Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Blanchar
4. Broadly defined, logistics includes those activities dealing with the initial acquisition
of materials (purchasing, materials flow, inventory control), the distñution and
installation of systems and their components (packaging, transportation, warehousing,
installation of systems at customer sites, customer service), and the sustaining
maintenance and support of systems throughout their planned life cycles. More
specifically, logistics includes those activities shown in Figures 1.2 (page 5) and 1.3
(page 9). Logistics, in the context of the system life cycle, involves planning, analysis
and design, testing, production operations, and the sustaining maintenance and support
of the system throughout the utilization phase. The elements of logistics are shown in
Figure 1.5 and described in Section 1.3 (pages 11-15).
5. I view the "logistics and maintenance support infrastructure" (i.e., the combined
activities in Figures 1.2 and 1.3 as applicable, presented in the context of the flow in
Figure 1.4) as being a major element of the system. Assuming that the objective is to
develop a system to fulfill a need and accomplish a specific mission, there are logistics
requirements in the initial acquisition of that system (i.e., the activities in Figure 1.2).
Further, there is a continuing requirement associated with the support of that system
throughout its entire life cycle (i.e., the activities in Figure 1.3). These activities need
to be reliable and in-place when needed, as the absence of such will preclude the
system from fulfilling its objectives. In other words, a "system" must be addressed in
terms of ALL of its elements, and the various logistics elements must be included
within.
6. Logistics activities are an integral part of each and all phases of the system life cycle.
Refer to Section 1.4 (page 15) and the seven items on pages 17-18.
Referring to page 7, logistics as practiced in the defense sector has included not only
those commercially-related activities identified in Figure 1.2, but the sustaining
system maintenance and support activities illustrated in Figure I .3. The emphasis
here has been primarily oriented to "systems" and the requirements associated with
such over the life cycle. Additionally, logistics is addressed in the system design and
development process through the design for supportability concept. In other words,
logistics in the defense sector is addressed from a total system "life-cycle"
perspective, which isn't the case in the commercial sector.
2
Areas of commonality include those activities shown in Figure I .2, which are
applicable in both the commercial and defense sectors.
8. Refer to Section 1.2 (pages 6-7). Supply Chain (SC) refers to a network of entities
(organizations and/or individuals) directly involved in the upstream and downstream
flow of materials, products, services, finances, and/or information from a source of
supply to the customer. Supply Chain Management (SCM) pertains to the management
of the supply chain, or a group of supply chains. With the introduction of SC and SCM,
not only are the physical supply, movement, and physical distribution functions in
Figure 1.2 included, but the added emphasis deals with the integration of these various
SCS (networks) and the business issues that go along with such activities; i.e.,
marketing, financial management, information flow, etc.
With regard to SC and traditional logistics in the commercial sector, the activities
illustrated in Figure I .2 are considered to be within the spectrum of the supply chain.
On the other hand, in the defense sector many of the logistics activities are not in the
spectrum of SC; i.e., the system design activities, the sustaining maintenance and
support infrastructure.
9. Referring to Figure I .4, there is a "reverse flow" which includes those activities
pertaining to the phasing of items out of the inventory; i.e., the removal of items due
to obsolescence, the removal of items which are beyond economic repair; etc. This
reverse flow, and the resources required to accomplish such, is included within the
concept of reverse logistics, which is popularly known as such in the commercial
sector. Refer to pages 5 and 10.
The ,ystem engineering process is best illustrated through the steps shown in the
bottom part of Figure 4.1 (page 124) and in Figure 4.2 (page 126). It should be
emphasized that while a "top-down" approach is highlighted, there is also a very
essential "feedback loop" that makes it work. Logistics, particularly from an
engineering perspective (i.e., the design for supportability), is an integral activity
within this process. One must initially define the requirements for logistics, identifrr
logistics ñmctions, allocate the top-level requirements to the appropriate elements of
the logistics and maintenance support infrastructure, perform the necessary trade-
offs in designing an optimum configuration, accomplish test and evaluation for the
purposes of validation, and provide the necessary feedback for corrective action.
Refer to Section 1.7. I (page 28) and Chapter 4 (page 123).
11. Performance-based logistics (PBL) refers to the definition and establishment of
quantitative "design-to" factors, included within the specification of top-down
requirements for the overall system, which reflect the "performance" capability desired
for the design of the logistics and maintenance support infrastructure. PBL, a concept
being emphasized within the defense sector, pertains to the definition of specific
design-to criteria for system logistics and support, and the requirements established
3
for design must be based on specific "performance" objectives. Some examples are
noted on page 22 and application of these pertains to the logistics elements identified
in Figure 1.11 (page 23). Refer to Section 1.5 (page 21).
12. Logistics engineering includes those basic engineering design-related activities that
are inherent within the overall system design and development process. Such activities
are highlighted in the seven steps identified on pages 17 and 20, and illustrated in
Figure 1.9 (page 19). Accomplishing these activities is important if one is to ensure
that the ultimate system configuration is designed such that it can be effectively and
economically supported throughout its life cycle. Logistics engineering is inherent (as
an engineering discipline) within the system engineering process. Refer to Section 1.4
(page 15).
13. The term, supportability, pertains to those characteristics (or attributes) that should be
incorporated within the system design configuration in such a manner as to ensure that
the resultant product can be effectively and efficiently supported throughout its
programmed life cycle. Such characteristics may include features as good and direct
accessibility to components, effective diagnostics, modularizationfor rapid component
removal and replacement, the use ofhighly-reliable components, the incorporation
ofstandardization in design, and so on. The incorporation of these features is also an
objective of reliability and maintainability in design, and the terms are often used
interchangeably. In any event, the objective is to consider such design features from
the beginning along with some of the more popular performance-related features
dealing with size, weight, range, accuracy, throughput, etc. Reference: Preface (page
x), Section 1.1 (page 8). Also, refer to Figure 1.14 relative to the "consequences"
associated with NOT addressing supportability from the beginning.
14. The logistics and maintenance support infrastructure, as defined within the context of
the text, refers to the entire overall support structure (or network) for a given system -
- the elements of support (see Figure 1.5), their quantities and geographical location,
transportation and material flow routes, the maintenance and support environment, and
so on. It includes all of the activities associated with "business" logistics and the supply
chain in the commercial sector and integrated logistic support (ILS) in the defense
sector. Such as infrastructure is best illustrated through network shown in Figures 1.2
and 1.3 (also see Figures 4.12 and 4.15 in Chapter 4). The student should develop such
an illustrated structure for a system of his/her choice.
15. Referring to Figure 1.7, the top "life cycle" is intended to represent the process for
bringing a system into being and is primarily directed to the major mission-oriented
elements of a system. In order to realize the objectives illustrated in the top bar, there
is a requirement for the construction of a single entity and/or the production process
for a multiple quantity of items; i.e., the second "life cycle." This, in turn, requires
some design, leading to production operations. The third "life cycle" pertains to the
design, development, and implementation of a maintenance and support infrastructure
required to support both the prime elements of the system throughout the utilization
phase and the production/construction process during its utilization phase. Finally,
there is the fourth "life cycle" that includes the design, development, and
implementation of a capability to support system retirement and the recycling and/or
disposal of obsolete materials. The requirements (as an input) to each of these life
4
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Mr. Gibson, of Ohio, Mr. Eagan, of Nebraska, and Mr. Oliver, of
Iowa, and others.
Senator Warner Miller, of New York, presented the name of Hon.
Levi P. Morton, of New York, which was seconded by Mr. Sage, of
California, Governor Foster, of Ohio, Mr. Oliver, of South Carolina,
General Hastings, of Pennsylvania, and others.
Mr. McElwee, of Tennessee, presented the name of William R.
Moore, of that State.
One ballot was taken, resulting as follows:
Morton 591
Phelps 119
Bradly 103
Bruce 11
Thomas 1
Harrison. Cleveland.
California 8 Alabama 10
Colorado 3 Arkansas 7
Illinois 22 Connecticut 6
Indiana 15 Delaware 3
Iowa 13 Florida 4
Kansas 9 Georgia 12
Maine 6 Kentucky 13
Massachusetts 14 Louisiana 8
Michigan 13 Maryland 8
Minnesota 7 Mississippi 9
Nebraska 5 Missouri 16
Nevada 3 New Jersey 9
New Hampshire 4 North Carolina 12
New York 36 South Carolina 9
Ohio 23 Tennessee 11
Oregon 3 Texas 13
Pennsylvania 30 Virginia 12
Rhode Island 4 West Virginia 6
Vermont 4
Wisconsin 11 168
233
168
Harrison’s majority 65
1884. 1888.
Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem.
Maine 72,209 52,140 72,659 49,730
N. Hampsh’e 43,249 39,183 45,728 43,444
Vermont 39,514 17,331 45,192 16,788
Massachus’ts 146,724 122,352 183,447 151,990
Rhode Island 19,030 12,391 21,960 17,533
Connecticut 65,923 67,199 74,584 74,920
New York 562,005 563,154 649,114 635,715
New Jersey 123,366 127,778 144,426 151,154
Penna. 473,804 392,785 526,223 446,934
Ohio 400,082 368,280 416,054 396,455
Indiana 238,463 244,990 263,361 261,013
Illinois 337,469 312,351 370,241 348,360
Michigan 192,669 149,835 236,307 213,404
Wisconsin 161,157 146,459 176,553 155,232
Iowa 197,089 177,316 211,592 177,899
Minnesota 111,685 70,065 136,359 99,664
Colorado 36,166 27,603 51,796 37,610
California 102,416 89,288 124,809 117,729
Kansas 154,406 90,132 182,610 102,580
Nebraska 76,912 54,391 108,425 80,552
Nevada 7,193 5,578 7,238 5,326
Oregon 26,860 24,604 33,293 26,524
Totals 3,608,965 3,153,912 4,081,971 3,610,556
1884. 1888.
Rep. Dem. Rep. Dem.
Delaware 12,951 16,964 12,950 16,414
Maryland 85,699 96,932 99,761 106,172
Virginia 139,356 145,497 150,442 151,977
W. Virginia 63,096 67,317 75,052 75,588
Kentucky 118,122 152,961 155,154 183,800
Tennessee 124,078 133,258 139,815 159,079
Arkansas 50,895 72,927 58,752 85,962
N. Carolina 125,068 142,950 134,784 147,902
Missouri 202,929 235,988 236,325 261,957
Totals 922,194 1,064,794 1,063,035 1,188,851
GULF STATES.
REPUBLICAN.
Territories.
Alaska 2 0 0
Arizona 1 1 0
Dist. of Columbia 0 2 0
Indian Territory 1 1 0
New Mexico 6 0 0
Oklahoma 2 0 0
Utah 2 0 0
Total 535⅙ 182⅙ 182
Absent and not voting, 1⅔.
Reed, of Maine, received 3 votes, and Lincoln, of Illinois, 1.
Major McKinley moved to make the nomination unanimous, and it
was adopted with great enthusiasm.
In response to the unanimous request of the New York delegation,
Hon. Whitelaw Reid was nominated for Vice-President by
acclamation.
[See Book II. for Platform and Comparison of Platforms; Book III.
for speech of Hon. Chauncey M. Depew.]
DEMOCRATIC.
Territories
Alaska 2 0 0 0 0
Arizona 5 0 0 1 0
Dist. of Columbia 2 0 0 0 0
New Mexico 4 1 1 0 0
Oklahoma 2 0 0 0 0
Utah 2 0 0 0 0
Indian Territory 2 0 0 0 0
Total 617⅓ 115 103 36½ 38⅔
Number of votes cast, 909½. Necessary to a choice, 607.
Of the scattering votes Campbell got two from Alabama.
Carlisle got 3 from Florida, 6 from Kentucky, 5 from Ohio. Total
14.
Stephenson got 16⅔ from North Carolina.
Pattison got 1 from West Virginia.
Russell got 1 from Massachusetts.
Whitney got 1 from Maine.
Adlai E. Stevenson, of Illinois, former Assistant Postmaster-
General, was nominated Vice-President on the first ballot, his chief
competitor being Senator Gray, of Indiana.
[See Book II. for Democratic National Platform and Comparison;
Book III. for Governor Abbett’s speech nominating Cleveland.]
A notable scene in the Convention was created by Mr. Neal, of
Ohio, who moved to substitute a radical free trade plank as a
substitute for the somewhat moderate utterances reported by ex-
Secretary of the Interior Vilas, who read the report of the Committee
on Platform. The substitute denounced the protective tariff as a
fraud.
Mr. Neal made an earnest speech in support of his substitute and
was ably seconded by Mr. Watterson.
Mr. Vilas replied defending the majority report in a vigorous
speech, which was as generously applauded as that which preceded.
The debate was animated and made specially interesting by the
suggestions and calls from the galleries. The substitute was finally
accepted by Chairman Jones on behalf of the committee, but this did
not satisfy the friends of the substitute, who persisted in having a roll
call upon its adoption.
A synopsis of the platform was submitted to and received the
approval of Mr. Cleveland, and it was reported that the Neal
substitute was prepared by the anti-Cleveland leaders, and the fact
that the roll call was persisted in by the anti-Cleveland men gave
color to this report.
There was a great deal of confusion and excitement preceding the
roll call, and its progress was watched with as much interest as
though its result was to decide the nomination. The States at the
head of the roll generally cast their votes according to what was
believed to be the feeling of their delegations on the Presidency, but
later on the order was more varied, States known to be for Cleveland
casting their solid vote for the substitute. New York was loudly
cheered when the 72 votes of the State were given for the substitute.
It was a most inconsistent vote, as Tammany is not regarded as a free
trade organization—rather as one favoring moderate tariffs. A ripple
of excitement was occasioned when Chairman Hensel cast the 64
votes of Pennsylvania against the substitute. Mr. Wallace protested
that 15 of the delegates favored the substitute, and he demanded that
the delegation be polled. A colloquy followed between Hensel and
Wallace on the rules of the Convention, and the point raised by the
former that Wallace’s motion was not in order under the unit rules
was sustained by the Chair.
The result of the vote was 564 for the substitute and 342 against it.