The performance of DOD’s materiel distribution system relies on many stakeholders, each with different responsibilities, systems, and processes. Many organizations within DOD have important roles and responsibilities for supply chain management, and these responsibilities are spread across multiple components with separate funding and management of logistics resources and systems. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics serves as the principal staff assistant and advisor to the Secretary of Defense for all matters relating to defense logistics, among other duties, and is the department’s Defense Logistics Executive, with overall responsibility for improving and maintaining the defense logistics and supply chain system. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, under the authority, direction, and control of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, is the principal logistics official within the senior management of DOD. Within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Supply Chain Integration improves the integration of DOD’s supply chain by developing policy and facilitating the components’ implementation of supply chain management practices, among other duties. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Supply Chain Integration develops and directs DOD-wide supply chain integration functions by establishing and maintaining policies that are intended to deliver efficient, sustainable, and cost-effective end-to-end supply chain performance. Each of the military departments is separately organized, under its own Secretary. Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the military departments are responsible for, among other things, organizing, training, and equipping their forces. TRANSCOM, in addition to its responsibilities for transporting equipment and supplies in support of military operations, is designated as the distribution process owner for DOD. The role of the distribution process owner is, among other things, to oversee the overall effectiveness, efficiency, and alignment of department-wide distribution activities, including force projection, sustainment, and redeployment/retrograde operations. DOD has issued a series of policies, strategic planning documents, instructions, memoranda, and other documents related to logistics and supply chain management over the last several years. Joint Publication 4- 0, Joint Logistics, provides the doctrinal framework which describes how logistics is delivered to support joint operations across the range of military operations. Joint Publication 4-0 also acknowledges the importance of technology in capturing source data effectively, integrating those data, and making them more accessible in order to provide the shared awareness needed to improve planning, decision making, and assessment. Key policies, guidance, and other documents that address many aspects of the department’s supply chain from 2003 through 2011 are described in figure 1. DOD has taken steps to improve in-transit visibility of its assets through efforts developed by several of the defense components, but no one organization is fully aware of all such efforts across the department, because they are not centrally tracked. Based on data we requested and received from DOD officials in several components, we were able to compile a list of 34 in-transit visibility efforts that are being conducted by the components. Currently, DOD conducts some informal coordination and information sharing regarding its in-transit visibility efforts, but information is not consistently shared through a formal mechanism. We have previously reported that it is important for organizations to have complete, accurate, and consistent data to inform policy, document performance, and support decision making. Additionally, we have found that having to incorporate information drawn from multiple sources can potentially be challenging to those responsible for managing and integrating that information. Managers striving to reach organizational goals must have information systems in place to provide them with needed information. We conducted our own research, in collaboration with the components, to identify the in-transit visibility efforts across DOD, because DOD has not identified and does not yet have a ready means for identifying these efforts. No single defense component could identify all of the efforts across the department or provide cost figures for them. Based on our analysis, 27 of the 34 efforts are each led and funded by a single defense component. For example, the Army leads and funds the Next Generation Wireless Communications effort, a wireless network that provides location, condition, and intrusion-detection information on DOD assets. Of the remaining seven efforts, each is co-led by two or more components. For example, TRANSCOM and the Defense Logistics Agency co-led an effort to merge data from several sources into one system. The 34 efforts are listed in appendix II. Many of these efforts include increasing the use of automatic identification technology tools within the department or enhancing computer systems that store and report data on assets while they are in transit. Based on information we collected, DOD has obligated about $701 million for fiscal years 2009 through 2011 for these efforts and projected about $455.3 million in costs for fiscal years 2012 through 2015—for a total of approximately $1.2 billion. The Army and TRANSCOM have provided the largest amount of funding for these efforts, compared to the other components. Table 1 shows the amount of obligations and projected costs associated with in-transit visibility efforts, as reported by the defense components. In addition, some coordination and information sharing among components regarding in-transit visibility efforts is taking place through both department-wide and service-specific activities, according to DOD officials. These activities include conferences, working groups, and workshops. The participants in these activities vary based on the focus of the group. However, participants have included officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the combatant commands, the four military services, the Defense Logistics Agency, and other government agencies that support distribution process improvements. DOD officials explained that these conferences, workshops, and meetings provide opportunities to discuss challenges that the components are experiencing with in-transit visibility and the efforts they are taking to address these challenges. For example, the Marine Corps hosted a logistics summit in November 2011. The participants included officials from logistics offices in the Army, the Defense Logistics Agency, TRANSCOM, and the Marine Corps. During the summit, officials from the various components discussed challenges and issues related to in-transit visibility—such as methods to mandate and implement the use of RFID tags on cargo containers, pallets, and reusable shipping containers and the enforcement of RFID requirements on cargo shipments transported outside the United States. Additionally, TRANSCOM officials said that a list of in-transit visibility points of contact at each component is distributed among the components. According to these officials, the components use the information in this document to reach in-transit visibility points of contact in other components so they can discuss related issues on an ad hoc basis. Officials from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Supply Chain Integration told us that recent workshops have consistently included representatives of the DOD components; these officials believe that the workshops will increase awareness of all in-transit visibility efforts across the department. However, these opportunities to share information are informal, and we found that no one organization was fully aware of all of the in-transit visibility efforts across the department, because information was not consistently shared through a formal mechanism. In 2012, DOD began developing a strategy for asset visibility and in- transit visibility; however, as of January 2013 the strategy had not been finalized and did not include some of the key elements of a comprehensive strategic plan. According to DOD officials, the draft strategy, developed in collaboration with all pertinent components, is expected to be completed by June 2013. Officials anticipate that it will be used to guide and integrate related department-wide efforts to improve end-to-end supply chain management and support to the services. According to DOD officials, each component will be expected to develop an execution plan that contains information about its in-transit visibility efforts. The draft strategy indicates that such information is to include descriptions of gaps or challenges within the supply chain and the component’s actions or proposed actions to address them. Our analysis shows that the current draft of DOD’s strategy for asset visibility and in- transit visibility fully includes one of the seven elements of a comprehensive strategic plan, partially includes four others, and does not include the remaining two. Until DOD has finalized its department-wide strategy, with all of its accompanying execution plans, it will not have the information it needs to make well-informed decisions about asset visibility and in-transit visibility, including setting budget priorities for its in-transit visibility efforts across the supply chain in an increasingly constrained fiscal environment. DOD has policies, instructions, and other guidance in place that address supply chain issues such as the use of technology to track the location of cargo, but these documents have not focused specifically on in-transit visibility. Recently, DOD has recognized the need to develop a comprehensive in-transit visibility strategy. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Supply Chain Integration leads and is overseeing the effort to develop the strategy for improving asset tracking and in-transit visibility—which encompasses taking advantage of the automatic identification technology implementation and process integration to date—and ensuring that in-transit visibility is “truly factory to foxhole.” The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Supply Chain Integration stated that one goal is to refocus department-wide efforts on measurable actions to improve asset tracking and in-transit visibility using automatic identification technology as an enabler when requirements for end-to-end supply chain optimization dictate its use. According to the draft strategy, it will contribute to achieving the following objectives for improving asset visibility (tracking) and in-transit visibility: 1. optimized deployment/redeployment, sustainment, and retrograde enabled by data capture and collection 3. unique identification of assets As of January 2013, this strategy had not been finalized, but the Deputy Assistant Secretary provided us with an overview and a copy of the draft. The strategy was developed collaboratively by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Defense Logistics Agency, TRANSCOM, and the services.