|Joint Asset Visibility:
Why So Hard?
|by Lieutenant Colonel James C. Bates, USA
From a Department of Defense (DOD) logistics
perspective, the attainment of asset visibility at the joint
level will reduce the cost of resupply significantly and have
a profound effect on warfighter readiness. In the last few
years, the joint logistics community has made substantial advances
in improving asset visibility, but it still has a long way
to go before fully achieving such a capability. This is the
first in a series of articles that will explore the complexities
surrounding asset visibility and offer recommendations on how
to improve it.
The term “joint asset visibility” as used here
refers to supplies (expendable items) and equipment
(nonexpendable items)—on order, in transit, in storage,
or on hand—that are owned or destined for the military
services, DOD agencies, or coalition partners. It does not
refer to a software system. Although the DOD definition of
asset visibility includes the tracking of personnel, this discussion
will focus on supplies and equipment only.
is identified in a variety of ways, ranging from
truck, utility, to high-mobility, multipurpose, wheeled
vehicle. The logistician must know which term is
used by the system he is using in order to locate
information about this vehicle.
Attaining Asset Visibility
Logisticians serving on the staffs of combatant commanders
are keenly interested in knowing the aggregate status of supplies
on hand, in transit, and on order for the military services
and agencies that make up the joint force. This is particularly
true for logisticians who have been designated to focus on
a particular area of responsibility, such as a standing joint
force headquarters, or those who have deployed as part of a
joint task force.
Attaining asset visibility is incredibly difficult. It involves
the entire DOD global supply chain (which dwarfs even Wal-Mart),
binary code, the electromagnetic spectrum, worldwide telecommunications,
local- and wide-area computer networks, and the integration
and standardization of logistics data among the services
and the domestic and international commercial sector. The
design of joint asset visibility should be viewed from what
SOLE—the International Society of Logistics refers to
as a “total system” perspective. The total system
- The acquisition, supply, transportation, and financial communities.
- The wholesale level (the U.S. Transportation Command, Defense Information
Systems Agency, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Army Materiel Command (AMC), Air
Force Materiel Command, Naval Supply Systems Command, Marine Corps Materiel Command,
General Services Administration, Army and Air Force Exchange Service, and Naval Exchange Service).
- The retail level (the warfighting units of the military services).
The following findings from Operation Iraqi Freedom
and Operation Enduring Freedom after-action reviews illustrate
the magnitude of the visibility problem—
Continue with efforts towards data standardization
to improve interoperability between Service legacy information
systems. Improve the joint compatibility of communication and
coordination connectivity within the Theater
Support Component Command (TSCC) and other logistic planning
and execution entities in the theater. Align joint theater
logistics standards and cross-Service arrangements to eliminate
stovepipe support of common-user items. Supply chain processes,
sustainment, transportation, and force protection are all areas
that should be standardized across all Services and these standards
used in joint training. A joint supply and management system
for common items, most notably food, fuel, and munitions, should
be developed. Cross-Service agreements should be enhanced to
benefit from joint theater logistical opportunities.
ITV [in-transit visibility] continued to be a problem during
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), resulting in units having limited
or no visibility of forward moving supplies and assets over
extended lines of communication. As a result, cargo became
frustrated, misdirected, delayed in delivery, improperly marked
or lost. [The Joint Lessons Learned Approach Package, Operation
Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Major Combat Operations (MCO) Finding:
Joint Theater Logistics (JTL), 10 February 2005]
In OIF, the inconsistency in providing each of the required
preconditions meant that enterprise integration and visibility
did not exist. Limited system availability, poor data capture,
unreliable communications, inaccessible data, and limited
information fusion provided little more than “islands” of visibility
in theater. This is best seen in the breakdown of the Army’s
Standard Army Retail Supply System/Standard Army Maintenance
System (SARSS/SAMS) and the Marines Asset Tracking Logistics
and Supply System/Supported Activity Standard Supply System
(ATLAS/SASSY) logistics systems . . . the most commonly
cited tracking and visibility tool is Excel and e-mail.
Assessment of Logistics in Iraq, DUSD (L&MR) and Joint
Staff (JSJ4) Sponsored Assessment to Review the Effectiveness
and efficiency of Selected Aspects of Logistics Operations
During Operation Iraqi Freedom, March 2004]
Key Aspects of the Asset Visibility Problem
These lessons learned demonstrate that the most difficult part of supply chain management is not the physical aspect of
buying, receiving, storing, transporting, or issuing items; the hard part is obtaining, managing, and sharing the related
information about the chain. In reality, moving the information is more complicated than moving the item itself. The following
questions are keys to understanding joint asset visibility—
- What kind of information about an item do we need?
- Are the data elements standardized for computer processing?
- Where and how often do we want to capture the information?
- Whose job is it to capture the information?
- How do we capture the information?
- What logistics automated information systems are required?
- How can the information be shared electronically?
In an ideal world, any DOD-authorized individual
would be able to access the Internet from a personal computer
and obtain all of the pertinent information about an item.
A wholesale buyer would be able to view information associated
with the Material Inspection and Receiving Report (DD Form
250); a transportation coordinator would be able to view information
found on the Government Bill of Lading (Standard Form 1103);
and a clerk at a central receiving point would be able to view
information contained on the Military Shipment Label (DD Form
As a rule, logisticians capture information about stored items
daily and about items in transit whenever the items arrive
at and depart from transshipment points or pass by predetermined
information collection points. The term “transshipment
point” refers to a place where cargo is stopped and reconfigured,
such as an area where items are placed in a multipack container,
onto an aluminum pallet, or into a 20- or 40-foot container.
A transshipment point also refers to a location where the conveyance
changes (for example, from one truck to another truck or from
a truck to a plane, ship, or railcar). There are hundreds of
different types of transshipment points. They can be domestic
or international; they can be military or commercially run;
they can be in developed areas or in austere environments;
they can be under the watch of wholesale or strategic organizations,
such as the U.S. Transportation Command, DLA, or the General
Services Administration; or they can be managed by one of the
services. They include depots, rail yards, airports and seaports,
theater distribution centers, container handling areas, supply
support activities, and central receiving and shipping points.
They can be part of the Defense Transportation System or outside
Since there is no such thing as a certified collector of asset
visibility information, many different personnel are involved
in capturing logistics data at the transshipment points and
at more permanent storage locations. They can be Soldiers,
Marines, Sailors, Airmen, or civilians. They can be employed
by DOD or by commercial industry and can have supply, transportation,
finance, or information technology backgrounds.
The expertise of the personnel who capture logistics data is
geared toward using whatever logistics automated information
system is employed where they work. Workers for the DLA use
the Direct Support System or the Business System Modernization
program; workers for AMC use enterprise resource planning (ERP)
software developed by SAP International; workers at Air Force-managed
airports use the Global Air Transportation Execution System
(GATES) and Remote GATES; workers at Military Sealift Command
or Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command seaports
use the Worldwide Port System and the Integrated Booking System.
Army units use the Unit Level Logistics System, the Standard
Army Retail Supply System, and the Standard Army Ammunition
System. These are only a few of the hundreds of automated information
systems that make up the feeder systems for wide-area networks,
such as the Joint Operations Planning and Execution System
(JOPES), the Global Transportation Network (GTN), the Defense
Automatic Addressing System (DAAS), and the asset visibility
application of the Global Combat Support System (GCSS).
Asset Visibility Technologies
Asset visibility-related information can be captured from the
item’s packaging (such as the DD Form 1387 or the accompanying
packing list) by typing it into a computer. Of course, typing
data is time-consuming and leads to numerous errors. An alternative
is to use electronic data interchange (EDI) and automatic identification
technology (AIT) that are being developed and used by the military
and the commercial sector on a global scale. Examples include
bar codes, smart cards, and radio frequency identification
(RFID) devices. The promise of EDI and AIT is mind-boggling
since logistics information processing is a multibillion-dollar
endeavor. This technology is constantly advancing as some of
the best minds in the world work to exploit EDI and AIT possibilities.
The goal of EDI is to standardize the methods of electronically
transmitting logistics data elements, while the goal of AIT
is to reduce substantially the amount of human interaction
required to capture asset visibility information. DOD must
be able to adapt quickly, whenever appropriate, to the advancements
of international and domestic logistics consortiums since it
depends on the commercial sector as a source of supply and
as a transporter of its supplies and equipment. These consortiums
include the International Organization for Standardization;
EPCglobal; the American National Standards Institute; the United
Nations Electronic Data Interchange for Administration, Commerce,
and Transport; GS1; and GS1 US.
Like DOD, these logistics consortiums have very lofty goals.
For instance the goal of EPCglobal, which is spearheading the
development of an electronic product code (EPC) for RFID, is
to provide “immediate, automatic, and accurate identification
of any item in the supply chain of any company, in any industry,
anywhere in the world.” However, the current reality
is far removed from that goal. Passive RFID is in a relatively
early stage of development, and many data standardization and
software interoperability challenges must be overcome. Moreover,
the advantages of RFID must be compared to its implementation
costs and its inherent reliability. Just as important are information
security factors, especially considering that, besides the
typical computer attacks made by disgruntled computer “geeks,” an
enemy will employ its best information technology experts in
attempts to disrupt DOD information systems.
Once logistics information is captured, it must be processed
and stored on a computer. The type of hardware needed is becoming
less and less of an issue since today’s desktop computers
have enormous capacities; besides, the bulk of the information
is transmitted to a web-based network. However, many of our
current asset visibility problems can be traced to the use
of numerous automated information system software programs
and applications. Most of these are legacy systems or simply
revised versions of legacy systems. Some still depend on the
80-card column format developed in the 1950s. Others overly
emphasize supply, transportation, acquisition, or financial
information. Some automated information systems are designed
to handle information on cargo moving by surface transportation,
while others are designed to handle information on cargo moving
by air. Some primarily capture Army information; others capture
Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, or DLA information. Some information
is captured via the Secure Internet Protocol Router Network
(SIPRNet), while other information is captured with the Unclassified
but Sensitive Internet Protocol Router Network (NIPRNet). Some
software systems are designed exclusively for the military,
while others are used only by the commercial sector, which,
when considered as a whole, has many more logistics-related
software applications than DOD.
Once the information is captured by the software or application
of a single computer device, it must be transmitted to a higher-level
computer system or local-area network until the information
makes its way to a web-enabled wide-area network such as JOPES,
GTN, GCSS, or DAAS. If the transshipment point is in a developed
area where telecommunications are available to transmit the
data to the World Wide Web, then the only major decision to
make is how often to send the data. Data could be sent in real-time,
near-real-time (which has not been defined by DOD), or as an
information batch. Real-time communication requires a constant
telecommunications linkage—something that is not practical
if expensive satellite communication is required. If the transshipment
point is in an austere environment, establishing telecommunications
with the World Wide Web becomes much more difficult and expensive.
radio frequency identification (RFID) tag
like this contains a microchip embedded in an
antenna and enclosed within a thin label. The
information contained in the microchip is transmitted
through a passive RFID
reader to a warehouse
Like civilian industries, DOD uses the World
Wide Web to access its overarching logistics management information
systems. However, DOD does not have a single, all-inclusive,
logistics network because a
logistics-related Global Information Grid does not exist.
Instead, DOD has many networks. Besides JOPES (which depicts
deployment data), GTN (which depicts transportation data),
and DAAS (which depicts supply data), DOD has many other
high-level networks, each with its own server, software,
and application system. The Army’s tactical systems
use the Standard Army Retail Supply System for classes I
(subsistence), II (general supplies), III (petroleum, oils,
and lubricants), IV (construction and barrier materials),
VIII (medical supplies), and IX (repair parts) and the Standard
Army Ammunition System for class V (ammunition). The wholesale
element of the Army (represented by AMC) uses the Logistics
Modernization Program—an ERP software system developed
by SAP. DLA uses the Business System Modernization program.
The Marine Corps uses SASSY and ATLAS.
These high-level networks are fed by numerous automated information
systems, so, in many cases, the information available on
one network is not available to other networks. Since the
data elements are not standardized, logisticians must access
several networks to obtain the information they need. Even
if the data are available, it can take several hours for
a trained logistician to retrieve a few pieces of desired
information. Consequently, compiling meaningful logistics
reports takes an inordinate amount of time.
Frankly, these overarching logistics management information
systems are difficult to use and do not readily provide the
fidelity required. Currently, many of these local-area network
and wide-area network automated information systems are being
subsumed by the Army, Air Force, Navy, or Marine Corps’s
versions of GCSS. These, in turn, will have to be interoperable
with GCSS at the combatant command and joint task force (CC/JTF)
level, which itself will have to be interoperable with the
Global Command and Control System. Data standardization and
interoperability issues associated with software applications
and telecommunications are vexing problems because so many
different logistics information systems are involved.
Determining What Information Is Needed
Let’s revisit the first step to attaining joint asset visibility: What
information do we need? The answer is that DOD’s global supply-chain
logistics managers need all kinds of information about an item. Moreover,
although there are many common denominators, the various stakeholders, such
as sellers, the acquisition community, the supply community, the transportation
community, the financial community, and the chain of command of the buyers
or owners of the items, require different types of information. The amount
of data involved is startling.
Let’s begin with the seller. The seller wants to know the purchaser
and where and when to ship the item. The paper document used to capture this
information is an invoice or a purchase agreement.
The acquisition community needs much of the same information. It also needs
other information, such as the contract line item number, order number, acceptance
point, discount terms, the name of the seller and whatever alphanumeric code
is used to identify the seller, and the name of the individual accepting
the item on behalf of the Government.
The supply community wants to know the name of the item; its identifying
number, such as the national stock number (NSN), the contractor’s part
number, or the Army’s line item number (LIN); and the unit of issue.
The supply community also needs to know the required delivery date, the document
number, the supply-related document identifier code, the quantity requested,
the routing identifier code, and if there are any advice codes (which requestors
use to inform supply managers of special circumstances).
The transportation community wants to know the gross weight of an item and
its height, width, and length. Transporters also want information on any
hazardous material, the name of the shipper, transportation modes, the freight
charges, the commodity type, the seal numbers, the standard point location
code, the standard carrier alpha code, the transportation control number,
the transportation-related document identifier code, the aircraft mission
number or the voyage number, and the number of pieces.
The financial community wants to know the transportation account code, the
mailing address to which the shipping charges should be sent, the type address
code 3, and the bill of lading number.
The chain of command awaiting the arrival of an item wants to know where
the item is currently located and, more importantly, when it will arrive
where it is needed. Logisticians would be interested in knowing if the item
was under the control of a vendor, a DLA depot, a service depot, a U.S. or
international airport or seaport, or some other transshipment point. They
also might want to know if the item was being shipped in a multipack, pallet,
or container and the mode
The list below shows the wide scope of information required from a total-system
supply-chain perspective. It is by no means all inclusive. Some of the data
pertain to containers used to protect or transport the items.
Item Identification Codes
Some of the information shown on the list at right is unique to the military,
while other information is similar to that used in the commercial sector.
For instance, the military normally uses the NSN and the commercial and
Government entity (CAGE) code, while the commercial sector refers to a
unit (SKU) and Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS). Some of the information
describing the same type of data is expressed in many different ways. From
a total system perspective, this is one of the major reasons that DOD data
cannot be readily processed within the myriad wholesale, retail, service,
and agency automated information systems. As a result, the wide-area networks
that manage DOD logistics information are not as accurate, comprehensive,
timely, or useful as they could be. To make a simple analogy, consider
the word “pharmacy.” If we were to search a database dictionary looking
for “pharmacy” by starting with the letter “f” instead
of the letter “p,” it would take a long time to uncover information
about this word—if ever.
DOD services and agencies do not use the same basic naming and numbering
conventions. This means that the pertinent logistics information is not
visible to or exploitable by the many military global supply-chain stakeholders.
For instance, the vehicle that most military personnel call a “humvee” has
no single, agreed-on name. The Federal Logistics Information System, DOD’s
most authoritative source, calls this item a “truck, utility.” Others
call it a “hummer” or a high-mobility, multipurpose, wheeled
vehicle (HMMWV). It is also known as an M998A1; an armored 4x4 crew-cab pickup;
a TRK UTIL M998A1; or a truck utility: cargo/troop carrier, 11⁄2-ton,
4x4, M998. Similar to the futility of finding information about the word “pharmacy” by
looking under the letter “f,” the same futility would occur if
logisticians conducting research on a “truck, utility” tried
to access the data using the first letter of the abbreviation HMMWV.
Besides using naming conventions, the military also uses codes to identify
items, which facilitates the electronic processing of information. As with
item names, no single code (numeric, alphabetic, or alphanumeric) universally
identifies a specific type of equipment or item of supply. The primary
DOD supply code is the NSN, which is comprised of 13 numeric digits. However,
the Army also uses the LIN—an alphanumeric code composed of one letter
and five numerals, and the end item code—a three-character alphabetic
code. DLA’s Defense Logistics Information Service (DLIS) database depicts
both the NSN and the LIN, but it also includes and promotes the use of an
item name code—a five-digit numeric code. The Marine Corps uses a
six-digit alpha-numeric code called the item designator number. A HMMWV
be identified by using a CAGE part number.
This lack of standardization is a huge, costly problem since effective data
processing is highly dependent on exactness. For instance, because The Army
Authorization Document System uses LINs instead of NSNs, this incredibly
robust, web-enabled database is not compatible with those databases that
rely on NSNs. Although it is possible to obtain information by converting
LINs to NSNs, this process is time-consuming (especially if a large amount
of data is involved) and significantly reduces the utility of automation.
The military also has several means of identifying ammunition and fuel.
Along with the NSN, other codes for ammunition include the DOD identification
and the DOD ammunition code. Fuel can be identified by the NSN, a U.S.
fuel code, or a NATO fuel code. For instance, aviation turbine fuel has
of 9130–01–031–5816, a U.S. fuel code of JP8, and a NATO
fuel code of F–34.
DOD uniquely identifies location in many ways. The commercial sector also
uses several methods to identify location. Since 85 percent of military cargo
is moved by the commercial sector, DOD must assimilate the methods of the
commercial sector within its information processing environments.
A physical location can be identified by street address, city, state, and
zip code (or some type of similar convention for international addresses).
A virtual location can be identified using an email address or Internet
protocol address. Similar to items of supply or equipment, an address is
identified by both a name and by a code (which can be numeric, alphabetic,
or alphanumeric). For instance, JOPES uses a geographic name (called “GEO
name”) and a four-character alphabetic designator called the “geographic
location code.” The Defense Transportation Regulation (DTR), however,
does not use the JOPES coding convention. The DTR and the GTN use three-character
air terminal identifier codes and water port identifier codes to designate
port locations. Some commercial activities identify airports using an alphabetic,
four-character code called “ICAO,” developed by the International
Civil Aviation Organization. Other commercial activities use an alphabetic,
three-character code called “IATA,” developed by the International
Air Transport Association. (See the article, “Joint Force Logistics:
Keeping Track of Forces on the Move,” published in the January–February
2006 issue of Army Logistician.)
The National Motor Freight Association uses standard point location codes,
DLA uses type address codes, and the Defense Automatic Address Service
Center uses both routing identifier codes (RICs) and DOD automatic address
(DODAACs) to identify
location. Ship-to addresses, mark-for addresses, supplementary addresses,
plain language message identifier addresses, Army or fleet post offices,
billing addresses, and in-the-clear addresses all describe location— physical or virtual.
As you can imagine, neither the military services, DOD agencies, nor the
domestic and international commercial sectors have agreed on standardized
conventions to identify location. However, with the emergence of the Global
Positioning System and computerized maps, the concept of identifying location
by latitude and longitude is gaining acceptance. Using a code that is based
on the geometry of the Earth has tremendous advantage.
DOD units and activities also are identified by written or spoken names and
codes. JOPES and the Global Status of Resources and Training System (GSORTS)
are the primary automated information systems that depict information identifying
military units and DOD activities. GSORTS uses both a long unit name, which
can be a maximum of 55 characters, and an abbreviated unit name, which can
be a maximum of 30 characters. However, DOD has no centralized approving
authority for service and agency unit names.
Because of the limits on the number of characters that can be used to describe
military units and other DOD and Government agencies, many of the names
are not readily comprehended by those unfamiliar with unit and agency types.
For example, logisticians who are Sailors or Airmen or who work at the
level may not be able to understand the abbreviated name of the Army’s
11th Armored Calvary Regiment: 0011 AR RGT (AR CAV RGT). Some might wonder
if the “AR” stands for Army, Army Reserve, Air, or Armored.
The logistics databases within DOD use neither GSORTS abbreviated names
long names to identify units. Different names for the same unit have evolved
as the result of the many legacy automated information systems.
Likewise, different alphanumeric codes are used within DOD to identify
units; the unit identification code (UIC) is the primary one. Units that
same generic structure are also coded using the unit type code (UTC). The
Army also uses a modification table of organization and equipment (MTOE)
code to identify units. Another Army code used to identify units is the
standard requirements code (SRC), which is based on the authorized level
and the MTOE code. The SRC and the JOPES UTC capture similar data, although
the structures of the two codes are entirely different. The SRC is a 12-character
alphanumeric code, while the UTC is a 5-character alphanumeric code. Unfortunately,
it is difficult to integrate the separate databases that use one or the
other. Other codes that identify units or agencies include the six-character
three-character RIC, and the CAGE, which identifies non-DOD units. The
standard carrier alphabetic code is used to identify commercial transportation
DOD has many middleware software programs intended to reduce interoperability
and standardization problems. Although middleware can bridge information-processing
gaps, relying on one software system or application to perform a specific
function is much better than depending on software or application systems
that are linked to other systems through middleware. Determining the cause
of a problem is much easier when no middleware is required because only a
single hardware, software, and telecommunications system is in operation.
When middleware is involved, the diagnosis of a problem is magnified threefold
since problems can be caused by the software, the hardware, or the telecommunications
of any one of the three systems involved. As a rule, the less middleware
involved, the better the electronic processing of information will be.
Communicating With Commercial Systems
Just as the physical movement of items alternates between the Defense Transportation
System and the commercial transportation sector, the information pertaining
to the movement of these items must be processed alternately by both commercial
and DOD automated information systems. Not only is data standardization and
interoperability a problem within DOD, it is also a problem within the commercial
sector. This problem are magnified even further when information is processed
by several commercial and DOD automated information systems. Unless dealing
specifically with the military, the commercial sector does not recognize
military coding conventions such as the UIC, DODAAC, RIC, and CAGE.
The commercial sector understands the need to standardize data and integrate
computer processes. National and international organizations have been
established to work toward improving EDI with the goal of reducing human
error during information processing. The long-term EDI objective is to
avoid the manual reentering of logistics information into subsequent systems
it has been digitized within an initial automated information system. The
American National Standards Institute has chartered the Accredited Standards
Committee X12 to develop uniform standards for EDI. (See “Transforming
Joint Logistics Information Management” in the January–February
2005 issue of Army Logistician.)
The EDI products of standardized digitization are called “transaction
sets.” Air shipment information, vessel content data, freight receipts,
invoices, purchase orders, and order status inquiries are a few examples
of transaction sets. The EDI standards are globally disseminated by the
United Nations Electronic Data Interchange for Administration, Commerce,
As a result, DOD must keep pace not only with its own transformational
logistics initiatives but also with the revolutionary initiatives being
the commercial sector since DOD is a subset (albeit a very large subset)
of global commerce. Consequently, DOD data elements should replicate standardized
commercial data elements whenever possible and redundant data elements
should be gradually removed from DOD databases. For instance, the SRC could
by the UTC; the DODAAC could be subsumed within the UIC; and the CAGE code
could be subsumed within DUNS.
Here are some examples of the need for data standardization. The different
automated information systems depict the day of the year and the time of
day in various formats. January 31, 2006, could be displayed as follows:
31Jan06, 1/31/06, 1/31/2006, and 0316. Different countries use different
methods of depicting dates. Time of day can be depicted in local time, or
it can be based on Greenwich Mean Time. It can be expressed using a 24-hour
clock or with the use of a.m. and p.m. Moreover, with a global supply chain,
the differences between the use of the metric system of measurement and the
English system of measurement can lead to confusion. Barrels, miles, and
pounds may have to be converted to cubic meters, kilometers, and kilograms.
Fahrenheit may have to be converted to Celsius. Simply said, the more standardized
the data, the fewer mistakes will be made.
Developing and implementing a standardized logistics management information
system that achieves total asset visibility is an enormous undertaking. It
will require the integration of numerous data elements from both the commercial
sector and within the services and DOD agencies. Consequently, the more logisticians
who understand the complexities involved, the better they will be able to
overcome the systemic problems associated with EDI and AIT. The next article
in this series on joint asset visibility will discuss where and how information
for joint asset visibility can be captured.
Lieutenant Colonel James C. Bates, USA (Ret.), works for Alion Science
and Technology and serves as a sustainment planner for the U.S. Joint Forces
Command, Standing Joint Force Headquarters (Standards and Training), at
sional Logistician and a graduate of the Army Command and General Staff
College and holds an M.B.A. degree from the University of Hawaii. He can
be contacted at James.Bates@jfcom.mil.