodology for calculating it. 2. Measurable Target: Measures for 3 of the 8 initiatives fully included the key attribute of measurable targets. For example, a performance measure for a Joint Staff initiative is to have 100 percent visibility of condition codes for non-munitions inventory. Measures for 5 of the 8 initiatives did not identify a measurable target. For example, a performance measure for a Marine Corps initiative is to increase non-nodal visibility and the delivery status of materiel in transit within an area of responsibility, but the component did not provide a quantifiable goal or other measure that permits expected performance to be compared with actual results so that actual progress can be assessed.