DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCYAMERICA’S COMBAT LOGISTICS SUPPORT AGENCY

WARFIGHTER SUPPORT ENHANCEMENT STEWARDSHIP EXCELLENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

Measuring and Tracking DLMS Compliance Levels I, II, & III

Supply Discrepancy Reporting (SDR) Process Review Committee (PRC) Meeting

March 16, 2017http://www.dlmso.dla.mil/dlmso.asp

2

Key Question: Where are we on path to DLMS Compliance?

• What’s the Compliance Governance Process?

• Why is Compliance Important?

• What are the DLMS Compliance Levels?

• How does DLMS Compliance Support Achieving DoD Business Goals?

• Where are we in Achieving DLMS Level I Compliance?

• What are we doing to measure Level II & III Compliance?

Agenda: Questions We’ll Answer

3

DLMS Configuration Management Process,DLM 4000.25 Series of

ManualsSystems Development:

Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA)Acquisition & Logistics Functional Strategy &

Component Organization Execution Plans Supply Chain Executive Steering Committee (SCESC)

System/ADC Tracking

Systems Execution:DAAS applied syntax & semantic validations

Laws, Regulations & Policies

DLMS Governance Process

DirectivesInstructionsRegulations& Manuals

OSD Policy DirectionDoDD 8190.01EDoDI 4140.01DoDM 4140.01BEA & DISR

Standards Syndication

ComplianceOversight

BusinessRules

Business Process

4

Supply Chains

Commodities

Weapon Systems

Others

TransportUSTRANSCOM

InternationalLogistics

DSCA

FinanceDFAS

DLADisposition

ServicesDLA

Distribution

AcquisitionDCMA

Functional Services Providers

DLMS PODAAS

LIS

DLMS Global Services Providers

DLMS Interoperability Environment

GSA, FAA, Coast Guard, FEMA, etc.

Where Are We On the DLMS Compliance Path? Can Full DLMS Compliance be Achieved

55

DLMS Compliance Levels

Level 1BASIC

COMPLIANCE

Level 2ENHANCED

COMPLIANCE

Func

tiona

l Cap

aciti

es In

crea

se as

Com

plian

ce L

evels

Incr

ease

Level 3FULL

COMPLIANCE

Applicable to systems executing business processes covered by the DLM 4000.25 series of manuals

Interfaces with other systems

viaDLMS

This is the foundation. At a minimum, the system is capable of communicating MILS equivalent data via DLMS transactions, but may not have implemented DLMS enhanced capabilities.

In addition to meeting Level 1requirements the system has implemented

the preponderance of applicable DLMS enhancements contained in

Approved DLMSChanges (ADCs)

In addition to meeting Level 1 requirements thesystem has implemented ALL of applicable DLMS

enhancements contained in ApprovedDLMS Changes (ADCs)

Currently MonthlyMetrics are captured

For Level 1 Only

Achieving Functional Business Goals/Capabilities Requires Level II & III Compliance

DLMS IPT Working TowardQuarterly Level II & III

Compliance StatusReporting & Metrics

6

The DLMS Enable Achievement of DOD Goals and Acquisition & Logistics Functional Business Strategy

ComponentOrganizational

Execution Plans

Better Buying Power and Financial Management Reforms• Achieve affordable programs• Control costs throughout the product lifecycle;• Incentivize productivity and innovation in industry and government;• Eliminate unproductive processes and bureaucracy;

Goal 2: Strengthen DOD financial management to respond to Warfighter needs and sustain public confidence through auditable financial statementsGoal 3: “Build agile and secure information capabilities to enhance combat power and decision making while optimizing value.”

Goal 4: Strengthen DOD Acquisition processes, spanning requirements determination, development, procurement, support and disposal to ensure that the Department’s force structure and supporting infrastructure is modernized, recapitalized, and sustained within available resources.

Drive Acquisition and Logistics

Business Strategy

Execute Acquisition &Logistics Business

Strategy in SystemsLogistics Strategic Plan

Defense Business Council (DBC)/

Investment Review Board

(IRB)

Integrated Business Framework-Data Alignment Portal

(IBF-DAP)

Component certifies BEA Compliance

Component Receives DBC/IRB Business

System Funding Approval

DLMS Implementation 2019Business

EnterpriseArchitecture

(BEA)

Technical Framework

Func

tiona

l Fra

mew

ork

Execution

66Metric: DLMS EDI/XML Usage = DLMS Compliance Level I

System/BusinessProcess Standard

Blueprint

Metri

c: A

DCs I

mpl

emen

ted

= DLM

S Co

mpl

iance

Lev

el II &

III

7

DLMS Compliance Level I Metric• Percentage of all MILS and DLMS transactions processed IN and OUT of

DLA Transaction Services• 16.4 million DLMS processed in April, 2006 and approximately 71 million

DLMS processed in February, 2017.

12%28% 32% 36%

49% 45% 51% 54%69%

79% 81% 80% 81% 81% 80% 80%

88%72% 68% 64%

51% 55% 49% 46%31%

21% 19% 20% 19% 19% 20% 20%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Apr

-06

Dec

-07

Dec

-08

Dec

-09

Dec

-10

Dec

-11

Dec

-12

Dec

-13

Dec

-14

Dec

-15

Mar

-16

Jun-

16

Sep-

16

Dec

-16

Jan-

17

Feb-

17

MILSDLMS

8

Semi-Annual Component DLMS Metrics ReportMetric Measures Level 1 (use of DLMS versus MILS Transaction Format)

MILS MILS MILS DLMS DLMS DLMS MILS & DLMS MILS & DLMSCOMPONENT Count % of Grand Total % of Total Count % of Grand Total %of Total Total Count % of Grand TotalArmy Systems 2,175,022 12.6% 14% 13,823,218 20.5% 86% 15,998,240 18.9%Navy Systems 3,794,584 21.9% 42% 5,295,818 7.9% 58% 9,090,402 10.7%Air Force Systems 4,544,669 26.3% 55% 3,760,772 5.6% 45% 8,305,441 9.8%Marine Systems 143,720 0.8% 15% 822,001 1.2% 85% 965,721 1.1%DLA Systems 1,703,900 9.9% 4% 41,526,615 61.7% 96% 43,230,515 51.1%DFAS Systems 3,417,867 19.8% 100% 0 0.0% 0% 3,417,867 4.0%GSA 483,311 2.8% 20% 1,957,262 2.9% 80% 2,440,573 2.9%Other * 1,032,180 6.0% 86% 168,770 0.3% 14% 1,200,950 1.4%Grand Total 17,295,253 100% 20% 67,354,456 100% 80% 84,649,709 100%

*All Other is composed of Federal Agencies (e.g. GSA, FAA, DHS/Coast Guard, etc.).

Component DLMS Metrics - January 2017 as of 3/6/2017 Input

12.6%

21.9%

26.3%0.8%

9.9%

19.8%

2.8% 6.0%

MILS Processing by Component As A % of The Grand Total MILS Traffic

Army Systems

Navy Systems

Air Force Systems

Marine Systems

DLA Systems

DFAS Systems

GSA

Other *Column C

20.5%

7.9%

5.6%

1.2%

61.7%

0.0% 2.9% 0.3%

DLMS Processing by Component As A % of The Grand Total DLMS Traffic

Army Systems

Navy Systems

Air Force Systems

Marine Systems

DLA Systems

DFAS Systems

GSA

Other *86%

58%45%

85%96%

0%80%

14%80%

Army SystemsNavy Systems

Air Force SystemsMarine Systems

DLA SystemsDFAS Systems

GSAOther *

Grand Total

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DLMS Processing by Component As A % of Its Total MILS & DLMS

Column F Cloumn G

99

Scorecard Goal = Percent of Total Transactions Transmitted in DLMS Format

Status Lower UpperGreen 92 100

Yellow 85 < 92

Red 0 < 85

Component July 2014 Jan 2015 July 2015 Jan 2016 July 2016 Jan 2017 July 2017

Army 20% 69% 78% 87% 91% 86%

Navy 55% 56% 57% 57% 54% 58%

Air Force 34% 31% 31% 36% 36% 45%

Marine Corps 80% 81% 85% 86% 87% 85%

DLA 94% 95% 95% 96% 95% 96%

Other 29% 38% 35% 29% 31% 30%

Total 59% 75% 77% 79% 80% 80%

DLMS Implementation Level I Compliance Scorecard

10

DLMS Level I Compliance ImplementationAs of July 2016 next update January 2017

DLA: 96% ARMY 86% NAVY 58%

USAF 45% USMC 85%

OSD Initiatives NOT possible without DLMS: Audit Readiness Item Unique Identification (IUID) Standard Line of Accounting (SLOA) Standard Financial Information System (SFIS) Government Furnished Material (GFM) Policy Passive Radio Frequency Identification (pRFID)

The A&L Functional Strategy Requires Full DLMS Compliance by the end of 2019

11

Two Key DLMS Implementation Questions

• What legacy systems are generating the MILS Traffic?• MILS is 20% of total transaction traffic.• 68% of January 2017 MILS transaction traffic is accounted for by:

• 26.3% Air Force = All DO35 series (wholesale) & some ILS-S (retail)• 21.9% Navy = Non-NAVERP such as R-Supply• 19.8% DFAS = All legacy systems are 100% MILS

Efforts are ongoing toidentify the sources of theremaining DLA and ArmyMILS transaction traffic

• What ADCs (DLMS enhancements) have been implemented by DLMS applicable systems?• The Supply Chain Executive Steering Committee charted an IPT to:

• Develop a methodology to collect & report on System/ADC implementations• Develop meaningful metrics to measure progress toward the 2019 goal

1212

• SCESC at its August 17, 2016 Chartered the DLMS Implementation IPT• IPT Task: Develop/execute methodology to:

– Get a full accounting of ADC implementation status by DLMS applicable system– Identify long poles in the tent & determine remedial actions– Identify implementation impediments (priority conflicts/resource constraints)– Establish new achievable MILS “death certificate” date if beyond 2019

• SCI Chairs the IPT– Each Component has a lead representative– DLMS Office Participates– IPT met weekly through February 2017, now meets every other week

• Data Submission flow– AIS Program Office to Portfolio Manager– Portfolio Manager to Component IPT Representative– IPT Representative to SCI & DLMS Office– DLMS Office Enter Data in Tracking Tool

• Metrics Reports Flow– DLMS Office Prepare Reports, Brief SCI & IPT on Results– SCI Brief SCESC on Results

DLMS IPT Composition/Roles

1313

• IPT Decisions:– Components will report quarterly.– Data element requirements & definitions.– Data submission format (Excel Spreadsheet)

• IPT Upcoming Decisions/Actions:– Establish due date for initial baseline data call– IPT routinely brief SCESC on status– Methodology to group/tag an ADC to one or more groups by:

• Functional support area, or• DoD initiative/goal

– DLMS office modify existing DLMS Change Status Report– Develop management score card/reports from data

Status of SCESC DLMS IPT

1414

DLMS Change Status Review Report

• Access from the DLMS PDC or ADC Page:www.dlmso.dla.mil/eLibrary/changes/proposed.asp or

www.dlmso.dla.mil/eLibrary/changes/approved.asp

1515

• User-friendly tool to track implementation status– Tool is searchable, sortable, filterable– Ease of use by DLMS customers– Canned and ad hoc reporting capability

• Core Database – Microsoft Access

• Outputs– Excel workbook– Separate file from database– Post selected reports to web– Reports filterable on multiple data fields for customization– Canned and ad hoc capability– Downloadable by Components– New workbook tab will be “System/ADC Implementation Status”

Objectives and Architecture

1616

• DLMS Change Report - Lists all released PDCs and ADCsKey Data: DLMS Change Number, Title, Functional Area, Synopsis, DLMS POC, PDC Change Originator, Date PDC Signed, PDC Response Suspense Date, Date ADC Signed, Implementation Type, DLMS Change Status, Date Status Changed, Remarks

• DLMS Change Report (all) - Lists all released PDCs and ADCs, in addition to drafts pending release

Key Data: DLMS Change Number, Title, Functional Area, Synopsis, DLMS POC, PDC Change Originator, Date PDC Signed, PDC Response Suspense Date, Date ADC Signed, Implementation Type, DLMS Change Status, Date Status Changed, Remarks

• Component Response Report - Lists Component responses to active PDCsKey Data: DLMS Change Number, Title, Functional Area, DLMS POC, Component Name, Original PDC Suspense Date, Final PDC Suspense Date, Initial Component Response, Updated Response, Component Response Date, Remarks

• Overdue Component Response Report - Lists Components that have not responded to active PDCs (not yet released as an ADC) by their suspense date

Key Data: DLMS Change Number, Title, Functional Area, DLMS POC, Component Name, Days Overdue, Original PDC Suspense Date, Final Suspense Date

• Implementation Status Report - Lists the active ADC implementation status as communicated by the Components

Key Data: DLMS Change Number, Title, Functional Area, DLMS POC, Date ADC Signed, Implementation Type, Component Name, Implementation Status, Component Implementation Date, Implementation Response Date, Remarks

• DLM Publication Report - Lists DLM Manuals and Volumes that are impacted by active ADCsKey Data: DLMS Change Number, Title, Functional Area, DLMS POC, DLM Publication Impacted, Publication Formal Change Number, Formal Change Release Date

• DLMS IC Report - Lists DLMS Implementation Conventions impacted by active ADCs

Existing Excel Workbook Reports

1717

• Will Contain a row of data for each System/ADC combination• Will be filterable on multiple data elements for custom views• Key data elements for each data row:

– System Data: Service/Agency, System Identifier, System Title, System Acronym, DLMS Applicability Flag, Date Submitted,

– POC Data: Name, email, phone– ADC Data:

• Mandatory: ADC Number, ADC title, Functional Group/Category, ADC Applicability Flag, ROM Hours, Hours Expended, Final Hours Expended, System Change Request Number, Expected Implementation Date, Actual Implementation Date

• Optional: Additional Comments, Estimated Programming Completion Date, Actual Programming Completion Date, Work Around

• Enterprise metrics will be developed from the quarterly submissions:All ADCs Complete and not complete, Number of ADC by functional category complete and incomplete, Number of hours required to complete all ADCs, Number of hours required to complete all ADCS for each Category, Number of ADCs estimated to be completed by year 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

• Components will be able to download and develop Component unique metrics they determine beneficial

New Excel Workbook Report/Tab“System/ADC Implementation Status”

1818

Questions