Feedback

To the Editor:

The article "Tracking the Costs of Depot Maintenance" (July 1977) stated that on October 1, 1976, the Army and Navy implemented the depot maintenance cost accounting system prescribed by DoD 7220.29H and that the Air Force plans full implementation by October 1979. Taken at face value, these statements could lead one to conclude that the Army and Navy have fully and successfully implemented the DoD cost accounting system while the Air Force has not implemented any portion of it. Such conclusions would not be valid.

The following information is provided to supplement the text of the article and to correct any erroneous conclusions which might have been drawn since it was published.

The Defense Audit Service reports the Army and Navy have not fully implemented the DoD depot maintenance cost accounting system. In a July 26, 1977 draft report, the DAS stated the "system was not fully implemented within the 11 Army maintenance facilities." Further, the

"system was not fully and uniformily implemented at Naval Shipyards." Even at the Naval Air Rework Facilities, in which the "Handbook was generally implemented," the DAS identified several areas requiring additional attention.

In July 1977, the Air Force completed implementing an interim depot maintenance uniform cost accounting system which includes most of the handbook requirements. The one major requirement with which Air Force does not comply is the requirement to collect actual hours identified to individual job orders. DoD has waived this requirement for the Air Force pending Air Force acquisition and implementation of an on-line automated source data collection system.

The Air Force supports the principles of uniform cost accounting and will continue its efforts to comply with DoD 7220.29H.

F. M. ROGERS General, USAF Commander, Air Force Logistics Command

Mr. Jivatode, the author, replied:

The article was not intended to imply the Air Force had not implemented any portion of the DoD Uniform Depot Maintenance Cost Accounting System. The statement was that the Air Force plans full implementation by October 1979. The other Military Services had scheduled full implementation for October 1, 1976. The author was instrumental in initiating the Defense Audit Service review to determine the degree of implementation actually experienced by all Services. At the time the article was submitted for publication the results of the audit were not available nor had the Air Force implemented its interim system.

Full implementation of this system will be largely dependent on the attitude toward it and emphasis placed upon it by the senior officials involved. General Rogers' expressed interest and support is demonstrative of what is required for successful implementation.

It will come as no surprise to regular readers of the DMJ that this issue marks the passing of an era. As heralded, the Journal will become a bimonthly publication with its January 1978 issue. Still, excluding the change in publishing frequency, will anything really be different? We think so.

In our next issue, contributors will range from a Navy lieutenant to an industry vice president, from an Army systems manager to a United States Senator, and from a group of professors to a rear admiral. And the subject matter is as diverse as the experience of the authors. But the proof of the talent is in the articles' reading.

While jokes about a changing role for women in the military abound, we all know that this is no laughing matter. Recently the quality of our recruits has been seriously questioned, and one of the most viable options for allaying this problem seems to be utilizing the fair sex more effectively. Reporting on a case study of Navy tugs, Lt. John E. Kane analyzes some of the fundamental managerial problems involved when women are assigned to a traditionally all-male environment. Although the problems are essentially predictable, some of the solutions may make you reconsider how firmly grounded your own management and leadership skills are.

Ir 1973, a Presidential Memorandum made management by objectives the official administrative policy of the federal government. However, reported results about the effectiveness of MBO have been spotty at best. Accordingly, an interdisciplinary research team of professors from Virginia Tech was hired to ascertain if MBO is a feasible technique for directing the scientific work in a typical research and development facility. They discovered that, while most federal agencies use MBO primarily to control middle management's execution of programs, enormous advantages can be gained from a program- and people-oriented MBO which permeates the entire organization. Solid research by a group of true professionals earmarks this enlightening reading.

An equally worthwhile message can be found in Col. John C. Bahnsen's candid article on the Army's total system development approach. Using a 1976 Army study critical of the service's integration of personnel, logistics, and training requirements on anti-armor weapon systems, our outspoken author offers a logical alternative and discusses simulation as a key approach to improving the Army's readiness posture in a cost-effective

manner.

Forecast u

The word from the pressure-packed world of Capitol Hill is that DoD has indeed been a leader in management. Colorado's Senator Gary Hart, an industrious member of the Armed Services Committee, has proposed legislation that would make life cycle costing an everyday term in today's energy-conscious America. In his article, Senator Hart calls on the Defense Department to share its wealth of knowledge and experience with the public and other federal agencies. Read the article and you'll agree: it's time to heed the call.

This is but a small sampling of the wide variety of subjects covered in the inaugural bimonthly issue. There will also be articles on what the Navy has learned in its efforts to incorporate zero-base budgeting, and a contractor's successful method for operating a management system dedicated to the maintenance of mature and outof-production military hardware. Plus our standard departments on short informational items, of course. There should be something for everyone.

So next January, as you warm your chilled body before the family fireplace (or huddle in your office beseeching the gods of the heating vent), warm your mind with a few hot management articles. Pass the word: you'll find them in the new Defense Management Journal.