[This article was first published in Army Sustainment Professional Bulletin, which was then called Army Logistician, volume 3, number 3 (May–June 1971), pages 14–17, 42. The text, including any biographical note, is reproduced as faithfully as possible to enable searchability. To view any images and charts in the article, refer to the issue itself, available on DVIDS]
FROM TANKS TO TENT PEGS, airplanes to mess-kits, missiles to gas masks — no matter what the item of equipment or weapons system involved — certain basic data are necessary at some level to assist in the management of the maintenance of these items in the Army’s inventory. From the stubby-penciled operator or mechanic to the electronics computer-assisted commodity manager, the maintenance of Army equipment is big business. It is expensive and time consuming and plays a major role in our ability to participate effectively in the defense of the nation.
As a part of the Army’s LOGISTICS OFFENSIVE, the effectiveness of the maintenance management data collection program is continuously evaluated. The evolution of the program — from the Army Equipment Records System (TAERS) in 1962 to The Army Maintenance Management System (TAMMS) in December 1969 to TAMMS-Streamline in October 1970 — has resulted in an overall reduction in the workload at all levels, the elimination of millions of forms, and savings in manpower and materiel. The implementation of TAMMS reduced the recording and reporting of parts usage at both the organizational and support levels. A further review of TAMMS showed that additional reduction could be made in the data being reported to the national level. The latest action — TAMMS-Streamline — eliminates across-the-board reporting of items to the national level on DA (Department of the Army) Form 2407, Maintenance Request, and establishes selective sampling as the method used to compile maintenance management data.
Before the reorganization of the Army in 1962, each of the technical services had its own system and forms for recording and collecting operational and maintenance data. With the reorganization came the creation of the U.S. Army Materiel Command, the U.S. Army Strategic Communications Command, and the U.S. Army Security Agency as the developers and managers of our hardware.
The need for a unified recordkeeping procedure was apparent. To establish such a procedure it was necessary to reconcile the different ways each of the services had managed the collection of maintenance data and to evaluate the 171 separate records and forms the services had been using for this purpose.
TAERS was developed to fill this need. This system was designed to provide uniform procedures, a standard format, materiel readiness assessment, configuration control, and measurable indexes for determining the effectiveness of the maintenance system, as well as management indicators of availability for Army equipment. These objectives are as valid today as they were then. Notwithstanding, TAERS left something to be desired.
TAERS purported to collect total data for a wide range of items. By 1969 data was being collected on 556 line items of equipment, totaling 1,100,000 individual items. The various forms required under TAERS involved approximately 37 million hard copy forms prepared manually by pencil somewhere in the chain. The mechanics of transferring TAERS recorded data from hard copy to computer language required an average of seven cards for each form.
In 1969, a careful analysis of the shortcomings of TAERS was launched. While TAERS had achieved the standardization of forms and procedures, the accumulation of data at the national level data bank and the information available to the commodity managers had reached staggering levels. Much of this data received at the national level was unnecessary and impracticable.
The need for reevaluation of TAERS was evident. We asked ourselves questions: “Do we really need all this data? ls it valid? Is it complete?” Probably the most serious question in the minds of many was “What does the system do for the manager at the level that the data is prepared or generated?” Based on the answers to these questions, a two-phased program was conceived to convert TAERS to TAMMS. Phase I was the immediate conversion of TAERS to TAMMS, and phase II was the future refinement of TAMMS to TAMMS-Streamline.
Thus, TAMMS was born. Why a new name? Well, for various reasons TAERS had picked up a bad name. It was not the total system it was touted to be. In fact, it was just a big sample. The system did not feed in both directions and in addition, all the data collected was not usable — partly because of mass, partly because of its questionable validity, and partly because of its age or current value. If, in fact, the system was going to have a major facelifting, why not a total new image?
The first phase in the transition from TAERS to TAMMS was programed to accomplish four major tasks designed to provide minimum disruption to the reporting units and data processing activities. These tasks involved the —
• Elimination of DA Form 2408-3, Equipment Maintenance Record (organizational).
• Establishment of a means of collecting age and usage data for selected items of equipment necessary for national level management decision and budgeting purposes.
• Reduction of the range of reportable items.
• Publication of revisions of TM 38-750 and TM 38-750-1 covering TAMMS.
The first two tasks were accomplished with the publication of DA Circular 750-32 (September 1969), which directed the elimination of DA Form 2408-3 and instituted the use of DA Form 2408-7, Equipment Transfer Record, to collect age and usage data. The third task was completed by DA, LOG-MED letter (10 December 1969), which reduced the number of items of reportable equipment that required repair and service actions at the national level from 556 to 297 line items. The transition was completed with the publication of revised manuals TM 38-750 and TM 38-750-1 (December 1969) incorporating procedural changes to accommodate the changeover from TAERS to TAMMS.
The lessening of data reporting at the company, battery, and troop unit level had the most favorable impact of the changes.
An evaluation of the data submitted disclosed that most of the repair actions reported were related to the consumption of low-dollar, fast-moving parts, which, in many cases, had a predetermined usage rate or shelf life. As the evaluation progressed, it was revealed that much of the equipment had a 5- to 7-year data base accumulated and that there was no need for further field reporting. As a result, the reportable item list was reduced 48 percent.
Improvements Analyzed
The resulting analysis of the improvements that had been made was divided into the two major workload areas — the preparation of the hard copy and its conversion to computer language — and assessed in terms of a reduction or avoidance measurement. The calculations were tempered by judgment since a negative reporting program was not part of TAERS as it is for TAMMS. Therefore, the assessment of reduction or avoidance was made on a worldwide scale and is presented in terms of previous report requirements and equated to the reduction in report requirements.
Before the statistical comparisons are reviewed, it is appropriate to present a capsulized view of the overall system regarding its purpose and composition. This should permit the reader to fit the pieces into their proper perspective and identify the role of TAMMS in support of the logistics offensive program.
The Army Maintenance Management System is still a standard recordkeeping and maintenance action recording and reporting system. The primary purpose is the standardization of forms and recordkeeping procedures so that the data base will be uniform throughout the system.
The secondary purpose of TAMMS is to obtain selected maintenance data for use by maintenance and equipment managers at all levels. This is fulfilled by the design of the carbon-interleafed report forms. Impression copies are used for reporting information at the organizational and support levels. The system has three types of records: operational, historical (log book forms), and maintenance records. A sample of each type of record and form used is shown in DA Pamphlet 750-38.
The posting of data to the maintenance records, the DA Form 2406, Materiel Readiness Report, and the DA Form 2407, Maintenance Request, is the basis for workload complaints by unit personnel. The unit workload is involved in the preparation of the Materiel Readiness Report. TAMMS requires a quarterly report on designated items for the Department of Defense equipment distribution and condition report and a quarterly report for items not operationally ready supply (NORS) and not operationally ready maintenance (NORM) for the Department of the Army.
Unit readiness data (AR 220-1) are extracted from DA Form 2406 and it is common practice for field units to prepare this form daily and to consolidate it weekly. Local management prescribes the preparation of this form on a daily basis. There is no TAMMS requirement for this locally imposed workload.
The conversion from TAERS to TAMMS eliminated millions of forms and reduced the overall workload. Processing maintenance data at the installation level now requires 25,000,000 fewer punchcards and 193 fewer man-years of keypunch effort. This alone represents an annual savings of $1.1 million in manpower and material.
Sampling Introduced
On 1 October 1970, the reduction of DA Form 2407 requirements at the national level and the implementation of initial steps in the formal introduction of sampling marked the beginning of phase II in the conversion of TAERS to TAMMS to TAMMS-Streamline. This major facelifting effort terminated the need for reporting item data to the national level with the exception of all aircraft, approximately 40 line items of equipment subject to sampling, MWO applications, EIR actions, all warranty claims, and reporting on REFORGER equipment.
While the requirement for the use of DA Form 2407 at the unit and support maintenance level to document repair and service actions did not change, the conversion to TAMMS-Streamline reduced the keypunch workload by still another nine million cards.
Statistical sampling is not necessarily new to Army management. It has been used effectively for many years in the ammunition surveillance area. Additionally, industry has used it as a time-tested method to apply quality control standards in the production process. As previously mentioned, the TAMMS was still a big sample, therefore statistical sampling under controlled conditions will be applied to the collection of statistical data for maintenance management purposes. Such areas of maintenance management as modification work order control, materiel readiness reporting, aircraft maintenance hour to flying hour ratio, and age or usage reporting cannot be done by statistical sampling at this time. However, these areas are being analyzed for further streamlined effect.
Factors to be considered in selecting items for sampling include consideration of the mission essentiality of item or weapons system, dollar investment, density, distribution patterns, and environmental and operational employment.
Using the above considerations as a starting point, the first decision concerns the necessity for a data collection effort. Once it is decided that this requirement exists, a detailed and fully justified determination must be made as to what information will be collected. Next it must be determined what the effects or influence of environment will be on the validity of the data collected and a decision made on what theaters of operation can provide the data. Now comes the decisive point as far as the field is concerned. What is the statistically, and in a practical sense, valid sample size? For example, how many units will be selected to furnish the required data? Obviously, initial deployment and distribution patterns, production delivery schedules, planned field operating plans, and mission support plans will influence the ultimate number of units required to furnish the necessary data.
Probably one of the hardest decisions to make in this sampling plan will be the time frame of the collection effort. Initial planning envisions that, depending on the sample size, a one-year effort should generally provide a sound data base. This cannot be established as an ironclad rule and close reviews will be necessary to determine if an extended period would be required. More important than the actual time period is a determination of the best time frame. Will an item in its first year of operation produce valid data, or will the production line learning curve and random failure influence or invalidate the data collected? It is extremely important to note early signs of serious malfunctions or deficiencies. However, a positive record of failure should be necessary before major effort at modification is undertaken. Experience has shown, in some cases, that the fault does not evidence itself until after an extended period of operation passes. The best time to establish a valid data base would be when wear patterns have had a chance to influence operation.
Of utmost importance in any data collection effort is the validity aspect. The field unit, especially the equipment operator and those supervisors directly involved and responsible for the initial recording effort, is the key to success. The need for accuracy in the preparation of all reports must still be emphasized. Further, it must be recognized that with the reduced visibility it is essential that local commanders make full use of the data available in the management of their maintenance actions.
Sampling will apply principally to the new items brought into the inventory but may apply to items having undergone major modification. Another possible consideration for sampling would be the requirement for additional data on older items in a given theater, environment, or significantly different operational mode.
The majority of the actions taken to reduce reporting under this uniform system have been concerned with the impact at the data processing and collection activities and the national level. It is the earnest desire of the Department of the Army to stimulate local and intermediate command programs aimed at reducing requirements for and eliminating marginal benefit programs associated with data collection and preparation at all levels of management.
The new sampling concept to obtain maintenance management data is an attempt to gain maximum economy, reduce workload, and ensure accurate reporting. Total efforts, especially the editing of forms forwarded to data processing, have been reduced thus far. Since the concept is new to the Army, it is expected that some unforeseen problems may occur. In this connection, it is hoped that this article will help to clarify and convey the concept to the reader and encourage discussion.
The Department of the Army is interested in your ideas on other possible avenues for exchange. Readers with comments on TAMMS may contact Headquarters, DA, ODCSLOG-MED, Washington, D.C. 20310.
Additional streamlining is planned to reduce the volume of data generated, received, and processed. This will allow management to focus its attention on critical maintenance areas and provide for continual improvements in The Army Maintenance Management System.
LTC Paul F. Anderson was chief, Maintenance Support Policy Office, Directorate of Maintenance, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics.
Mr. L.W. Roy was a maintenance management analyst in the Maintenance Engineering Division, Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, and was the TAMMS project officer on the DA staff.
| Date Taken: | 09.22.2025 |
| Date Posted: | 09.22.2025 15:32 |
| Story ID: | 548979 |
| Location: | US |
| Web Views: | 12 |
| Downloads: | 0 |
This work, TAMMS — A Streamlined Approach to an Old Problem: The Logistics Offensive, Eighth in a Series by LTC Paul F. Anderson and L.W. Roy, must comply with the restrictions shown on https://www.dvidshub.net/about/copyright.
