Developing a Capacity Assessment Framework for Marine Logistics Groups
ResearchPublished Feb 20, 2017
The Marine Corps' Marine Logistics Groups (MLGs) structure provides general and direct logistic combat support across all functional area of logistics. However, MLGs do not have a standardized method to determine their ability to provide logistics support. This report provides a capacity assessment framework to assist each of the MLGs, or any size unit, in determining the ability of logistics units to meet current and projected tasks.
ResearchPublished Feb 20, 2017
The Marine Corps' Marine Logistics Groups (MLGs) currently do not have a standardized method for determining or communicating logistics capacity. Although Marine logisticians task-organize personnel and equipment to the demands of the mission, this lack of standardized logistics capacity assessment can lead to uncertainty at the operational and tactical level. It is difficult to convey the logistics capacity that may or may not be within a unit. It also complicates readiness and force management determinations at higher levels within the organization.
This report supports Marine Corps efforts to better determine logistics capacity by developing a capacity assessment framework for logistics. Basic building blocks for personnel and major equipment across the different functional areas of Marine Corps logistics, called Logistics Units of Employment (LUEs), were developed. Analysis began with the assessment of mission-essential tasks for the MLG and construction of LUEs for these tasks.
The LUEs offer a potential way to standardize logistics capacity measures across different logistics organizations. Comparing the LUEs that different units should be able to support provides a first-order approximation of logistics capacities across organizational structures.
These LUEs constitute the basic elements of a logistics capacity framework. This framework can be used to estimate the logistics capacity of a unit by translating the personnel and major equipment for a logistics unit into a number of LUEs. This LUE framework can also be used as a starting point for logistics support to multiple missions.
The current version of the LUE does not take grade or training requirements into consideration when accounting for personnel. They also have limited information about substitutes for the equipment listed. Adding these components would greatly improve their assessment capability.
A broader sampling of subject-matter experts and examining the actual employment of personnel and equipment are needed.
Gathering information on the number of LUEs needed to support the Marine Expeditionary Force outside of deployments would lead to better understanding of residual capacity.
Identify the approximate number of LUEs needed for each Combat Logistics Battalion mission. This would provide valuable information in assessing readiness and force management and would better assess the number of missions a Marine Logistics Group might potentially support.
Develop a better method to quantify capacity in areas that are harder to measure, such as the supply and maintenance functional areas.
Logistics C2 was not addressed in this study. Potential limitations stemming from C2 issues are not currently accounted for in the LUEs, but would be an important issue to examine in greater detail.
Account for the logistics support that logistics units require to sustain themselves, even as they provide support to other Marine units and entities outside the Marine Corps. Because this is not currently captured, the true logistics capacity required for Marine Corps might be systematically underestimated.
This research was sponsored by OAD and was conducted jointly within the International Security and Defense Policy Center and the Acquisition and Technology Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community.
This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.