DOD and the Services Have Taken Steps to Implement PSMs for Major Weapon Systems, but Certain Aspects of the Implementation Process Remain Incomplete

DOD and the services have taken steps to implement PSMs for major  weapon systems and have described them as a valuable resource in  managing product support, but certain aspects of the implementation  process remain incomplete. Almost All Systems Have PSMs Assigned, but DOD and the Services Do Not Have a Plan to Institutionalize a Comprehensive Career Path for PSMs

DOD has assigned PSMs to almost all of its major weapon systems and  has developed PSM training courses, but DOD, in coordination with the  military services, has not developed a plan—to include objectives,  milestones, and resources—to implement and institutionalize a  comprehensive PSM career path. As of the most-current data available from the  military services, 325 of 332 PSM position requirements across DOD for  major weapon systems—approximately 98 percent—were filled. A similar provision was subsequently codified at section 1706  of Title 10, U.S. Code. ASA(ALT) officials stated that major weapon systems program  offices have raised the issue of the lack of clear roles and responsibilities  of these personnel and, according to a senior AMC official, AMC  discussed this issue with their personnel in an attempt to address this  issue. Without clear guidance detailing  responsibilities and reporting relationships for AMC support personnel  involved in the sustainment of weapon systems, PSMs may be hindered  in their ability to effectively manage and conduct their daily product  support responsibilities. DOD Does Not Have Sufficient Information to Determine the Effects of PSMs

DOD does not fully know how or to what extent PSMs are affecting life- cycle sustainment decisions because it is not systematically collecting or  evaluating information on the implementation or effect of PSMs. Program evaluation guidance states that evaluations can play a key role  in program planning, management, and oversight by providing  feedback—on both program design and execution—to Program  Managers, Congress, executive-branch policy officials, and the public. Although DOD Has Not Systematically Collected Data on the Effects PSMs Are Having on Life-Cycle Sustainment Decisions, Program Offices Identified PSM-Related Good Practices and Challenges

In the absence of department- or service-wide information systematically  documenting the effects PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment  decisions, we conducted interviews with product support personnel  assigned to 12 major weapon systems, and program offices identified  several good practices being employed as well as several challenges that  PSMs face. While DOD and all of the services have taken some steps to develop a  comprehensive career path and associated guidance to develop, train,  and support future PSMs, DOD, in coordination with the military services,  has not developed a plan—to include objectives, milestones, and  resources—to implement and institutionalize a comprehensive PSM  career path. Until DOD develops such a plan, the department may not be  able to ensure that the services can fill PSM positions with properly  qualified personnel in the future. Without clear,  comprehensive, and centralized implementation guidance, DOD may be  hindered in its ability to implement future PSMs for its major weapon  systems. Likewise, until the Army clarifies roles and responsibilities in its  guidance for the sustainment portion of the life cycle for major weapon  systems, PSMs may be hindered in their ability to effectively manage and  conduct their daily product support responsibilities. With PSMs now  in place for almost all major weapon systems, information on the effects  PSMs are having on life-cycle management and sustainment decisions  could help inform DOD, the services, and Congress on the extent to  which the PSM position is helping to improve product support efforts or  whether changes are needed to guidance or to roles and responsibilities  to enhance the contributions of PSMs. To help inform departmental and congressional oversight of the status of  Product Support Manager (PSM) implementation and the influence, if  any, that PSMs have in life-cycle sustainment decisions for major weapon  systems, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under  Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics  (USD)—in conjunction with the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and  Air Force—to systematically collect and evaluate information on the  effects, if any, that PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions  for their assigned major weapon systems. To better enable Army Product Support Managers (PSM) to fulfill their  daily product support responsibilities, including planning and proactively  managing sustainment efforts for their assigned weapon systems, we  recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the  Army—in coordination with the Assistant Secretary of the Army for  Acquisition, Logistics and Technology (ASA) and the Commander of  Army Materiel Command (AMC)—to review the current process for  requesting and distributing sustainment funding for major weapon  systems and to take necessary actions to ensure that PSMs have greater  visibility of the amount of sustainment funds their weapon systems will  receive including prior to the year of execution of funds, to the extent  possible.
Why GAO Did This Study

DOD spends billions of dollars annually to sustain weapon systems. With the prospect of tighter defense budgets, DOD has placed more attention on controlling total life-cycle costs with initiatives aimed at ensuring that weapon systems are more affordable over the long term. Section 2337 of Title 10, U.S. Code, requires that each major weapon system be supported by a PSM and lays out the responsibilities of the PSM, including developing and implementing a comprehensive product support strategy for the system. GAO was asked to review DOD's progress in implementing PSMs for major weapon systems.
This report examines (1) the steps, if any, that DOD and the military services have taken to implement PSMs for major weapon systems and (2) the extent to which DOD has evaluated the effects, if any, that PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions for their assigned systems. To conduct this review, GAO obtained information and interviewed product support personnel assigned to 12 of 332 major weapon systems that reflected varying characteristics—such as military service and system costs—and analyzed documentation from DOD and the military services.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense (DOD) and the military services have taken steps to implement Product Support Managers (PSM) for major weapon systems, but certain aspects of the implementation process remain incomplete. The services have assigned PSMs to almost all of their major weapon systems. For example, as of February 2014, 325 of 332 PSM position requirements across DOD for major weapon systems—approximately 98 percent—were filled. While DOD and all of the services have taken some steps to develop a comprehensive career path and associated guidance to develop, train, and support future PSMs, DOD, in coordination with the military services, has not developed a plan—to include objectives, milestones, and resources—to implement and institutionalize a comprehensive PSM career path. Until DOD develops such a plan, it may not be able to ensure that the services can fill PSM positions with qualified personnel in the future. Moreover, DOD's PSM implementation guidance is not centralized and future product support personnel may be hindered in their ability to easily access and implement such guidance. Also, because the latest DOD guidance lacks detail and contains a potentially unclear provision, personnel may confuse the responsibilities of Program Managers and PSMs. Without clear, comprehensive, and centralized implementation guidance, DOD may be hindered in its ability to institutionalize the implementation of PSMs for its major weapon systems going forward. Additionally, the Army has been working for a year to clarify the roles and responsibilities of certain product support personnel, who support PSMs, for the sustainment portion of the life cycle for major weapon systems. According to officials from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, major weapon systems program offices have raised the issue of the lack of clear roles and responsibilities of these personnel, which has prompted senior-level Army meetings to attempt to resolve the issue. However, the Army has not yet finalized guidance that clarifies roles and responsibilities, which may hinder PSMs in their ability to effectively manage and conduct their daily product support responsibilities.
DOD does not fully know how or to what extent PSMs are affecting life-cycle sustainment decisions because it has not systematically collected and evaluated information on the effects PSMs are having on their assigned weapon systems. Program evaluation guidance states that evaluations can play a key role in program planning, management, and oversight by providing feedback to managers on programs. Evaluations can show whether PSMs are conducting good practices that could be shared across the department as well as whether changes are needed to guidance or other areas to enhance the contributions of PSMs. In the absence of DOD information on the effects PSMs are having on life-cycle sustainment decisions, weapon system program offices identified several good practices and challenges associated with PSMs. For example, several PSMs told us that they had initiated analyses focused on reducing life-cycle sustainment costs for their assigned weapon systems. One challenge that Army headquarters officials noted was that PSMs do not have knowledge of how much sustainment funding their systems will receive prior to the year of execution of funds. Without greater visibility over the allocation of sustainment funding for their assigned weapon systems, these PSMs may be hindered in their ability to proactively manage and influence their system's life-cycle sustainment decisions.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD and the services develop a plan to institutionalize a career path for PSMs; issue clear, comprehensive, and centralized PSM implementation guidance; evaluate the effects PSMs have on sustainment decisions; and improve Army PSMs' visibility over sustainment funding. DOD generally agreed with the recommendations.