Evolving Maintenance Metrics Acquisition Plans and Strategies Jim Farmer ODASD Materiel Readiness November 13, 2012
2 Outline Life Cycle Perspective Acquisition Considerations Metrics Alignment Acquisition Challenges
Life Cycle Perspective Requirements Design for Support Design the Support Outcomes Support the Design Acquisition and O&S costs are KPP-like affordability targets at MS A Maintenance efficiency enablers (e.g., diagnostics, health management) must be defined at MS B Post-IOC outcomes should inform next generation development 3
Acquisition Considerations: Design-to and Plan-to Metrics Requirement Type Warfighter requirement Examples ICD, rationale for CDD/CPD requirements Requirement Document Acquisition Strategy TEMP Program requirement Sustainment KPP & KSAs System RAM attributes (e.g., FD/FI/FA, transportability, CBM+ enablers) SEP RAM-C Rationale LCSP Specification requirement System and subsystem R&M attributes (translated) Design-to supportability attributes Design-to Specs Product support requirements PBAs System design, specifications, and product support package requirements must work together to deliver affordable readiness.
Metrics Alignment Operational User Program Manager Fleet Performance Product Support Integrators Materiel Availability Engine Time on Wing O&S Cost Support Equipment Availability Performance Based Metrics Alignment Product Support Providers Material Availability Maintenance Man Hours Mean Time Between Failure Perfect Order Fulfillment Engineering Response Time Time Definite Delivery Repair Turnaround Time
6 Acquisition Challenges Defining well-aligned maintainability requirements Linking sustainment outcomes with system capability requirements and preliminary design Aligning acquisition strategies to enable competitive performance based product support Integrating with systems engineering process to prevent maintenance enablers from being traded off Implementing full-spectrum performance-based strategies as programs move into execution Migrating to performance-based strategies with organic and partnered depots
Backups 7
PERFORMANCE BASED LOGISTICS Analyses provided conclusive evidence that: Properly structured and executed, PBLs reduce Services cost per unitof-performance while simultaneously driving up absolute levels of system, sub-system and component readiness Savings potential Avg annual savings for programs with generally sound adherence to PBL tenets is 5-20% over the life of the PBL arrangement compared to transactional support Properly Structured/Exec PBL Readiness & Costs PBLs are a Home Run we just need to make sure we get the deal right!
9 Maintainability Design Parameters Durability controls depot service interval Maintenance Ratio MMH/OH Mean Corrective Maintenance Time and Max Time to Repair Turn Around Time for field maintenance FD/FI/FA controls CND, NEOF Other measures: Producibility measures Reliability measures Procurement and reprocurement cost
Integrated Relationships between Core Supply Chain Enterprise Metrics (Cont.) Cost Total Supply Chain Cost Demand Forecast Error Planning & Precision Reliability Demand Planning & Supply Planning (Inventory Management Process) Vendor Maintenance Depot Procurement Lead Time Repair Turnaround Time ICP Distribution Depot POF / LRT Retrograde Time Responsiveness Receipt Processing SSA/SSC/ Ship Supply CWT Issue Process Readiness Customer NMC Rates NMCS NMCM Transportation Process Turn in Process Key Attributes Metrics Stakeholders Processes Outcome 10
Sustainment Metrics Relationships Materiel Availability (Am) Ready Assets across Fleet O&S Cost Operational Availability (Ao) Ready Assets in Units Pipeline Assets Support Cost Operating Cost Mission Reliability or Critical System Reliability Mean Down Time (MDT) Depot Turnaround Time (TAT) Depot Mx Costs Spare Parts Costs Other Costs MTBEFF or Break Rate Mean Time to Repair (MTTR) or Mean Corrective Maintenance Time (MCMT) Logistics Response Time (LRT), e.g. Mean Logistics Delay Time (MLDT) or Customer Wait Time (CWT) Materiel Reliability
12 Maintenance Programming Challenges Defining the no-kidding maintenance requirement Defending programming numbers so DoD can defend budget submissions Answering what-if on funding scenarios in terms of readiness Quantifying and communicating latent effects of funding decisions on readiness