Date of Award


Document Type


Degree Name

Master of Science


Department of Operational Sciences

First Advisor

Stanley E. Griffis, PhD


Performance measurement has long been a matter of debate in logistics. However, in the recent past, there has been a renewed emphasis as AF leaders continue to seek funding for weapon system spares despite marginal improvements in mission capability. The Chief's Logistics Review, Logistics Transformation Program, AFMC Constraints Assessment Program, the Spares Requirement Review Board, the Spares Campaign, and the Depot Maintenance Reengineering and Transformation all represent efforts to find and implement effective answers (RAND, 2003:ix). And, while there appears to be a consensus that better performance measures are needed, there is little agreement on exactly what should be measured, and how. Many performance management plans have been developed and recommended. In 1999, the Logistics Management Institute (LMI) published Supply Chain Management: A Recommended Performance Measurement Scorecard to guide senior DoD logistics managers. Then, in 2001, the AF Logistics Management Agency developed a set of aggregate or strategic level metrics, Measuring The Health of USAF Supply, at the request of AF/ILS. Most recently, in November of 2003, the Supply Management Division published the AFMC Supply Chain Metrics Guide. However, each of these performance measurement plans each is distinctly different. This research seeks to determine how and why these performance measurements plans differ, and to examine what such differences might reveal about the nature of performance measurement in AF logistics systems.

AFIT Designator


DTIC Accession Number