KD-A134 945

UNCLASSIFIED

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE VIMS (VEHICLE INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SVSTEMXU) AIR FORCE INST OF TECH WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB OH SCHOOL OF SVSTEMS AND LOGISTICS E T FOX SEP 82 AFIT-LSSR-72-83 F/G 5/1 NL

1

• •. »i; !• n I •.••!• IJM»in ^^i^^^p^f^r*« ••••> ' '. • J • l • I • •• -•tJi,vl-.^l>^ v > iMi „v.-. . •» hi v> » .•• . -j. i. • - -.-_.' . v «. ft

«•P .•'. 9 - - - •^ u •.'•.•:• r» i." u.' J. ' •. '•- ."-"~ .

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE VIMS

Edward T. Fox, Captain, USAF

LSSR 72-83

s DTIC ELECTE

NOV 281983

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR UNIVERSITY

AIR FORCE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

D

::

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A

Approved for public reloa3o; Distribution Unlimited

83 11 28 005 -* -\'. > i > '•• •»~r -"• - -•*»•» * *» fci - •- -" * *" * > *•• -^.

•>••

•ML^ • • • • i

jctffsslon For

'CIS GRAil ::ic TAB ^announced justification-

^M D D

U 'distribution/ P Availability Codes^ i Avail and/or Di3t Special

P

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE VIMS

Edward T. Fox, Captain, USAF

LSSR 72-83

DISTRI]. (mON STATEMENT A

Approved fci public Teloo.se; Distiibution Unlimited

• • ——. - --—•—i

.--.-

.yc*

:•••:':•'" C»V""NV -,-.•«• .v .•.v»

,>-

-• • .

. • . - .

'.• .•'

. - - . • .Vj • % * . *. * *«-

-*•".-.*

-.-'••

•

." "." '» .*%"_--**.

:,:-,:,:,'.'i i. 1 .

w»K»^afs.-^i

m*

- -••-•*•" ••'

•_•»•;•

••.--• . '

.' •' •.':'•":

tffl#»i-..rB>g ;-.'&

• ."-V-.

• . • •r. • . • .

L •:-•;»•• " i

i.i.-i.i...» •,»-•-•• .-

•

* *» - » . J

•PP¥< l|« ll. l^l. I. J £ «• '•"• .--,.-.-- •• 1

The contents of the document are technically accurate, and no sensitive items, detrimental ideas, or deleterious information are contained therein. Furthermore, the views expressed in the document are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the School of Systems and Logistics, the Air University, the Air Training Command, the United States Air Force, or the Department of Defense.

^'.^•MV-;'•:-... . ^Üli_i,^^. l'1 I 1» —A • • '• • • mm i »••• I .1.,-.

wm m • ••

UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Whin Data Entered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING FORM 1. REPORT NUM3ER

LSSR 72-83 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO

£2z£l3±&M£ 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

4. TITLE (and Submit)

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE VIMS

5. TYPE OF REPORT * PERlOO COVERED

Master's Thesis S. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHORf«) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMSER(J)

Edward T. Fox, Captain, USAF 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO AOORESS

School of Systems and Logistics Air Force Institute of Technology, WPAFB OH

10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK AREA « WORK UNIT NUMBERS

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME ANO AOORESS

Department of Communication AFIT/LSH, WPAFB OH 45433

12. REPORT OATE

September 1983 13. NUMBER OF PAGES

85 14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME 4 »OORESSfi/ different Irom Controlling Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS, (ol thta report)

UNCLASSIFIED IS«. OECLASSIFlCATION DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

16. CISTRlBUTiON STATEMENT (ol this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

J '7. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (ol the ebetrect entered In Block 20, II different (torn Report)

18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

jUi Fore» totftatt •« T.«hnolo«T IAT0* Wrtght-Pstt«r»oo W* oa *****

1 5SEP 1983 19. KEY WOROS (Continue on ravaraa aida II necessary and identity by block number)

Structured Interviews Vehicle Integrated Management System (VIMS) Information Requirements Information Analysis Decision Support Systems

20. ABSTRACT 'Continue on ravaraa side II nacaeamry and Identity by block number)

Thesis Chairman: James W. Annesser, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF

DD 1 j*N 71 1473 EDITION OF 1 NOV »5 IS OBSOLE-£ UNCLASSIFIED

-.._- - _--.-- . - ^ • . ^ «.._: .*. a , w, ,ü -n ' n: TT '• r ' Tin' r ' 1 * * * ' " ' • *- - • " 1 - • * 1 r * "• '• «------A---a-*-*^«-fc-^->-^

'•»»* »* »T'T11

UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS P*GZ(Whut Dtf Enf.rtrf)

s \

i ^ The Vehicle Integrated Management System (VIMS) processes data inputs and puts out reports to be used by Air Force vehicle fleet managers. The system was designed to give managers information to support their decisions. The problem centers around the fact that the VIMS has not been reevaluated since 1975. In the last eight years there have been changes in the information requirements of decision makers. In addition, there have been tech- nological advances that have been made in the science of information gathering, processing, and reporting. This thesis examines the VIMS in the light of these changes and suggests modifications to bridge the gap between the VIMS outputs and decision makers' information requirements. A five-step process was used involving structured inter- views of decision makers and surveys of VIMS outputs and Air Force regulations. Presented in this effort are the shortfalls of the VIMS and the recommended corrective actions.

UNCLASSIFIED

^_^LL. i i -A i i i i »••» . - -•-'-•

i^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^y^^^*^—^'»'—^^* .•••'••' _' - . . ..-.— • .-. .-._»_^_........1 _ - -- y I - - . ..••.•-. •-.

•^—^H^^^P^^^^7»< "1 • . I'lV'I'l^ l-i^'in ••• -1 • • • l • •• • i » • - .

I

I

V ,

P "f. •r.

This thesis, written by

Captain Edward T. Fox

has been accepted by the undersigned on behalf of the faculty of the School of Systems and Logistics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT

DATE: 2 8 September 1983

COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN \flU4 j2

^^^^

i

B

5

-•

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank God for His love and guidance through it

all. I thank my advisor, Lt Col James W. Annesser, who

helped and inspired me. I extend my appreciation to

Maj Ronald H. Rasch for his keen insight and knowledge.

• I give heartfelt gratitude to my typist, Mrs. Phyllis

\> Reynolds, who stuck by me and pushed me forward. Finally,

I extend a special thanks to my wife, Sylvia, who made it

«j all come together with patience, understanding, and love.

111

'•• •'.".•.»'•'• ! F"»T1^—^'^^^^^^^^^^T^W»'"^"'^ - I 1 ' V !• • '. • i • L • t •; •• • li •« • • '* 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES vi

LIST OF FIGURES vii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Overview 1 i

Problem Statement 2

Justification 3

Background 3

Research Questions . . 4

II. LITERATURE REVIEW 6

Introduction 6

I Decision Support Systems Described 7

Predesign Analysis 10 •

System Design and Development 15

j Implementation 18

Situational Factors 18

Corrective and/or Preventive Measures . . 19

I Implementation Strategies 2 2

Summary 2 3

iv

h •• I. fc, -• • ^ . • •k • — . . k^k^^k^--^^.||^||^y|1|[j||^.-...-.-.,-.,...-.-. . .-. . , .,_._.. .. _ . |

•—»^——•^»^»^^••^^^^^^^I^W^^^T»*«-*' I »'* « •• • • ' • i '• * '

CHAPTER Page

III. METHODOLOGY 24

Decision Support System Development Process . 24

Scope and Limitations 24

IV. ANALYSIS 32

Analysis of Findings 32

Research Question 1 32

Research Question 2 33

Research Question 3 33

Research Question 4 47

Summary 64

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 67

Study Conclusions and Recommendations .... 67

Research Question 5 67

Recommendations for Future Study 6 9

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 71

A. REFERENCES CITED 72

B. RELATED SOURCES 73

-',**»>.— .' — '-+.1...jm..~mJ:.*k., •* '•*, U„..'.JIl„',liAirf -~- -=• *--•• *-* •'-* '-*- - - --' - - - - *—« - * - - - « - *"- •"- -»^ * - • ~ La I -> - -' - ^ . -. . - »_ . » - .1 . '. , - > . m^+ m » ,

^—— •» w . ' P • » ;1 • ' • . » '• • f • i • • • " » • •—T

•

. • . •

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2-1. Tradeoff Variables in User Interface Design . . 16

4-1. VIMS Output Vocabulary Descriptions 34

4-2. Non-VIMS Output Vocabulary Descriptions .... 41

4-3. Decision Table 45

4-4. Information Requirements Matrix 48

4-5. Summary Analysis 65

VI

L^* *-*• 1* --' "-*•»•*- *« V- «'-.»'^

^^^^^ . • I - . ^ .. I, - • » I ' I f • » <

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

2-1. The Predesign Cycle 11

3-1. Sample Interview 2 8

3-2. Sample Information Matrix 2 9

Vll

•*»-*» • • ' - • •

mmy^^w m i P i' I' i mm i i r • , >•• »•»'•»• • i • . • , i • w l . t •'. ^ •.».»• i • _«»..•

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Overview

Vehicles are vital to the operation of an Air

Force Base. The Air Force has over 100,000 vehicles in

its inventory (12:4). Without the timely maintenance and

replacement of these vehicles the readiness capability of

the Air Force would be seriously degraded.

The Mission of the Air Force is to "fly and fight";

to do this the Air Force must generate and launch aircraft

to defend U.S. interests worldwide. Air Force units use

vehicles to get men, equipment, and aircraft to the

appointed places at the appointed times. Delays due to

vehicle failures could impose intolerable constraints or

limitations on defense operations. This would ultimately

jeopardize the safety of U.S. world interests. Managing

vehicles for readiness involves keeping vehicles in a safe

and operable condition to meet mission requirements.

Money for vehicle purchases, operation, and main-

tenance is limited. More effective management of vehicle

maintenance, operation, and replacement will equate,

indirectly perhaps—but certainly nevertheless—to increased

readiness per dollar invested. This includes the management

-*• * ' * .—^-J-»-- - • -.- — - - -•- -_^— m -M-~* .....__ - _ - ^ a

p? m^m^m^m, • i . , • I ... .1 , . , w

of scarce petroleum resources. To be effective, managers

must have adequate information. The Vehicle Integrated

Management System (VIMS) is the primary system vehicle

fleet managers use to process and report vehicle data/

information used in managing and maintaining the Air Force

vehicle fleet.

This thesis will reexamine the information require-

ments of decision makers currently using the VIMS to aid

their effective management of the vehicle fleet. By

reexamining the VIMS, it can determine to what extent the

system of vehicle fleet management has evolved beyond the

service the VIMS now provides.

Problem Statement

For an information system to be an effective deci-

sion support tool, it must provide decision makers with the

essential information with which to make decisions. Even

after a system has been built and implemented, it should

undergo reexamination periodically to ensure that the sys-

tem is providing the necessary outputs to support decision

making. The VIMS was last reevaluated in 1975. Given the

technological advances in information gathering, process-

ing, and reporting, the VIMS should be reexamined to deter-

mine if it provides all of the necessary information ele-

ments managers need to make vehicle fleet management

.«*.

..•

L. •»•!; j., ^. ',-„>.'. A, «".••_«*.•.• .» a . _ » • - .• *._•_*.;•».' - ff -.. -|if| _ _ _. _ _ ._ : t_— • ^ *-»•.' - » L^A _•_ _^*-J

^•• 1 L I llfTT' II • - •« I I ' I • If» |_M' . " » I UP- • •» -1 • • • I • 1, .-»- I, -»- !•»-.- i-l «-

V«'.

decisions. If the VIMS has information shortfalls, this

thesis will identify those shortfalls and recommend cor-

rective action.

Justification

An effective vehicle decision support system con-

tributes to Air Force readiness capability and to the

effective and efficient use of vehicle fleet resources.

Improvements in this area can effect more timely sched-

uling of maintenance for vehicles and enhance the quantity

and quality of information managers need to maintain and

operate the vehicle fleet, and manage available resources.

In addition, a dollar savings can be realized by stream-

lining the VIMS and eliminating the collection, processing,

and reporting of unused data.

Background

The VIMS is a set of twenty-seven programs, written

in COmmon Business Oriented Language (COBOL) which performs

as a base level data management system and runs on the B350 0

computer. Both the Transportation and Supply squadrons

process data into the VIMS from their respective operations.

The primary emphasis of the VIMS is to give computer pro-

ducts to managers and users to help in decision making and

allow data review and correction ability (14:p.2-l).

The need for a VIMS was decided at a management

workshop held at Andrews AFB in October 1968. After the

3

:•:

fr

I

preliminary assessment and subsequent field testing were

accomplished VIMS was started Air Force-wide in July 1971.

The sponsor of the VIMS is the Vehicle and Equipment

Branch, Transportation Systems Division, Directorate of

Logistics, HQ USAF/LETN, Washington DC 20330 (14:p.l-l).

The primary users are all USAF vehicle maintenance shops

squadrons.

The MITRE Corporation—an outside consultant firm

hired by the Deputy for Command and Management Systems,

Electronic Systems Division, AFSC, Hanscom AFB, Bedford,

Massachusettes—examined the VIMS to "explore possible

alternative techniques for improving the handling of

vehicle maintenance management data [12:abstract]." They

identified strengths and weaknesses and made suggestions

for near-term improvements to include a restructuring of

the VIMS to operate on-line. The Air Force is now testing

the on-line VIMS and plans to implement the system Air

Force-wide if the setup proves beneficial. Since the

MITRE Corporation investigation there may have been changes

in the information requirements of managers that should be

examined.

Research Questions

1. What information does the VIMS provide on

reports now being used by decision makers to manage the

vehicle fleet?

i. . L«. . - ' - • - - ' - »_^_, _l ^ -> * - '. t - . - . - . - « - ."- .'- ."- a • •'• J .,.'•

""' «_'•» •''••- • ••

2. What decisions are made for the management of

the vehicle fleet?

3. What are the information requirements of the

managers making the aforementioned decisions?

4. How does the information needed compare with

the information provided by the VIMS?

5. Should omitted necessary information be added

to the VIMS output?

-•*•-* -----

•••-., •J'-.J.»." iwywp»»yyw^i—^i •. • i • •. ^••^»T»'. ••.•'• i'.i'.i • ••»•••••

P •' ' •• • .,• ••' ' > • • » • *"*•'!•* !• I •!»! •»"»•• 1 .-lil .......•.•,•.

i

m

To aid in a clearer understanding of DSS, it is

compared and contrasted with management information systems

(MIS). Once the reader's understanding of what DSS is

and how it compares to other systems is established, the

chapter goes deeper into the DSS building process with dis-

cussion covering the topics of predesign considerations,

system design and development, and system implementation.

Decision Support Systems Described

An initial step in attempting to understand DSS is

establishing a definition of the term. According to

Sprague and Carlson, DSS is interactive computer help

to decision makers using data and modeIs to solve unstruc-

tured problems (11:4). The key words are underlined in

the definition. This fundamental definition is shared also

by Robert Thierauf who points out that "decision makers"

include managers and some operating personnel, depending on

the circumstances (13:26). The literature generally

excludes operators as primary users of DSS. Dr. Wagner

refers to DSS as a system that provides "Executive Mind

Support [17:82]." His emphasis is on the executive (indi-

vidual or group) as user of the system. "It is a system

that an executive uses with such intimate rapport that it

seems to become part of his own mind [16:10]." Now an

explanation of the term "unstructured problem" is needed.

l* ' • '•» • • a.*-*"- -• - V ..!.-, . . - - ' * • •' ~ - - - - -- . . . —

^—•PP^^^^^^^^P^^W '• '• • m ') •' •-^ • " ' " "

An unstructured or semistructured problem is one

where neither a manager's judgement nor data- about the

situation being assessed are sufficient by themselves for

effective decision making (8:86). In such a circumstance

both data and judgement are necessary to solve the problem.

For example, when preparing a Vehicle Buy proposal manage-

ment must prioritize vehicles from the ones most needed to

the ones least needed. This is done because not all the

vehicles in the age and condition categories to be replaced

can be replaced in a single fiscal year. Therefore, trade-

offs must be considered. The computer can give the age

and condition data (funds available for repair of the

vehicle, fuel efficiency, and other data) necessary to

determine the vehicles eligible to be replaced and provide

data manipulation capability to examine the mission impact

of different proposals. However, the manager must use

judgement to determine where there is the greatest short-

and long-term need for vehicles. No computerized decision

rule is applicable all the time, nor is judgement suffi-

cient.

Another aid to understanding DSS is identifying its

characteristics and contrasting them with its predecessors,

EDP and MIS. Keen declares that DSS challenges the assump-

tions made by EDP/MIS that: computers are useful primarily

for their ability to process data, and to serve as

"standardized information systems [7:33]." Steven L. Alter

8

-"-"-... •-".. '.- - ... -...:- ... ... - ... - - -.-.. .... :».. .v ...... _ . ^ ^'- --1 *-: «-"- «- »- -. --*- - - .».>•*.-.•. - • - - . - - > - - - . *. . . ^ •- - . •-'- •- -. . M^A

•• •! I » ••% -1 t 1 • •* ' '

explains the differences between EDP and DSS as a being

embodied in the underlying philosophies of the two dis-

ciplines (2:2-3). The basic purpose of EDP is to automate

the retrieval and storage of data to reduce costs, improve

accuracy, and allow quick access to data concerning daily

operations (increased efficiency). The philosophy of DSS

emphasizes increased effectiveness within the organization

as opposed to efficiency.

Sprague and Carlson use a connotational and a theo-

retical approach to pointing out the differences between

the concepts (11:6-10). The connotational view describes

EDP as a data focus entity, while the focus of MIS is on

information, and DSS keys in on the decision with which

the manager is faced. Theoretically, EDP/MIS is geared to

management provision of structured reports required for man-

agement and control of the organization whereas, DSS is

evolving from a "coalescence" of information and opera-

tions research/management science (OR/MS) technologies

through interactive modeling techniques (static, using

graphs and dynamic, using simulations).

Andrew Vazsonyi sums the difference between OR/MS

and DSS by listing four generally accepted (by DSS pro-

ponents) observations:

1. DSS, unlike OR/MS, does not replace decision makers, but supports them: DSS is a mind support system;

2. DSS allows for the introduction of judgement, while OR/MS is normative/prescriptive;

*"-• •'• --•••• '••'• '*« V« •'»•*•••'» ;,.',. . . . j»'.-., :..:„•>.••-.•,,»',-.—>—.—.,-»".-. '. . L_^L. . - . . .-T. .1 . •. J.L-. . « , . lil. J

m ^m^i^^mmi^**m^^^^m^^^^^^^*^^^^^*i^^^9*jrwM IM w

^^*r»^ m • ••'

1 •P C w

L1 •

01 -H 0J >1 rH

c

0) •H Ü

ä

N tn T3 ^ -P rH H cu c o M .a c cu to •» 3 tn o

(1) rö CU -P "Ä

P. -P o u

> 0 tn tn +J -H •H CT>-P to c -P

menu m o cu tn +J -irH CU rö cu M-I H cu tn M-I M-l XI 0 C N cu Sh P C CU >i-H 0 c cu 0) •H v •H > M-I -H -P

s +J H 3 C -H O

"»> cu H cu -X tn g 4J to .a ecu S s ^

>i o> g cu +J p cu rt tn r-l C >1 0 CU (0 o »M-I o a •H -p Ü) 4-> cu a H E a, e

JQ 3 O tn

cr> it! tn c c •P P 0 CU H

•H CU a) u a) tn > •P T) 0

•H a Ä c •H a. Q M-l h •P 0 •P •H g o c •H CU 0

T3 w •H

'S -H Ü g a>

>* 0 H C 0)

X CU -H t3 -P

N P a, -•* „J ? ?

T3 Ü U 13 T3 fl 3 c cu cu 0) 0 0) g •P tn fO T3 •p >

cu a; C g p p

(0 0 o cu

P. -P a ^ M-l Ou C •H 0 C cu g cu

•P cu •H VH C P.

Q 0 T3 U C

w

2 3 S u

I vo

CU

y •H fa • • 00

cu rH Ü >1 u c

•H tn cu

•O cu u

cu x; E-i

I

•H

!• £ ii

- - - "- ^- * ^- ^- •-'• ^-•«-•"- *- »- ^'- •- «--•* - - ••, --''- -• ••-,•• r,n'- fcj • | | | - | ^ •- |

•••'••' • • < •« ••-"

Es

The first step in the decision analysis is to

monitor the decision process. In this way the DSS builder

can get a feel for the information needs of the decision

maker. Next the key decisions should be identified along

with their associated information elements. The builder

can ascertain information about key decisions three ways

according to Merle Martin (10:21). They are observing

decision activities, interviewing decision makers, and

deducing how the decision is made. All three methods are

necessary because no one method provides all the informa-

tion necessary under normal circumstances.

The third step in the process is to define the deci-

sion process as it should be—the normative model. The

normative model is a proposal for change; it defines the

range of potential designs for the DSS (8:174). The fourth

step in the decision analysis is a comparison of the norma-

tive with the descriptive model—decision process as it is.

The descriptive model provides a starting point from which

to launch improvement efforts. Finally, the builder selects

areas he/she thinks are supportable.

Under the "Entry" side of Figure 2-1 there are four

areas which should be examined before moving on. The first

of the four involves finding out how much of the organiza-

tion's resources are committed to making an improvement in

the decision process. It means uncovering the organiza-

tional motives and expectations for change and then

12

•V..I ...»•».. . ... -».- . . .. V • I - . • • . • • ».- • . • ' » . • . • : ! —: : 1 = .- - - -

building the momentum to implement the agreed-upon

a, changes. The second area for examination is ensuring

K'-\ the right problem is being worked. In other words, is

what the builder doing in line with organizational objec-

tives.

The objectives of the DSS must also be compared to

organizational needs. Sprague and Carlson review six

objectives of a DSS that fit combinations of problems that

DSS can help resolve (11:94-96). Those objectives are:

1. To support difficult, underspecified decisions

j as well as structured well specified decisions.

2. To support decisions at all Levels in the

organization, whether they be strategic planning, manage-

I ment control, operational control, or operational perform-

ance .

3. To support communication between decision

I makers when there is that requirement. Decisions can be

independent (when one decision maker makes the final deci-

sion) , sequential interdependent (a decision maker makes a

S partial decision and passes it on to the next decision

maker), or pooled interdependent (a decision through nego-

.; tiation) .

I 4. To support all phases of the decision-making

process and promote interaction among phases. These

phases include intelligence (searching the environment

H for potential problems), design (developing and analyzing

13

m r • •. •—•—-—•

courses of action), and choice (choosing and implementing

a course of action).

5. To support decision making with a menu of

different processes to be selected at the user's choice.

6. To be flexible to respond to the user's

changing needs and easy to use.

The third area of consideration is determining what

resources are available for the change versus what

resources are needed and coming to a satisfactory compro-

mise. Fourth and finally, the design alternatives should

be examined to find the one most suitable. At this time

also, goals should be further operationalized, a cost to

benefit analysis should be calculated, and key issues and

limiting factors on implementation should be identified and

resolved to the extent possible.

A word of caution is necessary here. In this early

stage of development the cost to benefit analysis may be

very inaccurate because of "the lack of specific require-

ments, the uncertainty of needed manpower requirements, and

the inability to estimate intangibles [9:20]." For this

reason, Keim and Janaro recommend a cost-benefit analysis

at each step of the design process (9:20).

With the completion of the preliminary considera-

tions, the organization is now ready to move on to the

design and development stage.

14

> ^ - » • ^ > ^ i- •• - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - •*-- *---•— ^_lNHMM**«*l*M**^ite***. mu

^PPT^PPP^^^^f^^^^^l I ii. I'. U" i -.' •••••• >' ! '.*

'fl

System Design and Development

The design of the system includes all the system

components necessary to meet the objectives enumerated in

the predesign cycle. However, there is a special emphasis

placed o.i the user interface since unless the system is

effectively manipulated by the user it is rendered useless.

Table 2-1, taken from Eric Carlson's article (4:Table 4.1),

lists the variables under consideration when trying to

design the user interface to the system.

These tradeoff variables make it possible to meet

DSS objectives within the constraints of user style and

available funds and technology. Consider the user whose

familiarity with the computer is low, his/her control

style is hands-on, and his/her desire is to minimize the

amount of training necessary for working with the computer.

Based on the user's strengths and limitations, the hardware

output media selected may be line-at-a-time to allow the

user to examine the data at his/her own pace. The input

media may be a voice recognition device to avoid the user

having to use a keyboard or pointing device. The software

package might use prompts (questions to guide the user

through the process) or menus (list of packages/routines

available) to guide the user painlessly through simple

subroutine calls. Another variable is the type of deci-

sion.

15

•„'

}' •"-' .»•'!»' —.—: 1 r-y-^T

cu o u o Cu O

CU rH XJ

ITJ rH •H (0 > rd

n

16

i to

OJ CU cu CO CU •H a CU CU CO M

CU X! a c Oi •H o

•H C CU x: •H

6 6 0

•»• CO -Ö -P

CU CO tH CU 3 r4 CU a CU CO p

s P - 0 CU * rH CU c x: x:

CO cj 0 tp tP o 1 •H •rl

•l rd CO X! X! X! T3 O rH c *• •k P rH rd S 3 «3 •rH x: 0 0

X> s • rH rH

(0 c o

•H

p •H -p CO c

•H

CJ O X!

C fd s

5 -Ö CU rö UH

U g CU CU •p rH 3 CO X) a p

to 0 S c -P P 0 cd C CU CJ a

(1) •H •H rH fO xs x; c CJ >1 M p •P 0 •H

•P •P •H •rl •H P CO CO CD » s CO P

C rH •H (d c 0 >1 >1 >i Ü Cu o u •P p P O CU

•H CO •H •H c >o UH P Cn p P •H 0 Ü c r-\ rd rd .* MH CO •H o •H •H rd 0 U H c P r-i H £ • cu •H P •H •rl CU XI P id c £ c C CU £ c M 0 (3 fo 0 >1 3

•H P Ü MH UH •H CO

•rH CJ

p

•

C

in vo » 00 en CU a o rH

rH

• . * . _•- I

•

W • '• P •• •

DSS fall into two categories to match the type of

decision under consideration. According to John J. Donovan

and Stuart E. Madnick (5:79), the categories are institu-

tional, which deals with recurring decisions and ad hoc,

which d \s with specific problems that are neither recur-

ring nor anticipated. These two types of DSS have differ-

ent computational needs. For example, if the decision is

institutional then it is possible to build a DSS specifi-

cally for the particular decision under consideration.

The annual vehicle buy in transportation is an institutional

decision that can be the focus of a DSS design. If the

decision is ad hoc the design of the DSS must provide for

a wide variety of potential applications. In a wartime

scenario the number of vehicles needed to support a base

may change drastically. Because the situation has

occurred infrequently, the decision maker may need the

ability to simulate war conditions under different assump-

tions to determine the number of vehicles needed.

The last variable in the table deals with number

of participants. If the number of participants is several

or the user (s) change frequently, then it might be cost-

effective to gear the DSS to a class of user rather than a

single (or a few) decision maker(s) (18:38). This possi-

bility is especially significant for Air Force applications,

since military decision makers seldom remain at a position

for more than three or four years.

17

- -•-• - • - .. • --- -..- » - • -I'lm'n -n'- ii ! > n • m '- '- •'-' "- k *- - - *- •- . h k > * •-' * . . - - -

1^"^—y'-1"" ""- •• l.'1.1 . •• U^^^^T^^^^ *• * *• •'-'•»'• V' ' »• ••.'• -i-iv»"'. ' - • —i-n —i- -- •

The designer's job is to gather information about

flj the decision setting and the user. He/She should analyze

the decision process and build a model to use in the design

of the DSS (1:1311).

Implementation

Implementation, or the lack thereof, has posed

significant problems for DSS builders (2:123). This por-

tion of the literature review will list some of the situa-

tional factors that impede and that enhance implementation.

Next, it will examine some of the actions to be taken in

response to these factors. And finally, the review will

describe strategies to deal with risk impediments and their

consequences.

-A Situational Factors

There are eight "risk factors" according to Steven

Alter (2:157) that can affect the implementation process:

(1) nonexistent or unwilling users; (2) multiple users

or implementers; (3) disappearing users, implementers, or

maintainers; (4) inability to specify purpose or usage in

advance; (5) inability to predict and cushion impact on

parties involved; (6) lack of loss of support; (7) lack of

prior experience with similar systems; and (8) technical

problems and cost-effectiveness issues. The risk of failure

in the implementation phase is lessened to the degree these

risk factors are missing from the situation. The presence

18

— • - ..-••..., . — ^.. , . . , ..-. . . . . x . ., _

».• .• .«'.• -• • ',• •'"•

pjppwpfft i m • '. •'-"'• "i • >' • •• • • • • • • *• ^''- • • :>?* ••. ,• • T" i-r ••! " ••• • • •» ••»• •—'-r •~Z-~-r~ T_- "7

•••

military might experience similar problems due to the

transient nature of its personnel. Once a project is

started it is advisable to tailor it to the general user

rather than the specific individual(s) present during its

development. Also, there should probably be some overlap

for new personnel to learn from those who are experienced

with the development process.

Empirical studies show that systems are developed

sometimes without a clear notion of how they will be used

(2:163). This is usually the result of overoptimism on

the part of the system designer with regard to the willing-

ness and/or ability of the user (2:132). The key here is

to explain capabilities of the proposed system to the user

and solicit user feedback on the intended use and usage

patterns of the systems. While it is difficult to predict

usage patterns accurately all the time, training the user

on the capabilities of the system will help to familiarize

the user with the system.

Individuals other than users, implementers, and

maintainers must be prepared for their role in the process.

Atler calls these individuals "feeders." They provide the

data to the system (2:163). These individuals frequently

are unwilling to work or change their work patterns without

receiving some benefit. This problem is one which hampered

the development of the VIMS. Wnen VIMS came onboard,

mileage data was collected by the vehicle operator who

20

•»'•*'-**•'•*••-•'-*-'-'-*'-*"-' .'-.:-«-«—-'-•-•-*-«.. • - - - - -• -• - -> i i ......

?l

commonly knew little or nothing of the VIMS and the impor-

tance of his/her role as data recorder-collector. As a

result, many of these "feeders" to the system often turned

in erroneous data and sometimes turned in none at all. To

eradicate that problem, the Air Force went to the mileage

estimator concept now used to estimate the mileage a

vehicle travels based on its fuel consumption and miles

per gallon data. Here as before, training and involvement

may prevent feeder personnel from feeling left out or

annoyed. Alter suggests that some benefit should be

derived by individuals who play a feeder role—he admits

though, that this is not always achieved in practice

(2:164).

Lack of support can stagnate the existence of a

system. The typical situation in the studies conducted

revealed lack of budget to run the system or lack of man-

agement zeal to use the system properly as the culprits.

The result was system death or disuse (2:Figure 28). The

cure can be effected by funneling money into the system

for training and operating costs.

Inexperience on the part of users or implementers

will also stymie progress. Systems where users or imple-

menters were unfamiliar with the particulars of the system

effort resulted in disuse or misuse by the user and con-

ceptual and technical design problems on the part of the

implementer. Training and communication can help lessen

21

'-."..•*••'•-•'.'•-•..'- ^ • '• • - • '. - . . - ..-..-'

Lf.-v'.*..tV-.' .• . v;j.,v.:v.:. ....... •. ..'.»..•».. --•-•-•- -"-•- .•-•-.-•••-•. . • -

p^i^^^^^^^^^^

r«

problems associated with a new system effort. However, a

learning curve is involved and one muse expect to encounter

stumbling blocks.

Finally, technical problems (which are viewed also

as cost-effectiveness issues) can hamper system develop-

ment (2:165). These problems can be resolved with the

development of redundant systems, more programming work,

better software, larger computers and other things which

can be resolved by an expanded budget.

Implementation Strategies

Implementation strategy should be geared to adapt to

situational changes.

Strategies for DSS design and implementation must attempt to articulate both particular decision activi- ties that can best be supported now as well as new, more effective decision actions that may evolve [1:1309].

The strategy described is called an "evolutionary strategy

[1:1312]." It involves the management of continual change

and adjusting through a series of stages. The user is

intimately involved in the development of the system. The

system itself is developed through an iterative process

where implementer/user interaction plays the key role.

This evolutionary strategy attempts to create a mutual exchange of information about (1) the user and [implementer's] potential skills and knowledge base that might be appropriate for solving the problem, (2) potential solutions, and (3) personal critiques of these solutions. The approach hopes to utilize an interative user/[implementer] learning process as means to generate a more appropriate definition of system rquirements [1:1311].

22

wtm^^^^i^^^^^^^^^^^i^^^^^^^^^^^^. m 11 11 • '•'•.• -i w. • •»•».• i •» n • ..... i T . .—-r-,

A prototype is the product of this "learning process."

Building a prototype lets the user get first-hand knowledge

of system capabilities and allows the implementer to get

feedback on the new concept before implementing an entire

system (2:Figure 29). Even after the "final" system is in

place its development throughout the life of the system

should be a major concern of the organization.

Summary

The whole DSS concept can be summed in a few words:

computer-based support for management decision making. The

philosophy too, can oe stated succinctly: computers can do

more than store and retrieve data. They can be useful aids

to allow decision makers the latitude to model, optimize,

and simulate.

To develop this aid to decision making, predesign

analysis should be undertaken to see if a DSS is needed

and to what extent the organization is ready, willing, and

able to take on the task of developing the needed system.

Next, the design and development phase should develop the

system components necessary to meet the needs outlined in

the predesign phase. Finally, the implementation of the

system should evolve over time to meet the changing needs

of the user. The system should undergo continuous growth

strategies to keep it current with the latest technological

advances as well as the expanding and changing needs of the

organization.

23

p^B^ip«*»i^—•—•—•—•——r-—• v- -—i—r——*

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Decision Support System Development Process

This thesis identifies information needs not cur-

rently being met by the VIMS and recommends either their

inclusion into the VIMS, or their continued omission from

the system. The role of the VIMS (explained in Chapter I)

is to support management decisions. The computer DSS sup-

ports the manager by providing the information about the

situation and the ability to manipulate that information.

The better the information the more effective the decision

will be in accomplishing the desired objective.

Scope and Limitations

This effort confines itself to the determination

of the decisions—for which the VIMS could or does provide

at least one information element--and associated informa-

tion requirements of the contractor-operated and maintained

vehicle fleet at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. The

process, as it is developed in this thesis, involves five

steps:

1. Identify the information the VIMS provides

on reports now being used by decision makers to aid their

;^ decision-making process.

24

* ----- •-M.r^." . ».•*•••• ...-*_« m ---»•---- - - -• -1 _ _ - •-•.----- -1 -- ••.._•—-

mmjm^^^m • • •

•

s»

2. Identify the decisions made for the management

of the vehicle fleet.

3. Determine the information requirements of the

managers making the aforementioned decisions.

4. Compare and contrast the information needed

with the information provided by the VIMS reports being

used currently.

5. Examine the potential for including omitted

necessary information into the VIMS output and identifying

unused information from the reports as needing further

investigation to determine if the elements are used at any

level of the decision-making process.

The first step in the process involved identifying

the information available to decision makers via the VIMS.

The second step involved structured interviews of

managers to identify the tasks they performed and decisions

associated with each of those tasks. When managers dis-

played an inability to respond, they were prompted with an

example (e.g., "If you were tasked to dispatch vehicles

and you received a telephone request for a vehicle you

would have to decide whether or not to respond to the call,

what vehicle to send, and which driver to send?). Prompt-

ing helped the respondent to understand the question and

formulate an appropriate answer.

In the third step, decision makers were further

questioned about their information requirements for each

25

,-• • - -'- *"- * - *"- * -•-*-. -.--•-•.!---•.•. |

• -- - - -----

•^^^r^^^^^^^^^w^^^"

decision they made. Here too, managers were prompted when

they did not know how to respond. Returning to the dis-

patch example in step two, the prompting followed "long

these lines: before you could send a vehicle to a caller

yoa would need to know if he/she qualified for government

transportation, the caller's location, destination, and

time of pick up. After the decision maker listed the

information needed for a decision, he (there were no female

respondents) was asked about any apparent oversights. In

the dispatch example for instance, if the respondent over-

looked the decision to send a driver or the need for infor-

mation identifying the caller's location, he was asked

specifically about the oversight. In addition, the decision

maker, when applicable, was questioned about the need for

an analytic or forecasting model on the VIMS. In each

case the decision maker was first told how a model might

work and told where in the decision-making process such a

model might be used beneficially. Finally, the decision

maker was asked to identify the sources of the information

he used. If the source was non-VIMS and VIMS provided the

same information, he was asked why he chose not to use the

VIMS output.

Steps one through three were combined in the inter-

views of all decision makers using the VIMS as a decision

aid and those who could feasibly do so. After the inter-

viewer was identified and the goal and intended benefit of

26

—»—•—- "— ^ -^- •*-• •*- '- *— '- *- «-- tmktk ' r I I .--- -•.-•,-:,-*•.*•-•-».

II I I l . , * l i . v '.'•. •-,l. '•'•.'•.' '•.'•"' • ». " ' I * ' * » * V ' | * • • « * •. * < .'• -' * I • •> * • .,~ t - »• - • I • - » - • l - • - »-;-••

the research was explained, each interviewee was questioned

• in accordance with the format shown in Figure 3-1.

The fourth step involved a research design that

identifies the decision, the decision maker and the informa-

i tion needed. The information was divided into five cate-

gories identified by an information status code:

1 = Information needed and provided by the VIMS;

I 2 = Information needed and provided by a source

other than the VIMS;

3 = Information needed but presently unavailable;

* 4 = Information provided by the VIMS but not used

•; for the decision; and

Blank space • Information neither needed nor

| provided.

The format is a matrix that identifies the decisions and

decision makers across the top and the information elements

] along the side (see Figure 3-2). The numbers 1 through 4

or a blank space--corresponding to the information status

code—were entered into each block according to the status

>• of the information element corresponding to the appropriate

decision. For example, if information element "U" is

needed for decision reporting contractor VOC rate to Con-

• tracting (Al) and is provided by the VIMS, then a "1" was

entered into the box under reporting contractor VOC rate to

Contracting (Al) beside "U" as shown in Figure 3-2.

27

• •'«•••'••

m

..-;• Hello, I'm Captain Fox from AFIT. I'm here to find out what information you need to help you make deci-

si sions associated with your job. The information you give 'v me will go into a thesis effort to help persuade Air Force

decision makers to furnish all of the information you % think necessary to aid you in accomplishing your routine

and special tasks. I'm going to ask you several questions that I'd like for you to answer as candidly as possible.

May I record this interview?

• Name

•

9

'•

s-C" Position

What do you do; what activities are you responsible for?

?• What decisions do you make in the performance of your duties?

Now let's look at each decision separately.

Decision

- What information do you currently use to aid you in making this decision and £rom where does it come?

- What further information could you'use if it was avail- able? i

/.• - If forecasting is implied, ask if a forecasting tool !-;" would be useful.

- Is there anything that pertains to information require- ments for this decision that I may have missed?

Fig. 3-1. Sample Interview

28

: ' ••'. :--. -••'-.•'".. '••'••" • ..... -j » » i. i., •. ............t.•.-.-.'. . .^..^ .••,_-. .... ........ . .... . _ . . , . . . , . , , .., . , . . , j

?^^—^ • '•' ' '• '• * ""!'!'I'.'1""-"TI"','.".".^I.,.','-"'VI- ••'•-"•''.••• »J. • -•

Peci flim Maker AB C

Information Decision Elements 12123 12345

U 1 V

W

X

Y

X

Fig. 3-2. Sample Information Matrix

The fifth and final step of the process examined

ways to get managers and supervisors the information they

need for decision making via the VIMS. It suggested the

omission of unnecessary information and the inclusion of

necessary information that is not now provided in VIMS

reports.

Some DSS and MIS experts are critical of personal

interviews as the way to determine information requirements.

Merle Martin (10:14) suggests that managers too often don't

know the information they require to make decisions. To

get around that obstacle he recommends taking a more struc-

tured approach to the problem. He explains the System

Dynamics model as one such approach. "The purpose of this

model is a structured search for pertinent decisions and

the information required to drive these decisions [10:15]."

29

«"

mm^mmw'm^mmmmmmmmmwmmmi mm ••••• • - • L • n'. ,JU »IU • .••» P .• P •I|." •• p • • v •••••'•••i- ET•

1 I ;..• Martin goes on to add that there is a great deal of

literature that recommends the interview approach.

k; The methodology of this research followed the

latter approach; it presupposed that VIMS users could best

identify their information requirements. Burch, Strater,

and Grudnitski confirm the validity of this approach:

"Information requirements can best be stated by the users

of the information [3:252]." They hasten to add, however,

that the systems analyst must help users determine their

requirements.

Most individuals are guided in formulating their needs by arbitrary and often antiquated notions of what they "think" can be provided. The analyst's func- tion, then, is to remove or expand these attitudes so that the real information requirements can be obtained [3:252].

Following the suggested pattern, interviewees were

questioned about possible needs for forecasting techniques

and analytical models in certain decision areas. For

example, Priority Buy proposals take hours to calculate by

hand. After the initial calculation, if the approving

authority makes minor changes, it could take hours to

recalculate the proposal. However, if an analytical model

of the Priority Buy decisions rules were developed, the

computer could calculate and recalculate the proposal in

seconds, error free.

The result of this project should give a clearer

understanding to the reader of the information requirements

30

• • - • .

^^•^

on the part of the decision makers now using the VIMS in

the contractor-operated vehicle sections of the 2750th

Transportation Branch at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,

Ohio. Moreover, it should lead to changes in the informa-

tion the VIMS provides its users so that reports are

tailored to user needs. Finally, it may provide the

impetus for future research in the area of information

requirements for VIMS at other bases.

31

——«—«•• «.»-*.'

r \'

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS

Analysis of Findings

This chapter examines the findings of the study.

In the following chapter these findings serve as the focal

point for drawing conclusions and making recommendations

for system modifications and future studies.

Research Question 1

Of the thirty-three VIMS outputs, eleven are for

use by Maintenance Control and Analysis (MC/A) to edit or

update VIMS files. Of the remaining twenty-two outputs,

only five are used as decision aids by the decision makers

interviewed in this study. These five reports include the

following:

1. Vehicle Out of Commission (VOC) Report—tells

the quality assurance evaluators (QAE) how the contractor's

VOC rate compares with the allowable quality level (AQL)

the Vehicle Maintenance Section has contracted to comply

with;

2. Work Order Master File Status Report—shows

all work orders (w/o) on the master file in numerical

sequence;

32

1

M*

3. Vehicle Master List—sequenced by management

code (List A) and assigned organization (List B). Shows

static and dynamic data for all vehicles for which vehicle

maintenance has primary responsibility.

4. Scheduled Maintenance Report (Shop Copy)—

prints only vehicles overdue scheduled maintenance miles/

hours/kilometers and dates, and those coming due.

5. Vehicle Static Maintenance Data List—made up

upon request to print a specific vehicle's or all vehicles'

static data.

Explanations of the output vocabulary used in the five

reports (14:pp.4-78,4-79,4-84,4-85,4-87 to 4-89,7-9,7-10)

are shown in Table 4-1. Table 4-2 explains the information

elements obtained from other-than-VIMS sources.

Research Question 2

The information elements in Table 4-1 and Table

4-2, from the VIMS and non-VIMS sources, are used to make

decisions concerning the base vehicle fleet. The decision

makers and the decisions they made that lend themselves to

being supported by the VIMS are depicted in Table 4-3.

Research Question 3

There are three categories of information needed

by managers; the first is provided by the VIMS; the second

is supplied by non-VIMS sources; and the final set of infor-

mation is that information which is to date unavailable.

33

•'-'-*-'•-•- • -"' -' - • -'- -'»•-'•• - • -' - • -• - - - -1- - - • - - • - - - - - - - - - - • - •. - - - .....*........... w - - Lfc

M11." •'

— A

.-.- :

B 1 c i. 4J C •H — P C 4-» -H X • 0) 1 c 0) C (Ö -p . CO a» x *P a> e 0) g •H TS CM X 4J

[ • C7> G CM § 0) g s a) 3 4-1 ! • C 0) 3 0) >H 4-1 O c ' •H g O C" nj CT O CO C SH SH O I- 4J CM SH O ;"- H -H Cn c (0 3 CO TJ S-i 4-1 CD 1 0 3 ifl • e (0 4-1 o a. 0) 4-1 E CM D1 a) 6 as g >H o 13 - (0 1 (1) W X Ü fa (0 to O ^ T3 U 4->

< (0 < fa CM 4-> -H U u

•k CO < C O 4-1 M U I? c CO c D CO M a) 4-1 4J rH O

o c •H D -H 4-> CO o a) CO

T3 CO c c C 4-> c CT CM g SH (0 1 SH 3 a) •rl -H •H M •H C (0 d) o 3 0 H rH X (0 x: it} X 0 C U CT> O 0)

44 0 u 4-1 g 4J CM 4J -H (Ö (0 X X 1 CO C •r4 . •r» •rt •H CO g 0) C 1 4-1 z c CO -rl X O S H S VH J CO X (0 TJ- o 0 0> a> CO 4H CO 4-1 CO g < 0) En 4-> o s CO 0) 0) g CO 0) C 0) 4-1 CM o. •H -rl , CO 09 (0 £ 0) (1) rH o 4-> -H 4-> -r) 4-1 -H CO 4-1 > O 0 D CM U CT>rH C Ä c X! C X SH (0 •H 4J '' O r-i 4J (0 u O 4J O 4-1 O 4J O X «4-1 X E i o> c E'^ ß -d g-H . T3 4-1 0 0) CM P CO O P (0 - > J J 0) SH > 3 .

m" S •H -H * g Cn *. «• u O CO u 4-1 w. H ^ S-i — c CO CO CO CO CO CO C CM 0) to X SH f. > 0) 3 fa fa 0 M 0) U 0) V4 Q) (0 ^ 3 XI SH 4-1 O l> iUE l< rH 3 T3 3 73 3 T3 C S-i 0 g 3 C CM L. 3«S CO 0> O O O O O O 0) O SH 3 OOO)

[ 2 co — D ja K Ü K U K U 4J S Cn 2 K g SH 1

4-1 ;• C

a 9

i-4 0 | W T3 o CO | 0 SH C 0

•r4 4-1

U

a 3

tu 1 CO >H

-a SH

S

0) i-H

«J O to CO W u O X) a M u h (4 M o 4-1 (0 U • n X C l-i 0 4J x 0) •rH

HH A 1 S

1 CM U SH > «J

1 c H £ % g O > O S c H s 34

:

—•. •. T^T- -- -- "" " ^IT, V: -\:

*

m

T3

s c •H 4->

C o u

I

w 3 2 EH

L" :

V. •.

AN

- -

c o

•H •P a

•H

CJ CO

cu a

4J c cu 1 cu rH (4

C O •H

id E u o

MH c

E-» ^ EH O o O EH EH EH

CO CO CO H w W H H H OS OS OS w w W co co CO

M (H >H 0 0 0

(W 4-1 4H

c c c cu cu cu > > >

•H •H •H cn U> tp

•». •; *. £ *. £ en • CO • CO • U J sj < X <

EH EH EH CU O CU O CU O H EH rH EH H EH X> XI XI fö EH rd EH (0 EH H W r4 W rH W •H W •H H •H W

CO rH rd HI (0 t-q > fa > fa > fa -( A 5-1 CU B3 D S3 D S 3

O O O S OS cu os U OS

£s° gQ O O > =

i U

4-1 S-l

O CM I CO

4-) ro

4-> CO

0) rH •H fa SH

CU 4-> CO

m S SH cu

T3 U O

X U o

>

•H 4J c

U 0

CU UH •H s x • rd •P CO (U

X! e T3

CU 0 c 4J TS CO -P 0 0> 0

rH 14-1 >i rH • •a CU 0 rd CJ M cu £} r-i CU c CU CU >1 T3 tn CU c 13 rH M

•H rH 0 • • 4-> O CO CJ TS T! C c CO •iH >1 CU CU 0 CU r« fO si c C CO CJ M

cu rö CU 0 4-1 CU 0 CO > P. rH 3 u £

•H cu

CU CJ .

O CJ a •Ö a)

4-1 s: C 00 CO CO CO c X fO 4J rd m fO (CJ rd rd 4J Ä 4J s £ S •p x: CO rH C 4-1

CJ C O M iH M CU 3 M •H •H CU CU CU a 5 CU s: H T5 T3 T3 0

rQ ^ co rg rH u U rd p •H in 0 O 0 rH • 3 0 J= rH CU C c 4J 4J ~ AJ M r« rd rH 0

^r^r^-i^üüll^ • • •.' I

•M

a

I

i

CD 3 C

•H -P C

5 i i

rH I

H 3

c o

•H P a

•rl p o en a) P

P c I

iH M

C o

•H P rd

O

C

u 0) p en

S a)

rH CJ

x a) >

ro

CP 1 c -o 0 cu •

rH * X cu en cu Ü r-\ rH •

XI •

en CJ •H

en rd

fd •H

X P

a, 0 Ü X X rl c • 3 p cu cu 0 CD O P > CU p g r-H M TJ P CQ •rl en > a> JH •

CO • S • c 0 CD cu C (0 cu cu 0 Cn cu •rl u X rH

•rH rH f-i X C X tf P o CO u u en •rl p rd CU •rl

03 •H •H •rl P CU rH P X cu X X .* rl en U CJ 0 CD iH CU cu cu en O S •H UH > o rH > > •rl CU 0 u X

•H CJ rl CU X rd cu CU CD X •H cu en CU p en S > T3 X CU x X S P 0 p • > cu p Q en • u 1 0) cu Ü CU

> X (0 P o 2 rH X M rH CD 0 en en > c rd p U 0 U x P p C -H * CU u c «3 o u •. MH X T3 CJ 0 •rH u en CJ P c en rl •H 5 CD CJ CD x cu •rl •H ra fd cu 0 P en p X 3 Xl CQ • 13 u c r-i P u en 0 en a P s CO cu C •H CU o fd cu CU rH 0 0 0 3 ^ P C

P •H cu P •H -rl cu •a rH •H en u 3 s CD c cu X u en Id > c rd X rl cu XI 0

TJ 0 XI cu c •rl CU £ •rl cu CU cu p •rl 0 •H c > (0 rH CJ cu t-\ > -a c M p Ü P 3 C C T3 3 t3 u M CD P rd

id e MH CU cu rd CU 0 CU 3 >1 0 U en X P U o p u C >i P •H c

H.'»IM" I" "• '• '• m » !• i —r—: r-;

1

I

»I

«a i c

•H •P e o u

m

E-<

•

c o

•H 4->

•H P U CO 0) Q

e CU E cu r-l w c o •p 4-» (0 6 u o

MH c H

CU >H Ü

•H Xi

CU >

cu x: -p

c •P 0] 3

73 C CO CO B <

U •P

CU > CU X! •P

»4-1 O

CU c •H

c CU

CU x: •P

>i X)

"O CU CO 3

•H CU 3

cu x: •P

c 3 o

cu a o

>1 c ITS p

(0 rH 4J rH (0 O

73 CU rH

g Ü is •H CU

S* E CU

x: CU 4-> x: +> c

^ o -p +J •H ß e

•H CU a. CO

P cu •PXt (0 ft >i CU rH P r-i

CO CU u g-H

•H g -P o

c cu o c o O cu

4J •P E

•H rj

a« CU

- >i ft

CO C C cu

•H 4J

3 73 E «3

- CU tPX! C -P H

Ü

•p c cu p p 3 u

c/l D

CU Xi -p

Ä 73

CU •P ft CU o u (0

CO (0 5

o •H X! CU > CU x: +J

CU -p m a

cu •P ca

73

73 r-{ •H 3

X) CU P

-P o ft cu a

cu u c

'S 8 o

+J •r( rH •P XI •H

•H rH CU

•p a CU E cu o (0 rH ft CU p

p o

;

xi

e 73 c (0

(0 cu p p •P -H ft ft X X CU cu

>1 >1 4-) -P c c ITS (0

CO

p p

*}"} '•'- -' • . • . ' - . * -• - .-•"••"- ."-"••."-^

-

1

r -^^ CQ CO ^~

E" 1 M

•H c x: ^

1 p •^^ •H P O £ O x: X! JS Ü * ^ p IM cu > * ü 0 B •H 0 o 3 . .* " CU _ •H CT> >1 ^T3 P P rH Q. J3 > cu •H c to O O ^M P ." 3 a CU f-{ CO n) cu u CU (0 e co ,• >i rH o r-i CJ CO r-i Ü Oi CO CU •H -H i •H 0 u CJ •H (0 CO •H CO P OJ ü x: C iH > •H £ CO £ co c cu a p p

0 3 a x: cu CO cu •H •H P m •w "- •H m •i 0 cu > •H rH O X! cu 3 MH "• P o X! > O P P £ rH 0 cu co rH CO cu CU CO o ai OH cu

•H •H m •^-' p x: rH M rH 4H +IH-H 3 CU P I rö P CJ CU 0 rH .rl 3 T3 P

T3 O 0) r-~ p x: •H P c •H ^ fO i CO iH r» P P £ X! CU •iH CU MH CU co 73 1 3 0 CJ 0 0 CU g X! P O P •H C Q •H S a P •r) > 0 P (0 TJ O ft) cu

•H x: £ cu cu £ r-^ •H xi C vo -Ö c x: P cu x: *: CU cu P •iH CU 0 • E a) p 0 I-i P ">s. CU XJ P rH P 0 PEP \ O CU 0 CJ c P o CO 3 P * P c •H X! u T3 X! O^-.* cu P x; h 1 P CN MH (0 c cu X! U 3 B co •«», CUMH

i H 1 c o T3 CU •H 0 CO o u cu P x: CO p | xi in P a; •H 0 > Xi x; •H P CO XI 3^ C co rö "* P CN e P P CJ 9 •^. MH CU 3 0 £ -H P CU , C 1 CD C (d 4H CO c a, rH x: » cu rH P a 1 vJ £ o ftt (Ö P c p rH •H P fO T3 O 3 1 CU rd P CQ > s CQ cu cu •H P cu CU O 73 E P < 73 O •P •H E CU c B U P rH f-{ i-i rH 0 rH i EH C EH 3 •Ö C7> cu K 0 CU CU H 3 •>» CU (0 rH r-i K (0 01 cu CU C* P •H cu a e-H T3 co x; •H -H -H

I £ 0) rH u (0 P > co O 3 CU CU P CJ M 3 P P 3 c TJ f0 •rH 3 rH x: --t cu (0 -rl cu -0 cu «3 C M P •H -H CU O "H P ftO cu hi cu 3 rH 0) rH £ (Ö •H «a X P co £ y CO O P >1 CJ x: CJ C r-\ C (0 3 vo (0

a •H ü •iH EN CU (0 3 iBOÜ fd O T3 to rH T3 . CU U x: to x; 3 J< CT> 6 o O 0 L' Xi C a) CU CO (0 h 3 IH VD p 4H O P > D X o U H rH 0 HH a H 0 0 '•'• ^ a

P C

I CU P I CU

p « 1 M

c 0

C 0

•H

> •H 3 D1

cu "v.

s CU cu 3

Q

rH 1

•H P W z CU cu 3 a 1 P rrj T3 a N a CO N 0) en 0 s 9 CU C"H rH 1 •H rH cu U EH u p >i o (0 C P Ü 05 >. o cu p 9 •H ' 0 p •H P cu 1 cu ^ CJ

;l m 0 x: £ 1 M C7< 0 MH ifl CU ** c 0) cu (0 CO B (0 CJ a „ M rtj > > s s < o CO CO CO

11 38

1

m

m • Hin

m

m S.VC .".V T3

0) 3 C

•H -P c o u

I

w 3

EH

[-.-V f

JL

c o •P •P CM

•P P Ü 01 Qi Q

-P C i

i-H w G o

•P •P

i P O

MH C

4.

CO u

tn p •

•

3 3 0) 0) 0 0 x: 3 x: £3 4-» t3 X Z

d) P a CD P a 0 X •a •H CD CUMH 10 CMMH rO : 0) a) ti c cu U-l > Ü -o CD •H 0) •H o 3 0 •rl a C x: •H MH

CM -P 3 co .p 3 r Tj 0) •P p +J CD • u 3 0 1 •P CO CD CD T3 x: ^ CD H Q*J rH 0 •p » 0) rH Ü w

•H g P 0 3 = CD MH (0 l"H ai (tJ rH in CN a) rH cn CD 3 U • X) •P

•H -H -O •H -H T3 p 3 •rl 0) f a> CO •p ID 3 rH u A; U ^ 3 tn rH p (0 ID P a = U 0) u ai p CJ (0 u c CD CD T3 ao 0 0.0 0 = -p • x; •H cu (0 g +J a) P CD CD en o tn o *MH X x; i-H g CD tn 0 H •P

vo M SO X rH -H x: P 0) Ü cn g (0 U CJ (0HV (tj rH -^ O CJ I 0) > •rl b 3 0 CD = •rH CD

x: XJ = 0) TJ 4B < 0 rH rH » x: a MH P •^ MH P ">*. CM i P 0 CO x: •rl •H S CD X H 0 g M 0 6 < co O • > D w X 2 = > u

irt

»9 CD «1 -o s

CD CD p 0 Ife 3 3 fl) u a }3 a a x< s c >k CD

CN ro 3 0 cn X > 1 I z CD •p CD ^v

CD T) •p iH s a iH i-H 3 ex Cn 0 «J •H ~^ X ft» rO a 0 CD U M I PJ w

•P •p x: a •rl Ü u M co •P i-H r-{

'

I

I

T3 CD 3 3

•rH P 3 o u

I I

iH I

a 2

c o

•rH

p

•rH

SH u CO E

O T5 r-\ -^

I

i

=«

I

w CQ

en

O H EH 04 M « U w w Q

<

D 09 «: u

En D cu EH a o tn X H >

I 2 O 2

M

M

o •rl P a

•H rl o CO (1) Q

I

o •H P (0 N

•H c (0 Oi M o CD X P

»O i c •H en ui to •

M >i CD P T3 •rl C U

tn •H

S

CD 4-1 XI O P

rl ß CD S XI O g tw 3 n C CD

en ro •H o 3 CD -H

•a c o

•H en en

•H E

CD x P

o

£

c •l-l

s

CD er> c. o

-U CD c x CD P g CD CD tP >

T5 SH 3 CD

•r-i en

CD rl x CD -p p

p C CD H XI

X •P •rl & en a) O -a (H CD en

P ß CD en CD u a (D X p

-p CO X s

CD

o 0 •H c ß X

c (0 CD 0 c Ü >

•H res +J CJ CD CD (0 rH X

rH M CJ . P rH CD •H C (0 en X 0 4H p 3 CD - P G CD 0

Xt s A; (0 n CD

CJ

c P g CD X rH (0 0

•H c (0 X • CJ u CD CD S en

3

c (0

P c CD

CD en ü CD c u (0 a, u ro 4H CD O Cu Cu en (0 CD

rH rH CJ ro -H ü X

•rl CD en > >i X u cu o

c o •rl p (0 N

-H u o X •p 3 <

CD rH u

•H X CD >

CD X P

c o

CD P (0 C

•H en CD

•O

en (0 •

CD r3 H < 3 > P — (0

T-\ rji CJ c C -H CD P g en O -H 2 J

CD P en CD > 5-1 ro

ro C o •H 4J ro C u CD P C

Ü •rH X

CD >

CD CJ X P -P CD

HH O

!H CD SH 3 P CJ rH (0 ro

3 C rO CD

rl CD X!

c O

•H P (0 CJ

•rl. »H •H P c CD «a •H

CD

CJ •H X CD >

en

S-l CD SH 3 P CJ (0

IH 3 C ro S

c o

•r( P (0 N

•H rl O X •P 3 (0

CD X P

«Q CD N

•H U

P 3 (0

en CD

ü •rl X CD >

o u CD X

rd P O

X! C

CD ro

X ro CD CJ

•rH > !-l CD en

'O C rO

CD

(0 en

CD rH ü

•H X

CD >

CD X P

CD

(0 g o -p

p en o u

ro P O P

CD X EH

CD

ro en

CD rH CJ

•H X CD >

CD X P CD

(0 g

o -p

>1 u ro CO CO CD 0 CD c en JH 3 O X c (0 • g CD

rH T3 X C ro rO CD

CJ en -H P > U u ro CD a* en

p c X 9} X CD X C g CD > CD 0 CD >

U > •rH

P CD P

CO

u a rH o U •H 5H (0 •H

>i (0 •S 0 T3 CD >H CD X g CO fi P •H K C U CD X P •rl Q4 0 •r) P CD o 3 )H g 3 P CD

•H rl c CO 'O CJ P 3 3 < cn OS P 0 CD D CD rO •P 2 w (0 •r( cn CD CD •rl 0 P U •H CD 3 •H (0 CD

>w CP c P CD X g C rl U a a C SH •H CD en CD 0 (0 CD X CD >i M O s CQ D > 2 S CO 2 « EH

.«

41

* - ' - ' * T

w^w • • .. - . - ....

1

r«

-«

i C

•H +J e o u

I I

CM I

•sr

a a < E-i

«

o •H p a

•H p u to a) a

P c | a)

rH M C o

•H 4J id 1 P o

14-1 c

.i

P •| 0

CO XJ OP • 3 c

to U >1 O QJ p QJ o P rH >

•H 0 P Ch P (d iH Ü Ö» 0 (d QJ a Ü •H £* QJ 4-4 3 QJ Xi aj •H x: P P 0 C P p XI QJ E id Öi c

QJ > -H Ü c to QJ >i TJ > x •H Xi X! QJ co id QJ P ^ P to (1) 3 e rH •H CO P 0 x: 0 u tO P a C a. P •H QJ •H 3 •H •H QJ o > Xi x: cd CO p c QJ P QJ a a. Qj a 0 U ^ > 0 X!

QJ P

CO 3

rH rH

0 tJ P p CO •H x: to E Ü QJ tn-Ö Xi • P p 0

p (0 P

a QJ Xi

c •H

QJ P QJ |

P p UH p c p T3 (d Xi P QJ c c 0 QJ a P •H P CD c 0 •H C QJ •H MH •H u CO •H C Ü C 0) cd aj 1 CO •H 0 Xi

X! QJ (-1 •H C CO P p OJ 3 QJ g QJ QJ c T3 rH 0 -Ö a * E QJ rH (d QJ • p U p >l 0 X! u CO rH « 0

•H CO CO u o •H P cd rH T3 14H x: QJ a) (0 0 CO Xi •H x; -H QJ QJ rH r-\ tn m XI Ü •. QJ 0 Xi • > Xi H cd O

•H •H U 3 rH P cd T3 P p CU -p rH > QJ 0 Ü QJ c C CO 3

QJ •3 QJ •H rH 0 cd § C Ü QJ i u QJ QJ e :d • P CO XI a> -P •H rH > 0 QJ ü •H E E (d >i • T3 QJ •H XJ u u CO P QJ QJ C ü (1) 0 a rH QJ •H QJ Q) U P P 0 C T) Ü • >i (0 > x: Xi QJ HH 0 •H •H CO (0 Id .>1 P 3 QJ P XI o •l >», cd P £ P 3 a P > CO T3 QJ 4H QJ 0 C 03 T3 QJ QJ 0 u iH C Xi 0 p QJ c QJ C QJ a i 9 rH 0 •H X! 3 >1 T3 X a) QJ P xi -a P CO £ 0 • CU IH p C a) xi ü -H u id QJ p U p E QJ Ü 0 •H a-H i >i rH rH s P a, QJ 3 P P CO cd •H •H (0 QJ P 3 3 rH rH 3 0 QJ Xi cd 3 aj 0 3 id •J Xi es a< 2 XI < Id 2 EH P EH rH IH w u a b

QJ Xi Ü QJ •H > P

QJ QJ >i PH V»H en D. rH Ü P •H U P 0 id •H •H P rJ CCi B id Xi c > P •H

H u w 0 P P c id T3 QJ 1 -^ CO QJ CO cd h QJ rH QJ u c cd W 0 3 P X) 3 o H QJ "Ni U a CO O •H Q > en CO • QJ CJ» aj E E E E a •H xi rJ p E p QJ 0) QJ QJ X rH QJ a XI •H XI P p P -(.' M M > < 2 En 2 H H H H

42

- "... ---..._.. --. . -*«-*»-*- ._^ . -• — -.. ^^_^ i »_- - -

I-"

W -^-

I

1

CD

c •H P 3 o u

I i X)

3 O

•H -P O CD ft CO

3 •H

CD

o •rl XS CD >

P CO (0

CD X! •P

MH O

CD P (0 a

o CO

rl CO CU CD

ÜS CD P >i •rl O

CD i-l ft

CU g ^H CU

XI (Ö rH rH ftf •rl -r) 10 P > C (0 CD

-P U O CD ft SB O MH ft o s (0 rH g o

o MH & o

u CO O

^H XI cu rH CD

r-\ CD rH

rH XI r4 ni •rl rH X-rl

CO to

s (0 cu

x: CO P h

1 3 P. z o

rl CD -P C cu ü

,* u o

CD O 3 (0 C CD P 3

•H (0 g

o •H A CD > rl CD a.

o

u 0

u fO CD . >i

CD tP (Ö rl (D

CD rH XI •H

CO c o CO

CD rl

CO •rl

CD O s

c cu -p 3

•H (0 g

cu CJ

•r) xi cu >

p

P

CU CO (C XI

3 0

CO cu

rH u

•H x: CU >

ig rl O cu Di CO CU (0 P XI nJ U C

o •rl •P

CJ u

cu

•rl x:

3 U

0) -P > CO

3 X! O u o (CJ cu ••

9 s CO

3

O

CU

XI

CD CO

O ft rl • 3 3 a CP

•H

CO

(0 cu MH -H T3 o u

CU >i >i ft U P CO (0 •rl P

•rl X!

CO XI o u

CD rH CO -H O g ft rl T3 3 3

Cu ft (0

>i

o p 3 CD > 3

•H

3 (0

P 3 (Ö rl rl (0

o +1

X3 tr« 3 O 3 CD

P 3 CD 3 D1 CU rl

MH

4J CO

O g

CD (0 3 CO

P u (0

>1

o p 3 CU > 3

•rl

CU x: P

3 •H

^ CU 'O

CD CD 3

CO P rl nj ft

MH o p CO o

>1 u o •p 3 CU

> 3

•H

CO P U (Ö ft

M O

I4H

CU rH XI (0

rH •H

CO > (0

CU Ü R) ft CO

CD cn us rl O P cn

in CD 0 >i o rH ft g CD

CD >

•H P Ü CD ft CO

O u ft

MH O

CO P 3 CD g CD U

•rl 3 D1 CD U

>i rl (0

rH IT3 cn

M^ rl CD ft

O P

CD rH XI tO

CD rl tö

CO CD cu >1 o r-\ ft g CD

CD >

•rl P U CD

MH MH

CU

-o • 3 CO (0 ,*

CO >i TS

rH P

0 TJ •H CU 3 3 CT T>

•H 3 co O co as 0 > 5 0 T3

0 rH r-\ >; ; (0 to p 3 u p cu nj (0 0 0 rl Q 2 s EH fl

w o

t •H MH (0 MH

CM P 0)

rH •H

a 0) O (0 to u CO U > cu o D < •H ?

cn M 0 rr p 0)

'•".lyin.nn". »*•»• J».I

.'X

i

3

o

a> rH u

•H A d) >

M •rH

& P

o p

-o S "p

-H P 9* O

p c (U S a> tn iH CU P w P en

rd 0 c M N u 0 P

•H 0) en CT P en 0 c rd D u •H £ > P en P •H 0 P 0) cu

IW M V u C rd u 0) H &4 o «

44

* • '-' > •': "l-T •

I

1

I

w >J

m CQ I a

*r EH

w Z •H1 O 3 H < OT M H

U DJ Q

fl >

h X

en c o

•H w

-H CJ CJ Q

S-l

S c o

•H (0

•H O

•H •p

0 « OS • •H • Ü (0 CJ t>1 M S-l S-l cu H CO CO o S-l • 10 0 CU Cu P 3 3 > 0 rH > iw 5 CO c P P p cu 0 3 0 (t5 IÖ cu c > CU CO cu •H u P •P x: p cu £ cu 3

CO CO p > rH p •H CO cu 0 c p e iH p « cu c •H tp p •H Ü

rH rH •H c 3 S-l 4-1 •H cu •H •H CO •H 0 • 0 0 X! P fa h CO •p c J3 AS •H CU «a S-l V4 c Cn Ü S-l c > M S-l s-i 0 (0 f0 3 0 D4 0

(V cu u a E 0 p •H cu CJ p P u u CO cu p rH o CO CO CU rH rH s o 3 3 > aj 10 (0 (0 p >1 c XI T3

2 s cu •H •H & (0 •H cu u rH p p (0 0 c n x: o h h X) •H •H o -p cu p Ü p Q) cu 10 c c •H c p CO CO Ü T3 Tj M •H •H a CU c •H (0 U M O (0 > •H T3 0 S-l o o > • c c x: c (0 cu p p (0 CP (0 10 o •H £ S-l c ^ .* 4-1 c i CO 0 h S-i c H x: £ g x: rfl >1 S-l o 0 0 3 P CO CO CO CO S-l cu

s S cj •H •H &> •H •H (0 CO p P (0 rH rH c c rH S-l 3 'H T3 T3 H s-l .a £1 •H CU X) • 0 0 c C O P 10 f0 o rH r0 cu Cu rH cu cu CU a c p p (0 CU p 0 1 rH a)

" cu o CO CO rH CU CO £ cu (0

a; 4 OS u H w & OS w CO E-i u

rH CN

0) V-i

o o

rH CN

CU 0 10 c

c*i ^r in 10 rH

cu u c 03

CM co

>1 C P CU cu u CU c p P «3 (0 rH c 1 rH CO to •H H 3 o 4J cr p CJ P * rH 3 H •H C ffl 3 •H C rH «J (0 IT] XJ •H C T3 a x: •H as 3 to > cu 10 i0 c cu CU (0 5 a< H > s s (0 Q > s

• <

• CQ

• u

45

1 • • *! • . ' • >

-.'.-.*.•-_. V *. _ • . . • .. • J

J

" •

3 • 0 x: P •rl

> i O • rl ,". u •H ^1 x> a> e 3 .*, 1 TJ 0 rH H-l 0 a. .- 1 >i Ü o •H

!

m U < U CD C N (0 *- •H > 0 > A CD 0 P o 5 (0 >w a) 5 > P a, 4J o> cn 4-1 rH 0 o 0 0 rH •rl a) U O O on rH rH CO 0) d) 0) 0) c 3 f0 (0

-• « a os a us & > XI

• • • • • • rH CN rH CN m r-i j

M 0

to >i C 4J

w .* 0 3 1 (0 (D'HH ft 0) rl tT«

2 rH 4J CD CD rH (Ü C 1 o «j era U +J C" •H -P

C •H in HJ •H 0) aj rH C .. 0 x: x: a> c H CD p> •H m a« c 0) rH CO •rl tj>

•". •rl O

> O 1 h2 03 <

L' 0) • • •

• a a M fc

1 46

I

L'

J

~ «^^yiwyyj^wwy^ppypwipyywwwi^i n • • •.•.•. j. t •>..« •,.,.-.

All of the information elements previously dis-

cussed and the decisions of the specific decision makers

compiled in Tables 4-1 through 4-3 are combined in

Table 4-4 to show the information necessary for each deci-

sion as stated by the decision maker. The information will

be divided into five categories identified by an informa-

tion status code:

1 = Information needed and provided by the VIMS;

2 = Information needed and provided by a source

other than the VIMS;

3 = Information needed but presently unavailable;

4 = Information provided by the VIMS but not used

for the decision; and

Blank space = Information neither needed nor

provided.

These status codes are placed in the blocks corresponding

to the decisions and information elements to which they

make reference. The results of the study are summarized

in Table 4-4. From these summarized results we can draw

conclusions about the adequacy of the VIMS support for each

decision.

Research Question 4

The analysis follows each information element (or

group of elements if similar status codes apply to more than

one element) and the associated status codes for each deci-

sion.

47

•

'.' ' " • • •*-*-»*^»»"W-»i I • • > • • - " —

A

C

I

w

< E-i

H OH

en E-" z

w H D a

z o

o fa z H

fa

w

Ü

I 01

•H u

o

03

m

CN

C\|

co

(N

VO

m

ro

CM

CN

I +J en 11 H W

T* «31

^r Tj<

«* t-{

•f 1-1

•& -H

•* r-l

rH .H

CN CN CN

H *r ^r rH r-l r-i iH ^r r-l

iH iH Tj« ^r •^ ^ i-1 ^*

-^ »•»-»- i •|»pi|y|.l.i»n «T

1

i G

•H •P C O u I I

1 rr

W

13

CM

W

U

ffl

n

fM

CN

n

eg

vo

in

n

(N

CM

I 5 i

^* i—1 ^ ^3* ^* ^* ^f ^* ^* ^* ^t*

^'H^Tl'^^^tl'^^rl^

r—) ^* ^ ^* ^ ^J< ^J* ^<

"CP ^P ^J* ^Jt* ^j* ^J* *w* ^s*

rH rH TJ-

* i-4 *»

i-< rH rH

i 1 |

i 8

i 5

•g

1 H

4J

$ 2

2 | | * ^ Ö S 3 I O S Q s U m

49

S I 2

— -— " •*• - ' -•* -* * -•* - • *-- *_ - --- m - -.--»'-l

"•^^^^^•^

T3

p • • A ,,..(.. «.•_• I » . • I T .'•••!• . '.-••- •- -- "—?•—-" '." ' " • "

3 E"

h

L( ro CM (N CN CN CN

w CN

CN (N

CN

CN CN CN CN CN CN

CN CN CN CN CN

0)

c -P

o u I I

l

W 3 ca < E-"

a

I CO

•H U

u

pa

CO 1 en u 8

co

CN

CO

LD

m

^* ^* ^» ^* CN CN

CN

CN

I 3i3

I M

1-5 m

a o

3

1

I • s tl | 1 j 1 1 I a s £ fl

1 * 3 Tj 1 Q SU

!

s D

•P •P i

I P

I 1

1 B Ü fO

i 1 fO •l-l

•P i t I

51

. ^. . -*..-. - - - ~ • - "- - • - - - • - -»-*.. ----- _j

tÄ

m^^^^m

m

im

i c

•H -P ß o

CJ I I

»

w a «

0

tu

w

u

D3

n

CN

CN

n

•^^•»•^ • • • • J !• -• w> -—m

%

1 ';.

T3 CD

G •H 4J c o u I I

I

03 <

W

I I

en

U

a

u

en

I w

•H U

03

co

CM

CM

CO

CM

U 4J

a i

53

- '• •* — '--- » - - * T.I * I .•».«. i fc.^ah,- f, —ift • - '- '- „. . . . ... ^_

MPPa^PV*. I I • i • F • -• >

The first group of information elements are used

by the individual decision makers every time they are pro-

vided by the VIMS (status code "1"). The following infor-

mation elements are used in amending the Work Order Master

File Status Report (A2), amending the Work Order Master

File status Report (Bl), and establishing maintenance

priorities for vehicles entering the shop (Cl):

1. Work Center

2. Date/Time Rec'd

3. Date/Time Rel'd

4. Date Delayed

5. Work Order Status

6. W/0 Indicator

These element should remain as they are.

The next set of information elements within the

first group, are used in establishing maintenance priori-

ties for vehicles entering the shop (Cl) and calling

users to schedule vehicle inspections (C3), or in calling

users to schedule vehicle inspections (C3) only (6, 7, and

8) :

1. Safety Due

2. Sch/LOF Due

3 Special -1 Due

4. Special -2 Due

5. Special -3 Due

54

*"^ •A- -' • -"- •"•"— *'-«.-«-**^*--J| ^'--.«-» -.•-.. •- •• I,, *- tJUk i-i i n *~ - - '- - I * -—•-»-.- --* - * - ~ ' ~

"• ••

'•

• ;

[V

>~

6. Week Due

7. In-Shop

8. Odometer M/H/K

These too, should be left as they are.

The second group of elements are obtained from

non-VIMS sources for certain decisions even though they are

provided by the VIMS (status code "2"). The first set in

this second group are used in temporarily redistributing

manpower (C2):

1. VOC Hrs

2. Available Hrs

3. VOC%

The Vehicle Maintenance Analyst, in this instance, needs

current information and the VIMS product is, at least,

twenty-four hours old. Therefore, he keeps a manual record

of the three information elements and updates them as fre-

quently as necessary. An on-line/real-time VIMS would

resolve the problem by allowing the decision maker to

update the VIMS output as often as required eliminating

£#, the need for a separate tally.

The second set of the second information group

contains a single element: Asg Org. It is used in estab-

lishing maintenance priorities for vehicles entering the

shop (Cl). The Vehicle Maintenance Analyst has a wall

chart displaying every vehicle in the fleet, by registra-

tion number, and the organization to which it is assigned.

55

. . '.» . -. . . j . .: . - ... ••..••-. T - - - ••--•-••- . - -,.

f»T"»w»«T^l-»~^" -« •'» - ' - - '» • » • • _ • V » l •

Because the wall chart is easier to use than a VIMS

report, the chart is probably the source to use. This

requires no adjustment to the VIMS since every other time

where "Asg Org" is provided, it is used.

The third group of information elements are those

needed elements which are not provided by the VIMS and are

obtained from other sources. "Nomenclature," "Manu-

facturer," and "Serial Number" are used in recommending

vehicle disposition to the VAUB (Dl) and recommending

to the VAUB the organization to receive a new vehicle

(D2) . All of these elements (in addition to others) are

provided by the VAL, a Supply Squadron computer output.

It seems practical to add these to the VIMS to preclude

the necessity of using more than one report each for the

aforementioned decisions.

Another element of group three elements is "Org

Priority," used in recommending vehicle disposition to

the VAUB (Dl), recommending to the VAUB the organization

to receive a new vehicle (D2), establishing maintenance

priorities for vehicles entering the shop (Cl), and pulling

an organization's vehicle(s) (E3). An organization's

priority is not likely to change and is simple to enter

into the VIMS. As a result, it should be entered in