Author: Douglas S. Steward
The Marine Aviation Logistics Support Program II
Transforming Expeditionary Aviation Logistics
Abstract
Ever struggled with “what to pack” before traveling for an extended period of time?
What if your life depended on it? Would you pack the right stuff? And, what would you
base your decisions on? Marines are faced with similar challenges when executing
deployment warning orders. Once implemented, the Marine Aviation Logistics Support
Program II (MALSP II) will remove the guesswork out of “what to pack” and allow
Marines to successfully plan, deploy, sustain, and re-deploy an expeditionary aviation
logistics chain.
MALSP II is the expeditionary logistics solution that supports the Long War Concept,
Marine Corps Vision and Strategy 2025, and Quadrennial Defense Review ’06. It differs
from it predecessor in that the new logistics chain will use a demand-pull system vice a
push system. Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) will transform the legacy MALSP
to provide a lighter and more agile, flexible and responsive logistics chain to more
effectively support Aviation Combat Elements. CPI methodologies embraced by
MALSP II include Lean and Six Sigma; however, the Theory of Constraints (TOC) is the
impetus behind MALSP II.
Despite the rigor behind the science, introduction of MALSP II is not without
challenges. The inability to show immediate and tangible returns on investment can
negatively impact buy-in. In addition, sustaining and improving previously implemented
designs requires an innovative approach that extends beyond the classroom.
Introduction
MALSP II concepts are designed to update the core doctrine of Marine Corps
aviation logistics and include review of unit structure, allowances (parts, support
equipment, facilities), packages, and personnel with an emphasis on agility, flexibility,
responsiveness, proactive focus, and the ability to surge in future combat environments.
The goal of MALSP II is divided into two development phases: Initial Operational
Capability (IOC) and Full Operational Capability (FOC). The IOC phase focuses on
improving the logistics chain from the Parent Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron
(PMALS) to the most forward supported expeditionary node, while the FOC phase
concentrates on improving an end-to-end logistics chain (depot through organizational
levels of maintenance and supply) and reorganization of resources within, i.e., people,
parts, equipment, etc. MALSP II IOC and FOC goals are stated as follows:
 IOC: Provide support to deployed core capable units at a higher level while
decreasing deployed infrastructure and resource inventory to support the spectrum
of conflict and developing concepts.
 FOC: Provide support to deployed and non-deployed core capable units at a
higher level while decreasing total infrastructure and resource inventory to
support the spectrum of conflict and developing concepts.
A key underlying framework of MALSP II is to support deployed forces with a series
of logistics chain buffers; each containing material, equipment and manpower as required
and generating “pull signals” to larger or adjacent buffers immediately as resources are
needed or consumed. This series of aligned and responsive buffers allows for smaller
footprints of personnel and equipment to provide a greater means of sustainment in
deployed environments by capitalizing on the speed of logistics flow and prioritized
resource allocation.
Beginning in 2004, the Marine Corps’ 13 Intermediate-level (I-level) Marine
Aviation Logistics Squadrons (MALS) received Continuous Process Improvement (CPI)
baseline designs as part of the Naval Aviation Enterprise (NAE) AIRSpeed
implementation campaign. Essentially, MALSP II is a hybrid of MALSP and AIRSpeed
methodologies, i.e., expeditionary AIRSpeed. In an effort to verify and validate MALSP
II concepts a pilot was initiated first in Operation Iraqi Freedom to buffer consumable
materials and then in the Horn of Africa to buffer repairable materials. Discussions are
underway on how to expand the pilot into Operation Enduring Freedom.
This paper discusses MALSP II’s framework to include imperative for change, new
construct, method, and enablers; however, the main focus is on challenges associated
with implementing and sustaining MALSP II policies, behavior, and metrics at the
MALS. In addition to presenting these challenges, some possible solutions are offered.
Lastly, this paper identifies the need for new skills, knowledge and education systems
associated with MALSP II transformation to ensure logisticians can meet the dynamic
and uncertain nature of future conflicts around the globe.
Imperative for Change
From Operations Desert Storm/Shield to Iraqi and Enduring Freedom, legacy
MALSP has an impressive resume. Based on the outcomes and ongoing progress of
these operations, one may argue that legacy MALSP works; however, any recent success
says more about the quality of our Marines than the effectiveness of legacy MALSP.
Despite our greatest heroic expediting efforts, legacy MALSP cannot adequately support
the full spectrum of conflict and range of military operations as described in Quadrennial
Defense Review 06, Marine Corps Vision and Strategy 2025, and the Long War Concept.
Smaller globally dispersed aircraft detachments supporting dynamic units such as
Security Cooperation Marine Air Ground Task Forces (SC MAGTFs) will require
logistics support that is more agile, flexible, and responsive.
Construct
Legacy MALSP is a large and heavy allowance-based push system designed around
Cold War concepts of operation. MALSP II differs mostly from its predecessor in that it
is a demand-pull system, vice a push system. These two MALSPs are contrasted in
Figure 1. The nodes in a MALSP II logistics chain include the PMALS, En-route Support
Base (ESB), Main Operating Base (MOB), and Forward Operating Base (FOB). At the
higher end of the scale of military operations, the MALSP II logistics chain can be
augmented with maintenance capability and material buffers from two roll on/roll off
Aviation Logistics Support Ships (T-AVB), Maritime Pre-positioning Force (Future)
amphibious ships, and a Global Pre-position (GPP) program for aviation support
equipment.
FIGURE 1 MALSP (Legacy) and MALSP II (Initial Operational Capability)
Method
The main focus of the MALSP II design has been on reducing the impact of variation
associated with the replenishment of material to a ready-for-issue (RFI) “buffer.” While
Lean and Six Sigma play an important role in MALSP II, Theory of Constraints (TOC) is
the impetus behind MALSP II’s logistics chain. Theory of Constraints (TOC) is an
overall management philosophy introduced by Dr. Eliyahu M. Goldratt in his book titled
The Goal that is geared to help organizations continually achieve their goals. The Five
Focusing Steps of TOC are:
1. Identify the constraint.
2. Decide how to exploit the constraint.
3. Subordinate and synchronize everything else to the above decisions and improve
the performance of that same value-chain.
4. Elevate the performance of the constraint.
5. If in any of the above steps the constraint has shifted, go back to Step 1.
Warning: Do not let inertia become the system’s constraint (Cox and Goldratt, 1986).
In addition, TOC uses a manufacturing execution methodology called Drum-BufferRope (DBR), named for its three components:

The drum is the physical constraint of the organization’s work center or machine
or operation that limits the ability of the entire system to produce more. The rest
of the organization follows the beat of the drum. They make sure the drum has
work and that anything the drum has processed does not get wasted.
 The buffer protects the drum, so that it always has work flowing to it. Buffers in
DBR have time as their unit of measure, rather than quantity of material. This
makes the priority system operate strictly based on the time an order is expected
to be at the buffered operation. Traditional DBR usually calls for buffers at
several points in the system: the constraint, synchronization points and at
shipping.
 The rope is the work release mechanism for the plant. Only at “buffer time”
before an order is due does it get released into the organization. Pulling work into
the system earlier than a buffer time guarantees high work-in-process and slows
down the entire system (Cox and Goldratt, 1986).
Buffers are used in a MALSP II logistics chain to insulate downstream nodes from
variation by managing inventory levels in a time domain, i.e., Time to Reliably Replenish
(TRR). These material buffers are in some cases supported by local repair. However,
under a MALSP II construct all non-essential intermediate level maintenance is
conducted at the PMALS and only limited maintenance capability is deployed to forward
nodes to mitigate constraints that cannot be met by material buffers. This approach
minimizes forward footprint (people, parts, equipment, facilities, etc.), increases agility
and deployability, and reduces logistics vulnerability.
Material and repair capability is strategically positioned in a logistics chain in such a
manner as to mitigate the constraints that adversely impact TRR. These constraints are
usually symptomatic of policies related to allowancing and transportation tasking. Once
these constraints are exploited or elevated to the maximum extent possible within the
time allotted, the challenge becomes how to best position material and/or repair
capability within the logistics chain.
The Naval Air Systems Command Maintenance and Supply Integration Performance
Improvement Branch is currently developing, integrating, and implementing an End-toEnd AIRSpeed Project that is aligned to NAE Current Readiness goals, which will
complement MALSP II. Essentially, MALSP II is the expeditionary process enabler for
the End-to-End AIRSpeed design.
Technology Enablers
In addition to AIRSpeed methodologies, MALSP II will be enabled by new logistics
information technologies (IT). In order to achieve desired logistical results in both
deployed and non-deployed scenarios, specialized IT will be required to address the
variation of unique operational environments, interdependencies, and constraints of a
deployed MALSP II logistics chain. Stubby pencils, logbooks, and spreadsheets must
give way to decision support tools and intelligent agents in order to address the dynamics,
complexities, and interdependencies associated with AIRSpeed and emerging warfighter
doctrine. EPUK (Expeditionary Pack-Up Kit) Release 1 is one tool currently being
developed for MALSP II, which will electronically track transactions (e.g., receive, ship,
stow, issue, etc.) in near real time as they occur within a given logistics chain, thus
providing positive control over materials at all times, simplified inventory management
functionality, and relay of information to the supporting buffers and PMALS. Subsequent
releases of EPUK will likely use a Service-Oriented Architecture development approach
to provide:
 Automated Buffer Management Capability – Dynamically size buffers to adjust to
changing demand conditions.
 Automatic Identification Technology (AIT) Capability - Radio Frequency
Identification for Total Asset and In-Transit Visibly capability.
 Adaptive Planning Capability - Differentiates deployed and non-deployed demand
data. This data is used to determine the impact of environment and operations on
material demand.
 Logistics Planning Capability - Moves logistics planning from an art to a science
with high degree of repeat success by:
-- Staffing collaboration and planning in support of the Marine Corps Planning
Process.
-- Directly supporting the Force Deployment Planning and Execution Process.
-- Tailoring initial Remote Expeditionary Support Packages and follow-on buffers
to operate in a specific type environment/mission.
-- Automating joint and organic site survey information into planning process.
-- Addressing requirements in all functional areas of aviation logistics, replacing
existing manual or locally automated processes, and identifying non-organic
requirements.
-- Mitigating resource support gaps by recommending forward maintenance
capability and capacity.
-- Providing logistics command and control integration and a common logistics
operating picture.
It is envisioned that the abovementioned IT capabilities will be fielded by the Full
Operational Capability (FOC) phase of MALSP II, as described in Figure 2, which is
being designed to operate in a theater-centric battle space. It also anticipated that the
FOC phase will leverage on the Global Information Grid and therefore employ a less
linear support structure. In addition to increasing logistics chain performance and quality
of logistics planning, these enablers will push excess capability and associated footprint
to the rear.
FIGURE 2 MALSP II (Full Operational Capability)
Challenges
MALS are not experiencing the level of improvement as quickly as expected when
AIRSpeed was first introduced. The initial emphasis of MALSP II was on the nondeployed support of organizational-level (O-level) core capable units (flying squadrons)
with the assumption that a deployed logistics chain would be very similar to a nondeployed logistics chain. There is now an evident gap associated with employing these
same variation-reducing techniques in a deployed environment. Most of these gaps can
be contributed to new interdependencies and constraints; however, one fundamental
problem discovered is the PMALS’ challenge to achieve and sustain a stable buffer.
Instability of the PMALS buffer is causing high variation that cannot be buffered at
downstream nodes without pushing the iron mountain forward.
In addition, based on AIRSpeed implementation efforts to date, there is expectation
that TRR reduction should have increased readiness at the O-level to a higher level than
has been experienced. TRR reduction and Not-In-Stock/Not Carried avoidance are the
primary measures for success at the I-Level. However, currently, these metrics do not
completely interface with supported O-level unit readiness metrics, i.e., Ready-ForTasking (RFT) and Ready Basic Aircraft (RBA). According to the Commander Naval Air
Forces, Current Readiness Cross Functional Team (2008), the measurement definitions
for RBA and RFT are as follows:
 RBA - A Ready Basic Aircraft is the minimum configuration required to conduct
day or night IMC flight operations with necessary communications; Identification,
Friend or Foe; navigations; and flight and safety systems as required by regulations.
 RFT – Ready for Tasking availability entitlements are based on the number of
“RFT Sets” required to support flying hour, aircrew training, contingency and
deployment requirements. “RFT Sets” is a calculated number based on the
availability of Ready Basic Aircraft and Ready Mission Systems measured against
entitlements, and are closely aligned with the Mission Essential Subsystems Matrix
(MESM).
As with the O/I-level interface, the depot must interface with the I-level in order to
effectively close readiness gaps at the core capable unit level. Redesign of support
packages and adjustments to material and equipment allowances is a necessary result of
changes to detachment sizes, as well as operational scenarios under which these
detachments will deploy.
Finally, as a result of the abovementioned conditions, MALSP II transformation has
experienced cultural inertia. Without established global measures of effectiveness and
realization of those measures, confidence in the new system drops and stakeholders
gravitate toward the legacy system.
Recommendations and Conclusion
In the absence of MALSP II performance-based measures of effectiveness that bridge
depot, intermediate, and organizational levels of maintenance and supply, MALS need
objectives that are tangible and obtainable. Directing MALS, via naval message, to
achieve and sustain previously identified work center baseline TRRs was a positive step
toward obtaining a stable buffer. Further value may come from targeting those end-to-end
value streams that align with RMS and RBA metrics at the O-level -- proactively -- vice
drilling down after the fact.
Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) may provide commanders with a way
to more rapidly ascertain the operational capability of a MALS as well as a method to
benchmark and set performance-based goals. According to Carnegie Mellon (2007),
CMMI is a process improvement approach that provides organizations with the essential
elements of effective processes. CMMI helps integrate traditionally separate
organizational functions, sets process improvement goals and priorities, provides
guidance for quality processes, and provides a point of reference for appraising current
processes. Figure 3 contains maturity levels, which exist within CMMI and can be used
to guide process improvement across a value stream fuction or an entire organization.
FIGURE 3 Characteristics of the Maturity Levels (Godfrey, 2008)
Currently, it is difficult to assess a potential PMALS’ ability to perform value stream
functions in a way that facilitates operational decision-making and organizational-level
improvement efforts, thus the need for the evaluation capability that a maturity model
provides. One recommendation for determining a MALS capability to support a given
operation is to apply maturity levels to MALSP II’s Mission Essential Tasks (METs).
These METs, as illustrated in Figure 4, are not only conditions that must be achieved for
IOC and FOC development; in the IOC phase, they are execution requirements (i.e.,
planning, deployment, sustainment, and re-deployment) for a MALSP II logistics chain.
The execution requirements at the MET level can be decomposed to numerous
measurable functions that a MALS performs when assigned as a PMALS in support of a
MALSP II logistics chain.
Under this recommendation, a compliance-based CMMI could initially be used until a
performance-based CMMI is implemented, however, a compliance-focused approach
should be considered the exception and not the rule as it can eventually drive negative
behavior, i.e., a “check in the block” mentality. Nonetheless, the compliance CMMI
could at least provide interim improvement to MALS until O/I-Level interface metrics
are implemented. One example of the compliance approach is adding work center
baseline TRRs requirements to MALS inspection checklists and applying a scoring
system that ranks or weighs the checklist item based on established criteria such as value
to the customer. The performance-focused approach would differ in that its criteria
would be less intuitive and more aligned with specific core capable unit/Current
Readiness metrics. Depending on the level of granularity desired, a sliding point scale
that spans performance parameters, thresholds and sigma assigned to a specific value
stream could be adopted. These points could then be averaged and totaled at the MET
level then assigned a maturity level based on an established point range for each maturity
level. Ultimately, this approach would give commanders a dashboard view of where a
MALS stands in its ability to satisfy MALSP II METS and the level of support it can
provide to a potentially supported Aviation Combat Element.
FIGURE 4 MALSP II Mission Essential Tasks (METS)
Assumptions associated with the recommended MALSP II CMMI include:
 Leverages on existing CPI designs and ongoing Current Readiness and AIRSpeed
End-to-End efforts.
 It might be necessary to revisit lower CMMI levels, i.e. refresh, especially as
operational conditions change.
 All five levels would apply to each MET.
 A shift from a compliance-based to a performance-based approach merely
changes the focus and does not preclude the need for policies.
 Each level may require multiple CPI iterations to achieve advancement to the next
higher level.
 Levels of capability can be achieved through modeling and simulation, war
gaming, exercises, operations, etc.
In addition to CMMI, it is recommended that logistics planners and managers are
provided with the analytical tools and training required to successfully plan, execute, and
sustain a MALSP II deployed logistics chain tailored to deployed scenarios. This can be
facilitated by:
 Using a logistics tool to determine physical buffer requirements within a user
defined TRR between logistics chain nodes.
 Determining deltas between physical buffer requirements and existing
Contingency Support Packages (i.e., planned verses actual). As part of this
identification, training will cover the quantification of risk as it pertains to these
identified shortages.
 Identifying risk mitigation strategies. Training should include TRR reduction and
opportunities for aggregation of material in order to maximize flexibility of the
MALSP II supply chain.
 Transitioning from support package to buffer. Assuming an uninterrupted
logistics chain exists after the first 30 days, it is envisioned that portions of the
initial support package will be moved back to an area outside of the area of
responsibility in order to decrease the footprint forward of the ESB and
potentially provide the flexibility needed to support an additional MOB or FOB if
necessary.
 Designing and employing buffers at the PMALS, ESB, MOB and FOB.
 Utilizing Site Survey data to determine TRRs between PMALS and forward
nodes
 Determining if placing repair capability forward is a viable option to mitigating
risk
 Retrograding repairable material
 Considering redeployment and reconstitution requirements.
 Using CPI analysis techniques to improve the forward logistics chain once
established.
The abovementioned recommendations may not be the panacea, however, based on
recent observations, previously implemented designs are in jeopardy of digressing and
something must be done to ensure that the MALS are “MALSP II Capable.” In parallel,
time and throughput-based interface metrics will continue to be developed with CPI
processes and tools to ensure front line customers get reliable and consistent logistics
support regardless of source. Eventually, under MALSP II, Marines will not only know
“what to pack,” they will know what to leave behind.
References
Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute, “CMMI for Acquisition,
Version 1.2,” November 2007
<http://www.sei.cmu.edu/pub/documents/07.reports/07tr017.doc>
Cox, J. and E. M. Goldratt, “The Goal: a process of ongoing improvement,” Croton-onHudson, NY: North River Press, 1986
Commander Naval Air Forces (East), Readiness Standards & Policy Action Officer,
Current Readiness Cross Functional Team Basis for Measurement Ready for Tasking
(RFT) Availability, January 2008
Commander Naval Air Forces (East), Readiness Standards & Policy Action Officer,
Current Readiness Cross Functional Team Basis for Measurement Ready Basic Aircraft,
March 2008
Godfrey, S., “What is CMMI?,” NASA presentation. Accessed 8 December 2008.
<http://software.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/What%20is%20CMMI.ppt>
Acknowledgements
Commander Katherine Erb, United States Navy
Lieutenant Colonel Bradford L. Martin, United States Marine Corps
Chief Warrant Officer 3 Robert Willis, United States Marine Corps