GCSS-Army Wave 1 Reparable Management
Problem Statement
As the Senior Supply System Technician and the AL ARNG GCSS-Army subject matter expert, I was tasked with analyzing the Potential Credit Dollars Lost Report received from NGB GCSS-Army Finance Team indicating Alabama had potential lost $310,000 dollars’ worth of reparable credits between 1 October 2015 and 11 July 2016. After verifying the accuracy of this report and a quick analysis of our Creditable Reparable Management Process it became clear that the current AL ARNG Reparable Management Process does not adequately manage one-for-one issue and turn-in of creditable reparable items.
Recommendation
Develop a monthly repairable/recoverable report process to validate unmatched issues and …show more content…
Creditable reparable items are charged at the full price and the credit value is credited when a matching turn-in is processed by the SSA within 60 days of the Advanced Shipping Notification (ASN). Unlike EP/ILAP, only SSA personnel, USPFO Materiel Managers, and G4 Resource Managers have access to the GCSS-Army Wave 1 ORIL. Maintenance personnel do not have assess, nor can they be previsioned in GCSS-Army until full implementation (Wave 2). They are entirely dependent on the SSA, Materiel Management Branch, and/or Resource Management Brach for updated copies of the ORIL in between the quarterly …show more content…
Analysis of Proposed Solutions
After detailed analysis of the proposed solutions, it was determined that COA #1 would be the most effective solution to the problem. COA #2 had its merits based on financial cost to the unit. The requested assets were already in the Army inventory. One of the major pitfalls to this COA was that there was no guarantee that these assets would be available to the unit on a consistent basis. Availability would be determined by the higher headquarters at the division. And finally, COA #3 did not solve the problem at all and would force the unit to accept the critical shortfall.
Comparison of Evaluation Criteria The criteria used to verify if the solution adequately addressed the problem are listed as follows. First, the solution would have to ensure unmatched creditable issues were identified no later than 30 days after receipt of ASN for maintenance personnel . Second, the solution would have to ensure the unmatched issues were identified on two consecutive months report. Next, the solution would have to maintain the unit’s high mobility and agility maneuver capability regardless of distance requirements and austere
Problem Statement
As the Senior Supply System Technician and the AL ARNG GCSS-Army subject matter expert, I was tasked with analyzing the Potential Credit Dollars Lost Report received from NGB GCSS-Army Finance Team indicating Alabama had potential lost $310,000 dollars’ worth of reparable credits between 1 October 2015 and 11 July 2016. After verifying the accuracy of this report and a quick analysis of our Creditable Reparable Management Process it became clear that the current AL ARNG Reparable Management Process does not adequately manage one-for-one issue and turn-in of creditable reparable items.
Recommendation
Develop a monthly repairable/recoverable report process to validate unmatched issues and …show more content…
Creditable reparable items are charged at the full price and the credit value is credited when a matching turn-in is processed by the SSA within 60 days of the Advanced Shipping Notification (ASN). Unlike EP/ILAP, only SSA personnel, USPFO Materiel Managers, and G4 Resource Managers have access to the GCSS-Army Wave 1 ORIL. Maintenance personnel do not have assess, nor can they be previsioned in GCSS-Army until full implementation (Wave 2). They are entirely dependent on the SSA, Materiel Management Branch, and/or Resource Management Brach for updated copies of the ORIL in between the quarterly …show more content…
Analysis of Proposed Solutions
After detailed analysis of the proposed solutions, it was determined that COA #1 would be the most effective solution to the problem. COA #2 had its merits based on financial cost to the unit. The requested assets were already in the Army inventory. One of the major pitfalls to this COA was that there was no guarantee that these assets would be available to the unit on a consistent basis. Availability would be determined by the higher headquarters at the division. And finally, COA #3 did not solve the problem at all and would force the unit to accept the critical shortfall.
Comparison of Evaluation Criteria The criteria used to verify if the solution adequately addressed the problem are listed as follows. First, the solution would have to ensure unmatched creditable issues were identified no later than 30 days after receipt of ASN for maintenance personnel . Second, the solution would have to ensure the unmatched issues were identified on two consecutive months report. Next, the solution would have to maintain the unit’s high mobility and agility maneuver capability regardless of distance requirements and austere