Additionally, in February 2015, we reported on progress  DOD had made in addressing weaknesses in its asset visibility, including  developing its 2014 Strategy. Components Have Identified Performance Measures for the Eight Initiatives We Reviewed, but Limitations in the Measures and Related Status Reports Affect DOD’s Ability to Assess the Success of the Initiatives

DOD components have identified performance measures for the 8  initiatives we reviewed, but the measures do not generally include the key  attributes of successful performance measures (i.e., the measures were  not generally clear, quantifiable, objective, and reliable). We also found  that after-action reports for some initiatives did not always include  information on the performance measures and therefore prevent DOD  from effectively evaluating the success of the initiatives in achieving the  goals and objectives described in the Strategies. DOD Has Met the Criteria for Leadership Commitment, Capacity, and an Action Plan, but Additional Actions Are Needed to Address Monitoring and Demonstrated Progress

DOD has fully met three of our criteria for removal from the High Risk List  by improving leadership commitment, capacity, and its corrective action  plan, and it has partially met the criteria to monitor the implementation of  the initiatives and demonstrate progress in improving asset visibility. To address this issue,  in December 2016, a DOD official provided an abstract from the draft  update to the 2015 Strategy that provides additional direction on how to  explain and document cases where the funding for the initiatives is  embedded within overall program funding. DOD Has Partially Met the Monitoring and Demonstrated Progress Criteria for Removal from the High Risk List

DOD Has Taken Steps to Monitor the Status of Initiatives, but Its  Performance Measures Could Not Always Be Used to Track  Progress  Our high-risk criterion on monitoring calls for agencies to institute a  program to monitor and independently validate the effectiveness and  sustainability of corrective measures, for example, through performance  measures. Without  improved performance measures and information to support that progress  has been made, DOD may not be able to monitor asset visibility  initiatives. Also, DOD will be  limited in its ability to demonstrate sustained progress in implementing  corrective actions and resolving the high-risk area. We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Assistant  Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, in  collaboration with the Director, Defense Logistics Agency; the Secretaries  of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps;  the Commander of the United States Transportation Command; and the  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to: use the key attributes of successful performance measures—including  clarity, measurable target, objectivity, reliability, baseline and trend  data, and linkage—in refining the performance measures in  subsequent updates to the Strategy to improve DOD’s efforts to  monitor asset visibility initiatives; and  incorporate into after-action reports information relating to  performance measures for the asset visibility initiatives when  evaluating and closing these initiatives to ensure that implemented  initiatives will achieve the goals and objectives in the Strategies. GAO staff who made contributions to this report are  listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To determine the extent to which DOD identified performance measures  that allow it to monitor the progress of selected asset visibility initiatives  identified in DOD’s 2014 and 2015 Strategy for Improving DOD Asset  Visibility (Strategies), we reviewed documents such as the 2014 Strategy  and its subsequent update in October 2015 (2015 Strategy); minutes from  the Asset Visibility Working Group meetings; and documents showing the  status of the implementation, including charts that track the development  and closure of the asset visibility initiatives. We also selected sites to observe demonstrations of initiatives that were  intended to show how they have achieved progress in improving asset  visibility. Defense Logistics: DOD Needs to Take Additional Actions to Address  Challenges in Supply Chain Management. DOD’s High-Risk Areas: Observations on DOD’s Progress and  Challenges in Strategic Planning for Supply Chain Management.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO designated DOD's supply chain management as a high-risk area in 1990 and in February 2011 reported that limitations in asset visibility make it difficult to obtain timely and accurate information on assets that are present in a theater of operations. DOD defines asset visibility as the ability to provide timely and accurate information on the location, quantity, condition, movement, and status of items in its inventory. In 2015, GAO found that DOD had demonstrated leadership commitment and made considerable progress in addressing weaknesses in its supply chain management.
This report addresses the extent to which DOD has (1) identified performance measures that allow it to monitor the progress of selected asset visibility initiatives identified in its Strategies ; and (2) addressed the five criteria—leadership commitment, capacity, corrective action plan, monitoring, and demonstrated progress—for removing asset visibility from the High Risk List. GAO reviewed documents associated with selected initiatives, surveyed DOD officials, and observed demonstrations.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense (DOD) has identified performance measures for the eight selected asset visibility initiatives GAO reviewed, but these performance measures generally cannot be used to monitor progress. Specifically, GAO found that the measures for the eight initiatives reviewed did not generally include key attributes of successful performance measures. For example, for six initiatives there were no baseline and trend data associated with the measures. While DOD's 2014 and 2015 Strategy for Improving DOD Asset Visibility ( Strategies ) called for performance measures to be identified for the initiatives, the Strategies lacked complete direction on how to develop performance measures that would allow DOD to assess the progress of the initiatives toward their intended outcomes. GAO also found that after-action reports for the initiatives did not always include key information needed to determine the success of the initiatives in achieving the goals described in the Strategies . Without improved performance measures and information to support that progress has been made, DOD may not be able to monitor and show progress in improving asset visibility.
DOD has made progress and meets the criteria related to capacity and its corrective action plan but needs to take additional actions to monitor implementation and demonstrate progress to meet GAO's two remaining criteria for removal from the High Risk List, as shown in the figure. For the capacity criterion, in its draft update to the 2015 Strategy , DOD provides guidance on how to document cases where the funding for the initiatives is embedded within the overall program funding. Also, for the action plan criterion, DOD included matrixes in its 2015 Strategy to link ongoing initiatives to the Strategy 's goals and objectives. DOD has also taken steps to monitor the status of initiatives. However, the performance measures for the selected initiatives that GAO reviewed generally cannot be used to track progress and are not consistently incorporated into reports to demonstrate results. Until these criteria are met, DOD will have limited ability to demonstrate sustained progress in improving asset visibility.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD use key attributes of successful performance measures in refining measures in updates to the Strategy and incorporate information related to performance measures into after-action reports for the asset visibility initiatives. DOD partially concurred with both recommendations. The actions DOD proposed are positive steps, but GAO believes the recommendations should be fully implemented, as discussed in the report.