Army Ground Fleet Maintenance & Civilian Ground Fleet Maintenance Compared - Research Paper Example

Army Ground Fleet Maintenance & Civilian Ground Fleet Maintenance Compared Ground fleet maintenance system refers to that system an institution uses in managing its ground fleet programs. Ground fleet includes all ground transportation methods like trucks, cars, buses, Nissans and all other on-ground transportation mediums. For any institution, ground fleet management/maintenance is necessary if costs and other avoidable expenses are to be cut. The result of this management is reduced costs in the ground transportation section leading to increased efficiency. In US, both Army and Civilian institutions have ground fleet management systems in an effort to increase their fleet efficiency. Civilian institutions conduct business with the aim of profit making while US Army is a non-profit generating government function. This causes both similarities and differences in terms of activities performed in their respective fleet management systems. Below is a comparison and contrast between the two institutions. Differences There is a couple of differences between the U.S. Army Ground Fleet Maintenance activities and the Civilian Ground Fleet Maintenance activities of organizations such as Coca Cola, Pepsi, etc. Some of these differences stem from a legal perspective while others stem from operation activities undertaken in the military bases. Some of the notable differences include; the military outsources its fleet management function to the industry including even tactical vehicles used by the military. For instance, the military in made a decision to outsource its fleet of M109 vehicles family (Paladin) that encompasses the M109 self-propelled howitzer & the M992 field vehicles supplying artillery ammunition under the fleet management program (NDIA Staff, 1999). Further, under the same program, the manager is responsible all resources of technical nature ranging from field maintenance to training hence making him responsible for the entire spare parts modernization, while soldiers control the daily maintenance activities. On the other hand, in the Civilian Ground Fleet Maintenance activities, outsourcing of the fleet management program is restricted to the organizations’ departments mandated to control and manage the company fleets, especially the transport department. For instance, unlike in the military where the function of outsourcing of maintenance services is a policy, in Civilian organization outsourcing of the maintenance activities is done in-house by the organizations workers e.g. in the case of Coca-Cola. Therefore, unlike in the military, Ground Fleet Maintenance activities are accomplished by soldiers in the U.S. army while operational mechanical workers accomplish maintenance activities in the Civilian organizations. In addition, the U.S. Army Ground Fleet Maintenance activities are outsourced to external contractors because of the complexity of the modern vehicles of the military even although there is the need maintaining the capability and knowledge in house. For instance, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, Wisconsin, and Oshkosh were involved in providing ground maintenance technical services to the military tactical vehicles in Bosnia. On the other hand, Civilian Ground Fleet Maintenance activities e.g. in Coca-Cola are outsourced because of insufficient manpower especially during the times of carrying out overhauling services for the fleet vehicles of the organization. Therefore, outsourcing in the army results because of the complexity of the fleet of vehicles used by the military while in the civilian organizations, outsourcing results from insufficient manpower or lack of technical support. Further, the DoD directive 4151.18, “Maintenance of Military Materiel” is responsible for providing the policy framework for accomplishing the DoD maintenance including the maintenance of the U.S. Army Ground Fleet Maintenance activities (Maintenance Policy & Programs, n.d.). The directive further, stipulates how the maintenance programs should allocate tasks to the appropriate maintenance levels i.e. depot and field based on the premises of cost-effective analysis and warfighter requirements (Maintenance Policy & Programs, n.d.). On the other hand, the Civilian Ground Fleet Maintenance activities are governed by a framework of organizational policies stipulated by the management for the overall maintenance fleet activities as is the case with Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Similarities In both systems, there has been a move towards usage of new technologies that have minimal environmental effects. The US Department of Defense (DoD) has the power to order for new ground fleet fitted with the latest technology that saves on energy (Stanton and Shelby, 2007). Many civilian industries like Coca-Cola Company have also moved away from traditional technologies. They both share a common goal i.e. reducing emissions of greenhouse gases as much as possible. Secondly, fleet repair and maintenance is essential if an institution’s fleet is to last for long. Both systems perform repair services on their fleet ranging from part installations to fleet up-fitting. The US Army is allocated a given sum of money from the government’s budget yearly. Without conducting repairs, it will turn out being expensive to acquire the new fleet. Similarly, civilian institutions are compelled to perform repair services on their fleet to cut costs as much as possible. Another common characteristic in both systems is the abolition of the ancient method employees used to report to their workstations. That is, using their private cars. This is no longer the case in both ground fleet maintenance systems. A shift has taken place from usage of individual cars to usage of buses. US Army has large buses that transport armies from one place to another. Similarly, civilian institutions like Coca-Cola Company have introduced company buses that drop employees to and fro work premises. The US Army has moved away from the gas-guzzling Humvees vehicles that are bad fuel consumers. This is in an effort to increase their fuel efficiency. This led to the switching to lighter and more efficient vehicles for training range consumption. Civilian institutions are profit making organizations. At all times, they ensure that they have the most efficient fleet that utilizes fuel optimally (Stanton, and Shelby, 2007). Systematic fuel efficiency push started in 2008 as per David Verdun, a writer of the army. In 2012, president Obama signed a pledge requiring improvement in performance and efficiency by all federal fleets. Clean Fleets initiative was kicked off by Obama’s administration in an effort to share new information and strategies regarding fleet efficiency in the civilian sector in 2011. Lastly, both systems have instituted just-in-time systems in an effort to reduce losses and time wastages. The present environment does not allow for any wastage. Traditionally, the US Army’s logistics system was not optimally managed as the case is presently. This helps in efficient ground fleet management and usage. Civilian institutions apply the JIT system to cut on unnecessary costs of having ground fleet in the wrong place at the wrong time. Works Cited NDIA Staff (1999). Fleet management Program. Retrieved from http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/1999/January/Pages/Fleet_Management4429.aspx Maintenance Policy & Programs. (n.d.). Field maintenance. Retrieved from http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/mpp/field.html Stanton, Shelby L. The Rise and Fall of an American Army: US Ground Forces in Vietnam, 1963-1973. Random House LLC, 2007. Read More