Special Report D-82-2/

'z LOGANEXECUTIVE SUMMARYVOLUME I

Raymon S. DotsonErnest C. Seaberg

Systems Analysis DivisionSystems Analysis and Evaluation OfficeUS Army Missile CommandRedstone Arsenal, Alabama 35898

5February 1980

CL0 Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited

LLJ DTIC.. IELECTE

S JAN 131984

Dm from Ion,Im in mm wvn o MA K UM 84 0 1 1 2 08 1

DISPOSITION INSTRUCTIONS

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not,'eturn it to the originator.

DISCLAIMER

The findings in this report are not to be construed as anofficial Department of the Army position unless so designatedby other authorized documents.

I1

TRADE NAMES

Use of trade names or manufacturers in this report does notconstitute an official endorsement or approval of the useof such commercial hardware or software.

II

~1

. ... .. . II IIII _b iI

SECURITY CLASIPIATION1 OF TIC PAGE (~M an DWO ft31ORRC 18CTD O OREPORT LIOCMEWTATIOI4 PAGE 8F1 0PV oFRT. REPORT HUM"E 4 v a .GOT ACCESIO NO -RKCIPIRMNTS CATALOG NUMBER

7, TITLE (8"E do) S. TYPE OF REPOII1T a PERIOD COVERED

LOGA Exc~tve ummay, olue IFinal Reportj ~1LOGN Ec'~iveSuimar, Vlum Ia. PERFORMING ORG. IRT NUMBER

7. AUTHoR(.)a rn75iTRACT Oft GRANT NUMBER(&)

Rayion S. otson DAAK4-7-C-0289Ernest C. Seaberg

T.PROM16ORWANIZATIO0N ND4E AND ADDRESS WD. PROGRAM EKLE NE;WT-.PRfOsECT TASK

RCA/Government and Couutercial Systems AE OKUI UOM

Automated Systems Division AMCMS 63:110.074001?Burlington, Massachusetts__________

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE~

Commander February 1980US Aray Missile Comand 13. NUMBER O9P PAGES

ATTN. DRSMI-DS, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898 ____

4 . SONI' 0 1NG AGtNCY N AME & ADRESS( Olfea hium Ctweofli O01190) 15. SEtURITY CLASS. (of dift urot)

UNCLASSIF IED

IS&.ECASSIICATIONDOWGRADINO

ft. DISTRIBUTIONI STATEMENT (of Able ROpeal)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

7?. DISTRIBUTION STATEMILNT (of Me. ak.bvmi euterod In, 810A 20ff AEfeit hum R6P"f)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY "COTE$

14._ KEY WORDS (CiiaRa un seras 6 oIf noooaainy ed 1~1&tj by block mmnba)

~ogistlcs Maintenance Systems~ AnalysisCost Analysis Test Equipment AvailabilityOperational Support Cost Manpower

I Supply Maintenance Poll~y Evaluction

1Provisiordng Design-Logistics Interface486STRAC? ICkwd m o asin fe~webO d D*.tfar byV Nok Mns11

_'this executive swumary describes the'Logistic Analysis Model (LOGAN) ard itsuse for evaluating logistic operations as applied to US Army materiel systemsThe objective is to develop methodology for generating quantitative data -foranalysis of activities necessary to equip, operate, maintain, and support, a

A materiel systeln. LOGAII is b determlnist;r model, anaytical in design througlits sensitivity feature, and highly versatile in its ability to evaluate manyalternativei rapidly and inexpensively. Through th sestvtJein

J*A I 7 2 4 ooo'sseas UNCLASSIFiED -_____

'SECUPIITY CLAJIIF1CATO Opp 4 1q PAGE (ohmi Do&e Irteedo

IE

UNCLASSIFIEDWCUNTY CLAMEICAl' M OF @ T"i8 PAlUO3= Dea Boe

SABSTRACT (Concluded)

"support alternatives are tested for evaluating life cycle costs and forrecommending optimum repair levels; repair versus discard at failure;manpower, provisioning and test equipment requirements; table of organizationand equipment adjustment or development; and other operational elements byquantities and costs

4

4.

ii UNCLASSIFIEDSUCUPITY CL O*4ICAION OF "t PAGSElMM. DaM &rMM

FORWARD

The Logistic Analysis Model IOGAM Executive Summary Volume I waswritten under Contract DAAKAO-78-C-0289. The work was performed withthe US Army Missile Command under the general technical cognizance ofMr. Raymon S. Dotson, Systems Analysis Division, Systems Analysis andEvaluation Office, US Army Missile Conunand, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.The program also produced two companion documents entitled LOGAM User'sManual Volume II and LOGAM Technical/Programmer Manual Volume II7

iACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions made to thisdocument and the Program by Miss Vera M. Campbell of the SystemsAnalysis Division, US Army Missile Command, and to Mr. Russell E. Howe,Missile and Surface Radar Division, RCA Government and CommercialSystems, Moorestown, New Jersey. LOGAM owes its capability to runefficiently to their superior programming skills.

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Mr. CharlesS. Crook, Assistant for Data Application, US Army Development andReadiness Command, 5Ol Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA and Mr. HarryF. Cook, Chief, Systems Analysis Division, Systems Analysis and EvaluationGffice, US Army Missile Command for support in development of the LOGAMmodel and its documentation.

Aeesslon For

DTIC TAB ElUnanneunced E3Justificatio

Distribut ion/_Availability Codes

. vail and/or

l |Special

L . .- r !t _' .. .. .,..

THIS PAGE LERt BLANK

iv ,

or:'.-

CONTENTS

Sect ion Page

1. INTRODUCTION ....... .... .. .... ..................... . 1

2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION ........... 2

3. LOGAN SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ................................ 3

3.1 Deployment ....................................... 3

3.2 Support Structure ................................ 3

3.3 Basic Data ....................................... 4

3.4 Indtvioual LRU Data .............................. 4

3.5 Integration of Input Data ........................ 4

4. SYSTEM ENGINEERING APPROACH TO LOGISTIC EVALUATION ..... 5

5. QUESTIONS RELATED TO DESIGN COST, PRODUCTION ANDMAINTENANCE ........................................... 6

6. MAINTENANCE POLICY EXAMPLE ............................ 7

7. PROGRAM OUTPUT ........................................ 8

7.1 Output for Logistic Plans.......................... 8

7.2 Output of Maintenance Analysis ................... 8

8. MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT FOR A MATERIEL SYSTEM ............ 11

9. DESIGN SUPPORT INTERFACE CONSIDERATIONS ................ 12

10. EFFECT OF MTBA VARIATIONS ............................. 13

11. LOGAN LIMITATIONS ....................................... 15

12. SU MARY .............................................. 15

v

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK

vi

LOGISTC ANIALYSIS MODE,

(LOGAN)

VOLUME IEXECUTIVE BSID4ARY

ABSTRACT

The Logistic Analysis Model LOGAM can be applied in two modes of operation.First as its predecessor LOCAM 5, it can be opertbted as a maintenancecost analysis model including ito sensitivity testing feature and summtionof support costs for several theaters of operation on an individual LRUbasis. Secondly, it can analyze operations and support functions and

costs or a life cycle basis. In this latter mode, the analysis pertainsto a TOR organization and a single theater of operations. 1he modelfirst computes the maintenance costs for the equipment in the TOE organization

and presents the output in the same format as the output of its predecessorLOC.AM 5. then presents * formatted output of the operational costsas defined in DA ?amphlet 11-4 and combines the maintenance costs withthe operational costs to produce thE resulting life cycle operations andsupport costs.

.• INTRODUCTION

The Logistic Analysis Model has beEn developed over the ye*ars from theCost Analysis of Army Maintenance Policies model (COAflP) through theLogistic Cost Analysis Model (LOCAM) to the current LOGAM Podel. Thisevolution is shown in Figure 1. The COAMP model wa' basically to analyzemaintenance policies, the LOCAM model to evaluate prime system support.costs and the LOGAN model the prime system nd all support personne. andsupporting systems costsi. LOGAN is wi operations and support model.

' - ,I

N~flC kA

_ .

F9:1 LONAD

LORQU

Loc" LOMA

Ia Lc

( P~~~~~~~*M OUIWO AAYMUSCDI MMILA.

COAN-1

In the LOGAN mode. the objective is to bring together the elements of the:

a. Materiel System

b. Support Equipment

c. Support organization.

The materiel system and organizational equipment are developed withtheir operator and maintenance support requirements. These form thenucleus of the organization to which Army standard rates for overheadpersonnel are added to develop a total TOE.

?~GE2WRAL DES'CRIPTION

Fi~jure 2 shows the operational and support cost elements evaluated inLOGAM. To show the expansion of LOGAN from LOCAM, the boxes marked withan * were developed in LOCAM. The basic headings of military personnel,consumption depot maintenance, modifications materiel, other directsupport operations, and indirect support operationc indicate the detailof output data that is to be accommodated in W'GAN.

4L sa -VNI144D2 iL

* - -I

1o ' .. ... ..

3. LOGAN 8Y8TEM5 ANALYSIS

To perform our analysis with the LOGAN model we establish a simulationof real life activities for the prime system to include the expecteddeployment for the system, the support structure, bring into play thecurrent basic factors for support of missile system, develop individuelline replacement unit data factors and perform a LOGAN system synthesis.These may be s,.marized as follows:

a. Simulate Expected System Deployment

b. Establish Support Structure

c. Introduce Basic Factors for Analysis

d. Develop Individual Line Replaceable Unit Data Factors

e. Perform System Sunthesis.

The nucleus for system synthesis, therefore, becomes the deploymentscenario, support structure, basic data factors and the individual linereplaceable unit data.

3.1 Deployment may be subdivided into various locations:

a. The United States Army Europe (USAREUR)

b. The Continental United States (CONUS)

c. The United States Army Pacific (USARPAC)

When performing maintenance analysis only, these may be combined in asingle run and baseline support cost totals obtained for the sum of alllocations. LRU support cost totals may b, obtained on an individual LRUbasis and sensitivity analysis can be performed. When operations andsupport costs are investigated, it is required that the TOE for a specificorganization in a single theater of operations be investigated. If morethan one theater is involved, successive runs art! required due to thevariations in the TOE's for different locations.

, -3.2 The support structure is developed by establishing organizationdirect, general and depot sunport units, pipelines are determined, and

alternative maintenance Policies selected.

3

_ . I I I . i

3.3 The basic data for inputting the LOGAN medel includes many factorsthat are relatively constant. That is, they are changed only about oncea year. LOGAN model inputG that are representative of basic data factorsare as follows:

a. Maintenance manpower labor rates

b. Training costs

c. Shipping costs

d. Storage costs

e. Supply administration costs

f. Life cycle (years)

g. Factory lead times for consumables

h. Equipment operating time fractions

i. Manpower productivity factors

j. Work weeks.

3.4 Included in the individual LRU data category are those input factorswhich are likely to vary from line replaceable unit to line replaceableunit. Factors representative of this variable type of data requirementsare as follows:

a. LRU, Module, Part Cost

b. Reliability (LRU removal rates)

c. Mean Time to Repair (MTTR)

d. Test and Repair Times

e. Physical Characteristics (weight, cube)

f. Modification Work Orders

g. Other Equipment Identifying Data Factors.

3.5 Upon integrating the deployment, support structure, and basic andLRU data, the total materiel system is synthesized with its test equip-ment, personnel, support materiel, administrative functions, pipelinetimes, repair turn-around and maintenance-incident rates.

40

I. sysTD4 UizNEEING APPROACH TO LOGISTIC EVALUATION

Applications of LOGAM involve a system engineering approach to theevaluation of alternative logistic postures costs. Referring to Figure3, we feel that the systems8 engineering approach parallels the supportcost effectiveness study flow also shown in Figure 3 and the systemsengineering approach can be subdivided into several distinct activities:

a. Establish requirements

b. Establish the dats, base

c. Define alternative logistics postures

d. Conduct trade-off evaluaion of alternatives through logisticsmodeling to'chniques a~nd sensitivity analysis.

e. Evaluate the results of trade-off studies

f. Present results anid recommendations for cost effective approaches

to logistics support.

SYSTEME DA TA S

S Y T E F A T R A .D . . "

5. QUESTION RELATED TO DESIGN COST, PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE

There are many questions related to logistics that a project managerwants answered. Here are some that may be critical to a system's success:

a. What spares should be stocked and where located?

b. How much reliability and maintainability should be designedinto the equipment?

c. Is modular design feasible?

d. Is repair or throwaway feasible and at what level?

e. How many maintenEace personnel are needed at field, intermediate,and depot levels?

f. What is the optimum operating and support cost package?

To develop needed answers, the LOGAM model can be used to address avariety of logistic support functions, for example:

a. From a wide variety of support probabilities determine repairat Equipment, Direct Support, General Support, Depot orContractor facility.

b. Study effects of pipeline lengths and transport costs.

c. Balance cost to repair versus downtime cost. Optimize repairtime (and thus cost).

d. Evaluate administrative and clerical costs of supply and

replenishment.

e. Develop TOE personnel and equipment quantities.

f. Study operation, maintenance, and support manpower costs.

g. Allocation of manpower, provisioning, and maintenance organization.

h. Investigate the cost effect of replenishment procedures.

i. Determine sensitivity of support concepts to critical parameters.

J. Determine feasibility of repair versus throwaway.

k. Evaluate engineering design/logistic support interfaces. Thereare many other outputs we can derive, especially those relatedto provisioning, manpower and support policies.

0

6. MAIATEAJCE POLICY EXAWILF.

LOGAM has the capability of modeling twenty maintenance policies orcombinr.tions thereof, commonly used in support of a system. In Figure 4an X indicates thot some action occurs an described in the conuents aroundthe perimeter of the matrix. For better understanding of the matrix shownin Figure 4, the maintenance policy GP is shown in Figure 5.

/ - - FOR THE MAINTENANCE POLICY DESIGNATED BY --

G t;310ciGIl 46IG~~aGIG 011 GJJOI 6Ll.il 10 N0.0110,ll, 10,T i

* CFOUIMIENT X X 'X X X X X X X X L x X X X X X X X X Lau

x x x x x x X X x LRU ,,

x MODULE

MOOXL X X X1-OAL

t 5PDEPOT L- - MODULEx

AIR WILL BE ACCOMPLISHI:D BY DISCARDING AN REPTHE FAILED.

FIGURE 4. MAINTENANCE POLICY MATR;4.

RE .POT .................

t4'

* I

REORDER.................

FIP .

i ' I DI61RECT SUPPORT I !i I

r " L , ~ ~~~~cou r"-. . :::'o

--L-.'L.1:_EQUIPMENT

FIGURE 5. MAINTENANCE POLICY GP.

UIII T

7. PftCRA OUTt"1

The LOGAM progran output can predict life cycle operation and main-tenance cost for a specific organization operating as a unit in aparticu.lar theater. Inherent and operational availability, manpowerrequirements, -rovisioning requirements, and test equipment requirementsare also provided whether the model is operated in its maintenanceanalysis or operations and support modes.

7.1 The model output is used to provide support to the project managerfor his requirements in development of logistic plans and analysis.Some of the more important with which we are concerned are:

a. Operations and Support cost plans

b. Integrated Logistic Support plans

c. Army and Department of Defense reports

d. Equipment design planning/analysis

e. Operational analysis

f. Cost effectiveness/analysis studies

7.2 Some examples of data reporting of output of maintenance analysisstudies are shown in the next few tables/figures.

In Table 1, data is presented based on two cases where different main-tenance policies were analyzed. In Case 1, a portion of the maintenancerequirement was performed in the field. In Case 2, ell maintenanceabove organization was performed at the depot. Note the variety of databoth recurring and investment.

The same results are present in simpler bar graph form in Figure 6. Themodel also determines operational and inherent availability. Here A0 iscompared for Cases I and 2.

The model, when used in the maintenance mode, has a sensitivity featurein which any of the inputs may be increased or decreased to determinethe effect of input variation. Figure 7 shows the effect of maintenanceincident rate variation.

8 o

, .- -' ... .

TABLE 1. EXAMPLE OF DATA TABLE REPORTING (S IN THOUSANDS)

Case I Case II

(A) Ten-Year Mantenance Field 352 -Operating ManpowerCosts Depot 329 1202

Test Eqnipment 340 251Maintenance

SupplyMaterial 8267 9412

Inventory Management 1188 1188

Order, Store, Ship, and 138 324Handle

Subtotal 10,614 12,377

LRUs 6272 11,866

(B) Initial Modules/Parts 642 253ProvisionInvestment Cust to Enter 294 294

Subtotal 7208 12,413

Integrated Direct 1000 1000: Support Maintenance! (IDSM) Test Sets

(C) Test Direct Support (DS) 263Equipment Test SetsAcquisition

General Support (GS) 220 -Test Sets

Depot Test Stations 264 220

Subtotal 1747 1220

IDSM Test Sets 425 425(D) Test

Equipment S Test Sets 1824 -Development

pot/GS Test Stations 1370 3285

Subtotal 3619 3710

Total Support Costs 23,188 29,72

iWP

i3 .

A - 10-VIAR 0IRAT .OSWS -SMIAL PNVNOMNWSMWT

C - TW7. mmasUsM1IT ACOsAmNa9 - tmt SNNPMwT onvoLowiTg

its CNitI IS2I,-Q %." 1UwIAUIN0ofRTI UTP

FIUEEAPEO4A RP EOTN. FIIR .EFC FMITNNEICDNRAT VAITIN

are vaie .Tedttdlnselc th previou reu~lts fNorU coImparison.

IIThemoel ls pemso moeta n nu obevre iutnos

0-

C 40 -

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 &a0MAINTENANCE INCIDENT RATE MULTIPLE

FIGURE S. EFFECT OF SIMULATANEOUS VARIATION OF MAINTENANCEINCIDENT RlATE AND DOUBLING THE NUMBER OF DEPLOYED SYSTEMS.

10 0

Since we need to develop a new system frokn the bottom up, we also mustdevelop the support structure as well. Our test and repair channeldevelopment of manpower permits us to identify direct labor requirementsfor the prime system, support systems, and overhead. Table 2 is oneexample of prime equipment manpower for field and depot. Based on themaintenance policy, manpower is developed by site and totals shown here.In Case 1, we have two DS sites at 8.08 men each or 16.15 total required.The G8 site requires 6.23 men and the depot requirement is 20.1 men.The Case 1 total is 42.48 men. For Case 2, all maintenance is performedat the depot which requires 47.25 men. Of course, we cannot have lessthan a whole man; therefore, we must round off at each location to thenext higher number of men. For example, 8.08 - 9 men.

TMLS . MIIL

VW AND IPAIR IIWAL UfLUATiON AND MANPION WWNNUMiEN1I DATA

UNi U 37 DPOI

,U m Tr Mo*t

Ton ", OF vm o" TO Ms or TIM NO. I o. O.IOUIn TNT MWAI sFwAM u iNOuu I M INOWl in IseOUIm 4tmWIm MMM

DAv OAY) DA" EWN DA") MM DA"M

CAN I -u &a. we3 4.3 6.2 in la* 14M "A ism

YDan OF 3 MIW on an DIm

CAN If I I MA n

ku OP UM PmIMl S Mm~

us. a' mu P5 31t 4y.5

TOTAL UI , 47,.i

8. MANPOWER DEVELOPMT FOR A MATERIEL SYSTD4

In Table 3, the manpower development is accomplished by establishing thetable of organization and equipment for the prime system and its supportingequipment. Personnel are established as shown here, * are thosepersonnel required for operation and maintenance of the prime system, "show those personnel required to operate and maintain the equipmentnecessary to support the prime system, * are those overhead personnel

• added according to Department of Army standards. Typical of these are

company comasnders, othe: officers, first sergeant, cooks, etc.

Lm,-

TABLE 3. MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT FOR A MATERIEL SYSTEM

BATTERY HEADOUARTERS

SERVICE PLATOON FIRING PLATOON (3)*OVEHEA iiii

SERVIE FOROEAIONN SUPPRIOF .TEN PRIAR

*I 0!,,

I I0

9. EPEPORN INTERFACE CONSIDERATIONS

A major problem in design of new systems is the cost to support thesystem throughout its operation and support life. The value of theLOGAM model is in its use to predict the O&S costs, identify engineeringconsiderations which W affect high support cosC and introduce change ato reduce O&S costs prior to product baseline approval. Figure 9 isshown to convey the idea that LOGAM can be applied early in the developmentcycle and by successive applications prior to production will reduce thechance for costly modtfictons after a system becoes operational.

'"' -" . .. • - • , - . - ...; I I1 2

I YSTEM EG Iw~NSGwOGSIIA iT. A LOGICIANto MmTAKINTERFACE TASKS WSY * PRIM Osgn~A A

PROUCT SASS UNG CONFIGURATION

IAROWAME "DEIGN~-TO" OJECTIVIS IN OUANTIFIED TERMS.UNDIFINiO 4M4OWARE DISIO14 CONFIGURATION RANGE 1L .33

WGHMCOST TO MOIP IAWARE

DRAWINGS AN3 SOT LCICEIRTS

sySTEMAKUIPUENI LIFE CYCLE

PV4ORM INITIATION FRLLEPODI)CTION 0PERATIlONAL

FIGURE 9. DESIGN-SUPPORT INTER FACE CONSIDERATIONS.

10. EFFECT OF MPMl4 VARIATION

Figure 10 is an example of the capability to Doredict O&S costs through a

sensitivity evaluation of the mean time betw% :.a maintenance actions forthe caaes we have previously shown. We can see that 3.f ye can confidentlyincrease the time between maintenarce actions to 1.6 times the baselinewe can reduce the maintenance life-cycle cost $32.2M to $27.1M4 for CaseI and *141.014 to $32.2M4 for Case 2. This is over 15 percent for Case Iand 21.5 percent for Case 2. Thus, if a R&D program, costing less than$514 for Case I has a high probability of success in increasing thereliability of the system to 1.6 times current baseline, it should beconsidered.

We can see, therefore, that the design-support interface is highlyII important. Operational costs must be minimized by goal oriented engineeringdesign and not left to ceance. In the LOGAM model, the functions shownin Figure 11 under the T-squasre are all evaluated and optimized towardcost effective design considerations.

13

INI

-MYMBA MULTIPLE

FIGURE 10. EFFECT OF MITDMA VARIATION.

[ System Missile X X

Support I.tterfaceMISSION COSTS BY DESIGN OR CHANCE?BV TIM AVAILASSLITV ULF SUFFICIENCY MODULAR REPLACEMENT TRAIMPORTATIONMA..4.MIAII8LSTY COOWAVLITY FAULT IOLATION RAPID REStWPLYOE LIANLTY AUTOMATIC TEST ITANOAROPI.ATION ROURUTO

:EPAIN UIDLT4R.TEIT STATE.OF-TWE.APT Rep,RPLACI SPECIAL TEST CYCLIC OVERHAUL FIELD MODIVICAT1,EPLOYMENT 18tILL TRAININ Pt.ANUIE REPLACEMENT MANPWR

FIGURE 11. COST-EFFECTIVE LOGISTICS

14

I i '~ 46

31. , ,A, LI . MI ,,o

LOGAN, although the best of its type, does have limitations. mostproinent of these are as follows:

a. Accuracy of input data (particularly failure rate and equipmentutilization data)

b. I proper de.a usage

c. Interjection of bias

d. Poor assumptions

e. Failure to re-appraise

f. Future uncertainties.

The first of these limitations can be minimized by reducing input dataerror. The limitations again point out *hat your results are only asgood as your data inputs. We have found that data based on carefullydeveloped design engineering requirements, achievable reliability andmaintainability factors, and past and projected logistic applicationscan minimize these limitations. The results thus developed will influencethe design of equipment and manpower systems in such a way that optimumsupport and cost may be realized when the primary qystem is fielded.

12. SU4KARY

In sunmary (see Figure 12), LOGAN can provide the engineer and logisticianwith data from which they may make enlightened decisions. When used toevaluate design/support considerations, early in the system design,LOGAN may affect decisions that influence the design of equipment suchthat optimum support may be realized when the prime system is fielded.

ISG, ANALYSISI0 DECISION _OPTIMUM

S=%UPPORT"OGISTICS

(Figure 12. Sunmary

15

I-"'

DISTRIBUFION

COPIES

1 Deputy Under Sec'y of the Anny, ATTN: office of Op ReschAsst Sec'y of the Army (I,L&FM), Pentagon, Wash., DC 20310Headquarters, US Army Materiel Development A Readiness Consnance

S1 DRCDM-S1 DRCDMRI DRCDRM_ _ URCMN1 DRCMM-R1 ORCMM-S

DRCMM-MDRSAC

1_ DRCSM1 DRCSM-E"__ DRCSM-W1 DRCSM-WR1 DRCSM-WA1 DRCSM-WG1 DRCSM-WC1 DRCSM-I1 DRCSM-P1 DRCSM-PI1 DRCSM-PS1 DRCSM-PN1 DRCSM-PP1 DRCSM-PAS1 DRCREI DRCRE-C1 DRCPP-E1 DRCRE-I1 DRCDM-S1 DRCDP1 DRCMS1 DRCQA1 DRCDE

Dep Chf of Staff for Logistics, Pentagon, Wash., DC 203104 DALO-SMP-U1 DALO-SMZ-B1 DALO-PLZ-X

_ DALO-SMIL1 Ofc, Asst Sec'y of Defense, ATTN: MRA&L-SR, Pentagon, Wash., DC 203101 Commandant, US Army Logistics Management Center, Ft. Lee, VA 238011 Defense Logistics Studies Info Exchange, DRXMC-D, ALMC, Ft. Lee, VA 238012 Defense Technical Info Center, Cameron Station, Alexandria, VA 22314

Commander, USA Armament Materiel Readiness Cmd, Rock Island, IL 612991 DRSAR-MN_ _ DRSAR-SA

Commander, USA Conmunicettions-Electronics Cmd, Ft. Menmouth, NJ 077031DRSEL-M

DRSEL-PL-SACogmander, USA Troop Support & Aviation Materiel Readiness Command,

St. Louis, MO 63120DRSTS-SPFDRSTS-SPS

1 DRSTS-BACommander, US Amy Tank-Automotive Command, Warren, MI 48090

1 ATTN: DRSTA-FATTN: DRSTA-S

- Comander, USA Armament R&D Cd, ATTN: DRDAR-SE, Dover, NJ 07801Commander, USA Aviation R&D Cmd, 4300 Goodfellow Blvd, St. Louis, MO 63120

- Commander, USA Electronics R&D Cmd, ATTN: DRDEL-ST-SA% Rm 2D31b,Bldg. 2700, Ft. Monmouth, NJ 07703

1 Commander, USA Mobility Equipment R&D Cmd, ATTN: DRDME-O, Ft. Belvoir,VA 22060

1 Commander, USA -Natick R&D Cnd, ATTN: DRXNM-O, Natick, MA 01760Director, Amy Materiel Systems Analysis Activity, APG, MD 21006

1 DRXSY-D1 DRXSY-G_ _ DRXSY-A1 DRXSY-Ci1 DRXSY-R

DRXSY-RMDRXSY-FDRXSY-FX

__DRXSY-FA

1 DRXSM-FM1 DRXSY-FR1 DRXSY-FO1 DRXSY-DA

Commander, US Army Logistics Center, Ft. Lee VA 238011 Commander, US Army Logistics Evaluation Agency, New Cumberland Army

Depot, New Cumberland, PA 170701 Commander, US Army Depot Systems Command, Chambersburg, PA 172011 Commander, US Air Force Logistics Cmd, WPAFB, ATTN: AFLC/XRS, Dayton,

Ohio 45433j.. US Navy Fleet Materiel Support Office, Naval Support Depot,

Mechanicsburg, PA 170551 Mr. James Prichard, Navy SEA Systems Cied, ATTN: PMS 3061, Dept of

US Navy, Wash., DC 203621 George Washington University, Inst. of Management Science & Engr.,

707 22nd St., N.W., Wash., DC 200061 Naval Postgraduate School, ATTN: Dept of Opns Anal, Monterey, CA 93940

Air Force Institute of Technology, ATTN: SLGQ Head Quantitative StudiesDept., Dayton, OH 43433

1 US Army Military Academy, West Point, NY 10996

0

inF~i

1 Commander, US Army Logistics Center, ATTN: Concepts & DoctrineDirectorate, Ft. Lee, VA 23801

1 Scientific Advisor, ATCL-SCA, Army Logistics Center, Ft. Lee, VA 23801_ HQ, Dept of the Army, (DASG-HCL-P), Wash., DC 20314T Librarian, Logistics Mgt Inst., 4701 Sangamore Rd., Wash., DC 20016

Wallace M. Cohen, Asst Director Systems Analysis, FGMSD, GeneralAccounting Ofc, Wash., DC 20548

HQ, Dept of the Army, (DASG-HCL-P), Wash., DC 20314Commander, USDRC Automated Logistics Mgt Systems Activity, P. 0. Box 1578,

St. Louis, MO 631881 Director, DARCUM Logistics Systems Support Agency, Letterkenny

Army Depot, Chambersburg, PA 172011 Commander, Materiel Readiness Support Activity, Lexington, KY 40507

Director, Army Management Engineering Training Agency, .Rock IslandArsenal, Rock Island, IL 61299

1 Defense Logistics Agcy, ATTN: DLA-LO, Cameron Sta, Alexandria, VA 22314*Dep Chf of Staff (I&L), HQ USMC-LMP-2, ATTN: LTC Sonneborn, Jr.,

Wash., DC 203801 ommander, US Army Depot Systems Command, Letterkenny Army Depot,

ATTN: DRSDS-LL, Chambersburg, PA 172011 Logistics Control Activity, Presidio of San Francisco, CA 94120_Churck B. Foster,'Communications Security Logistics Activity,

DRSEL-CCM-NMP, Ft. Huachuca, AZ 856131 Logistics Studias Office, DRXSY-FLSO, Ft. Lee, VA 23801T Commander, US Army Communications Command, ATTN: Dr. Forry,

CC-LOG-LEO, Ft. Huachuca, AZ 856131 Ccnnmander, US Army Test & Evaluation Cmd, ATTN: DRSTE-SY,

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 210051 DARCOM Intern Training Center, Red River Army Depot, Texarkana,

TX 755011 US Army Training & Doctrine Command, Ft. Monroe, VA 23651T Operations & Inventory Analysis Office, NAVSUP (Code 04A) Dept

of Navy, Wash., DC 20376US Army Research Office, ATTN: Robert Launer, Math. Div.,

P.O.Box 12211, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709Air Force Logistics Mgt Center, Gunter Air Force Station, AL 36144

AFLMC/LGY17 Engineer Studies Center, 6500 Brooks Lane, Wash., DC 20315

Dr. Carl Weisman, C.A.C.I., 1815 N. Fort Myer Drive, Arlington, VA 22209

I

(